UK Parliament / Open data

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 204CJ: 204CJ: Clause 95, page 61, line 15, leave out subsection (5) The noble Lord said: This amendment probes an important matter on parish reviews, which is the provision in Clause 95(5): "““In deciding what recommendations to make””," in the parish review, "““the principal council must take into account any other arrangements (apart from those relating to parishes and their institutions)—""(a) that have already been made, or""(b) that could be made,""for the purposes of community representation or community engagement in respect of the area under review””." This was discussed to some extent when we were talking about London. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, suggested that London did not want parishes and did not need them. An argument put forward was that there are lots of other neighbourhood, community and even, occasionally, village organisations which do that job perfectly well. This is an interesting matter, and I ask the Government what it will mean in practice. I refer to the helpful document that the Minister sent round to us all, the statement of intent on statutory guidance. It suggests that, "““it may be helpful for the guidance to provide some advice on this issue in relation to community governance reviews, particularly where other arrangements already exist (eg; local residents’ associations, community or neighbourhood forums, area committees), or where these bodies could be considered as viable alternatives to parish council/meeting. Such bodies are outside the scope of the Bill provisions but nevertheless could be taken into consideration by principal councils in undertaking community governance reviews””." I have no objection to that as an overall strategy on parishes. One problem of everything that gets done nowadays is that, in some areas at least, people suffer from consultation and participation overload. As a result, it is not done as effectively as it should be. I could provide some examples, which I will not, from my own backyard. Year after year, people are asked by different people in different organisations about the same things and give the same answers when they actually want some solutions and answers to those things, not more surveys. This is also true if there is a proliferation of organisations trying to compete with each other for participation in the community. It is a sensible thing to be looked at. I am really asking how top-heavy the statutory guidance will be. Again, it seems that once you have looked at what is on the ground and whether you want new parish councils or not—or whether you ought to abolish them—it ought to be up to people in the area to work out their own arrangements. It does not seem to be in any way suitable for detailed rules and regulations. That will just cause problems. The barrack-room lawyers in the community, and perhaps on the council, will have a field day analysing the statutory guidance and saying yes and all the rest of it. We want an absolutely light touch here—perhaps just a statement of intent that this must be looked at and considered, but certainly no detailed rules, regulations and statutory guidance. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those genuine concerns and beg to move.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

694 c29-30 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top