Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 225E: 225E: Clause 138, page 96, line 15, after ““duty),”” insert ““after subsection (2)(d) insert— ““(e) representatives of voluntary and non-statutory organisations delivering services in the area,””; (b)”” The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 225G in the group. Amendment No. 225E would add to Section 3 of the 1999 Act an obligation on an authority when dealing with its best value duty to consult additionally to those listed in that Act representatives of voluntary and non-statutory organisations delivering services in the area. It was a reference in the Bill to that clause that made me wonder whether these organisations should not be referred to specifically, as well as representations which all noble Lords will probably have received from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. The Minister may tell me that mention of representatives of persons who appear to have an interest in the area covers voluntary organisations, and I suppose that I should hold my hand up again in that I must have sat through similar discussions and possibly even moved an amendment to this effect in 1999. I cannot remember. The role of the voluntary organisations, as we have been saying, is important and deserves recognition. Amendment No. 225G would amend Clause 139 on the involvement of local representatives. I would be glad if the Government could explain their thinking. I propose taking out subsection (4), although I realise that I should have taken out subsection (3)(c) and (d) as well. However, I am sure that the Minister will have understood the drift of my question: who is to be specified by order? In Committee in the Commons, Angela Smith, the Minister answering, said: "““The clause will provide the Secretary of State with powers to make additional exemptions from the duty using secondary legislation subject to the negative resolution procedure””." I should understand better than I do the basis on which those powers will be used. The Commons were told that the clause, "““is a key plank in the Government’s commitment to ensuring greater engagement and empowerment of local communities””," and that it will place, "““a duty on best value authorities … to involve representatives of local persons in the exercise of authority functions where appropriate””." That does make me wonder about the persons appearing to the authority to have an interest in the area. I would have though that they were already there under the 1999 Act, but I obviously misread that. The language that Angela Smith used, such as, "““The leverage provided by the duties””.—[Official Report, Commons Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill Committee, 27/2/07; col. 398.]," is very prescriptive. It all seemed to turn a good into something doubtful, possibly even something bad, because of the top-down approach. I was confirmed in my apprehension by getting to the point in Hansard for the Commons Committee stage, where I learnt that the national performance indicators to be published to increase accountability are to include ““citizen perspective indicators.”” Yes, citizens are very important but, my goodness, what a piece of jargon. On the basis of the jargon alone, I beg to move that amendment.