---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 169: 169: After Clause 102, insert the following new Clause— ““Appeals Appeals (1) This section applies if a principal council decides not to constitute a parish or parish council contrary to the specified recommendation of a community governance petition. (2) Within 28 days of such a decision an aggrieved person may appeal against that decision by notice in writing to the Secretary of State. (3) Upon receipt of a notice of appeal the Secretary of State must hold a public local inquiry into the manner in which the principal council has conducted the community governance review. (4) Following the holding of a public local inquiry the Secretary of State may recommend that a new parish or parish council should be constituted. (5) The costs of— (a) holding a public local inquiry under subsection (3), and (b) recommending the constitution of a parish or parish council under subsection (4), shall be met by the council concerned.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to have been here for the earlier debates on this important issue. Being ignorant of the minutiae of parish council life, I have been fascinated by the number of instances that can occur or have occurred that I would never have dreamt of. It helps to make my case. There is a body called the Association for Neighbourhood Democracy, which I am sure is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which is campaigning for the creation of parish councils in the unparished urban areas of England. My interest in this aspect of the Bill relates to extending the right to create parish councils in London. My long-time friend, Sir Richard Knowles, who was the leader of Birmingham City Council and who takes a passionate and involved interest in this area, wrote to me. Knowing Dick, this is not just a kite-flying exercise—this might happen or that might happen. I asked him, ““What are the grounds on which you believe that a principal council could refuse or not recommend?”” He replied, ““We have experience where we live of valid submissions, in accordance with law, at the proper time and in due regard, that are not accepted””. That set me thinking. If this Labour Government are deeply involved, as I believe they are, in taking democracy to the lowest levels, but at the lowest level the district council—the principal council—says no, they ought to be as perturbed as I am. There are good people who want to bring a bit more democracy to their little patch, which I would describe as the parish council. What valid reasons are there for being thwarted? I would hesitate to ascribe such behaviour to principal councils in general. I live in Loughton, which is a town council. The principal council is Epping, and to the best of my knowledge they are both lively, democratic, non-Labour-controlled councils. They still have my regard because of the people and personalities. They are part of the local community. Only a few people need to be involved. There should be minimum and maximum numbers and rules and regulations. I introduced this amendment because I would like to hear what the Government feel about a situation in which a group of people—whatever the number—want to exercise democracy under limitations and financial restrictions but despite their willingness to do that, they are being refused. I have scribbled down in my notes the words ““grass roots””. My amendment would protect and preserve the rights of the grass roots. If they have a point of view, one might say that they have got democratic opportunities, that there are locally elected councillors and all the rest of it. If we believe in taking democracy to the lowest level, there is a great cause. The Association for Neighbourhood Democracy tells me that there is unwelcome scope here for a principal council to act capriciously and do nothing in consequence of a petition having been duly and lawfully raised. If a request for the creation of a parish council is refused, the aggrieved people should have the opportunity of asking the Secretary of State to intervene, despite the views put forward by the principal council, to the extent of calling on the principal council to indicate what happened when the adverse decision was taken and to give the factors which militated against the request. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied after a public local review created by him, it should be in his powers to, "““recommend that a new parish or parish council should be constituted””." Most importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has pointed out more than once, because of the limited finance available to people at the lowest possible level, they should not to have to bear the costs, which could be substantial from their point of view. The amendment states: "““The costs of … holding a public local inquiry … recommending the constitution of a parish or parish council … shall be met by the council concerned””." It is a reasonable amendment. I do not understand what argument the Minister could have against it, but I shall be interested to hear it. I beg to move.