Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the Minister for trying to explain this fully. I think I understand the purpose of the clause; what I do not understand is why we have it, and why this process is being made a duty. All the things we have talked about are good and desirable, and if a local authority, in co-operation with a magistrates’ authority, is able to help, that is all to the good. I took part in a similar scheme to Operation Black Vote. I spent many hours with people of all ages, including one who attended the whole of one of my councillor’s surgeries. Indeed, one or two of them went on to become school governors—non-aligned, not as part of any political process. All that is good, and it happened without the direct involvement of the local authority. I come back to this point: we wish the clause to be omitted from the Bill because the duty rests with the magistrates authorities. Of course the local authorities could and should assist where that is appropriate. I know the duty is not being taken away from the magistrates authorities—I never thought it was—but we need to be clear about that. I still do not know why this is included in the Bill as a duty on the local authority. I was interested to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, giving what I might risk saying was his qualified support for my concerns. He rightly raised the question of various tribunals, and the Minister undertook to look at that. It was at that point that I thought, ““We’re forming another list””. We want to encourage people to be lay justices; we want them to serve on tribunals; I would like to see a lot more independent custody visitors; we are always short of appropriate adults—I could go on. We have spent enough time on lists today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 62 withdrawn. Clause 4 agreed.