These matters are grouped together. I thank the noble Baroness. There are four amendments in the group and two have not been moved. This is the third one and I take it that the fourth will not be moved. On that basis I respond to my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
Amendment 197FC would enable a relevant authority to ask a relevant body for any information it considered desirable in deciding whether to accept or reject an expression of interest. The amendment is unnecessary. Clause 69(1) already enables the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the information to be included in an expression of interest. The majority of respondents to the consultation broadly agreed with our proposals on this and the policy statement placed in the Library of the House sets out the information we intend to specify be included in an expression of interest. This information will enable the authority to decide whether there is one or more grounds for rejection. If expressions of interest do not include any of the required information, we would expect relevant authorities to take a common-sense approach and simply ask for it.
This amendment would enable authorities to place additional requirements, and potentially a disproportionate burden, on relevant bodies, and treat expressions of interest from different relevant bodies differently, which would be unfair and could potentially leave authorities open to challenge. If the experience of implementing the community right to challenge shows that a relevant body may need to provide further information to enable authorities to take a decision on an expression of interest, then we can consider whether we need to amend the regulations to allow for this.
In the circumstances, I trust that my noble friend will feel she does not need to press this amendment. Following her other comments about guidance, I am sure that the resources of the department will provide guidance, flow charts and material in any form that clearly gets over to authorities the information that they need. As I have indicated all along, I believe that all these proposals are right, but, in the event, it is about trust and it is about communities; it is not about exposing big contracts to organisations under the umbrella of something which has been done for communities. I trust that everyone has got that trust and that it will work in this way.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Shutt of Greetland
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 10 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c1446-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-22 18:39:35 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771380
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771380
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771380