| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne): My hon. Friend is beginning to develop his arguments on this crucial point, but does he agree that, as long as the Government still have the power to come back to the House for an overriding order in due course, the onus is very much on them to say why they are not prepared to allow the powers broadly to lapse after three years where an authority has behaved well?
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right. The fact that the Government would have to come back to the House to seek a positive resolution to reintroduce the powers would put the onus back on to the Government. We should be saying, "You need to demonstrate why you, the overmighty Secretary of State, should have the right to override the duly elected representatives of the people at local level." That is an important principle.
Ms Keeble: Did the hon. Gentleman give similar advice to John Gummer when it came to rate capping local councils and to calling in contracts?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the convention in the House to refer to hon. Members by constituency.
Mr. Gray: I was so overwhelmed by the appalling lack of good manners on the part of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) that I missed her point. I suspect that she was making some cheap reference to the advice that I gave to my right hon. Friends the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on the subject of local government. I did my best to provide what advice I could, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal used to say that I was something of the grit in his
oyster, thereby producing a pearl, but not necessarily by easy means. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon who, sadly, has skipped out for supper, used to tell me that I was a good political adviser because whatever I advised, he did exactly the opposite and by that means, he was nearly always correct. I did not quite catch the hon. Lady's intervention, but it would almost certainly have missed its mark.9.30 pm
The thrust of the new clause is to say that you in local government have been elected by the people. You in local government have been given the right--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Why do not I give the hon. Gentleman some advice? He should be careful of the term "you", which refers to the Chair.
Mr. Fallon:
My hon. Friend has been a Member for two years.
Mr. Gray:
As my hon. Friend reminds me, I have been a Member for two years. I was of course using the word "you" not to refer to the Chair or to Labour Members, but in a rhetorical way to describe what I would say to people in local government, to whom the word referred. None the less, I apologise for the inadvertent lack of courtesy to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
All that may seem to be relatively lightweight--flippant would be too strong a word--but a very important constitutional principle lies behind it. Both parties go to great lengths to pay lip service to the need to return authority to local government. We all say how frightfully important it is to do that; it is one of biggest mantras in all discussions about local government.
Conservative Members have tussled with the issue for some years; we have found some ways of returning power to local government and we are constantly seeking new ways of doing so. Labour Members pay great lip service to returning power to local government, and the Bill is part of that process. They say, "Fine, we will give some of these powers back to local government, which is marvellous. Here's best value; it's tremendous, isn't it? It takes away compulsion and tendering and gets rid of the market, which, goodness me, is a bad thing almost by definition--after all, the Tories introduced it. Best value is a new idea and it does away with compulsory competitive tendering. Isn't that fantastic?"
However, only when we look at the Bill's fine print do we discover that Labour Members are not giving anything at all back to local government; on the contrary, they are gathering more and more to themselves. It has been pointed out several times that the words "Secretary of State" appear 178 times in the Bill. He is gathering more and more control over local government to himself, which is why the new clause is so important.
Best value and the changes to the capping regime may have something to be said for them, but we will talk more about them when we discuss other amendments. The important point is that, under the new clause, the powers in the Bill would lapse if the Secretary of State did not have to use them. What could be more democratic or more important than giving back to local authorities the right to make their own decisions? If the Labour Government are genuine about their desire to give power back to local
government, and if they do not want people to think that they are paying only lip service to that, what could be better than accepting the new clause?
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne):
Powerful arguments are clearly being made in this debate. When it began, four Members were on the Treasury Bench. We reduced that number to three and then to two. Now there is only one Member on the Treasury Bench. I can only conclude that, one by one, those Members have had to be sent out to consult the spin doctors to find some arguments against what is becoming a powerful case for the new clause.
Mr. Waterson:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that it is nothing short of remarkable that in a debate that has not only been interesting, but has raised some important constitutional issues, not a single Back-Bench Member of the Government has expressed any interest in making a speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I hope that we do not get into that particular discussion, because I want only debate on new clause 5.
Mr. Wilshire:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the point that you make.
Although I did not serve on the Standing Committee, I have taken a close interest in local government for the 12 years that I have been a Member of the House. To save the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions the trouble of looking up my credentials--he is the only Member left on the Treasury Bench--I remind hon. Members that I served on a town council and a county council, and was the leader of a district council, before I was elected to the House.
I was the leader of one of the district councils which, in the early days, invited the Audit Commission in to do a council over as thoroughly as possible. That is how the Audit Commission developed the three Es, which are at the heart of the argument being used about best value. I have been around the course many times. In listening to the arguments, I have the sinking feeling that it will not be the last time that we go around it.
New clause 5 raises an important question, which I hope Ministers will answer when it is their turn to say something: if a local authority meets all the best value criteria that the Government have set out, why do they need draconian central powers to back up that wonderful thing called best value? If best value is the best thing since sliced bread, or at least the best thing since the last general election, why do the Government still need to trample all over local government?
What has happened to the soundbite that we kept hearing in 1996, 1997 and even 1998 that went, "We are handing power back to the people"? The Bill is the exact opposite of that soundbite. When the Minister comes to speak, he owes the House and the nation an apology for that particular U-turn.
I cannot help wondering--again, perhaps the Minister would like to enlighten us--whether the Government are not confident about best value. It is one of the smoke and mirror things that they are so good at--making policy look presentable. Is it perhaps that secretly, deep down, although they dare not mention it, they do not believe that
best value will work? If they believe that it will work, there are some more sinister reasons why we have the Bill and why they will vote against the new clause. It may be that best value is nothing more than a smokescreen for what the Government are really trying to do: take sweeping new powers over the whole of local government.
I have taken some stick in my time in local government. I was one of those whom many people loved to hate in those days; perhaps they still do. I took a lot of stick for defending previous Conservative Governments when they did things that the Labour party said were interfering in local government, but I have never tried to defend anything as draconian or as sweeping as this Bill. It goes a lot further than anything that Labour Members might accuse us of.
It is important that, before we get into the details of the new clause, we ensure that we understand in some detail what best value means. I am happy to listen to the Government on that. The Government define best value as continuous improvement in the way in which a local authority's functions are exercised.
I can live with that, but it leads me to ask yet another question: if a local authority continuously improves, in accordance with the definition, does not require capping when it starts down the process, and continues to conduct its affairs in a way that does not require capping for three years, why will the Minister need those powers? Why should he need to deal with a council that is behaving in exactly the way that he requires?
As well as the definition of best value, the Government set out tests that should be applied when considering whether best value is applicable. They say, surprise, surprise, that they want best value to be judged by the three Es: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. I have little doubt that the Government will issue a press release or two saying how they invented that wonderful test and how the wicked Government from whom they took over had no concept, but I explained my credentials to make it clear that it was Conservative councils, under a Conservative Government, who tested, tried and introduced the very things that the Labour party claims as its own.
Because of my background, I can live with what the Government are describing as the tests for best value, but that leads me to another question that I hope the Minister will answer. If a local authority uses its resources economically, delivers services effectively and efficiently and continues to be economic, effective and efficient for three years, why should the Secretary of State need powers? What interference is intended that goes beyond the tests specified in the Bill?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |