| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Norman: No. I want to make progress, but I shall take interventions later.
In short, the Bill is another ill-thought-through collection of proposals that are widely seen as unsatisfactory on both sides of the House. That is apparent today. At its heart, it reflects a fundamentally flawed thought: the Government's belief that imposing detailed structures and processes from on high will solve the problems of local government. It will not, because the problem is not one of process and structure, but one of substance--what local councils are free to do, what controls and restrictions central Government impose on them and how they are financed.
Instead of addressing those issues, the Bill represents more centralisation. Worse than that, it will reinforce the dominance of political parties and narrow cliques, encourage secrecy and deter the participation of the able volunteer councillor. Conservative Members recognise that local government has become over-centralised, but when Labour came to power many councillors on all sides looked forward to a different approach. The Deputy Prime Minister himself said that local authorities
- should be liberated from the fetters of Whitehall and the stupid restrictions of the Treasury that inhibit growth and destroy jobs . . .
Today, those same councillors are bitterly disappointed because the Government are the most centralising ever. Far from liberating local government, Labour is imposing an ever tightening straitjacket on local democracy. Jeremy Beecham, the Labour chairman of the Local Government Association, summed that up when he warned of
- the strange death of local democracy . . .
Mr. Norman: I rarely find an opportunity to agree with the Deputy Prime Minister. Again, I am sorry that he is absent, and cannot hear me do so. The Conservatives have already said that we would like capping to be removed from local authorities: that is shared ground.
The Bill compounds the problem that we already have. It is a straitjacket that centralises power not just within the state, but within councils. Councils will be denied the right to choose alternative, more open ways of working.
Mr. Llew Smith: Although it is fairly obvious that I disagree with substantial parts of the Bill, I am somewhat confused by the statement that previous Governments wanted--and, indeed, the present Opposition want--to liberate local authorities, and return more powers to them. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many of the 200 Acts that altered the powers of local authorities during those previous 18 years gave more powers to authorities or liberated them?
Mr. Norman: I have made clear our belief that local government has become too centralised. We have a substantial agenda for decentralisation; it is not a matter for today's debate, but I am very willing to take the hon. Gentleman through it on another occasion. No doubt the opportunity will arise.
Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps my hon. Friend should ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) to have a look at the best value legislation that has been passed. It is the most centralising and forceful legislation that has ever been imposed on local government in any field.
Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend has great experience of these matters, and makes his point powerfully.
The effect of cabinet government will be to vest power in local political parties, especially when one party is dominant. More than ever, a narrow clique of party politicians in caucus will be able to make all the major executive decisions. No longer will the committee structure provide a role for individual councillors and minority parties, and safeguard the participation of all councillors.
It is not only Conservative Members who believe that there is already a problem to be solved.
- Some of our Councils are quite frankly very badly run . . . The Party is usually controlled by a small clique and they have very poor relationships with the community which they serve.
That brings me to the question of secrecy.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Norman: I want to make some progress.
It is one of the great achievements of the last 40 years that local government in the United Kingdom has been open government. It was Margaret Thatcher who, in 1960, forced councils to open all meetings to the press and the public, and it was a Conservative Government who passed the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, which enables the public to obtain local council papers three days before meetings. It is a Labour Government who are now bringing back secrecy, and closing the doors to the public.
Andrew Ecclestone, of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, has said:
- we are now finding a Labour Government removing the rights Mrs. Thatcher gave us.
-
It was the Prime Minister who said:
The first right of a citizen in a mature democracy should be the right of information. It is time to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy which hang over far too much Government activity.
The Bill will mean that full minutes will no longer be available for scrutiny and that papers and agendas will no longer be available in advance. Several Labour Members have made that point. It is not just a question of introducing a new culture, as the Minister said. Such waffle is risible in response to the genuine concerns of experienced Members on both sides of the House. Proper safeguards should be in place, not just in the guidance, but in the Bill, otherwise, for many councils, standards of openness will step back 40 years.
Dr. Whitehead: Has not the hon. Gentleman read the Bill where it states that the council meeting continues to be the supreme body in relation to policy decisions in local authorities? Does he not understand that the scrutiny extends to decisions that may be taken, as opposed to decisions that have been taken? His points about it being impossible to scrutinise a decision before it is passed appear to have no substance.
Mr. Norman: I have to wonder whether it is the hon. Gentleman who has not read the Bill. It contains no provision for proper pre-scrutiny or for ordinary citizens to know what is coming up in council meetings and discuss things with councillors ahead of time. There is no provision to ensure that people are held properly accountable and that minutes are fully published.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Norman: I want to make some progress.
Without improved safeguards, cabinet government conducted in secrecy will reduce accountability, concentrate power and increase the scope for corruption.
If the Minister will not listen to us, why does she not listen to the concerns of Labour councillors and the local press throughout the country? Why does she not listen to the Birmingham Labour councillor who said:
- decisions made behind locked doors . . . is exactly how Hitler started and it is a very dangerous precedent for a modern city like Birmingham?
- A cloak of secrecy could descend on important council decision making in Hull.
Mr. Campbell: May I give the hon. Gentleman an example? Labour-dominated Blyth council in my constituency operates the cabinet system. All the minutes are free for the public, councillors who are not sitting on the cabinet and the press. Cabinet meetings are totally open to anyone who wants to sit there and listen; so are the council and all the scrutiny committees. If that is not openness, what is?
Mr. Norman: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. With proper safeguards on openness, publication of agendas and pre-scrutiny, the system can be made to work.
Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps we should use the example of Hammersmith and Fulham council, where the leader made it clear that the Labour group had decisions given to it by leaders of the group. Decisions were made in the Labour group. They were put through on the executive and rammed through the scrutiny committee. That is not openness.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |