| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.18 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I commend the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), whose 17 years of experience in local government shone through in his speech. I disagree with him about many matters, and I am
sure that I shall continue to do so, but he made sensible points. I particularly liked his remarks about secrecy in the cabinet system being a recipe for suspicion because that is one of the points that I shall address.My experience of local government is a great deal more limited than that of the hon. Gentleman. I was an opposition councillor in Hammersmith and Fulham, and so I am conscious of the need for change. Many decisions were made in closed caucus by the Labour leadership; nevertheless, I had the opportunity in committees to hold those leaders to account, which was valuable.
This is a large Bill, and in the limited time that I have I shall concentrate on two issues: cabinet secrecy and section 28, which has attracted so many headlines. The first problem about the secrecy of local government cabinets is that they will not be subject to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, so statutory openness has been lost, with all that it brings with it. The second is that cabinets will inevitably tend to be single-party bodies, so the openness of cross-party discussion will be lost. Openness will be retrospective under new arrangements, so there will be scrutiny of decisions that have already been made, as has been said. In the present system, information must be made available three days before meetings.
Councillors who are not cabinet members--especially, and mostly, councillors who are members of opposition parties--will be excluded from the decision-making process. Allegedly, back-bench councillors will be able to spend
- more time representing their communities--
As the House knows, under the current committee system, all important council decisions have to be taken at meetings of the full council or its committees, and they are subject to the 1985 Act. Therefore, meetings are open to the public and the media, although, of course, exempt information can be discussed and decided in private session. Under the Bill, cabinets will not be required to meet in public, but must publish decisions after they have been taken. Furthermore, under clause 21,
- Regulations . . . may make provision for or in connection with preventing the whole or part of any record or document containing prescribed information from being made available to members of the public.
All that sits ill with comments made previously by the Prime Minister and other Labour Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) mentioned that, in 1996, the Prime Minister said:
- The first right of a citizen in any mature democracy should be the right to information.
- We want to end the obsessive and unnecessary secrecy which surrounds government activity and make government information available to the public, unless there are good reasons not to do so.
-
That rings hollow after last week's debate on the Freedom of Information Bill and sits ill with the arrangements on local government cabinet secrecy.
- without the press or public allowed in to listen to the debate of councillors, these secret meetings will leave us open to . . . abuse of power.
- To the present leadership of Lambeth council
- eight politicians wanting to decide our future in secret.
- Ten councillors sit in single-party Cabinet meetings closed to the public. Afterwards the council issues a list of recommendations to a further committee, which although held in public, has been accused of "rubber-stamping" Cabinet decisions.
Blaby district council is Conservative-controlled. In a six-month experiment, it has already moved halfway to a cabinet system. However, the seven cabinet members make recommendations to the policy and resources committee--they do not make policy. The biggest concern is about the extra cost: the independent committee that recommends allowance rates has increased allowances by £100,000, which is a lot for a relatively small district council. It has also recommended that every councillor should have a laptop, which might be sensible, but it will certainly be expensive. In Leicestershire county council, the cost of allowances has now more than doubled.
The big problem in Blaby is that councillors who are not part of the cabinet are left out of decision making, even though attempts are being made to keep them informed through a members' information system. Under the Bill, the only committee work done will be that of scrutiny committees, which will only consider decisions after they have been made. Among all councillors of all parties in Blaby, there is no desire for the change set out in the Bill.
Mr. Waterson: Given his experience in Hammersmith and Fulham, is my hon. Friend aware that, under the new cabinet system there, more than 600 decisions have been made, only one of which has so far been reversed by the scrutiny process? Does he care to comment?
Mr. Robathan: I was not privy to those details, but I did know that there has been much criticism expressed in the area of the secrecy surrounding the new cabinet system. All members of good intent would regret that.
The section 28 debate is bizarre--it strikes me as strange that anyone should believe that public money should be spent promoting homosexuality as an alternative life style. I should like to correct what was stated earlier by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, who has now left the Chamber. The right hon. Lady said that the issue has nothing to do with schools. Section 28 is an amendment made by the Local Government Act 1988 to the Local Government Act 1986, It states that "A local authority"--not a school or a teacher--
- shall not . . . intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
- promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
Dr. Lynne Jones: First, will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible to promote homosexuality--is that not a contradiction in terms? Secondly . . . secondly--I have forgotten what my second point is. [Laughter.]
Mr. Robathan: Knowing the hon. Lady, I am sure that it was an important point. However, she made one sensible point, and I, too, would have thought that it is difficult to promote homosexuality. However, a report in The Times today, states that Berkshire health authority has issued a pamphlet called "Connect"--a gay newsletter aimed at children and young people of 11 years and older that teaches them how to cruise for sex. The hon. Lady might recall from the time when we were young that, sometimes, being told about such things makes them interesting and encourages one to go out and see what is what. I do not suggest that either she or I ever did so, but I believe that that is how homosexuality might be promoted.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Has my hon. Friend noticed the way in which the argument has changed over the past few months? A few months ago, we were told that section 28 had to be repealed because it stood in the way of teachers legitimately and properly dealing with homophobic bullying. Now, we are told that it does not apply in schools. The Government cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hearing the Prime Minister last Wednesday was astonishing. The debate is not about tolerance; it is about whether or not public money should be spent promoting homosexuality in schools and elsewhere.
Dr. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |