---

7.48 pm

Mr. David Amess (Southend, West): The Bill is bad and dishonest. Anyone who had any doubts should have been here this afternoon to listen to the Minister of State's introduction. It was appalling. She convinced no one, least of all members of her party. I do not wish to be unkind to her but she has had a bad week. I listened to her on the radio when she talked about what she described as "best value". After her big build up, the interviewer asked what was new about the idea. She had no answer. The interviewer described value for money in local government as simple common sense.

At the weekend, the right hon. Lady described the dome as a remarkable building. It is remarkable that it was ever built--I suppose that my party had a hand in that. However, it is a different matter to go on radio and claim that it constitutes a remarkable example of fine British architecture.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): It is.

Mr. Amess: I am sorry to disagree with the Under-Secretary, but I do not believe that the dome is a remarkable building, and the majority of British people are not proud of it.

The Bill is a bad measure. The Government tabled more than 300 amendments to it in another place. Most of them did not tackle the substantive points. This afternoon, the Minister showed that she had not mastered the arguments.

The Bill is dishonest. The 1997 Labour party general election manifesto states:

Local decision-making should be less constrained by central government . . .

Well, yes. Also, it should be

more accountable to local people.

Yes. The manifesto goes on:

We will place on councils a new duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area.

However, there was no rider to say that there would be no money for any of that, as the way in which Lord Dixon-Smith tried to amend the Bill shows. It also says:

They should work in partnership with local people, local business and local voluntary organisations.

I want to share with the House the fact that none of that has happened in my town, Southend, where this dreadful experiment went ahead. Under no circumstances have the local people been consulted about the nonsense that has gone on. It adds:

They will have the powers necessary to develop these partnerships. To ensure greater accountability, a proportion of councillors in each locality will be elected annually.

The Minister of State kept firing her guns at Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, who were saying nothing, and completely ignored Labour Back Benchers, although she knew only too well that they were deeply unhappy with

11 Apr 2000 : Column 253

the Bill. Hardly any Labour Member has supported this shambles of a Bill this afternoon--everyone seems to oppose it--or perhaps they are terribly busy. The Government have had months to sort it out, yet we again find shabby legislation before the House.

I pay tribute to Friends of the Earth, Charter 88 and the Campaign for Freedom of Information. Under normal circumstances, they would be close to the Labour party but, judging by the brief that has been sent to me, they are very unhappy with the Bill. Although one or two hon. Members smiled earlier, it was Baroness Thatcher who in 1960 introduced a private Member's Bill to allow council meetings to be open to the press and the public. The Conservative party should be proud of that. When we were in office for our 18 years, we also passed legislation to allow the public access to key council papers three days before meetings.

Everything in the Bill is dishonest and rubbish is talked about it. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions seemed to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) when he talked about modernisation. What the devil is this modernisation about? I shall tell the House. It is about the Labour party stifling any debate, just as it wants to stifle its own Back Benchers. The Bill is not about openness and transparency--that is an absolute travesty of what has happened in Southend.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) talked about her Liberal council. I shall talk about my Labour and Liberal council and we shall see how open and transparent it is. What the Bill suggests is nonsense. The public will not know what is being discussed at local authority cabinet meetings, apart from seeing a brief summary of decisions made after the meeting. Time after time, Labour Back Benchers tried to intervene on the Minister of State to make that point. Whether she could not be moved from her brief or did not understand the point I do not know, but I thought that she would have had a tangible argument to meet it.

The Bill will strip the British people and local newspapers of their right to observe how councils make decisions and how individual councillors vote. A year ago in Southend, for whatever reason, it was decided to opt for cabinet-style government. It has been a total disaster. What has gone on in Southend is a disgrace and I want to touch on many issues. I asked for a report on what the new system has meant in Southend and most councillors of all parties think that it is

undemocratic that a small Cabinet of 8 make all the decisions and . . . the other 31 . . .

are turned scrutineer. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to earlier. It is a waste of time being a scrutineer councillor. They have no power whatever.

What have the daft Government done in Southend? We all nodded and said that it is difficult to get people to stand for the council so we are to have another 13 scrutineers. We shall have more councillors, but fewer people will be involved in the democratic process. What a complete waste of their time. Although the Southend cabinet meets in public, the decisions are taken at its private briefing with officers. Like many hon. Members,

11 Apr 2000 : Column 254

I have been a councillor, though to be honest I did not much enjoy being a councillor in Redbridge. I prefer being a Member of Parliament. However, I got a feel for the way things work. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) or the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said that parties met in private under the old committee system and the press did not get to hear what went on. That is not the case. Councillors could be whipped to any end in a private meeting on a three-line Whip, many things were leaked to the media and there was close scrutiny of decisions before they reached the committee stage.

I am also advised by the Southend councillors that morale is low among those on all sides who are not in the cabinet. They are very bitter about being excluded and people will become totally disenchanted in the long term, but that is what this rotten Labour party is all about: fewer and fewer people voting and fewer and fewer people getting involved in the democratic process, but Ministers have the nerve to come to the Dispatch Box to pretend that they are propagating openness and transparency. There is nothing open and transparent about this dreadful Government.

The cabinet system encourages decisions to be taken first and public debate to take place afterwards, which is odd.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North): Rubbish.

Mr. Amess: The hon. Lady should come to Southend to talk to Labour councillors. Let them try to convince her that it is no good taking decisions privately and arguing about them afterwards, when it is too late. The scrutiny committee has few powers and must refer matters back for reconsideration.

I have always been against officer-led local authorities, but the proposal plays into officers' hands as it is all about taking control away from democratically elected representatives. That is part of a hidden agenda for the long run to drive potential councillors out of local government and to shift their powers to regional assemblies, which we shall discuss later.

I also want to refer to the payment of councillors. In our local newspaper, the Evening Echo, I read:

Southend's council leader could be set for a 100 per cent increase in allowances under new recommendations revealed today.

That has gone down like a lead balloon locally. Executive councillors could be paid £10,000 to £12,000, but I cannot see too many people giving up full-time jobs for such a salary. If the Bill becomes law, I shall be very worried about the way in which local government is going.

I want to share another matter with the House. Local people have been kept in the dark about important issues such as assisted area status because of this ridiculous cabinet system. What has gone on is a disgrace. At one point, Southend applied for objective 2 status under the fisheries strand arrangements. There was no consultation. Two wards in my area, Leigh and Chalkwell, were moved to the urban strand. There was no openness and no transparency. The one ward that I represent, Westborough, was taken out rather than being switched to the urban strand. Therefore no ward in my constituency qualifies, as a direct result of a lack of openness. On Friday, I shall raise on the Floor of the House a variety of disgraceful developments in connection with social services which I believe have been kept secret.

11 Apr 2000 : Column 255

Then there is the nonsense involving our roads. Our poor businesses are struggling to make a living; now we find that, to try to get the traffic flowing, the barking mad council has arranged for us to have bus lanes all along the A13, and gridlock along the A127. Because of the secrecy of the cabinet system, local traders knew nothing of what was happening. Unfortunately, the Liberal-Labour-controlled Essex county council dropped a scheme that would have given us a decent road to the north of the town. At present, that is costing Southend dear.

Owing to the secrecy, the planning system is a disgrace. We never hear about houses in multiple occupation until it is too late. There have been many instances of masts being put on top of buildings; a number of my constituents are worried about the health hazards, but because of this secrecy, we hear nothing.

I am proud to represent a very Christian society in Southend, but what has gone on in regard to asylum seekers is an absolute disgrace. There are now more than 2,000 in the area that I represent. Given the strength of feeling, it is disgraceful that the matter has been handled in complete secrecy. Now that it is out of control, however, the council is taking legal action against the boroughs of Hackney, Redbridge and other areas.

This is a bad Bill. It is a dishonest Bill, and, unfortunately, it is a Bill that is absolutely typical of this dreadful Government.

---