 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill |
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John
Benger, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 20 February 2007(Morning)[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]Local Government and Public Involvement in Health BillWritten evidence to be reported to the HouseLGPI 10 Health
Link
LGPI 11 Mayor of
London
LGPI 12 Calderdale PPIH
Forum
Clause 31Eligible
councils
Amendment
proposed [8 February]: No. 94, in clause 31, page 17,
line 37, after ‘to’, insert
‘(a)’.—[Andrew
Stunell.]
10.30
am
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that with this we are
taking the following: Amendment No. 95, in clause 31, page 17, line 38,
at end
insert—
‘(b)
a scheme for whole council
elections’.
Amendment
No. 96, in clause 31, page 18, line 2, at end
insert—
‘(2A)
A council is subject to a scheme for whole elections if, under the
scheme for the ordinary elections of its councillors, all of the
councillors are elected in each year in which the elections are
held.’.
Amendment
No. 111, in
clause 32, page 18, line 7, at
end insert ‘or partial-council
elections’.
Amendment
No. 112, in clause 32, page 18, line 8, after
‘partial-council’, insert ‘or
whole-council’.
Amendment
No. 113, in clause 32, page 18, line 9, after
‘whole-council’, insert ‘or
partial-council’.
Amendment
No. 114, in clause 32, page 18, line 11, after
‘whole-council’, insert ‘or
partial-council’.
Amendment
No. 98, in clause 32, page 18, line 13, at end
insert
‘within eight
years of a resolution being made in accordance with subsection
(1).’.
New clause
6—Changing scheme for ordinary whole council
elections—
‘(1) This section
applies if an eligible council resolves, during a permitted resolution
period, that the council is to be subject to the scheme for
partial-council
elections.
(2) The
council ceases to be subject to the scheme for whole council
elections.
(3) The
council becomes subject to the scheme for partial-council
elections.
(4) The council must not pass
the resolution unless it has taken reasonable steps to consult on the
change to partial-council
elections.
(5) It is
for the council to decide which persons it is appropriate to
consult.
(6) No
resolution of the council may reverse the effect of this section within
eight years of a resolution being made in accordance with subsection
(1).
(7) In this
section “permitted resolution period”, in relation to an
eligible council, means a period specified in the second column of the
following table in relation to that type of
council
(8)
The Secretary of State may by order provide that a permitted resolution
period is to end later than the last day of that period specified in
the
table.’.
New
clause 7—Scheme for partial-council elections—
‘(1) The
scheme for partial-council elections is as
follows.
(2) The term
of office of councillors is four
years.
(3) Elections
of the councillors of the council are to be held in the year after the
resolution is passed and every year after it other than every third
year after it.
(4) One
third (or as nearly as may be) of the councillors are elected in each
year in which the elections are
held.
(5) On the
fourth day after elections are
held—
(a) the
councillors elected in those elections are to come into office,
and
(b) the sitting
councillors are to
retire.
(6) In this
section—
“resolution
period” means the permitted resolution period in which the
council passes a resolution for the purposes of section
32;
“sitting
councillors” means the councillors who hold office at the time
ordinary elections are
held.’.
Andrew
Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): First, Mr.
Chope, I welcome you and everyone else back to the Committee. Before I
was rudely interrupted by the short recess—I trust that yours
was good—I was making a strong defence of the election by thirds
system. I wish to place on record my thanks to those who produce the
Official Report of the Committee’s proceedings. I
recalled that at the end of the previous sitting I was stopped
mid-sentence and, after many sleepless nights trying to remember where
I was in mid-sentence, I read with pleasure that my statement finished
with a full stop. I am happy for that to remain
so.
Unlike in
Tameside, where there has been a long period of Labour control, and
even in neighbouring Stockport, where, although the council currently
has a Liberal Democrat majority, it is more the norm for no party to be
in control, the system of thirds allows the officers to plan ahead. If
it looks as though the parties in control are likely to change at an
election, they can open up discussions with the opposition party or
parties that are likely to take control after the election to talk about
manifesto commitments, priorities and budgetary issues. It is clearly a
system that is tried and tested, and one that works.
I acknowledge that, because
most of my local political experience has been of annual elections by
thirds, I am biased. I understand that councillors and Members of
Parliament from areas that use an all-out system often hold similarly
strong views about that system in the opposite direction from mine.
That is the real issue, because there is no wrong or right way in which
to elect councillors. Thirds is right for my area; others believe that
all-out elections are right for their area. When people believe that
the system is wrong for their area, why should they not be able to put
their case and, after careful consideration and a council resolution,
change it? That is what this part of the Bill will do and why I support
it.
However, why must
it be a one-way process? If it is okay for councils to move away from
elections by thirds to all-out elections, why can they not move the
other way? If a metropolitan borough, such as Stockport or Tameside,
can move to all-out elections, why should not a London borough move
from all-out elections to elections by thirds if it wants to? That it
cannot is the source of my objection to the provision. I agree with my
hon. Friend the Member for Wigan that if, after an acceptable period
such as eight or 12 years, perhaps more, the new system has failed to
bed down, why should a council after careful consideration and a
further resolution not be able to go back to the previous system? The
would be real devolution and real letting go, which is what I hope we
achieve through the Bill. I hope that the Minister will respond
positively to my
suggestions.
Given
that, I urge the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, a fellow Stockport MP, to
withdraw his amendments so that we can return later to the issue, with
renewed vigour if
necessary.
Tom
Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): I rise to continue the
Back-Bench rebellion that has been swirling for more than 12 days and
almost 15 minutes. I have 10 years’ experience in local
government at all three levels: four years as a parish councillors, two
as a district councillor and four as a county councillor. Like my hon.
Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, I have experience of both
election by thirds and all-out elections.
I would not advocate that a
county council move to thirds because it would mean large multi-member
constituencies and, in any case, county wards are so big that they do
not equate to community boundaries; they are bigger. However, at
district level, I have had experience of both systems and I favour
elections by thirds. In Stroud district council, of which I was a
member for two years, that does not necessarily mean that each ward has
to be a three-member ward. It just means that a third of the
councillors, including one in each three-member ward or none in the
single or double member wards is elected each
year.
As my hon.
Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, voting by thirds means
that there will be no catastrophic change, leading to long-term
planning not being possible. It means that there is constant
public scrutiny and annual accountability. When there is a problem with
a hung council, which is not always a problem, it can be resolved by
the electorate within 12 months. Voting by thirds means that the
parties have to find fewer candidates and that fighting elections costs
less, although over the cycle the costs would be considerably greater.
Although the turnout in any particular year can be shown to be smaller
for elections by thirds than all-out elections, the turnout over the
four-year cycle is considerably greater. Many people take the
opportunity to vote more than once in the four-year period, and many
more people have the opportunity to cast a vote.
I am not arguing that thirds is
always the answer or that it should be the aspiration, but as others
have said, it should be an option. Councils have the option to choose
one method or the other and to change from one to the other, but very
few councils take that opportunity. Therefore, to make it implicit in
the Bill that a change in one direction is favoured over a change in
the other—that one direction is right and the other is
wrong—is almost to address a problem that does not exist. In any
case, it does not address the question of a local council having the
ability to decide. The unfortunate impression given by clause 31 is
that it will make the process a one-way street. I therefore hope that
the Minister will remove it. A former Secretary of State with
responsibility for local government, Nicholas Ridley, who was for a
time my Member of Parliament, described one-way streets as an
infringement of civil rights. He may have chosen the wrong target for
that comment—he was Transport Secretary at the time, I believe.
However, in the Bill, a one-way street should not be the only way for
councils to go when considering their electoral arrangements.
The downside of elections by
thirds is that they are more expensive for councils to run. They eat up
the time of officers because of the need to have elections in three
years out of every four. It means that councillors need to have one eye
on the electorate the whole time, not only during elections. Council
tax has to be set bearing in mind electoral consequences every year,
not once every four years. There are many reasons why councils should
avoid voting by thirds, but they are not particularly good reasons.
Paradoxically, the effect of passing the Bill as it stands could be
that fewer councils will move to all-out elections, because they will
not want to take the irrevocable step of moving in that direction. I do
not think that there should be an implicit bias one way or the other;
there should be a choice.
Finally, all-out election
clearly fits the model of an elected mayor rather better than election
by thirds. However, the tail should not be wagging the dog. We need to
look at a wider range of models of executive accountability, a matter
that we will come to later. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and
Reddish said, some members of the committee form a little cluster:
Denton and Reddish, Hazel Grove, and High Peak. I hope that the fourth
member of the cluster, our neighbour the Minister, will join us.
However, I hope that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will withdraw his
amendment and allow the Government time to take into account the view
of both the Committee and of those who participated in the previous
scrutiny process.
Sir
Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): There is clearly
considerable enthusiasm on the Labour Back Benches for amendments Nos.
94 and 95. Like other hon. Members, I am sympathetic to the
Government’s desire to see effective and stable leadership in
local government. That wish, which is clearly reflected in the Bill, is
to ensure that local councils engage with their communities and
electorates. If there were overwhelming evidence that effective
leadership and engagement with local communities could be significantly
enhanced by holding whole-council elections, I would support such
elections and welcome a move by the Government to ensure that they were
universal. However, there is no evidence that that leadership and that
engagement are achieved by the mechanism of whole-council elections;
therefore the Government are not proposing that that system should be
universal.
Like a
number of other hon. Members, I have served on councils that have had
whole-council elections and on those that have had elections by thirds,
and the experience is very mixed. In some circumstances, election by
thirds produces effective leadership and engagement with local
communities. In other circumstances, whole-council elections produce
the same results. Sometimes, the reverse applies: I have seen areas
that use elections by thirds in which councils have been out of touch
with the electorate and community, and areas that use whole-council
elections in which local communities have had little engagement with
their local councils.
I can understand why, in many
areas, local party activists prefer whole-council elections. I have
heard it argued quite powerfully in a council that is not unknown to me
and in which, against my judgment and my wishes, a choice was made of
election for the whole council. There is no evidence that that
accomplished anything other than a quiet life for party activists for a
couple of years, or that it in any way enhanced the quality of the
council’s leadership or the engagement of local people with that
council.
Andrew
Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman
would want to substitute the words party inactivists for party
activists.
Sir
Peter Soulsby:
I suspect that we all have party
inactivists as well as activists, and sometimes all parties feel that
the inactivists are in the majority.
Very briefly, my argument, like
that of other Back-Bench Members, is that if it is possible to move
only in one direction—from elections by thirds to whole-council
elections—I suspect that, perversely, it will make councils less
likely to want to experiment. Knowing that there is no way back will
make them reluctant to move towards whole-council elections rather than
willing to grasp the idea on an experimental basis.
It is important to ensure that
councils that choose to make such a change are not able to do so at
short
intervals, or in ways that are difficult for a local electorate to
understand or that are confusing for the administration of the
authority. It is important, of course, to prevent rapid reversals of
direction, but it is also important to allow reversals of
direction.
My firm
view is that it is not the pattern of elections that is the determining
factor in either public engagement or in effective leadership. There
are different circumstances in different local authorities. For that
reason, I hope that it will not be necessary to press the amendment to
a vote and that the Government will listen and agree with the
overwhelming view that is being expressed from both sides of the
Committee that the matter is one for local discretion taking local
circumstances into consideration, and that it should be left to the
local councils
involved.
10.45
am
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I had not intended
to intervene in the discussion, but there has not been such an uprising
in the midlands since the pilgrimage of grace and as a southerner I
could not resist the temptation to encourage it a little and see
whether Labour Members would march to the gates of London and what
response they would get from Ministers. I believe that on the previous
occasion the gates were locked against the pilgrims. I hope that they
will not be on this occasion, because the points that have been made
are valid.
My
experience, like yours, Mr. Chope, is as a member of a
London borough council. I spent 16 years in a system of all-out
elections every four years. On the other hand, my wife has served as a
member of a unitary council elected by thirds. Working out who should
canvass for whom, where and at what time has been a matter of domestic
interest to us. She has not persuaded me any more than I have persuaded
her. I remain of the view that there is considerable merit in the
four-year cycle that we have in the London boroughs, ironically because
it permits long-term planning and enables a new administration to know
that it has a four-year run and officers to know where they stand. A
few years ago, when my party lost control of the London borough of
Bexley by one seat despite getting a majority of the popular vote, I
was briefly almost converted to elections by thirds, but as we gained
23 seats last May, all was put right in the
end.
The key test is
this: if we are serious about devolution, the decision ought to be for
a local authority to take. I take the point that that is true whether
an authority is a London borough or a district. The hon. Member for
High Peak made a valid point about the linkage with mayoral systems. In
the London boroughs we have a certain number of directly elected mayors
and it is clearly much easier in those circumstances to have all-out
elections coinciding with mayoral elections. I certainly do not
advocate electing the London assembly by thirds, although it might be
an interesting idea. It should surely be a matter for a local authority
to determine.
I was
interested in the discussion about the effect of using thirds instead
of all-out elections on turnout and engagement. I am inclined to agree
that, by and large, that is not the determining factor. My hon. Friends
and
I will argue that other parts of the Bill miss opportunities to take
measures that would enhance turnout, but the real disincentive to
people to turn out to vote in elections is frequently the thought that
it will not make any difference because local authorities themselves
have very little discretionary power to make a difference. Enhancing
local authorities’ freedom of action would undoubtedly be the
greatest means of incentivising people to turn out to vote, and we have
not gone as far as we would like in that respect. However, the
electoral cycle is not the main determinant of
turnout.
I have
sympathy with the Labour Members who have spoken on the point that the
clause is a classic one-way street. That cannot be right and I cannot
see any intellectual justification for it. If it is right to move in
one direction and if we believe that local authorities should as far as
possible have the power to determine their own administrative
arrangements, then surely to goodness it should be possible for them to
move in the other direction. I would argue against the London borough
of Bromley, for instance, moving in that opposite direction, but it
ought to have the right to do so. That is the key thing.
If we expect local authorities
to behave in a grown-up way, we must treat them as grown-ups and give
them the opportunity to come a reasoned decision to fit their own
circumstances. I have so far heard nothing to justify the provision, so
I hope that the midlands uprising succeeds in securing a localist and
devolutionary measure. I know the Minister to be a fair-minded man who
will take on board the points
made.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Angela E. Smith):
I am answering this
debate.
Robert
Neill:
The Under-Secretary is a fair-minded lady. I know
both of the Minister to be extremely fair-minded. I hope that they will
reflect on the arguments that have been made and accept the localist
course, which is to let each local authority decide either
way.
Patrick
Hall (Bedford) (Lab): Thank you for my earlier temporary
knighthood, Mr. Chope. I do not believe that it was awarded
for being part of what my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak
described as a rebellion, nor for being part of an uprising, as the
hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested it was. This is not
about uprisings and rebellions; it is about intelligent, thoughtful,
decisive, constructive, helpful contributions to the parliamentary
process. Our motivation is to improve the Bill and to strengthen local
government. We want to do it from the point of view of some experience,
much of it outside London, and from having seen some of the measures in
practice on the ground for a number of years.
I am sure that others could add
to this debate by describing their likes and dislikes. The area that I
come from has had elections by thirds since the mid-’80s. I
should mention that that is Bedford; I want to get the words
“Bedford” and “Bedfordshire” on the record.
I was a Bedfordshire county councillor when the county
had all-out elections every four years, alongside a district that had
elections by thirds. The two went together well. The Bedford borough
elections led to an increase in activity. There were elections every
year in that area, with county elections one year and three years of
borough elections. That led to a lot more contact with the electorate.
It also meant a lot more work, but those of us who are involved in
local democracy sometimes enjoy doing that, believe it or
not.
Alistair
Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): One of the
consequences of the increased activity and interest in elections in
Bedfordshire has been the support for an elected mayor and the process
of electing a mayor. What does the hon. Gentleman think contributed to
that? Was it a failure of the major, best known parties in the
processes that he has described, or was it something else? What turned
off the people of Bedford borough in such a way as to lead to the
creation of an elected, independent mayor?
Patrick
Hall:
The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his own
question. I was very much involved in those matters. Before he came to
Bedfordshire and became the Member of Parliament for North-East
Bedfordshire, particular circumstances applied to Bedford borough; I
could go into in some detail, but will not do so as it would not be
appropriate. However, the argument is not about what happens in one
particular place. There are reasons for having an elected mayor in
Bedford. Colleagues have questioned whether having an elected mayor on
a four-year term runs alongside having elections by thirds; I believe
that in Bedford we have an example that shows that it does.
The hon. Gentleman
was possibly alluding to strong leadership. I had concerns about the
leadership of Bedford borough council, but that was due to
personalities rather than the electoral system. It is important to
remember that whatever system we have, whether all-out or by thirds,
councillors are elected for four years. The question of whether we have
a person in a stable position who is able to lead is therefore not
necessarily determined by whether the system is elections by thirds or
all-out.
The ground
has been quite well covered by the debate so far. It does not come down
to whether anyone here likes or dislikes a system of all-out or by
thirds; what is important is devolution, local choice and local
councillors and people deciding the best way to run local affairs in
their area. The one-way street does not fit with that. There is no
doubt that that is the wrong approach. It is not devolution, and I hope
that Ministers will reflect upon that, although I understand that they
might not be able to do so on the spot today. I therefore add my plea
to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to await Report, as I shall, and not
press his amendment to a Division, in the hope that we can make some
progress on the matter, which would be in the interests of local
government.
Angela
E. Smith:
I thank all hon. Gentlemen for their comments on
the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak described
himself as part of a Back-Bench rebellion, which the hon. Member for
Bromley and Chislehurst was anxious to join. My hon.
Friend the Member for Bedford made the point that it is important that
in Committee we scrutinise everything that comes before us, which the
Committee has done quite admirably in this debate. Indeed, almost a
third of the Committee has spoken on the amendment.
I have listened carefully to
all the arguments made in the debate and it is clear from the
contributions that there is a real commitment in the Committee to
ensuring that there is strong leadership in local government. The hon.
Member for Hazel Grove based most of his comments on the need to be
truly democratic, as he put it, so that local councils alone can decide
these matters. My hon. Friends the Members for Wigan, for Leicester
South, for Denton and Reddish and for High Peak also raised the issue
of ensuring strong leadership in local government. We are seeking to
achieve both those aims in the clause.
Obviously, there are members of
the Committee with considerable experience of local councils. I have
eight years of experience in Essex—I must mention Essex, as it
has not been mentioned yet, and we are touring the nation and I am the
House of Commons’ honorary Essex girl. Because of their great
experience of local government, we ought to take note of the arguments
made by members of the Committee.
The Government consider that
there are strong arguments that whole-council elections bring benefits
to councils and communities, creating greater accountability and
clarity for electors, and that such elections have the potential to
strengthen the democratic process. As I made clear to the hon. Member
for Hazel Grove during the evidence sessions, the Government preference
is for whole-council elections. However, as has been said in the debate
today, it is not that straightforward. It may help the Committee if I
describe the broader context, it is quite complex.
The current position is that
all county councils and London boroughs have whole-council elections.
In addition, all parish councils are required to have whole-council
elections. Shire district councils may request either whole-council
elections or partial elections, and 63 per cent. of districts have
whole-council elections. They may change their electoral cycle by
asking the Secretary of State to make an order. All metropolitan
districts have elections by thirds. That is clear,
then.
It has been
widely recognised for a considerable time that there is quite a
mish-mash of electoral arrangements, which can be confusing for
electors. It could be said that it is just an accident of history that
we have different arrangements for different councils. That was why the
Government invited the independent Electoral Commission to address
those issues in January 2003. The Electoral Commission responded a year
later, stating that whole-council elections would increase
participation and bring clearer accountability. The Government said
that they were minded to agree with the principal recommendation, which
was to move to whole-council elections for English councils. In the
2005 general election manifesto, we stated that
“the case for simplifying the
current local government election cycle by moving towards ‘whole
council’ elections every four
years”
would be examined.
That is what we have done, and that is what has been discussed in the
Committee today and in the previous sitting. That is the background for
adopting the approach that is outlined in the White Paper and the
Bill.
Patrick
Hall:
With regard to possible confusion about councils and
council elections, certainly that confusion would arise in all two-tier
areas. Living in a two-tier local government area, I find that the
public do not care so much which council is responsible for which
service, nor what type of election it is; it is just seen as
“local government”, and that there is an election. The
only way to resolve that matter is to move to unitaries, which is not
the subject of the debate. I think that the confusion will always arise
in two-tier areas, regardless of whether the election is by thirds or
all-out.
Angela
E. Smith:
It was perhaps because of that confusion that
the Government asked the Electoral Commission to examine the
proposals.
Angela
E. Smith:
I will give way briefly; I want to make some
progress, and some of the things I have to say may discourage hon.
Members from making any more interventions.
Tom
Levitt:
I have never understood the point that the
Electoral Commission makes about participation. I accept that, in
all-out elections once every four years, turnout is higher than in any
one particular year during the elections in the three consecutive years
taken in the areas that elect by thirds. However, in the whole
four-year cycle, the number of people who vote at least once in local
elections is greater under the system of voting by thirds than it is
under all-out
elections.
11
am
Angela
E. Smith:
I do not think that I need to respond to that;
my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak makes his claims, and the issue
may be something that he will want to take up with the Electoral
Commission.
In terms
of what was in the White Paper and what was put forward in the Bill,
first, as the Committee acknowledges, more discussion has taken place
about measures that are designed to be devolutionary, giving power back
to local authorities. We are devolving the decisions on this matter to
local authorities. That is generally welcomed by members of the
Committee. It would be for a local authority, not the Government, to
decide whether to move to whole-council elections. The process for
changing the electoral cycle should be a matter for local authorities
alone to decide; it is a fundamental principle of the Bill
that that is not a matter for the Secretary of State to
decide.
The initial approach reflected
the substance of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations for
whole-council elections. The Electoral Commission’s 2004 report
stated
that
“whole-council
elections every four years can provide a degree of inherent stability.
Whole-council elections give a clear mandate to representatives for a
programme of policies during the following four years, and allow time
for an administration to carry through its policies. At the end of the
four-year period the administration is held to account by the
electorate and can be judged by its record, its success or
failure.”
The
commission’s findings led to our debate and to the
Government’s proposals. The Government consider that
whole-council elections can create the best framework to support and
promote strong and accountable leadership if powers and
responsibilities are to be devolved to local councils.
Notwithstanding the benefits,
the Government recognise that in particular places, the pattern of
local government elections can reflect long-held traditions valued by
hon. Members. My hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, South, for
Wigan, for Denton and Reddish, for High Peak and for Bedford and the
hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made the point that strong
leadership does not depend necessarily on the electoral cycles of a
local authority. It is not automatically the case that election by
thirds creates weak leadership or failing councils. Many successful
councils elected by thirds have strong
leadership.
The
Electoral Commission recently stated that it would have preferred the
Government to be more prescriptive and to legislate for all councils to
move to whole-council elections with no local choice. I have made it
clear that we accept the case for participation and accountability, but
we have decided that local councils that elect by thirds should move to
all-out elections only if they choose to do so.
We conclude that there should
be a devolved process to allow councils, including metropolitan
authorities, to move if they choose from partial to whole-council
elections, but the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove
would also allow county councils and London boroughs to move to partial
elections, which is something not currently available to them. Our
proposals will allow councils elected by thirds to move to
whole-council elections, and our debate today has considered giving
those councils the option to move either
way.
I shall reflect
on the comments made by hon. Members. The issues are quite complex. For
example, if the amendment of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove were
accepted and county councils that hold whole-council elections chose to
move to thirds, that would have an impact on the electoral cycle of
district councils in those areas. Also, because county councils are
based on single-member wards, it would create some difficulty in
organisation.
For
those reasons, I have difficulty accepting the hon. Gentleman’s
amendment. However, taking into account the debate as a whole, a strong
case has been made for the Government to reflect on the issue. I do not
think that there is a case for rebellion on the part of my hon. Friend
the Member for High Peak. I welcome the discussion. It has brought
clarity and new thinking to the issue.
Tom
Levitt:
My hon. Friend will be aware that the words
“rebellion” and “High Peak” do not often go
together. I am enjoying my five minutes of fame, but that was all I
intended to
have.
Angela
E. Smith:
That is a dangerous intervention for my hon.
Friend to make. I would not want him to be encouraged by the response
that he is getting this morning. I should like my colleagues to
consider the issue and perhaps offer suggestions to the Committee and
the House later that reflect the concerns raised about local democracy
and equally about strong leadership, which we consider essential to
local
government.
Andrew
Stunell:
I welcome the Under-Secretary to her first outing
on the Bill, and I welcome the tone in which she has presented her and
the Government’s views to the Committee. I hope that the
Minister for Local Government picks up the same tone in future debates.
It has been extremely
helpful.
May I thank
colleagues on both sides of the Committee for their contributions? I do
not think that there has been a hostile word so far against the
amendments that I tabled, other than the Under-Secretary’s view
that they should probably not apply to county councils. That is clearly
a matter for further discussion. In the light of what she said, I shall
not go into some of the detailed responses that I might have done, but
I would like to thank the hon. Members for Wigan, for Denton and
Reddish, for High Peak, for Leicester, South, and for Bedford, all of
whom indicated their view that the Government should go one step
further with the clause. It was never any part of the argument that
I deployed that there was anything wrong with what was in the
clause, but it is what is not in it that is wrong. If the Government
are prepared to look at how the matter can be made a process that will
work in the opposite sense and will come back and consider that in due
course, that will be a major step forward.
I was particularly struck by
two of the arguments that I heard. The first was deployed at our
previous sitting by the hon. Member for Wigan, who said that probably
the most powerful argument that the Government will ever hear is that
this is not a matter of great moment for the tabloids and that the
Government do not need to fear the press reaction. Knowing how
important that consideration is for the Government when they conduct
their business, I hope that that powerful argument will strike
home.
I hope that it
also clearly came through from hon. Members on both sides of the
Committee—which is blessed with having people with a wide range
of experience in local government—that nobody could point to any
evidence that going in one direction only would lead to a benefit in
terms of leadership, policy development or participation by the public.
The arguments are finely balanced and I was pleased to hear what the
Under-Secretary said. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendments.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 21 February 2007 |