 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, Alan Sandall, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 22 February 2007(Afternoon)[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Amendment moved [this day]:
No. 63, in clause 77, page 52, line 6, at end insert
‘or’. [Robert
Neill.]
2
pm
The
Chairman:
I remind hon. Members that with this we are
taking amendment No. 64, in clause 77, page 52, line 8, leave out from
‘districts’ to end of line
9.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): This morning we
discussed whether there is a hidden and perhaps unrecognised demand for
parish councils in London. I maintain that there is no evidence of
that: there has been nothing on it from any of the representative
bodies, nor from any of the major academic commentators such as Tony
Travers, nor from the representatives of London’s civic,
residents and amenities societies. None of them has suggested that
there is a hidden demand that is not being picked up on.
The question is not just one of
demand—there are also some practical issues on how parish
councils will work in a city where there is no tradition of them. The
report of the Commission on London Governance drew attention to
concerns that are not unique to the Opposition: how parish councils
will interface in practice with ward councillors and with existing
devolved structures in London, and how duplication and confusion of
roles can be
avoided.
I refer to
the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. I
recognise that, particularly in London, there are still villages and
communities that have strong senses of identity. I know that as well as
anyone, because my own constituency is full of such
communities—Hayes, Bickley, Chislehurst and so on. The borough
of Bromley as a whole is like that too—there are some 80
residents associations in the borough, all of which are active and
which push for their area. But they work satisfactorily in co-operation
with their ward councillors, and not one has ever said that there was a
need for a parish council to advance its
interests.
Patrick
Hall (Bedford) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman is saying that
the power to opt for creation of parish councils in urban areas should
not apply to London, because there is no experience of such councils in
recent decades. However, that logic applies to all urban areas that
have not had any such recent tradition. Logically, his position should
not be restricted to London but should apply to all urban areas, which
would deny people everywhere the power to opt in. Why does not the hon.
Gentleman push that logic?
Robert
Neill:
With respect, the hon. Gentleman puts it the wrong
way round. The status quo is that London is in a different situation
from the rest of the country. The Government are proposing to change
it, but I am old-fashioned enough to think that the onus is always on
those who propose to change the status quo to show a good and
compelling reason for change. There is no evidence of such a
reason.
Mr.
David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): It occurs to me
that if the Government’s intentions are fulfilled, empowerment
may increase and flourish as a result of the Bill, in which case there
would not necessarily be a need for parish
councils.
Robert
Neill:
I think and hope that my hon. Friendis
right. I am much in favour of neighbourhood empowerment. London
boroughs, in different ways to suit their own circumstances, have done
a great deal to produce empowerment at the sub-borough level, to use an
ugly but convenient phrase. We should do more to encourage
that.
I have always
been a strong advocate of ward councillors being given an enhanced role
as champions of their communities. That was said by the Government to
be explicit in the settlement of the Local Government Act 2000, when
executives were created. The idea was that ward councillors were to be
champions, and to fight for their communities. I would prefer more to
be done to enhance that concept, with more powers for ward councillors
to fulfil that role, which would enable them to fight for particular
community concerns without the need to create an additional tier of
bureaucracy. Unless it is carefully handled, the creation of parishes
might create duplication and confusion as to the roles of the parish
and of parish councillors compared with the role of ward councillors,
particularly in London, where the communities that we are discussing
are often not geographically discrete, in disparate areas, but overlap
and are dense and highly urbanised, with a mobile and diverse
population.
Some
local authorities give a devolved budget to their ward councillors to
spend in their ward in the public realm, or on other works. That is
true in my wife’s ward outside London, and it is a good idea. It
empowers people who have a legitimate, democratic electoral mandate.
Schemes run through various types of area committee and forum can also
work well and I do not rule out that. London boroughs are doing a range
of things. For example, Newham has an influential councillor scheme.
There is a raft of mechanisms for dealing with the issues that my hon.
Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate legitimately and properly
raised, without the need for the creation of parishes. Such legitimate
demand as there is for engagement can be met by other means, without
legislative change.
That leads us to some of the
specific concerns raised by London Councils, which has not been
entirely negative. It commissioned Alan Pike to write a useful
discussion paper, “London: any place for parish
councils?”, which is appended to its submissions to the
Committee, I believe. The paper sets out the fact that there are
arguments for greater community engagement and that in some parts of
the country parishes work well, which is something I do not dispute.
However, the paper also sets out in some considerable
detail—more than we have time for today—the way in which
London
boroughs, in disparate ways to suit their own needs, fulfil much the
same roles without the need further legislative provisions.
The majority of boroughs have
some form of area, neighbourhood, or community council structure, and
many have been commended for it. Waltham Forest has a community
champion in its cabinet for each of its areas. In addition, Kingston
upon Thames, a place known to Liberal Democrat Members, has a
long-established neighbourhood structure. Havering, which was mentioned
earlier, has worked for some time with a series of area committees. The
point is that things can be done by other routes, without the need for
the legislative change.
The matter is
summed up, it seems to me, in the Government’s discussion
document titled, “Citizen Engagement and Public Services: Why
Neighbourhoods Matter”. It states:
“It should be
democratically elected local councillors who are advocates for their
communities and represent the views of the public about the services
they receive. Clearly giving councillors this role of neighbourhood
leadership should strengthen local
democracy.”
That is
absolutely right, and I take it on board. The Commission on London
Governance also took it on board very strongly when creating its
report, which advocated the enhancement of the local champion role of
the councillor. It is about enhancing the mandate of the existing ward
councillor. I would rather have that than run the risk of the confusion
that a parish-based system might
create.
“Citizen
Engagement and Public Services: Why Neighbourhoods Matter”
observes and acknowledges
that
“unduly extensive
devolution to the most local level is unlikely to be effective or
efficient”.
That is a
useful phrase. The two passages that I have quoted, put together,
provide a sensible warning. Mr. Pike’s consultation
document states
that
“this is an area
where the Government has recognised the need for a cautious
approach.”
We are urging
the Government to be more cautious in the absence of compelling
evidence of demand.
My final observation is that
London Councils has flagged up some specific practical matters relating
to how parishes might work in London, as well as other broad concerns.
What if parishes, which might cover large estates, want to take on
service delivery powers? How could that be set against a local
authority’s existing arrangements? Apparently, parishes will
have the power to raise a precept. What are the costs likely to be?
What capital and revenue estimates have been made regarding setting up
and administering parish councils? How would we deal with a situation
in which a neighbourhood area that might be logical for a parish does
not conform to the boundaries of wards, area committees, or local area
agreements? How could all of those things be put together? There ought
to be greater clarity on those matters before we proceed.
In a nutshell, our contention
is that the case has manifestly not been made. The onus rests upon
those who propose change. We hope to amend the Bill so that we do not
create an unnecessary, if well-intentioned, disturbance to the
governance structures of London boroughs.
Andrew
Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I listened carefully to what
the hon. Gentleman said. In his own words, superficially it sounded of
interest. It must be right to give local government and communities
all the available, feasible options. Given our view of the
matter, it follows that we shall not support the amendment. Options are
good, prescription is bad. If Conservative Members used that as their
guiding light when considering the Bill, they would see that the
amendment does not conform to that approach.
The hon.
Gentleman said that there are places in London with neighbourhood
councils, residents associations, area committees and community
associations, as though we do not have such things outside London. We
do, and we also have the option of parish councils. He is right that
the vast majority of parish councils are in rural areas, or at least in
areas that were rural when the councils were established; however, many
are not. Reference has been made to the largest parish council in
England, in Weston-super-Mare, which is quite definitely not in a rural
area, and there are other substantial urban parish councils.
I do not want to suggest that
many substantial parish councils will be set up in London; on the
contrary, I suspect that many of them will be small—probably
smaller than wards. I would like to draw the Committee’s
attention to the only parish council in Stockport, which was created as
a result of the Local Government Act 2000. It was one of the urban
parishes that the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then running the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, was keen to see established, and
was it petitioned for by local residents on a housing estate. It
comprises about a third of one ward, out of 21 wards in Stockport
borough. It is in my constituency and is now the parish council of
Offerton Park. The Secretary of State saw fit to grant permission for
it to be set up and it is now approaching its next round of
elections.
The hon.
Gentleman is right in one regard: parish councils can be an irritant in
the system. Those people in the room who have parish councils are
nodding and smiling, because they know that that is true, but that does
not make the parish council a bad
institution.
Alistair
Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): I find it more
helpful to refer to my parish councils as the grit in the oyster,
rather than an irritant. I think that that conveys the impression that
we all seek to give to our parish councils.
Andrew
Stunell:
I suspect that their view is that quite often
they are putting pearls before swine.
[
Interruption.
] We rehearsed that.
My predecessor as Liberal
Democrat spokesman tabled amendments to the Bill that became the Local
Government Act 2000 to permit the creation of parishes. The relevant
Minister said in Committee that our amendment was defective in about 19
different ways, but when it came to the House of Lords, the Government
introduced proposals to allow urban parishes, which we were pleased to
see. We also tabled amendments to introduce parishing in London, but
unfortunately the Minister of the day did not see fit to extend the
parish proposals to London. Naturally, I am pleased that seven years
later, such a provision is coming forward.
2.15
pm
Andrew
Stunell:
Well, I want to give credit where it is due. It
is a long and winding road to Damascus but the Minister has eventually
got there. That is fine—it is good to
see.
To ensure that
there is maximum choice for local democracy, and because we thought of
it first, we strongly support the clause. We believe that the
Government have got it right and that it is appropriate for it to be
taken forward. I say to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst
that turkeys do not vote for Christmas and boroughs do not vote for
parishes. They know that they are inconvenient and troublesome, which
is why it is right that there should be the requirement of a review and
the possibility of communities putting proposals to their boroughs for
serious consideration rather than having to rely on the initiative and
good will of local councils seeing fit to develop parishes. The
provisions of the clause are substantially
right.
I
wish to finish by saying something about the size and scale of
communities. The definition of a community tends to depend on who is
giving it. MPs tend to believe that a constituency is a community.
Councillors tend to believe that a ward is a community and leaders of
councils tend to think that council areas are communities. The
real-life situation is that communities are much smaller than that. In
the ward in which I live I can recognise four or five separate
communities, although it appears to the outsider to be a continuous
carpet of suburban development. There are different communities with
different understandings of their position. I hope that when we
consider parish proposals in the future we will recognise that and not
make parishes fit a straitjacket of existing administrative boundaries
simply because that is how people in the town hall or we in Parliament
see the boundaries. That ability to tailor the lowest level of
democratic representation to real communities is the valuable addition
made by the clause.
If
the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst presses the amendment we
shall vote against it. I hope that the Government will stand firm and
continue with this sensible
provision.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Angela E. Smith):
I have enjoyed the
wide-ranging discussion on the amendment. I always enjoy contributions
from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, if only because he
mentions Essex several times, not Bedfordshire, which gives us a
balance in the
Committee.
I find the
hon. Gentleman’s arguments interesting. London is the only part
of the country that does not have parishes and parish councils.
Communities anywhere else in England have the opportunity, if they so
wish, to create a parish council in appropriate circumstances. There is
an anomaly, and I cannot see any reason for it to continue. I listened
carefully to his arguments, and he said that London is different as it
has no recent history of parishes. He was sort of saying, “Well,
if you haven’t had this in the past, you can’t have it in
the future,” but history and tradition
have to have a starting point. He said that the character of London is
different as it does not have parish councils. I wonder why he seeks to
deny the residents of Badgers Mount or Pratts Bottom, in his
constituency, the opportunity to have their own parish
councils.
Robert
Neill:
Because they are not in my constituency. They are
in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington
(Mr.
Horam).
Angela
E. Smith:
I thought that the champagne moment was the talk
about oysters, but as the hon. Gentleman seems to be in the chair, as
we say in Essex, we look forward to the end of the Committee when he
will be buying the
champagne.
There does
seem to be an anomaly, and we see no reason why it should continue. It
is only fair that Londoners should have the same right as anyone in the
rest of the country to be represented by a parish council. We are not
trying to impose this; the Government are not saying, “You must
have a parish council in your area.” We are opening up choice to
a community. Parish councils would be established in London only if
there were wide-ranging support and local people genuinely wanted them.
There would be the same opportunity in London as elsewhere to style a
council and better reflect the urban area of a
“community” or a “neighbourhood”. It would
up to the area to do so. Experience in other parts of the UK does not
give credibility to the argument that urban areas do not suit parish
councils, or somehow cannot have parish councils. Councils can give a
stronger voice to communities, helping to shape public services, and in
some cases, to deliver public services in the areas in which they
live.
One of the
issues genuinely raised by hon. Members during the debate—the
debate has been ongoing, and it arose during the evidence sessions as
well—was the possibility of extremists or other groups using a
parish council to isolate a community in an attempt to further their
cause. The assurances that I have given so far to the Committee on the
guidance to ensure that community cohesion should be taken into account
should satisfy hon. Members on that point.
There are
parish councils in other urban areas of the country, for example, New
Frankley in Birmingham, and Blakelaw and North Fenham in
Newcastle-upon-Tyne. There is a commonality of issues for people who
live in urban areas, just as there is for people who live in rural
areas, who say that they would want to be represented by a parish
council. We must also be sure that the opportunity is there for the
principal council to refuse a permission for a parish council if it
thinks that that is in the interests of the community—that a
parish council would be damaging to community relations or community
cohesion. If there are arrangements in a local area, such as community
forums or neighbourhood committees, that the council feels give an
adequate voice to those in the area, it might take that into account in
deciding whether to grant or refuse permission for a parish
council. It must clearly be a decision for the principal council to
take, not for the Secretary of State as is the case now.
We must
ensure that parish councils do not become destabilising influences
within the community. Under the requirements of the Bill, councils must
have regard to the identities and interests of communities in their
area. We will issue the statutory guidance that I mentioned, which
includes the need for councils to have regard to community cohesion
when making a decision about creating a parish. I cannot, however, give
a guarantee to the Committee or anybody else that an election to any
official body would not result in the election of councillors who hold
extreme or unpleasant views, or that they could not form a majority on
a parish council. All of us on the Committee recognise that we cannot
dictate the outcome of elections, much as many of us would like to in
our constituencies.
Councillor Kemp of the Local
Government Association made comments in the evidence session with which
most people would agree. He said that if there were a rise in extremism
at parish council level, that would be as much the fault of the
political parties collectively rather than of a particular local
government system. It would not be a failure of structures or systems,
but a political failure.
In the White Paper, we
said:
“Uniquely
communities in London are denied the option to form parishes. We intend
to give them the same rights to have a parish council as the rest of
the country. As with all other parts of the country, local authorities
will need to consider the impact of community cohesion when deciding
whether to create a parish in
London.”
The hon. Member
for Bromley and Chislehurst asked who supports that idea. Where has it
come from? Who supports it? I always like to be helpful. The National
Association of Local Councils supports the
proposals.
Angela
E. Smith:
The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary
position. The answer is “None, but they would like them.”
That is the key; the legislation has not allowed London to have parish
councils so far. The hon. Gentleman is getting cynical in his old age.
London Councils, formerly the Association of London Government,
supports the current proposal, although it has concerns. I listened
carefully to the extracts from Mr. Pike’s report,
which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I have read the report, and I
wondered whether he wrote that prior to the publication of the Bill and
prior to the evidence sessions. We have dealt with a lot of the
concerns that he raised, and assurances about the guidance and the
points that were raised were
given.
Robert
Neill:
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving
way. I shall do my best to forgive her for the unkindest cut of
referring to my age. Does she accept that, yes, the Pike report was
written in advance and that the comments on community cohesion pick up
on one of the concerns highlighted in the report? Will the Government,
in issuing the guidance, also consider the other concerns? Those are:
the impact upon other community engagement mechanisms, how parish
councils are to be funded and how there should be linkages between any
development of service delivery powers in the parishes as opposed to
the boroughs.
Angela
E. Smith:
I will come on to those points. The hon.
Gentleman’s first point was about the services to be provided.
As now, that will be a matter of agreement with the principal council.
Swanley town council, which is not too far from me, has, like a number
of councils, a very impressive arrangement for leisure facilities that
it provides in its area. There is an issue around service agreements
between town or parish councils and the principal
council.
The hon.
Gentleman then asked who supports the proposed approach. London
Councils supports it. Its current concern is to ensure that legislation
effectively allows a London borough to refuse the creation of a parish
on the grounds of community cohesion. We have addressed that. The
Association of London Government, now London Councils, took part in the
technical working group that we established in 2005 and which looked
into the existing legislation. We will ensure that London Councils is
afforded the opportunity to contribute to the guidance on the
development of
parishes.
The hon.
Gentleman asked, who pays? Under previous clauses, we talked about the
issue of precepts. It is open, and parish councils have precept-raising
powers. The Government have no capping powers, and no intention to take
them, unless widespread demand becomes evident. We would then, of
course, reconsider the
issue.
When the hon.
Gentleman was speaking about the Pike report, he used a phrase that I
find most puzzling, “unduly extensive devolution”. What
is that? If a local parish council wished to be created and the
principal council decided it was in the interests of the community to
do so, that would not be “unduly extensive”. Rather, to
use a phrase of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, it
would be common
sense.
Andrew
Stunell:
The Under-Secretary has a good case, but she is
going a little over the top here. Only on Tuesday, her fellow Minister
referred to “irresponsible” devolution, which came in for
the same sort of criticism. Perhaps she could help us by saying what is
the difference between “unduly extensive” and
“irresponsible”
devolution.
Robert
Neill:
I am interested in the Under-Secretary’s
point, but may I help her out on this? I did not quote the words of
Mr.
Pike.
2.28
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
2.43
pm
On
resuming—
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]
Angela
E. Smith:
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr.
Benton. Just before I finish the point I was making, I need to defend
myself against allegations of not knowing hon. Members’
constituencies. I suggested that Pratts Bottom and Badgers Mount were
in the
constituency of the hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst, but he denied that vociferously. I can inform the
Committee that they are in his Greater London authority division. He
should not want to deny the existence of either of those
places.
Robert
Neill:
Will the Under-Secretary accept that they are not
in my constituency for the purposes of this House? I would not want to
run into trouble with you, Mr. Benton, by referring to what
I do in another
place.
Alistair
Burt:
Before the Under-Secretary leaves this issue, the
Opposition note her attempts to get out of her problems with her Whip.
We think that she has done extremely
well.
The hon.
Gentleman’s substantive point was a serious one. I addressed two
of his questions. His third was about how a new parish can co-exist or
deal with neighbourhood committees or existing parish forums. That will
be a matter for the principal council. If the principal council was of
the view that the area was adequately served in terms of governance by
existing local forums, that would be part of the decision-making
process. That is not prescriptive from the Government; it is being
devolutionary and the principal council could decide whether to take
that into consideration.
The hon. Gentleman also asked
where the demand from London for parish councils was. I do not know
where the demand will be, but we are giving away the powers of
decision. Decisions will rest with the London boroughs. It will be open
to them to apply to have a parish council. I do not know what the
demand will be, but the right has to be there for those in London to
have the same rights as those in other parts of the
country.
Alistair
Burt:
I apologise for interrupting the Under-Secretary
again. She says that the Government do not know what the demand will be
but that the opportunity ought to be there. I remind her about the
strong feelings of this Committee in relation to the committee
structure on governance, about which exactly the same argument was
made. It is convenient for her to use that argument now, but it was not
convenient for Ministers to use it a little
earlier.
Angela
E. Smith:
There is a great difference between the
governance arrangements once the council exists and whether or not to
create a council. The decision here is whether it is a matter for the
Secretary of State or the local council to decide. In both those cases
here, it is for the principal council to
decide.
I have
addressed the concerns and issues raised by hon. Gentlemen. It comes
down to being devolutionary and giving people in London, as well as
anywhere else in the country, the same rights to decide whether to have
a parish council. I urge the Opposition to withdraw the
amendment.
Robert
Neill:
Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I
am grateful for the Under-Secretary’s considered replies to our
points. I will not pretend that we are convinced, but I note what she
has said. It is clear that a great deal of this will be addressed in
the guidance when it is issued in April, or at least I hope it will be
addressed. I am grateful for the updated time frame, which may
determine our future stance. I hope that some of her responses to the
debate will be strengthened in that guidance, if it is going to be
workable.
Finally, I
understand why the Under-Secretary was confused and found the passage
that I quoted incomprehensible. It was for this reason: they were not
in fact Mr. Alan Pike’s words, but a direct quotation
from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Office document,
“Citizen Engagement and Public Services: Why Neighbourhoods
Matter”, published in 2005, part of the Government’s
10-year vision for local government. I understand her confusion. Having
got that in, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment
made: No. 132, in clause 77, page 52, line 7, leave out paragraph
(b) and
insert—
‘(b)
a county council in England for an area for which there are no district
councils, or’.—[Angela E.
Smith.]
Clause
77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 78Application
of Chapter: responsible local
authorities
Amendment
made: No. 133, in clause 78, page 52, line 20, leave out from
‘council’ to ‘county’ in line 21 and
insert
‘in England,
other than a council for a district in a county for which there is
a’.—[Mr.
Woolas.]
Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
The
Minister for Local Government (Mr. Phil
Woolas):
The clause sets out which local authorities will
be responsible authorities. I hope and intend that my introduction of
the clause will give me an opportunity to help the Committee to place
the remaining clauses in
context.
This
chapter places duties on the authorities that are being defined to
consult their partner authorities when preparing local area agreements
and community strategies, to prepare for those local area agreements
and co-operate with the partner authorities when determining the
targets within the local area agreement. We believe that this makes a
significant change in the statutory framework and statutory climate in
which a local authority will work. It will enable better joined-up
government for service delivery and public
involvement.
The list
includes upper-tier authorities—or those with upper-tier
responsibilities—as well as the London boroughs, as has been
mentioned, and the two peculiar but important local
authorities—the City of London and the Isles of Scilly, which
are designated as upper-tier authorities as well. Hon. Members from
two-tier areas may wish to ask why district councils are not defined as
responsible authorities. That would be a very reasonable
question.
Government
policy, which I hope is clear, is that it is critical that districts
and counties together agree their priorities for the locality that they
cover to avoid obvious inefficiencies and overlapping or contradictory
targets for the same area. In the local area agreement framework that
is already in place, the districts are named among the partner
authorities in clause 79. Every local authority area will have a local
area agreement by 31 March. I hope that no one believes, inadvertently,
that we are not paying attention to districts. They will be responsible
for agreeing targets on the same basis as the counties and other local
service providers. The clause, and other policy measures, are a crucial
part of the new framework that the Bill creates.
I was in some
difficulty in our debate on Tuesday, as I had a copy of the embargoed
information on the Audit Commission’s scoring. To prove how
independent it is, the commission timed the release of that information
for today rather than Tuesday morning, which would have been extremely
helpful for my purposes.
Members of
the Committee may have heard the chairman of the Audit Commission,
Mr. Michael O’Higgins, on the radio this morning. He
congratulated local government on the increase in performance in every
type and nature of local authority and across the political spectrum.
When the interviewer asked why that was, he replied, “There were
a number of themes that characterised the best councils: the quality of
leadership and governance, the clarity of their focus on what they wish
to do, how they work in partnership with other local organisations and
the extent to which they understand what their users—the
residents of the area—actually want.” Mr.
O’Higgins said in two sentences what it took me an hour to
explain the other
day.
Tom
Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend think that
it was irresponsible of The Times to point out, in an arbitrary
manner, in a block heading that “No Liberal Democrat-controlled
council is improving strongly”? Do not those arbitrary comments
undermine the process in those
councils?
Mr.
Woolas:
I suspect, Mr. Benton, that you
will not allow me to stray into the irresponsibility of The
Times newspaper, much less the performance of the Liberal Democrat
party. My hon. Friend has made a point that Hansard will record
and that “Labour News” will
repeat.
The framework of
partnership and the duty to co-operate that the Bill puts into place is
a very important part of the new duties and the direction of travel for
local government. I hope hon. Members will support the
clause.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 23 February 2007 |