|
January
30 2007 | 6.19 pm
Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): I
welcome many aspects of the Bill, but like many other
hon. Members who care about the future of local government
and want to see it restored, and local democracy strengthened,
I want it go further. I welcome the Bill for very
much the same reasons that my right hon. Friend the
Secretary of State set out when she introduced it.
It is the start of a process, and it contains much
for us to build on. Like other hon. Members, I recognise
that dealing with the structures and functions of
local government can be only a part of the process
of revitalising local democracy. The fundamental questions
of how local services are funded and paid for must
wait for the Lyons review. Only by returning responsibility
for most of local government revenue to the local
level can we ensure that accountability to the local
electorate is fully restored.
I want to concentrate on four aspects of the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr.
Beith) touched in passing on the first—that
measures to revive local democracy can be successful
only if high-calibre candidates from a cross-section
of a local community are willing to serve. In many
areas, such people do not put themselves forward for
election, and the sad fact is that the average age
of councillors is now somewhere in the late 50s, with
barely one in eight under the age of 45.
All political parties find it difficult to get younger
people to stand. Women remain under-represented in
many local authorities, and minority groups often
do not get a look in. Equally, the calibre of council
candidates presents an enormous challenge. All parties
will admit privately—and some of them will do
so publicly—that in many areas it is difficult
to get effective local people to put themselves forward
as candidates, or to stand for a second term. Far
too often, people will serve one term and then decide
to go and do something useful—to “get
a life”, as some have expressed it. I served
on a local council for 30 years, and I have some sympathy
for them. Perhaps I was the one who did not get away.
Anne Main:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people do not choose
to serve more than one term because they are accused
of not delivering to the public, even though they
have very few powers and often just have to deliver
what the Government ask them to? They get all that
public hatred, and have no power to do anything about
it.
Sir Peter Soulsby: Many local councillors share that
perception, but the problem also stems in part from
the denigration and undermining of local government
that took place under the previous Conservative Government.
That has contributed to the present low morale among
members of local government.
Mark Pritchard (The
Wrekin) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman agree
that the Standards Board for England has done a lot
to undermine the confidence of people who become councillors?
Does he accept that the Bill does not go far enough
in effecting root-and-branch reform of the board,
and how would he put that right?
Sir Peter Soulsby:
I believe that the Standards Board has done an enormous
amount to raise standards in local government. I welcome
that, as I do the reforms proposed in the Bill to
strengthen the mechanisms for ensuring that the very
highest levels of probity are maintained throughout
local government.
People must perceive the local councillor’s
role as worth while. The Bill addresses that problem
to some extent, but for some years now the scrutiny
function has been undervalued and under-resourced.
Too often, those councillors consigned to the scrutiny
role have felt impotent and unable to affect anything
that matters. Scrutiny is regarded as an answer to
the question, “What do we do with councillors
who aren’t in the cabinet?” It is not
considered to be something that has a value in itself.
I welcome the provisions that give more support to
help councillors to serve their constituents.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does
my hon. Friend agree that people will not get involved
in politics, and take the scrutiny role seriously,
unless they feel that they can change decisions that
have been taken? The weakness of the system introduced—unfortunately—by
this Government is that the scrutiny role is regarded
in most councils as the poor relation to a cabinet
position, and that is because people involved in scrutiny
cannot affect the outcome of cabinet decisions.
Sir Peter Soulsby:
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I welcome the
measures to strengthen the scrutiny role, but I am
firmly of the opinion that councillors need to feel
that they have something worth while to do, regardless
of their authority’s leadership structure. They
must be able to initiate policy and to make real decisions
that have an impact on their constituents. I welcome
the changes proposed, but the Government could do
much more to enable councillors to feel that they
can make a difference, whatever their role.
Clive Efford (Eltham)
(Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that we
should consider how people value the councillor’s
role? If that role is diminished, so that councillors
are unable to direct policy and make big decisions,
will not people feel that the value of turning out
and voting is also diminished?
Sir Peter Soulsby:
Yes. I have no doubt that the way in which candidates
and councillors see their role has an impact on how
people regard their responsibility to vote in local
elections. We must encourage people to vote, and ensure
that those who are minded to put themselves forward
feel that they are performing a useful function.
Mr. Burrowes:
Does the hon. Gentleman share my profound concern
that the option of a committee structure is, with
some exceptions, excluded from the Bill? The committee
structure gave new councillors an obvious way to hold
a local executive to account, and helped members of
the public to know what was going on in their council.
Sir Peter Soulsby:
The hon. Gentleman must have been reading my notes,
as I shall come to that in a few moments.
If we are to have strong councils, we need good councillors.
Getting them represents a challenge for the Government,
local authorities, the Local Government Association,
the Improvement and Development Agency, and for the
political parties. We must do all that we can to encourage
good-calibre people to come forward, and to ensure
that they perform a useful function when they are
elected.
The second aspect of the Bill about which I want to
speak has to do with the leadership of local councils.
The cabinet system—and I have referred already
to the scrutiny element—has been less than completely
successful in achieving its stated aims, which included
making decisions more transparent, timely and effective.
The system was designed to give the public at large
a clearer view of what was happening in a local authority,
and to enable authorities in turn to provide leadership
to their communities. Although it may have worked
in some areas, it did not work everywhere and it is
certainly not a model that some local authorities
have been able to use as effectively as its original
proponents hoped.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton,
North) (Lab): I am most interested in what
my hon. Friend is saying, but was not the reform that
created the cabinet system deliberately intended to
shift power from the back benches to the leadership
of councils? I am not saying that I agree with that,
but has not the reform been effective?
Sir Peter Soulsby:
The reform may have been effective in the way my hon.
Friend suggests, although I do not recall that result
being proposed as the original justification. The
justification for the reform was as I have described,
but the results were often counter-productive of the
originally stated aims. It has often produced decision
making that is less accountable and less transparent,
and left local people less connected with their local
authorities than before.
Mr. Kevan Jones:
I used to be on a finance committee, where we could
stop and change decisions, and question officers about
the issues. In most local authorities that system
has ended and the reasons for decisions are now shrouded
in mystery. Does my hon. Friend agree that the effect
of that change has been to give not only some councillors
but, more worryingly, unelected officers more power?
Sir Peter Soulsby:
I chaired many local government committees and chaired
the policy and resources committee for a number of
years. I certainly felt much more accountable as the
chair of the policy and resources committee than could
ever be the case for councillors who serve in the
cabinet of the local authority of which I was once
a member. The old committee system had many failings,
but it provided clarity of decision making. It was
clear who was taking the decision and there were mechanisms
for accountability of decision making. Members of
other parties could hold to account the majority group,
which chaired the committee and often made the proposals.
The system had many strengths alongside some undoubted
weaknesses.
I welcome the Government’s intention in general
terms to provide clearer leadership in local government,
but I have reservations about the choices offered.
I share some of the reservations expressed by other
Members. I suspect that, when faced with the choices
that the Government propose, the majority of local
authorities will opt for the model they consider nearest
the status quo. There are many vested interests in
most local authorities that will lead them to do that.
Inevitably, the option that most will take is for
a leader with a four-year term. I suspect that that
proposed change will prove little more than an illusion
when we consider the reality behind it.
Nothing in the Bill will prevent a political group
in the privacy of a group room from changing its leader
whenever it chooses and by whatever mechanism it chooses.
In most circumstances, that change of leadership and
the loss of confidence implied will have to result
in a change of council leadership, whatever the mechanism
for achieving such a change.
Loss of confidence in the majority political group
would inevitably result in a change of council leadership,
too, and mechanisms would have to be devised to ensure
that that is possible. There would be very little
difference from the current situation. I say that
as someone who survived 17 annual general meetings.
The council leader only ever had one-year terms—from
one AGM to the next—and I suspect that the result
of the Government’s option will be little different.
Kelvin Hopkins:
I congratulate my hon. Friend on surviving 17 AGMs—he
must have been a splendid council leader to inspire
such confidence—but does not that demonstrate
that the system was much more democratic, which engendered
enthusiasm for it among councillors and political
parties? Does he agree that returning to the traditional
committee system that we enjoyed in the past is one
possibility that could be offered?
Sir Peter Soulsby:
My notes must have been shared among my hon.
Friends as well as with Opposition Members; my hon.
Friend expresses precisely my view.
I want to say a little about directly elected mayors,
as I feel the Government ought to press that option
more strongly, and it should be encouraged in more
urban areas. It is a legitimate option in the present
situation. Direct election of a mayor, with proper
mechanisms for accountability, could provide a person
with a clear mandate to take bold decisions, who was
able to foster partnerships with others in the community
on equal terms and provide the clear community leadership
that was possible but not always easy in the traditional
system.
Mr. Stewart Jackson
(Peterborough) (Con): I defer to the hon.
Gentleman’s greater local government experience—I
served for only eight years on a London borough. I
hope that the Whips are not listening, because I agree
with almost everything he has said, which is dangerous
for both of us. Does he agree, however, that directly
elected mayors have failed to catch the public imagination?
Turnouts in referendums and mayoral ballots have been
extremely low and the system has not hit it off with
the electorate, so does he agree that the Government
should conclude that it is not the British way—that
it has not worked and should not be tried in the future?
Sir Peter Soulsby:
I was not proposing directly elected mayors as a panacea
for all the ills of local government. As I indicated
in my opening remarks, the funding of local government
is a fundamental issue, but directly elected mayors
would be appropriate in some areas and, as I have
suggested in responses to other interventions, if
a choice is to be given, there should be the option
of returning to a structure much more akin to the
one with which those of us who began in local government
many years ago are familiar. I acknowledge that improvements
to the committee system could be made, and that a
degree of executive authority could be given to the
chairs of committees, but if options are to be given,
the two that would be most appealing in terms of revitalising
local government are the directly elected mayor and
something akin to the former committee system.
Joan Walley: As
my hon. Friend feels that an elected mayor would be
most in the interests of democracy, will he tell us
how that would be consistent with encouraging people,
young and old, to stand as election for local councillors
and to be responsible for strategic decisions, not
just for spending a small pot of community money?
Sir Peter Soulsby:
The option would be perfectly compatible
with that aim. Alongside a directly elected mayor
must be a properly empowered council to which the
mayor is accountable, and which provides a budget
and approves strategic plans. The role of an elected
mayor can be compatible with a strengthened role for
back-bench council members.
As one of the Members representing the city of Leicester,
my third point is of particular concern to me but
will be familiar to many other Members who represent
urban areas with tightly drawn boundaries. Boundaries
in Leicester and in many local authorities throughout
the United Kingdom surround the conurbations of many
decades ago and are far too tightly drawn for modern
needs. Clearly, the Bill will not deal with the issue
of boundaries—I would not expect it to—but
the problems of the urban core can still only be properly
addressed outside their very confined boundaries.
Similarly, the potential of those areas can be fully
achieved only beyond those confined boundaries of
local government areas, which are now long out of
date.
I welcome the requirements for local partnerships
and widespread agreements, but the fact remains that,
if a local authority is to respond effectively to
problems and fulfil opportunities at the urban core,
it must be able to insist on the co-operation of its
neighbours. I hope that, as the Bill receives further
consideration, it will be possible to look at ways
in which councils at the core of urban areas can be
equipped to require their neighbours, whose concerns
may be more parochial, to co-operate in addressing
what ought to be common problems.
My fourth point has inevitably not had much attention
today; I refer to the proposals to establish LINKs.
I have reservations about the abolition of the patients
forums. I believe that their work could have been
built on rather than replaced by LINKs. Some fundamental
questions about LINKs need to be addressed. First,
we need to address how they will be funded and ensure
that they are adequately funded. We must ensure that
the Nolan principles are applied to them. As far as
possible, existing members of forums should be enabled
to take part in LINKs. We also need to ensure that
they have adequate access to information and details
on the workings of those whose work they will be monitoring.
Only with those safeguards and associated powers will
LINKs have the credibility that the Government hope
for them.
To conclude, despite all I have said, there is much
in the Bill to be welcomed. It takes some important
steps forward towards revitalising and re-empowering
local democracy, but I hope that the Secretary of
State and Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have
noticed the number of Members on both sides of the
Chamber who have made what I hope the Government will
view as helpful and constructive suggestions on ways
in which the Bill can be strengthened. I hope that
the Secretary of State and her colleagues will be
sympathetic to the improvements suggested in this
debate, which will no doubt be put forward in Committee.
|