| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Heald: Or “Steventon”. Is the Minister not prepared to say anything, so that we can tell people in Hertfordshire, “Look, the Government aren’t going to join up all these communities into one massive city.”? What reassurance is there? Where in the Bill is there any hope?
Ms Winterton: The whole point of the Bill is that it does what a number of authorities, including Conservative-led authorities, have asked us to do, which is to give a statutory underpinning to measures such as multi-area agreements. They allow councils to co-operate, and councils have been asking for that power. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North and I signed with local authorities in the west midlands an agreement that has all-party support and does exactly what I am talking about—it allows local authorities to work together. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire ought to look at examples of how the measure is working effectively. The Bill will enhance it.
I once again thank the Opposition parties for their support for the insurance amendments. I hope that, with my reassurances, the House will vote for all the Government amendments and oppose all the Opposition new clauses and, I am afraid, the new clause from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West. I hope that I have reassured her, and that she feels able not to press it to a vote.
New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
‘(1) This section applies for the purposes of section [Mutual insurance].
(2) A qualifying authority is—
(a) a county council in England;
(b) a district council in England;
(d) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority;
(e) the Greater London Authority so far as it exercises its functions through the Mayor;
(f) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
(g) a county council in Wales;
(h) a county borough council in Wales;
(i) a National Park authority;
(l) a fire and rescue authority not falling within paragraphs (a) to (h);
(m) a joint waste authority established under section 207(1) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c. 28);
(n) a waste disposal authority established under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985 (c. 51);
(o) an Integrated Transport Authority;
(q) the London Development Agency;
(r) an economic prosperity board established under section 85 or a combined authority established under section 100.
(3) The “appropriate national authority” means—
(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to England;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, in relation to Wales.
(4) Regulations under section [Mutual insurance] are to be made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2), (4) or (5)(b) of that section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of—
(a) either House of Parliament (in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State);
(b) the National Assembly for Wales (in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (6) of that section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of—
(a) each House of Parliament (in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State);
(b) the National Assembly for Wales (in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers).’.— (Ms Rosie Winterton.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
‘(1) Paragraph 18(4), Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) is substituted as follows:
“(2) A poll may be demanded before the conclusion of a parish meeting on any question arising at the meeting; but no poll shall be taken unless either the person presiding at the meeting consents or the poll is demanded by not less than thirty, or one-third, of the local government electors present at the meeting, whichever is the greater.”’.— (Mr. Drew.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4— Local freedoms —
‘(1) The Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 248 (freemen and inhabitants of existing boroughs), after subsection (1) there is inserted—
“(1A) Where the son of a freeman of a city or town may claim to be admitted as a freeman of that place, the daughter of a freeman may likewise claim to be so admitted.
(1B) The son or daughter of a freeman of a city or town shall be admitted as a freeman whether born before or after the admission, as a freeman, of his or her freeman parent and wherever he or she was born.
(1C) In subsections (1A) and (1B) ‘freeman’ excludes a freeman of the City of London.”’.
New clause 8— Committee system —
‘(1) Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) is amended as follows.
(2) Subsection (2), there is substituted—
“(2) A local authority falls within this subsection if the resident population of the authority’s areas on 30 June 1999 was less than 1,000,000.”’.
‘(1) A principal local authority must provide a facility for the holding of referendums—
(b) in such other manner as the authority considers appropriate.
(2) A principal local authority must give reasons for not granting a request to use the facility provided by it under this section for the holding of a referendum.
(3) A principal local authority must make a scheme (a “referendum scheme”) for the holding of a referendum.
(4) A referendum scheme must be approved at a meeting of the authority before it comes into force.
(5) A principal local authority must publish its referendum scheme—
(b) in such other manner as the authority considers appropriate for bringing the scheme to the attention of persons who live, work or study in its area.
(6) A principal local authority may at any time revise its referendum scheme (and subsections (3) and (4) apply in relation to any scheme which is revised under this subsection).
(7) A principal local authority must comply with its referendum scheme.
(8) Subject to that, nothing in this Chapter affects the powers or duties of a principal local authority in relation to any referendum held.’.
‘(1) A principal local authority commits an offence by failing to comply with a duty imposed on it by virtue of Chapter 1 or 2 of Part 1.
(2) A principal local authority found guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100,000.’.
New clause 17— Abolition of the Standards Board for England and the Adjudication Panel for England —
‘(1) The Standards Board for England and the Adjudication Panel for England shall be abolished.
(2) Sections 57, 57D, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 65A, 66A, 66B, 66C, 67(1), 75(1), (3), (4), (7), (9), (11), 78A, 78B and Schedule 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) shall cease to have effect.
(3) The Secretary of State may also by order make transitional or consequential provisions (including by amendment of the Local Government Act 2000) as are necessary due to the abolition of the Standards Board for England and the Adjudication Panel for England.
(4) Any order under subsection (3) must be made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.
New clause 18— Abolition of comprehensive area assessments —
‘(1) Sections 99 and 100 of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) shall cease to have effect.’.
Amendment 24, in clause 1, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
‘(4) This Chapter shall not come into force until 1 July 2011.’.
Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 7, line 10, at end insert—
‘(5) This Chapter shall not come into force until 1 July 2011.’.
Amendment 26, in clause 23, page 16, line 9, at end insert—
‘(9) This Chapter shall not come into force until 1 July 2011.’.
Mr. Drew:
I am delighted to discuss this important issue. I immediately disclose an interest: I am a town councillor of some 23 years’ standing. I suppose that
that is why the National Association of Local Councils came to me to seek to clarify the issue of parish polls. The very reason why we are in this place is to pursue democracy in all its forms, and there is no more democratic a form than what those of us who have been involved in it for a long time would refer to as the first level of representative government, never the lowest. I have been, and still am, proud to represent my community, even if I make it to fewer meetings than I used to. I think that fellow attendees are more grateful for that than I am, but, when I do get to such meetings, they always seem to take twice as long, as one would expect with me. However, I shall not take up a great deal of time now; I shall move on and look at the arguments.
The problem with parish polls is that they are subject to abuse. The most recent and well known case is the parish—my memory deceives me, but I believe that it was in either Wiltshire or Hampshire—that decided to call a poll on the Lisbon treaty. As a staunch opponent of the treaty, I might say that that decision was absolutely right and that where that parish went yesterday, perhaps Parliament and the country should go tomorrow. However, I think that I would be quickly ruled out of order, so I shall say only that, as much as I sympathise, the debate was not appropriate at parish level. The great thing about parish polls is that they can be both divisive and, more particularly, very expensive.
6.45 pm
The real issue is that parish polls are an important element of the way in which parishes function, but the power to call a poll has not been amended for a long period. I could wax lyrical about what would happen if every parish were to carry out a poll on an issue of great importance to them, but polls are not used widely. When they are used, however, they can be abused, so my new clause asks the Government to update an old-fashioned approach. The new clause refers to section 9 of the Local Government Act 1972, which allows a parish poll to be proposed at a parish meeting. The problem is that such parish meetings can involve a very small number of people, so the new clause would increase the number of people and the seriousness that determines when such an issue should be progressed.
It is easy to say, “Why would you retain the power within the chairman of the parish?” The fact is that that is how the law is constituted, and I intend not to rewrite the law completely, but to update it. That is the essence of my new clause. I would like to go further, because the conduct of parish polls is another issue, and I shall ask the Minister to respond to that point. Polls are limited to the hours between 4 pm and 9 pm, and, if a parish poll is held at the same time as a local government election, it seems rather silly for them not to keep the same hours. If the Government want to look into that issue, they could find a way to introduce similar times for elections and polls. If they take place at different times, we should limit the time for a parish poll. I have not moved such a proposal, but it should be dealt with if we update this vital part of our democracy. The poll’s use is limited. Indeed, I am in a sense trying to limit it further, so that we use polls for their intended purpose, because they have been abused by people who have tried to bring before the parish a completely irrelevant issue as a way of publicising some other issue.
That is my point, and I hope that the Minister will immediately see the value of my new clause and cheer up every parish councillor in the land. I remind her that there are many more parish councillors than anything else—there are 80,000 of us. If she wants to curry favour with all those wonderful people, she should accept my new clause.
Mr. Paul Goodman: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I believe that I am able to speak not to the other new clauses and amendments in this group, but simply to new clause 2 alone. That is correct, is it not?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to address as he sees fit any of the new clauses or amendments in the group.
Mr. Goodman: In which case, I shall begin by responding to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and new clause 2. In essence, he said that he wanted to update what happens at such polls in order to discourage any frivolous debate or vote. When wanting to update a proposal it is always worth asking the Minister about the law of unexpected consequences to see whether there would be any side-effect that could somehow result in ensuring that such legitimate debate does not take place. That is the reassurance that we would look for, as would the whole House, with regard to new clause 2.
We have not yet had a chance to hear the case that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins) will make on new clause 4. I want to listen to that carefully. We have received representations presenting the proposal that he wants to advocate as an equality issue. We will want to be sure that on the other side of the balance there is no question of unnecessarily restricting without very good cause what an independent body can do. I therefore look forward to hearing his remarks—almost as much as those of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on local authority areas, and those of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), who I thought at one point would serve on the Committee. Sadly, that did not happen; I do not know whether that was connected with the Government Whips.
My main purpose is to speak to our amendments 24, 25 and 26 and new clauses 17 and 18. We have already been able to touch on some of the main themes that we explored in Committee, one of which is very simple. We do not see why it is necessary to write on to the statute book things that any decent local authority should be doing anyway—promoting democracy, responding to petitions, and securing the involvement of people in their local area. That seems likely to bring about the very opposite of the result that Ministers claim. We believe that the Government’s mission, whereby everything and everyone must be micro-managed by Ministers and officials from Westminster and Whitehall, serves only to depress local government turnout and to demoralise local councillors. In Committee, we could scarcely find one person on the Government Benches other than the Minister who would defend in principle those three aspects of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) is not here, so I will not embarrass him by quoting directly what he said on
Second Reading, but even he, doughty defender of the Government though he was, made it clear that the petitions element, in particular, was merely micro-management.
The Government, in their wisdom, chose to reject that consensus view, which we have already heard expressed in the debate on general competence. However, in July, just after the Bill came out of Committee, they took the notable decision to publish a consultation paper called “Strengthening local democracy”, which announced:
“This consultation explores whether local government has the powers it needs to meet today’s challenges...It sets out a range of proposals to promote local democratic renewal.”
When we read it, we found that some of the things in it are in the Bill before us today, as they were in Committee. For example, question 11 asks:
“How can Councils best reverse the decline in confidence?”
“Should the duty to respond to petitions”—
“be extended to sub-regional bodies?”
Section 162 suggests that the duty should apply to leaders boards:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |