|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
I should declare an interest as the High Steward of Kidderminster, an office which has no remuneration but, nevertheless, involves an interest in one context which of course is the Charter Trustee Towns with which the Bill is concerned.
The hour is late. We have had two substantial debates, and so I am sure it will be the wish of your Lordships to have as speedy, satisfactory, and well-informed a debate as we are now focusing no longer on the scene abroad but on England.
This short Bill, which consists of only two clauses and a citation, is, potentially at least, a means of improving the quality of democratic local government which is threatened by the proliferation of ever larger unitary authorities. I shall open my brief remarks with a philosophical prologue: if the first duty of government is to govern, coupled with it is a second duty to seek to
To achieve some perspective, perhaps I may invite noble Lords to retrace the events of local government reform back to May 1966 when the late Lord Redcliffe-Maud was appointed chairman of the Royal Commission. In October of that year, the County Councils' Association submitted its written evidence which contained the following proposal:
I read that in 1966 when I was both a parish councillor and a Member of your Lordships' House. I re-read it the other day when I returned to the archives to see how things stood. That sentence encapsulates better than almost anything I could find what this is about.
Having reported so fully and emphatically on the need for local councils in the reformed structure of local government in 1969, there was a curious turn of events. Those familiar with the history of what took place will remember a series of events. Perhaps I may pass the signposts swiftly and indicate what they were. There was of course the Derek Senior minority report--an important document--to the Redcliffe-Maud Commission. There was the Baines Committee appointed by the Secretary of State to examine the minority report and the main report. There was the Secretary of State's own compromise known as the Walker compromise which led to the Local Government Bill 1972 which later became the Act.
Section 246 of that Act established one of the most anomalous of bodies--a body to which in the town of Kidderminster I belong--the Charter Trustee Towns. Where the area of a city or borough did not become a parish, it became instead a body corporate by the name of Charter Trustees of the city or town, as the case may be. Noble Lords will appreciate that charter trustees have no local government functions. Their sole purpose is annually to elect a mayor and deputy mayor. They exist within the context of the appointment of the
There are 22 charter trustee bodies which were set up in 1974, and three such towns are now constituted as new parishes following the recent local government review. On the whole--I stress this--requests for such representation have been refused. A classic example is Salisbury.
Often the absence of a parish council contrasts with a neighbouring parished community in a different local government district. Such comparisons perpetuate an anomalous principle and deny equality of representation. Thirty-six metropolitan districts are all unparished. Non-metropolitan areas include such celebrated and well-known towns as the city of Plymouth, with a population of 252,000; the city of Bristol, with a population of 374,000; and the city of Derby, with a population of 217,000. That bears heavily on the argument behind the Bill. All are large ancient boroughs and towns of considerable foundation and history and proud, long traditions which are seeking parishing or parish representation.
The Bill has two aims. The first is to provide a fair, democratic and accountable way for unparished urban communities to gain parity with their rural neighbours, or their urban neighbours on the other side of the boundary, through an open system of petitioning for the creation of a new parish. It would require at least 10 per cent. of the local government electors of the proposed parish to present a petition to the Local Government Commission asking for a new parish to be created. Conversely, those opposing such a move would have to provide a counter-petition signed by an identical number of local government electors. If the petition asking for a new parish were not opposed, the Secretary of State for the Environment would have to constitute the new parish within a year.
The second aim is to permit Charter Trustee cities and towns, which comprise 22 historic communities which have kept their mayors but which have no local government powers, through a petition submitted by at least 10 per cent. of the community's local government electors which asks that the city or town be made a parish. On that being done, and with the agreement of the Charter Trustee body, the Secretary of State would have to constitute a new parish.
The Bill does not seek to impose a parish council on the people of an unparished area against their will. It is a democratic and voluntary process which I believe to be important. Today many urban communities continue to be denied true local representation when areas a short distance away have or are being promised parish or town councils. The Bill sets out to remedy that situation.
In welcoming later speakers in the debate I wish to welcome in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. I attended his enthronement as long ago as May 1982. I remember his address from the chancel steps of Worcester Cathedral in which he said to the large congregation, "Will you follow me to Dudley?". Dudley represents a substantial part of the urban fringe of his diocese to the north. That was not
While the review continues under the auspices of the Boundary Commission, which is warmly welcomed, some progress is being made. I readily acknowledge that. I also wish to acknowledge the support given by those who have drafted the Bill so carefully and conscientiously. I greatly appreciate the letter which I received from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in regard to the background. A number of speakers are to follow me and I do not wish to delay them. I commend the Bill to the House.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for introducing the Bill. I support its Second Reading because I believe that my diocese of Worcester demonstrates in microcosm the need which in macrocosm is nationwide.
Kidderminster, an historic and industrial town, the place of the great Richard Baxter's ministry and the home of Roland Hill, the originator of the penny post, has only a Charter Mayor and Charter Trustees with solely ceremonial duties. There is not so much as a local council to decide upon or to activate the care of the town war memorial and many other local issues.
Nor is there any justice when nearby Stourport-on-Severn and Bewdley are parished and Kidderminster, which is three times as large with 57,000 people, is unparished. Halesowen including Cradley (population of 58,000) has no council but the nearby large village of Romsley has a council. Stourbridge, including Amblecote, Lye and Wollescote (population 56,000) are unparished and so also are Netherton, Brierley Hill, Coseley, Quarry Bank, Gornal, Wordsley, Kingswinford and Sedgley. I could go on, but time will not allow. Suffice it to say that 600,000 people living in the old county of Worcester, which is my diocese, are disenfranchised at the civil parish level.
I beg Her Majesty's Government not to stonewall local people who seek the creation of a parish. It cannot be right that historic cities and towns and other established urban communities continue to be denied truly local representation. Is it not true that that which is local is real? Do we not want a nation which is at ease with itself? Do we not want a nation where civic pride is restored and violence is removed from our streets? Does not the principle of subsidiarity imply that local issues are best addressed by local people in Norfolk, in Worcestershire or in the Black Country? We have now adapted to local government reforms. It is not likely that war will break out between parish councils and the new superior unitary authorities. That might have been true in 1977 but not now that we are older and wiser. Furthermore, the best criterion for the parishing of a town is surely the expressed desire of its electorate.
I do not believe that we shall have the one nation that we desire if we go all out for centrism and neglect the freedom of local people to express themselves over local issues. I hope that the Bill will be sent on its way to the Committee stage. I believe that it is concerned with quintessential democracy. Perhaps I may quote a couple of sentences from the Redcliffe-Maud Report:
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too welcome this Bill and congratulate my noble friend Lord Sandys on introducing it. It is interesting that his approach and that of the right reverend Prelate is somewhat different from mine, but the Bill seems to satisfy both.
It is much supported in principle by the Isle of Wight Council, the Isle of Wight Association of Parish and Town Councils and by the National Association of Local Councils. When I became president of the Isle of Wight Association of Parish and Town Councils about 15 years ago, the Isle of Wight was the most emparished county in England, and I think it probably still is, with the whole of one of its districts having parish and town councils and several such councils in the other district.
Until the passing of the 1992 Local Government Act, the creation of new parish councils was very simple if the community wanted it and the district council agreed. The executive powers given in Sections 9 to 12 of the 1972 Act are largely in the hands of the district with the Secretary of State having overseeing powers over the necessary order which would have to be laid. I have gathered as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils that that system has produced an excellent bottom layer of local government. Indeed, in my own experience, not only in the Isle of Wight but particularly there, I have nothing but praise for the parish and town councils. They do a wonderful job in feeding just that link between the next stage and the ordinary electors. Therefore, it is terribly important to realise that there is really no point in making it difficult to form parish councils when they are wanted by the local people.
However, from the point of view of the local people, the 1992 Act was, I suspect inadvertently, a disaster in relation to the expansion of parish councils. Sections 13 and 14(3)(f) and (g) and paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of Schedule 3 of the 1992 Act took all the powers for establishing a new parish and town council away from the local people and gave them to the local government commission, thus imposing unexpected and inordinate delays. For example, in the Isle of Wight we have wished for some months--over a year really--to have
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in rising to support this Second Reading, perhaps I may explain something of my background and why I have reached some of my thinking about the situation and what some of the results might be.
I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who mentioned that Plymouth was unparished because, prior to 1832, it did not have a Member of Parliament. I am very proud that my ancestor, the father of the first Lord Monkswell, was the first MP for Plymouth.
Bringing the House a little more up to date, I can report also that in my youth my father was a member of the Halstead Urban District Council in Essex and for a short period was also a county councillor in Essex. Coming even closer to modern times, I served as a member of the Manchester City Council for five years until 1994. This House will appreciate that the modern metropolitan district council is very far removed from the size of a parish council.
My experience as a metropolitan district councillor suggested to me that there is grave problems in not having a tier of democracy below that. Manchester has something like half a million souls and stretches 15 miles in a north-south direction and two or three miles in an east-west direction. It was very easy for a decision that affected the local community in one part of the city to be made by people who did not know the local area. The lack of parish councils resulted in, I suspect, a significant number of wrong decisions being made.
I am a passionate believer in the need for what I would describe as a multi-layered democracy. The situation that we have seen over the past 15 years of eroding tiers of government, whether it be the metropolitan counties or the county councils in some areas of England, has been a very retrograde step. By passing the Second Reading of this Bill and getting the Bill on to the statute book, I hope that we might redress the balance.
Something that I particularly appreciate and endorse about the Bill is the fact that it enables change from the bottom up. It enables people in their own communities to come together to make a decision and they will have a democratic structure. That is at total variance with the way in which local government reorganisation has been conducted during the past 50 years. Following Royal Commissions and Cabinet decisions, local government
Perhaps I may look at some of the measures that parish council might take. I have made a list of practical steps that I used to be faced with as a councillor of a metropolitan district. Those decisions would be made by the town hall some distance both geographically and democratically from the point of effect of the local community; for example, the design of traffic calming schemes. It is quite interesting how those schemes can affect local people in their communities but if the decision is taken at the town hall many miles away that may interfere with the smooth running of the community. Perhaps I may mention also small planning applications, the management of local primary schools, the management of community centres. All those matters are very sensitive to the local community and decisions about them are best made at local level.
We need to recognise also that without giving parish councils the ability to spend what may be small sums of money, the community, through its democracy, will not have the mechanism to do what a community should be able to do. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, mentioned the maintenance of a war memorial. That is the sort of action that should be taken by the local community coming together through democracy to look after what is important to it. From these Benches, I warmly welcome the Bill and heartily hope that it will receive a Second Reading.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the hour is late, and I shall not keep your Lordships long. As a fellow member of Worcestershire from which my noble friend Lord Sandys and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester come, I wish to associate myself with the Bill. Not only is the measure important now, but, according to the Sunday press, it may be even more important in the future. Reference has not been made to a Sunday newspaper article which stated that in the year 2016 there may be 27 large new towns within England. If one has large new towns, one has to have people to govern them and to organise at grass roots level. Parishes will be there to do just that.
The Bill has been widely welcomed by those who believe, as I do, in democratic local government. Worcestershire is one of the better counties for parishes. Perhaps I may say that it is one of the luckier counties. There are only 10,200 parishes in England at present. I hope that more will be created as a result of asking the Secretary of State to authorise them.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and I had the pleasure of meeting many years ago Lord Redcliffe-Maud, that wise counsellor who produced that excellent report. He said many wise things. Most of us will have read the report and I shall not go into it in detail. He emphasised the point that the local people should not only be elected but represented. Their voices should be heard on the higher district councils, county councils, or whatever those bodies will be called in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, enumerated some of the jobs which voluntary people organise in their parishes. I rang my local office in Buckinghamshire. In my parish we are given £2,500 per year by the district council. People work quite hard, voluntarily, within the precept that has been allowed. They help with the roads or with the police. They try to organise the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme--sometimes they are successful--which in the countryside can sometimes be invaluable. More importantly, they are asked by the district council for advice on local planning. Local planning can be absolutely disastrous and managed badly by people from afar.
I shall say no more except that, unfortunately, today the voluntary organisation in the parish had a sad duty. The pond was iced over and the parish council was asked to see where the local foxes had eaten all the ducks.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for introducing it. I declare an interest as a member of a London borough council but not, sadly, as a parish councillor. I believe that one reason for the subject of politics being in such low esteem is its remoteness from those to whom it should be closest. I may not be the only Member in this Chamber tonight who has been involved in more than one election campaign where campaigning has been based on such slogans as, "We shall stop this area being regarded as the forgotten part of the borough." It is possible to run large election campaigns in many places, all claiming, with some success, but also with some truth, that they are forgotten parts of the borough.
It is a truism--I have come across it on many occasions--that people generally like the services their local councils provide. They approve of them and have things to say about them. However, they dislike the authority that delivers those services. They do not know the names of their councillors. They do not understand their councillors' roles. A message on my answerphone today was from someone who clearly considered that I should be on duty at eleven o'clock in the morning taking calls about local problems. There is an expectation that councillors will be readily available. Indeed we should be, but it is not always possible.
People do not always vote. The turnout in local elections is variable. I come from an area where the voting figure is over 60 per cent. However, all noble Lords will know of examples where the figure is much lower. I believe that local people do not identify with the local authority, as the right reverend Prelate said. We talk about being involved in our communities. Communities do not come in standard sizes or as standard packages. Indeed, many of us may be members of more than one community at any one time. Certainly, the more local the representation the better able is the authority to act in its most important role--that of community leader.
Some matters of detail in the Bill deserve scrutiny in the sense of, I hope, helpful criticism at later stages. I refer to the mechanisms for consultation; the comparative proportions; and the two figures of 10 per cent. If there were 70 per cent. in favour--I pluck a figure from the air--should the 10 per cent. be treated in the same way as with 10 per cent. in favour?
I daresay that the Government will have something to say about the provision in the Bill regarding going straight from the result of the local process to the Secretary of State making an order thereby bypassing consideration by either this or the other place. Bearing in mind the convolutions experienced as a result of the local government review in which the commission made recommendations with which the Secretary of State did not necessarily agree I can see a good deal of sense in the Bill's proposals. However, I have no doubt that that is an issue upon which we shall have to spend time at a later stage. I say all that subject to what I very much believe; namely, that people should be represented as they choose. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, says there is no point in making the creation of parishes difficult. That goes absolutely to the heart of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, talked about the "bottom up" approach. Again, that must be right.
The unsatisfactory nature of the current position is perhaps best exemplified by the position of charter trustees. To have recognised the desirability of carrying forward an historical local identity but only for ceremonial purposes seems almost to encapsulate the irony and the dilemma.
As a Londoner, I feel that I must mention it. I checked with a gentleman whom I believe to be one of the authors of the Bill. My understanding is that the legislation extends to London; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will be able to confirm that. London is woefully unparished. For the sake of completeness, I would not like it to be thought that having parishes lets the principal council off the hook. Quite independently, the principal council has obligations to consult and to ensure that it understands all views which come from every part of each community it represents and serves. Parishes play an enormous part in the democratic process. Democracy must be an inclusive, not exclusive, process. Obviously, accountability demands a system which encourages the participation of the electorate. I showed the Bill to a colleague whose comment was, "This is a good thing." We support the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my credentials for participating in this evening's debate do not go back as far as those of my noble friend Lord Monkswell; nor, indeed, are they as up-to-date as those of current members of either parish or other councils. I suppose the furthest back that I can go is to say that I went to school in High Wycombe, which is one of the charter trustee towns. I believe that it had a borough council of its own, although it was probably an urban district council.
Since that time, I have been passionately in support of local democracy, which is what the Bill is about. I spent a number of years between 1963 and 1983 as a member of larger local authorities, ending up as a member of the largest of all; namely, the Greater London Council. But, in between times, I was very much involved in the neighbourhood council movement. My noble friend Lord Young of Dartington who founded the Association for Neighbourhood Councils carried out its first survey in my area of London--Hornsey--in 1970. He proved convincingly that, when one asks people where they live it transpires that they live in relatively small communities. Such communities can vary from less than 1,000 to a population of several thousand in London.
People in Hornsey, which has now been subsumed into Haringey, did not say that they lived in Hornsey or Haringey; they said that they lived in Muswell Hill, Highgate, Crouch End or wherever. At the time, it seemed to me to be rational that one should shape one's local government to fit what people thought was their community so that they could have an opportunity to devote themselves to that community. Therefore, when I was asked to be chairman of the Association for Neighbourhood Councils in 1974, I gladly took on that duty. I continued with it until 1980, arguing all the time that the urban parts of England were the only areas of Great Britain which were denied the opportunity to have parish councils.
Parish councils exist almost everywhere in rural areas in England. Of course, under subsequent legislation, Scotland and Wales will have their own community councils in addition to the more formal structure of local government. However, it is the towns and cities of England which are deprived of that opportunity and of all the advantages which have been so eloquently expressed by speakers in this evening's debate. We argued both with Labour and Conservative Governments on the issue. I have to say that there were satraps of large local government in the Labour Party just as strongly as in the Conservative Party. They behaved just as badly in denying the right of local people to put up any opposition to their own often very autocratic behaviour. So this is not a particularly party matter.
We did not succeed in getting any significant change to the very restrictive conditions under the parish review procedure after the Local Government Act 1972. As a result, in the period between the 1972 and 1992 Acts, the creation of parishes in urban parts of cities and towns of England was negligible. There was a procedure
Following that, I introduced an urban parishes Bill in this House in 1984 which would have gone much further in its effect than the Bill that we are now considering. With the same sort of threshold of approval for a proposition to be put forward and a rather different threshold for objections to be presented, it would have provided for urban parishes in any part of the towns and cities of England where people wanted them. The present Bill is most severely restricted to the 22 charter towns. I believe that that is wise under the circumstances because the opposition of the Government in 1984 to our urban parishes Bill was quite severe at the outset, although I believe that it was tempered as the debate continued.
The result is that all these years after Redcliffe-Maud, and more than a century after the last fundamental upheaval which created local government in this country, there are still large parts of England which do not have truly local government. For the reasons that have been expressed by every speaker--from the example given by my noble friend Lord Monkswell and the ducks mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod--we desperately need this ultimate proof of our belief in subsidiarity.
I hope that the Minister will not say in reply that there is the possibility of dealing with the problem under the provisions of the Local Government Commission, because the noble Baroness has shown how ineffective that machinery is. I hope that he will say that this is a measure which is restrictive in its application, reflects the needs and demands of local people and can only be implemented if there is a considerable groundswell of opinion in favour of local democracy. I hope that he will say that the Government will not object to the Bill passing through this House and will also find time for it in another place. In that event, we shall have made a small but real step towards local democracy.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my noble friend's Bill has the great merit of being a short one. That is a great advantage. Your Lordships almost to a man--and indeed also to a woman, although we must not be deflected by such niceties--have championed the virtues of the parish.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has not changed from the times when I sat opposite him on home affairs matters when he used to say that he hoped that I would say this and that I would not say the other. He has done exactly the same today. I shall not tell him whether I intend to accede to what he wishes. He will have to wait to find out.
My noble friend's Bill has the virtue of reflecting the importance that the Government attach to parishes. That was explained in the rural White Paper. Today's debate has also been the vehicle for what must be a somewhat questionable record of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
Following the local government review, the Government accepted the recommendations of the Local Government Commission for the creation of 32 new parishes. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is informing his noble friend Lord Monkswell of what his leader said. The poor noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, did not know. I can tell him that the Labour Party intends to get rid of all hereditary Peers if it were ever to come to power. It will not; so we shall not be got rid of.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page