Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, not only to the House but to the Front Bench and to speaking on the Bill. I took careful note of a number of things that she said. She said that the Bill is not the answer to the problems; does little to deal with the real problems; is full of half-baked ideas; is full of fig leaves; is a form-filling exercise; is an apple pie Bill; is a green-belt-up-for-grabs Bill; undermines empowerment; is a congestion-charge-by-the-back-door Bill; is an attack on local democracy; is a mishmash of meaningless powers; allows powers to seep away from local people; and chips away at accountability. With a friend like that, who wants enemies? She nailed her flag to the mast straightaway and maintained her reputation for blunt, plain speaking. The noble Baroness’s experience in local government is much more recent than mine, which goes back more than 50 years. What the Government have done is very ambitious. No one in this House ought to decry ambition, but the Bill may be too ambitious for the circumstances and resources, and it may be too ambitious to achieve, especially at local government level. I hesitate to think that on a wet Thursday night in Edmonton I would go round knocking on doors asking, ““Can I interest you in stimulating your democracy?””. I know what the answer would be; I would get very short shrift. So, it ain’t what you do; it’s the way that you do it. Provided that all sides of the House recognise that something has to be done—and I do not think that they do—we can examine the Government’s proposals. When I read the papers, I noted that the Minister and her advisers have not dreamed up their proposals out of the air, but have consulted and have brought forward ideas that are broadly approved of by wide sections of the people. Of course, they do not approve politically as the job of opposition is to pick holes in the Government’s proposals, and I do not object to that. I was in opposition far longer than I was in government. We are trying to make the service from the centre—Whitehall—and the locality to the people that we serve more effective. I can answer the question, ““Where were you when you heard the news of President Kennedy’s death?””. I was in the civic centre at Enfield creating the new London Borough of Enfield, which came into being in 1964. I later became leader of that council. The people of Edmonton, Enfield and Southgate—three very different economic, social and cultural communities—were spatchcocked into one political identity. My near neighbour and friend, Iain Macleod, whom I fought at the 1966 election, had a great deal to do with the creation of the London Borough of Enfield. When we had our first election, we won by a massive majority—31 to 29—and, as good democrats, we looked at the 10 aldermanic seats, decided to make our lives easier and took all 10, so the borough started with 41 to 29. Of course, things quickly changed. In 1968, the people spoke and the election returned 51 Conservative and nine Labour councillors, and we were out in the wilderness for a long time. The point I am trying to make is that by spatchcocking them in to a situation where they had to produce an answer, three separate, politically diverse places were fused, which had not appeared to be possible, wanted or needed. It took them many years to find the answer, but they did. Politically, the borough has gone backwards and forwards and no doubt that will continue. I am not put off by the size of the problem, nor am I put off by the solutions which may appear in the Bill. Kindly, I would say to my noble friend, the term ““regulation with a light touch”” comes to mind. Before these things are set in stone—that is, in statute—I hope that careful consideration is taken of the impact and that local people are brought in in order to see exactly what they want. This Bill provides for us to look at a number of situations in the light of 2008-09. Those who have been involved in local government, and in life, for a number of years will realise that there have been enormous changes. When I reflect on my activity as a young man who wanted to become involved, a range of people and organisations—churches, businesses, groups and clubs—were not only there, but they were known to young people. Now and again when people are in trouble I hear, ““Well there is nothing for young people to do””. There was nothing for young people to do when I was young or at any time. You have to look for it. We miss the determination of parents to make sure that their teenagers are funnelled into meaningful activity. When I was young, there were very few cars, very few televisions, no foreign holidays or any holidays at all for some, and no affluence or money. If we are serious about increasing participation in our democracy, we in this House and at Westminster have a responsibility—it is not an overriding responsibility—at least to put forward ideas. Whitehall can identify, can expose the needs, provide the cash and provide the leadership, but on the ground, in the localities, we rely on local people. No one in this House has a claim that is better than that of anyone else from their experience. We are all politicians; we have all been involved in political work and therefore we know our communities very well. I look on this as an opportunity Bill; as providing the opportunity for those who wish to take part to do so. It will not be easy because some local authorities will say, ““We have done it all. It failed. We will not do it again””. Or they may say, ““We do not need your advice because we are all right””. Would you believe that there will be local councillors who, because their fiefdom provides them with an opportunity to return election after election, will ask, ““Why should I go about stimulating the opposition or those who are involved?””? It will not be easy. While I have lauded the Bill for what it contains, I cannot let pass this opportunity to express my disappointment that it does not contain provisions to bring greater equality in a spirit of civic pride and service, which I have raised in this House on three occasions. I refer to the honourable and distinguished realm of the Guild of Freemen which exists in many towns and cities throughout the land. The Guild of Freemen is descended from medieval times and perpetuates trades and companies which have played a part in the history of our nation, but governed as they are by local and national bodies, the fact remains that statute restricts the membership of local guilds to males. By parliamentary procedures and devices, and using the Private Member’s Bill route, I have brought forward three times the Borough Freedom Bill, which has passed through all its stages in this House. I see the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is in his place. On more than one occasion he has spoken in support of this measure. It is an equality Bill, designed to provide for female as well as male family members to inherit the freedom of their father on his death. The sad fact is that because of parliamentary procedures, we have not been able to make progress. I intend to put down an amendment which will provide for a borough freedom Bill. I cannot believe that in this day and age such an equality measure, once it has been carefully explained and scrutinised in this House and in the other place, will be resisted. I do not expect the Minister to be able to say anything today because the amendment has not yet been tabled, but I hope that this proposal will make progress both here and in the other place. I rest my case.