Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I shall also speak to other amendments related to this one. For the benefit of the Committee, and to put the amendments into context, I remind noble Lords that it has taken some time to reach the present position. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, sought to introduce a Private Member’s Bill dealing with this matter some years ago. At that stage, it was known as the ““Beverley Bill””, deriving from the town of Beverley and inspired by the fact that its guild of freemen was in some difficulty due to the limits placed on succession. I took over from the noble and learned Lord and, with full support from all Benches in your Lordships' House, my simple Bill to extend hereditary rights to daughters as well as sons was taken up in the Commons by my good friend the Member of Parliament for Newcastle Central, Jim Cousins. Unexpectedly, it was objected to—and, as one shout of ““object”” kills the Bill, it was lost. I tried twice more and each time it suffered the same fate. It had friends in the Commons, notably the Member of Parliament for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and, importantly, Ministers Phil Woolas and John Healey, who at one stage or another indicated that the Government were sympathetic to the Bill’s objectives and would seek a suitable vehicle for it in future legislation. The Minister has been kind enough to meet me to discuss this issue in the past. She will know that I laid a similar amendment to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill last year, as did the noble Lord, Lord Boston, on honorary freedoms. On that occasion, I agreed to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that the Government would seek a more suitable legislative opportunity. I know that the Government are sympathetic to what I am trying to do. Indeed, following her assurances on the previous occasion, I was very grateful to the Minister for her support in the production of a Private Member’s Bill. However, as is so often the case—certainly in my experience over the years—that was unsuccessful. So when I saw the White Paper Communities in Control: Real People, Real Power in the summer, I was much encouraged, not only by its references to other ways of serving the local community but also by its recognition of traditional roles in local government, such as aldermen. I thought, ““This is it. The following Bill will be the suitable legislative opportunity we have been so long promised””. However, it was not to be. There is no recognition in the Bill that local traditions have a part to play in encouraging interest in civic life, and, in particular, I was disappointed that the Government had not taken the opportunity to update one of our most historic traditions. In essence, all these amendments are about modernising the ancient traditions of freemen. I can do no better than refer to the Journal of the Freemen of England and Wales, which, in a recent issue, stated: "““For the Freedom, this is the most significant piece of legislation proposed since either the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act, which interfered with our rights, or the Local Government Act of 1972, which saved the existence of the Freedom””." Who are the freemen of England and Wales? The freemen's guilds in our ancient towns and cities exist as trustees and guardians of funds and property for public benefit. They go back to at least medieval times. Unlike honorary freedom, borough freedom is not an honour but a civic duty and responsibility; nor is it purely inherited. In many towns, the terms of admission include residential restrictions, place of birth restrictions, forms of apprenticeship and relationship by marriage. Almost every town has different rules, which are exceedingly difficult to change. These amendments are designed to enable existing guilds of freemen to make the changes outlined in the amendment, if they wish to do so. It is entirely permissive. If no change is sought, then so be it. If change is sought along the lines of the provisions of the amendment, they can be promulgated by using these procedures. My amendment creates a new schedule to the 1972 Act that sets out the procedure for amending the admission rights to guilds of freemen so that women can inherit the right to be a freeman—in nearly all cases, purely as a result of a resolution of the freemen. If the change requires amendment of an Act, the Secretary of State will need to make an order to bring about that change. The amendment will also make it far easier to alter other admission rules, such as having to be born in a town. It also makes provision to enable a woman to use the title ““Freewoman”” to reflect the White Paper proposals for aldermen, and, for the sake of consistency, it makes the changes proposed by that White Paper. Clause 2 amends Section 249 of the Local Government Act 1972 so as to enable principal councils to confer the title ““Alderwoman””. Of course, the local authority has a part to play as, although the application for membership is to the Guild of Freemen, the guild is the predecessor of local government or councils in the town or city, therefore the city council is the successor ““corporation””. Invariably, the local Guild of Freemen and the local council work together closely for the good of their local populace. Here I pay tribute to the officials in the department and many others, but especially to the Minister and her predecessors, who have given me great encouragement over the period. I especially want to thank the central body for freemen—the Freemen of England and Wales. It has shown a lively interest in the Bill and has commented, invariably favourably, on its provisions. It has also suggested improvements based on its knowledge of the state of opinion within its organisation. In no way is the Bill proposed by that organisation, but it has responded to invitations to comment and improve from the department and myself over a period, and I know that the Bill will be welcomed. It will allow many disparate strands of guild freedoms to be brought up to date simply and easily, and will avoid great cost and time by petitioning one quarter or another to achieve improvements. I am glad the opportunity is taken of creating a situation whereby the amendments may be used locally to grant honorary freedoms to those they wish to honour where that right or opportunity does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, whom I see in his place, energetically pursued that opportunity earlier, and I am glad that his interests are met in the revised version of the Bill. Other changes were made on the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I believe that the style and drafting used in the new clause is clearer and more reader-friendly. I want this legislation to bring increased pride and public acknowledgement to many more communities. Local service of one kind or another at present earns individuals honour by having the freedom of the borough conferred. No one was more delighted and happy than I when the London Borough of Enfield did me the great honour of awarding me the borough freedom medal, which I show to the Committee. I am very proud of it. I know that those who serve their local community in a voluntary capacity—indeed, many of our councillors—do not do so for reward or recognition, but that does not mean that service should not be recognised where appropriate. It is the local authority that must have a role in representing and acting on behalf of the local community in that way, as it can by recognising the service of councillors. But, as I say, only some local authorities can do that at present. This is inequitable and an accident of history. For that reason, the amendment enables all local authorities, from parish councils to county councils, to be able to grant honorary freedoms in recognition of eminent service by amending the relevant provisions in the 1972 Act. For instance, Royston Town Council wished to award the Royal Anglian Regiment the freedom of the town on its return from Iraq, but could not do so under the current restrictive legislation. In the Bill, new opportunities exist. How about extending that freedom to those who have served us so well in Iraq and Afghanistan, both collectively and individually? Let us show our debt and pride more widely than has been the practice in the past. The Bill could be used for that. I beg to move.