Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has just made a brief speech combining deep local feeling with an expert reading of aspects of the Bill. His speech was entirely appropriate because we have had an expert, well-informed and wide-ranging debate since 3.30 pm, as no statement preceded it. I have been in the Chamber since then, so I have heard all the speeches and I intend to comment on them all in some detail, as they deserve. I must flesh out the context in which the Bill is set, but before I do even that, I shall make one simple point. The Secretary of State, as ever, gave a bouncy, feisty and energetic speech enthusiastically backing the Bill—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that Labour Members are cheering because not one single speech by another Labour Member enthusiastically supported the Bill at all. As I was in the Chamber, unlike some Members on the Treasury Bench, I took a careful note of what was said. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) made a powerful speech about one particular point. He said, "I was wrong," and, as he pointed out, it is seldom that a Member is gracious enough to admit that. I hope that the Minister for Local Government listened to him carefully and that he might give him a place on the Public Bill Committee. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) came the nearest to defending the Bill, although he said that he did not give it an "unqualified welcome"—I wrote that bit down especially carefully. On the provision for petitions, he said, "Probably the less said about that the better," and that was almost as enthusiastic as Labour Members got. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said rather hesitantly that the Bill should get further consideration, which was very generous of him. He then referred to Enver Hoxha-ist appellations in relation to regional authorities—[Interruption.] Perhaps Labour Members are more familiar with Marxist terminology than I am. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to serve on the Committee and improve the Bill. The most profound speech made by a Labour Member was that of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), who spoke early in our debate. He was entirely within his rights to be critical about what happened in local government in the 1980s, but he was honest enough to note that there has been "increasing centralisation" under this Government. He gave a masterly and philosophically rigorous analysis of the Bill and concluded that it was a lost opportunity. I hope that the House listened to him carefully and that he too will serve on the Public Bill Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) noted, the Bill comes at a moment of crisis for our democracy in general, and the House in particular. It is no exaggeration to say that a hurricane has swept through the House of Commons in recent weeks. Of course, it is in the nature of hurricanes to devastate the guilty and the innocent alike. I guess that not a single Member here in the Chamber tonight will have been unaffected by the events of recent weeks. Some will now leave the House at the next election. Most of us here this evening have been subject to media attention that has been not entirely complimentary; I put it no stronger than that. We are to lose a Speaker. Seldom, if ever, during the long procession of history has the reputation of this House stood so low. Ultimately, the crisis is not about us, or the reputation of 650 or so individual Members of Parliament. It is not even about the reputation of this House as a corporate body. It is about much more. It is about a damaged political system that mirrors our damaged economy. We are in crisis because the whole system is in crisis. If people believe that their elected representatives, whether Members of Parliament or local councillors, are powerless, and that real power lies elsewhere—in the European Union, with an over-mighty Executive, with unelected regional assemblies, or with unaccountable quangos set up by this Government—those representatives will fall into contempt, and they will come to be seen as all the same. In a key respect, they will indeed be all the same: they will, as the saying has it, be in office but not in power. Ministers across the Dispatch Box from me know all that full well, even if they cannot or will not admit it. The Minister for Local Government will respond to the debate; I have been his opposite number many times, in proceedings on the Finance Bill and elsewhere. He is always very pleasant, rational and charming, and he always does the best possible job, as he will this evening, of defending the indefensible. They all know perfectly where their philosophy of big government, with its regional assemblies, development agencies and spatial strategies, and all the other things denounced so eloquently by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) in his characteristically energetic and uncontrollable way, has brought the country in general, and local government in particular. A single statistic illustrates the point. Turnout in last year's council elections was 35 per cent. We all hope and pray that it will be better on Thursday, but we cannot be sure, let alone have complete confidence. Ministers know the consequences for their Government, for the Prime Minister and for themselves as it all goes wrong for them—as this dishevelled and demoralised Administration limps through to its fifth year, desperate to avoid the general election that the Prime Minister never had the courage to call. The Bill gave the Ministers present perhaps the very last chance to fix our broken politics by radically redistributing power, by tearing up the culture of central control, box ticking and target meeting, and by restoring autonomy and control to local government, thus making space for the restoration of civic pride and confidence. Instead, far from striking the chains from local government, the Bill puts new ones in place. One would have thought that local councils and councillors could be trusted to promote democracy, and that if they did not, local people would be capable of electing new councillors who were—but apparently not, according to the Bill. According to the Government, local councillors simply are not up to it; they have to be managed and mollycoddled. They have to have it all set out in statute. A whole chapter of the Bill, chapter 1 of part 1, sets out for local authorities the means by which they must be organised and must promote democracy. Again, one would have thought that local councillors could be trusted to respond to petitions, and that if they did not respond to them, local people would be capable of choosing new councillors who did—but again, apparently not. A whole section of the Bill has to set out, in black and white, instructions for local councillors in case they are not capable of responding to petitions themselves—all that in a Bill that has already had some 170 amendments, and that will not be considered for very long in Committee. As hon. Members will see if they care to flick through the Bill, it is full of more powers delegated to the Secretary of State, and more powers to be exercised by statutory instrument. Every single clause is full of such powers. Let me turn briefly to some of the speeches. I very much enjoyed what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said about the expert tour made so briefly by planning bodies in his area; they spared five minutes for each place visited in Cheltenham. He put his experience vividly and well. I should also mention my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). This last made a philosophical speech that tried to balance out where power should truly lie. They all contributed very well to the debate. Yet again, we heard a speech from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich followed by one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. They are capable of going round the music halls as a double act. They must sometimes feel that they have been joined at the hip. The Bill could have been bold and done many good things. It could have empowered councils to set up new local housing trusts, giving local people the freedom to build the homes they want. It could have empowered councils to keep some of the proceeds of local growth, and it could have empowered councils by giving them a general power of competence—radical reform that would pave the way for the end of local administration and the revival of real local government. As well as giving power to local councils, the Bill could have taken it away from central Government. It could have made a bonfire of diktats and controls. It could have scrapped capping, process targets and the imposition, whether they liked it or not, of the cabinet system on local councils. It could have scrapped altogether the reviled and discredited Standards Board. It could have scrapped the comprehensive area assessment and returned planning and housing powers of local government where they belong—to local councils. Unfortunately, the Bill does none of those things. It gave Ministers on the Treasury Bench a last chance to rise to the scale of the crisis that confronts them, and they have comprehensively failed to take it. There they sit, out of ideas, out of luck, out of time, and shortly to be out of office. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join us in the Lobby tonight.