Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

I remind the Minister that he has now admonished the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the hon. Member for Ludlow and me, asking us to come out of our centralist mindset. I am not sure whether he has suggested that other Members should do the same. I am giving the Minister a chance to walk the walk, as well as talk the talk about coming out of his centralist mindset.

I shall start my remarks by saying that clause 41 is six and a half pages long. Whatever else, there should be a law against that. Consequently, the Committee should carefully consider the amendments to see precisely what I intend to achieve. I shall simplify matters by explaining that amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would give local authorities freedom to determine their own system of governance; amendments Nos. 99 and 101 would give authorities the option of having the committee system in certain circumstances; and amendment No. 100 would extend the eligibility of special arrangements to district and metropolitan boroughs without regard to their size.

The Government propose that small authorities should be able to retain what is commonly called the committee system, although most people understand that the system of 25 years ago is not what we are talking about. We are debating an enhanced committee system. My amendments would open up the options for local government of all sizes and classes, first, to decide their own system of governance entirely; secondly, to decide their system of governance and to have the committee system, if they are district councils or metropolitan boroughs regardless of size; and, thirdly, to be able to adopt the committee system if their population exceeds, not 85,000, but 850,000. Both numbers are arbitrary, but my intention is to show the direction in which I believe the Minister should be encouraged to go.

Let me deploy the arguments in favour of self-government. As I said on Second Reading, we conceded it long ago to Australia, Canada and colonies throughout the world, and it seems to work. They get on with it, so the Minister should have a little more trust in local government and its capacity to deliver and show leadership. It became clear on Second Reading that many of his colleagues share that view and feel that he is being too prescriptive, in particular by not allowing the possibility of the enhanced committee system to be an option for consideration by authorities unless they are in the smallest category. He is denying local democracy an opportunity.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the dissatisfaction in local government about the executive arrangements. I tried to follow the 69 per cent., the 74 per cent. and the 89 per cent. figures that the Minister rattled off when referring to various studies. I do not know what the sample groups were when those were undertaken, but I have yet to find outside the membership of the executives themselves councillors who would agree with that analysis. Most of them consider that they have been excluded to some degree by the new arrangements. Many councils believe that they should have the option of the committee structure, one that is much more inclusive and inclined to consensus building than the executive model and much less remote from the communities that they serve.

I am not an unadulterated supporter of the committee system. I am far from saying to the Minister that every local authority should have it. I am certainly not arguing that we should go back 20 years and start all over again. However, if what he says about opening up local government and giving it more choices and options really means anything, he has a simple, practical way of  doing that, which is by extending a system of governance that is tried and tested—and certainly not failing—into other council areas.

I want to make the pure gospel point that governance should be entirely a matter for local councils, but I listened carefully to what the Minister said on Second Reading and to what has been said in Committee and I know that his Department has struck a deal with other Government Departments about devolving functions and decision making to local government. To some extent, that deal is dependent on the Department for Communities and Local Government being able to show other Departments that the bodies to which it will be transferring powers and decision making have the substance and the effectiveness to carry out those functions. Therefore, a deal has been struck, and perhaps the governance issue is one of the prices that local government is expected to pay to achieve that.

I think that the whole Committee would benefit from a clear exposition by the Minister of exactly why neither he nor his Department is prepared to give any flexibility for the enhanced committee system. The amendments explore different options and different ways of achieving essentially the same thing, which is to widen the choices available to local government. They are not looking to bring in a system that is untried, untested and clearly dysfunctional, but to bring in something that is tried, tested and that demonstrably produces leadership results now in small authorities and which historically has done the same for more than 100 years in the largest authorities in the land. I am very happy to speak to the amendments and to listen to what the Minister has to say.

See this speech in context