Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in clause 77, page 52, line 6, at end insert ‘or’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 64, in clause 77, page 52, line 8, leave out from ‘districts’ to end of line 9.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I am delighted to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Chope. The purpose of the amendments is to deal with parishes in London. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary may use them as an opportunity to attack me for having a centralising rather than a localising tendency, but that does not bear much analysis.

Logically and instinctively, as a localiser and a devolutionist, my temptation would be to say that, if local authorities want a parish council, we should provide a permissive power to let them do so. However, that must be tempered to some degree, as the Government’s White Paper recognises. What is appropriate in some parts of the country does not necessarily work everywhere else. History and traditions of local government vary.

In general, the situation and the evidence suggest that parishes are most common, even in the home counties, in the more rural areas. There are exceptions—Milton Keynes is an urban area that is fully parished—but that is not the rule. After our  evidence sitting, I took up the challenge and went to Bromley public library to see if there were parishes in the London borough of Bromley prior to the local government reorganisation. I found that there had not been for many years. The only part where parishes existed was Biggin Hill, and that was purely anomalous because of it having been transferred to Kent many years ago.

There is no real tradition in London of parish government. We have to think, therefore, where the demand is coming from. London had parishes before the creation of the old metropolitan borough councils at the end of the 19th century, but they were absorbed into the London boroughs, so there is no history in London—unlike in much of the rest of the country—of two-tier government at neighbourhood service level. There is a tradition of city-wide government—the London county council or the Greater London council—but not at the level of delivery of neighbourhood services. If we are to go down the route of the Government radically changing London’s governance structure, that ought to be in response to a clear and pressing demand and proven need.

What strikes me about the debate so far and the literature that has been produced is that there is no evidence about where that pressing demand or need comes from. London Councils, the representative body of the London boroughs, has at no time sought to have the power to create parish councils in London. None of the London boroughs has petitioned or sought to set up parish councils. The Commission on London Governance, of which I was the deputy chairman, looked at that in considerable detail and took evidence from interested bodies over a period of some months. We had people come down from Milton Keynes and elsewhere during our in-depth review.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend recall the other day when we spoke about a similar mysterious black hole, a Bermuda triangle, where the demand for directly elected executives had arisen? We struggled to find where that came from, and the present provision appears to be coming from the same source. It is an idea, but nothing with a really solid substantial base.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

That is correct. When we look at the results of councils’ performance to date, it is interesting that the idea of the city manager, which the Government accept was wrong, ended up putting Stoke at the bottom of the pile. There is always the danger that an idea that is lobbed up without much evidence to support it will not work in practice. I think that is exactly the same point. When the Commission on London Governance conducted its investigation, we wanted to see where the evidence was. We wanted to see that there was a real demand and that there would be some real added value in the London context.

It is because I am a devolutionist that I specifically want to emphasise the London context. A system of permitting parishes may be appropriate in other urban areas such as Milton Keynes or even Leigh-on-Sea, with which the Minister and I are not unacquainted, but that does not mean that it is appropriate or will give added value in London. That is the key test. The whole  point of London having a devolved government structure was to accept that because of its diversity, complexity and size, it does not and need not fit in all respects the same local government template as the rest of the country. I do not understand why the Government are proposing something for which there is no significant demand.

The commission looked at the matter and we took evidence from a lot of people, including from authorities outside London that do have parishes. At the end of the day, a number of members of the commission thought that there might be merit in the idea and did not want to rule it out—I say that in fairness—but the majority of the commission, including, unanimously, the members both of my party and the Government’s, were of the view that there was no value in having the power to create parish councils in London.

I hope that the Ministers will reflect on the views of people such as Hugh Maylan who chaired the commission. Hugh Maylan was a very successful Labour leader in Croydon. Croydon gets very high marks for its community engagement from both Conservative and Labour administrations. People such as Hugh Maylan, Robin Wales and others gave evidence to us showing that there was not the demand for that form of community engagement. There are other ways in which community involvement works in London that we think are more effective.

David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate, Conservative)

I concur with many of my hon. Friend’s remarks and his view that we need to see a demand for parish councils in London. Representing a London constituency, as we both do, would my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that that evidence has not necessarily tested the demand from those who feel detached from their local council, particularly those who live on the edge of a borough or in areas of great diversity, which sometimes have their own characteristics that are not necessarily reflected by existing governance arrangements, or by the area forums, which do not provide real power and control in their community?

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point, because when I was a local councillor, I represented a ward on the edge of the London borough of Havering, which itself is on the edge of London. If people went past me, they got into Essex; it was as simple as that. I had the advantage, as the Under-Secretary knows, of being that remarkable thing: an Essex boy who migrated to Kent. None the less, even in my constituency, the same issue applies. When the commission considered the London context, we concluded that there are better ways to proceed. The point that my hon. Friend raises is serious, but the creation of parishes is not likely to be the most effective way to deal with the matter.

Tom Levitt (PPS (Rt Hon Hilary Benn, Secretary of State), Department for International Development; High Peak, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there is a wide variety of models for community engagement that could be used in particular circumstances. Surely the parish is one of those models, but the reason why the Bill singles out parishes is that establishing a parish entails a legislative process, whereas other forms of community  engagement do not. That is the only reason why the Bill proposes the option of parishes. All of us agreed a few days ago that different options should be presented to councils in different contexts. Surely the Bill is right to include the option of parishes.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman’s point is superficially very attractive, but the reality is that the Government themselves have conceded that not all options should be put into the Bill. If the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s position were followed, we should have included an option to allow local authorities to have modified committee systems if they wish. However, the Government have chosen for reasons of policy to exclude that option from the Bill.

The same principle could legitimately apply to the present proposal. Unless there is a clear reason for introducing parishes in London, why should we run the risk of the extra costs of reorganisation and the likelihood of a parish precept on top of the Mayor’s precept—a not insignificant matter in London—as well as the borough councils’ costs? If there were a real demand, or if the Government had been consistently permissive in the framing of their own Bill, I would have much more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

On the question whether there is a demand, I do not think that we have probed enough. I can understand why local authorities in London might not be hopping up and down saying, “Let’s have lots of parishes all over the place,” but I agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate that there are communities out there that will see value in the concept, whether in Hampstead village or somewhere on the outskirts of Havering, which is an area that I know well. I was born there, and my father was the leader of the council many years ago. I am sure that some communities would be very keen to consider the option. It might not tie in with what the local council wants, but I genuinely believe that the Government should give people the option.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

Again, that is superficially attractive, and I have a lot of sympathy with it, but the fact is that when the research was done, no such evidence was produced. I am rather troubled by the hon. Lady’s suggestion that the views of the local authorities, which have a democratic mandate, should be dismissed. The whole point of the work that we did with the Commission on London Governance was to ensure that that organisation, unlike the Herbert commission or even the Marshall report, consisted not of the great and the good but of practitioners in local government in the capital who have to face election and take the flak from their own constituents and electorates.

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)

That part of the hon. Gentleman’s argument suggests that it would not be legitimate for a small local community to petition for and seek the creation of a parish—that the request would have to come from the principal council level. Is that his view?

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

No, I think that that takes it too far. My point—it is a question of consistency—is that, given that we have accepted that London has a separate structure from the rest of the country and a separate history and traditions, if we decide to create a permissive power in London, we should have regard to London’s structure and traditions and to whether there  is a real demand. Nobody has yet answered my question, save in hypothetical terms. Where does the demand come from?