Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
2:00 pm
Bob Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)
I think and hope that my hon. Friendis right. I am much in favour of neighbourhood empowerment. London boroughs, in different ways to suit their own circumstances, have done a great deal to produce empowerment at the sub-borough level, to use an ugly but convenient phrase. We should do more to encourage that.
I have always been a strong advocate of ward councillors being given an enhanced role as champions of their communities. That was said by the Government to be explicit in the settlement of the Local Government Act 2000, when executives were created. The idea was that ward councillors were to be champions, and to fight for their communities. I would prefer more to be done to enhance that concept, with more powers for ward councillors to fulfil that role, which would enable them to fight for particular community concerns without the need to create an additional tier of bureaucracy. Unless it is carefully handled, the creation of parishes might create duplication and confusion as to the roles of the parish and of parish councillors compared with the role of ward councillors, particularly in London, where the communities that we are discussing are often not geographically discrete, in disparate areas, but overlap and are dense and highly urbanised, with a mobile and diverse population.
Some local authorities give a devolved budget to their ward councillors to spend in their ward in the public realm, or on other works. That is true in my wife’s ward outside London, and it is a good idea. It empowers people who have a legitimate, democratic electoral mandate. Schemes run through various types of area committee and forum can also work well and I do not rule out that. London boroughs are doing a range of things. For example, Newham has an influential councillor scheme. There is a raft of mechanisms for dealing with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate legitimately and properly raised, without the need for the creation of parishes. Such legitimate demand as there is for engagement can be met by other means, without legislative change.
That leads us to some of the specific concerns raised by London Councils, which has not been entirely negative. It commissioned Alan Pike to write a useful discussion paper, “London: any place for parish councils?”, which is appended to its submissions to the Committee, I believe. The paper sets out the fact that there are arguments for greater community engagement and that in some parts of the country parishes work well, which is something I do not dispute. However, the paper also sets out in some considerable detail—more than we have time for today—the way in which London boroughs, in disparate ways to suit their own needs, fulfil much the same roles without the need further legislative provisions.
The majority of boroughs have some form of area, neighbourhood, or community council structure, and many have been commended for it. Waltham Forest has a community champion in its cabinet for each of its areas. In addition, Kingston upon Thames, a place known to Liberal Democrat Members, has a long-established neighbourhood structure. Havering, which was mentioned earlier, has worked for some time with a series of area committees. The point is that things can be done by other routes, without the need for the legislative change.
The matter is summed up, it seems to me, in the Government’s discussion document titled, “Citizen Engagement and Public Services: Why Neighbourhoods Matter”. It states:
“It should be democratically elected local councillors who are advocates for their communities and represent the views of the public about the services they receive. Clearly giving councillors this role of neighbourhood leadership should strengthen local democracy.”
That is absolutely right, and I take it on board. The Commission on London Governance also took it on board very strongly when creating its report, which advocated the enhancement of the local champion role of the councillor. It is about enhancing the mandate of the existing ward councillor. I would rather have that than run the risk of the confusion that a parish-based system might create.
“Citizen Engagement and Public Services: Why Neighbourhoods Matter” observes and acknowledges that
“unduly extensive devolution to the most local level is unlikely to be effective or efficient”.
That is a useful phrase. The two passages that I have quoted, put together, provide a sensible warning. Mr. Pike’s consultation document states that
“this is an area where the Government has recognised the need for a cautious approach.”
We are urging the Government to be more cautious in the absence of compelling evidence of demand.
My final observation is that London Councils has flagged up some specific practical matters relating to how parishes might work in London, as well as other broad concerns. What if parishes, which might cover large estates, want to take on service delivery powers? How could that be set against a local authority’s existing arrangements? Apparently, parishes will have the power to raise a precept. What are the costs likely to be? What capital and revenue estimates have been made regarding setting up and administering parish councils? How would we deal with a situation in which a neighbourhood area that might be logical for a parish does not conform to the boundaries of wards, area committees, or local area agreements? How could all of those things be put together? There ought to be greater clarity on those matters before we proceed.
In a nutshell, our contention is that the case has manifestly not been made. The onus rests upon those who propose change. We hope to amend the Bill so that we do not create an unnecessary, if well-intentioned, disturbance to the governance structures of London boroughs.