Annette Brooke
Main Page: Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I am grateful for this opportunity to place my views, with which those hon. Members who served on the Public Bill Committee will already be familiar, on the record, and I apologise for any repetition. I fully support amendment 41; indeed, there are many amendments that I could support, and many more that I would like to have seen that no one else would have supported. I feel strongly about this one, however. It relates to elected mayors and shadow mayors, and to the executive powers of the mayors. Amendment 41 deals with something that symbolises everything that is wrong with the Bill.
There is nothing worse than waste, and there is nothing worse than a wasted opportunity. The Bill is a colossal wasted opportunity for the House to consider the relationship between central and local government. We have profoundly let down the democratic system by not reviewing that relationship. We could have looked at what other countries do, and agreed some basic principles against which any measures relating to local authorities could have been evaluated. I agree with Professor Stewart and Professor Jones, who gave evidence to the Bill Committee, that this is a centralism Bill, rather than a localism Bill. How different it could have been if the will had been there to make it so.
Opposition Members will no doubt be delighted to learn that, in my local authority, the Lib Dems lost a seat to Labour. We lost it in an election in which nearly seven out of 10 electors did not turn out to vote. At a time when politics is divided, and when big issues are dividing the nation, we again need to ask profound questions about why people are so reluctant to turn out and vote. We need to ask questions about the quality of the candidates, as well as about the turnout. We also need to ask what the measures in the Bill will do to address the serious democratic deficit in this country. We know the reasons behind the problem. We know that, when we knock on the doors, people say that we are all the same. The reality is that that is largely true. It is hard to be different in local government. The discretion and freedom to be different have disappeared, year by year, Government by Government.
In Committee, I mentioned local authority budgets. Bradford has a budget of more than £1 billion, yet we end up discussing only £1 million or £2 million. Local politicians expend a lot of hot air disputing those amounts, while the vast majority of the budget is beyond their control. Yes, we are largely all the same. The Bill could have removed barriers and restrictions. I do not understand why, when we are desperate to remove barriers to the private sector to encourage initiative, entrepreneurship, enterprise and freedoms, we do not do the same thing at local government level. Those barriers will remain after the Bill has been passed.
The Government are still overbearing, arrogant and interfering. They are still ruling by stipulation, by compulsion and by bribery. They provide handouts that local government can spend, but on one thing only. How many times have Members who were formerly councillors known that the only show in town involved doing whatever the Government were funding? They were not given the discretion to spend that money as they wished. The funding would go only to the private finance initiatives or to academies, for example. We, as locally elected councillors, were not given the money and asked how we would like to spend it. Remember the bribery involved in the swimming campaign and the free school meals? The initiatives lasted for one year only, and we had to pick up the tab the year after. They were introduced simply to facilitate ministerial press releases.
None of this will be changed by the Bill. Councillors are used and abused. The Treasury insists on controlling the finance, and without financial freedom, there is no democratic freedom. The low opinion of local government held by people in this place staggers me; I am appalled by it. An example is the outrageous front-loading of the cuts. Instead of local government being seen as a partner to help us through the financial crisis by contributing to the deficit reduction over a period of time and being asked for help to deal with it, the cuts have been imposed on it from above by a Government who claim to support localism.
I support amendment 41. My views on elected mayors are, quite frankly, my business and they should be expressed in a ballot if my council decides that that is what it wants to do. I will participate in that debate—not in this place, but where it should take place: in council chambers up and down the country. Yes, we should set parameters and controls; yes, we should demand disclosure, which was mentioned earlier; but for goodness’ sake, let us breathe life back into a vital part of our democratic system.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the next localism Bill. Does he agree that it is important, even for those who might not support the amendments on the shadow mayors and related issues, to ask Ministers to look at these proposals again?
Greg Clark
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I will say a few words about that in moment, and I hope to give him some comfort. He is absolutely right that one of the types of building that communities value most, whether in towns or villages, is their local pub. The frustration they feel in seeing some of these buildings demolished without the opportunity to do anything about it is a source of great concern. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who snaffled very sharpish the title of “Pubs Minister” when the portfolios were being handed out just after the general election, takes a particular interest in this and has been meeting representatives of the Campaign for Real Ale, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his group.
For Members of the House who were not in Committee, I should explain that we asked a series of questions about neighbourhood planning. First, is it right for neighbourhoods below the local authority level to be able to promote a vision of their future? We agreed that it was. This is easily available to areas that have parish councils or town councils: a standing democratic body is available, so it is easy to give it such powers. The next question is whether areas that do not have parish councils or town councils should be excluded from the ability to have a neighbourhood plan. There is an argument that they can apply for parish status, so we can provide a little bait to attract them towards doing that. Those on both Front Benches reflected on this and agreed that if some parts of the country decided that they did not want a standing parish council or town council but nevertheless wanted a neighbourhood plan, they should not be denied that.
How can we bring together people in those places in an acceptable way to discuss these matters? In the Bill, that question turns on neighbourhood forums. We agreed to increase, through amendments, the minimum number of members of a neighbourhood forum from three—the number at which it was rather unfeasibly set—to 21. Landlords across the country can now count on at least 21 customers being in their snug to discuss neighbourhood plans rather than the minimum of three. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington argued strongly that we should increase the number. We have gone a little beyond the number that he suggested, and that is absolutely right. Government amendment 160 makes that clear.
Amendment 160 also makes it clear that businesses should be involved. Clearly, any conception of a neighbourhood—certainly one that includes a high street—must reflect the fact that sometimes the people who have the interests of the community most at heart and who most epitomise the community are those who run businesses, because they are at the heart of the community. The fact that someone runs a business in a town but lives elsewhere should not preclude them from participating in the neighbourhood forum. We are happy to reflect that point, which again was urged by the hon. Gentleman, in Government amendments.
Annette Brooke
On amendment 160, will the Minister clarify what will be the balance between residents and businesses? The amendment could be read to mean that businesses alone could drive an agenda, which might not be compatible with what the residents want. I wonder whether the wording needs to be looked at again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the Minister resumes, I clarify that he is not supposed to have his back continually to the Chair. He is supposed to address the whole House, not just the Members behind him. I hope that he will bear that in mind.
Annette Brooke
I shall be very brief. I share concerns about Government new clause 15 even after the Minister’s assurances. If bringing financial considerations into the Bill is not going to make any difference, why include the measure? I am afraid that I have not got my head around that and I am very concerned that we do not have time to discuss this in depth and understand the impact of the change.
New clause 2, which is tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, was inspired by a report of the Environmental Audit Committee and we have tried to pick up on its main points. I sincerely believe that we need a definition of sustainable development in the context of the Bill and I share some of the concerns about how we can get the right balance between the pursuit of economic growth and making sure that economic growth is sustainable. Wherever that definition falls, it has to be in such a form that it can be developed downwards and interpreted by local communities, but also, in a sense, developed upwards within the national planning policy framework. That is quite a challenge. I am pleased that the Minister is prepared to accept what is in the new clause, but I hope that, as he is reflecting, he will also take on board some of the points that were made within the context of new clause 6.
On new clause 4, I welcome the Minister’s comments about strengthening the basis of local plans. Throughout my time as chairman of planning it was very frustrating when there were attempts to override the local plan and one felt that one had to give in under the threat of costs. At the back of my mind, I still think that there ought to be a community right of appeal as a backstop, perhaps on much more limited terms than in the new clause. Obviously, there is still time to reflect on that.
I remain concerned about the wording of Government amendment 160 and I hope that will be looked at.
Mr Lammy
Given what the Minister has said, I rise to speak to my new clauses 30 and 31. It cannot be right that there are nine betting shops on one stretch of high street in Green Lanes or that there are 10 betting shops within 300 metres of Ealing Broadway station. It cannot be right that there are 60 gambling establishments within just 300 metres of the pagoda in Chinatown. The gambling industry and bookmakers in particular are flouting the gambling rules; they are opening up right across London and it is unacceptable. That is not to say that we want to condemn gambling—I like to gamble—but it is to say that when it comes to diversity on the high street, local communities and local authorities should have the planning powers to say, “Enough is enough,” “No, thank you,” and “No more.” That is why I think, and I am supported by London councils on this, that betting shops should be in a sui generis class of their own in the same way as casinos and amusement arcades.
I shall force new clause 31 to a vote because I am not satisfied that the Minister is not just kicking this issue into the long grass. There has been a campaign by London Citizens and there is a continuing campaign by faith communities on the issue. Right across London, people are sick to death of seeing one betting shop after another.
It is a great shame that the old Hackney town hall has been turned into a Coral bookmakers. It is unacceptable that countless pubs across the country are being turned into bookmakers. That is the case for every single class use—A2, which is meant to be for building societies and banks, drinking establishments under A4, as has been mentioned, take-aways under A5, and restaurants and cafes under A3. That is why we need action, and why I had hoped the Minister would say that he accepted the amendment, as leaders of councils across London have requested. It is unacceptable to kick the matter into the long grass. I urge the Minister to think again.