Localism Bill

Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

We have so little time that I am going to cut straight to the chase; I hope not to take more than a minute or two.

I speak in favour of new clause 10, which I tabled and which is supported by Members from both sides of the House. It concerns the recall of councillors. I view this as a simple, obvious, “no brainer” idea, which I hope will be met with a nod of approval by both Front-Bench teams. I will briefly make the case for it.

As Members know, the Government are planning to introduce a recall mechanism for parliamentarians, whereby Members face being removed from office if their constituents so choose. The plans, in my view, do not go nearly far enough. MPs will be subject to recall only if a Committee decides that they have committed an act of serious wrongdoing. Recall is supposed to be about empowering people, not parliamentary Committees, so I shall seek to amend that provision when I have a chance. In the meantime, I was pleased that the Secretary of State promised to consider introducing into this Bill a recall mechanism for councillors. That has not happened, so I have done it for him.

I am fortunate in that my constituency is served by some excellent councillors, but we all know that there are some councillors who do very little for their constituents, so there should surely be a mechanism whereby residents can hold councillors to account during the four years in between elections in the same way as employees are in every other field of human endeavour. It cannot be right to ask Members to vote for measures that will introduce recall for parliamentarians, but not for councillors in local government, which is just as important.

My new clause would allow for

“25% or more of the… voters in the constituency of an elected local government member”

to petition for and trigger a recall election. I think that that strikes the right balance between preventing vexatious recall attempts and empowering local people to hold their elected councillors to account. The new clause would greatly empower local people and would keep councillors on their toes, and I hope that it can be put to the vote so that the House can support it.

[Mr Raynsford]

I wish to speak, very briefly, to amendments 365 and 366, which I tabled and which relate to standards.

In his opening remarks on the programme motion, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark)—who steered the Bill through its Committee stage—expressed a wish to listen to the views of people, whether they were members of the Committee, other interested parties, or people who had given evidence to the Committee. As he knows, an awful lot of people gave evidence, and many who gave evidence on standards gave very interesting evidence. Sadly, however, the Government did not listen to the evidence, including that given by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Government may be right in saying that there is a case for some streamlining of the standards procedure, and indeed I conceded that in Committee, but I am afraid that they are making a serious mistake in substituting for the existing machinery a framework that is incoherent, that is potentially extremely weak, and that will contain serious anomalies.

Let us examine those three problems. First, clause 17 allows the Secretary of State to require local authorities to establish a procedure relating to the declaration of interests, a breach of which will involve a criminal liability. Clause 16 allows the establishment of an entirely voluntary framework within which it will be up to a local authority to decide whether to adopt a code of conduct. That could lead to an extraordinary situation. Someone who had failed, perhaps owing to a technicality, to declare an interest as part of the mandatory requirement imposed by Government would be liable for a criminal action, whereas someone who had behaved in a deplorable way—who had bullied people, been dishonest, or behaved shamelessly in the council chamber—could emerge scot-free because the council concerned had chosen not to adopt a code of conduct. That is clearly unsatisfactory.

Secondly, there will be no code of conduct promoted by Government, like the model code that has existed in the past, that could serve as the default in the event of a local authority’s failure to adopt its own code.

Thirdly, there is a serious risk that, under clause 16(2), a local authority that currently has a code of conduct could

“withdraw its existing code of conduct without replacing it.”

Ministers claimed that they would leave this to local government—that they would do the right thing. At a time when we are all concerned about standards in public life, whether at national or local government level, it is extraordinary that they should produce a half-baked proposal which has not been thought through, which allows loopholes and anomalies to exist, and which—most seriously—undermines the substantial progress that has been made in recent years in improving those standards.

Although Ministers appear unwilling to accept the case for amendments in the House of Commons, I sincerely hope that Members in another place with real experience of these matters will press amendments to ensure that there is a more coherent, more satisfactory and more demanding framework to maintain standards in public life.

Localism Bill

Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raynsford]

As a Member who also represents a constituency with a royal park, may I put it to the hon. Gentleman that this is a divisive proposition that will be strongly opposed by those of us who believe that the royal parks are well managed at the moment and that something that is not bust certainly should not be fiddled with?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I profoundly disagree. It makes perfect sense that whoever is responsible for the parks is accountable and answerable to London voters. Democratic accountability is the best, and probably the only, safeguard that we have against lunatic proposals of the sort that we saw last year. The right hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about; I will not go into the details because of the time. I hope that it is not inappropriate for me to say that Members in the neighbouring constituencies of Twickenham, Kingston and Surbiton and Putney—they are all Ministers—are very much in favour of these proposals.

The central purpose of the Bill is to reinvigorate local communities and, in particular, local democracy. In this regard, the Bill could go much further. My party said before the election that we would enable people to instigate local referendums on local issues, and I believe that the Liberal Democrats said the same. However, other than on two or three specific issues such as elected mayors and council tax hikes, the referendums on offer are purely advisory and therefore have the status, in real terms, of the usual no-hope petition—although they are a hell of a lot more expensive. There is an argument, which I am sure will be repeated, that councils will necessarily feel obliged to adhere to the results of a referendum, but that is a hope, and one that many residents of local authorities around the country will regard as wholly unrealistic.

Non-binding referendums would be a damaging gesture. The only thing worse than not giving people a voice is the pretence that we are giving them a voice. That is not only disempowering but sends a message that when it comes to the crunch the Government simply do not trust people to make decisions for themselves. I strongly believe that if these referendums are non-binding, we would better off without them. I say that as a committed campaigner for direct democracy over very many years.

At the last Communities and Local Government Question Time, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said in reference to non-binding referendums:

“Sometimes it is appropriate to nudge councils to do the right thing. This will be perhaps more of a shove than a nudge”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2010; Vol. 501, c. 437.]

May I nudge him to do the right thing and bring in proper referendums that are legally binding and therefore meaningful?