---

Local Government

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, whose extensive experience in local government in Norwich and Norfolk far exceeds my 18 months at the London Borough of Camden, although in those far-off days when my party held Camden for the only time, 18 months there seemed like 18 years elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Bowness, whose local government experience in south London and in local government generally is as long as my experience was short, is to be warmly congratulated on the timeliness of the debate that he so ably initiated. The debate is an excellent instance of serendipitous self-regulation in your Lordships’ House in that speeches of Conservative Members, whose choice of debate this is, alternate with impeccable symmetry with Members of the other two parties, themselves alternating precisely, too. Some six weeks ago, in a chance late-night conversation with a senior member of the Lobby, I said that the political climate was developing at least a whiff of the stench of a decaying government, which I could recall from the winter of 1978-79. He said, ““Oh, surely not, Peter””, but if I was wrong then, I think that I am nearer to being right six weeks later. It is against that background that a Government, whose earlier essays into local government reform at a national level have not met with spectacular success, are at least exploring another much more sweeping reorganisation. It is a tribute to the stamina of the Deputy Prime Minister that he is thinking of coming back for more. We had a Written Answer from Mr Woolas in late February to tell us that no decisions had been made but that a wide-ranging debate was going on and that the position would be finalised at about the same time as the publication of the proposed White Paper. That phraseology sounds more like a positive decision that a negative one. If the White Paper passes over the option, however, the option seems happily less likely to resurrect itself thereafter, as the outlook for the public finances worsens in anticipation of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, himself a veteran of previous local government debates in your Lordships’ House—notably the paving debates that led to the debacle of the referendum in the north-east—said last night, on the Northern Ireland order on local government, that there would be no new money for the proposed reorganisation there. Reorganisations of local government on this side of the Irish Sea, however, do not come cheap. I appreciate that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister may have embarked on its current review in times sunnier for the Government. I realise that personal preoccupation with their individual political legacies is beginning to clog up the arteries at the highest levels of the administration. I acknowledge that those members of the Government who most often have to sit examinations on the West Lothian question have not yet reached a pass mark, yet courageously but masochistically return to see if another answer will do better, so that the full business of devolution will be done and dusted. It will be interesting, when the Minister winds up, to learn precisely how the sub-questions being postulated in consultations will contribute, if at all, to resolving the continuing conundrum set by the Father of the House of Commons emeritus, Mr Tam Dalyell. It will also be interesting to hear if any advance in inducements is being contemplated by Ministers, beyond that of the housing offered in the regional government paving Bill. In the meantime, we on these Benches believe that greater devolution of power to local government, so that more decisions can be made nearer to those directly affected—always a sign of health in any human organisation—remains our watchword; one which, in these centralising times, is a better index of democracy and a better amulet against popular frustration. The rumours on the Rialto are of an emphasis on unitary authorities, shaded by further powers for unelected regional apparatchiks. When the regional government paving Bill was going through, I remarked across the Chamber that it seemed Orwellian to be holding referendums statutorily to set up regional assemblies when several regions had already created them without benefit of statute—a poor man’s version, if you like. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is nothing if not candid, agreed that it was a bit Orwellian. In a later Starred Question, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, whether he agreed with his noble friend on this point. As I recall, he said that he supposed that he agreed with his noble friend on almost everything. When the Minister comes to regional arrangements in her speech—which rumours in the bazaars have foreshadowed—it will be interesting to see if she agrees as well. Finally, there is a happy moment in the late Claud Cockburn’s memoirs, when, after schools at Oxford, he goes to say goodbye to his tutor at Keeble, who sends him on his way with the words, ““Up to now, Cockburn, your life has been punctuated by examinations; but from here on out you will have a clear run through to the grave””. As the West Lothian question is alive and well, the Government have not yet reached Cockburn’s sunny uplands. It still looks as if it will be a close run thing between the question’s final answer, and this Government’s arrival at the grave.