HL Deb 25 April 1984 vol 451 cc78-94

7.40 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

It may seem paradoxical that, at a time when the Government are bringing forward to Parliament a large number of legislative measures concerned with local government, I should seek to add to their number. I do so because I believe that the whole tendency of local government legislation over the past 20 years—and I am not making any party political point at all; it is something which has been agreed to, assented to or not effectively opposed, by both parties—has been towards greater complication, towards less truly local services, towards less understanding by local people of what local government is about, and less participation by local people in the actual process of running their own communities.

The starting point of the Bill which I seek to present today is a report by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, based on a survey which he carried out in my own area of Hornsey in North London in 1970. I shall leave it to him to describe it in detail and to follow through what has happened since then. But the essence of it is—and it is necessary to say this now in order to describe the motivations in bringing forward this Bill—that people in urban areas, just like people in rural areas, think of themselves as belonging to communities.

If they are asked to describe where they live, they talk about themselves as living in communities. Those communities are not large district councils, metropolitan councils or London boroughs; they are not even the electoral wards of districts or metropolitan boroughs. As we know, those wards can be manipulated for party political purposes and are frequently the subject of party political dispute. They change quite rapidly and cannot represent communities, both because of that lack of community and because generally they are much too large for the purposes of communities.

People think of themselves as living in groups which are not recognised, except on old-fashioned maps of perhaps 3,000 to 5,000 people. They like to think that in an area of that kind it would be possible for them to know their neighbours and, if they got together, to do things among themselves to help to improve and maintain the day-to-day recreational and other facilities of the area. It is the simple intention of this Bill to give effect in law to that common feeling.

Two factors take away from the simple intention. It is necessary to express this intention in rather complex legal terms, not only in the Bill which I seek to present to your Lordships today—although the essence of it is in only one clause—but also by reference to the Local Government Act 1972. It is necessary to say that Part IV of that Act contains a number of references to parishes and provides in some way for reviews in urban areas of parishes and of parish boundaries.

I have no doubt that it was the intention of the Act that there should be far more parishes, community councils or neighbourhood councils—call them what we will—than has been the case in the period following the enactment of the Local Government Act. So it is necessary to look in a little more detail at what the 1972 Act says and then to ask the Government what has happened as a result.

First, in Section 47(1)(g) there is reference to the constitution of a new parish by—

  1. (i) the establishment of any area which is not a parish or part of one as a parish; or
  2. (ii) the aggregation of the whole or any part of any such area with one or more parishes"—
A promising start! We may think that this is what we are trying to do. But Section 57 states that a district council can say no to any such proposal, and that if a district council says no the matter goes to the Secretary of State who may consider. The words "may" and "consider" occur all the time in this part of the Act, and we shall see what practical effect they have.

Section 48(1) refers to a 10 to 15-year period after 1st April 1974, and this is why the timing of this Bill is so appropriate after 1st April 1984. Under Section 48(4) the commission shall consider requests for the establishment of parish councils. Under Section 49(1) the Secretary of State may direct councils to conduct reviews and there is a possibility for 30 local government electors in any parish area to request the district council to carry out such a review. The part which needs to be read out in full is Section 50(4): It shall be the duty of the council of each district in England to keep under review the electoral arrangements for the parishes (if any) in their district for the purpose of considering whether or not to make substantive changes in those arrangements and what changes, if any, to make, and the council shall consider any request made with respect to those arrangements by the council for, or not less than thirty local government electors of, any parish appearing to the district council to be likely to be affected by those changes, and the district council may, if they think fit, make an order giving effect to those changes". The most important words in that subsection are, "if they think fit".

The fact of the matter is that we have now reached the period of more than 10 years after the starting date of the review period. I do not have the resources which the Government have to tell me what parishes have been created in urban areas, but I suspect that the number, and the number of people involved, will be derisory. All the evidence I have from the Association for Neighbourhood Councils and the National Association of Local Councils, which basically covers the rural areas but is prepared to take responsibility for those living in areas which wish to have local democracy, confirms the view that the number of district councils which made any significant progress with their parish reviews in that 10-year period and have proceeded, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to creating parishes is very small indeed. Thereby hangs the need for something a little more positive, and something which makes it possible for a more significant number of people—not just 30 local government electors; we are suggesting a tough hurdle at the outset of 20 per cent. of the electors in any given area—to be able to push ahead and get a parish organisation in an urban area.

I believe it is my duty to take your Lordships as quickly and as clearly as I can through the clauses of the legislation, and then come back to say a few words about why it is important for local democracy that legislation of this kind should be enacted. Clause 1 may appear to be spatchcocking the whole of Greater London into the Local Government Act 1972, which generally does not deal with Greater London. But subsection (8) of Section 1 refers to Part V of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act, which refers only to reviews for the purpose of the creation of parishes. Therefore the purpose of Clause 1 is to extend the coverage of an Urban Parishes Act to Greater London as well as to other urban areas. That seems to me to be a simple matter of justice. There is no good reason why, just because London government was reorganised 10 years earlier, the needs of people living in London communities should not be recognised in just the same way as the needs of people living in other urban area communities.

Clause 2, using the wording of the 1972 Act, adds a new section which provides for petitions to be the basis of urban parishes where no parish has been constituted in accordance with the original Act. This is the significance of the point that I have already made: that in a period of 10 years very little significant progress has been made. Subsection (2) provides that a petition for the constitution of such a parish shall not be a petition if it is presented during a closed period. Subsection (3) refers to a closed period as being one in which a commission or council is proceeding with a parish review. Clearly it would be grossly negligent on the part of those drafting the Bill if they were to provide for two different procedures to go ahead at the same time. If the English commision is going ahead with a review of the constitution of parish councils, that is good enough for us. It is only in those cases where such a review is not taking place, which I understand is true of the great majority of urban areas in England, that a petition under the Bill would be permissible. But subsection (4) also provides that if the Secretary of State or the Local Government Boundary Commission for England wished to override the protective provisions in subsections (2) and (3) it would be possible for them to say that such a period should not be a closed period.

Clause 3 is again technical. It is concerned with the definitions of counties and districts and adds Greater London to those definitions of counties and districts for the purposes of the Act. Clause 4 takes away the provision whereby a London borough is not included in cases where there are continuing parishes which existed in urban district councils before the 1972 Act. I am caught in a treble negative which is clearly not helping your Lordships. Paragraph 4 of Part V of Schedule 1 to the 1972 Act is now of very little significance. It refers to the continuing parishes, mainly in rural areas, which were or were not set up at that time. It does not provide for new parishes to be set up where there is none now.

Clause 5 is the important clause. Paragraph 1 of Part VI says that not less than 20 per cent. of local government electors may present a petition to their London borough council or district council. The important point to make is that no attempt whatsoever is made to impose parish council status on any area where a very large number of local people—20 per cent. is a large number—do not wish to make the effort to have parish council status for themselves.

Paragraph 2 indicates the boundaries and the technicalities of the petition. Paragraph 3 says that when a council receives such a petition it has to start to take the action which it may take under the parish review procedures of the 1972 Act. Paragraph 4 says that if a petition is not opposed, the parish will be constituted within 12 months. Paragraph 5 says that objections can be lodged by 10 per cent. of the local government electors for the area of the proposed parish. Ten per cent. is a deliberately low figure. If it is difficult to get people to come out for a positive proposal, it is possibly even more difficult to get people to come out for a negative proposal. Those who want to support a negative proposal ought to have the benefit of the doubt. Paragraph 5 also says, in sub-paragraph (b), that the council may resolve that a petition be rejected, in which case it becomes an opposed petition.

Your Lordships may say that so far there is not a great deal of difference between this Bill and the Local Government Act 1972, but now we come to the position in Paragraph 7, which refers in more detail to the status of opposed petitions: that the English commission shall—not "may"—forthwith appoint a local commissioner if it is a district council which is objecting. If it is other electors who are objecting, Paragraph 8 provides that the council may appoint a local commissioner to hold a local inquiry. Paragraph 9 refers to the status of the local commissioners, and Paragraph 10 says that one cannot go through the same procedure over and over again: that at some stage, and without unreasonable delay, there must be a proper inquiry, following the demand of this significant number of people, into the government of their own neighbourhood.

That, I believe, concludes the analysis of the clauses in the Bill. It is only necessary for me now to go back to the wider issues which lead me to commend this legislation to your Lordships' House. I have spoken about the express need of people in urban communities to have a say about their own needs in their own area. What does that mean in practice? It means that the very limited executive powers and financial resources of rural parishes should also be made available to people living in the urban areas of England. In Scotland there is already provision for community councils. The same is true of Wales. In the rural areas of England there is a virtually universal pattern of parish councils which carry out functions which other people may not feel enormously excited about. For instance, they provide park benches, street lighting, and so on. It is only in the towns and cities of England that there is no adequate provision for this perhaps not earth shattering but still important need for local people to make decisions about their own requirements and about whether to vote a modest amount of their own money towards those requirements.

There is no question of vast amounts of public expenditure being involved. I do not believe, in any of the political disputes about local government during the past five years, that it has been suggested that any significant part of public expenditure relates to parish councils, or that parish councils have formed any real threat to the medium term financial strategy or to the public sector borrowing requirement. If I am wrong about that, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will correct me. However, I have seen no reference to it in the public expenditure White Papers which have appeared during this period of time. If the system were to be extended to urban areas in England, clearly there would be no significant public expenditure implications. Nor is there any question of bureaucracy being extended. Parish councils generally work with the assistance of an honorary clerk.

The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who spoke in the previous debate, is an honorary clerk and a member of a parish council in Suffolk. I do not suppose that he is a very substantial addition to bureaucracy, or a drain on the public purse. There is no question of an additional tier of local government. We are seeking here to add to the opportunities for local people to make small but significant decisions about their own lives.

For the life of me I cannot understand why, over the period during which I have been chairman of the Association for Neighbourhood Councils, from 1974 to 1980, it has been so difficult to persuade a government of either complexion—and it was just as bad with a Labour Government as it was with a Conservative Government—to carry out what seems to me to be this minimum act of justice and to make this minimum provision for local democracy. The only suspicion I can have is that the power of the existing bureaucracy and of the existing oligarchies in local government—the councillors and the officers—is in some way threatened by legislation of this kind. I believe it is the duty, and the privilege, of your Lordships' House to stand up for local communities and to stand up for local people against oligarchies and entrenched bureaucracies of all kinds. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

8.1 p.m.

Lord Young of Dartington

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for taking the initiative in introducing this Bill. I am pleased to be able to speak on its behalf. In view of the persuasiveness, at least to me, of the speech we have just heard, I should like also to express the hope that if the speech he has prepared has a certain lukewarm aspect to it, the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply to the debate, will, in the light of the speech that has been made, be prepared to scrap what has been written and adopt a much more friendly attitude than he might otherwise have taken to this Bill. If he is prepared to do that, it will be a most important occasion in the history of an already rather long, drawn-out campaign.

In the past, when the case has been made for the creation of urban parish councils—or neighbourhood councils, as they have often been called— Governments, unfortunately, have been opposed. Perhaps they have been opposed because, very broadly, they have been on the side, so far, of the powers that be in local government; or if they have not, at least they have not wanted to upset too much the district councils and London boroughs where it was unnecessary to do so, even if they might have been maltreating them on other counts.

As we all know, and as some of us feel we know only too well, this Government are not of that kind. Tomorrow's proceedings will show that. Although I am sorry about that in one way, I am glad in another. I shall be sorry tomorrow, but I am glad tonight, because it seems to me that, in view of the stance taken by this Government on local government reform, it becomes impossible to trot out the old arguments against any change such as that proposed in this Bill tonight. Large changes are being mooted, and that being so, can we not hope that the Government and those who ordinarily support them in this House will adopt a more friendly attitude than did previous Governments? Cannot we hope that it could be accepted that although the changes being proposed here are important, they are not massive changes?—as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already said.

What we are asking for is an extension of parish councils from rural areas to urban areas in England, as has already been done in Scotland and Wales. We are asking for this because we—those who support this Bill—see no reason why in this respect England, or, at any rate, the urban areas of England, should be left behind. Yesterday I was in Devon, where I often am, where there is a lively parish council which brings into public life, even if only on a small scale, people who would not ordinarily come into it at all; people who do not necessarily associate themselves with any one political party and who see that there can be, at the level of the parish council, a most fruitful partnership and association with voluntary bodies of many different kinds.

The parish council there is one of the centres of communal life. But in what I think of as the urban village in London where I live when I am in London—it is part of one of the large boroughs that have been created in the course of time, as the result of the many reorganisations of local government generally—there is no democratic representation of the kind which people have the advantage of if they live in the country and have to act for them a parish council, through which they can act on very much a self-help basis.

I am claiming that this Government have a signal opportunity to do better than two Governments which have gone before them. I am referring in particular to the Heath and Wilson Governments, who both considered this proposal in their time. I had the somewhat unhappy experience of lobbying both. The first occasion was in 1970 when, with Derek Senior and Donald Chesworth and other stalwarts, and with the backing of the National Association of Parish Councils, we set up the Association of Neighbourhood Councils to press for just this Bill, or something very like it.

We all then feared that in the proposed local government reorganisation of that time, following the Redcliffe-Maud report, no firm action would be taken on elected neighbourhood councils or urban parish councils. We feared that even though the case was as strong as we believed it to be, and as I still believe it to be. The case was strengthened by what went into the Redcliffe-Maud report. That commission was bound to ask whether the territories in which local government operated were in all cases the right ones. It was bound to ask whether, in the light of the success of rural parish councils, there should not be an extension of them into urban areas. It was all the more bound to do so because the commission's own research showed that in urban areas three-quarters of electors defined their local community as being no larger than the size of a ward.

The newly-formed association followed up this research with some of its own—to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has referred—and showed that in many different parts of the country it is to small-scale areas that popular loyalties attach, and not to larger units, such as have been created—always larger on each occasion—out of the long line of reorganisations which started in the last century.

In the minds of the supporters of this Bill it is the belief that if local government rests at its bottom tier on really local communities, it will have a secure base in people's loyalties and interests. It will recognise not the economies of scale, but the psychological virtues of small scale. The case was partly made by Derek Senior in his minority report of the commission. He did not refer to them as neighbourhood councils, or as urban parish councils; in his report he used the term, "common councils". He saw common councils as having the function, to act as a sounding-board for community opinion on all matters affecting the local environment. It would also share with district and regional councils a general power superseding all existing permissive powers of local government to provide as many social and recreational facilities, amenities and conveniences for the benefit of its area's inhabitants as they are prepared to pay for through a local precept on the rates, but it would play no part in the discharge of the statutory duties of local government. His report was a powerful one, and it still bears reading.

Although the association was set up and was reasonably active, it did not get far until a little later, after 1970. It was joined by the late and lamented Airey Neave, who was then Member of Parliament for Abingdon, and by a group of Conservative Back-Benchers. Between us the Heath Government were persuaded that they should provide that small boroughs, such as Abingdon and Totnes, should not be wiped out, as was proposed, but replaced by successor councils with the powers of parish councils. I think most people who have followed the fate of these new councils, or successor councils, throughout the country believe that they have acquitted themselves well, or at least have performed a service that would have been sadly missed if they had been wiped out as originally suggested. Unfortunately, the Government would go no further by giving firm support to parish councils in urban areas, other than the particular ones where the ancient boroughs had existed.

The Wilson Government were hardly more favourable, though Mr. Crosland, when Secretary of State for the Environment, did at least give a small grant to the Association for Neighbourhood Councils, which enabled it to survive and flourish. Unfortunately, that grant has recently been withdrawn by the present Government, though no doubt in the light of the arguments being advanced tonight the noble Lord the Minister may consider that perhaps that retrograde step should be reversed.

Tonight, with the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we have a chance to break new ground and at last ensure that the lessons about the advantages of the small scale, which have been learned over many centuries in rural areas, should be applied to urban areas, even if it is against the trend of history. There is surely no reason why urban areas should any longer be deprived. It needs only a small step to be taken along a road that was started many years ago for urban areas to enjoy the advantages that rural areas have had for a long time; to learn from their experience, and to put back into local government in urban areas some of the spiritual fundament that local government needs if it is to survive and flourish—and I believe that it would be very much in the interests of this country if it did.

8.13 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Lincoln

My Lords, I should like to say one or two things briefly in support of the intentions of this Bill, because it seems to me that its implementation would lead to the enhancement of democratic government. That sounds a great big phrase, but it is very important. I suppose in theory most people would go along with the idea that it is good if people can have a say about matters that affect them at absolutely local level. But in a world which is becoming increasingly complex and, therefore, more and more difficult to control and direct, the good intentions of democratic feeling are always up against the pressures for centralisation and the supposed interests of control. Therefore, I think that it is incumbent upon thoughtful people to be constantly vigilant on behalf of participation at local level, and that is what I see this Bill as standing for.

Where outside the cities and the towns there are parish councils, the average representation is, I think, about one parish councillor to every 200 of population. At that level people can know their representative and he can know them. They all belong to the same scene. He knows what they are talking about, and they know what he is talking about. Local communities can decide on many things about their own priorities, through their own resources, and express their own needs. There is a very different picture where one gets the average representation in the urban situation. I believe there is about one district or borough councillor to 8,000 people in Manchester and to 5,000 people in London. It is a very different scene. In spite of the excellent work that is done by councillors at that kind of level, the sensitive touch that can be so important in dealing with certain matters at local level, where the man is part of the local scene, is less likely to be forthcoming.

The parish council level of local government can do a lot to make local government more effective. Where they work well, parish councils can be sensitive local eyes and ears for the higher local authorities. Parish councils can provide an accurate, respected and sensitive line of communication for the public at a very basic level if they want their concerns to go to a higher level, where they are more appropriately dealt with. I believe that this great effectiveness of local government can do much to reverse the damaging apathy which can easily become a feature of a mass society in which ordinary people feel that everything is so complicated, and power and authority so far away, that there is nothing to do except cultivate the garden.

Finally, may I say a few words about voluntary organisations, which have already been mentioned. One of the ways that local authorities can play a very important part at all levels is in partnership with voluntary organisations. Where services and amenities are being cut, as they are at present, the voluntary organisations become increasingly important. A healthy society throws up a lot of voluntary organisations at local level. Something very valuable could come out of that, where there is a really local element of local government to go into partnership with them and fund them, or whatever it may be.

There is also a planning issue. Parish councils have a right to be consulted about certain planning matters. There ought to be at that level people who understand more about a matter being brought into the planning field than may be known at a higher level. For those reasons I support the intentions of this Bill.

8.17 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, perhaps I may follow, with real pleasure, the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, who showed real sensitivity and understanding regarding the aspirations behind the Bill, based upon what I detected to be a genuine understanding of some of the failings in our present democratic fabric. This fabric has been fashioned to be responsive to the pressures of modern society, and yet it is his experience and, I believe, the experience of every member of this House—certainly those with local government experience—that we are constantly aggravated and frustrated by the fact that the machinery which Parliament appears to have provided is not quite appropriate—if not in all circumstances, then in many of them.

The Minister will find that in the small band of those speaking in this debate there is unanimity that what is being sought is desirable. The Minister is quite fairly entitled to say that there is a difference between that which we all feel is desirable and that which is practicable.

I want to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord McIntosh on his initiative and to join with his name that of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Darting-ton, who has long experience and a proud record of innovation and initiative in not merely the field of government, but also many other spheres, too. My noble friend Lord McIntosh not only brings to this debate a deep interest in matters democratic, but from his experience on the Greater London Council he is also able to tell us, as he hinted, some of the problems that face big forms of government, which do not always present the best way of solving problems.

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Underhill, who was in his place for a fair while, has now left, because he is President of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the largest bodies. It shows something not only for his own interest in local government but expands the dimension at which we are looking—those forms of government which have responsibility for trying to satisfy millions of people, and what we are talking about, satisfying, in some instances, hundreds of people. Certainly, I do not think that anyone can cavil at the prime objectives of the Bill.

I have a document of which I believe many noble Lords will have the benefit. It is headed Urban Parishes Bill and is published by the Association for Neighbourhood Councils, to which reference was made by the first two speakers in the debate. I think the objectives are perfectly simple—to extend local democracy, to expand local democracy and to make it more meaningful. We have of course no firm yardstick or measuring rod as to why in certain circumstances people do not take advantage of the franchise which has been extended to them. We all know of the great suffering of many people particularly women in getting suffrage over the past 100 years and the aggravation one finds on the doorsteps from men and women who treat all too lightly their opportunity of taking part in the election. In national elections fewer than 60 or 70 per cent. of the people entitled to vote turn out and in council elections and regional elections 30 per cent. or sometimes even less turn out. In some of the wards of my former constituency of Edmonton, to my shame, sometimes only 20 to 21 per cent. of the people given the opportunity to tell their councillors what they wanted to do took advantage of it.

In supporting the Bill and I hope in seeing the Government's unwillingness to block the progress of the Bill we are trying to experiment in a new initiative. I am bound to say to my noble friend Lord McIntosh that I am not optimistic that there will be a wild rush of groups of people, organisations or individuals who will be looking upon this as something for which they have been waiting for years. That is quite clear and I am sure the Minister is well briefed and will be able to tell us of the extent to which in certain parts of the country, even with the present opportunities, there has been a demand or a cry for these opportunities, but that does not mean to say that we ought not to extend the franchise to other areas and to other groups. It might be that what one needs is a stimulus or some publicity or one needs to make it more exciting.

I was glad that my noble friend Lord McIntosh quite properly steered, as did his co-sponsor of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, wholly away from party politics, governments or matters of that kind. I should like to look upon this—I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the House would like to look upon this—as an opportunity. We certainly have disillusionment and aggravation as to the accessibility by ordinary people to the people whom they believe have power. Those of us who have been councillors, while we know we had power, were certainly not all-powerful. What we are about here is to make Government and living more meaningful.

Certainly those who have served on large authorities—I served in a London borough which was large by comparison—do not need to be told sometimes that small is beautiful. We have all had experience of residents' associations, tenants' associations and ratepayers' associations and groups that are formed to fight the passage of a road or the extension of an industrial development. We know the things that can excite people which are not wholly related to politics. While we are politicians we are not talking here about party politics. We are talking about providing a framework for ordinary people perhaps to find a little ecitement in their ordinary lives.

I was sorry to note in the document we received that in many urban areas there is a resistance by district councils to fulfilling the requirements of the law and some have decided to take no action at all. I am bound to say that I am not fully briefed on the past history in this matter, but I would be disappointed if there were councils and councillors who were not big enough to recognise that, although they have authority and responsibility, it is still possible to give to smaller groups of people a say in what happens in their part of the world. If they talk in terms of expense, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey might be able to tell me how these matters are governed. The Bill says that, The expenses of the procedure are to be defrayed as expenses of the relevant district council under section 147 of the 1972 Act and may therefore be charged upon the area concerned". I assume that the area concerned is the district, or does it mean that if a number of people petition success-fully, the costs are to be borne by the area, the geographical area within the district? I can imagine some difficulty. One could find people signing petitions and putting their hands up, but when they were told that it would cost them £3.50, or whatever it might be, they might say that they were not as serious as all that. We need to look at the money business.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I may be able to help my noble friend. Section 147 of the 1972 Act says: All expenses of a principal council shall be general expenses chargeable on the whole of their area"— except under a number of circumstances which I do not see in this case.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, if, for instance, the London Borough of Enfield received a petition, the procedures worked and a parish was created within the London Borough of Enfield, then the costs of the procedures would be borne by the total ratepayers of the London Borough of Enfield. To that extent one might get some parts of a borough saying, "One part of the borough has it, so why not us?" The answer is that these things are experimental where a borough is courageous enough to respond to a petition from an area.

I live in a part called Bush Hill Park, which is well known to my noble friend Lord McIntosh and perhaps to other noble Lords. Bush Hill Park is literally two sides of the track area. There is a railway line which runs from Liverpool Street to Enfield Town. One side of the track, between Edmonton and Enfield, is called Bush Hill Park. The other side of the track is also called Bush Hill Park. They are two distinct, separate environmental areas. One is more residential, the other is more industrial. They are clearly distinct little villages. People talk in terms of the village. I can well see one side thinking that it is a good idea and the other side not thinking it is a good idea. What we are after, surely, is a willingness to experiment in these matters.

I can also think of the area of Enfield Lock, where the small arms factory is. It is greatly bedevilled by problems of the north-south road which will come and affect the area. I can see them becoming very excited about the possibility of getting a veneer of muscle. If that cost a fraction of a penny on my rates, I would say good luck to them and would support them. Another area of Edmonton, the Weir Hall Estate, is trying to get some activity off the ground. I think that that would be a good way of spending money.

The mover of the Bill was very careful and honest in pointing out that it is not merely a question of a group of people saying that they want something and getting it. There are a lot of hurdles along the way. A phrase used more than once was, "may, if they think fit". The power to frustrate the proposal is very real and is in the hands of the district council. But the Bill mentions the procedures which are open to petitioners if their petition is opposed.

The Minister is entitled to point out the difficulties along the way and to be sceptical about the need for the proposal. But I believe that any encouragement that we can give to a Bill which, although it could be improved, nevertheless would extend to everyone in this land enjoyments which are available only to some should be encouraged. I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey for providing us with the opportunity to say just that. I very much hope that the Minister will be helpful in his reply. 8.31 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, from our experience in his time with us no one in your Lordships' House can be surprised at the interest of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in local government. Irrespective of his expertise in digital mapping, he has made clear on this Bill and in his second speech today his interest in particular in parish councils as representing local opinion. How could it be otherwise? He is, as he reminded us, a past chairman of the Association for Neighbourhood Councils.

In his speech the noble Lord pointed particularly to the need for local people to be able to express themselves through local representatives. If I may paraphrase what he said, because I did not quite get his words correctly, he said that people identify with small geographical areas. He is not alone in his support for this view or indeed in his support for parish councils and his belief in their value as units of local representa-tive government. For example, the right reverend Prelate spoke of the sensitive local eyes and ears of parish councillors. However, he then went on to say that he wondered whether people would be better off cultivating their gardens than trying to approach their district councillor if they happened to live in an urban area. I think, with the greatest respect, that perhaps he was then going a little too far.

To be serious, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has been joined today by every other noble Lord who has spoken. Not only that; my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently affirmed the Government's support for parish councils in a message to the National Association of Local Councils on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of the passing of the Local Government Act 1894, under which civil parishes were created. In his message he pointed to the fact that over 100 new parishes with councils have been created in England since this Administration took office in 1979, and this without using his powers of direction set out in Section 49(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows well.

Two thirds of those new parishes are in areas which were urban districts or boroughs before the local government reorganisation in 1974. That again should not surprise us: before 1974, the rural areas were already "parished" but the Local Government Act 1972 essentially abolished the differences between urban and rural areas outside London and made possible the extension of the parish council system to urban areas. Thus it is in the "unparished" areas of former urban districts and boroughs that the greatest scope for creation of new parishes exists.

The very fact of the creation of so many new parishes is in itself evidence that the present procedure for the creation of parishes is working, and working well, in urban and rural areas alike, wherever local need is established following a proper review. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, that parish reviews began only in 1978–79 after the local government boundary commission embarked on a massive programme of electoral reviews since 1974, when the Act effectively came into operation. Thus we have nothing to compare this situation with. But I take his point.

The procedure for the review of parishes was established in the Local Government Act 1972, which gave the initiative to the district councils, which were charged with the duty of keeping the parish arrangements in their districts under review at all times. Under a different Administration, guidelines for the carrying out of reviews by district councils were laid down in the Department of the Environment's circular 121/77. Those guidelines pointed to the importance of local opinion as a prime factor to be taken into account in considering changes in parish arrangements, including the creation of new parishes. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in this Bill would have Parliament create a second, parallel, complex procedure for the creation of those new parishes. But I really must ask him directly, what is the point?

The noble Lord said in his speech that the current procedures were not going fast enough. I am not sure whether he actually said that, but I have a feeling that he implied it. I can tell him that progress is going on steadily by local councils filling a proper role. In answer to the noble Lord's direct question, two-thirds of the 36 metropolitan district councils have carried out a review, initiated one or indicated that they are undertaking a review. I can go along with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, at least in so far as I applaud that. But the Government see that as evidence that the current situation is good and the current procedures are working well. They see no need whatsoever to tamper with arrangements which are so working.

London is, as it is so often, different. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed to that fact in his speech. The provisions for review of parishes by district councils do not apply to London boroughs, and the 1972 Act makes no alternative provision for the creation of parish in London. In this the Act followed the London Government Act 1963. The Herbert Royal Commission on London Government (from 1957 to 1960) had considered quite seriously the suggestion of urban parishes, and, with all its expertise, it rejected it. It may be that with the passage of time a different view would prevail if the matter were looked at again. But I must say that the silence of those demanding parishes in London is quite deafening. In the past four years the Department of the Environ-ment has received only one letter on the subject. There is simply no demand for the parishing of London. If however, that were the case—and I say "if"—the logical way to go about it would be by extending to the London boroughs the provisions in the Local Government Act for the review of parish arrangements which apply already in districts outside London.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, it is better to ask a question now than not to have it answered in a winding-up speech. Now that the noble Lord has gone back to the question of district councils, and as he has told us that two-thirds of metropolitan district councils are doing something or have indicated that they will do something, can he tell us what has actually been done? How many urban parish councils have in fact been set up under this legislation?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I know from experience that the House does not exactly like shopping lists. I do not propose to give it one. I have a detailed list in front of me which perhaps I may show the noble Lord afterwards. In summary, some reviews have been completed and orders have been made and some have been completed and no proposals have been made. I can see a couple with the Local Government Boundary Commission, and there are no recommendations. I am not making the point that parish councils are necessarily acceptable. The point that I am trying to make is that in two-thirds of the metropolitan districts reviews are being undertaken, which is what, as I understood it, the noble Lord by this Bill wanted.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am not asking the Minister for a shopping list. I am not asking him to name the parish councils concerned. All I want to know is: how many parish councils have been established, or, if it makes it easier for him, since he referred to it, how many orders for the establishment of parish councils have actually been made in urban areas in England in the period since 1978 when the reviews started?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, no. The noble Lord has misunderstood me. I must have expressed myself rather badly. What I am saying is that for the purposes of my case—although I agree not necessarily for the purposes of his case—the important thing is that the reviews either are being undertaken or will be undertaken and there is a commitment by the district councils so to do. Whether this at the end of the day arrives with the creation of new parishes is not necessarily the point—in my book anyway—because what we need is a sympathetic review as provided for under the Local Government Act, 1972 and this, as I have said, we are having.

I would sum up the Government's approach by saying that this Bill is both unnecessary and wrong. In so far as it relates to areas outside London, it is wholly unnecessary since there already exists a perfectly adequate procedure under which many urban parishes have already been created and no doubt many more will be created as time goes on. They are in areas where the people want them, the district council accept them and the local government boundary commission has approved them and made proposals accordingly for the Secretary of State.

Not only are the proposals in this Bill unnecessary, they are also wrong, in that the figures that the noble Lord so proudly quoted of 20 per cent. for with a possibility of 10 per cent. against are, I would suggest to your Lordships, a recipe for local dissent. The attempt to force the pace in areas where the creation of parishes breaks new ground would lead only to heartburn.

In so much as the Bill relates to London, it is again unnecessary and wrong. It does not of course duplicate an existing procedure. There is no existing procedure for the creation of parishes in London, because Parliament in 1972, as in 1963, accepted that there was no need. As I said, there is still no need. The people do not seek to have parishes. The London borough councils are the representative local bodies, the communities with which people identify. Even if that were not the case, the Bill is wrong because the way to provide for considered proposals for parishes is not the over-elaborate way proposed in the Bill.

We have had a good, interesting debate today. It is unfortunate that it has come on so late at night and that more people were not involved with it. It is only right and proper that your Lordships' House should debate matters of this kind from time to time. I have certainly welcomed the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's support for parishes as a basic unit of local government in areas where the need for them is properly established.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke of the stimulus that a debate such as this gives, and I must say that I agree with him. I hope that, with that and with the report I have given of the progress being made in the creation of new parishes, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will accept that he has achieved much—as much as he can reasonably have hoped for—in introducing his Bill at this time. I hope, too, that he will accept that the proposals which it contains are in truth the answer to a non-existent problem and that he will now feel able to withdraw the Bill. If he does not feel that way, I hope that at the very least he will not seek to take it further than this stage tonight.

8.45 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for making his and the Government's position so clear. I think that is about all I can be grateful to him for, because it seems to me that the arguments he has put forward do not really advance the case for local democracy and do not really provide an adequate response to something which is not and was never intended to be a party political issue.

May I say two things that I quite wrongly neglected to say when I moved the Second Reading? Firstly, that the Bill is not my Bill, in the sense that I neither have the knowledge nor the ability to draft legislation of this kind. The Bill is, with the major exception that it now purports to apply to London, the Bill introduced in another place by the late Mr. Graham Page, Conservative MP for Crosby, in 1977. My noble friend, Lord Young, has referred to the support of Conservative MPs for legislation of this kind in suburban areas and small towns. Mr. Graham Page felt that it was important enough for legislation of this kind to apply to our big cities and towns.

The second point that I wrongly neglected to make was that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, had put his name down to speak but has written to me to say that he is very sorry that he had to scratch from the debate because, the time is now so late, I have to get back to my wife, who is not well. I hope you have no difficulty in receiving a Second Reading". This is from Conservative Benches and I am sure, because he has expressed public support for this before, that he would have no objection to my saying this. This is not a party matter and it really ought not to be treated in that way.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I was making what I thought and the Government consider to be valid points. I was not trying to make it into a party political matter, and I hope he will accept that.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance and of course I accept it. But really the strength of the argument is also inadequate against this Bill. Yes, it is recognised and there is common agreement that the successor councils proposed by the 1972 Act are working well. I believe that the noble Lord agreed with that point which had already been made. It is not the case that the provisions for parish reviews are working well. If they were working well 10 years after this came into force, then there would be urban parishes. Yes of course it is possible in the outer suburban areas where there were preceding authorities for there to be urban parishes. What is difficult is for people in the inner city areas, those most in need of the opportunity to band together to protect their rights and to provide services for themselves and for each other. It is these people who need those services. They have never had the experience of parishes and they do not know what they are. How can we expect them to make an effective demand for a parish review when the initiative, as the noble Lord said in his speech, comes from the district council and not from the people concerned?

I think that is the fundamental issue with which we are concerned here. Where shall the initiative come from? Is the initiative to come from the established tiers of local authorities, as was proposed by the Government, as is in fact the case and as is not working, or is it to come from the people themselves when they want this provision to be made? Nobody is forcing urban parish councils on anybody. Nobody is saying that in urban areas where there is dissent there should be an unopposed petition. I think the noble Lord completely misunderstood the import of what I was saying. What I was saying was that there are heavy hurdles against local activists who want to have an urban parish council—a very heavy hurdle of a 20 per cent. demand—and a small hurdle for those who want to object to it. So it is more difficult, not less difficult, to get an urban parish council.

Nobody is being forced to do anything. What we are saying is that the parish review procedure has patently, after 10 years, not worked. We are suggesting that, rather than scrap it all and start again, we should provide an alternative which will work because it must work: allow the parish review procedure to go unaltered where it has been started and let us actually make some progress.

The final point I want to make is about London. The noble Lord went on at some length—no, forgive me, he was quite explicit—about London and about what he described as the level of demand. But of course the Herbert Commission in 1957 and onwards had none of the ideas that we have now about local responsibility, about local democracy. All the ideas in those days were about the efficiency of large-scale organisations. Have we not by 1984 learnt our lesson? Of course it was consonant with opinion at the time for the Herbert Commission to reject the idea and of course, having done so, it is very difficult for local people in London who have had a flat "no" every time they have raised this issue, to be encouraged to make proposals. If there is a procedure for a petition and it is applied to London, I can assure the noble Lord and the Government that there will be demands from many, many local areas to have this basic unit of local democracy. My Lords, I do not wish to withdraw the Bill.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.