| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): This is a history lesson.
Mr. Prescott: Yes, it is. I want to remind the Opposition of the policies that the Conservative Government imposed. The electorate should remember what 18 years of Tory Government did to local government services, transport and the countryside.
Local authorities now have a secure basis on which to plan. For the first time in years, no capping limits have been announced in advance and no councils have been capped. That never happened under a Tory Government, but it has happened under this Labour Government.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire):
If the right hon. Gentleman is so determined to return local democracy to local people and local councils, will he allow local authorities a fourth option in the forthcoming reorganisation of local government? That would be to retain a system akin to--or a slight modification of--the current committee system?
Mr. Prescott:
I advise the hon. Gentleman to wait until the Bill is published. Such questions will be answered then.
We have replaced the restrictive practice of compulsory competitive tendering introduced by the previous Administration with a duty to provide best value. That will improve the effectiveness of all local authority services in giving a better deal to local people. The proposal has been welcomed by Tory as well as Labour local authorities. The emphasis will be on the quality of services provided to local people, not on the least cost--the great obsession of the previous Administration until the poll tax, which was about maximum cost and very little benefit.
The third new local government Bill announced in the Queen's Speech will continue our campaign to modernise local government. We are committed to local government that is open, accountable and which secures the delivery of efficient and high-quality services. It will enable people to make choices about how they are governed. If they want a mayor, they will be able to say so in a referendum.
The Bill will also tackle sleaze and introduce a new ethical framework and statutory code of conduct for councillors. I am sure that that will be welcomed by all parties. There will be a bond of trust between the community and those who represent them--an essential requirement for confidence in local government. The conduct of everyone in local government--councillors and officers--must be of the highest standards. The Bill will also give local authorities a new power to promote the social, economic and environmental well-being of their communities.
The Bill will also tackle the culture of intolerance, fear and ignorance created by section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. No decent person should tolerate the marginalisation and exclusion from society that section 28 promotes. However, I make it clear that repeal of that measure will not provide a licence for abuse. We will not tolerate such things and we will be tough on any such offensives. However, this is a matter of social justice: there is no place in any fair society for the intolerance, fear and ignorance brought by section 28. It has no place in a modern Britain.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that intolerance of people with minority life styles is entirely inappropriate. However, does he agree that the purpose of section 28 was not to promote intolerance, but to prevent the active promotion, in the classroom and elsewhere, of homosexuality as a way of life?
Mr. Prescott:
That was the intention; it was a fair and proper intention. The difficulty has been that the fear of prosecution has prohibited people from talking about the difficulties that youngsters face during puberty and the development of their sexuality. That is what it is about and it is a difficult balance--I will not say that it is easy. People have strong views about the matter and I understand that. The Government's judgment is that section 28 does not help in that process and that we need to repeal it--and, indeed, we shall.
Another matter with which the previous Administration failed to deal--there was much talk about it and they made one or two efforts but failed to do anything--is leasehold reform. For 18 years, the Tories failed to do
anything about local government; we are delivering. Similarly, for years they talked a lot but failed to deliver on effective leasehold reform, allowing unscrupulous freeholders to continue to exploit leaseholders. In contrast, we are delivering. Our Bill will reform the present leasehold system to give leaseholders a fairer deal. It will extend choice and make it easier for leaseholders collectively to buy their freehold and it will give them the right to manage their own building. Alongside that, we will create a new type of tenancy, commonhold, which will allow people collectively to own and manage their building from the outset, without the need for a separate freehold.
Those reforms will modernise housing tenure. They are difficult legal concepts, as hon. Members on both sides of the House are well aware. During the consultation process for the Bill we received many highly complex legal proposals, to which we are addressing ourselves. Through the draft Bill outlined in the Queen's Speech, the House can begin to take the first steps to reform leasehold, which is creating a great deal of social injustice in housing.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
That is an important and complex issue. The problems associated with leasehold in the south are different from those of long-term leasehold in the north--where there are long-term rentals with minimum conditions, but the new freeholders are pressurising many elderly people. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the legislation will deal with those two very different types of problem, given the complexities to which he referred?
Mr. Prescott:
I am well aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. I fought as a candidate for the Southport constituency in 1966. While not all constituencies have problems with leasehold, Southport certainly did. It is a matter of grave concern. The problems are different throughout the country, which is why we embarked on the consultation process and the draft Bill. The House will have an opportunity to continue the debate. My hon. Friend has discussed the matter with Ministers and we will continue to discuss it. We do not underestimate the difficulties and the legal complexities. However, one has to make a decision at the end of the day. We want to deal with all the ramifications. That is our intention in the Bill and it will be welcomed by all concerned.
Mr. Bercow:
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and I apologise for asking him to press the rewind button. Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman said that the substitution of the so-called best-value approach for that of compulsory competitive tendering had been widely welcomed by a variety of local authorities, thereby apparently proving that the producer interests, at least, were on his side. Can he provide a single example of an end user who has welcomed the proposal?
Mr. Prescott:
Yes, an awful lot of bodies that represent consumers and actual people in various areas have said that the measure is welcome. They have pointed out that, taking into account the full costs involved in compulsory competitive tendering--social costs, wages and value--it was worse for the taxpayer, who ended up paying a great deal more. The National Consumer Council, which is a
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North):
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene so quickly after two other interventions. I welcome the Government's commitment to the introduction of leasehold reform and commonhold. Is he aware that perhaps one area of agreement with the Leader of the Opposition did not become apparent in the Chamber yesterday? Leasehold reform will be particularly welcome in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where there are about 27,000 leaseholders. The right hon. Gentleman might have welcomed the Government's commitment to reform because the electorate there will be so grateful for it that they may keep him in his job.
Mr. Prescott:
I shall avoid commenting on by-elections. Leasehold reform may or may not be an issue in that by-election, but it certainly was in Southport in 1966. It is matter of social justice. We are trying to correct matters and bring about greater social justice on leasehold.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
When?
Mr. Prescott:
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that, but for 18 years the Conservative Government did nothing. Perhaps I should correct that statement: they huffed and puffed but failed to get agreement on legislation. They did not make it any better. People demand leasehold reform because the Tories did not deal with the problem. That is why we have agreed to introduce the measure. Perhaps they can explain to people in the forthcoming by-election how they have done enough and why they do not need to support the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman indicates that he will--good, we look forward to him saying that at the by-election.
We are delivering on better local accountability, more local empowerment and better quality local services, including local transport. My Department has received almost 100 local transport plans drawn up by local authorities. They have identified the transport priorities in their areas and can bid for the £700 million that has been made available.
This country faces a great challenge in tackling congestion and pollution. Everyone, including the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors, recognises that the economic and environmental damage that congestion and pollution cause is unacceptable. To carry on as before would be the most anti-motorist policy of all. Even the motorist organisations readily say that. The Conservatives sat back while congestion costs rose dramatically. The number of cars per mile, despite the investment of about £70 billion, rose from 70 to 100. Despite the tremendous sums poured into the road programme, they did not reduce congestion; we ended up with more.
It became obvious, even to the previous Government in their last year of office, that we could not build our way out of congestion and that the only way forward was to improve public transport. That was clearly stated in the
Green Paper produced in the last few months of the previous Administration. It referred to
"a presumption in favour of introducing legislation, in due course, to enable congestion charging".
However, they did not guarantee that they would recycle the revenues back into local transport. Under the right hon. Member for Wokingham, they have reversed their position, as on so many things. I am a little confused.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |