I WONDER if I may comment on three points made by Ruth Kelly in the story regarding the Sustainable Communities Bill (SC Bill) Rally at the Reebok Stadium on March 30.
First, Ms Kelly said that it would have been "inappropriate" for her to attend the event as her department is involved in "delicate negotiations" with the Bill's sponsors.
In that case, why did her Minister of State, Phil Woolas MP (who is much more directly involved in the negotiations), feel able to attend our rally in London on Monday, March 26?
It is heartening that, at long last, Ms Kelly has accepted that the SC Bill "complimented rather than duplicated her own Local Government White Paper", but her comment that "it would not give town halls as much freedom" is absurd.
The Bill would, for the first time, give councils power to drive the way in which Government policy can help them promote sustainable communities - because it is councils and their communities that are the experts on their own problems and the solutions to them - not Whitehall.
It is thus sensible that these experts should have a dominant influence over Government policy on these matters.
Finally, Ms Kelly claims that "the Bill as a whole is not workable".
It would be nice to know which sections she has in mind, because most of the mechanisms in the Bill are identical to those already used by the Government.
If Ms Kelly can supply chapter and verse on this, I will be glad to comment.
Ron Bailey Campaign Organiser Local Works - the campaign for the Sustainable Communities Bill
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article