Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Mr Crausby, to serve under your chairmanship today. I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Chamber leadership in local government and to debate it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) will want to contribute. A debate on leadership in councils could last for days. Many people will have many different views on leadership, good and bad, and on what is happening in councils today. However, the purpose of the debate is to consider one narrow point: leadership in councils.
When I became an MP in 2010, I visited organisations in my constituency, as did many of my colleagues in their constituencies. Some of those organisations are in the private sector, and many are large and small businesses. The key issue that struck me, having visited both private and public sector organisations and institutions, was leadership and management. My general observation was that if an organisation has one or the other—leadership or management—it can function reasonably well. If it has neither, clearly it is likely to run into difficulties. If an organisation, whether in the public or private sector, has both, it tends to be a great success, and I am aware of those in my constituency that have good leadership and good management, and are doing a terrific job.
Some local businesses are successful, and some public organisations are able and perform well. However, there is a subtle difference between the private and public sectors. If private sector organisations do not have good management and leadership, they run into difficulty and will either go bust or be taken over by another organisation. The difficulty is that, if they cannot be suddenly taken over or cannot go bust, there is a danger that they may become weak and ineffective. The importance of leadership and management should not be underestimated, and the difficulty for Governments of all political persuasions is how to deal with underperforming public bodies. Obvious examples are schools and hospitals. How can they be dealt with when they begin to fail because they have not been provided with correct leadership or good management? That is an issue for all Governments.
A key organisation that has an important bearing in all our constituencies is local government. Local authorities are subtly different from other public sector organisations because they are elected, and the beauty of elections is that they provide new leadership and new emphasis and direction. A mechanism exists for change.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that, in these difficult economic times, strong leadership is vital in local government, and will he join me in congratulating Adrian Hardman, leader of Worcestershire county council, which was ranked the third highest performing council in the country, despite being the third lowest funded?
John Stevenson
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I agree that that is a prime example of good leadership in local government, and I will touch on that.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He has raised the matter of strong leadership in many debates, and I also congratulate him on that. Does he agree that unitary authorities, which have a cabinet-style model of leadership, provide the best form of local government in terms of value for money? Medway council, on which I still serve—I was a cabinet member—is led by Councillor Chambers and has been rated as providing good value for services.
John Stevenson
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, and we could have a separate debate on unitary councils alone. For the record, I wholeheartedly agree that unitary councils are the correct direction for local government, and I will certainly advocate that when I can.
Leadership and management in councils are central to the economic success not only of individual communities and local authorities, but of the wider economy and the whole country. They are also important for the provision of efficient and well-delivered services, which may range from collecting waste to social care. We have a tendency in this country to underestimate the importance of local government. It is extremely important and should play a much bigger role in our national affairs. It is commonly accepted, probably across the political spectrum, that the country is far too centralised. Direction and instructions come from the centre and tell local government what it should do.
I accept that the Government have tried to redress the balance. I fully support what they are doing, and I would encourage them to go further. I give them credit for the work that they have done, and I fully support them in their direction of travel. However, there are cultural barriers. At the centre, Whitehall thinks it knows best, and likes to tell local authorities so. In turn, there is a failing at town hall level. Town halls are not used to taking the initiative or providing distinct local leadership. That should change, which is why I am concentrating on local leadership.
The present regime includes many able and effective leaders—my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) indicated that she has an able and effective county council leader—but we must accept that there are many ineffective councils with poor leadership and management, although some have difficulties because they must often deal with the machinations of local politics. Some parts of the country are effectively a one-party state. That may not be healthy for democracy, and it creates problems because of internal squabbles within political parties. In hung councils, parties compete for political leadership, and the most able people often do not lead the council because of inter-party debates and tensions. We cannot get away from the fact that some places have poor-quality councillors, and that the job does not attract the most able people. That is an issue for us all across the political spectrum.
What are the solutions? I believe that we should have more elected mayors. Do people know who their council leader is? I went along to a sixth-form school in my constituency and talked to 50 or 60 able students who were all interested in local affairs. My first question was whether any of them could name their local council leader. My second question was whether any of them could name their county council leader. Not one of them could name either, but if the same questions were asked in London and some other parts of the country with elected mayors, I suspect that at least a good proportion could name that person.
Elected mayors provide visible and clear leadership, which is transparent and accountable. People know who is in charge and responsible for local affairs. They have a four-year mandate, and they have the opportunity to carry out their manifesto commitments and to implement policy. They also provide democratic accountability, which is important. There are one-party councils throughout the country, and the introduction of an elected mayor would add a different dynamism to such areas. Independents could be elected, and a party that will never be in control of a council would have a chance to have their political views expressed through the elected mayor.
The Government have taken a top-down approach to date. After the election, they were committed to the introduction of elected mayors in 12 of our largest cities. From my perspective, I was very disappointed that they were rejected in nine of the areas where there was a referendum. Nevertheless, out of those 12 large cities, three have gone down the road of having an elected mayor. That is a 25% success rate. My view, therefore, is that we should try a bottom-up approach, by encouraging local communities to take the initiative, rather than imposing it on them.
Referendums have been held up and down the country for elected mayors, promoted by local initiatives. The success rate has again been around 25%. Some people would say that that is a poor result and that the policy is a failure, but we have to look at the nature of referendums. As a general rule in referendums, people tend to stay with the status quo. We see that time and again in this country, and certainly in other parts of the world. There is an inherent conservatism within the electorate to remain with what they know, rather than taking on something different.
Local referendums have been hindered to a large extent—dare I say?—by the self-interest of local councillors and local organisations, such as councils themselves, which have been reluctant to see elected mayors being introduced. I believe, however, that support for them is widespread and much deeper than we think. Yesterday, I was at a meeting with Lord Heseltine, interestingly enough, who is not only a big enthusiast of unitary authorities, but a strong supporter of elected mayors. He in turn has been greatly supported by Lord Adonis, who is also a great fan and supporter of them. Both believe that elected mayors are the future drivers of success in local government.
How will we achieve that bottom-up approach? We could look at the legislation. At present, legislation lays out certain criteria before the role of a mayor can come into effect. As everyone will know, there is a petition, then a referendum, and only on the success of a referendum is the structure changed. The key for any area is getting a valid petition to initiate such a referendum. At present, the requirement is 5% of the electorate, which is a barrier that, in my view, is far too high. To take my area as an example, for Carlisle district council, a petition requires 4,500 signatures, while 20,000 signatures are required for Cumbria county council. I suspect that the figures would be much higher in other areas, as ours is sparsely populated. I genuinely believe that the number is prohibitively high—5% is far too high.
What is the goal? I would like the leadership of local authorities to become more open, more accountable and far more dynamic. They should be able to provide innovation, with new ideas, and bring in a real period of local government, by taking the lead and producing political leaders who are known, respected and make a contribution to their local areas.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has concentrated so far on local political leadership, making comments that apply to all political parties, and I very much endorse some of what has been said. However, the flipside is that, over the past few years, we have seen a contraction in the size of local government, especially smaller district and borough councils, and with that, we have experienced highly skilled chief executives leaving the sector. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that leadership gap has seen officers over-promoted, which has been to the detriment of council tax payers and the standard of service that they receive? I agree that we should move towards unitary authorities, but it is not a one-horse race. We need both components, with really good, on-the-ball chief executives. I would probably say that I agree that unitary authorities are the way to go, but with ever smaller services and good people moving, just filling the gap will not do.
John Stevenson
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I go back to my initial comments when I mentioned leadership and management, because the two go hand in hand to a certain extent. With local authorities or any organisation, whether private or public, if the two go together, the organisation ends up being fantastic. When there is only one, it can work, but it is more problematic. When there is neither, it is a problem.
Rosie Cooper
I wonder whether the chief executive mentioned by the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) would like a free transfer.
John Stevenson
What the hon. Lady said is absolutely right, and I am concentrating principally today on leadership and political leadership. However, we could have a debate just on the management—let alone the leadership and the management—at a future date.
My view is that elected mayors are the way to help achieve real leadership in local government. We should let communities up and down the country decide whether an elected mayor is right for them, and we should make it easier to allow petitions to succeed. Does the Minister agree that leadership is vital to the success of councils? Does he support, as the Prime Minister does, the idea and concept of elected mayors, and would he like to see them spread across the country? Would he assist in making it easier to initiate such referendums?
My real question for the Minister is how we achieve that. I would like—I am interested to hear his comments—a reduction in the required percentage of local people who need to sign the petition from 5% to 1%. The previous Government contemplated lowering the threshold. Going back to my example of Carlisle, if the threshold were reduced to 1%, only 800 signatures would be required for the district council, and if I get my maths correct, 4,000 would be needed for the county council. It would then become entirely feasible and people would go out and actively seek signatures. That is my first question for the Minister.
Secondly, does the Minister agree with extending the period that a petitioner who is campaigning for this can use the signatures on the petition from one year to two years? At present, such a person has to use signatures from people who support the petition within a 12-month period. That may seem an awfully long time, but if someone is working full time and doing this on an ad hoc basis, time passes. To get the requisite number of signatures can take time, and in the example of Carlisle, even if the figure drops to 800, it is still a time-consuming business. Will the Minister consider increasing the period to two years?
Finally, in this age of modern technology, it would seem eminently sensible—indeed, people would expect it—for petitions to be online. At present, there has to be a physical signature on a piece of paper. We have lots of ways of dealing with modern communications and how we produce petitions. Doing them online would be an eminently sensible solution, and it would make it easier for people who want to push forward a petition to achieve the requisite numbers.
I might be wrong, but I believe that much of that could be dealt with by delegated legislation, and I hope that the Minister will confirm whether that is the case. I genuinely think that this is an opportunity to transform local leadership in local councils. In turn, I believe that it would transform the performance of local councils, benefiting local communities and the country at large. It would help growth in our communities, and I believe that it would help to vindicate the Government’s localism agenda. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
I will allow one short contribution before the Minister responds.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on securing the debate.
I served as a councillor for 26 years, with 14 of those on a district authority, which was then transformed into a unitary authority. I entirely concur with previous comments that unitary authorities are the way forward, and I would like to see the Government make more positive moves in the right direction. I also entirely agree that it is desirable for those authorities to be led by an elected mayor. Mayoral positions attract those who have not previously been drawn into local politics. That is good, because it enlarges the pool of talent that is available, and it provides necessary links between business and politics. In the short time available, I want to add one or two points to what my hon. Friend has said.
In Lord Heseltine’s excellent report, he talks considerably about a sense of place and local identities. I know that the Government, like the previous Administration, are drawn to city regions and the boost to a local economy that they can give, and they are even, I believe, considering the possibility of elected mayors for those regions. Although I support that, the city region itself must have a sense of place. My area of Humberside most certainly does not. I, and many others, spent 20 years of our political lives fighting the previously imposed county of Humberside. There must be a clear sense of identity.
We can move on from the lost mayoral referendums of last year. I hope that areas such as my own in north-east Lincolnshire can steal a march on the cities that rejected mayors by grasping the nettle, moving forward and going for an elected mayor themselves. That is why I very much support my hon. Friend’s comments that we must bypass local councils and local councillors, who are a blockade to that; for various reasons, they oppose it. Therefore, I would very much support moves to reduce the threshold and give local activists and local people opportunities to move forward in that direction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on securing the debate and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to air a hugely important issue. I join colleagues who have congratulated him not just on today’s debate, but on the way he has brought up the topic over the past few years. It is a key issue. He is right about that. Effective local leadership is vital and possibly more important today than it has ever been. Up and down the country, areas face huge challenges in local government. Service delivery is becoming increasingly complex. An ageing population presents areas with real challenges. Efficiency savings are required. Partnership working needs good, strong, clear leadership. Another challenge involves community engagement, particularly now that we are in a social media-led environment. I shall come back in a few moments to my hon. Friend’s comments on digital issues.
We face real challenges, particularly in ensuring economic growth. We believe that the best way to do that is for it to be driven locally. The key to dealing with those challenges comes from our towns and cities. It is about strong, inspirational leadership that can take the challenges on, and not just see them as challenges but make them into opportunities.
I disagree to an extent with the comments of the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) about the leadership gap when we lose chief executives. We need to be clear that in some areas and particularly some small districts, the days of big, expensive, silo management teams are gone. Just financially, they are history. People have to work together and share good chief executives to get the good management that has been commented on. I agree with the hon. Lady that good political leadership, with good management, gives that magic option, but I have to make it clear that my view is very much that the leadership of a council for an area should come from the political leaders. If we go down the road of saying that a chief executive is part of the leadership, that can only be because our councillors are not doing their job. Our councillors are there to make decisions, to deliver, to lead and to represent their community. Our officers are there to give good advice and to implement the decisions made by councillors.
The comment about directly elected mayors, which I will come to in a second, highlights the importance of leadership from the political leaders. We must never underestimate that, and we must congratulate those leaders throughout the country who put so much time and effort into their communities. Actually, that applies to all councillors, but I am thinking particularly of the leaders who step to the forefront, take that leadership seriously and move their communities forward. Whether they are mayors or just elected leaders, they do all our communities and our country a great service.
Cities are a good example of where the Government are recognising this leadership. Our belief in strong local leadership has meant that it is one of the asks for the city deals. We have made it clear that if cities want significant new powers and funding streams, they need to demonstrate clear, strong, accountable leadership. Cities with directly elected mayors have clearly shown that.
Several hon. Members have spoken in favour of mayors. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has regularly made comments about directly elected mayors. Particularly in the case of single-tier authorities, they can be a hugely beneficial step forward, with real power and real ability to deliver on the ground for their communities. I share my hon. Friend’s view—I can answer that question directly—that it would be good to see more of them around the country. I am interested in looking at how we can motivate people and encourage more of that to happen. I shall come to my hon. Friend’s three specific asks in a moment.
I am pleased that we are at one on this particular issue. Directly elected mayors can and generally do provide good, strong, clear and visible local leadership. My hon. Friend highlighted that very well in his description of the meeting at the school. He makes a very strong point about the accountability of the role of mayor. A directly elected mayor does seem to have recognition in a community that goes beyond that of an elected councillor. There is, therefore, increased—clear—accountability. People understand exactly who is in charge, who is making the decisions, who is accountable. That transparency fits perfectly with the localism agenda with which we are moving forward.
There is a very strong case on this issue. Research undertaken in 2005 shows that the democratic mandate provided by directly elected mayors has
“provided a basis for a stronger, more proactive style of leadership than other models.”
We have seen how mayors around the world have reinvigorated their cities. I am thinking of places such as Frankfurt, New York and Lyon. That has also been the case on our own doorstep, in London. The mayors—the office holders—become very well known. That highlights again the clear accountability and understanding of who is responsible—who is in charge. The Mayor of London, particularly, I would say, over the past four years, has transformed the city. In the 12 years of its existence, the London mayoral office has been hailed across the world for its influence in raising the profile of the capital and for securing major projects that the city needs, from Crossrail to the Olympic games.
Of course, in addition to the Mayor of London, we now have, as my hon. Friend said, new mayors in three of our biggest cities: Leicester, Liverpool and, most recently, Bristol; I have already met the mayor of Bristol a few times. In our “Mid-Term Review”, published on Monday, hon. Members have seen that we are proud to record that we have enabled the people of those cities to join London in choosing a directly elected mayor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has outlined a number of measures that he feels would make it easier for communities to bring about mayoral governance in their area and to see that happen from the local community up, rather than central Government deciding that an area should have a referendum. I am attracted to any measures that will allow areas to adopt good, strong, effective leadership, which an elected mayor can provide and which is vital to their success.
Let me deal with my hon. Friend’s three points directly. The first concerns the petition for governance and the idea of a change in the threshold. He is right to say that we can change that by amending existing secondary legislation, so it is not difficult to do. I shall do some further work and invite my hon. Friend to come and have a conversation with the Department about that. I am cautious about it, but I am open-minded. Let me explain why I feel some caution about it. We want to make it easy for people, when there is a genuine need and desire in a community to see clear accountable leadership, to move forward and have a vote for it. We also need to avoid small interested parties being able too easily to get something that does not have full community support. There is a balance to find on the size—the proposal is to move from 5% to 1%—and the implication that that would have in different areas. As my hon. Friend says, having to find 20,000 votes is different from having to find 1,000 votes. That depends on whether it is happening at the level of a small authority, county level or whatever it happens to be. There is a bit of work to do on that. I am happy to look at it, but I shall work with my hon. Friend to see whether we can come up with something that might deliver what he wants without going too far and getting the wrong result in the wrong areas.
My hon. Friend’s second query was about the time frame for collecting signatures. Again, I am willing to look at that, but I think that it goes in tandem with point one, in that I suspect that if we were looking at a lower threshold, there would be less need to expand the time frame. If we do not lower the threshold, there is a stronger argument for widening the time frame. It is probably one or the other. We can consider those points in tandem. As I said, I shall work with my hon. Friend on that.
With regard to e-petitions, I can be slightly more direct and positive, in that I think my hon. Friend makes a very good point. I think that we are moving towards those days when far more things will be, whether we like it or not, done online. We certainly should be looking at how we can move forward with that. The coalition’s e-petition website has already had 17 million visits, with a total of 36,000 petitions submitted and almost 6.5 million signatures. That equates to roughly 12 people signing up every minute since it came into force. I support my hon. Friend’s suggestion of allowing electors to support a petition online, and we can look at how we deliver that—how we can make it possible. It was a very good point that we should look to move with.
I agree with my hon. Friend that leadership in a local community is vital. We should give great credit to the leaders who provide that around the country for their communities. They do a great job, as do all councillors who go out and work for their communities. Where we can move forward to make that more accountable and more transparent and have clear accountability through directly elected mayors, and where that would be practical for communities and is something that they want, it could be a very good move forward for them. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend to see whether we can deliver that to strengthen our democracy and our local communities.