Club and Institute Union: 150th Anniversary
Debate between Lord Grocott and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I strongly suspect that an answer is not required from the Front Bench.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, it is very welcome that the Government have acknowledged this 150th anniversary and the tremendous work that has been done during that period—particularly the work, although he is too modest to point it out, done by my very good noble friend Lord Bilston both in his own area of Bilston, in Wolverhampton, and here in Parliament in the all-party group. The only thing on which I would like any elaboration is the Minister’s referral to this, I think, as a small business initiative. These are much more than small businesses. As has already been pointed out from her own Benches, these clubs have provided much broader services to their communities over the years. In fact, I would almost suggest to the Minister that she might place them in the category of government business headed “the big society”, because we invented it long before anyone else did.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it is always dangerous to align anything with anything. I was trying to suggest that there was an opportunity for small business rate relief for these clubs—I drew attention to that. If I inadvertently said that they were small businesses, clearly that is not what they are; they are private clubs that do a good job for their members and have all the attributes that noble Lords have suggested. They have a valuable history and have seen a lot of people through some very difficult times, as well as through some enjoyable times. As my noble friend behind me suggested, they also have some political involvement.
Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012
Debate between Lord Grocott and Baroness Hanham
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the passion at the end was very good. It has been a low-key debate apart from that. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington—if I may hesitantly say so—has quite a short memory, particularly in relation to putting legislation in place before it has been passed. I stood where the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is on more times than I care to recall, telling the then Government that they were introducing and had almost put into effect legislation before it had been passed. Therefore, I do not accept that challenge to what we are doing here, but I do think the noble Baroness must not forget that that was a situation with practically all the legislation that the previous Government put in place. We must not forget that.
The grant to each local authority is done against a formula—as indeed the previous Government did. We have argued for years over which way the formula was going, one way or the other. People have short memories. We must just all try to remember where we came from.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, drew attention to the fact that the coalition Government’s programme made it clear that we are committed to creating directly elected mayors. That commitment was carried out in the Localism Act and was a commitment to having a referendum in 12 cities. Those cities are now 11 because Leicester took the decision to move to a mayor under the original provisions in the Local Government Act 2000. The Government believe that there is good evidence that a powerful, dynamic and directly elected mayor can provide strong, visible leadership, increase accountability for local decisions, deliver local economic growth—that is really important—and bring greater prosperity to their city. However, we believe that it is up to the electorates in these cities to decide in a referendum whether they believe that the mayoral model is one that they would wish to embrace. Through directing that referendums take place, we are ensuring that the people have the opportunity to address the question for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that the question that was going to be asked was skewed. I remind him that it is set by the independent Electoral Commission and not by the Government.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I did not express myself very well. I said it was skewed in the sense that it was being asked only in those areas that currently do not have a directly elected mayor. It would be a far fairer test if referendums were also being held in areas that already have them and may want to get rid of them, as Stoke did.
Baroness Hanham
I hear what the noble Lord says, but that was not a provision in the Localism Act. It provided for referendums in the 12 cities and not for referendums elsewhere or on other mayors that have already been elected under the 2000 Act, which was implemented by his Government.
The heart of the case advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is the question of compulsion and the cost of the referendums. We are not requiring any particular outcome for these referendums; we are clear that the decisions about local government are for local people and nothing that we are doing departs from that principle. We are ensuring that people in our larger cities have the opportunity to address the question as to whether they want a mayor for their city. We have made it clear that central government will bear the cost of the referendums, estimated to be about £2.25 million, in line with the long-established new burdens doctrine. On the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, of what her local authority would think about and what people think about, this will come from central Government—
City of Wakefield (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
Debate between Lord Grocott and Baroness Hanham(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the purpose of all these orders to which I speak is to require the local authority named to hold a referendum on 3 May 2012 on whether it should start to operate a mayor and cabinet executive form of governance; that is, to have a directly elected mayor. As we described in our programme for government, the coalition Government are committed to creating directly elected mayors in the 12 largest English cities, subject to confirmatory referendums. These orders are the next stage in fulfilling that commitment. I shall explain the rationale for this, but first I would like to recall the steps that we have previously taken on elected mayors and the approach that we have followed in seeking to ensure that we can achieve the best way forward for our major cities.
As a first step to delivering our coalition agreement commitment, we included provisions on directly elected mayors in the Localism Bill which we introduced in December 2010. Those provisions included introducing the idea that there would be shadow mayors in the cities before any election and that, where a city adopted an elected mayor, it would be required to introduce mayoral management arrangements. These arrangements were that the city would cease to have a chief executive and the mayor would then be both the political leader and the top executive of the authority.
During the parliamentary passage of the Bill, these provisions attracted considerable debate and concern, particularly in the House of Lords. I remember it well. We listened carefully to the arguments being made about why these elements of a switch to the mayoral model could give rise to difficulties and hence were not appropriate. On careful reflection, we accepted the arguments being made and amended the Bill so that there was no longer any question of there being shadow mayors or statutory mayoral management arrangements. Our approach was to listen carefully to the arguments, address the issues raised with an open mind, and seek to ensure that we took forward our mayoral agenda in a way that commanded the widest degree of support and would best serve the interests of the cities concerned.
It is perhaps worth recording that when the House considered the question of mayors in the Localism Bill on Report there were no Divisions on any of these provisions or amendments. The result is that the Localism Act contains a simple provision that enables the Secretary of State to require in a particular city a referendum to be held on whether or not that city has a mayoral form of governance, and the orders before the House today are the first use of this provision.
I now turn to why we are seeking the House’s approval for these orders. As part of the coalition agreement, the Government committed to creating directly elected mayors in the 12 largest English cities, subject, as I said, to confirmatory referendums. Leicester already has a directly elected mayor, following a resolution of the Labour-led council to move to a mayoral form of governance and the people of Leicester elected their first mayor in May 2011. We are therefore planning referendums in May 2012 in the other 11 cities: Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield. Where the referendum vote is in favour of having a mayor, the city will then rapidly hold an election for its first mayor.
The Government think that there is good evidence that where a city has a powerful and directly accountable mayor this can be a major factor for delivering local economic growth and bringing greater prosperity to that city. The value of big cities, effectively led by powerful mayors, is demonstrated by a range of international experience. For example, the Mayor of London has transformed the capital’s governance and achieved a range of successes including the London plan, the congestion charge, Crossrail and Boris bikes. Barcelona was transformed into a leisure and cultural centre through the strong leadership of its powerful executive mayor, Pasqual Maragall, who was elected as head of the list of the winning party. It is now one of the most prosperous cities in Europe with a GDP per capita 44 per cent above the European average.
Of all the governance models, we think that the mayoral model has the greatest potential to provide that strong and accountable leadership needed for our cities to be successful, economically, socially and environmentally. That is not to say that other forms of local government cannot deliver success or indeed that a mayor guarantees success, but we are clear, not least from the evidence of cities around the world, including London, that where a city has mayoral governance the odds of success are greater.
Why do we have the 12 cities? As the Institute for Government and Centre for Cities highlighted in their joint report, our cities are the heartbeat of the UK economy. Despite occupying less than 10 per cent of the UK’s land, they contribute 60 per cent of our economic output. That is why the Government believe that it is important that in each of our major cities, which contribute so much to our economy, the opportunity to have a mayor is seriously addressed by the electorate.
Of course, it may be, as in the case of Leicester, that the city council—the democratic representatives of the city’s communities—simply resolves to move to an elected mayor without a referendum being held. That option is available to all the cities unless their current governance model was agreed in a referendum, and will remain so until we have made a referendum order for that city. But if this option is not taken up, then local people should be given the opportunity to address the issue and decide. That is why we are bringing these orders to be approved by Parliament.
Finally, I remind the Committee that the orders we are considering today are about local choice and allowing local people to have a say on how their city is governed. Although we are clear about the benefits that mayors can bring, we are and remain localist. We believe that decisions about how a locality is governed are best taken locally. This is about letting local people decide. I commend the orders to the Committee.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I cannot resist making just one general point before I get on to the specifics about my fundamental objection to the directly elected mayor system. I see it as an import from a different political culture. In essence, it is a presidential arrangement. All levels of our democracy in our country have embraced the parliamentary system whereby executive heads emerge from the elected body. I think that is infinitely preferable to the presidential system. The Minister’s examples were notably from abroad, with the exception of London, and bringing in this system whereby elected councillors have no direct say on who the city’s leader should be is—I cannot find a less pompous way of putting this—alien to our political culture, and I do not think there is too much wrong with our political culture. In my view, it has inevitably—certainly in the United States and here—led to mayors being elected who simply do not arrive via the tried-and-tested system.
I thought that the evidence put forward for extending this system in this dramatic way was pretty thin. The explanatory document claims that,
“directly elected mayors … enhance their city’s prestige and maximise the potential for local economic growth”.
Let us not go to Barcelona or anywhere else. We have had this system in Britain for a number of years. Where is the evidence that those lucky cities and towns that have directly elected mayors have seen the prestige of their areas enhanced in comparison with those that have not had the benefit of directly elected mayors and have seen economic growth? In short, has London been demonstrably much better governed, to justify all this additional expense, than has, let us say, Newcastle, Manchester or Birmingham? If there is any evidence, I would love to see it, but I am not aware of it.
I move to the specifics of the orders that we are now looking at. One has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Farrington. I am afraid this is more of a rhetorical question than one I expect the Minister to be able to answer because it is unanswerable. How on earth can you have an order that states:
“The authority must, on 3rd May 2012, hold a referendum”—
I would add, in brackets, “whether you want to or not”—with the Government’s alleged commitment to localism? Why the compulsion? Why not leave it to the local authority to make up its own mind? I do not know the answer to that one. I do not think it will do to suggest, as the Minister did, that somehow this is an opportunity for local people to decide and that the Government are neutral, at least to the extent that the local people can make their own decisions, because is it just an accident that the only places where local citizens will be able to decide on their governance are places where they do not have an elected mayor at the moment? What about all those local authorities that have an elected mayor? Why not ask them whether, on the basis of the past 10 years, it is a good way of spending public money? I am delighted to be able to report that, as the Committee will know, in the one area where people have been given that choice, namely the splendid city of Stoke-on-Trent with the outstanding Stoke City Football Club, the public were asked, “Do you want to continue with your elected mayoral system?” The answer was a pretty resounding, “No, we don’t, thank you very much”.
Baroness Hanham
I will have to take the noble Lord's word for it. People may have known who he was but he has certainly been heard of since. The question is whether he was better known at the time or subsequently.
A lot of questions have been asked. It is not helpful to go over the debate again. We have a debate on the previous orders and we have had a very interesting Second Reading speech from my noble friend Lord Cormack, who was not entirely supportive. We have just a few issues to deal with. As regards turnout on the referendums, as I think I have said before, probably some had about the same turnout as local elections. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, did not think that was quite right. I do not think anybody would accept that they have been in the general election ballpark figure but there has been a good turnout.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, referred to the interminable business of savings and costs. We have gone through the election costs. We anticipate that the costs of reorganisation will absolutely depend on what amount of reorganisation a local authority needs to do. It may not need to do very much at all. The mayor comes in and it might need to provide him with a room. He will probably need a couple of members of staff. His expenses will fall within the general administration of the council. Therefore, I do not anticipate there being a huge extra cost to the council as a result of this. I am sure it will make the decisions which ensure that there is no huge extra cost. I do not think the Government want—
Lord Grocott
I intervene only as it may save time when we discuss this later. Presumably, figures are available showing the cost of the mayoral systems that have been introduced. I challenge the Committee to say whether there has ever been a local government or, indeed, any other reorganisation which has not cost more than people said it would. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the costs are likely to be a bit more than those incurred in providing a room and perhaps a secretary. When the orders come back to the House, could we be given figures showing what the actual costs of reorganisation have been where the mayoral system has been introduced?
Baroness Hanham
I am not sure that I can answer that even now. As I have said, the costs will depend on how much reorganisation a city council has to undertake to accommodate the mayor. As I understand it, the evidence we have shows that there has not been a substantial increase in costs where elected mayors have taken up office. I am not going to be able to provide figures down to £5,500,000 and 36 pence. If I can find more helpful information for the noble Lord, I will, but this is about as good as we can get in that it is for the relevant area to work out in its own mind how much reorganisation it needs to do.
The implementation of the system is entirely the same. It will be up to the authority itself to decide how to implement it. However, we expect the mayor to be in position three days after the election. There should be no hiatus. As I say, he should be in position three days after the day on which the result of the first mayoral election is declared and then take office four days after the election, so this happens within a week.
I love the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. They are all always very taxing and have a nice aspect. I thank him for his speech. I do not have much to say in response to it but it was nice to hear his words. He has been consistently against us from the start, so there is no change there. I hope that within the space of these two discussions we have more or less covered the ground. I appreciate that we are going to have another go at this later.