Flooding

Debate between Lord Pickles and Ben Bradshaw

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Her knowledge of matters relating to the environment, and particularly flooding because of the peculiar circumstances of her own constituency, is considerable. She is absolutely right, and it is a matter of some priority to ensure that those strategic sites, pumping stations, gas stations and those relating to electricity, are protected and can withstand the rigours of this terrible weather.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I cannot remember a more complacent or inadequate response from a Cabinet Minister to a serious matter in this House. Last year, after last winter’s floods and the travel disruption in the south-west, the Government announced £31 million of new money for improved rail resilience in the south-west. That money has still not materialised. Why should anybody believe any of the new promises the Secretary of State is making when he has failed to deliver on any of them in the past?

[Mr Pickles]

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seems to resort to petty insults across the Chamber. There are people right now risking their lives and working on the railways to get them running and get a proper price worked out, and frankly, to play this rather pathetic game of who is to blame—[Interruption.] There will be a time when we will look closely into the causes of the floods and the reaction of the Government, but right now we should get on with the job.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Pickles and Ben Bradshaw

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

6. Whether he plans to implement the proposals by Lord Heseltine for unitary local government.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

No.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I have to tell the Secretary of State that my constituents in Exeter will be very disappointed by his reply, not least because one of his first acts in government was to take away their council’s hard-won unitary status. Given that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have described Lord Heseltine’s report as excellent, why does he have such a problem with this particular part of it?

Local Government Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lord Pickles and Ben Bradshaw

Thursday 21st October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It was not possible in Question Time to address the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) directly, and I want formally to say how welcome she is to her appointment. I am sure that she will be a formidable opponent at the Dispatch Box. I noted her expressions of willingness to work with us on several issues. As we share similar views on several matters, I expect that to happen. However, if it does not work out, we will always have Paris. I just leave that hanging in the air.

The Bill simply fulfils the commitment in the coalition agreement that

“we will stop the restructuring of councils in Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon.”

It is a short Bill—indeed, the explanatory notes, the European convention on human rights certification, the contents and the front page are longer than the Bill, which has only one substantive clause. I doubt whether all the Bills that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) moved will be as short as this Bill. However, at last we know exactly what the future holds for people living in the aforementioned counties. In fact, since the Bill is so obviously a common-sense and worthwhile measure, it is worth reminding the House why it is needed.

It is quite a saga, worthy of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in Charles Dickens’s “Bleak House”. Through the magic of Mr Dickens’s words, that case has become a byword for an interminable and pointless proceeding. So we find ourselves with the Bill. With judicial reviews, a league of lobbyists and dubious challenges on hybridity, the measure ran the risk of becoming, to misquote Dickens, “a scarecrow of a”

Bill, which would,

“in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means.”

So let us remind ourselves of how we got into that mess.

In the dying days of the Labour Government, the then Secretary of State chose to defy common sense and overturn the decision of his Labour predecessor. He decided to ignore independent advice and unilaterally impose unitary councils in the areas that we are considering. He has moved to pastures new, leaving us with an unwanted and worthless legacy. Why was that Labour civil war necessary? Why was Labour Secretary of State pitched against Labour Secretary of State? No one really knows. In the former Secretary of State’s absence, I suppose that I will do my best to guess and help out.

Was the reason to save money? No. There were sketchy and dubious estimates that eventually the decision might save £6 million a year, but only after spending £40 million on the costs of reorganisation. A critique by Professors Michael Chisholm and Steve Leach, noted local government experts, stated:

“The Government was economical with the truth about LGR”—

local government reorganisation—

“selective and inconsistent in its use of evidence, with the result that misleading impressions have been conveyed to local authorities, the public and Parliament.”

Perhaps that was a harsh judgment, but it is difficult to argue against it. The professors also argued that

“there are cogent reasons for thinking that minsters are exaggerating the financial benefits of unitary councils”.

If the reason was not money, perhaps it was popular fervour. Perhaps the people of Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon were crying out, “What do we want?” “A unitary council!” “When do we want it?” “Now!” Sadly, we were spared that surreal spectacle. In the most recent consultation, more than half the responses in Norfolk and 85% of those in Devon showed that the people did not want any change. That is not surprising; they just wanted the councils to get on with more important matters.

Perhaps the reason was that the councils could work more effectively if they became unitaries. No. In fact, the councils did not even fulfil the Labour Government’s own criteria for becoming unitaries. The Labour Government’s assessment was that the proposal in Exeter was unaffordable, and that the proposal in Norwich was both unaffordable and poor value for money. Yet the former Secretary of State blithely disregarded that. Instead, he cited his own deep and mysterious “compelling reasons” why those councils should become unitaries, which are perhaps the same compelling reasons why a suicide of lemmings feel the need to speed to the Scandinavian seaside. However, those reasons were not sufficiently “compelling” to persuade his own civil servants.

The former permanent secretary of the Department for Communities and Local Government, as chief accounting officer, wrote to my predecessor warning that the change

“would impact adversely on the financial position of the public sector.”

He went on to say that

“the evidence for such gains is mixed and representations that you have received provide no evidence to quantify such benefits.”

He further remarked that

“there is every likelihood of such judicial review proceedings being commenced”

and asked, as is normal in such circumstances, for written instructions to implement the proposals.

The reasons were rejected in the other place, where a motion of regret expressing strong concerns was passed overwhelmingly. All that was ultimately overturned by the High Court, which found on 5 July that the decision was unlawful, because the former Secretary of State failed to consult on departing from his Government’s own criteria. I suppose that we should forgive him for getting involved in judicial reviews—it can happen to the best of us. As a result of the court case, the structural change orders were quashed, and elections have since been held for seats in Exeter and Norwich, where contests were deferred by the orders.

Hon. Members, being reasonable people, may well ask why we need this Bill at all. I have some “compelling reasons” of my own. Although the High Court has struck down the orders that would implement the proposals, the proposals themselves still theoretically exist. They are zombie proposals that have refused to lie down and die. Anyone who follows horror movies knows that the only way to kill a zombie is to sever its head from its body. I am here today, shovel in hand, ready to perform, with the help of the House, that very task. We need to remove the possibility of anyone wasting any more time on those near-dead orders. We need to release councillors in Norfolk, Devon and Suffolk from the legal limbo in which they are trapped, so that they can get on with what really matters: protecting the front line and providing the best possible local services.

This whole story of woe illustrates the consequences of the previous Government’s command-and-control approach to local government. It mattered not what local people thought or how much it cost—they simply pressed on regardless. In contrast, this Government genuinely believe that councils work best when they are freed from the interference and micro-management that were the hallmark of the previous Administration.

The measures were the last, dying attempt of a lost, dying Government to change the structure of local government. In many ways, that was the culmination of the way in which this House has traditionally dealt with local government: it tries to change structure first, and then to allow function to follow. I am much more interested in changing the function of local government. If it is necessary in future to catch up on structure, so be it, but I do not envisage that happening for some considerable time.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify for the House his understanding of the implications of the Bill? Will it prevent unitary applications coming forward only from the three counties he has mentioned, or will it prevent any applications at all?

[Mr Pickles]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is an assiduous reader of the specialist press. I recall seeing an article in the Municipal Journal that said that I had in the top left-hand drawer of my office a pearl-handled revolver with which to shoot the first person to suggest a restructuring of local government. The last time I checked, the revolver was fully loaded and waiting for such a person.

[Mr Bradshaw]

The Secretary of State has not answered my question on the impact of the Bill.

[Mr Pickles]

I am sorry if levity got in the way of my answer, but I shall give the same basic answer now. The Bill finishes the process I outlined. It would be theoretically possible to start the process again, were someone brave enough to come through my door to suggest that we throw £40 million of council tax payers’ money away. The Bill stops the process in respect of the counties I mentioned, but it kills only one zombie—it does not mean that another zombie will not turn up in due course.

We want to make local authorities genuine leaders of their local communities, with a real say in the issues that matter to local people, such as housing, planning and the local economy, and even the NHS. Instead of making councils turn themselves inside out in response to the whims of a Secretary of State, we are giving them the freedom, the power and the responsibility to decide for themselves what they need to do.

Of course, it is only common sense that through closer collaboration and more joint working, councils can not only save money, but improve the services on offer to local people. They do not have to become unitary to do that, or to spend £40 million getting there, or to embark on a lengthy, expensive and disruptive centrally imposed process. Most councils are ready to come together and already do so by sharing chief executives, pooling back-office functions or even departments such as planning, and conducting joint procurement. I welcome that, and we know that it will make a huge difference. The Local Government Association has said that joining up services could save around £5 billion a year.

Councils are working to eliminate every trace of waste and re-examining how they work and the way in which every service is delivered. They are concentrating on becoming more effective and more productive than ever before, but they are doing so without the Secretary of State breathing down their necks, telling them exactly what to do, when to do it, and most corrosively of all, how to do it. They know that there are more effective ways to go about that than putting themselves through the lengthy and expensive rigmarole of restructuring. People want to see their councils saving money by concentrating on what really matters to them. I do not think there are many council tax payers who would put restructuring at the top of their wish list.

The proposals for local government restructuring were nothing but a wasteful and unnecessary distraction in these straitened times. The £40 million that the process would have cost is the equivalent of the entire residential care budget in Devon for a year. The money, time and effort that might have been invested in shuffling the deckchairs can now be invested in facing up to the challenges of the future. I commend the Bill to the House.