Local Government Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Rennard and Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I shall be brief on this occasion, because it seems to me and to many of us who have witnessed these debates that just about everything that could be said on the issues has been said in earlier debates—if not repeated by everybody on each particular point. The positions of the parties and participants were clear when the orders were first debated in this House on 22 March, and I stand by the view of my party that it would have been far better for all concerned if the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Tope had been carried then. Much unnecessary debate and great uncertainty for people in Exeter, Norwich and Norfolk could have been avoided.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to the recent local elections in Norwich and Exeter, but she chose not to refer at all to the general election outcome in May this year. It was very clear before the general election what was the position adopted by the Liberal Democrats and by the Conservatives, and the outcome of the general election was very clear in terms of both votes and seats in support of parties—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House, but his candidate, Simon Wright, made it clear throughout the campaign that he supported unitary status for Norwich.
Lord Rennard
Indeed, but the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives stated categorically just before the general election that both parties were committed to not proceeding with those structural changes in the way, in the timescale and on the basis in which the Labour Government tried to introduce them in their dying days in what was a quite improper way—a way which the judges decided was illegal and improper. Other parties won those elections, and therefore decided that they would proceed in this way. We believe that it is not the right scheme and not the right time, and that this debate should be brought to a close and the Bill be allowed to pass.
Local Government Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Rennard and Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment on electoral provision. Norwich and Exeter have behaved lawfully and impeccably throughout these proceedings. At each stage they have followed parliamentary law, unlike some Ministers in DCLG, such as Mr Neill, who instructed us to do not what Parliament said but what he wished us to do. If a Labour Minister had issued such a letter, there would be fulminations on the Benches opposite.
Councillors have been unseated not because of any sin. There is no question of ultra vires, personal bad behaviour or of betraying their fiduciary duty. They have at each stage done what the law required them to do. Now, because of JR, reinforced by this Bill, a third of councillors in Norwich and Exeter have been removed. In Norwich, the leaders of the Tory Party, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrat Party on the city council have been unseated, as well as the deputy leader of the Labour group. In Exeter, the leader of the Labour group, among others, has been unseated. There has been a serious loss of experience across all parties. Your Lordships will remember that the JR was not against the cities, which have behaved lawfully throughout every day and month of the process, but against DCLG.
Lord Rennard
Does the noble Baroness accept that the High Court decided that the previous Government had behaved unlawfully, and that no blame was attached to Norwich and Exeter councils? The previous Government clearly did act unlawfully, according to the High Court. Therefore, the previous Government, of whom she was a member and supporter, should accept responsibility for this.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I certainly accept that the High Court judge has ruled that the proceedings of the Secretary of State, as advised by DCLG, were to be quashed. I do not challenge that for a moment. However, I remind the noble Lord, if he looks at the judgment, although we do not have the full transcript, that on appropriate advice—I expect that such advice to a Minister would come only from the department—a letter in December or January would have met the judge’s concerns and the orders would not have been quashed. Alternatively, if the Boundary Committee had reported on time, which it failed to do, there would have been enough time for a quick consultation which, again, the judge says would have met his concerns and the orders would not have been quashed.
So let us not suggest that my right honourable friend in the other place, Mr John Denham, was somehow acting in an inappropriate way. He followed the appropriate procedures which were then held by the judge not to have properly taken into account the need to advise the four authorities of the additional criteria of economic recession and Total Place of which they should have been aware before the Secretary of State proceeded with his orders. That is all. He did not do that. The department failed to send out a letter and he failed to have time for that consultation. That is what happened and therefore there is no—I repeat, no—moral or legal impropriety to be associated with my right honourable friend in the other House.
Local Government Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Rennard and Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Can the noble Lord tell us of anyone in the county of Norfolk—in the district council, county council or city council—who supported the Boundary Committee’s recommendation?
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I have not argued the case for the Boundary Committee’s proposals and am not doing so today. I am simply pointing out that the Boundary Committee, having been commissioned and given a remit by the Government, decided that the proposals which the Government subsequently put forward were simply not right. It said that they were unaffordable and it confirmed a previous rejection of exactly the same proposals by a previous Secretary of State in the same Government. The Boundary Committee also warned that there would be serious questions over the ability of the rest of Devon to function effectively as a unit of local government if Exeter alone became a unitary local authority.
The House of Lords Merits Committee drew the House’s special attention to the two orders. The committee found that the unitary proposals did not meet the Government’s five strict criteria for implementation. It said that the Government had failed to provide sufficient information to explain their departure from the criteria, and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments expressed doubt about whether the orders could be lawfully made. These are all reasons why we approved in this House Motions of regret tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, calling on the Government not to proceed with the orders without further consultation. There is no change in the logic of the arguments that were supported in this House on 22 March, and the same logic therefore dictates support for the Bill today.