Baroness Hanham
Main Page: Baroness Hanham (Conservative - Life peer)Local Government Bill [HL]
Baroness Hanham Excerpts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, we have had one hour’s consideration of a matter which is nothing to do with this Bill. We have spent one hour listening to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and others giving us a treatise on local government organisation. That is not what this Bill is about. We have had one hour hearing about the merits of Exeter and Norwich. That is what this Bill is about.
This Bill was introduced to stop Exeter and Norwich becoming unitary authorities. It was introduced because the previous Government went back on what they originally believed, which was that these unitary authorities were neither value for money nor would they be able to manage. Until a very late hour in December 2009—merely months before the election—the Government held that position. The Boundary Commission held the position that this was not value for money. The Merits Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—he has been very quiet about this today and on other occasions—drew attention to the fact that it was rotten value for money. Everybody who looked at these proposals up till the 99th hour said this was not value for money, and therefore should not be allowed until, amazingly, some compelling reasons arose. Those compelling reasons were not able to go out to consultation, which is what had been suggested that the judge said in his winding-up, because, clearly, there was not time before the election.
I draw attention to the fact that this Bill has been superseded by the judgment of the court. The court has stopped these orders. No restructuring of Norwich or Exeter is allowed. It has been stopped and we have spent a whole hour discussing the situation. I would accuse the Opposition of filibustering if I did not know them so well. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, like to give us the benefit of their full experience.
We need to move on. This Bill is not about, and does not attempt to consider, the organisation of local government in general. The amendments try to interpose a possibility of that. If this Government decided on a reorganisation at any stage, I assure the House that they would not do it on the back of an amendment to this Bill which asks them to bring forward proposals within three years. I can tell the House that they would have a lot more authority than that if they ever wanted to do it. However, we still have the local government legislation of 2007 and it is perfectly right that those provisions have not been repealed. It is perfectly clear from the Bill we are considering that what is being stopped is any consideration of a reorganisation of a unitary authority, which encompasses Suffolk and Norwich and Exeter. The Bill is not about the reorganisation of local government; it is not a treatise on unitary authorities; and it does not discuss whether there should be two-tier or other government. I have lived in a unitary authority but there is no question of my unitary authority or any other unitary authority being worried about this Bill. Let us be clear: the previous Government reneged on what they believed, which was that those two unitaries were not viable or value for money. I do not know what made them go back on what they said—you may—but these amendments do not do anything for the Bill, they do not do anything for the organisation of local government, and they do not in any way persuade me to say that they are of any benefit at all, have any merit or have anything to do with the Bill.
I have been asked a lot of questions and a lot of people have been quoted. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, is unable to respond at present because she has not made her maiden speech. She is extremely welcome as a Member of this House and it is unfortunate that someone should call into question something that she has said, when she cannot rise to speak for herself. Eric Pickles is not in this House, either.
So I am responding for the Government when I say: stick to this legislation only, and let us not go into the wider field. If we are going to have reorganisation, then this Government will have the courage of their convictions and come back. At the moment, they have no intention of doing that, as far as I know; at the moment, they have no intention of allowing Norwich and Exeter to proceed; and they have no intention of accepting these amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, it goes without saying that I am disappointed by the response of the Minister. As has been the case on previous occasions, an amendment has engendered a debate far beyond its particulars. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I greatly appreciated the contributions of my noble friends Lord Howarth and Lady Hollis about their experience. I very much share their views, although I accept that they went somewhat wider than the specifics of the amendment. I ask the noble Lord, whose argument is that we should not now be distracted by reorganisations, given the economic climate, to tell us how that fits in with his plans for the health service, the police service, education and much else.
I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that this was genuinely not intended to be a wrecking amendment. It makes a straightforward proposition. The Minister has accepted that the 2007 provisions remain on the statute book and give an ongoing opportunity for the Secretary of State to invite proposals. That is good and we support it. All that this amendment sought was to put on the statute book a requirement on the Secretary of State to come back within a period of time during the course of the Parliament to say whether further proposals for unitary status are to be considered. The amendment does not require him to consider them, nor does it set out the criteria that he would have to adopt if he wished to go down that path. As I explained when I moved the amendment, we had to tie it to Norwich and Exeter in particular because the Bill was confined to them, but there is a broad principle here.
At the moment, the Government’s basic proposition is: no more unitary authorities during the course of this Parliament. That is despite what the Minister heard from around this Chamber about the benefits that unitary authorities can bring. However, we are entering almost a new era for local authorities—given the economic constraints and whatever our arguments and views on how those came about—which will have to be even more innovative by embracing new partnerships and new ways of commissioning. Is it therefore not right that the starting point for any particular local authority, whether it happens to be two-tier or unitary, is its place in the queue, and which could have a significant impact on its ability to deal with the challenges that will arise this year, next year and for some years to come?
All that we are seeking here is to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to revisit the current judgment that he has made—that there will be no more unitary authorities—in light of actual experience on the ground and how those different types of authorities are coping with the new and constrained environment. We are not requiring him to change or to make any particular judgment, but are asking him simply to report back to Parliament to say whether the judgment that he has made now holds good in light of experience, not just in Norwich and Exeter but elsewhere. That would seem to be a very straightforward and simple request, which is not intended to wreck the Bill at all. It is just to give an opportunity for local authorities to have this revisited. Currently, if they are on the wrong end of what they perceive to be the right structure, they are stuck with that for perhaps five years, depending on how long the coalition lasts. This was an interim opportunity to get the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on these matters.
Clearly, the noble Baroness does not want to accept the precise terms of this amendment—or accept it at all—but I was hoping that at least she would give some undertaking of an interim report to Parliament. That assurance might have been helpful: again, it was not an unreasonable request. However, I am conscious of the time and of the other matters that we have yet to discuss. I am genuinely disappointed by the Government's response, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, in responding to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Low, I simply point out that the arguments about the costs of by-elections now to be held in September illustrate one of the many reasons why it would have been far better to have approved the fatal amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Tope in March than to have proceeded in the way that we have. Had that amendment been approved that night, it would have stopped the orders then. The subsequent unnecessary costs, which are still being incurred, could have been avoided.
Central to the whole debate are the claims made about the so-called compelling reasons that led the previous Government suddenly to change the criteria for considering these issues—and to act unlawfully by failing to give notice of their change, thereby avoiding consultation on the new criteria—and to try in the last few days in office to steamroller through proposals that they themselves had previously rejected. The only compelling reasons why the previous Secretary of State acted as he did was the certainty that his Government were about to lose office and the urging of the Norwich and Exeter local councils. The then Secretary of State ignored the clearest possible warnings that his course of action was illegal.
As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has pointed out, when Norfolk and Devon county councils asked for an expedited hearing in the High Court so that the issue could be resolved before the local elections and before we got to this problem, this was opposed by the Department for Communities and Local Government and by both city councils. It is clear to me—I attempted to table a further amendment during consideration of the orders—that the orders should not have proceeded without the judicial review having first been properly considered, because they were very different from other orders; they were the only orders for which the department’s senior civil servant had to write to the Minister to say that the judicial review was very likely to succeed.
As the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has pointed out, the Merits Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments both warned strongly about the dangers of proceeding, but the advocates of the proposed Norwich and Exeter unitary authorities, including Norwich and Exeter councils, chose to ignore all this and must therefore accept responsibility for the way in which they behaved.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I can say simply that I will not accept this amendment. I have heard once again all the arguments in favour, and I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Low, very carefully. Statute is for interpretation. The fact is that these two authorities have landed themselves in a situation in which elections are needed. They have known from the outset that if things went this way, a third of their councillors would be disbarred from the moment the decision was made and elections would have to follow. They chose to seek legal advice on whether those elections should be held, and I understand that it has now been agreed that they will be held on 9 September. They will form a normal part of proceedings. The only additional expense will, I understand, be in the manning of the polling stations, which they would have to do in any event when elections are held. It is not for the Government to pick up this bill. The local authorities, even in these difficult circumstances, have the money to do so, so I do not accept the amendment.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am sorry that the Minister has felt unable to move on this, particularly in the light of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston.
As I mentioned earlier, the Minister said in Committee that she had been given to understand that no representations on the timing of the by-elections had been received from Exeter and Norwich councils. My understanding, as I said, is different. I notice in her response that she did not comment on that issue. I hope that she will make further inquiries on this point, particularly in the light of the response, which I am informed was given in reply as a ministerial stance and which once again reaffirmed the Minister’s position. So far as I am concerned—and the Minister did not seek to refute this from the Dispatch Box just now—the statement of the law on the timing of these by-elections was incorrect. The facts, including the recent High Court judgment, also indicate that the Secretary of State’s ruling on the law was wrong and that it has led to additional costs as far as Exeter and Norwich councils are concerned.
I simply repeat that the local authorities in Norwich and Exeter have been in no way at fault, as Mr Justice Ouseley said in the recent decision of the High Court. He said that the local authorities,
“are not themselves to blame for the pickle”, in which they find themselves.”
As I have said previously, to Norwich and Exeter, and to everyone else, central government does not become some new or different body or organisation simply because of a change in political control. The same of course applies to local authorities.
I hope that the Minister might be prepared during the next few weeks to reflect further on this issue and on the stance, which I suspect the Secretary of State in reality is taking rather than the Minister, and that she might be at least prepared to indicate to the two local authorities concerned that, without any commitment to change her stance, she would nevertheless, if they so wished, be willing to meet them to hear what they wanted to say to her on costs.
It will be up to others to decide whether to pursue this issue further when the Bill reaches the other place, but as far as the proceedings in your Lordships’ House are concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold
My Lords, I declare an interest as a lifelong citizen of the county of Norfolk, as a former Norfolk county councillor who on one occasion represented a city division, and as a former Norfolk Member of Parliament. I shall be very brief.
The thrust of the amendment was extensively debated in Committee. On that occasion, we were given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, a very bleak picture of the lack of co-operation between Norfolk and Norwich. I recognise her passion for an independent Norwich. It is not new, and it has been sincerely held for a very long time. I believe that co-operation between the city and the county has been difficult, not least because of the four-and-a-half years of protracted administrative chaos and uncertainty that have arisen from this whole unitary business introduced by the previous Government.
There have been profound disagreements on each side of the city ring-road, also affecting other districts in the county. However, there are 13 city councillors and 13 county councillors who represent divisions in Norwich, as I once did. There are nine, 10 or possibly more committees and bodies which require co-operation between city and county. Indeed, the work of the Greater Norwich Development Partnership, where the city and the county work together with two other district councils, has been commended by the Audit Commission as providing an extremely good example of joint working.
It is a mistake to ask government to legislate for people to get on with one another. It should surely be in the interests of those who elect councils that those councils are accountable to their voters and not to other councils. I accept the responsibility that perhaps I have within the county of Norfolk to persuade this co-operation to continue in the interests of everyone in Norfolk and Norwich. I hope very much that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will accept the same responsibility and not try to shift it on to the Government.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, for her contribution, because she has summed up very clearly what the attitude ought to be about this. It is not government business to try to ensure that counties and districts get on together; nor is it government business to ensure that just one or two authorities are required to provide financial information. Public information is public information; if it cannot be obtained under normal freedom of information rules, there are ways of making sure that you get it. What worries me about how the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has put this forward is that she seems to be suggesting that there are such desperate animosities between the city and the county that it is absolutely impossible for this to work. I do not believe that in democratic government it is impossible for authorities to work together in a common cause.
The noble Baroness also said that I have said that savings must come now rather than through a reorganisation. Indeed I have, and that is not confined to Norfolk and Norwich. It is going to be a general view and a general situation across the country that serious savings will have to come. If we are talking about £6 million a year—I think those are the savings that it was suggested would be made—within that confine, the amount that has to be provided may be within those regions and it may not. Yet savings will surely have to be made in co-operation with Norfolk to ensure the preservation of services and the local community.
I am not going to accept the amendment. As I said on another amendment, the Government do not have any role in this. I hope only that people will hear what we say: that there will be have to be good co-operation at all levels of government over the coming months and years to ensure that, one way or another, we scramble out of this terrible financial situation in which the previous Government left us.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, we have had two contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and the Minister, who both make the same point—that government cannot legislate for local authorities to get on with each other. I completely agree, but that is not what this amendment does. They have answered a wider point about city and county relationships but not addressed the substance of the amendment, which asks for disaggregated financial information so that the city has the same information as the county has about the network of services that the county provides within the city—and, if the county wishes it, vice versa. That is all.
No one is legislating for good will. That is impossible—of course it is—but I am not even calling for that. I am calling for the financial information that local authorities and their citizens are entitled to have in order to review and provide effective delivery of services. If we do not have information, we cannot make the savings that we want. I agree with almost everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, said, but it was beside the point. I agree with most of what the Minister said—except that she will not accept the amendment—but that was beside the point. The amendment says that the county must provide this information. What does the Minister suggest? FOI. I suppose that we could down 150 requests for freedom of information to drag out of the county information that should be brought to light for the city. That is what we are talking about—financial information. It is right that you cannot legislate for goodwill partnerships, but how can we build effective value for money and make the savings that the Minister insists can be made this way, rather than by reorganisation, if we do not have that information? Can I please be told how we can do it? We cannot. We have had no answer from the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, although I agree with every word that she said. Therefore, I want to test the opinion of the House.