Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chris Williamson and Robert Neill

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

Many responsible local authorities communicate sensibly and proportionately with their constituents, and there is no reason why parish councils cannot do that too. There has been a great deal of scaremongering from some commentators and sources, some politically motivated, regarding the extent of the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend’s parish council has nothing to fear.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Neill]

I give way to my former shadow.

[Chris Williamson]

Might the current Mayor of London’s ability to get his message out and his not having to rely on a council newspaper have something to do with the fact that the Evening Standard is his chief cheerleader and ran a vituperative campaign against the previous incumbent, and might that have something to do with the previous incumbent’s inability to get his message out?

[Robert Neill]

Now that, like me, the hon. Gentleman has time to reflect from the Back Benches, he might consider that part of this problem was that he always fought the last battle. That one is dead and gone. The current Mayor gets his message across because he makes the right case to Londoners. I would think it a good thing if an independent newspaper supported my policies; it would be better than having to pay £1.5 million or £2 million to cook up a newspaper to support them instead. So I do not think he has advanced his case with that intervention.

For another example, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central could pop across to Greenwich from Tower Hamlets and have a look at the—taxpayer-funded, of course—Greenwich Time which has been published for several years now by the Labour-controlled council. In one recent editorial, the council leader attacked the Government’s policies of austerity for damaging the people of Greenwich. That is an interesting view which might have come straight from the pen of the shadow Chancellor—perhaps it did, for all I know—but I am not convinced that it is relevant to the role of the local authority.

Neither am I convinced that it is the role of that interesting Greenwich publication to tell me about the football fixtures or the cinema listings or to give me helpful restaurant reviews. It is the same with East End Life. These are all worthy things that a commercial local paper does, but to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), it is not a sensible use of council resources. I am sure we all want leisure or weight-loss ideas, but it is not the job of these supposed newspapers—these council publications—to provide them. It is a deliberate move on to the turf of privately run, independent newspapers. I say “deliberate” because in some cases, I regret to say, local authorities do not like the competition and criticism. That is what this is about.

Moving away from Greenwich, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central could cross the river again to Newham, where The Newham Mag makes great play of the “savage cuts”—an interesting phrase that I am sure the ever-restrained mayor of Newham had nothing to do with—imposed by the Government. In one fascinating passage, it stated that some councils pulled the plug on their Christmas lights this year because of “savage cuts” in their funding from central Government. When we worked on the formula grant, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I did not consider taking out local authorities’ Christmas light funding. It was a clever use of words to try to suggest that central Government were being Scrooge and making it impossible for people to have Christmas lights on their high street. The article did not mention, of course, that Newham council did not cut the publicity budget, which paid for The Newham Mag, and which even on a conservative estimate would run to about 10 sets of high street lights. Interestingly, even in otherwise legitimate advertising—about making benefit claims and where to go—every reference to cuts is prefaced with “savage” or “massive”. It is clearly politically loaded and another example of how councils are acting against the spirit of the code.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman has expressed his opposition to press releases being distributed by local authorities on behalf of the controlling group. When he was a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, did his Department issue press releases on his behalf?

[Robert Neill]

Yes, but I did not use them to attack the policies of the Opposition in party political terms. I would not have been allowed to do so under the ministerial code, and anyway they were dealt with by civil servants. I think the hon. Gentleman is also forgetting that, in all the cases I have described, local authorities that are using publicly funded publicity instruments to protest against Government cuts are using discretionary spend that they could have directed into front-line services. That is a classic example of why the Labour party is unhappy about this issue. I regret to say that it goes well beyond the egregious case of Tower Hamlets.

If local authorities want to get information across, which I accept has to happen, they might like to do as my own council, the London borough of Bromley, does. Rather than going to the expense of running its own newspaper, it puts a four-page wrapper around one of our local papers about four times a year. Those pages set out the information very attractively. They are well designed and contain professional journalistic input, and they wrap round the free-sheet that is delivered to everyone anyway. That is a cost-effective and politically proportionate way of getting genuine information across. Also, it does not offend against the code. It is nonsense that although an independent watchdog has held Tower Hamlets to be in breach of the publicity and advertising codes, there is still no legal means of doing anything about it. The Bill will rectify that anomaly.

I say with respect to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central that it is not good enough to say that we could try a judicial review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

Let me quote people who perhaps know a little more about these things than me. The draft Local Audit Bill ad hoc committee looked at the matter in detail. It

“heard conflicting evidence about whether and how much public money is likely to be saved by implementing this legislation.”

I have struggled to find anyone who thinks that the proposal is a good idea.

The Audit Commission said:

“Under a free market model, the current benefits of pooling auditors’ costs will be lost and councils in remote geographical locations”—

many of the locations represented by Government Members—

“will have to meet the economic cost of the audit. In some cases this may be significantly higher than historical fee levels.”

The Local Government Information Unit said:

“If the market concentrates further, or even stands still, this will eventually lead to higher, not lower, fees.”

The Select Committee on Communities and Local Government has pointed out that the Government’s proposals for local government

“contrast with the situation in central government, where the NAO is reducing the percentage of work that it contracts out to private firms”.

I do not understand why that double standard is being applied by the Government when it comes to local government. Cynics might say that the Government are creating yet another money-making cartel. We know that the Conservative party has form in using taxpayers’ money to enrich vested interests in the private sector. We need look no further than the privatisation of the utilities, with millions of consumers being ripped off on a quarterly basis by the big six utility companies. We could also look at railways privatisation, which has seen the railway companies fleecing the travelling public, or the deregulation of the private rented sector, where we have seen a massive hike in rents. As a consequence, the housing benefit bill has gone through the roof—some £10 billion a year is going into private landlords’ pockets. This is yet another example of the Conservative party flagrantly using taxpayers’ money to enrich vested interests in the private sector. It is a shameful abuse.

The Communities and Local Government Committee hit the nail on the head:

“Unless the Government can crack the problem of the very limited competition in the audit market in the UK, it will be open to the accusation that the abolition of the Audit Commission is not a measure to save public money but merely a mechanism to transfer public money into private hands.”

I could not put it better myself. Clearly, that is an endorsement of my suspicion about the Government’s real motive for introducing the Bill.

[Robert Neill]

How does the hon. Gentleman square that with the Competition Commission’s recent report into statutory audit services, which pointed out that some 90% of audits of FTSE 350 companies are dealt with by what are sometimes termed the big four, whereas they only deal with about 50% of local authority audits and mid-sized firms get the bulk of the rest?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and Robert Neill

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we will seek to do that. I have had the pleasure of visiting Dorset fire and rescue service and am impressed by the joint working that is being done. The Government, in all Departments, are anxious to continue improving interoperability.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I have to say that I am a little puzzled by the Minister’s responses this morning—[Hon. Members: “This afternoon.”] That reinforces my puzzlement, as his answers have been so confusing. The point is that the Prime Minister, prior to the general election, gave a solemn pledge that he would veto any ministerial plans that involved cuts to front-line services, yet in the Minister’s Department we have seen thousands of firefighters losing their jobs, dozens of fire stations closing and response times going through the roof. As a consequence, he is putting the safety of the public at risk. Did he forget to tell the Prime Minister about his cuts, or is this simply another broken prime ministerial election pledge?

[Robert Neill]

A lot of fire and rescue authorities are making the savings not by cutting firefighter posts or reducing fire stations, but through shared operations, better joint working and, interestingly, amended shift practices—one thing that the hon. Gentleman seems to have taken on board rather literally.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Chris Williamson and Robert Neill

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I will do my best to confine my remarks to the amendments we are considering. I am of course always happy to meet any hon. Member to discuss the funding arrangements for their local fire authority. I hope that it goes without saying that I also meet members of fire authorities and will continue to do so.

Let me deal first with amendment 48. I hope that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), upon reflection, will withdraw the amendment, on the grounds that it is impractical and ill conceived. It would not do the job that it is intended to do because it misunderstands the nature of integrated risk management plans. That plan, which every fire authority has, is a locally produced and consulted document, drawn up by professional fire officers and debated by members of the fire authority, relating to the allocation of local need to deliver the budget that they already have. It is not, and never has been, a tool for determining the distribution of resources between fire authorities nationally, and it has never been designed or used as a means of comparing need between local fire authorities. That is not the case now under formula grant, and it would be illogical for it to be so under the business rate retention system that will replace it.

There is a means of taking into account need and risk in the fire sector within the current system, and there will continue to be such a means under the new system’s baseline arrangements. The baseline funding calculation for the resources each local fire and rescue authority needs to deliver its services is already based on needs and risk, because the fire resource element within the formula includes the need to take account of deprivation, control of major accident and hazard sites—major risk sites, in other words—fire safety enforcement, community fire safety and so on. That was updated at the last settlement to reflect a consultation with local fire authorities. Because the baseline under the business rates retention system is based on the formula grant assessment we have for the current year, the needs and risks are already taken onboard. They are therefore covered in the baseline calculation and will be uprated, as I have indicated, by RPI in the same way as for anyone else.

[Chris Williamson]

Can the Minister assure the Committee that all fire authorities in the country will have sufficient resources under the Bill to fulfil their integrated risk management plans?

[Robert Neill]

No one has suggested to me that they do not have sufficient resources at the moment, and nothing in the current proposals would change the relationship between the IRMPs and the current plans. I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands what is a pretty fundamental part of the operation of fire planning. IRMPs are not a national resource allocation tool. Currently, the needs formula within the resources and needs element of the formula grant calculation separately allocates moneys to each fire authority. The authorities then consult locally on the design of their IRMP, and it is on that basis that they decide on the deployment of appliances, personnel, stations and so on. That is the case now, and it will not be changed in the slightest under the new scheme.

[Chris Williamson]

Of course I acknowledge the Minister’s point on the distribution of funds, but we are entering a new era, and the fact is that under the new regime fire authorities could be well short of the funding required to fulfil their obligations. I do know whether he has heard the concerns of the metropolitan fire authorities, for example. The new regime he is advocating today could leave fire authorities in an invidious position in which they are unable to offer the general public the proper protection that they have been able to offer hitherto.

[Robert Neill]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is highly unlikely. In fact, I cannot conceive of such a situation—for this reason, which he really ought to know if he has studied the topic. Fire authorities are in the business rates retention scheme because about one third of them are county council authorities. If they were outside the business rate retention scheme, we would have the perverse situation in which one third of all fire authorities—county council fire authorities, in effect—were nevertheless funded within business rates retention, while the remaining ones, including the metropolitan and other combined or stand-alone fire authorities, were funded by a wholly separate means. It is therefore logical to include them all within the same scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and Robert Neill

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

Apart from the adjustments to which I have referred, I used the same fire resources needs formula as I inherited from the right hon. Gentleman, so he should know.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Minister should stop being so complacent about these terrible cuts to the fire service. He has been warned by the country’s metropolitan chief fire officers that if his cuts proceed lives will be endangered and our ability to respond to acts of terrorism and other major incidents will be compromised. Will he listen to their warnings and scrap his plans for even deeper cuts to the fire and rescue service in years three and four of the budget cycle?

[Robert Neill]

I was about to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on retaining his post in the reshuffle; I might rethink that, because I am afraid it is the same old story and he is plain wrong. The Government have made it clear that we are protecting the fire service as a front-line service. We have back-loaded services and indicated to county councils with fire authorities that they should maintain the same profile. We have also made available £70 million of capital grant to improve their future adjustments and made it clear that we will protect all front-line operations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and Robert Neill

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

Some of the most important equipment made available for such purposes is the “new dimension” equipment that is provided through a central Government grant. The Government have continued to fund the equipment directly, and I am glad to say that, with the exception of one item, all of it is duly being rolled out.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

In February, the Under-Secretary of State accused me of scaremongering about the impact of his cuts on the fire service. However, freedom of information requests have confirmed that he has already presided over more than 1,000 firefighter job losses, although the Prime Minister pledged to supply funds to the fire service front line. Can he tell us whether he expects further firefighter cuts in the next 12 months, and if so, how many?

[Robert Neill]

The disposition of firefighters is entirely a matter for local authorities, whose job is to ensure that they fulfil their statutory obligations and meet their integrated resource management plan. Provided that they do those two things, it is not for central Government to micro-manage them. I know that it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to understand that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and Robert Neill

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

In fairness, a good deal of work is already being done at local level on closer collaboration and joint working between fire authorities and other emergency services, and I commend that. At the time of the settlement, I wrote to the chairmen of all fire and rescue authorities and their chief officers to set out the way in which closer joint working, collaboration, better procurement and the stripping out of back-office services could save money that could be made available to the front line.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that I have surveyed every fire and rescue service in the country about the impact of this year’s financial settlement. Fire chiefs have told me that his cuts to their budgets will result in fire stations being closed, fire appliances being taken out of service and more than 1,000 firefighters losing their jobs in the next 12 months alone. Is he confident that his cuts will not compromise public safety? Will he accept that the feedback from fire chiefs proves that he has singularly failed to deliver on his commitment to give some protection to fire and rescue services? Will he come clean and admit that his cuts—

Housing (London)

Debate between Chris Williamson and Robert Neill

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government will happily get in touch with the hon. Gentleman. It is worth putting it on record that we are working with the National Homelessness Advice Service to ensure that front-line advice workers have the support that they need. We have established a cross-Government ministerial working group to examine the underlying causes of homelessness and we continue to invest in the Places of Change hostel improvement programme. We are attempting to address the problem, but I appreciate the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman raises the issue, and I will ensure that the appropriate Minister is in touch with him. I will return to the broader issues of homelessness in due course.

We make no apology for saying that home ownership is at the core of people’s housing aspirations, and it should be at the core of our policy. It is a good thing. It gives people responsibility for their own needs, financial security and confidence. I think that it is good that housing wealth now accounts for nearly half of all household wealth, up from about 25% in 1980. Some hon. Members have criticised the right to buy and related issues in this debate, but I do not apologise for the right to buy. In the 1980s, I was a parliamentary candidate twice in Dagenham, which had one of the largest housing estates in Europe. I thought that it was utterly liberating for ordinary people—good hard-working families—to have the chance to own their home. Not everybody will always manage that aspiration, but we need to make sure that it is there, that we help people in that way, and that we also assist those who, for a number of reasons, will not be in a position to meet it.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister concede that, although the right to buy was liberating and gave access to home ownership for people who perhaps previously would never have been able to aspire to it, the decision to prevent local authorities from building, or to make it difficult for them to build, alternative affordable accommodation contributed to the massive housing crisis with which we are confronted?

[Robert Neill]

Those decisions were very much of their time and in response to it. I am not sure how much that in itself contributed, but I accept that, in the current age, we need a flexible approach to giving local authorities and housing associations the ability to build as is appropriate. That is why we are where we are now. It does not undermine the thrust of a policy that I think was necessary at the time.

Local Government Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chris Williamson and Robert Neill

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I have some sympathy for the Minister, who is having to try to justify the Government’s position on the Bill. Essentially, as he knows, he is trying to defend the indefensible. He knows that unitary councils are far more efficient than the two-tier model that he seeks to retain, and that they save money. He knows that the people in Norwich and Exeter want unitary councils. They want to have some control over their own destiny, and they do not want to be subject to the two-tier system that he seems to think is so wonderful.

The Minister also knows that most of the councillors in Exeter and Norwich support unitary status for those great cities, and that the unitary model is a better governance model for the local authorities there.

[Robert Neill]

Does it follow, then, that it is the official Opposition’s policy that there should be unitary authorities across the country?

[Chris Williamson]

The Minister knows that we support local determination, and we know from the facts surrounding Exeter and Norwich that local councillors and the local people support unitary status for those cities. It is a fact that it offers a better governance model than the two-tier system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

With the leave of the House, I will briefly reply to the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on a remarkable display of political chutzpah. I kept my opening speech brief not because I am embarrassed by the Bill—I am not remotely embarrassed by it—but because when I was a young barrister, those who taught me often said, “The stronger the case, the shorter the argument should be.” As briefly as possible, I shall briskly rebut some of the points that were made in the debate.

First, the Bill is not about the merits or otherwise of unitary authorities per se, but about the specific proposals for Norfolk and Norwich and Devon and Exeter, and the hangover arrangements relating to the county of Suffolk—no more than that. That came about, I observe, because the former Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), attempted to rush through these unitary proposals, against the advice of his Department’s accounting officer and his own party predecessors, in the dying days of the last Parliament. That was struck down as unlawful by the High Court, however, so the matter remains outstanding and has to be brought to a close.

[Chris Williamson]

If this is not an argument against the merits or demerits of unitary councils, it would seem that the Minister has inadvertently conceded that this is an act of political spite.

[Robert Neill]

On the contrary, it is clearing up an act of partisan manoeuvring by the previous Government, who abandoned their own criteria. It is worth remembering that a previous Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), concluded that neither the Exeter bid nor the Norwich bid met the value-for-money test that she had set. Was she acting out of political spite? I rather doubt it. It was also concluded that the Norwich bid was questionable on the affordability test. So the Labour party set out certain criteria, but these proposals did not meet them, and it then completely changed its tune. It is the ultimate hypocrisy, therefore, for Labour Members to accuse the Government of having changed their stance; it is they who have been so inconsistent that the High Court overturned their attempted gerrymandering.

[Chris Williamson]

How does the Minister respond to the point that the impact assessment concluded that there would be ongoing savings of £6.5 million per year? Surely that is an example of good value for money, and it would be brought about by creating unitary councils in Norwich and Exeter.

[Robert Neill]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the impact assessment, which I was going to come to, because throughout this debate Labour Members have singularly failed to understand how the impact assessment operated. First, it set out and commented on the costs and savings by reference to the previous Government’s assessments. If they think there is a problem with the previous assessments, it is not our difficulty—we did not create them. It was the previous Labour Government who judged that these proposals did not meet the financial criteria and, in the case of Norwich, the value-for-money criteria as well. They cannot have it both ways; their impact assessments were used by their own Ministers to condemn proposals that they later chose to bring forward—so I will not hear any arguments on the impact assessment.

Secondly, it is quite clear—there is ample evidence from across the country, from joint working by local authorities, including those in Devon, Suffolk and Norfolk—that considerable savings can be made through collaborative working without the on-costs and up-front costs of reorganisation. So we can have the benefits without the costs.

At the end of the day, this was a political act by the Labour Government, who, finding it inconvenient to stick with the decisions of their own Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, decided to wriggle out of it by inventing a reason that had never existed before for departing from their own criteria. That was struck down by the High Court. We have concluded that enough is enough, and that this would not serve the good interests of the governance of the counties of Devon and Norfolk, of which the cities concerned are an integral part. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Elected Mayors

Debate between Chris Williamson and Robert Neill

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

I cannot quite beat the hon. Gentleman. That would be difficult to do.

No hon. Member actually declared an interest in the sense of saying whether they had been a mayor. I should say at once that I have not been a mayor, although I have been the leader of an authority. The nearest I got was being a mayor’s escort once, and I hope that my wife did not find me too inadequate in that role. That, of course, was under a ceremonial mayoral system.

Although we can smile at the differences, some important issues arise here. Across the country, ceremonial mayors do a valuable job and are often entirely independent, non-partisan representatives of their community. They can be forces for cohesion and fine ambassadors for, and representatives of, their communities. Whatever changes are made, one does not want to lose that element of the equation. Equally, it is perfectly fair to say that there has been considerable debate, and that there is a strong case for considering the mayor as an authority’s directly elected political head and chief executive, as is the case elsewhere in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle is therefore right to say that the issue can have a huge impact on local democratic life.

My hon. Friend raised a number of interesting points and asked a number of questions. I should make it clear that there has, of course, been some debate and consideration, and various alternatives have flown around in the air. Some are picked up and some are not, at the end of the day. The final decision on the detailed implementation of our commitment on mayors is yet to be taken, and we will announce that decision to the House in due course. However, the commitment, in principle, to the concept of directly elected mayors in England’s 12 largest cities is in the coalition agreement. As has been observed many times, we have said that we will create directly elected mayors in the 12 largest English cities, subject to confirmatory referendums and full scrutiny by elected councillors. I will address those two issues as I go along.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister clarify what he means by confirmatory referendums? As he will be aware, they have been the subject of some debate in the media. Will he confirm that there would be a referendum before any mayoral system was imposed on any local authority area or city, and that proposals will not go forward unless a majority of people voted in favour?

[Robert Neill]

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will address the issue of the timing of referendums. However, I want to put it in the context of the rest of the policy.

Having set out the policy position, let me say that our commitment recognises the positive contribution that, international experience suggests, elected mayors can make, in terms of strong local leadership and instigating real change—something that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and others have observed. There are many examples of successful elected mayors, some of whom are in this country. I have had the pleasure of working with Mayors of London of both political persuasions. Other examples come from our other authorities. Clearly, there are also examples abroad. One need only look to London’s best comparator city, New York, or observe the real resilience that directly elected mayors bring to the great cities of many of our continental friends and partners in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and so on, where that governance model is regarded as the norm.

That experience supports the case for mayors in our largest cities, which is founded on mayors having greater potential to achieve successful economic, social and environmental outcomes in their cities than do other forms of government. I think that that is the result of the sharper accountability, greater legitimacy and stronger leadership that direct elections bring. Mayors can both be entrusted with greater powers and be expected to exercise them more effectively than perhaps councils generally are. In our largest cities, creating mayors and equipping them with the powers that they need will enable them to seize opportunities so that those cities can fulfil their potential as drivers of genuine economic growth.

We believe that elected mayors are an effective model—a model that can result in greater prosperity and improved social outcomes for our great cities, and a model that can restore the prestige of our cities, bettering the life of those who live and work in them. However, the decision on whether to have a mayor must ultimately rest with local people. That is why our commitment is to create mayors subject to confirmatory referendums. The timing of the referendums is important, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognised when he said in the House last week, in response to a suggestion that we would impose mayors,

“of course we will not—that is completely out of the question. The proposals will be subject to referendums.”

I can do no more than refer hon. Members who have asked about the timing to what my right hon. Friend said last week. He put it very simply:

“Once we know the views of the people in those 12 cities, we will move on to the election of a mayor if people vote for that.”

I should have thought that that was pretty crystal clear.

[Chris Williamson]

I do not want to labour the point unnecessarily, but I would appreciate some clarification. There is speculation that the leaders of the councils in the 12 biggest cities in England will be, as I said in my speech, transmogrified into directly elected mayors. I should appreciate it if the Minister would clarify that that will not happen, and they will not be transferred in that way or given the title of elected mayor until such time as a referendum has taken place.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that there has been a great deal of speculation about all aspects of elected mayors and the broader decentralisation agenda. I simply repeat what the Secretary of State said, which could not have been clearer:

“Once we know the views of the people in those 12 cities, we will move on to the election of a mayor if people vote for that.” —[Official Report, 21 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 1117.]

Reference has been made to the 12 cities. Our commitment is to have mayors in the 12 largest cities, and there are different arguments about where they are. Some points have been well made in the debate about the type of city that has a sharp focus and a sense of identity. Equally there will be questions about whether cities have the size or position to take on the range of powers that may be available.

I shall not go into the argument about unitaries as opposed to two-tier authorities at this stage. It is another legitimate debate, and I do not hold a dogmatic view on it. I have experienced good authorities of both kinds. I remind the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) that what the Conservative party has always said on the subject—and what the Secretary of State was referring to in a very catchy reference he made to his attitude to local government reorganisation—relates to the situation under the previous Government, when unitary authorities were imposed on some areas by force, without the consent of the people in those authorities. There is a difference between unitary reorganisation and the present issue, which is about giving people in existing, well-established city authorities the choice on whether to have a directly elected mayor.

I draw the attention of the House to the Green Paper, “Control Shift”, that we published in opposition, setting out 12 potential cities that might have mayors. The Green Paper is referred to again in the coalition agreement. Those 12 cities are Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield. We did that on the basis that those cities are of a particular size, which we have calculated. We did not include the city of Sunderland, which is large, but which had a vote on a mayor in 2001. The people there took a view and rejected the proposal. So there is a logic to what we have proposed, and our thinking is that we would give people the choice in those 12 cities. We shall set that out in detail in the localism Bill, which was announced in the Queen’s Speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle referred to the possibility of extending the plan to other cities, but they can already have elected mayors if they wish. Under existing legislation, councils may choose to hold a referendum on whether to adopt the directly elected mayoral model, or they may resolve to adopt the mayoral model. We do not propose to remove that option. We also intend to keep the current arrangements whereby local people can trigger a binding referendum on whether to have an elected mayor for their area by submitting a petition to the council with the signatures of at least 5% of the area’s electors. I understand that there is such a petition under way in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Debate between Chris Williamson and Robert Neill

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

As I said in my first response, the statutory duty to provide fire and rescue services and proper contingency arrangements lies with the fire and rescue authority, in this case the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, which is of course appointed by and answerable to the Mayor of London. The Mayor has issued a statement today in which he expresses his confidence that appropriate contingency arrangements are in place, and I trust him and the fire authority to deal with that.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that any dispute that reaches this stage is very regrettable. However, it is worth bearing in mind, first, that there have been changes to shift patterns elsewhere in the country; secondly, that there have been protracted negotiations over many years in relation to the London situation; thirdly, that although dismissal notices have been used, the fire authority intends to offer to re-employ all its staff on fresh contracts, so nobody need lose jobs or pay; and finally, and perhaps significantly, the fire authority chairman has pointed out how the employers’ side offered and suggested a meeting of the national negotiators on that very day, 5 November. Instead of accepting that offer, the union, I very much regret to say, chose to call a strike for that day.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for updating the House on the situation.

Any strike by the fire service is obviously a very serious matter and one that the public will understandably and justifiably be concerned about. We understand that concern, and our position is absolutely clear. Bonfire night is one of the busiest periods in the year for the fire service and will in all likelihood be even busier this year, as Diwali falls on the same date. Whatever the issues surrounding the proposed new shift patterns and contracts, a strike by the fire service on bonfire night would potentially put Londoners at risk. It is not supported by the public, and it does not have our support either. The public will rightly expect both sides in this dispute to do everything that they can to avoid an unnecessary strike. We urge both sides to sit down and talk to each other to reach an agreement as soon as possible.

Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), may I tell the Minister that he has our support in seeking a resolution to this dispute as soon as possible? What discussions has he had with the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the Fire Brigades Union and the Mayor of London to encourage all parties to come together to reach an agreement?

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and for those observations and I am sure that everyone will welcome the condemnation implicit in his statements of some of the behaviour that we saw. He is right to say that there is scope to decide when a strike takes place and choosing 5 November was especially inappropriate in the circumstances. I hope that his condemnation of that decision will extend to a condemnation of the intimidation of those people who sought to provide cover in London on Saturday.

I have made it clear from the beginning that I hope that this will be settled by negotiation because it is best dealt with at a local level. I do not believe that Ministers intervening in the detail of that negotiation would be appropriate, but we have made it clear that our officials are in contact with the parties. The chief fire and rescue adviser has kept me apprised of all the developments throughout the recent deterioration in the circumstances and will continue to do so. Of course, he continues to receive information from all the interested parties.

Things need not happen this way, and I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s words that the Opposition do not wish things to happen this way. I hope that we can say that both sides of the House conclude that this is not a mature way to deal with a dispute that involves a critical service. I hope that we can achieve a resolution and, above all, I hope that we will not see Londoners put at risk on an especially high-risk day. That would be a regrettable bit of brinkmanship, and that is why I have used the strong language that I have—it reflects the views of the public on the way in which they have been used in this matter.

Local Government Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chris Williamson and Robert Neill

Thursday 21st October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson]

The members from the hon. Gentleman’s party in Norwich were pretty irrelevant, actually, to—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] They were irrelevant to the extent that they represent—[Interruption]—if the Secretary of State will allow me—a rump in that authority. Let us be clear about that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

If the hon. Gentleman regards the issue of party support and the views of councillors as the sole determining factor, can he explain why his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), when she was Secretary of State, rejected exactly the proposal with which we are concerned because it did not meet the required criteria?

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman is not listening to me. I did not say that that was the sole determining factor at all, and he should listen a little more carefully. I know that this is one of my first appearances at the Dispatch Box, but if he listened more carefully he might learn a thing or two.

Labour Members very much support the benefits of unitary status for local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

If structures are so bad, were the Conservative Government wrong to create so many unitary authorities in the 1990s?

[Robert Neill]

From listening to the hon. Gentleman, I got the impression that unitaries would have become compulsory under a Labour Government. We accept diversity. We believe that if a unitary would cover a small urban area, its impact on the surrounding counties must be taken into account. That aspect is left out of Labour Members’ analysis, although several of my hon. Friends raised it, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Broadland (Mr Simpson), who effectively shredded the arguments of the right hon. Member for Don Valley.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Neill]

Of course; we have all the time in the world.

[Chris Williamson]

I know we have. I wanted to give the Minister another chance to answer the question. Were the Conservative Government wrong to create so many unitary councils in the 1990s, particularly when many were formed in the teeth of opposition from the county councils—[Interruption.] I can hear the Secretary of State saying, “Don’t bother, don’t answer,” but I would be grateful for a response. The Minister appears to believe that it was wrong for us to try to create unitary authorities in Exeter and Norwich, so were the Conservative Government wrong to create so many in the 1990s? It is a simple question—yes or no?

[Robert Neill]

I do not think that they were wrong, but although I am always interested in history, I am not a prisoner of it. Since the 1990s local government has developed mature and sophisticated means, which were much less well recognised then, of working jointly across boundaries. It is also worth remembering that several issues, which must be tackled—interestingly, they arise in the case that we are considering—require cross-boundary working. For example, the ambitions for economic growth and development in both Exeter and Norwich involve developing important sites outside the city boundaries. I have been to both cities; I have not simply telephoned. Many of the development sites, which in Exeter stretch towards the airport, involve collaboration with the district councils, which will be the planning authorities, and with the county councils, which will be the highways authorities, in those areas.

Ernest Newman described extracts from Wagner operas as bleeding chunks, removed from “Tannhäuser” or “Parsifal” to be used at a concert. Taking a city out is extracting a bleeding chunk, disconnecting it from its hinterland. The proposals that Labour Members advocate would be the worst thing for the welfare of the citizens of both cities and counties.