Local Government Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 28th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

3: Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Expenditure
There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any expenditure incurred by the Cities of Norwich and Exeter in connection with by-elections arising from the quashing by the Court of the Norwich and Norfolk (Structural Changes) Order 2010 and the Exeter and Devon (Structural Changes) Order 2010.”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 now that it has been accepted, following further representations, that it is possible to table an amendment to the Bill that calls on central government to provide the money to cover the cost of the by-elections, likely to be £80,000 to £100,000 for each authority, which are due to take place in Norwich and Exeter in September following the quashing of the two orders.

Holding the elections in September is of some significance, since it is a direct challenge to the Minister, who told me categorically in her letter of 8 July that:

“the terms of office of one-third of the members of Exeter and Norwich city councils, which had been extended by the Orders, ended on 5 July and there will be by-elections to fill the vacancies within 35 days as required by statute”.

I asked the Minister in Committee which section of which Act of Parliament the Government were saying required these elections—which are for ordinary, not casual, vacancies—to be held within 35 days. I received no answer then, or in a subsequent letter from the Minister. I have received no indication from the Minister that she has reconsidered her statement of the law that,

“there will be by-elections to fill the vacancies within 35 days as required by statute”.

Therefore, I assume that that is still her position.

In Committee, the Minister said the following on the timing of the elections:

“I understand that we have received no representations about it from the authorities and that they are taking their own legal advice”.—[Official Report, 14/7/10; col. 720.]

I will not comment on the accuracy of that statement since the Minister said that it was what she had been given to understand. However, my understanding is that, in response to the ministerial statement that they had 35 days in which to hold the elections, the local authorities asked the department to confirm the statutory basis that was referred to in the statement. I am told that after a few days, the department came back to say that the Minister stood by the statement and had nothing further to add. Some might think that a rather arrogant response. It was certainly unacceptable to the local authorities. On application by the two councils, following clear and emphatic advice from a QC, two judges in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court confirmed that the local authorities' understanding of the law was correct and that the 35-day rule for casual vacancies did not apply. Accordingly, a date in September has now been fixed for the by-elections.

In her letter to me of 8 July, the Minister also said that,

“we recognise that any by-elections will involve the councils in additional costs”.

I asked the Minister in Committee what additional costs the Government had apparently decided that Exeter and Norwich councils should bear, and whether she was referring to their having to contribute the expenditure that they would have incurred had the council elections been held on the day of the general election, or whether she was saying that the councils would have to pay that much higher cost of running the elections this summer. In her response, the Minister stated that the local authorities must bear the cost of what had happened but she did not directly answer the question that I asked about what those additional costs were; nor, so far as I can see, was the issue addressed in her subsequent letter. However, her reply in Committee included the following very interesting statement referring to the forthcoming elections:

“This is now a matter for the authorities. They now have to hold elections and if they do not know when to do so, they must seek their own legal advice”.—[Official Report, 14/7/10; col. 720.]

Perhaps I may point out to the Minister, and in particular to her Secretary of State, that it would appear that it is not the local authorities in Exeter and Norwich that do not know the law on when these elections should be held; rather, it is Mr Eric Pickles, who, despite his local government experience, does not know what he is talking about. It is really quite something to have a Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who presides over a department that writes letters at his behest with statements about the law on the timetables for by-elections that local authorities must follow which are just plain wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.