Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

2nd reading
Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I do not recognise that description of events from the hon. Gentleman. There has been wide engagement on this, both with the political parties, including his own just last week, and with parties more widely.

The first part of the Bill provides that, for the purposes of this legislation, the period of the troubles is defined as beginning on 1 January 1966 and ending on 10 April 1998—the date of the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Part 2 provides for the establishment of a new independent commission for information recovery, tasked with carrying out robust, effective and thorough investigations into the deaths and injuries that occurred during the troubles, for the primary purpose of information recovery.

We recognise the importance of the new commission being able to deliver its functions with absolute independence. This will be crucial to gaining the trust of families, survivors and individuals who decide to engage in the information recovery process. That is why the UK Government will have absolutely no involvement in the commission’s decision-making process. The new commission will have all the necessary policing powers to conduct its own thorough investigations, including the ability to compel witnesses and test forensics. The body will be supported for the first time by a legal requirement for full disclosure from UK Government Departments, security services and arm’s length bodies to make sure that it can gather all the evidence that it needs to establish what happened in each case.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I recognise that my right hon. Friend and the Government are doing their level best in good faith to deal with a sensitive and intractable situation. Does he recognise that the establishment of the Goldstone commission in South Africa, which is not an exact parallel but has similarities, was itself beset by considerable controversy at the beginning, but its ultimate success was largely due to the stature and integrity of Justice Richard Goldstone as its chair? He was a former Supreme Court judge of South Africa and a former prosecutor for the international tribunals in both Yugoslavia and Rwanda, so a man of impeccable integrity and independence. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that, when we look for someone to be the chief commissioner, that is exactly the sort of person we will seek—someone with experience in these jurisdictions, but not necessarily even from the UK jurisdiction? Having someone of that level of standing will be critical, will it not, for the credibility of the decisions that the commission will be entrusted with?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend is right in the example that he gives. I will reference another one later. Operation Kenova has been successfully led and was also regarded with some scepticism at the beginning. It has shown that a piece of work, if properly done by the right people, can gain credibility, acceptance and understanding. My hon. Friend gives a good outline of exactly how this can be taken forward in a successful way for people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not going to comment on particular cases, but I will say again that the so-called on-the-run letters have no basis in law and will not prevent or play a part in the process that we are outlining in this Bill. If somebody is in possession of one of those letters, they will still be subject to this legislation and, potentially, to prosecution.

As I have outlined, as a country we have already fundamentally altered the criminal justice model in Northern Ireland for troubles-related offences. We have seen the early release of prisoners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the process of secretly decommissioning weapons, and of course there is already an effective amnesty for those who provide information to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains. Although the Government believe that the difficult decisions taken at those points were absolutely right for the peace process, the overall approach to addressing legacy issues has not since been adjusted to reflect those very decisions.

We cannot simply pretend that things did not happen or that challenging compromises were not rightly made. As a result, the context in which we approach these issues is fundamentally different from that for any other crime across the country. The Bill strikes a balance between a focus on information recovery through an investigative process that is compliant with international obligations, and ensuring that those who choose not to engage will remain liable to prosecution, should the evidence exist. The provisions will apply to everyone equally.

Part 3 of the Bill details the impact of the proposals on ongoing and future proceedings within the current criminal, civil, inquest and police complaints systems. From the date the Bill comes into force, no other organisation in the UK, apart from the new information recovery commission, will be able to take forward a criminal investigation into a troubles-related incident.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on the criminal justice point?

[Brandon Lewis]

Just a moment.

Any existing cases in which a decision has been taken to prosecute will be allowed to continue to their conclusion. Future prosecutions will remain a possibility for those involved in offences connected to a death or serious injury, if they do not actively come forward. We have listened to the concerns expressed, following the publication of our Command Paper, about active civil claims and inquests, which is why we no longer propose to bring them to an immediate end. Civil claims that had already been filed with the courts before the Bill was introduced will be allowed to continue, but new cases will be barred. Inquests that have reached an advanced stage by 1 May next year, or the date on which the new commission becomes operational, will continue. New and existing inquests that have not reached an advanced stage by that point will not continue in the coronial system, but may be referred to the judge-led commission for investigation.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. Will he help me on two matters? First, will he explain—this harks back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—how he envisages the interaction between clause 7, which will set limitations on the admissibility of certain material in criminal prosecutions, and the provision in clause 22 on the commission’s power to refer material? By the sound of it, compelled testimony and other types of material will be excluded, in meeting what I take it will be the full code test that will be applied by the relevant prosecuting authority.

Secondly, has the Secretary of State assessed the risk of satellite litigation by means of legal challenges to the decisions of the commission to make referrals? How will such challenges be dealt with?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes insightful points. We are cognisant of those things and will go through them in Committee and in the guidance that we will issue. That is why it is important, referring to his earlier point, that this is a judge-led commission, which involves very highly respected investigative individuals in the process.

While addressing the legacy of the past rightly focuses on those most directly affected, it is a sad fact that the troubles have touched the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland, and across the rest of these islands in different ways, including many of those born after the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed. It is therefore important that we think of reconciliation and remembering in a societal as well as in an individual context. That is why, under part 4 of the Bill, an expert-led memorialisation strategy will lay the groundwork for inclusive new structures and initiatives to commemorate the tragic events of the past—to help us all collectively remember those lost and ensure that the lessons of the past are not forgotten.

Patrick Finucane: Supreme Court Judgment

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I am afraid that I would say quite the opposite. I am saying clearly that there is a process that we will go through and that we want to ensure that we abide by and meet our article 2 obligations. We will assess this again following the PSNI investigation and the police ombudsman’s work. That is a clear message about following proper due process and letting those investigations work through to see what information we can bring out. Ultimately, the aim of all the work we should be doing on the legacy is to ensure that we secure information for families who have been waiting for it for far too long.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

I appreciate that these are very sensitive issues and that this was a difficult decision for my right hon. Friend to make. I was pleased to hear him say just now that the Government accept their obligations under article 2. Will he confirm that they also accept their obligations under section 6 of the Human Rights Act? I was a professional friend and colleague of the late Sir Desmond de Silva. Would my right hon. Friend accept that the difficulties with his inquiry were related not to any lack of professionalism or integrity on Sir Desmond’s part but to the procedural constraints that were placed upon him and that that was what caused the Supreme Court to find that, thus far, the article 2 obligations had not been met? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no such procedural constraints will be placed on the ongoing inquiries and investigations and that the Government will ensure that the article 2 obligations, as set out by the Supreme Court’s judgment, will be complied with fully and in a timely manner?

[Brandon Lewis]

We are absolutely committed to our obligations under article 2. That is why I have said that I will reassess this, following the work by the PSNI and the police ombudsman. On the question of scope, as a police-led investigation, this obviously has different connotations and different powers from those that Desmond de Silva had, and that is quite right. This is a matter for the PSNI, which is independent of the Government, and it will be for the Chief Constable to outline the remit and the process of the review. As I said, he intends to start that early next year. In fact, he told me that he hoped it would start in January. The PSNI will be engaging with the Finucane family around that work, and we will ensure that it does so ahead of the work beginning in early 2021.

Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Legal Obligations

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at what we have been doing on the protocol, such as the dedicated mechanism, the settled status scheme and the live animals and agrifoods work that we have done on sanitary and phytosanitary checks, he will see that we are delivering on the protocol and delivering on what we said we would do, as we did with the rules and regulations that we passed this year, not least on victims’ pensions. We have a good track record of delivering and doing exactly what we say we want to do. One thing that we said we would do, that we outlined we would do, and that we have a manifesto pledge and a mandate to do was to deliver unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses, and we will do that.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has said that he and the Government are committed to the rule of law. Does he recognise that adherence to the rule of law is not negotiable? Against that background, will he assure us that nothing that is proposed in this legislation does, or potentially might, breach international legal obligations or international legal arrangements that we have entered into? Will he specifically answer the other point: was any ministerial direction given?

Leaving the EU: Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are at the start of negotiations. I cannot predict where we will end up. However, I will come specifically to the European arrest warrant and its implications for us in a few moments.

Criminal networks are driving migrant smuggling; Europol estimates that more than 90% of migrants travelling to the EU used facilitators—provided, in most cases, by criminal groups with an estimated turnover of €3 billion to €6 billion in 2015 alone. We are at the beginning of a complex process to agree a new relationship with the EU. This is new territory for both sides, and it is way too early to say exactly what that relationship will look like. I am sure there will be many and varied views expressed from around the Chamber today and in the months ahead, but I am also confident that nobody will argue against the importance of fighting cross-border crime and of defending security across Europe.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

To reinforce that point, will the Minister concede that what we are talking about is a system of European criminal justice co-operation? Much of this is about practical co-operation and information sharing and does not largely touch on the substantive criminal law of the states. Sometimes it extends beyond member states of the European Union. Does not that reinforce the importance of the point about practicality?

[Brandon Lewis]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a really important point, and he is absolutely right. Some members of and countries involved with organisations such as Europol are not part of the European Union, highlighting that they see the importance of ensuring that we share information efficiently and proactively to fight crime. It is absolutely right that we work to protect that ability. Whatever shape our future relationship with the EU takes, I hope that we can all agree that it should not compromise the safety of people in the UK or, indeed, the rest of Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point in that the work we have done across Europe—we have been a leading country in working to get this information—we are also continuing to do with countries around the world to make sure that we are able to do everything we can, in every context, to keep our country and our citizens safe.

For example, we work bilaterally and through the Counter Terrorism Group to combat terrorism effectively in Europe, and that work retains our local sovereignty. It includes working with European partners on information sharing, tackling foreign fighter flows, law enforcement co-operation, tackling radicalisation, and countering the narratives of terrorist groups. That group sits outside the EU, and we will therefore continue to be a member of it. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, our EU co-operation is of course just part of a wider landscape of international counter-terrorism work, which includes co-operation through relationships such as those with Interpol and the “Five Eyes” countries, and bilateral work with individual countries and NATO.

[Robert Neill]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend makes that point. May I make a point in relation to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)? The evidence given to the Justice Committee was very clear that although there are other means of international co-operation with countries outside the EU, the current mechanisms are much more efficient, as they very often have to be conducted on a bilateral basis rather than as part of a joined-up system. It is therefore desirable, as my right hon. Friend says, that we do all we can to stay in them.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point in that there are different agreements in different parts of the world with different partners around the world. It is important that we work to improve all those arrangements and get the benefits that we have seen from some of the work we have done and agreements we have secured across Europe more widely. Key partners in Europe have already assured us, as a Government, that they value our close co-operation on counter-terrorism matters as well.

We are very clear that effective co-operation with EU member states on security and policing in order to combat terrorism will continue to be a top UK priority. Looking ahead, our EU-level relationships will, of course, have to change, but our shared goal of assuring and enhancing the security of our citizens will not. It is important that we can find a way forward that works for the UK and the EU jointly, for mutual benefit. We will approach the negotiations from the perspective of what is best for the safety of all our citizens, and what is worst for those who seek to cause serious harm to innocent people and democratic values.

During negotiations, we will look to maintain the excellent co-operation that currently exists with our European partners. We fully recognise that the nature of our future relationship can be decided only in negotiations with member states and EU institutions. We are confident, however, that all citizens will be safer if we continue to work together and co-operate. We recognise the challenges involved in negotiating a new relationship, but we are committed to finding innovative solutions that enable us to continue to work together for the collective security of Europe and all the citizens of the United Kingdom.

Housing

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

One day, the hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues will intervene to explain the wonders of eco-towns and just how many got built under the Labour Government.

[Robert Neill]

Perhaps I could bring my hon. Friend back to the London housing market. Does he agree that one of the worst things that could happen to the London housing market is the imposition of rent controls on the private sector, as it invariably drives up costs, reduces supply and encourages the bad landlord rather than the good one whom we need to see in the capital?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend highlights the reality and what the ambition should be. London is a shining example of what a city can achieve under the leadership of a powerful Mayor. He has overseen the delivery of more than 67,000 affordable homes since the mess we inherited in 2010, and we want to build on that, which is why we are looking to devolve more powers to mayoral London and enable my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) to take forward my hon. Friend’s work. We make no apology for focusing on affordable home ownership, while Labour does everything it can to deny people the chance to own their own home. It is what people want; buying a home is an aspiration shared by the vast majority of the public—86% say they would choose to buy their own property—which might partly explain the result at the general election, when Labour was ignored by the public.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Minister is right to emphasise the importance of delivering on aspiration, but is he not also right to contrast the delivery by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) with the complete failure of the top-down dirigiste policies of the former Mayor of London, who I gather now advises the leader of the Labour party?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend puts it succinctly and highlights the mess inherited nationally and in London. I hope we can build on our work delivering for our country, following the general election result, by ensuring good governance in London with another Conservative Mayor next year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is in fact a Government amendment that is being taken through the Lords. The principle of ensuring that retaliatory evictions cannot happen is one that we would all wholeheartedly support.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that evidence from abroad also shows that the last way to get the long-term investment that the private sector needs is through the distorting effect of rent controls, which damaged the quality of the private rental sector in places such as New York when they were tried there?

[Brandon Lewis]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. History—both in this country and in a number of countries overseas—has shown us that all rent controls do is put prices up for tenants and reduce supply, which is the opposite of what we want in this country. We want a good, thriving and growing rental sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

There is about £2.8 billion of headroom in the housing revenue account across local authorities. We have recognised this year that some authorities that have been building have come close to that headroom, so we made extra money available. We have already announced some bids and will announce some more shortly. I encourage local authorities to bid to take up this opportunity, along with the housing guarantee grants that we have been offering with housing associations to provide more affordable housing. I am proud that we have managed to deliver more than 200,000 such houses over the past couple of years.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

9. When his Department plans to issue a final response to the consultation entitled “Opportunities for collaboration, cost savings and efficiencies”; launched in May 2014, on the local government pension scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

If I may correct the hon. Lady, it was my suggestion to involve ACAS. I cannot say why the Fire Brigades Union called the strike action in the first place. We said that it was unnecessary and we still believe that it is unnecessary. We hope that the Fire Brigades Union and the employers implement the principles that they agreed with our facilitation to ensure that nobody is left without a job or a pension at the age of 55.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister and his officials on the sensitive way in which they have carried out the difficult negotiations. Will he confirm that, subject to the sensible resolution of details between the employers and employees, the cost envelope and principles that have been agreed will not only protect firefighters in cases of genuine ill-health retirement, but allow them in cases of full service to retire on one of the most generous pension schemes in the public sector?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. As he will know from the excellent work that he did in negotiating with the Fire Brigades Union for the first two years of this Government, the issue of fitness and capability is for the employers to resolve, not the Government. I am pleased that we were able to facilitate the parties in coming together and I hope that they will come to a conclusion that ensures that firefighters have one of the best pension schemes in the public sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and the Secretary of State and I both spoke to the chief fire officer last week. The fire service did a fantastic job, but it is very disappointing that the chairman of the fire authority tried to play political games in the aftermath of this tragedy, because it is simply not true to say that only one vehicle was available. The mutual scheme between the different authorities, including Staffordshire, Herefordshire and others, worked extremely well, and a large number of engines were still available for use, and he should be getting on with doing his job instead of playing politics in that fire authority.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend think it might be a good time to review the rules on the declaration of councillors’ interests, given that it is now compulsory for all Labour council candidates to be a member of a trade union?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Hansard reports of what has been said over the last few months, he will see that I have made clear on more than one occasion that we will not privatise the fire service, notwithstanding the scaremongering of members of his party. He should also note—if he is not already aware of it—that West Midlands fire service is currently advertising for firefighters.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than carping at chimeras and imagined proposals for privatisation, Opposition Members might do better to study seriously a report by Sir Ken Knight—arguably the most distinguished and experienced operational commander of his generation—which sets out serious and important proposals for efficiencies in the organisation?

[Brandon Lewis]

It is somewhat surprising—although I suppose that it ought not to be—that the Opposition seem to have wanted to create a campaign to prevent something that was never going to happen in the first place.

My hon. Friend is right about Sir Ken Knight’s report. It is very well written, and there is much in it for us to note. I look forward to the responses that we shall receive from the sector itself and from authorities more generally. We have already held a teleconference on the report, and I shall return to the subject more formally later in the year.

Local Government Standards Regime

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Brandon Lewis]

Bear in mind that that is a decision for the individual member, as it is when we declare an interest in the House. Councillors must decide whether, at the point of a decision, they have an open mind, having heard all the evidence. If someone has been campaigning heavily against something, they may come to a meeting, hear all the evidence both for and against and then make a judgment about whether they have an open mind on the evidence. That is a matter for them. The key point is that the advice being given to councillors that they cannot do that is wrong. They can do it and, actually, that is how we represent our residents. That was one of the problems with the old regime.

On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, since 1 July 2012, when the new regime came into force, councils have had no power to suspend a member—absolutely none. A member convicted by a court for failing to disclose a disclosable pecuniary interest may be disqualified for up to five years by the court in its sentence. In addition, the law remains that any person sentenced to three months or more in prison is disqualified from holding the office of councillor for five years.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. Were there to be any growth in litigation based on an erroneous interpretation of the transitional provisions, would he consider what steps the Department and the Government might take to assist the courts in ensuring that a tribunal has access to the correct interpretation before coming to a decision?

[Brandon Lewis]

I will address the transitional arrangements in a moment, but, yes, we do have to consider that.

The advice in the Wiltshire case makes little sense. The advice refers to a pecuniary interest in any matter, but it focuses on the word “any,” which is completely the wrong end of the stick, to use a colloquial phrase. The advice fails to define a disclosable pecuniary interest, which is the key point. The simple fact is that one cannot identify a disclosable pecuniary interest that relates to the setting of council tax. A beneficial interest in land is probably the nearest to that, but that interest is clearly not materially affected by the setting of council tax.

I have learned something today, and I am hugely impressed: I have never before heard of an “ethical governance officer,” which is a fantastic new title. I am sure the title will be cropping up across the country, no doubt with people asking for pay rises. One of the things of which I have seen far too much, particularly in parish councils, is organisations advising that, in setting precepts, all members have to declare a pecuniary interest, which implies that every councillor has such an interest, be they district councillors, county councillors or unitary councillors. Indeed, it could be argued that that goes all the way to us when we set the Budget. That is farcical. That is not what the guidance sets out. We must make it clear to parish councillors that that is bad advice. It is wrong. That was not the intention.

Another example I have heard is how councils feel the need, under the transitional arrangements, to continue to investigate a complaint under the old regime, whatever its merits. That is absolutely not what the transitional arrangements require. Briefly, if a council considers a complaint unworthy of investigation and the resources that that would entail, it can bin the complaint. I stress again that that is a decision for the council—the members. Neither the monitoring officer nor any other officer has the power to make a decision and force or tell councillors to do something. The decision is in the hands of the democratically elected councillors.

Why is all this happening? Why is there an attraction to continue a Standards Board-type regime—a regime that was widely loathed in local government and ill served citizens, taxpayers and councillors? As I hope I have stressed clearly, our new regime puts members firmly in the driving seat when it comes to deciding what a council’s standards arrangements should be. They are for local councils to decide. In that role, it is right that members look to their officers for advice, as that is what officers are for, but I have to say that much of the advice being given to members is far from satisfactory. There are some very good monitoring officers out there, but far too much poor advice is being given, leading members to feel that they are being bullied by officers.

What I have seen often shows that, for whatever reason, officers have simply failed to grasp what the reform is about. It is about having arrangements that maintain high standards while avoiding bureaucratic burdens and doing away with all the petty, vexatious complaints that bedevilled the operation of the old regime. Whether because of excessive caution, bureaucrats’ love of bureaucracy for its own sake, or a misplaced belief that they and not members should be in the driving seat on standards, officers often advise that something more or less akin to the old Standards Board regime should be continued.

One of the most worrying examples is the Public Law Partnership that provides legal advice to a number of councils, including Essex county council and, I believe, Brentwood borough council, where I was once a member. The partnership has prepared a model code and model arrangements for handling misconduct complaints that seem essentially to be a form of the old Standards Board regime. I see no need for a local authority to adopt a code of conduct based on such a model, or to put in place complaint-handling arrangements based upon the Standards Board regime. I see no need for a heavy, bureaucratic, gold-plated approach that has no place in the new localist standards arrangements, which should be driven by and for members.

I send a clear message to council leaders and members that where they receive such advice, they should simply tell their officers to think again. They must challenge their officers to get it right. They should tell the officers that what they are saying is wholly out of step with the new regime and its aims as approved by Parliament, and instruct them to come forward with something different—something that is proportionate and that meets the needs of members under the new regime.

I know that members are trying to do the right thing and want to make the right decisions, and that the officers giving advice sound well informed and very much in control. It is easy for members to believe, “We must do this.” I hope that today I have sent a clear message to councillors that the power is in their hands; they should exercise it and challenge their officers to come up with a light-touch scheme and approach. I know that leaders and members have the strength and capacity to do that. They should do it now, if they have not done so already. They should get on with it, using the comments made by all Members in this debate, including me, to challenge their officers. My message to monitoring officers and others who give that advice is to be professional and proportionate and to cut out the gold-plating. Let us see some common sense.

I have heard of law firms offering advice—at a price rather than pro bono, I imagine—on the standards regime and how to operate it. It is, of course, for councils to decide what advice they need. Again, I suggest that members should consider carefully whether they need outside, paid legal advice when they have their own officers. I find it hard to envisage circumstances in which seeking such advice can be genuinely justified. The new standards regime is about empowering councillors to deliver high standards of conduct; it is not about creating a new legal industry, whatever attractions that might have for some. My message to council members is at the very least to consider matters very carefully before deciding that it is necessary to involve a legal firm in the conduct of their council’s standards arrangements.

Monitoring officers are there to provide professional advice, not to decide what is to happen or judge whether a member has a disclosable pecuniary interest. I hope that I have made that clear. It is the responsibility of the member concerned to make that judgment. Members need to have confidence in the expertise, professionalism and independence of their officers and to trust that they do not have an agenda or aim that might put their advice into a particular context. Again, I encourage members to challenge their officers appropriately and robustly.

The public expect high standards of conduct from local authority members, and the vast majority of local authority members conduct themselves in an entirely appropriate manner. Across our country, they work fantastically hard for their communities. There is simply no point in a local authority needlessly imposing a burden of bureaucracy on itself. Councils now have the opportunity to free themselves of the Standards Board regime and make a fresh start free of complicated codes of conduct and resource-intensive arrangements for complaint handling. This opportunity is too important to miss, and I hope that they will take advantage of it, guided particularly by the comments made in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst again on securing the debate, which is welcome and, I hope, helpful for local authorities and councillors across this country.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and he makes it so well that I have no doubt that the Treasury will have heard it directly, so I will leave it there.

[Robert Neill]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the admirable speech he is making and warmly congratulate him face to face on his new appointment. I am delighted he has succeeded me. I think that we share the same philosophy in these matters. He made an important point about pooling, for which I am grateful, and there are some other issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) raised. As I understand it, the key element in Lords amendment 1, which deals with my hon. Friend’s point, is that the Government have undertaken to fund the discretionary rate relief in relation to enterprise zones so that there is not the disincentive to have an enterprise zone that there might otherwise be. Will he indicate that that is the way the rate relief will be delivered so that we can be sure that it is worth while for a local authority to have an enterprise zone without prejudicing the benefits of rate retention?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and hope that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will allow me 30-seconds’ leeway to thank him for his kind words. This is the first time I have been at the Dispatch Box during a debate in which he, who he is a good friend, has spoken, so I want to put on the record how fortunate I am to be following in the footsteps of someone who laid so clear a path, and one that I support and agree with. Equally, that offers a challenge, because I have quite an act to follow. As in all the matters we are discussing this afternoon, he is absolutely right that enterprise zones are structured in that way so that there is no such disincentive. It is important to bear in mind how the incentives work. Business rates retention offers local authorities a clear incentive to help drive growth, because they will benefit from all the growth they see. That is something we very much want to see so that local authorities are absolutely at the heart of driving economic growth.

I will turn now to some of the question hon. Members asked. The hon. Member for Warrington North asked what happens when a major business goes down mid year, a point the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) also touched on. The payments to major precepting authorities would be set on the basis of estimates of income made by the billing authority. Those payments will not change, so billing authorities might need to consider how they would fund any shortfall in the short term before the safety net calculations are made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour Members’ approach is bizarre. They claim to be localist but object when anything is localised. They claim to recognise the need to reduce the deficit—I am never quite sure about that—but never actually say how or when they would do it. Instead, they just give a blanket criticism of anything that seeks to move things forward.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) talked about West Oxfordshire and Westminster councils not having schemes as if that was a bad thing. Does my hon. Friend agree that, actually, the decision to protect local residents by not changing the schemes is an example of the very point we are making—it is about local choice?

[Hon. Members]

When you’ve got the money!

Local Government Finance

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

Since the settlement is set out in reams of paper, I need not trouble the right hon. Gentleman too much with that, though he might like to know that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I regret to say, fell—unintentionally, I am sure—into error in his point about expenditure. The disabled facilities grant has in fact been increased this year, as it was last year. It was increased by a further £20 million. It has gone up from £167 million to £187 million, and it will go up to £207 million next year.

It is worth saying that central Government are providing £27.8 billion in all by way of formula grant to local authorities. In addition there are further specific grants. It is also worth saying, if the right hon. Member for Knowsley would like some figures, that we are providing a further £20 million in transition grant this year. That makes up for the slack in budgets that came when the Labour Government brought working neighbourhoods funds to an end, quite deliberately and in a planned fashion.

[Brandon Lewis]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

I will give way just once, then I must make progress.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that one of the figures that is most important to the people whom we are here to represent is the one that relates to their council tax? The Government have allowed it to be frozen for a second year, which is a vast improvement on the years of multiple increases under the previous Government.

[Robert Neill]

It is ironic that we heard very little about whether the Opposition will encourage Labour councils to take the council tax freeze. I hope they will. Following the damascene conversion of the shadow Secretary of State to condemning the lack of transparency of Nottingham city council, I hope he will say that whatever the Opposition think about the Government overall, it is necessary above all to protect council tax payers and hard-pressed families and to adopt the council tax freeze.

Many authorities are doing that and they are using the breathing space. We have said that this year, because of the economic mess that we inherited, it is a one-year payment. Last year’s payment will be throughout the spending period. It gives local authorities a breathing space in which to manage the reconfiguration of their services. Good authorities are doing that.

Better procurement is an important issue and it should not be sneered at, as some hon. Members did. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is right to remind people that smaller authorities in rural areas often have less flexibility in managing budget pressures than larger authorities. We must recognise, therefore, that we cannot necessarily draw comparisons. Our system specifically builds in fairness, and not only because we have increased the needs element in the formula. I know it is a shock to Opposition Members, because they have the intellectual arrogance to think that only they have a conception of fairness; that they have a monopoly on the subject.

That is the fundamental arrogance that got Labour into opposition after all those years. The Opposition promised the electorate in their 1997 manifesto that they would hand back the business rate to councils, and they spent 13 years not doing that. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central said that he wanted certainty. Did it take him 13 years to be certain that he would not do it? That is what he managed to do. Instead, the coalition is getting on with it. Although it is not easy to fix a broken system, the coalition is making an honest stab, and local government deserves—

Local Government Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Neill and Brandon Lewis

Thursday 21st October 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Perhaps I should start by congratulating my opposite number, the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), on having achieved the remarkable feat, in his first speech at the Dispatch Box in a debate of this kind—although we have addressed some previous business on a less contentious matter—of having managed to string together more clichés than I have ever heard in a single speech. He did so without any visible trace of irony whatever; that is what I find really impressive. I can see now that the route to advancement on the Opposition Front Bench is to adopt that well-known school of advocacy, “If in doubt bluster, keep your head down, bluster a bit more and wave your arms around a bit.” That is not so easy to achieve at my height, but if Members see something happening behind the Dispatch Box they will know that I have adopted it.

This has been a rather short sharp, debate, in more ways than one. I suppose it can be said that it has proved that it is possible for a dead cat bounce to have life. [Hon. Members: “Cliché!”] It takes one to know one; I am just checking that hon. Members are still awake. I agree with the hon. Member for Derby North about one thing: in some ways, it is regrettable that we need to have this debate at all. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I love coming to the Chamber, but we might have found matters to occupy our time other than having to introduce this Bill and keep hon. Members here.

It is worth looking at the history, so let me go back, as best I can, to the beginning. It was not all that long ago, although it may have seemed so to hon. Members at some points in the debate. The Bill is necessary to deal with the consequences of a nakedly political and questionable act by the Labour Government in their dying days, in ramming through a measure that they themselves had previously rejected—something that might be regarded as gerrymandering, according to any normal definition, and certainly as one of their ultimate U-turns.

Back in 2006 local authorities were invited to put forward proposals for unitary authorities. Some of those have been dealt with and have gone through the process. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with those left outstanding at the end of that process. Let me explain why they are outstanding. Exeter and Norwich submitted unitary bids on the basis of their existing boundaries. In July 2007 the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)—she still sits on the Opposition Benches, as far as I remember—judged that there was a risk of their bids not being achieved. Indeed, she concluded that Norwich city council’s proposal was such that there was “not a reasonable likelihood” of its achieving the outcome specified by the five objective criteria that she had set, particularly the affordability criteria. She then asked for some further advice from the boundary committee.

The right hon. Lady asked Exeter city council for extra information, which arrived in December, and concluded that its proposal, if implemented, was also unlikely to meet the affordability criteria. Confronted with what might have been a vaguely partisan dilemma, she thought that she would ask the boundary committee to explore the idea of unitaries across the rest of the county, but that did not work either.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) said that the public wanted those unitaries. I can speak only for Norfolk and Norwich, where in the only printed consultation the public said no. I still have not heard any Labour Member refer to clear polling other than the published polling, which showed that 85% wanted the status quo, 10% wanted a unitary Norfolk and only 3% wanted a unitary Norwich, which the then Secretary of State took forward anyway. The people said no, and the local councils, except one, said no. The House of Lords had concerns, as did the Joint Committee. The Secretary of State then went ahead. That is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman claimed: it is top-down gerrymandering, whereas this Government are moving forward with true localism and letting the people have their say.

[Robert Neill]

As I hope I can demonstrate to my hon. Friend in a moment, what caused the previous Government’s plans to go awry was the fact that, not liking the results that they were getting, they decided to shift the goalposts at the very last moment—

[Robert Neill]

It was pretty much in extra time, with the referee about to blow the whistle. Then there came the next stage earlier this year, when the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles had bravely walked into the outer darkness—I believe that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) did so at much the same time, but she has returned to bask in the sunlight of the Opposition Front Bench, so clearly does not share her right hon. Friend’s opinion now. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), decided that his assessment of the Exeter and Norwich proposals was the same as his predecessor’s. However, he decided to do the opposite, concluding that there were compelling reasons, which had never previously been articulated anywhere, to depart from the presumption that a proposal had to meet all five criteria. That decision was ultimately struck down by the courts. That attempt to ram through a change and shift the goalposts in the dying days of a Government is why we are in the present mess.

The hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) is right to say that we need not go into the legitimate debates that we could have about the efficacy or otherwise of unitary authorities, because we have here a classic example of how not to go about a local government reorganisation. That is why we need the Bill—to sort out that mess and put an end to the proposals that, having been struck down by the court, would otherwise have been left hanging in the air at the end of the process.

I shall say a word about two of the arguments that have been deployed this afternoon, the first of which is the need for local councils to be master in their own house and restore power to what I accept are ancient and proud cities. There is a serious flaw in that argument, which runs through all the Opposition’s arguments: the fact that they confuse structures with power. That underlines and sums up the error in their approach to local government. They believe that we should give local authorities power by changing structures, reorganising and calling an authority unitary. On the contrary, we seek to give real power back to local authorities by removing the ring-fencing of centralised grants, providing them with the power of general competence, enabling them to work together collaboratively and removing restrictions on their right and ability to represent their constituents. That difference is a classic demonstration of the Opposition’s idea that power is all about tinkering, whereas we think it is actually about giving communities real choices rather than worrying about structures.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for being gracious enough to find time to give way, unlike the Opposition Front Bencher.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although we have heard an awful lot of figures for savings that can be made from a change to unitary status, the real savings come from not spending money on any reorganisation at all, and instead letting local councils share services, without the on-costs that unitary status brings?

[Robert Neill]

That is precisely right. I have known the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) for a long time, and I admire his record in local government. He is no longer in his place, but I hope he would not take it ill if I said that despite his historical reference back to the times of the county borough changes, things have moved on. The argument now is not about restoring county boroughs but about shared services, collaboration, joint working and driving out costs from the corporate core. Creating small unitaries, as Labour proposed, would not have achieved any of that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he brings me neatly on to the next point that I wished to make.

There seems to be a misapprehension about the whole issue of value for money and costs. We have always recognised that some savings can be made through restructuring, but the information that the councils supplied in their bids—it is in the impact assessment—showed that there would be set-up costs of £40 million, and that the transition could bring savings of some £39.4 million. However, Labour Members ignore the point that we have repeatedly made, which is set out in the first paragraph of the impact assessment: there is no reason for not making the savings through joint working and shared services—they are well developed in Norfolk, where there is a good shared services agreement, and there are good collaborative arrangements in Exeter—without having to incur the up-front costs of the reorganisation. That is why it is manifestly cheaper not to go down the unitary route. Labour Members conveniently ignored that.

With all due respect to the right hon. Member for Don Valley, she fell into the fallacy of thinking that structure was the same as power. She did not seem to grasp the fact that one her of predecessors on the Front Bench caused the mess that we are tackling.