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.