Draft City of Nottingham (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Alexander, Heidi (Lewisham East) (Lab)
† Barwell, Gavin (Croydon Central) (Con)
† Burt, Lorely (Solihull) (LD)
† Carswell, Mr Douglas (Clacton) (Con)
† Dakin, Nic (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
† Griffiths, Andrew (Burton) (Con)
† Hollingbery, George (Meon Valley) (Con)
† Johnson, Diana (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
† Maynard, Paul (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
† Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) (Lab)
† Munn, Meg (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
† Ollerenshaw, Eric (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
† Phillips, Stephen (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
† Sheerman, Mr Barry (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Simpson, David (Upper Bann) (DUP)
† Stunell, Andrew (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)
† Watkinson, Angela (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Williamson, Chris (Derby North) (Lab)
Alison Groves, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 30 January 2012
[Mr Lee Scott in the Chair]
Draft City of Nottingham (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft City of Nottingham (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
It is a privilege to serve under you for what I think is the first time, Mr Scott. The purpose of the order is to require Nottingham city council to hold a referendum on 3 May on whether it should start to operate a mayor and cabinet executive form of governance. That means a directly elected mayor. As the coalition Government made clear in “The Coalition: our programme for government”, we are committed to creating directly elected mayors in the 12 largest English cities, subject to confirmatory referendums. I can report to the Committee that our impact assessment estimated that the cost of a referendum in Nottingham would be £300,000. Councils such as Nottingham will claim costs from the Department. Officials will be discussing details with returning officers from those cities shortly.
This order is the next step in fulfilling the commitment for the city of Nottingham to hold a referendum. I shall explain the rationale for our commitment to referendums on directly elected mayors, but first it is right to recall the steps that have previously been taken on elected mayors and the approach that we have followed in seeking to ensure that we can achieve the best way forward for our major cities.
As a first step to delivering on our coalition agreement, we included provisions on directly elected mayors in the Localism Bill, which we introduced in December 2010. Those provisions included introducing the idea that there would be shadow mayors in the cities before any election and that if a city adopted an elected mayor, it would be required to introduce mayoral management arrangements. Those arrangements were that the city would cease to have a chief executive, the mayor being both the political leader and the top executive of the authority.
During the parliamentary passage of the Bill, the provisions to which I have referred attracted considerable debate and concern. We listened carefully to the arguments about why those elements of a switch to the mayoral model could give rise to difficulties and hence were not appropriate. On careful reflection, we accepted those arguments and amended the Bill so that there was no longer any question of there being shadow mayors or statutory mayoral management arrangements. Our approach was to listen carefully to the arguments, to address with an open mind the issues raised and to seek to ensure that we took forward our mayoral agenda in
the way that commanded the widest degree of support and that would best serve the interests of the cities involved.The result is that the Localism Act 2011 contains a simple provision that enables the Secretary of State to require in a particular city that a referendum be held on whether that city is to have a mayoral form of governance. This order is the sixth order to implement that provision so far. Some of us are veterans of these orders, but it is right that each should be given proper consideration.
I have already said that in the coalition agreement, the Government committed to giving local people in the 12 largest English cities the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of having a directly elected mayor for their city. In fact, Leicester already has a mayor, following a resolution of the Labour-led council to move to a mayoral form of governance. The people of Leicester elected their first mayor in May 2011. We are therefore planning referendums in the other 11 cities: Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield.
If the referendum vote is in favour of a mayor, the city will rapidly hold an election for its first mayor. The date for that, as announced by the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is responsible for cities, will be 15 November. Of course, it is open to a council to resolve to move to hold a mayoral referendum or local people may trigger one. Although not one of these 12 cities, the city of Salford had such a referendum last Thursday and the mayoral model was approved in that referendum.
The Government believe that there is good evidence that if a city has a powerful and directly accountable elected mayor, that can be a major factor in delivering local economic growth and bringing greater prosperity to that city. The value of big cities being effectively led by powerful mayors is demonstrated by both domestic and international experience. For example, the successive Mayors of London have transformed the capital’s governance and have achieved a range of successes, including the London Plan, the congestion charge and Crossrail—not to mention, of course, high personal profiles. Internationally, Barcelona was transformed through the strong leadership of its powerful executive mayor. It is now one of the most prosperous cities in Europe, with a GDP per capita that is 44% above the European average, and, of course, it is one of the most popular tourist destinations.
The Institute for Government and Centre for Cities highlighted in their joint report that our cities are the heartbeat of the UK economy. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that they under-perform when compared with many cities on the international stage. That is why the Government believe it imperative that in each of our major cities, which contribute so much to the economy, the question of having a mayor is addressed seriously. Of course, it may be, as in the case of Leicester, that the city council, the democratic representatives of the city’s communities, simply resolves to move to an elected mayor. That option—to resolve to move to an elected mayor—is available to all of those cities, unless their current governance model was agreed in a referendum.
In our recent mayoral consultation, “What can a mayor do for your city?”, we sought the views of those who live and work in the 12 mayoral cities, including
Nottingham, on our proposed approach to transferring powers to a mayor, on any initial ideas about what powers respondents might wish to see transferred, and on how mayors can best be subject to effective local scrutiny. We received a total of 58 responses to the consultation. Although not the subject of this consultation, some respondents favoured a city mayor, while others favoured a regional mayor, and others the status quo.As we told the House on concluding the consultation exercise, the range of comments received reinforced the Government’s view that a bespoke approach to the decentralisation of power to a local level is the right way forward. Accordingly, the Government have confirmed that, where mayors are elected in the 12 cities, they will continue the bespoke approach to devolving powers that they are already pursuing in the context of city deals, which were launched by the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) and by the Minister of State with responsibility for cities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells. In those cases, the mayors themselves will have an important role in the process of decentralising powers.
It was interesting that a number of respondents who live and work in Nottingham made known their views on having a directly elected mayor. It is clear that there are a range of views in Nottingham, and it is exactly those views and a healthy debate that we want to encourage. This is about local choice, and it is important that local people have the chance to express their views on what they feel is right for their city. This is exactly what we are allowing them to do in these referendums.
Each one our great cities is unique, with different needs, characteristics and ambitions. We are not seeking to impose a one-size-fits-all approach. This is about local choice, and about allowing local people to have a say on how their city is governed. The Government have set out their view that a powerful and directly accountable mayor can be a major factor in delivering local economic growth and bringing greater prosperity to a city. However, we are localist and we believe that decisions about how a locality is governed are best taken locally. This referendum is about letting local people decide. I commend the order to the Committee.
4.39 pm
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab): It is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, Mr Scott, and it is a pleasure to do so.
The Minister began by saying that some of us are veterans of these debates on mayoral orders. I am one such veteran, and I am two-nil down at the moment, so I am hoping that the Committee will do the right thing today and allow us to even up the score a little bit, because the Government are wrong-headed in their approach, and I will try to set out my reasons.
The Opposition recognise that the mayoral model offers strong leadership in cities and, indeed, that it is something that we legislated for, but it must be recognised that different parts of our country use various models of local governance, and we ought to allow local people to determine whether they want to decide on whether there should be a change in the governance that is responsible for services in their city.
As I said, we legislated for local authorities to adopt the mayoral model, and there are three routes available to local people without the need for this imposition by central Government, so let us describe those for the benefit of the record. First, if there is a groundswell of opinion in Nottingham, all it takes is 5% of the community to get a petition together to instruct the local authority to hold a referendum in that local authority area, which seems to be an eminently sensible way forward. It is an indication of local feeling on the issue, and it demonstrates that local people want to have a say on a change in governance. As far as I can see, however, there is no groundswell of opinion in Nottingham.
Secondly, the local authority could decide to hold a referendum. As I will come on to later, Nottingham city council currently has no appetite to hold such a referendum.
The final route available within existing legislation is that the council can, with a two-thirds majority, decide that it will move to the mayoral model, which we have seen in Leicester, as referred to by the Minister.
However, the important thing in the legislation that the Labour Government passed is that it puts local people in the driving seat. It is not about rail-roading local people to force a referendum; it is about giving local people the opportunity to decide, whether that be through their locally elected representatives or through a groundswell of support in the form of a petition.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Does a mayor not seem superfluous to many people in Nottingham because they have probably the world’s best-known sheriff apart from Wyatt Earp?
Chris Williamson: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely pertinent point, and it is something that I will come on to later on when I quote the deputy leader of Nottingham city council, who alluded to that point in his response to the Government’s proposals.
From my time in the House of Commons and from the debates on the Localism Bill and, indeed, on these mayoral orders, it is clear that, despite the rhetoric from Ministers, Labour Members are the true localists, not the Government. They utter lots of rhetoric about localism, but when it comes to the reality of localism, they are sadly lacking in delivery.
I have made the point that the decision should be made by local people, not by Ministers. What allows the Minister to dictate to the people of Nottingham that they must have a referendum? It is completely at odds with any notion of localism.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): I am grateful that my hon. Friend is such a veteran in this matter, because I am extraordinarily confused by the Minister’s speech. He talked about local people deciding, but he seemed to emphasise that this was all about requiring. Unless my English is wrong, “requiring” is nothing to do with a decision by local people; it is the Government’s decision.
Chris Williamson: The more I hear statements from Ministers, the more I think that they would fit well into George Orwell’s “1984”. It sounds like Big Brother speaking. Ministers continually indulge in doublespeak and this is a case in point.
Let me quote some comments made by Councillor Graham Chapman, deputy leader of Nottingham city council, a long-standing and well-respected local councillor in Nottingham who has held positions in local government and represented local government on the national stage, too. Among other things, he said:
“Nottingham City Council already has a Lord Mayor and I’m sure most people are aware we are opposed to an elected 2nd Mayor for Nottingham for a number of reasons.
Firstly, we oppose the cost. Secondly, the centralisation of all power in one person's hands and, thirdly, it is PR by the back door, a year after people rejected it.
An argument used by some people who favour elected Mayors is that this will help get things done. However, the evidence shows that things already get done in Nottingham under the current system.
Nottingham is a City developing well. Crime cut by 50% in the last 4 years, England’s Cleanest Big City, education results up from 26% of youngsters getting 5 good GCSEs in 1998 to 77% now and hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in the Tram, station and A453 is proof of our progress.”
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con): In a spirit of cross-partisanship, I point out that one of the achievements of the previous Labour Government was the creation of a Mayor of London directly elected by the people. If one extended the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman—I think of him as my hon. Friend—he would logically be against the Labour Government creating a Mayor of London. Does he think that that was a mistake?
Chris Williamson: No, that is entirely separate. Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to some anti-democratic legislation that was passed by the previous Conservative Government, which scrapped London-wide government when they got rid of the Greater London Council purely on politically motivated grounds because it was regarded as an irritant. London did not have any cross-London government. Therefore we were starting, effectively, from a clean sheet of paper and it was absolutely appropriate in those circumstances to ensure that London had some London-wide local government, so that the city could be properly represented and, under Ken Livingstone’s stewardship for eight years, it did an excellent job for the citizens of London and for this country more widely.
Let me carry on quoting my colleague, Councillor Graham Chapman. He goes on to say:
“However, the Government are forcing a referendum on the City this May, costing £300,000.”
That figure has been confirmed by the Minister this afternoon. Councillor Chapman continues:
“The introduction of a 2nd elected Mayor for Nottingham would cost over £1 million over the next four years.
When money is tight and the Council is being forced to find £20 million to set next year’s budget, due largely to Government spending cuts, we believe £1 million for a 2nd Mayor is money not well spent.”
Nottingham city council has made its position clear.
As I said, I am a veteran of mayoral order Committees. We wrung a commitment out of the Minister, during the first of these Committees dealing with the mayoral order for Birmingham, that the Government would pay
the cost of the referendum. However, the Minister has not confirmed that these costs will be provided up front to the local authority. As Councillor Chapman has already stated and the Minister has confirmed, it will cost Nottingham city council £300,000 and it has to find £20 million of cuts imposed on them by central Government. In such circumstances—given that the Government have abandoned any notion of localism, and will force Nottingham to have this referendum—the Minister must give a commitment today, which I hope he will do, to ensure that funds are made available to Nottingham, up front, so that no burden falls on Nottingham council tax payers.For the reasons I have outlined, I will be calling for a Division. The order is unnecessary for a number of reasons. The mechanisms already exist if local people in Nottingham want an elected mayor. It is contrary to localist principles, and we have not had a commitment by the Government to provide up-front funds to Nottingham. I therefore urge Opposition colleagues, and appeal to Government colleagues, to do the right thing, and at least to allow me to get one consolation victory under my belt; I am two-nil down, I need to get one in extra time. If the Committee could see its way to supporting me, I would be grateful.
4.51 pm
Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Member for Derby North for his contribution. He thinks he is a veteran when he is two-nil down; I think I am a veteran when I am six-nil up, and counting.
We shall obviously have lots of fun in future about who is the most localist of them all, but the idea that compelling people to choose is somehow anti-localist could only possibly have traction with someone who has forgotten that that is precisely the mechanism required for the installation of a mayor for London. The people of greater London were compelled to have a ballot whether they liked it or not.
Chris Williamson: Will the Minister give way?
Andrew Stunell: Only when I have finished my paragraph.
That idea could only possibly come from someone who had forgotten that his Government put in place section 36 of the Local Government Act 2000, which provides that the Secretary of State may by order require all authorities to hold a mayoral referendum. Something held Labour back from implementing that, but that legislative proposal was brought to the House and forced through. The hon. Gentleman has also forgotten about section 35 of the same Act, empowering the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling him in certain circumstances to direct a council to hold a referendum. That power, incidentally, was used to require Southwark to hold a referendum in January 2002. So Labour used that compulsion not only for Greater London but for an individual borough, Southwark, and it had the legislative provision to do so everywhere.
Chris Williamson: Will the Minister at least concede the modicum of difference between the decision taken to legislate for a Mayor of London and his proposal on this and previous days? As I pointed out, a London-wide local government system was not in place, having been
scrapped in a politically motivated decision by a previous Conservative Government. Surely he can see the difference between that and the situation we have in Nottingham, for example, where a Nottingham-wide local government system is in place. There is no appetite for a mayor in Nottingham. Surely he will concede that modicum of difference.Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman should have reserved his tone of indignation until he had heard the result of the Labour Secretary of State using the power to require the London borough of Southwark to hold a referendum in January 2002. The hon. Gentleman’s indignation focused on the lack of demand and that the compulsion was outrageous—various things. I can tell him, however, that that Labour-required referendum was held in Southwark and the outcome was two to one in favour of a leader and against a mayor. There was no appetite in Southwark, but the Labour Government required the referendum.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): Poor research.
Andrew Stunell: There is obviously poor research somewhere in the system. For the hon. Member for Derby North to claim that he is the true localist is outrageous.
The hon. Gentleman made a couple of practical points. It is a matter of record that the Government’s commitment to pay the cost of the referendums was announced in June last year. To imply anything different is mistaken. I have corrected the hon. Gentleman on two previous occasions when he has made precisely the same error.
On the question of whether the money is paid up front, it will of course be paid when the expenditure has taken place. I draw to the hon. Gentleman’s attention the fact that the city of Nottingham declared to the
Department that it had £61 million of non-school reserves in the bank. Therefore, I do not think that paying for the referendum and then reclaiming the cost from the Government will be a major difficulty as part of the provision of adequate services in Nottingham.Finally, I want to pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s point about the performance of Nottingham. I am delighted to hear such a good report. I am sure that the people of Nottingham will take careful account of what those in favour and those opposed to a mayor have got to say at the referendum in May. Nothing is so good that it cannot be improved, so it will be interesting to see the outcome of the referendum. I look forward to discussing the matter with the hon. Gentleman after 3 May.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 7.
AYES
NOES
Question accordingly agreed to.