Local Government Bill [HL]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 now that it has been accepted, following further representations, that it is possible to table an amendment to the Bill that calls on central government to provide the money to cover the cost of the by-elections, likely to be £80,000 to £100,000 for each authority, which are due to take place in Norwich and Exeter in September following the quashing of the two orders. Holding the elections in September is of some significance, since it is a direct challenge to the Minister, who told me categorically in her letter of 8 July that: "““the terms of office of one-third of the members of Exeter and Norwich city councils, which had been extended by the Orders, ended on 5 July and there will be by-elections to fill the vacancies within 35 days as required by statute””." I asked the Minister in Committee which section of which Act of Parliament the Government were saying required these elections—which are for ordinary, not casual, vacancies—to be held within 35 days. I received no answer then, or in a subsequent letter from the Minister. I have received no indication from the Minister that she has reconsidered her statement of the law that, "““there will be by-elections to fill the vacancies within 35 days as required by statute””." Therefore, I assume that that is still her position. In Committee, the Minister said the following on the timing of the elections: "““I understand that we have received no representations about it from the authorities and that they are taking their own legal advice””.—[Official Report, 14/7/10; col. 720.]" I will not comment on the accuracy of that statement since the Minister said that it was what she had been given to understand. However, my understanding is that, in response to the ministerial statement that they had 35 days in which to hold the elections, the local authorities asked the department to confirm the statutory basis that was referred to in the statement. I am told that after a few days, the department came back to say that the Minister stood by the statement and had nothing further to add. Some might think that a rather arrogant response. It was certainly unacceptable to the local authorities. On application by the two councils, following clear and emphatic advice from a QC, two judges in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court confirmed that the local authorities' understanding of the law was correct and that the 35-day rule for casual vacancies did not apply. Accordingly, a date in September has now been fixed for the by-elections. In her letter to me of 8 July, the Minister also said that, "““we recognise that any by-elections will involve the councils in additional costs””." I asked the Minister in Committee what additional costs the Government had apparently decided that Exeter and Norwich councils should bear, and whether she was referring to their having to contribute the expenditure that they would have incurred had the council elections been held on the day of the general election, or whether she was saying that the councils would have to pay that much higher cost of running the elections this summer. In her response, the Minister stated that the local authorities must bear the cost of what had happened but she did not directly answer the question that I asked about what those additional costs were; nor, so far as I can see, was the issue addressed in her subsequent letter. However, her reply in Committee included the following very interesting statement referring to the forthcoming elections: "““This is now a matter for the authorities. They now have to hold elections and if they do not know when to do so, they must seek their own legal advice””.—[Official Report, 14/7/10; col. 720.]" Perhaps I may point out to the Minister, and in particular to her Secretary of State, that it would appear that it is not the local authorities in Exeter and Norwich that do not know the law on when these elections should be held; rather, it is Mr Eric Pickles, who, despite his local government experience, does not know what he is talking about. It is really quite something to have a Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who presides over a department that writes letters at his behest with statements about the law on the timetables for by-elections that local authorities must follow which are just plain wrong. The reason I say that the Ministers in this department do not know what they are talking about is that the legal opinion which Norwich and Exeter felt compelled to seek in the light of the Secretary of State’s dogmatic assertions stated quite bluntly that the Secretary of State was wrong. This would appear to be the position of the High Court, which determined that 9 September—which by any reckoning is somewhat more than 35 days after 5 July—should be the date for the elections, as the local authorities requested. Frankly, what has happened seems to fit the new culture that Mr Pickles has brought to the Department for Communities and Local Government. In an interview in the latest edition of Total Politics, he said: "““The last thing you want … is if you marched folk up the hill and somebody ‘coughs’ and you have to march down again ... I needed to be absolutely certain that when I said something, it was never going to be contradicted””." Mr Pickles’ statement about these by-elections having to be held by statute within 35 days has apparently just been contradicted—and contradicted through a judicial decision. However, perhaps the judges concerned should be wary, particularly if cigar-smoking is their favourite pastime, as Mr Pickles also stated in the interview: "““The cigar-chomping Commies are not going to take over on my watch””." Exeter and Norwich have incurred additional costs as a result of the dogmatic and incorrect statements of the law on the timescale for these elections by the Secretary of State, who has made it clear that, so far as he is concerned, once he has said something, it will never be contradicted. I feel for the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who I suspect is the ministerial voice of reason in the department. I hope only that the Secretary of State does not come to look on her as a potential cigar-chomping Commie. So far as I can make out, Exeter and Norwich appear to believe that the additional costs they have incurred are some £5,000 each as a result of having to seek a legal opinion and go through court proceedings to establish a legally watertight date for the by-elections in the light of the Secretary of State’s intimidating and incorrect statement that by statute they had to be held within 35 days, which would have been at the height of the holiday season. What is the Minister’s reaction to that? The local authorities in Norwich and Exeter have been in no way at fault. To them and to everyone else central government does not become some new or different body or organisation simply because there is a change in political control, any more than a local authority becomes some new or different body when there is a change in political control at that level. Indeed, Mr Justice Ouseley said in the High Court—and perhaps he said it with a twinkle in his eye—that the local authorities are, "““not themselves to blame for the pickle””," in which they find themselves””. Now that he has been the direct cause of the two local authorities incurring additional expenditure over these by-elections, just as he has argued the previous Government were, is the Secretary of State, Mr Pickles, now prepared to accept that, central government having got it wrong and the local authorities, as Mr Justice Ouseley said, being in no way at fault, central government should pay the costs associated with the holding of these by-elections? I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, which is about fairness to the two local authorities in question, and fairness is what the coalition Government say they stand for. I beg to move.