Local Government Bill [HL]

My Lords, I remind the House that I still live in Norfolk, have been a district councillor for more than 10 years and am chairman of my parish. The audacity of this amendment is breathtaking. It requires this Government to pay 100 per cent of the costs of the impending by-elections arising from the judge declaring that the orders forced through by the previous, Labour Government were illegal. Why should this Government pay 100 per cent of the costs? Indeed, why should they pay anything at all? If the amendment were accepted, Exeter and Norwich would be making a profit as, within the grant that local authorities receive, an amount is already paid to them to defray the costs of their local elections. Had the elections taken place when they should have on 5 May, Exeter and Norwich could have piggybacked on to the general election, and would have been charged only their fair share of the total cost—about half. In any event, the city councils should have built the costs into their budget and set aside the money, as they could not possibly have known when the general election was to be held. Why should this Government be responsible for the illegality of the previous, Labour Government? It is not as though the election costs come out of the blue. There was plenty of warning, and both city councils were fully aware for months of the risks if the orders were quashed and that by-elections would be needed. In forcing the orders through, a calculated gamble has been taken, even though the clearest of warnings had been given that the odds were stacked against them. First, as was said by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, both Norfolk and Devon county councils asked for an expedited hearing in the High Court, so that a judgment could be made one way or another before the planned elections were cancelled. However, Norwich, Exeter and the Treasury Solicitor argued against that on the basis that they would have insufficient time to prepare their case, and that it would not be problematical to have by-elections anyway. Secondly, several Members of this House raised this problem repeatedly, urging the Labour Government to delay the orders until after the judicial review, to avoid depriving the electorate of their vote and avoid any unnecessary additional costs. Thirdly, the Permanent Secretary, in uniquely seeking a ministerial direction, warned that the judicial review against the orders had a high likelihood of success. Fourthly, even the Merits Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, warned of the problems. The summary of the committee's report stated: "““We also draw the House's attention to the intention to cancel forthcoming council elections in each area””." The report continues: "““The House may also wish to give serious consideration to a number of questions about the decision-making process … The Orders have been laid very close to the date of the council elections: will the timing affect local democracy in those areas?””." That was the Merits Committee report. Fifthly, at the preliminary hearing in February this year, I understand that the courts brought the problem to the attention of the city councils, four weeks before the orders were passed. Sixthly, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments report concluded that if the orders were approved, "““there will be a doubt as to whether they would be lawfully made; that in one respect in particular they would represent an unexpected use of the power conferred by the enabling Act; that in one respect their purport requires elucidation; and that in one respect they fail to accord with proper legislative practice””." The unexpected use of the power conferred by the enabling Act, to which the Joint Committee refers, is the cancelling of the city council elections due to be held on 6 May. As the committee pointed out: "““If the court decides that the decisions to implement the unitary proposals were flawed … it will be too late to restore the elections which will have been cancelled””." Seventhly, and finally, just weeks away from the general election, the Labour Government were only too well aware of the manifesto commitment from both opposition parties that they would overturn the orders. Despite all those warnings, the party opposite forced through the orders, orders that were subsequently held to be illegal. The two city councils are not the victims in all this. Indeed, they were complicit in the whole shoddy business. They were prepared to take the gamble, even though they knew that the cards were stacked against them and knew the consequences if they lost. They had been clearly spelt out to them on several occasions, and they must now pay the price.