John Stevenson
Main Page: John Stevenson (Conservative - Carlisle)(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Mr Crausby, to serve under your chairmanship today. I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Chamber leadership in local government and to debate it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) will want to contribute. A debate on leadership in councils could last for days. Many people will have many different views on leadership, good and bad, and on what is happening in councils today. However, the purpose of the debate is to consider one narrow point: leadership in councils.
When I became an MP in 2010, I visited organisations in my constituency, as did many of my colleagues in their constituencies. Some of those organisations are in the private sector, and many are large and small businesses. The key issue that struck me, having visited both private and public sector organisations and institutions, was leadership and management. My general observation was that if an organisation has one or the other—leadership or management—it can function reasonably well. If it has neither, clearly it is likely to run into difficulties. If an organisation, whether in the public or private sector, has both, it tends to be a great success, and I am aware of those in my constituency that have good leadership and good management, and are doing a terrific job.
Some local businesses are successful, and some public organisations are able and perform well. However, there is a subtle difference between the private and public sectors. If private sector organisations do not have good management and leadership, they run into difficulty and will either go bust or be taken over by another organisation. The difficulty is that, if they cannot be suddenly taken over or cannot go bust, there is a danger that they may become weak and ineffective. The importance of leadership and management should not be underestimated, and the difficulty for Governments of all political persuasions is how to deal with underperforming public bodies. Obvious examples are schools and hospitals. How can they be dealt with when they begin to fail because they have not been provided with correct leadership or good management? That is an issue for all Governments.
A key organisation that has an important bearing in all our constituencies is local government. Local authorities are subtly different from other public sector organisations because they are elected, and the beauty of elections is that they provide new leadership and new emphasis and direction. A mechanism exists for change.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that, in these difficult economic times, strong leadership is vital in local government, and will he join me in congratulating Adrian Hardman, leader of Worcestershire county council, which was ranked the third highest performing council in the country, despite being the third lowest funded?
John Stevenson
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I agree that that is a prime example of good leadership in local government, and I will touch on that.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He has raised the matter of strong leadership in many debates, and I also congratulate him on that. Does he agree that unitary authorities, which have a cabinet-style model of leadership, provide the best form of local government in terms of value for money? Medway council, on which I still serve—I was a cabinet member—is led by Councillor Chambers and has been rated as providing good value for services.
John Stevenson
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, and we could have a separate debate on unitary councils alone. For the record, I wholeheartedly agree that unitary councils are the correct direction for local government, and I will certainly advocate that when I can.
Leadership and management in councils are central to the economic success not only of individual communities and local authorities, but of the wider economy and the whole country. They are also important for the provision of efficient and well-delivered services, which may range from collecting waste to social care. We have a tendency in this country to underestimate the importance of local government. It is extremely important and should play a much bigger role in our national affairs. It is commonly accepted, probably across the political spectrum, that the country is far too centralised. Direction and instructions come from the centre and tell local government what it should do.
I accept that the Government have tried to redress the balance. I fully support what they are doing, and I would encourage them to go further. I give them credit for the work that they have done, and I fully support them in their direction of travel. However, there are cultural barriers. At the centre, Whitehall thinks it knows best, and likes to tell local authorities so. In turn, there is a failing at town hall level. Town halls are not used to taking the initiative or providing distinct local leadership. That should change, which is why I am concentrating on local leadership.
The present regime includes many able and effective leaders—my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) indicated that she has an able and effective county council leader—but we must accept that there are many ineffective councils with poor leadership and management, although some have difficulties because they must often deal with the machinations of local politics. Some parts of the country are effectively a one-party state. That may not be healthy for democracy, and it creates problems because of internal squabbles within political parties. In hung councils, parties compete for political leadership, and the most able people often do not lead the council because of inter-party debates and tensions. We cannot get away from the fact that some places have poor-quality councillors, and that the job does not attract the most able people. That is an issue for us all across the political spectrum.
What are the solutions? I believe that we should have more elected mayors. Do people know who their council leader is? I went along to a sixth-form school in my constituency and talked to 50 or 60 able students who were all interested in local affairs. My first question was whether any of them could name their local council leader. My second question was whether any of them could name their county council leader. Not one of them could name either, but if the same questions were asked in London and some other parts of the country with elected mayors, I suspect that at least a good proportion could name that person.
Elected mayors provide visible and clear leadership, which is transparent and accountable. People know who is in charge and responsible for local affairs. They have a four-year mandate, and they have the opportunity to carry out their manifesto commitments and to implement policy. They also provide democratic accountability, which is important. There are one-party councils throughout the country, and the introduction of an elected mayor would add a different dynamism to such areas. Independents could be elected, and a party that will never be in control of a council would have a chance to have their political views expressed through the elected mayor.
The Government have taken a top-down approach to date. After the election, they were committed to the introduction of elected mayors in 12 of our largest cities. From my perspective, I was very disappointed that they were rejected in nine of the areas where there was a referendum. Nevertheless, out of those 12 large cities, three have gone down the road of having an elected mayor. That is a 25% success rate. My view, therefore, is that we should try a bottom-up approach, by encouraging local communities to take the initiative, rather than imposing it on them.
Referendums have been held up and down the country for elected mayors, promoted by local initiatives. The success rate has again been around 25%. Some people would say that that is a poor result and that the policy is a failure, but we have to look at the nature of referendums. As a general rule in referendums, people tend to stay with the status quo. We see that time and again in this country, and certainly in other parts of the world. There is an inherent conservatism within the electorate to remain with what they know, rather than taking on something different.
Local referendums have been hindered to a large extent—dare I say?—by the self-interest of local councillors and local organisations, such as councils themselves, which have been reluctant to see elected mayors being introduced. I believe, however, that support for them is widespread and much deeper than we think. Yesterday, I was at a meeting with Lord Heseltine, interestingly enough, who is not only a big enthusiast of unitary authorities, but a strong supporter of elected mayors. He in turn has been greatly supported by Lord Adonis, who is also a great fan and supporter of them. Both believe that elected mayors are the future drivers of success in local government.
How will we achieve that bottom-up approach? We could look at the legislation. At present, legislation lays out certain criteria before the role of a mayor can come into effect. As everyone will know, there is a petition, then a referendum, and only on the success of a referendum is the structure changed. The key for any area is getting a valid petition to initiate such a referendum. At present, the requirement is 5% of the electorate, which is a barrier that, in my view, is far too high. To take my area as an example, for Carlisle district council, a petition requires 4,500 signatures, while 20,000 signatures are required for Cumbria county council. I suspect that the figures would be much higher in other areas, as ours is sparsely populated. I genuinely believe that the number is prohibitively high—5% is far too high.
What is the goal? I would like the leadership of local authorities to become more open, more accountable and far more dynamic. They should be able to provide innovation, with new ideas, and bring in a real period of local government, by taking the lead and producing political leaders who are known, respected and make a contribution to their local areas.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has concentrated so far on local political leadership, making comments that apply to all political parties, and I very much endorse some of what has been said. However, the flipside is that, over the past few years, we have seen a contraction in the size of local government, especially smaller district and borough councils, and with that, we have experienced highly skilled chief executives leaving the sector. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that leadership gap has seen officers over-promoted, which has been to the detriment of council tax payers and the standard of service that they receive? I agree that we should move towards unitary authorities, but it is not a one-horse race. We need both components, with really good, on-the-ball chief executives. I would probably say that I agree that unitary authorities are the way to go, but with ever smaller services and good people moving, just filling the gap will not do.
John Stevenson
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I go back to my initial comments when I mentioned leadership and management, because the two go hand in hand to a certain extent. With local authorities or any organisation, whether private or public, if the two go together, the organisation ends up being fantastic. When there is only one, it can work, but it is more problematic. When there is neither, it is a problem.
Rosie Cooper
I wonder whether the chief executive mentioned by the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) would like a free transfer.
John Stevenson
What the hon. Lady said is absolutely right, and I am concentrating principally today on leadership and political leadership. However, we could have a debate just on the management—let alone the leadership and the management—at a future date.
My view is that elected mayors are the way to help achieve real leadership in local government. We should let communities up and down the country decide whether an elected mayor is right for them, and we should make it easier to allow petitions to succeed. Does the Minister agree that leadership is vital to the success of councils? Does he support, as the Prime Minister does, the idea and concept of elected mayors, and would he like to see them spread across the country? Would he assist in making it easier to initiate such referendums?
My real question for the Minister is how we achieve that. I would like—I am interested to hear his comments—a reduction in the required percentage of local people who need to sign the petition from 5% to 1%. The previous Government contemplated lowering the threshold. Going back to my example of Carlisle, if the threshold were reduced to 1%, only 800 signatures would be required for the district council, and if I get my maths correct, 4,000 would be needed for the county council. It would then become entirely feasible and people would go out and actively seek signatures. That is my first question for the Minister.
Secondly, does the Minister agree with extending the period that a petitioner who is campaigning for this can use the signatures on the petition from one year to two years? At present, such a person has to use signatures from people who support the petition within a 12-month period. That may seem an awfully long time, but if someone is working full time and doing this on an ad hoc basis, time passes. To get the requisite number of signatures can take time, and in the example of Carlisle, even if the figure drops to 800, it is still a time-consuming business. Will the Minister consider increasing the period to two years?
Finally, in this age of modern technology, it would seem eminently sensible—indeed, people would expect it—for petitions to be online. At present, there has to be a physical signature on a piece of paper. We have lots of ways of dealing with modern communications and how we produce petitions. Doing them online would be an eminently sensible solution, and it would make it easier for people who want to push forward a petition to achieve the requisite numbers.
I might be wrong, but I believe that much of that could be dealt with by delegated legislation, and I hope that the Minister will confirm whether that is the case. I genuinely think that this is an opportunity to transform local leadership in local councils. In turn, I believe that it would transform the performance of local councils, benefiting local communities and the country at large. It would help growth in our communities, and I believe that it would help to vindicate the Government’s localism agenda. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
I will allow one short contribution before the Minister responds.