Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 39, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 19.

No. 40, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 36.

No. 41, in clause 41, page 26, leave out line 13.

No. 43, in clause 41, page 28, leave out lines 10 to 15.

No. 45, in clause 41, page 29, leave out line 33.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I thank the hon. Gentlemen for accepting the motion. The pace of devolution takes parliamentary time, and I am glad to see that the other Bill sponsored by the Department is proceeding as well.

When we adjourned, I was putting my argument against the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, which would delete the option of directly elected executives. Although that option probably will not be taken up widely by local government, the Government want to make it available.

I shall fulfil my undertaking to provide some of the evidence that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked for in relation to findings on the changes made under the Local Government Act 2000. A number of pieces of research independent of Government have found improvements in the decision making, performance and leadership of councils as a result of the changes. Perhaps most prominent is the “State of the English Cities” report published in 2006, which laid particular emphasis on the economic success of local authority areas as a result of enhanced leadership. Research on best value in 2006 also showed that leadership was

“the single most significant driver of change and improvement in local authorities”.

There is a positive correlation between political leadership and the representative package of best value performance indicators.

Our Department—or its predecessor, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; the Department changes its name every now and again—carried out research in 2003. The local government workplace front-line staff survey—we have always gone for snappy titles—showed that front-line staff in the authorities that were performing less well, that is, those that the Audit Commission identified as weak or poor, were significantly more likely than those in good or excellent authorities to say that they needed better leadership by senior officers.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Ten out of 10 for artistic impression—that is an heroic effort to justify the Government’s proposals, but I remind the Minister of what we are talking about. We are trying not to get some measure of the importance of strong leadership in delivering effective local government—that is taken as read—but to justify the Minister’s and the Government’s contention that the desire for directly elected executives has been a ripple running through local government, stimulated by local government and councils themselves. It is not about research bodies talking about strong leadership or others commenting on it, but about finding the spark in the local government system that said, “We want this, and we want it now.” Despite the Minister’s best efforts, I am still uncertain that we are talking about a mass movement beyond two or three councillors thinking that it might be a good idea.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

As ever, the hon. Gentleman advances an heroic argument to justify inaction. As my evidence shows, the Government’s strategy for improving local government has proved to be working. One element of that strategy—I concede that it is only one—is our emphasis on better leadership of local authorities.

David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate, Conservative)

The evidence that the Minister is bravely offering to try to justify his argument refers to “officers”. Much though councillors want to say that the leadership issue is about them, officers’ leadership is important as well. In my borough of Enfield, the change of leadership of the elected councillors, a change of officers at senior level and a much more streamlined leadership approach led to improvements, as the Audit Commission results this week will show.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to the chief executives and senior officers. The Local Government Association and the Government—if it is not immodest of me to say so—should be congratulated on the emphasis that they placed on the importance of chief executives and senior officers. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers should be congratulated on performing the tasks that we ask the chief executives to carry out, especially when we bear in mind councils’ partnership arrangements, whereby chief executives at management leadership level take on a raft of responsibilities. They serve their areas and the country well. We should all be proud of that on a non-partisan basis.

Our research included senior officers and frontline staff. The work on best value that was commissioned in 2006 showed the importance of leadership. The front-line staff survey backed that finding by considering authorities in the different categories. An evaluation survey in 2004 also backed the findings, showing, for example, that leadership by executive members was positively associated with the joining up of services and the better delivery of services to local people. In that survey, 71 per cent. of the respondents believed that leadership by executive councillors had had a positive impact on performance improvements in their authority.

A survey of councillors, officers and other interested parties in 2005 followed consideration of the impact of the Local Government Act 2000. Opposition Members, reasonably and rightly, often call for post-legislative scrutiny, and evidence on the 2000 Act shows that the role of leader was perceived to have become stronger by 79 per cent. of respondents in the case of authorities with an elected mayor, and by 69 per cent. of respondents in the case of other authorities. More than half the councillors and nearly three-quarters of the officers believed that the executive had become more effective in articulating the vision for their area under the new arrangements.

The latest research from the ongoing evaluation of the new councils’ constitution is being undertaken by the university of Manchester, which has played a very positive role in research on local government, as it has in every discipline of learning. It is probably the finest university in the United Kingdom. It found that 69 per cent. of councillors and 76 per cent. officers perceived the role of the leader to be stronger under the new executive arrangements. Moreover, some 52 per cent. of councillors and 72 per cent. of officers believed that the executive is more effective in articulating its vision for its area under the new arrangements, and 53 per cent. of councillors and 62 per cent. of officers believe that the executive has led the drive to service performance.

That is substantial evidence. Of course, it is reasonable for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, to want evidence that accountability and scrutiny have gone hand in hand in that process.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I understand the Minister’s point, but where is the specific evidence that a directly elected leader and executive contribute? We all accept the general point, but how many local authorities in the research specifically said, “We want to have a directly elected leader and executive,” as opposed to the model of a leader and executive cabinet appointed by the local authority?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

Once again, I invite the hon. Gentleman to come out of his centralist mindset and join me in the devolutionary world, where the matter is one for local authorities or, in the case of referendums for the position of elected mayor, for the local people to decide.

I referred to the strong support for the idea that the mayoral model has created an improvement in leadership, albeit not hugely greater than other executive arrangements—10 per cent. or thereabouts. An interesting piece of evidence for elected Members of Parliament and elected councillors who read this debate is that 68 per cent. of people surveyed in areas where there is an elected mayor knew the name of the mayor and who was responsible for their area, as opposed to 37 per cent. of people in a non-mayoral area recognising their council leader. That figure compares reasonably with Members of Parliament and shows that, in areas that have chosen to go for a mayor, the mayor’s high visibility has helped accountability. But—there is a big but, of course—the Government are not saying and have never said, “Thou shalt have a mayor.” We have said simply, “If you want one, you can have one,” in order to improve leadership arrangements.

Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)

I would like to take the Minister back to his remarks a few moments ago, when he stressed the importance of local authorities determining for themselves the structure of executive arrangements that they wish to take forward. Why has he excluded a hybrid committee structure in conjunction with an elected leader or mayor? That system has worked well in many local authorities—I am sure that we will come on to that point later in the debate. Why cannot local authorities determine the structure for themselves?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, which many authorities across the spectrum have made, asking, “Why can’t we have committees?” You would probably pull me up if I were to go into detail on that, Mr. Benton, because we are discussing the amendment on directly elected mayors tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I shall just say “horse” and “camel”, and perhaps you will get a hint of the argument that I shall use when we consider the evidence of the success or otherwise of the committee structure. I refer, of course, to the idea that God so loved the earth that he sent his only son, not a committee, and if you try to design a horse by committee you end up with a camel.

If we seriously want to devolve strategic power over billions of pounds of public expenditure, the public will want accountable leadership and clear decision-making structures. That is my argument on the executive models. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove has put strongly an argument against the model of directly elected executives, arguing that it is unworkable and that support for it among local authorities is not huge. I argue that it is a reasonable model that has been proposed by some in local government and that satisfies the criteria that the Government have set in their policy. I invite the hon. Gentleman to put aside his centralising tendencies and join me in the idea that councils that want to take forward that model should be allowed to do so. I therefore invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

Some of the Minister’s words have been carefully noted down for subsequent debates. When I moved the amendment I prefaced my remarks by making it absolutely clear that, like everybody else in the room, I am in favour of strong leadership models. Obviously, what is in dispute is whether a particular style of governance is more or less likely to produce that strong leadership and positive outcomes for local authorities. There is clearly a difference of opinion between the Minister and myself on his other proposed models, but they are not the subject of the amendments before us.

I am appearing almost passionate about this group of amendments—that is how the Minister was kind enough to describe it—because the Government’s proposal is completely dysfunctional. It will not work. I cannot see how it could be made to work in a way that would allow a local authority to have strong leadership. The proposal is based on a series of premises that appears to be completely disconnected from any experience of how local government is run or indeed how any Government is run. At no point did the Minister make the case for a directly elected Cabinet in Whitehall. If we contemplate what that would produce, and the side effects, we will see that it would be as wrong for the governing party as for opposition parties and the country as a whole. As soon as we look at that model in a more familiar setting, it becomes transparent that it is completely dysfunctional.

A number of other points have been raised in the debate. Several Members commented on the problems that might arise from changes to control, capacity or aptitude, and on the necessity of bringing in new people during a four-year term or to rotate portfolios. All those things are ruled out by the proposed model. Such failings would mean less strong leadership than under the current executive model, whatever its strengths and weaknesses.

The Minister’s justification is that the system he proposes will improve accountability. It is extremely difficult to follow his argument when presented in that form. It will improve accountability in the sense that the people involved will be directly elected once every four years, but if it all goes wrong and after two years the directly-elected leader says, “It has all gone wrong in social services and I would really like to get rid of this person, but I cannot and you cannot blame me because I am trapped by the system,” where is the accountability? Who is loses an election on that basis? There is no accountability.

One wonders also about scrutiny. Let us suppose that a major gaffe is disclosed when scrutinising a particular department and the performance of the executive member directly elected to handle it. Scrutiny can be as condemnatory as it likes, but it cannot actually remove or hold to account that person, who can simply wave two fingers at the scrutiny committee and say, “I have got another two and a half years to serve and there is no way that you can touch me.” If that is accountability, the Minister has got a different view of it from the one that I hold and that I think that the Committee should also hold.

As hard as I read the Bill, I cannot get to the bottom of another aspect of the system. We have raised already  the question of what happens if a subsequent by-election produces a change of party in the representatives elected to the council. The Minister did not specifically address that point—perhaps because he has no idea. However, it seems possible that what we really have here is an aldermanic system. If the directly elected executive can vote in the council, one could take the view that any change in control or, at least, the balance of the council, could be overwhelmed by the 10 or 12 additional votes of the directly elected executive. If that is true, it raises one question: what is the point or substance of any by-election of change that take place?

The system completely defeats the notion of increasing accountability, and puts pitfall after pitfall in the way of exercising strong, accountable leadership.

Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)

I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic. His argument is stronger if he envisages that the executive would be independent, but the chances are that it would consist of party representatives, like the rest of the council. Although the executive’s members would be elected for the district rather than the ward, they would probably be party people, so they would always be counted as part of the council.

Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman raises the lid on the Pandora’s box of who is entitled to propose a slate, on what basis, and of what size. Let me accept the premise that he has offered, however. If one takes Stockport as an example, there could be a slate from the Liberal Democrats, one from the Labour party and one from the Conservative party, and perhaps one from some other group. On the basis of the Government’s present proposals as I understand them, there would be a fixed number on the slate, so there would be no scope for a party to compete by saying that it could run a borough more efficiently and effectively with five, seven, or 11 people, because the number would be a predetermined one. That is clearly a mistake, and I assume that when we reach the relevant amendment the Government will confess as much.

There will be by-elections in a variety of wards across Stockport, depending on which slate gets in, and there could then be a change in the council’s composition if the electorate decided—perhaps on a very low turnout—that it did not like what had happened. At that point, the executive would no longer have the political support of the council in delivering its policies. Indeed, it might be said that the executive would no longer be legitimate, and that the electorate had decided that it did not want the executive members to be the decision makers. Where is the accountability and the legitimacy in that? So every door and window that one opens in examining the proposal produces a more and more bizarre view and a less and less workable system.

It is fine for the Minister to say that the Government are just giving an option. That is what they did in Stoke, but after three years they have had to concede that the option did not work in local government. What I am saying is that the Government have taken away one option that they have decided is not workable and that, although they are offering three others, one of those is already predictably and visibly not workable. In effect, therefore, they are reducing the options to two, while  claiming to be widening the choice open to local authorities. I cannot make any sense of the Government’s arguments and I believe that the proposal is mistaken. I shall press the amendment to a Division.