Northumberland (Structural Change) Order 2008

I thank the Minister for her introduction. Adopting what is almost a Second Reading procedure is absolutely right on this occasion, and I will respond in the same way. I will make most of my remarks now, and only refer occasionally to specifics on each order—unless I am provoked. We on these Benches have always held the view that the principle of unitary authorities is right for all the arguments with which we are familiar: clarity, economies of scale and so on. From that point of view, we have no problem with the Government’s presumption that unitaries were probably the way forward. However, we have problems with how it is rolled out. I have had a great deal of correspondence on this over the past six months, which can broadly be put into three categories. Some simply do not agree that unitaries are the right way forward. Some think they probably are but are very unhappy about a lack of clarity, particularly in the process that the Government adopted. The last category consists of those who were broadly happy with the first two, but are now unhappy with how it is rolling out. We identified the basic problem when the Act was going through your Lordships’ House; namely, this sense that there is no real strategic vision for local government—its shape, size, form and function. There is a sort of vague ““one tier good, two tier bad”” thread running through the White Paper and the Act. However, lots of people in local government did not feel that that was backed up by robust analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the current system, and whether that would be better addressed by closer two-tier working or unitaries. A sense of a lack of clarity about the balance between, on the one hand, issues such as strategic leadership and economies of scale and, on the other, questions of local responsiveness certainly came strongly through that. One of the best examples of that is, indeed, Northumberland—the subject of the order we are discussing now—where many of the large organisations, such as the business community, voluntary groups and so on, were very much in favour of a unitary model for the county. They could see that it would assist them in their work. However, it is fairly clear that a significant proportion of the population was not happy with that model, and preferred the two-tier solution. That is not surprising. Northumberland is very much a county of two halves. My noble friend Lady Maddock, who cannot be here today, has pointed out to me that, in the south-east of the county, the population density is 10.6 people per hectare; in the remainder, there are three hectares per person. There is a very different feel. They have a different set of problems to do with sparsity, second homes and so on. It has been clearly picked up that people do not feel content with rule from an urban area; they think that they will not be understood. The Government have in some ways unintentionally made that worse, by insisting on what they call the ““strong leader”” model, such as elected mayors or having all the power vested in one person. I genuinely believe that, under a model which gave local authorities more flexibility to choose their governance styles, counties like Northumberland could have come up with a governance solution which might have addressed rural areas’ concerns. However, I feel strongly that that option has now been taken away. Whether the leader comes from the urban part or the rural part, as sure as eggs are eggs, the other side will think that they are not being properly represented or looked after. There is an issue with the reduction in the number of councillors—in Northumberland, for example, from 305 down to 67. There are probably people who say ““Jolly good job, too””. Nevertheless, whether one thinks that it is a good or a bad thing, it will fundamentally alter the nature of the role of councillors. There really has not been enough debate around that. When councils were asked to make their case for unitary status, they did so without a real sense of what they were aiming at—what they had to tell the Government in order to win. The Government’s tests were too vague—all rather motherhood and apple pie. As a result, local authorities have provided information that obviously is partial. They provide the information that suits their case, as is perfectly natural. The Government can argue that this is a bottom-up process but that does not absolve them from the responsibility of checking whether councils’ assertions about levels of local support can be properly verified. That is the point that the Merits Committee makes. I was intrigued by the noble Baroness’s citing of Somerset, which apparently ticked all the boxes but, because there was not sufficient public support, the bid did not go ahead. It fell not on any intrinsic merit but because the case failed to be made. In my local area of Ipswich, the council had its knuckles rapped by the Minister in another place for spending too much money on public information. Where an authority is trying to make the case and build up a campaign, that is wrong, but if it does not do so it loses the bid. The Government need to think about that. I very much welcome the noble Baroness’s assurance about the abolition of existing councils and the fact that the unitaries will be genuinely new. That topic was discussed at some length during the various stages of the Bill last year. However, the Government have not listened enough to the arguments that we put forward then. I understand that there are technical reasons why they want to proceed in the way that they have, but that has ignored some of the local sensitivities about continuing authorities and the perception of ““county takeover””. I imagine that my noble friend Lord Tyler may have some words to say about the Cornish situation, but it is the same across the country. It has become particularly difficult in Durham, where the county council insists on calling the new authority ““the county council””. The order is clear that it is not the county council. However, the county council deciding that it is going to use that term has put it at odds with the districts, which are now talking about taking out some kind of injunction. I hope that the Minister will take that away, have a word with her colleagues in Durham and send them the order in very large font. I wish to ask some questions and make some comments about elections. The first is on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the postponement of parish council elections to 2013. We are not quite into Fidel Castro territory but, nevertheless, they are long terms of office, especially in some places where people were not elected in the first place but co-opted or whatever. The Government could look at that. I am concerned about the capacity of the Boundary Committee to do the work that it has to do in time for next year’s elections. I understand from debates in another place that Ministers are confident that it can all be done by February 2009, but that is very tight for elections to be held next May. There is no room for slippage. If parliamentary orders are required, there could be some difficulties. Durham has again been in touch with me, because the Boundary Committee proposes that it has three sets of elections in five years—one this year, another in 2010 and another in 2013. What strikes me as odd about that is that the Government are defending the postponement or cancellation of elections in Cornwall and Shropshire on the basis that having too many sets of elections would be expensive and confusing, yet that is exactly what is proposed for Durham. That lack of consistency is confusing. I will leave my comments at that. It is fair to say that these Benches have concerns about the process so far, and I have raised some of them. However, the authorities have gone a long way down the road. There is a lot of uncertainty for councillors and staff, but most importantly they are the people who provide the vital services. Our very strong feeling is that we need to progress this now and let them get on with it. If the Government have got it wrong, it is for them to sort it out at some later date and pay the price, but at this point we feel that we would like to see the orders moved through. However, I hope that, once the orders are through, there will not be a sense of the Government breathing a sigh of relief and saying, ““That is it; we can move on””. We are at the start of the process with Cheshire and Bedfordshire and authorities such as Norwich and Ipswich are further down the road. I hope that some of the lessons that we have learnt from this can be taken forward so that we do not have the same debate in 12 months’ time.