Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) Order 2019

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Deben

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I query the process. Having been the Secretary of State responsible for local government reorganisation, I find this process extremely peculiar. The Secretary of State asked the principal councils in Northamptonshire to decide how they wanted the future to be, but he said that Northamptonshire could not be a single unitary and if it were going to be three unitaries, they had to find some extremely good reasons for it. What we have here is a series of commissioners proposing a particular answer and the Secretary of State thanking the commissioners for all their work and presenting local people with a choice that is not a choice. I am not happy with that as a procedure.

Then we discover that we are supposed to think that the local people will be thrilled about it because there were 300-odd responses to a statutory consultation from a population of something like 700,000. We also had a number of businesses and others who thought it was a frightfully good idea. One of the questions that was asked—this is fascinating—which was thought to be a very good argument, was about whether there should be fewer councils. That is not the issue. The issue is why should we have two councils rather than three or one. That is the first question. I find the process very peculiar.

The second thing that seems odd about it is the decision that the historic county of Northamptonshire should be treated differently from the historic country of Cornwall. I am not suggesting that either is the right answer, but it seems that you have to have a reason for it. When I had to deal with Sir John Banham’s report, one of the things I found very difficult was that a number of the proposals did not seem to tie up with other proposals; it was therefore quite difficult to present them to the House of Commons because the other place, quite naturally, asked why it was that the proposals for this place were based on these arguments and the arguments were overturned in the proposals for some other place.

That leads me to question whether we have any idea about what we are trying to do. What is the Government’s view of local authorities? If we are going to do them piecemeal because of a disaster, I understand that we have to do it quickly—I will not hold up the proceedings any longer than I have to in asking these fundamental questions; I certainly will not suggest that one is not content with this—but it does not seem to be very good business. It does not seem to be a sensible way to proceed.

That leads me to my third point, which is simply this: we have had some quite successful changes in local government. If I remember rightly, the original changes in 1974, which were Conservative ones, were largely bad because they were based on the principle of having a whole lot of councils, many of which were not viable. For example, in my county of Suffolk, we should have had two unitary authorities: the old county council of east Suffolk and the old county council of west Suffolk. That would have been sensible. Instead, we had eight district councils and a county council. It is a very large area, much bigger than Northamptonshire, and it was not a sensible thing. Ever since, there have been attempts for councils to work together. That is now happening. East Suffolk Council is an amalgamation of two district councils. It is true of Mid Suffolk District Council and Babergh District Council and of the western district councils, which are now working together because that is the only way in which they can provide proper services at a proper price.

I do not particularly like neatness. It is the enemy of civilisation. I do not like the concept of being neat for the sake of it, but I do like rationality, and my problem here is that I see no rationality behind this. It looks to me as if there was a failing county council, it was a disaster, we put in some people to hold the place together and now let us get some answer, which we will have, but let us not be too careful about whether we have a philosophy behind it. What sort of numbers should we be dealing with in the historic county of Northamptonshire? Somebody should have said, “What about a unitary authority?” That is one answer. I am not suggesting that it is necessarily right, but should it not have been a question that was asked? Would it have been significantly more expensive? Then you would not have had to have a children’s trust. I am a bit worried about the need for a children’s trust but nobody thinks that you have to have any other, countywide, for what is not an enormous county and one that is quite a reasonable shape.

I have stayed behind because I want to know what the Government’s philosophy is. I know a number of the Minister’s civil servants from my own history—they have been around for quite some time—and I always want to know why we decide on a particular answer. This decision is not based on a “why”; this decision says that we are doing it because it is the easiest, quickest, simplest way—and pray to God it works. I am not sure that that is government.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a county councillor in Cumbria, and some of my remarks are going to relate to Cumbria in the context of what the Government have decided on Northampton- shire. I agree with many of the general points that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, have made, but I am rather concerned that the Northamptonshire model is being seized on by Ministers as something that they can go around the country imposing on people, whatever they think. The cause of that suspicion is that Mr Jake Berry, the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse, summoned the leaders of the councils of Cumbria to see him and basically told them that the only option for the way forward was two unitary authorities in Cumbria—a county of some 500,000 people but obviously a vast geographical area—and that that was basically the Government’s intention. I realise that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, may not be in a position to answer my questions, but I would be very grateful if he would commit to send me a letter in answer to the points I am about to make.

First, what is the current position on ministerial powers in relation to local government reorganisation? As I understand it, there was a provision in the Local Government Act to allow the department to impose schemes on areas but these powers have now lapsed. I am not sure whether I am right about that, so I want to know what the statutory power is at present and whether the Government are considering—because I know that there is talk of a devolution White Paper later in the year—taking on the power to reorganise local government even if there is not unanimous agreement? I rather gathered from what the Minister said that although seven of the eight authorities said they would accept the two-unitary structure in Northamptonshire, it was not necessarily unanimous of all the authorities. I do not know what the position is there. So, the first question is: where do we currently stand on ministerial powers and on the Government’s intentions for the future, given the Prime Minister’s laudable desire to make local government work better as he sees it and to devolve power?

Secondly, do the Government have rules about what they regard as the minimum size of a unitary authority? Again, there is talk of the normal rule being a population of 300,000, but is that a rule or is it just a thought when people are looking at these questions?

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Deben

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

I did not intend to intervene in this debate. I normally find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on most issues and I greatly respect his record as a supporter of what one might call green policy. However, on this occasion, I speak declaring an interest as a Friend of the Lake District and believing that special circumstances relate to national parks which make them different from other local authorities. I saw this first-hand in my capacity as chairman of Cumbria Vision, the sub-regional body of the North West Development Agency, which was responsible for promoting economic development in Cumbria.

There are two fundamental differences. First, the people who work on national parks go into it with a very strong personal commitment to planning. I found the quality of staff working for the national park authority to be extremely high. That was not true of planning in all the other district councils in the county of Cumbria. I will not name names, but there were some problems there on the planning side. There were not, however, problems with economic development with the national park, which had a very constructive role in sustainable economic development.

The second difference, which is a fundamental difference from a local authority and the question of a Secretary of State’s potential call-in powers, is that with a national park the Secretary of State nominates quite a high proportion of the members of the authority. Therefore, if the Secretary of State believes that the national park is not getting the balance between development and the environment right, he or she can nominate members. That is my simple point. I shall give way.

[Lord Deben]

I thank the noble Lord for taking the opportunity to find a disagreement between us because we are both singularly embarrassed by the similarity of our views on a whole range of issues, from Europe to planning. However, if what he says is true, would it not be very surprising to get rid of people whose normal attitudes were extremely good but, because of something specific, things had gone wrong? Surely it would be much more sensible for the Secretary of State to be able to deal with this with a precise measure, rather than a sacking. As I understand it, these people are under a contract for a period of time and the Secretary of State would have to wait some time to remove them if they were so wrong. However, I understand from his noble friend that they very rarely get it wrong.

[Lord Liddle]

In my experience, they very rarely get it wrong. My point was simply that if the Secretary of State felt that the overall balance of the way a national park was operating was not right, there is a remedy available to him or her, which is not the case for a local authority. Anyway, I would urge a special provision for national parks because, on the whole, they are a very precious element of our polity, introduced by the post-war Labour Government, and I do not think we want to tamper with them and their independence.

EU: Recent Developments

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Deben

Thursday 16th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

You are anti-European Union. I should have corrected myself—but you are anti.

[Lord Deben]

Given that the noble Lord has been interrupted, perhaps I may point out that there are some on these Benches who are in no way uncertain about the future of Britain in the European Union and support every word that he is saying.

[Lord Liddle]

That is a nice compliment from the noble Lord. What worries me is when people say, “Yes, we want Europe because it is good where we can have political co-operation on where we agree. Yes, of course the single market matters, but let us draw a clear line at that”. Whereas in the post-war era it is said that we had the myth of Britain standing alone at Dunkirk, which kept us out of effective engagement with Europe for 30 years, we are now recreating a new myth about Britain’s role in the world, whereby Britain alone in the new globalised world of the 21st century can thrive without the “shackles”—as the anti-European Union people put it—of engagement in Europe.

Of course Britain has global reach and global interests, and it can be an influential and effective networker in this new global world, but there is the idea of Europe as a shackle, that the single market is no more than a monster of bureaucratic regulation, that free movement of labour stops us having our own immigration policy, and that the things that people do not like—such as the rights culture and the health and safety culture—are all because of Europe.

I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Flight, was almost cheering when my noble friend Lord Monks said that four weeks’ statutory holiday for people would be scrapped if we were no longer part of Europe. That is a dangerous and seductive myth that may well seriously cloud our judgment as a nation as to where our future best interests lie. We must recognise that the health of the European Union is absolutely central to our global interests. British-based businesses sell a higher proportion of their exports into the single market than German exporters do of theirs. That is partly because, due to the single market, Britain has become such an attractive base for inward investment. It is because of the base of the single market that we can specialise and compete in world markets.

We do not strengthen our position in the single market by diplomatically putting ourselves out of the room when, for all the paper promises made, key economic questions affecting this country will be discussed. It is nonsense to think that the world will pay more heed to a Britain that accounts for—what?—2 per cent of world GDP than the European Union, which still represents the biggest economy in the world. People who think that Europe is putting us in shackles to meet the challenges of the global economy have to explain why Germany is one of the world's most successful exporters to China and the emerging economies.

The anti-Europeans have a vision of how Britain can make its living in the 21st-century that is deeply antipathetic to the instincts of those on our Benches. We believe in a European vision of a modern social market economy, a Europe that takes the high road to competitiveness and combines the opportunity for successful private enterprise with decent regulatory standards and essential public investment in low-carbon infrastructure, research, education, early years, a modern welfare state, and so on. The vision against that is essentially the vision of an offshore Britain, a deregulatory tax haven, a Hong Kong-type vision, which would be a disaster for most of our people but for the City of London as well.

The coalition would like to think that we can have the best of both worlds, to keep the benefits of the single market while avoiding most of Europe's obligations and political commitments. Of course, we should try to do our best to shape Europe in a British image, and there is a huge agenda of European reform that we need to pursue, but if we are saying that we will stay apart for ever from the single currency, we will have nothing to do with the fiscal stability union, we will be no longer in Schengen or part of the justice and home affairs parts of the treaties, what other nation in Europe shares that vision of Europe's future? Where are we looking for allies if we are trying to stay out of everything?

The European Union is an exercise in pooled sovereignty or it is nothing. If we are not prepared to join in and do our bit, we will ultimately make ourselves irrelevant. We cannot indefinitely achieve our objectives by staying out of the room when we do not like what is being discussed, and we cannot achieve them by opting out of so much that it begins to look as if we might as well not be in.

We have to resolve this issue as a country: is our future European or not? That is the lead that we are looking for from the Government.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Deben

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

What would the referendum question be, were such a suggestion to be made? Would that referendum question be capable of a reasonable yes or no answer for the majority of the people of Great Britain?

[Lord Liddle]

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has made an apposite intervention. I do not know what the relevant question would be but this is something in the real world that Ministers might have to address. It could enormously strengthen the Union’s capacity to deal with climate change and energy issues.

Amendments 23J and 23L are further examples. Amendment 23L is on piracy. We know that there is a growing problem of piracy, particularly in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. We know that an EU force is attempting to deal with this problem but that its efforts are inadequate. What is the reason for that? Is it a lack of resources or commitment on the part of the member states? That is possible, but another explanation is that the basis on which the force is patrolling this area does not match the tough circumstances that need to be dealt with. There is no agreement between the member states on the terms of engagement between the EU force and the pirates. There is no agreement on the circumstances in which force can legitimately be used.

These are difficult issues to tackle within the European Union because they touch on terribly sensitive issues to do with defence and armies, areas where the European Union has rightly been cautious in getting involved. I am not in favour of a European army, nor is the Labour Party, so do not try to say that this is trying to open the door to that.