Draft Cumbria (Structural Changes) Order 2022

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 General Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the Minister once again for an informative introduction to this statutory instrument, which is the third such instrument in which we have addressed these structural changes. We have gone from the north to the south-west, and we have now come back to the north with Cumbria. It has been quite a journey.

The question the Minister did not address properly in our last meeting is whether the Government are making decisions on new unitary authorities based on the criteria. In the recent spate of restructuring statutory instruments, the Government have seemingly relegated one part of the criteria—a crucial one for genuine, principled devolutionists. It is the part about local support for the proposals. Indeed, that picks up on a point made by the hon. Member for Congleton. It seems that there is a genuine lack of public enthusiasm for the proposal in Cumbria.

The Government were presented with four proposals, as the Minister said. The proposal the Government eventually went with—the so-called East West proposal to create two unitary authorities in east and west Cumbria—did not receive support from a majority of respondents to the local consultation. Only the proposal for The Bay did. That proposal also proposed two unitary authorities: one covering Allerdale, Carlisle, Copeland and Eden, and another covering Barrow-in-Furness, Lancaster city and South Lakeland.

[Jake Berry]

Will the hon. Gentleman set out for the Committee what support was received from Lancashire County Council for taking Lancaster out of the historic county of Lancashire and putting it with Cumbria?

[The Chair]

Before the shadow Minister replies, I say to him that he should resume his seat when another Member has the floor.

[Mike Amesbury]

I am very happy to be guided by you, Sir Graham.

The focus has to be on the residents who are directly affected by the proposals—that is localism; that is devolution. I am sure that the Minister can allay the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns and answer his questions.

[Jake Berry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mike Amesbury]

I will not give way.

Residents did not believe that the East West proposal offered a reasonable geography. Crucially, that is another part of the criteria for the creation of a unitary authority set out by the Government.

The Government’s criteria also state that successful proposals need to deliver good public services and improve local governance, yet the residents who were consulted did not believe that the East West proposal was the right proposal for Cumbria. They felt that it would be less efficient and were concerned about the disaggregation of public services. There are currently pressures on social care, with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar.

The parish and town councils also favoured the proposal for The Bay, with 28% saying that it would improve services. Even among local businesses, that proposal was more highly favoured than the East West proposal. Businesses felt that it had the most credibility when it came to geography—another criterion that the Minister and the Secretary of State looked at.

Again, I ask the Minister: why was an option chosen that received less support and that local people felt did not fulfil the Government’s criteria for the creation of new unitary authorities? Is public support now a secondary part of the criteria? I would like to hear the Minister’s explanation.

Finally—I do not expect an immediate answer on this point—the Fire Brigades Union has been in touch with me about how the proposal will affect the responsibilities of the fire and rescue services, and about the funding pressures and potential cuts they might face as a result of the restructuring. I will correspond with the Minister on that issue, but I wanted to put it on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I will speak very briefly to put on record my support for this piece of legislation. When I was northern powerhouse Minister, it was a great pleasure and a privilege to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle on his ceaseless campaign to secure a better settlement for local government in Cumbria. We have heard already from the Minister that it will save £19 million to £31 million—quite a big spread for local taxpayers.

However, I will briefly mention two further things. First of all, this is a big part of our Government’s devolution story. It is all very well to hear from the Opposition about how things should be done differently, but I remind them that after 13 years in government, the only place in England to which they devolved power was London. In the north of England, the Conservative party is the father, mother, grandfather and grandmother of devolution.

[Mike Amesbury]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jake Berry]

I will not give way, because the shadow Minister would not give way to me. [Laughter.] Of course I will give way to him.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Member for kindly giving way, and I remind him that the Conservative party has been in power for nearly 12 years. We have a shared interest in ensuring that we get more devolution and power for the north and a genuine voice for the north. As a proud northerner, I will continue to work with everybody to achieve that.

[Jake Berry]

The hon. Gentleman is a proud northerner. I remind him that in those 12 years, we have done devolution deals for Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, North of Tyne, Birmingham—