| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
This is a mess and nothing we do tonight will change that. We can—and I hope that we will—pass one of these Motions, because that is the only protest that we have and the only possibility that we have to
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1059
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, this has been, predictably, a hotly contested and passionate debate. It is no surprise to me that the loyalties expressed about the county of Cheshire were done so in the tone and language that noble Lords used. I think that we agree on much of what has been said. Certainly, we all want the best for Cheshire. When it comes to the point, however—and I pay tribute to the excellence of Cheshire County Council to which tribute has been paid throughout the House this evening—the Government have to make a decision. Ministers have to show leadership, just as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said. We have made a choice, which does not command the support of many of your Lordships, but which we genuinely believe on the best of evidence is the one that stands the most prospect of actually delivering outcomes. I will not repeat what I said in a long opening speech. I will just make a few points, primarily about the deliverability.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister has reflected again on the position that the Government have taken, but the Government's decision was not based on consensus in any way at all. I hesitated to speak in this debate because I do not come from Cheshire, but the Minister cannot claim that the Government are doing this with the consensus of the people because, clearly, they are not.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I did not claim that in my opening speech and I have not claimed that in any debate on any of the unitary authorities that we have had so far because the invitation that was issued specifically said that we would not seek consensus and we would not look for a majority decision. I will come on to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, “Why don’t you simply leave Cheshire alone to get on with it?” We would have been very happy if Cheshire had wanted to get on with it. There was absolutely no pressure at all on Cheshire to come forward with any proposal, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said. It could have adopted enhanced two-tier status. That would have been perfectly proper.
I also take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We were not disingenuous about there being a consensus. This was a genuine response by the local councils in Cheshire and there were two contradictory responses. That is what we were faced with. We were
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1060
I have heard apocalyptic language this evening. I shall explain why I think that noble Lords ought to have confidence in the people of Cheshire, in the local officers who are developing the proposals and will take them forward and in the committed local councils. For all the reasons given by noble Lords, Cheshire is a powerful idea. It has a long, complex and changing history, as the right reverend Prelate told us. I understand that Lewis Carroll of Alice in Wonderlandfamecame from Daresbury—a unitary authority, which is interesting to reflect on. There has been a history of change, as there has been across this country. I come from East Sussex, a powerful and terrific county, but that does not make me any less conscious of the identity and history of Sussex itself. For all the reasons given by noble Lords, I cannot believe that what has been suggested will be Cheshire’s fate, either. It is too powerful a county. We are looking at a way forward that enables east and west Cheshire to take advantage of what is offered and not to be driven by cities or confused by them, as some noble Lords suggested. All I am saying is that economic opportunities may more easily be realised by having two counties that can take advantage of what is on offer in a more focused way. No one is suggesting anything other than that.
Noble Lords challenged the process. However, this was the most thorough process that we could have invented. It was open from start to finish. It proceeded by invitation and went through two stages of consultation. The financial information that was presented was returned twice to be reviewed and was then independently assessed. I can only repeat the reasons that I gave with regard to the Freedom of Information Act about why we thought it better to preserve Ministers’ capacity to take advice and make decisions. That is a very important principle. However, the process was very open and, as I said, the result proves that the measure is affordable.
I turn to why we think that this will work. There was broad but not popular support; we have not made that defence. All the polls that were taken threw up a different result. However, there was support from sufficient partners—people able and willing to deliver successful change. We made no further claims, but that was what influenced our decision. We think that the measure will work, given those critical partners, which include industry, some rural parishes and towns. We also think that it will work because it meets the affordability criteria, as I said. I also believe that it meets the criterion of local democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, brought that out in his positive speech. We will have two new authorities but within that there will be new local arrangements for local connections and local identities. Those local identities will build on present identities and enable them to flourish. I believe that we have that balance right.
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1061
8.30 pm
Let me turn to the crucial part, which is how this will work in the future. I have been slightly dismayed by the lack of confidence that noble Lords have shown in those who are going to deliver the change. I understand that these are new authorities and I understand that the county council was a repository of excellence and experience. That excellence and that experience are already being made available to the new councils as they proceed with implementation; we would not expect it to be otherwise. The joint implementation teams that have been set up have created work groups that are looking at the different service streams.
For example, on education, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and other noble Lords have spoken passionately, the Cheshire schools associations have already provided a very constructive paper that covers the entire range of issues under the people services block, which is going to guide this. Those who are leading implementation include the most senior county council officers, the Cheshire County Council director of children’s services and the director of adult services. They will bring the best of their experience to bear on what must be the future for the new councils. This is what will give the best start and the greatest confidence.
It is suggested that existing programmes and services are going to be disrupted or put at risk through the new unitary arrangements. Let me give noble Lords two examples. The specialised service for vulnerable children will meet the needs of children and their families in both the east and the west. There will be pragmatism at work to determine the best way in which to deliver services. The children’s trust is very important and there is no intention of disrupting the arrangements for it. I am told that it will continue on the present basis. We are looking to pragmatic decisions about how best to deliver services.
On schools, dialogue has already begun with head teachers through the lead chief executives for the east and west. Head teachers are setting out their concerns, but they are now part of this dialogue about how to make the transition and build on the very best. The DCSF is committed to this and has made clear how closely it will work with schools and education agencies in east and west Cheshire to deliver the best of those services. There is evidence that those people who need to bring their experience and excellence to make the new services work are not only willing but determined to do so. The very least that we can do is to support them in that process. I believe passionately that, if we in any sense promote delay this evening, we will do nothing but harm to those who are committed to this process and to the people of Cheshire.
The time for disagreement and division has passed. That has been said time and again, both in another place and here this evening. We are not steamrollering this through, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, suggested. We are being urged by local leaders to allow them to get on with the job after a period of unhappiness. They are desperate to be able to do that. I quoted the leaders of the two critical councils. I conclude by quoting an e-mail that the Labour
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1062
“Whatever our views might have been in the past, the decision by the Secretary of State has now been made. We must make the best of it, and time is scarce. I would hope that you would support the orders”.
This has been an important debate, but I urge noble Lords to heed those views and the views of the leaders of the local councils that I quoted earlier. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I have already been admonished for the lack of brevity of my speeches tonight, so I shall take inspiration from Raúl Castro rather than from Fidel Castro in the length of what I have to say. Only three points have been made, so I can keep it brief.
First, I thank my noble friend for summing up, but I remind her that, when the Government asked the district councils to look again at the financial implications of their case and when they put Deloitte in charge, Deloitte was surprised by the poor and threadbare nature of the debate. Indeed, they found that 28 of the 33 financial assumptions were above or beyond average risk.
Secondly, I was intrigued by what my noble friend Lady Hollis said. She said that, as she had little knowledge of Cheshire, she wanted to make some general comments. However, she went on to say that Cheshire County Council, of its own accord, brought forth the proposal for the unitary authority. I can assure her that Cheshire County Council made every effort to get agreement on the proper way forward among the seven councils involved. It was only when no consensus emerged that Cheshire County Council decided to propose a unitary authority, which was glowingly accepted by the Government.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was the only voice against everyone. His memory of Cheshire is good. It is a patchwork of towns across a principally rural county. The advantage of the Cheshire County Council proposal was exactly that, under the overarching county, the ambition to set up five local boards would have had the effect of meeting and greeting local communities in a superior way to the existing example. Neston and Parkgate, with Ellesmere Port, would be separated and responded to. Crewe and Nantwich, famously locked together, would each be able to speak for themselves. The same would apply to Northwich and Winsford. Cheshire is essentially a centripetal county, not a centrifugal one. The Government have argued all evening that somehow it is disappearing across its borders. However, people want to come and join Cheshire because it has locus, or location. It means something.
I have every hope and belief that the county officers, if this decision is taken, will take on the burden and responsibility of dissolving the councils. They will do that because they are professional, right down to the bottom of their boots. I shall withdraw my amendment to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, in the hope that your Lordships will support his amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 1A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1063
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, in which the views of the majority of this House have been made very clear. I appreciate that the Government are in a difficult position, but it is of their own making. This is the first time that we have had an opportunity to hear the views of Members of this House and it is the first time that we have had an opportunity for the views of noble Lords from Cheshire to be expressed on these matters. Judging from the views of Peers in this House, and taking into consideration the views of the vast number of people in Cheshire who are extremely concerned about this, I would like to test the view of the House.
8.37 pm
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 83.
Astor of Hever, L.
Brett, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Browne of Belmont, L.
Byford, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Cathcart, E.
Chester, Bp. [Teller]
Crathorne, L.
Cumberlege, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
D'Souza, B.
Eccles, V.
Elton, L.
Fookes, B.
Geddes, L.
Glentoran, L.
Golding, B.
Goodlad, L.
Grantchester, L.
Greenway, L.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Hanham, B.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Harrison, L.
Hooper, B.
Howe, E.
Inglewood, L.
Jones, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Liverpool, Bp.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Luke, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Patten, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Platt of Writtle, B.
Plumb, L.
Puttnam, L.
Rennard, L.
Roper, L.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Slynn of Hadley, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Steinberg, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Trenchard, V.
Tyler, L.
Ullswater, V.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L. [Teller]
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Acton, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. [Lord President.]
Bach, L.
Bilston, L.
Blood, B.
Borrie, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bradley, L.
Bragg, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1064
Dixon, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Ford, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grocott, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Joffe, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Judd, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Quin, B.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Richard, L.
Robertson of Port Ellen, L.
Rooker, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B. [Teller]
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Finsbury, L.
Soley, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Thornton, B.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Vadera, B.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Watson of Invergowrie, L.
West of Spithead, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Young of Old Scone, B.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
8.50 pm
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 12.
Lord Teverson moved Amendment No. 71:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we move on to the part of the Bill about the annual report. An area critical for the credibility and future operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act, as I am sure it will, is reasonably timely reporting. If we do not have that, it is difficult, not just in this place but for the public at large, to keep in touch with some feeling of real time on where we are on national targets and emissions.
The timescale in the Bill is currently very long indeed. If the Bill was in operation now, we would not know what the emissions for 2008 were until May 2010. That is a difficulty on two counts. First, the information is very much out of date in the public’s perception and for the debate that will, we hope, follow in this House and the other place. Secondly, there is a considerable lag in action that can be taken—adjustments, actions and policies—to address deviations and difficulties in meeting those targets. With the amendment, we are therefore saying that surely one
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1065
This is an important area for management action, for the Government’s action and policy, and for keeping decision-makers and the public up to date and fully involved in the outcome of those reports and that emission reporting. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, the amendment shortens the timeframe within which the annual report must be laid. Instead of waiting until March of next year, the amendment brings it back to December and we support it.
I am sure that the Minister understands our concerns. Two years is a long time, and it seems absurd that the Government cannot get the figures together in a more timely fashion. March is now upon us. Had this Bill come into effect years before, we would this month be debating the annual report for 2006. Since then, there have been three different Secretaries of State for Defra, as well as a new Prime Minister. If we are to have real government accountability, the Government need seriously to consider the amendment.
There is always a risk with the measures under this Bill that we will find out about what is happening long after it has been done. The effectiveness of accountability is inversely proportionate to the length of time between the end of a period and the report on that period. Shortening the timeframe necessarily strengthens the accountability. We do not want the report to become overshadowed by political spin. Having a report published in the second year would allow Ministers the chance to claim that the problems of the previous two years were no longer important or germane. It is thus extremely important that the timeframe is shortened.
Will the Minister explain the circumstances that might lead to such a delay? Will he be specific about the sorts of things that need to be carried out to assemble the report and outline how long each aspect is anticipated to take? I expect there will be much discussion about the collection of data. I ask the Minister for some examples. Can he explain the nature of the data collection with regard to time periods? Is it a matter of calculations? Will surveys need to be done and collected? Is this an administrative problem? Does he feel that if there were to be more resources in Defra, he would be able to do it quicker or is it simply that the data can only be gathered in an historical perspective? There might be some problems with data collection; however, I hope that the Minister shares our concern about the timeframe of the reports. In an ideal world, we would like to see it reduced. What has been done to research streamlining the collection process? What specific ways have the Government considered in this regard? Is there any way to improve on it?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we have considered this matter since Committee to see whether we can accelerate the timetable. However, I fear that we have not been able to move as far as noble
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1066
There are also good, practical reasons for this timetable, which is necessary to ensure the quality of the UK’s emissions data. Compiling the UK’s emissions inventory to the highest international standards requires data collection from a wide variety of sources. It is a difficult, time-consuming and labour-intensive task, but it is one that needs to be got right. Some 30 or more experts both inside and outside government are involved in the process at various points during the year. To bring forward the date of publication of the full inventory, even by a matter of weeks, would be an extremely difficult challenge.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |