HC Deb 25 July 1990 vol 177 cc643-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

12.14 am
Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)

It is a pleasure and a privilege to address the House on the day of the appointment to Government of my hon. Friends the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), all of whom I am delighted to see in their rightful places on the Treasury Bench. I wish them all a long and distinguished career, and I wish them well in their new, arduous and onerous responsibilities.

I remind the House that the reason for this debate was the excellent decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who in 1989, as Secretary of State for the Environment, was so concerned about the strong feeling against the existence of Humberside county council that, exceptionally, he ordered the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to consider the case for that county's abolition.

My right hon. Friend was moved to take that decision because he had received about 7,000 representations from the people of the ill-loved county of Humberside expressing their opposition. He took the view that it was right and proper for the Boundary Commission to consider whether the people concerned should revert to residing in their rightful counties of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

The commission's interim report did not, sadly, accord with the wishes of my constituents. Just three weeks ago, on 5 July, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) initiated an Adjournment debate on the same issue. He drew attention to the guidelines given to the Boundary Commission, whose interim review published on 7 March states in paragraph 47, on page 13, that there are three strands to any consideration of boundaries. As the commission approaches the task of drafting its final report, I take this opportunity to remind it of its terms of reference, and that the three strands that it is obliged to take into account are: whether the boundary accords with the wishes of the local inhabitants;

  1. (ii) whether it reflects the pattern of community life; and
  2. (iii) whether it is conducive to the effective operation of local government or any associated services."

On the first test, there is no doubt that the majority of my constituents—and, I suspect, those of Glanford and Scunthorpe and of Great Grimsby—wish to return to the county of Lincolnshire, as that most likely to reflect the pattern of commmunity life". Lincolnshire has a natural boundary in the form of the river Humber estuary. The old country of the east riding of Yorkshire was the other county which had the river Humber as a natural boundary. The residents of south Humberside look to Lincoln and to the county of Lincolnshire as the county with which they identify.

Our experience of living under the dreaded county of Humberside over the past 15 years with regard to whether it is conducive to the effective operation of local government is that the county of Humberside fails that test. The community charge in the county of Humberside is about £100 higher than it is in the county of Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire can deliver its local government services—eduacation, social services, roads and all the ancillary services—at a cost to the charge payer that is £100 less than the charge in the county of Humberside. That test proves conclusively that Lincolnshire is the county which is most conducive to the effective operation of local government for my constituents.

I remind my hon. Friend the Minister, who was kind enough to reply to the debate three weeks ago that the hatred of my constituents for the county of Humberside is virtually total. The unhappiness about the concept of Humberside which persists among many of its residents 15 years after its creation shows that now is the time to urge the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to consider the strength of local feeling. I fully accept that it is probably unlikely that my hon. Friend the Minister can add much more to what he said three weeks ago, but I hope that he will assure me and my constituents today that he will draw the attention of the Boundary Commission to the strength of feeling that I am expressing on behalf of my constituents.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will draw to the commission's attention the fact that I was elected by the people and speak for them. My voice on their behalf must be considered when the commission produces its final report. This is the appropriate time to urge the Boundary Commission to accept the challenge thrown down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. At this point in the sad history of the county of Humberside, people's confidence in the county has been sapped. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to pass on my views.

I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), a Yorkshire Member, is present in the Chamber. He has told me that he would like to support my comments and I will now allow him to substantiate some of my points.

12.22 am
Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)

I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on initiating this debate and I agree with everything that he has said.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) initiated a debate on this subject on 5 July. He spoke in similar terms and argued for the abolition of Humberside, for the creation of a new county of East Yorkshire and for the return of South Humberside to Lincolnshire. The fact that we have had a second debate so soon after the first, shows the strength of feeling about this.

Both debates have been initiated by hon. Members representing constituencies south of the river Humber. Lest it be thought that the strength of feeling is greater in the areas that were formerly unashamedly in Lincolnshire, I remind the House that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England found that the strength of feeling—or outrage as I would describe it—about their incorporation in Humberside is even greater among those who live to the north of the estuary.

Although I represent a constituency in West Yorkshire which is quite a long way from Humberside, I speak as a native Yorkshireman and a member of the Yorkshire Society. I have no trouble in understanding why the changes that came about in 1974 have never been accepted. Those who drew purely artificial lines on the map to create this concoction cannot easily be forgiven.

Some think that the problem of assuaging traditional loyalties could be resolved either if Humberside changed its name, although it is difficult to think of an alternative, or if postal addresses were altered. That argument is similar to that put by those who argued for the new administrative counties at the time of the passage of the Local Government Act 1972. They claimed that there was no problem because people would still be able to retain their traditional counties. Most of those on the north side of the estuary still feel themselves to be Yorkshire people, but know that something significant has been taken from them by the creation and continuation of a new administrative county for which they feel no affection and little, if any, loyalty.

The Boundary Commission considered issues under the two heads of convenience of administration and traditional loyalties as well as patterns of community life. On the first, it concluded that a reversion to more traditional boundaries would be no better able to provide effective and convenient local government than the present Humberside County Council. At no point did the commission suggest that local government would be any worse. Not surprisingly, it found that there were too many imponderables to make a judgment as to whether there would be an improvement or a deterioration. The main issue, therefore, related to the transitional inconvenience of a further disruption in local government.

When it comes to the preferences of the people as a whole rather than those of people with a stake in the status quo, there is no doubt about how they feel. When asked for their opinion, 62 per cent. of all residents wanted a change from the present county. On the north bank, 64 per cent. stated a wish to see some sort of Yorkshire solution. Many, like me, felt that the answer could be the creation of a new East Yorkshire county, including Selby, although that issue has not exercised most people's minds at this stage. Curiously, a reason why the Boundary Commission seemed to come down against that option was that the present boundary between York and Selby is unsatisfactory. Surely, more urgent attention could be given to that matter if necessary, rather than leaving it until the Humberside issue has been resolved.

The Boundary Commission rather airily dismissed the deep feelings of people for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, stating: Such loyalties should be able to co-exist with support for Humberside as an administrative unit. Unfortunately, that statement is out of touch with reality. After many years, the survey carried out on behalf of the Boundary Commission shows that only just over a third of the people of Humberside would support the retention of the county. That being so, I find an element of perversity in the Commission's conclusion, especially bearing in mind the strong lead given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the former Secretary of State for the Environment. I accept that it is difficult for any group of people to reach one decision and then to come to a contrary one.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot say anything substantive today. I realise that the law does not allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reach a conclusion off his own bat. Rather, he must endorse or refuse one presented to him by the Boundary Commission. I can only say, with a great deal of support from those who still think of themselves as Yorkshire or Lincolnshire people, that I hope even now that there will be a recognition that a decision to go back to something like the ancient Yorkshire and Lincolnshire which existed before 1974 would be enthusiastically applauded not only in the present Humberside but far outside the existing boundaries of that unloved teenager.

11.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory)

It was no surprise to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) chose this subject. I have been aware of his strong feelings on the issue. He has never been one to be shy about making his views known, particularly when his constituents are concerned. He set out his case against the present county structure with his usual skill and exuberance, and he was supported in that by some additional points by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who gave his views from a slightly different perspective—from West Yorkshire. On 5 July I answered a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell). I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes intervened on that occasion as well.

It might be appropriate if I set out a little of the background, because the present boundary review takes place in a more general framework. I shall then comment more specifically on the Humberside review.

Until 1972, the review of local government boundaries was somewhat haphazard and intermittent. There were periods of great change interspersed with periods when little happened. In 1972, it was thought that a new system would be appropriate. There was general agreement that it should not be possible for the Government of the day to make changes as they saw fit, because that would introduce the temptation to change electoral boundaries for political convenience.

I believe that Governor Gerry of Massachussetts was the first politician who fell victim to the temptation to alter boundaries to suit his political ends. I understand that he designed a constituency which looked rather like a salamander. Someone thought that it should be called a gerrymander, so he gave his name to a political system and it passed into our language.

In 1972, the then right hon. Member for Crosby, the late Graham Page, wisely wished to protect his successors as Ministers for Local Government from the temptation to follow in Governor Gerry's steps. He designed a system which ensures that changes can be made when they are desirable for effective and convenient local government. Those words appear in the Local Government Act 1972, which also imposes constraints upon the Secretary of State of the time in initiating such changes.

Effective and convenient local government has three components, to which reference has been made—first, whether the proposed boundaries reflect the wishes of the majority of the local residents; secondly, whether the alterations would provide more efficient services at county or district level; thirdly, whether they would better reflect the pattern of community life.

Under the Local Government Act 1972, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was set up. It is a small, expert body of people who review local government boundaries throughout the country and form a view of what will make for effective and convenient local government. The legislation provides for the commission to take the Government's views into account. That is done by way of Department of the Environment circulars. The legislation also provides for local people to be given every opportunity to have their say, both before the proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State and afterwards.

A very important feature of the system is that the Secretary of State can only work within the framework of the commission's recommendations. He can either accept its recommendations or reject them. He can accept them with some modifications, but what he cannot do, and has no power to do, is to devise changes of his own and come up with something quite different from the commission's recommendations.

My hon. Friend mentioned the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on Humberside. The guidelines for the first Humberside review laid down that the abolition of the county council or any principal authority should not be recommended. However, after the Commission recommended that there should not be a major change on Humberside, a large number of people took issue with the report. Over 7,000 representations were received. My hon. Friend mentioned that figure.

In the light of that response, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury decided that the commission should have a further look at the question, without the previous constraints. He therefore directed the comission to carry out a further review and to take a completely fresh look at the question. It was able to consider the abolition of Humberside county council and the division of the county in whatever way seemed appropriate, and that remains the position. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey earlier this month, we now await the commission's report on its further review.

We know that the commission is carrying out careful and thorough studies of all aspects of the question. It has told me that its consideration of all the questions involved is proving somewhat more difficult than expected. Nevertheless, I should prefer the commission to take a careful, considered and painstaking look at every aspect of these possible boundary changes rather than trying to meet an artificial deadline.

My hon. Friends know that the Government cannot express an opinion at this stage. I have listened carefully to what they have said today and I shall draw the Boundary Commission's attention to the debate. It is right that it should be made aware of expressions of opinion in the House.

Mr. Waller

Is my hon. Friend aware that when a debate on this issue took place recently in the other place all who spoke in it expressed very much the same sort of view as has been expressed in this House?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

Yes, I have read the report of that debate, and Lord Hesketh sent the report of the debate to the Boundary Commission, so the chairman and the members of the commission are also aware of it.

At this time I can express no views on the merits of the case, but I await the commission's report with interest. In conclusion, I repeat that I will ensure that the commission is made aware of the views that have been expressed today.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.