HL Deb 16 July 1996 vol 574 cc809-13

7.26 p.m.

Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the new local government structure to be established in Lancashire will create two unitary authorities—one for Blackburn and one for Blackpool. Each will follow the existing boundaries of the respective boroughs. The rest of the county will remain two-tier.

Those changes were recommended by the Local Government Commission following the review of 21 districts, including—in Lancashire—Blackburn and Blackpool. The content of the Lancashire order, which is to implement these changes, is broadly the same as those in other orders for structural change.

The order makes provision for the creation of new unitary authorities for Blackburn and Blackpool to come into effect on 1st April 1998. In both areas there will be all-out elections for new councils in May 1997. The order provides for each unitary authority then to return to its normal electoral cycle—by thirds in the case of Blackburn, and by full elections every four years in the case of Blackpool.

The commission recommended that strategic planning should be retained across the area of the existing county. The order achieves that by transferring the county council's strategic planning responsibilities to the unitary authorities. The county council and the unitary authorities can then make voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan for their combined areas.

The order provides also for the two unitary authorities to become fire authorities so that the Home Office can make a fire combination scheme—covering the two unitaries and the residual area of Lancashire County Council—under the Fire Services Act 1947.

The separate provision we intend to make for ceremonial arrangements will clearly show that the new unitary authorities are to continue to be part of the historic county of Lancashire for ceremonial and related purposes and will therefore remain within the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff of that county.

As for other areas subject to change, separate provision will be made for policing. The intention is for the existing Lancashire county police authority to continue to cover both unitary authority areas. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, when I spoke in the gap to an amendment on the first of this group of orders I said that I would speak about Lancashire. What I wish to say comes from my knowledge of counties in general and from my background as a county councillor for Lancashire County Council from 1977 until now.

This is an extremely sad day for local government, not because I believe that unitary local government cannot work on the basis of the boundaries, in particular of the former county boroughs whose record and tradition I greatly respect. I refer to Blackpool and Blackburn and to my own town of Preston which has perhaps the longest tradition of all, its charter dating back for so long.

As I said earlier when speaking to the Berkshire order, the beginning of this exercise should have been function and finance. I support my party's objective which is to have genuine democratic accountability at appropriate levels. I would be happy supporting unitary local government across the north west of England with a democratically accountable regional tier of government coming in at the same time. That is what I believe the people of the north-west and other regions of England deserve.

It is a tragedy that the basis of this whole exercise has been wrong. The starting point has been wrong. People have fallen into the trap of fighting over the corpse of real local democratic accountability in England and who is responsible for the inability of local authorities to deliver the services that people in the locality want. I wish all local authorities well for the future, but I do not believe that, under this Government's current policy, the new local authorities that come into being after today will have the freedom to provide the genuine local government that would flow from my party's commitment and that of the Liberal Democratic party to the charter of local self-government. I do not believe or trust that under this Government the costs will not be recouped in the case of Blackburn and Blackpool from the people who need the services.

Why do we need a tier above the unitary local authorities being created here which ought to have been part of a much wider group of unitary local authorities? We need that because the environment needs strategic action, not a voluntary coming together, at a regional level. We need genuine, strategic action to deal with environmental problems. We need it because the north-west needs tourism and development at a strategic regional level as well as at local level. We need it in terms of economic development. There have been references to conflicts between economic development initiatives. The European Commission and the European Union see the north-west as an entity. KONVER programmes are needed at a regional level with democratic accountability. Defence is a major industry in the north-west. We need it for the macro-regional, public/private sector partnership that the authorities in the north-west are seeking to achieve on the basis of a voluntary association. It could be done better with a proper regional tier.

What we ought to be celebrating today is the opportunity for people to choose different means and different levels of locally delivered services. That will not emerge while current government policy stands. The opportunity for new and continuing authorities to meet the needs of the local population cannot be met while we have the rigid hand of central control. That will continue to cap the aspirations of those who seek to bring back policies to Blackpool and Blackburn that existed some time ago.

I do not make any apology for taking up your Lordships' time in what has been a long debate on a very complex issue. I wish that we had started from somewhere else. When, as a member of the committee of the regions, I attend meetings with people from other regions with democratic powers and accountability in the countries of our European partners, I am ashamed that we lack the democratic means of tackling the problem of air pollution as it affects children as a result of the lack of a proper regional transport policy in the north-west.

I wish all well for the future. My difference is not with my party, but with the Government, their motivation and the rest of their policies towards local government. Unlike some of my colleagues, I am not prepared to support wholeheartedly change until we have change from the centre. However, I wish people well. I have not put down a notice to amend the order at this stage as I said at the beginning of the debate yesterday. I respect the conventions of the House as regards wrecking amendments. I await the time when there is such a change of government that we can actually celebrate democratic diversity rather than shifting the deck chairs around on the sinking ship of democracy under this Government.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, I did give notice that I intended to speak in the debate. I am very pleased. On behalf of the majority of the citizens of Blackburn I welcome the opportunity of Blackburn going back to the position that it once held. We were a county borough long before county government. We in Blackburn, as a county borough, rendered human service to this country and to the citizens of the town. We were one of the leaders in education, housing, health and so on. We were sufficient in doing those things. Like my colleague, we were very upset in 1974 when we found that we were no longer our own masters and had been victimised because of something we had not done.

We are grateful to the county for what it has done since 1976 until now in acting as caretaker. We accept that it was a caretaker looking after our interests. Now we have the opportunity of going back to where we left off. I am convinced that the people of Blackburn who have been elected are competent people who will be able to carry out their duties and look after the interests of their electorate in just the same way as the people of Blackburn were looked after by the county council.

The priority over the next two years is for the county council and the new authority, which is to come into being, to work together and to prepare for the future. They should make sure that they are achieving what they want for the communities. I am sure that they can do that with co-operation. I am proud of being a Blackburnian, but I am also proud of being a Lancastrian and a deputy lieutenant of the county as well. I look forward to progress in local authority work. I hope that we can go forward together and not as enemies.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, perhaps I may take up the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. He is quite right in saying that he hopes that everyone will be able to go forward as friends and not as enemies. If people are against each other over matters, then progress will never be made. When we have change it is essential that people work together. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, is very knowledgeable about these matters, having been chairman of the Lancashire County Council. She knows all about that area. However, I was distressed when she took such a swipe at the Government. She said that we would never find democratic diversity in the sinking ship of democracy. That was pretty strong stuff.

The noble Baroness said that she was against the Government, against their motivation and against their policies. I shall not take on the noble Baroness on that point because that is what she believes and she is entitled to her view. The noble Baroness said that she wanted locally chosen delivery of services. The whole point of these provisions is to make unitary authorities get closer to the people so that they can provide better services than previously.

The noble Baroness said that central government is assuming rigid powers and that she did not like the cap. Central government is bound to contain some fairly rigid powers. When one considers that 24 per cent. of all public expenditure is spent by local authorities, one sees that there is no way in which governments will not need to keep a rein on local authority expenditure.

The noble Baroness said that she wished that we had not started here and said that perhaps we should have started with functions and finance. The trouble is that wherever you start, there is always a reason why you should have started somewhere else. We have taken the bull by the horns with these structural orders. The noble Baroness will readily accept from what has happened this afternoon that that has not been universally popular. We are trying to make local government more accountable and closer to the people. However, ultimately governments cannot do that. It depends on the councillors who are elected. I hope that those in Lancashire will work together despite the changes and the alterations. I am sure that they will.

I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, at least was pleased with the order and with the changes that it encourages. There is a diversity of view on the Benches opposite. I do not make any gibing or party political point on that, because we have had the same thing this afternoon on our side of the House. People take different views and they hold them strongly. However, somebody had to decide what to do and the Government have done that. It may be that what we have done will not be to everyone's satisfaction, but I hope that your Lordships will think that we have at least tried to get the framework right. It is then up to the people in the locality to make sense of it. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.