---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment, although in fact I put the same amendment in quite separately. I wanted to bring to the attention of the House what has happened since there have been pre-commencement invitations and how they are working out, and it seemed logical to put that under Clause 21. That may not be exactly right, and I intervened earlier in the day. As I said then, I am a borough councillor in Berwick-upon-Tweed as well as a county councillor in Northumberland, so I am getting this on two fronts. I want to explain what is happening on the ground before the Bill becomes law, and to ask the Government how they had expected these matters to proceed and what commitment they have to dealing with what many of us see as a lack of democracy and transparency that is unfolding as the process takes on a bit of momentum of its own. That is clear from the discussions we have already had on the Floor of the House tonight. The Bill has not passed all its stages, and yet an awful lot of it is already happening. To go back to the original invitation, there were two proposals that people could sign up to: the possibility of having a unitary government of some sort in Northumberland, and the possibility of the districts working closer together. There are six districts in Northumberland that come under the county council, and originally they were interested in enhanced working, partly because Northumberland is a large geographical area. The south of the county is much more urban and densely populated while the other part is rural and people did not want to lose their voice. However, as matters unfolded, the county council decided that it wanted one, huge unitary authority for Northumberland. When that decision was reached, the district councils—across parties—agreed that they would look at an alternative proposal for two unitary councils, one to represent the more densely populated urban areas in the south and the other to represent north Northumberland, which is a rural area. As I indicated earlier, that had been discussed when a referendum was held in Northumberland on whether it should have an elected regional assembly. In it, residents made it clear—there was a 51 per cent turnout—that they wanted two unitary authorities. However, after the processes that we discussed earlier had been gone through, involving the county and district councils and the stakeholders, the Government accepted that both proposals met the criteria, so both were put forward. Even the county council was forced to support both proposals, because it could not vote through the proposal for a unitary authority alone. The Government said that both proposals met the criteria, but when they came back with their view of what they were ““minded to propose””—which is the phrase that I think that I should use at this stage—they came down in favour of one unitary authority in Northumberland. That is the current position. A judicial review is taking place, part of the basis for which is people finding it difficult to accept that they are going through the process without the law having been made. In addition, many opinion polls and surveys show that residents who use services do not want one unitary authority in Northumberland. The Minister can read in the judicial review documents the letter which explains the position in detail. Nevertheless, the district councils realise that the process is advancing apace and that they cannot stand back and not take part. With good heart, they are trying to ensure that the best of what they wanted to happen under their proposal for two unitary authorities is included in the proposal for a single unitary authority. For that reason, the county council and district councils across Northumberland want shadow elections to take place as soon as possible to make the process democratic. That view is shared across all councils and parties. The guidance for embarking on a transitional process has now been issued— because the county is keeping its own boundaries—and that is where the problems have arisen. The Government issued guidance on how we should proceed. We spoke earlier about how the process was meant not to be a take-over but a transition. The guidance contains instructions that state that the joint committee that oversees the initial stages of the transformation is supposed to reflect the geographical nature of the area and be roughly in proportion to political representation across the county. A bone of contention for us, which we are unlikely ever to win, is the fact that the number of councillors at county and district level in Northumberland will decrease from 306 to 67 when the proposals are implemented. The Labour Party has about 35 per cent of councillors; the Liberal Democrats have 30 per cent; the Conservatives have 26 per cent; and others have about 9 per cent. However, representation on the joint committee has been based on that in the county council, because it is the lead authority. It contains 10 Labour representatives and four from opposition parties. It has taken the whole of its executive, which includes its leader and deputy leader, and only one member from the four rural districts. It is therefore completely biased towards the southern end of the county. It is allowing the leaders of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative groups on the county council only to be non-voting in the joint body. It will have one member from each of the district councils, of which Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives control two respectively. So there is no way that this is a political representation and neither is it geographical. There have been discussions about this. The LGA has tried to have some influence and I understand that civil servants have talked to the councillors. As I stand here now, I do not know whether that has had any effect—but it is a double whammy for the people of Northumberland. The choice that they thought they wanted they could not get and now they seem to have been taken over. Did the Government envisage this sort of thing happening? If they did, what do they think they can do about it? The same problem is happening with the staff. A joint staff committee is being set up and the chief executive is in charge of it. He wants four or five senior members from each of the districts to be down in county hall a couple of days a week. Berwick borough council serves 26,000 people, so if four or five of our officers are taken I do not know how we are going to carry on delivering services—and there is no money to back-fill in for the staff when they are not there. Alnwick district council is in the same situation. Whatever the guidance says, I put on record what is happening in Northumberland—and I hope that we can get some help from the Government to ensure that we are not completely disenfranchised in Berwick. If you look at a map of Britain Berwick is in the top north-east corner; if you look at a map of the north-east region it is in the top north-east corner; and if you look at a map of Northumberland, it is in the top north-east corner. We are 50 miles from Morpeth, where we have our meetings—we are always on the edge—and as the smallest council involved we are finding very difficult to come to terms with what is happening. We badly need some help and support. That also goes for Alnwick, which is another small district council. I hope that I have not laboured the point too much. There is much more that I could say, but that is what is actually happening—because we have started the process before the Bill has become law. Although I understand that we want to do this quickly, as my noble friend Lady Scott said, the practicalities of it are not working out, even as the Minister and her Government would like it to happen. I hope that I can get some support tonight for some help, but I understand that the Minister may want to go away and think about this and come back to me and colleagues in Northumberland with help on these matters.