Beith challenges Minister in Parliament over local government reform for Northumberland

11.30.00am GMT Mon 29th Oct 2007

Berwick's Lib Dem MP Alan Beith has challenged the Minister for Local Government in Parliament over the "scandalous" way in which local government reform is being imposed on the people of Northumberland, and has pushed for full elections to a shadow authority to be held in May 2008, to ensure that the new authority is not just a take over of power by the existing County Council.

Speaking during the debate on Local Government last week, Mr Beith raised several points with the Minister which could not be answered.

Mr Beith said

"There were certain other people whom the Government deemed it "appropriate" to consult, one of whom was the chief constable of Northumbria. It should be borne in mind that the chief constable of Northumbria administers a police area much larger than either the one or the two authorities.

"The Minister's letter setting out the reasons for moving forward with the proposals for a single unitary authority for Northumberland states that there was 40 per cent support for a single authority, but it also states that the chief constable is in favour of the proposal. That means that the chief constable personally has the equivalent of about 20 per cent. of the vote. He is not just "appropriate"; he has an incredibly weighted share of the vote.

"I will qualify that by saying that the Government also consulted one other body while discounting the votes of the people: the North East chamber of commerce. As I recall, the chamber of commerce indicated that it could work with either of the options, but it, too, is a much bigger body. Clearly, all the bodies that are regional or sub-regional in scale prefer to work with fewer rather than more authorities. They will have fewer letters to write, and it makes life simpler.

"If the Government are merely to consult people whom they deem it appropriate to consult or those on whom they can rely to support them, and then count them as though they represented thousands of votes in comparison with the opinion of the people who live in the area-those whose children will go to the schools administered by the authority, whose bins are emptied by the authority, who have a real and direct interest - we are making a complete nonsense of the procedure. The Minister must explain to us today how on earth such a decision came to be made. How, when the views of the people have been expressed fully and in a correctly administered referendum - for no one disputes the fact that the referendum was properly conducted - can they can be overtaken by those of persons whom the Secretary of State deems it "appropriate" to consult?

"As I travelled around the villages of my constituency in September, time and again people came up to me and said, "We voted for two authorities. Why are we not getting two authorities?" Why are they not getting that? Because the Minister takes note of the people's votes and then consults a few people he deems appropriate and whose views he considers to be more important than those of the people. That is no way to run a democracy."

John Healey MP, the Minister for Local Government, responded

"I recognise and understand the fierce views and high feelings, as well as the entrenched interests, that are inevitably part of such a debate. I have only recently taken up this post and this process, but I have quickly come to realise that we cannot consider, let alone proceed with, change of this nature without upsetting and unsettling many people."

In considering the consultation on reorganisation, the Minister said

"Any proposals would be considered against five criteria. One of those criteria would be the extent of the cross-section of support."

At this point, Mr Beith commented

"In the Secretary of State's letter to district councils, he acknowledged that "whilst there is support" - for the two-authority proposal - "from a broad range of stakeholders" - so it met that criterion - "the proposals lack support from any key public sector stakeholders." So it is all right if one has broad support, but one also has to have public sector support. All six districts are public sector stakeholders, of course, and they supported the proposal, so we come back to the chief constable. How many votes does a chief constable have?"

Fellow Lib Dem MP Andrew Stunnell joined the debate, adding

"My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) have made it clear that even when Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament are unanimous about a particular outcome it does not carry as much weight as the chief constable. That perhaps tells us something about the direction in which our democratic system is going."

Mr Beith challenged the Minister over the consultation carried out and the extent to which the Government took any notice of the responses. He said

"When I made a freedom of information request to the Department for Communities and Local Government, in respect of the analysis of the consultation the Government had undertaken, the Government claimed exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I must now appeal, although I cannot get the appeal through before the Bill is passed, against the decision to refuse that request-a request not for the advice to Ministers but for the analysis made of the responses to the consultation."

The Minister replied that he had released the responses to the consultation, but would not be releasing any further information.

Speaking after the debate, Mr Beith said

"The Government has treated Northumberland appallingly over the reform of local government, and has refused to explain how the decision was reached to impose a single unitary authority against the clear wishes of the majority of the people, the six district councils and the county's four MPs.

"The process is being pushed through with a scandalous lack of transparency and disregard for democracy."

The debate in full can be found at Commons Hansard, Wed 24 Oct 2007, Col. 313 et seq., available at

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071024/debtext/71024-0007.htm