Cheshire (Structural Changes) Order 2008

My Lords, the Minister must be relieved that we are at the end of the current batch of orders, because they get more controversial as they go along. We on these Benches support the principle of unitary government. However, it is a question of process. It is disingenuous of the Minister, however, to talk about this as a bottom-up process. The Government set the ball rolling, they have set all the frameworks within which these decisions have been made and they have made the decision to give Cheshire the two-authority solution. It is even more disingenuous to pretend that somehow it is the councils themselves that have come up with this solution. If local authorities were able to work together and share a vision for local government in their area, we would not be talking about local government review at all; we would live in a sort of two-tier nirvana where everyone worked well and the citizens all knew what everyone did. It is precisely because of the rivalries between councils that two-tier working has problems, and that is why we have this process now. To pretend that we can leave it all to the local councils and that what emerges is consensus is quite clearly flawed from the outset. All the financial information, and all the ways in which support has been expressed and assessed, has been provided by local authorities that have a vested interest in the outcome. What has been lacking is any sense of how the Government have assessed all that. Among the public and what the Government like to call the stakeholders, there is no real sense of confidence about how the Government have assessed the information they have been given by local authorities. The Government have made that even worse by claiming an exemption from freedom of information when it comes to the financial aspects. Just because you can claim an exemption from freedom of information does not mean that you should. In this case, more transparency would have done a great service to this process by showing the basis on which these decisions were made. I share many of the concerns that were expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord Grantchester, about the way the costings have been done. It has been suggested that the transitional costs are about £17 million and the efficiency savings about £30 million. It is a highly optimistic payback period. When we debated the other orders last week, I asked the Minister what would happen in the event of those calculations being inaccurate. She made it very clear that it would be for the councils themselves to deal with the fallout from that; in other words, if councils have got their sums wrong, whether through overenthusiasm to make their case or because they do not understand the big services, it will be local people who will be hit by a combination of council tax rises, cuts in services or both together. The Minister has said strongly that the figures have all been independently verified and are all robust. If they are so robust, why are the Government not prepared to underwrite these costs? Why are they saying that it has to fall back on the councils? I fear that the district tier always underestimates the challenges involved in providing education and social care; they are services on a scale of which that tier has no experience. She made it clear that it would be for the councils to deal with the fallout. In other words, if councils have got their sums wrong, be it through over-enthusiasm to make their case or because they do not understand the big services, local people will be hit with a combination of council tax rises, cuts in services or both. The Minister said that all the figures have been independently verified and are robust. If they are so robust, why are the Government not prepared to underwrite the costs? Why do they say, ““Well, it has to fall back on the council””? I fear that the district tier always underestimates the challenges involved in providing education and social care. They are services that are on a scale of which they have no experience. There are three reasons why one would consider local government review. The first is that people want it. Well, I have seen no evidence to suggest a great clamour anywhere in Cheshire for this review. The second is that the process of review would provide economies and somehow be cheaper. It might be, but we do not know because government will not let us see the figures. The third reason is that services would be improved. However, the current council is already a four-star authority; it is a highly rated council; so there is no evidence to suggest that services will be improved by this process. The process in the case of Cheshire is very hurried. It is the only outcome from the current round of reviews which has created totally new councils. The authority which is providing 80 per cent of the services is to disappear, and we are to have a new authority within 12 months. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that we should not delay making the decision, because that would leave a vacuum and make life very difficult. However, it is possible to delay the implementation a little longer. I am worried that we are to have elections this year. Many of the decisions have already been made. Due to the way in which the timetable has been set, they have been made by officers. There is no political leadership in the way that the Government have said that they want. It is unclear what the Government are seeking to achieve by reorganisation in Cheshire. There have always been problems with two-tier working and there always will be, but, in this case, it is possible that the cure is worse than the disease.