Cheshire (Structural Changes) Order 2008

My Lords, I did not claim that in my opening speech and I have not claimed that in any debate on any of the unitary authorities that we have had so far because the invitation that was issued specifically said that we would not seek consensus and we would not look for a majority decision. I will come on to that. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, ““Why don’t you simply leave Cheshire alone to get on with it?”” We would have been very happy if Cheshire had wanted to get on with it. There was absolutely no pressure at all on Cheshire to come forward with any proposal, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said. It could have adopted enhanced two-tier status. That would have been perfectly proper. I also take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We were not disingenuous about there being a consensus. This was a genuine response by the local councils in Cheshire and there were two contradictory responses. That is what we were faced with. We were in a unique situation. We had to make a judgment on that basis. The two unitaries solution was proposed by those local councils. It was not imposed and was not of our design. It was put forward to us as a democratic choice. I have heard apocalyptic language this evening. I shall explain why I think that noble Lords ought to have confidence in the people of Cheshire, in the local officers who are developing the proposals and will take them forward and in the committed local councils. For all the reasons given by noble Lords, Cheshire is a powerful idea. It has a long, complex and changing history, as the right reverend Prelate told us. I understand that Lewis Carroll of Alice in Wonderland fame came from Daresbury—a unitary authority, which is interesting to reflect on. There has been a history of change, as there has been across this country. I come from East Sussex, a powerful and terrific county, but that does not make me any less conscious of the identity and history of Sussex itself. For all the reasons given by noble Lords, I cannot believe that what has been suggested will be Cheshire’s fate, either. It is too powerful a county. We are looking at a way forward that enables east and west Cheshire to take advantage of what is offered and not to be driven by cities or confused by them, as some noble Lords suggested. All I am saying is that economic opportunities may more easily be realised by having two counties that can take advantage of what is on offer in a more focused way. No one is suggesting anything other than that. Noble Lords challenged the process. However, this was the most thorough process that we could have invented. It was open from start to finish. It proceeded by invitation and went through two stages of consultation. The financial information that was presented was returned twice to be reviewed and was then independently assessed. I can only repeat the reasons that I gave with regard to the Freedom of Information Act about why we thought it better to preserve Ministers’ capacity to take advice and make decisions. That is a very important principle. However, the process was very open and, as I said, the result proves that the measure is affordable. I turn to why we think that this will work. There was broad but not popular support; we have not made that defence. All the polls that were taken threw up a different result. However, there was support from sufficient partners—people able and willing to deliver successful change. We made no further claims, but that was what influenced our decision. We think that the measure will work, given those critical partners, which include industry, some rural parishes and towns. We also think that it will work because it meets the affordability criteria, as I said. I also believe that it meets the criterion of local democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, brought that out in his positive speech. We will have two new authorities but within that there will be new local arrangements for local connections and local identities. Those local identities will build on present identities and enable them to flourish. I believe that we have that balance right. Let me turn to the crucial part, which is how this will work in the future. I have been slightly dismayed by the lack of confidence that noble Lords have shown in those who are going to deliver the change. I understand that these are new authorities and I understand that the county council was a repository of excellence and experience. That excellence and that experience are already being made available to the new councils as they proceed with implementation; we would not expect it to be otherwise. The joint implementation teams that have been set up have created work groups that are looking at the different service streams. For example, on education, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and other noble Lords have spoken passionately, the Cheshire schools associations have already provided a very constructive paper that covers the entire range of issues under the people services block, which is going to guide this. Those who are leading implementation include the most senior county council officers, the Cheshire County Council director of children’s services and the director of adult services. They will bring the best of their experience to bear on what must be the future for the new councils. This is what will give the best start and the greatest confidence. It is suggested that existing programmes and services are going to be disrupted or put at risk through the new unitary arrangements. Let me give noble Lords two examples. The specialised service for vulnerable children will meet the needs of children and their families in both the east and the west. There will be pragmatism at work to determine the best way in which to deliver services. The children’s trust is very important and there is no intention of disrupting the arrangements for it. I am told that it will continue on the present basis. We are looking to pragmatic decisions about how best to deliver services. On schools, dialogue has already begun with head teachers through the lead chief executives for the east and west. Head teachers are setting out their concerns, but they are now part of this dialogue about how to make the transition and build on the very best. The DCSF is committed to this and has made clear how closely it will work with schools and education agencies in east and west Cheshire to deliver the best of those services. There is evidence that those people who need to bring their experience and excellence to make the new services work are not only willing but determined to do so. The very least that we can do is to support them in that process. I believe passionately that, if we in any sense promote delay this evening, we will do nothing but harm to those who are committed to this process and to the people of Cheshire. The time for disagreement and division has passed. That has been said time and again, both in another place and here this evening. We are not steamrollering this through, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, suggested. We are being urged by local leaders to allow them to get on with the job after a period of unhappiness. They are desperate to be able to do that. I quoted the leaders of the two critical councils. I conclude by quoting an e-mail that the Labour leaders of all the Cheshire councils have sent directly to my noble friends. They said: "““Whatever our views might have been in the past, the decision by the Secretary of State has now been made. We must make the best of it, and time is scarce. I would hope that you would support the orders””." This has been an important debate, but I urge noble Lords to heed those views and the views of the leaders of the local councils that I quoted earlier. I commend the order to the House.