|
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving a little away from the subject of the order, so perhaps he can return to it.
Mr. Clarke: I take that reprimand on board, Mr. Caton. Linking my comments to the order, I believe that it will be difficult for Northampton to respond to the demands placed on it by the UDC unless it is in control of its own destiny and the council can realise its ambition to become a unitary authority. I mentioned that because the Minister in his opening remarks referred to the local government review that could be forthcoming. I think he said that he would be looking over the next 10 years to respond to the needs of local government in respect of how it should be formed.
My point is that, considering that the Secretary of State said eight years ago that it was a mistake for Northampton not to be a unitary authority and asked for the decision to be revisited, surely we cannot sit around waiting another 10 years—after a lot of the development is up and running, the houses are built and families have moved in—before we answer the fundamental flaw in local government in Northamptonshire: the need for unitary status alongside the other M1 towns and cities.
I recognise that the point at which I must stop objecting to the order is fast approaching. I look forward to the day that I can work constructively with whatever body is placed in Northamptonshire and given the task of managing growth. For me to do so, three fundamental things will need to change, and quickly. First, the Government must take seriously the underfunding of local government in Northamptonshire. They recognised some time ago, following the local government finance review, that Northamptonshire was not receiving as much as it should, given the area's needs. That must be addressed, which has not been done with a settlement of 2.7 per cent., just above the floor.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will comment on the points I have just made about leave for Northampton to be a unitary authority and to control more closely the services that it delivers to the people in its area. Thirdly and finally, I said that I was looking forward to the day that the body that is responsible for taking those matters forward is in place for Northampton. When it is in place, I hope that it has learned the lesson of the total lack of consultation, and I hope that the Department is big enough to say sorry to the people of Northamptonshire for a disastrous consultation exercise. It did not allow members of the public to engage fully in the debates in a way that enabled them to have comfort in what was happening to their area. I noticed that the Minister said that there would be further consultation on issues such as the
Column Number: 16
planning powers of whatever body is put in place. Perhaps that is when the Government can correct some of those wrongdoings.
On the basis of what I have said, I regret that I cannot give my support to the UDC and its formation. I hope that the Minister will accept the points that I have made, because people feel strongly that we missed an opportunity to take the public of Northamptonshire with us in our desire to meet the growth needs of the area.
3.18 pm
Richard Younger-Ross: May I first make an apology? I am trying the art of bi-location yet again, and I have a meeting with one of the Minister's colleagues, the Minister for Local and Regional Government, at half-past 3. It will cause me some problems to get there on time after I make some points.
I agree entirely with the points made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), and I will not repeat them. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) made some telling points. Part of his point of order was pertinent. It seems ridiculous that we can debate the order here, but when they debate it in the Lords they will not know what we have said. We know full well that when it comes to the Floor of the House, it will be at 7 o'clock or 10 o'clock and will go through without a debate. The argument that the order can be fully debated again later is wrong, although the noble Lords might have an opportunity to raise it if they are given the chance.
The hon. Member for Northampton, South said that there is no public support for this measure, and he stated clearly that in the consultation there was no question, ''Do you want a UDC?'' How can anyone say, ''Yes, we have consulted and people want a UDC'', if they have not first said, ''This is what's on offer; do you want it?'' If the points made by the hon. Gentleman are correct, that sounds ridiculous. I can see that the Minister is looking for the inspiration to state whether that is true or not.
There appears to have been undue haste. The Minister stated that Lord Rooker said that there had to be full consultation and that people had to be on side for this measure to succeed. The Minister then tried to say that that was not quite what Lord Rooker said, because the Select Committee of the House of Lords had said earlier that there was no proper or full consultation. If there has not been proper consultation, as has been admitted, it is reflected by the views expressed by the hon. Member for Northampton, South. Lord Rooker said that we need proper consultation for such measures to work, and it appears that we may have a UDC that is already fatally flawed because the proper groundwork has not been carried out. I note that in this instance, the inspiration is coming to the Minister very slowly.
Some comments have been made that may have misled people. There is public objection from not only those 40-odd people who wrote in but councillors. The hon. Gentleman made a pertinent point when referring to a letter from the chief executive, Mr. Roger Morris, to Lord Rooker on behalf of Northampton borough
Column Number: 17
council and the other councils requesting the creation of the UDC. The Liberal Democrat opposition leader on Northampton borough council, Richard Church, said:
''That request did not have the authority of Northampton Borough Council''.
That confirms the points previously made. However, Lord Rooker talked in a debate in the other place about the formal letter from the councillors to me—implying that the councillors were in favour, when, as we have heard, they had not approved it at that stage.
Mr. Morris's report stated:
''The Deputy Prime Minister will want to be satisfied that the LDV (Local Delivery Vehicle) has broad local consent''.
It continued:
''The Councils will want to be satisfied that the LDV has broad local consent.''
Councillor Church advises me that that local consent has never been demonstrated. The Deputy Prime Minister will obviously be disappointed because the consent is not there.
Lord Rooker stated in his submission:
''I have visited the area once again because there was substantial political change in Northamptonshire amongst the districts and it was important that we establish good relations, so I had several meetings with all parties''—
I emphasise all—
''over this period of time.''
Councillor Church says that he has never met Lord Rooker and has never been invited to meet him either before or after 4 July.
If Lord Rooker says that there has been all that consultation and all parties have been involved, but I am told by the leader of the Liberal Democrat opposition that he has not had the opportunity to meet him, I do not see how those statements can sit side by side. They contradict each other. The consultation is flawed, there has not been widespread public consultation and the public have not been asked, ''Do you want or do you not want a UDC?'' However, the decisions being taken in the other place have been based on what appears to be misinformation about the consultations among the political groups represented on the different councils.
With the numbers present in Committee and with the loaded dice, it is quite clear that the Government will get their way. As I said earlier, I have to go, because I have to be in another place to meet. [Hon. Members: ''Shame!''] They say, ''Shame''—I know that they care so much for me, and love to listen to me on these occasions.
The consultation is deeply flawed, and I believe that there will be serious problems if the UDC does not get the public on its side fairly quickly. Clearly, the public are not supporting it at the moment. Planning powers are the most important issue. When planning powers have been taken by other UDCs and when they have been taken away from local councils by other bodies, some very bad planning decisions have been taken against the will of the local people. I urge that whatever planning powers are proposed should be fully consulted on and that those powers should only be transferred with the full acquiescence of the councils concerned. Planning is a democratic matter; it is a
Column Number: 18
matter for the accountability of the local authorities. It should not be passed down the line so that it is a second-hand process. People need access to their councillors to put their points on planning matters; they do not want to be working through a board that is slightly more distant. I had hoped that, before I finished, the Minister would have found his inspiration, but clearly that is not the case on this question.
Perhaps the Minister can say, having looked through the documents, whether the question, ''Do you want a UDC or not?'' was included in the paper. Since he is not rising to his feet, I assume that he is confirming that there was no such question on the paper, and that the points made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South were entirely correct.
3.27 pm
Mr. Boswell: May I first welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Caton. I hope that you will not feel that it is ingratiating when I say that my wife comes from your constituency and that we were married—quite a number of years ago—in Pennard church.
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, and to colleagues who have made some interesting contributions. May I make two initial points? First, for the avoidance of any doubt, I am both resident and a landowner in the district of South Northamptonshire, and have lived there for nearly 40 years, although my property is not within the designated area. My second point is a slight warning shot to officials: I became aware of the timing of this debate from local interests, and was slightly surprised to be advised of it from the local end before I had heard about it from the House of Commons. It was nice to know, but it was the wrong way of getting the information.
Despite the Minister's eloquence and the contributions made by other hon. Members, including my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Northampton, South, with whom I discuss many matters of mutual interest from time to time, I am still left with two basic questions that I do not believe have been fully resolved.
First, what is the justification for the significant enlargement in housing programmes? The Minister will know that there has been some criticism of the slipperiness of the projections that have been made by the Government on that matter, although we need not return to that now. However, my working assumption is that 167,000 additional new homes are planned by 2031 for Northamptonshire, which is equivalent to a step change in the county's population. The clearest example would be the increase in the population of Daventry from the current 23,000 to a projected population of 40,000. Even if those figures are not precise, they nevertheless parallel another interesting calculation that I saw. That calculation was carried out last year by the Northamptonshire investment promotion strategy, which was examining a similar 30-year time scale, and considering the work force. It said that, by 2031, there would be an increase of 42 per cent. in the Daventry district—not in the town of Daventry alone—and an increase of only 1 per cent. less than
Column Number: 19
that in South Northamptonshire—not in the town of Towcester alone. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, I think that there is, and I certainly hope that there will be, a possibility of job creation keeping in step with any increases in population.
| 
