Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a long-term resident of Buckinghamshire, although I am not directly involved in any of the bodies listed by the Minister. I have been aware of the debates and discussions that have been ongoing in Buckinghamshire for some time, and am slightly surprised that I am alone in this place as anybody who has direct knowledge of what is happening there. The House is full of Buckinghamshire residents, I am happy to say, many of whom serve in the Government, and I would have thought that one or two of them might have been present to represent their views on this interesting proposition.

If I follow the Minister correctly, there are three columns under which the Government intend to make their decision—first and primarily on whether there is voter engagement and confidence in sufficient support across the population of Buckinghamshire. That is, whether the bodies representative of activity in that county—the LEPs and various other bodies mentioned by the Minister—have supported the issues, particularly those directly funded by and operated through one or more of the councils. There is this rather wonderful phrase “credible geography”, which supports the decisions that are likely to be made.

The Minister has done a very fair job in trying to represent the confusion in this process. He was right to point out—it is worth looking at the Explanatory Memorandum in some detail on this—that there is a great deal of support for unitarisation in Buckinghamshire. I do not dispute that, but there is rather less agreement on what form it should take. He mentioned that the district councils were primarily concerned about there being two unitary councils in Buckinghamshire. I am delighted to see that another resident of that county, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, has emerged from the dark recesses of your Lordships’ House. He will no doubt support me later—or he may not.

The variety of responses took the same sort of approach—that 87% of representations support unitarisation in principle—but the options were split again. Although it saw more support for single unitary operations, the public sector provider similarly highlights a lot of the difficulties that will arise when unitarisation takes place. On this first leg, I wonder whether there will be any opportunity to reflect further on this. Yes, all the right processes have been gone through, but the results are so disparate in how they line up to solutions that it is difficult to see how the Government can make the decision on the basis of that set of responses.

The second point concerns the process of employment in other involved bodies. I have touched on this slightly in my response to the Government’s first column. The business community—various issues are raised in paragraphs 10.9, 10.10 and 10.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum on this—is not universally in favour of a single unitary structure. I wonder how the Government have drawn that conclusion.

My final point is on the credible geography. The dog that has not barked in this debate is the question of Milton Keynes. In northern Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes is a burgeoning separate institution with its own governance and practice; with no real logic in a longer-term perspective, it is constantly differentiated from the rest of Buckinghamshire. The town is growing. Under the circumstances in which it was set up, it is an efficient and well-run operation. It has plans for expansion, and has been picked out on many occasions by the Government for sustainable development in the creation of more houses and better communications, particularly as a link on the corridor between Oxford and Cambridge. Despite that, it is completely ignored in this reorganised structure. Would the Minister like to comment on that?

It seems extraordinary that, with such focus on its future growth, such a concentration of people and economic activity is ignored in the structure of the county in which it operates. As for credible geography, it seems absurd to have a county that is long and thin. Journeys from north to south in Buckinghamshire are extraordinarily difficult; I made one this morning and it took me almost an hour and a half to get to the north of the county from where I live in the south. We are talking about ignoring one of the biggest economic operators within it. One need only look at a map with an uncritical eye to see that the south of the county points more towards Windsor and the London fringes. All the communication lines that people use for commuting—it is a commuter area—are centred on and work into the area. Yet the north looks to the Midlands and gets around Milton Keynes in a way that is antipathetic to the way that local government structures will be working.

The Government have obviously decided that they want to take this forward. As the Minister said, there will be a chance to discuss the draft before a final decision is made; perhaps that will be the more appropriate moment at which to look at it. But will there be another opportunity, between now and when this appears in the Chamber, for him to reflect on whether other issues need to be brought into this equation? Is he confident that the earlier pillars of voter engagement and user experience have not been slightly undervalued in the discussions so far, particularly in light of the credible geography issue?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, it is fairly clear that there are two views in Buckinghamshire on how to establish a unitary structure. It is not for me to support one view or another; that is a matter for the people of Buckinghamshire.

The debate we are about to have will be helpful, but I would first like to pick up a comment made by the Minister when introducing the proposal. It relates to the population figure that should apply for a unitary council. As I recall, he said that if there were two, one would have a population of only 188,000, whereas, normally, a unitary council would be over 300,000. I can think of quite a number of unitary councils that are well under 300,000 and hover around the 180,000 to 200,000 mark. Will he comment on that? Is a new government standard being applied? There is a certain logic to it: 188,000 is a lot of people and may well be deemed a sufficient number.

I noted two things in the Explanatory Memorandum. One is a comment in paragraph 10.11 by the commissioner for children’s services in Buckinghamshire, who,

“indicated a preference for a single unitary as opposed to two unitary councils; and was strongly opposed to ‘any … [local government reorganisation] proposal which would break-up (disaggregate) the existing children’s services structures in Buckinghamshire’”.

That is clearly a professional view of the best structure for that area. There may well be other similar professional views. If so, can the Minister draw our attention to them? We have comments from a number of public services and businesses, but there will be others beyond those.

I also have a concern about the comments made by councillors from town and parish councils. They are,

“particularly concerned about their capacity to take on additional devolved activity in a single unitary arrangement”.

This matters greatly. One thing we have learned from unitarisation in other parts of England is that, when it happens, you need strong town and parish councils to undertake the work that inevitably is devolved from the single unitary authority. These things are not directly to do with me or your Lordships’ House, but, when talking with the town and parish councils in Buckinghamshire, I hope the Government will listen very carefully to all that is said and respond in a way that assists those councillors to do their job in the future.

National Citizen Service Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th November 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this group of amendments covers another meaty topic. I am sure that the Committee will be aware that it is the one that has generated the most submissions from those bodies which are directly or indirectly affected by the establishment of the NCS on a statutory basis under a royal charter.

The key element to come out of the submissions is that the unique selling point of the NCS is its social mixing—the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, cited that as a main issue in our debate on earlier amendments. A subsidiary concern in the submissions we have received is that there is expertise out there on how to attract and get involved with children who are hard to reach because of their upbringing, background, location or geography. It is a worry for all concerned that sufficient thought may not yet have been given to how the scaling-up of NCS will happen as it becomes more difficult to get the attention of those people who would otherwise miss out.

Our Amendment 3 tries to get at the sense of inclusiveness necessary for the NCS to succeed by suggesting a change in the wording about children to stress a more positive “all” and not a negative “different”, as in the current wording. Amendment 5 would make it a requirement that NCS should seek—and then be judged on whether it has achieved—social integration. That might be a difficult issue to define, but the impetus is important, and it is an important point to bear in mind when the reporting cycle starts.

On the point that I made earlier about hard-to-reach groups, Amendment 7 poses some questions; I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to them. Is he confident that there are credible plans to reach the hard-to-reach groups? Has the current organisation got the expertise to do that and, if not, how will it get it? Have the Government built in additional costs for the greater effort that will have to be expended on the last few per cent, as it were, of the cohort they are trying to reach, because that will be difficult? Are we confident that disabled young people, whether physically or mentally and ambulant or not, are sure that the programme will be for them? Unless it is arranged and presented in an appropriate way for them, it will be difficult to sell. That concern about the disabled came up in a number of submissions that I have received. It might be helpful to have that in the Bill.

I think that many other noble Lords wish to speak to this group, because their amendments go in the same vein but are based much more widely. I look forward to hearing the debate and I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 18 and 26 but first, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, on his amendments. I shall not repeat his arguments but they are very well made and I hope that the Government will agree with them.

I thank a number of organisations, including the National Deaf Children’s Society, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, together with Sense and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists for their advice on my two amendments. I hope that the Minister will understand that our aim is constructive, but there is a need to include the amendments in the Bill to give it the necessary statutory force. Amendment 18 would ensure that there are ring-fenced funds made available for which NCS providers may apply to meet the cost of providing the support that disabled young people may require to enable them to participate fully in the scheme. Amendment 26 would put in place regular reporting about the participation of disabled young people. This will enable the NCS Trust, the Government and all those involved in the National Citizen Service to judge the reality of the scheme’s accessibility to individuals.

The Minister may argue that the Equality Act 2010 is sufficient, but I would say two things about that. First, it is not sufficient in providing access to the education system without additional funding. This has been generally recognised by successive Governments in a range of educational areas since 2010. Secondly, the Act provides insufficient protection for disabled people to access services because many organisations simply do not make the “reasonable adjustments” required by law to enable access for individuals to participate. As an example, many deaf young people can find it difficult to access mainstream extracurricular activities which can be vital for their personal development. With the NCS scheme being Government-funded and with £1 billion of public money going to the service, there will be no excuse for failure to ensure that young people with disabilities get equal access to NCS schemes.

On the reporting requirements under Amendment 26, as an example of the problem, the NCS website has few details about the support available for disabled participants. For example, subtitles have not been created for many of its promotional videos and there are no videos in alternative accessible formats such as British Sign Language. The duties of the NCS to act as a leader in support of young people with disabilities are clear, given the level of funding it will have and the responsibilities that the trust will carry.

In conclusion, it cannot be left to NCS providers to meet the cost of any support that disabled young people may require to access the scheme. A considerable proportion of the NCS budget will be spent on marketing the scheme and unless promotional materials are fully accessible to all young people, there will not be high take-up of the scheme by those with a disability. The NCS Trust will have to deliver its responsibilities to those who have a disability. These amendments would mean that, first, a duty would be placed on the NCS Trust to ensure that funding was available to cover the cost of additional support required by an individual and, secondly, an annual report to the Secretary of the State would address the extent to which disabled young people have participated in the scheme. I hope the Minister will be willing to look at these issues carefully. If the Minister feels a meeting might be helpful, I would be happy to take part in that, but I hope that there will be a response by the time the Bill reaches Report.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 9th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I will say a word about Amendment 237A. It is one of the most important amendments that we have on the subject of licensing because of the principle it lays down.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

That is an amendment in my name, but I have agreed to degroup it. We will be coming to it shortly.

[Lord Shipley]

I had not realised that it had been degrouped; I am sorry.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

While I am on my feet, I will make one or two points before the Minister responds. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made an interesting point. As a number of speakers have said, we will have to come back to this from time to time during debates on this portion of the Bill. I sense around the House an acceptance that, as a society, we have not really grasped the evidence before us that there is a need now for an overarching policy on all psychoactive substances, including drugs, tobacco and alcohol. If we do not grasp that opportunity now, we will all suffer. I accept what the noble Viscount said—that in this case there will be an element of drugs—but the greater problem is that we are not dealing with this in a holistic way.

Secondly, the figures that we have heard today about how alcohol influences our society are really terrible. They are growing and getting worse, and we must do something about it. The frustration I have also heard around the Chamber is that there has not been a scheme—or schemes—that we could get behind which would really have an impact. In that sense, the sobriety scheme seems an appropriate and attractive way to go forward. We will be supportive of that if the Minister is minded to take it further. It seems to give a triple win: it reduces alcohol-related crime and disease; it reduces the costs to our public services, particularly to those of the police and health; and, most importantly, it will help to shift our culture. For those reasons, taken together, one would want to support it.

Having said that, one of the arguments used to persuade your Lordships’ House was that the Mayor of London wants to introduce this as a pilot and would be giving his full support to it. Of course, that name, attached to any project, does not commend itself to this side of the House, but we will be gracious and not oppose it on this occasion.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I also support this group of amendments. When Kit Malthouse, the deputy mayor of London—for those who are not aware, he is the putative deputy MOPC for London, so clearly a person of great relevance to these discussions—first raised this matter with me, I admit to being rather cynical about it; first, for the reasons my noble friend Lord Stevenson alluded to about this being just another mayoral gimmick, but also because I did not immediately see that the experience of South Dakota was necessarily relevant to London. However, having looked in detail at the proposals that have come forward from the mayor’s office, and the thought that has gone into them, I think that it is worth reflecting on the fact that nothing is lost by going down this road, having a trial in one or two London boroughs and seeing how it works. If it is useful, you can extend it and use it more widely. That is its basis.

Given the cynicism that sometimes surrounds mayoral initiatives in London, it was interesting to note that when the measure was presented to a cross-party grouping of colleagues in the Metropolitan Police Authority, after people had got over their initial cynicism they said, “This is an idea that is worth trying. Let’s see how it goes. It would certainly be worth supporting and we hope that the Government will support it as well”. Therefore, we have an entirely unanimous debate in this House.