Lord Newby (LD)

My Lords, I wish to discuss two crucial components of the Prime Minister’s programme for growth: the devolution agenda in England and our relationship with the EU. For decades, I have advocated greater devolution of powers to Yorkshire, so I greatly welcome moves to shift decision-making out of Whitehall. I have, however, two principal concerns over what the Government are currently proposing. First, while it is relatively clear how an existing large mayoral authority such as Birmingham or Manchester could be given and realistically manage greater powers, the position elsewhere is very much less clear-cut. The Prime Minister has said that devolution deals will be possible even without an elected mayor, as may happen in Cornwall, but if there are a plethora of types of devolved authority, as there inevitably will be, this has the potential for considerable muddle and confusion. While the PM has a pretty good idea how his new settlement will benefit Manchester, I simply do not believe that any such clarity exists for much of the rest of England. In North Yorkshire, for example, where I live, expectations have been raised, but it is as yet completely unclear under current proposals how they might be realised. Secondly, the Prime Minister has said that, under the new “No. 10 North” arrangements, he will be the person in charge of driving the growth agenda. In the short term this may be good news, in that only prime ministerial authority is likely to be able to prise powers away from the Treasury; but in the longer term, it is worrying. What happens if the next Prime Minister has a constituency hundreds of miles from Manchester, and, unlike today—with no fewer than nine members of the Cabinet having constituencies within an hour’s travel from Manchester—both he and his senior colleagues have other priorities? The present institutional changes do not look robust enough to survive such a scenario, and the whole devolution agenda therefore appears to be built on pretty shaky foundations. Although the ill-fated Department of Economic Affairs of the 1960s has given the idea of a separate ministry for growth a bad name, it seems implausible that, without some such permanent body, a significant long-term focus on growth of the kind the Prime Minister is promoting will be maintained. The other element of the growth agenda relates to our relations with Europe. The Prime Minister has said little about the EU. In his Statement, he said only that Brexit had economically been very damaging, which is hardly news, but the new Government do not appear to have any new substantive proposals for strengthening our economic relationship with the EU. The Prime Minister appears to recognise that, unless we move towards the single market and the customs union, hopes for strong growth in the EU are likely to be mere pipe dreams, yet there seems to be no real ambition to move in that direction. I wish the new Prime Minister well and I support much of what he is trying to achieve, but I am afraid that as yet I am unconvinced that he has well thought-out plans for doing so.