Clause
4
Procedure
on receipt of
proposals
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Syms:
Will the Minister say a little more about
consultation, because we live in an age of consultation but people do
not always pay attention to what they are consulting on? We have
already raised the issue of referendums. Would he rule out the use of
referendums as part of the consultation process, or rule it in? Would
it be appropriate in certain circumstances? At the moment, we can
consult till the cows come home but if we do not pay attention to what
people want locally, it does not make much
difference.
Mr.
Woolas:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and
their brevity, because it is a simple and
important point. Let me outline what the clause is intended to achieve
and then answer the specific question on referendums. The clause sets
out the procedure for the Secretary of State to follow on receipt of a
proposal for a single tier. If a proposal has been submitted jointly by
all the authorities covered by the proposal, the Secretary of State may
choose whether to consult any other person she believes to have an
interest in the proposal. Otherwise, the Secretary of State must
consult every authority whose area is covered by the proposal, other
than the authority or authorities that submitted the proposal; and any
other person she believes to have an interest. This consultation is to
allow other interested local authorities and interested parties to have
a formal opportunity to comment on proposals. However, one of the
criteria on which proposals in this round of restructuring will be
judged is
“a broad cross
section of support”.
Proposals will therefore have to
demonstrate support from a range of key partners, stakeholders and
service users, namely the citizens.
Subsection (5) provides that
the Secretary of State may request advice from the boundary committee
on any matter relating to the proposal. This is to allowher to
gain independent advice on any matter inthe proposal or a
matter that is perhaps missing from the proposal. For example, she may
ask for advice on the suggested boundaries set out in the proposal. She
may set a date for the receipt of advice from the boundary committee
and she may change that date later on. This may be necessary, for
example, if it becomes apparent that the boundary committee needs
more time to advise fully on the point raised or
needs time to consult on an alternative proposal before submitting it
to the Secretary of State under clause 6(4).
We are trying to create a
framework that allows a bottom-up proposal and it is for the council to
provide evidence of public support for the proposals rather than for
the Government and the House, were it to accept the Government’s
proposals, to dictate to local areas how that should be achieved. That
is consistent with the approach taken. Where there are local
referendums—we heard on Second Reading an excited dispatch from
Shrewsbury in Shropshire—they are one of the factors to which we
will have to have regard. The weight we give to any result will depend
on other issues.
Patrick
Hall:
This clause places the onus of consultation on the
Secretary of State, so would my hon. Friend elaborate a little on what
form that consultation might take? He has just said, helpfully, that he
also hopes that local councils will take the initiative to contribute
in parallel to that process, but the Bill puts the onus on the
Secretary of State. Will he settle that point for
me?
Mr.
Woolas:
The Bill provides, through the invitation
procedure and the relevant criteria, for the council making the
proposal to demonstrate that it has broad public support. How it does
so is a matter for the council. That is one of the criteria that the
Secretary of State must use to judge those proposals, but it is up to a
council to decide whether to hold a referendum and the Secretary of
State will take that into account. The weight given to any result in
relation to such a proposal
will depend on the views of surrounding areas when there are conflicting
proposals and also on the question asked in any such
referendum.
Local
authorities have powers to run referendums under existing
legislation—as part of a devolutionary approach from this
Government—decide on the information available to the electorate
and the arrangements for conducting the poll. It is up to councils to
provide details of public support in their proposals. During the
stakeholder consultation on the proposals, which we are preliminarily
minded to implement, it will be open to anyone to make representations
about them. Perhaps I can just explain what that
means.
The
intention is to consider the proposals that have been submitted, judge
them against the criteria that have been outlined and consult more
widely with interested parties, where there is a case against the
criteria, between the end of March and the end of June 2007. Committee
members should bear in mind two points. First, proposals in response to
the invitation can only have come from local authorities by resolution
of the council, which means that opposition council groups and other
interested parties have not been allowed to advance a proposal. It is
quite right and proper that they and many others should have their say.
Secondly, the timetable that I have outlined deliberately coincides
with the local election period, so that the public can have their say.
To reassure the Committee of my good will in respect of that intention,
I should say that, of the proposals that have been advanced, as any of
us would have anticipated, some have cross-party support in some areas
and conflicting support from the same parties at county and district
level, on both sides, and from all parties in the
House.
Our sensible
approach reaffirms our commitment that this should be a bottom-up
process. I emphasise that the Government’s policy is to say, on
this and other matters, that it is up to councils to decide and justify
their position and, as I mentioned before, to be accountable for those
decisions.
Patrick
Hall:
This is an important point and I am grateful for the
detail that my hon. Friend the Minister is providing. But, just to
avoid doubt, let us deal with proposals that get over the first hurdle
and are therefore considered in greater detail by the Government. Is he
saying that the consultation mentioned in the clause, which must be
carried out by the Secretary of State, is also expected to be
complemented by action on the ground, at grass-roots level, by local
councils that have made the bids that have got over the first
hurdle?
Mr.
Woolas:
We expect that the consultation with wider
interested parties other than the local authority, which would include
the interested parties that I mentioned, would either support or not
support the criteria that were used to judge the original proposal.
Putting it in crude terms, if a council made a unitary proposal that
claimed to demonstrate widespread public support and a prima facie
case, it would be incumbent on the Secretary of State to take into
account any contrary consultation evidence submitted by interested
parties from the local area. A wise local authority would want to take
part in that consultation.
Mr.
Syms:
As I understand it, local authorities have to make
their case, as do the people in the area, and the case then goes before
the Secretary of State, who decides who else to consult. I presume
that, in order to obtain people’s views, it would be necessary
to publish the case made by the local authority or by the group of
local authorities. Are the details of bids going to be published? If
not, how can people challenge the proposals, and argue and debate them?
If they are not fully published, what will be published and what will
not be? We need to
know.
Mr.
Woolas:
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. In
practice, however, council proposals will have been put through the
local authority’s decision-making procedures, and I have no
reason to think that the relevant documents would be anything other
than publicly available. I am trying to convey to the hon. Gentleman
that I have not actually read the proposals yet, and the reason is that
I have to maintain an objective stance on them.
We expect that local
authorities will have consulted with local stakeholders before
responding to the invitation to bid, and the judgment to be made will
provide the proof of the pudding on that.
Alistair
Burt:
We have had incredibly little time on these matters.
Given the date of publication of the White Paper and the deadline of 25
January for the submission of bids, what sort of serious consultation
did the Minister expect local authorities to be able to make on such a
significant
decision?
Mr.
Woolas:
It was for precisely that reason that meetings
were held more than a year ago—meetings that the hon. Gentleman
criticised in our earlier debate.
Alistair
Burt:
With respect, the Minister cannot get away with
that. Those meetings involved councils, but they were not concerned
with obtaining any sort of wide public support. That was not possible
at the time he mentioned; it has had to happen since the publication of
the White
Paper.
Mr.
Woolas:
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point on paper,
but in practice it is not a real
one.
Mr.
Woolas:
I give way to my hon. Friend, who has experience
of this
issue.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
Does my hon. Friend accept that local
authorities such as Durham county council used the available time very
efficiently and effectively, and consulted a range of stakeholders?
That is reflected in the
bid.
Mr.
Woolas:
I make no comment on specific proposals, but the
White Paper consultation process took some two years. The details of
the invitation to propose were not known until the White Paper
was
published but, in many instances, local authorities had already
considered the relevant issues. My central point, however, is that it
is not for the Government to dictate the form of consultation, nor the
evidence in relation to public support.
It being One
o’clock,
the Chairman
adjourned
the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at half-past Four
o’clock.
| 
