Clause
8
Review
by Boundary Committee of local government
area
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Syms:
The clause deals with changes to boundaries. There
have always been modest changes to local government boundaries, usually
because of a growing housing estate, the sides of a road straddling a
boundary, or a rural parish being added to a borough or a town simply
because it made sense in respect of emptying the dustbins and other
basic services. During debate on the Bill, the issue was raised
occasionally of extending the boundaries of towns or cities from where
they might have been drawn in mediaeval or Victorian times because the
communities had expanded since
then.
Clause 9 covers a
number of constraints. Will the Minister set out in a little more
detail how the process would operate? If Leicester wanted to expand
into neighbouring boroughs, could it do so? Normally, the boundary
committee would undertake a review of all local authority boundaries. I
can understand a local authority asking the boundary committee to
review a particular boundary issue, but the Bill states that the
boundary committee may “on its own initiative” undertake
an inquiry. I wonder what that means. Will the boundary committee go
marauding round, trying to expand our cities and annex suburban
communities? Am I making a more sinister interpretation of the Bill? I
hope that the Minister can give an elegant reply on the
subject.
Andrew
Stunell:
My comments are addressed first to subsection
(2)(b), which refers
to
“the need to reflect
the identities and interests of local
communities.”
That seems
to me to be the heart of the proposal. I hope that the Minister will
assert that that factor must be given due weight when boundary changes
are considered. Certainly in my local authority, Stockport, there have
been such changes between us and the Tameside authority and between us
and the Derbyshire authority. Those were common-sense changes to
boundaries that were no longer relevant. They were not particularly
difficult or contentious changes; they made common sense and were at
quite a low
level.
However, in the
context of the Bill, it is only right that we hear from the Minister
that he does not see clauses 8, 9 and 10 as changing existing practice
to any substantial degree. That brings me back to some of the remarks
that he made in responding to a debate on clause 2, when he referred to
this provision as though it somehow absolved him from dealing with the
point about clause 2. We are now dealing with a completely different
set of propositions, which is not directly connected, as far as one can
tell, with the proposals in clause 2. I seek the Minister’s
confirmation of that point and that the extent of the provision is not
being taken beyond what one might call the common law practice of
present procedures in terms of tidying things up. Clause 8(4) contains
a list of four things that cannot be done, which is on the whole very
encouraging. Perhaps the Minister would like to underline again the
fact that there is no intention to stretch current practice in the
direction that the Opposition are concerned
about.
Tom
Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): I rise to make a brief
contribution, having read clause 8 in some depth. I apologise to my
hon. Friend the Minister for not giving him notice of this question,
but he will appreciate why it might be particularly relevant to his
constituency and mine. Do the words “local government” in
the clause refer to national park boundaries, given that national parks
are arms of local government? My hon. Friend and I both have an
interest in the boundaries of a particular national park, because we
have adjacent constituencies, albeit with no road passing over the
boundary between
us.
Robert
Neill:
My point follows on from those made by my hon.
Friend the Member for Poole and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I
would like some reassurance about the position of London boroughs
because, unlike in the previous portion of the Bill, the definition of
local authority and local government area in this portion—by
virtue of clause 11, I think—includes London boroughs. I
appreciate that it was not intended that they should form part of the
unitary changes and the associated tinkerings, but I am interested to
know for what purpose London boroughs are included in this portion of
the Bill, other than perhaps for the occasional sensible adjustment
where it is found that the odd piece of housing development strays over
the boundary between two boroughs, as I
said.
I do not want to
be unduly suspicious but, asthe Minister knows, some people in
London government—I am sure that such people are a great
minority, even in the Labour party—would favour and have
occasionally advocated wholesale change to the boundaries of the London
boroughs. As the Minister knows, the Commission on London Governance,
which we referred to earlier in our proceedings, completely and on a
cross-party basis rejected any significant change of that kind. None of
the boroughs wants it. Can I have some reassurance that
the measure will not be misused by someone not a million miles away
from here at City hall to set in train a reorganisation of the London
boroughs, which will make all that we have discussed in earlier clauses
on unitary authority bids look minuscule by comparison? It is clear
that the boroughs do not want such changes. The measure should be used
simply to tidy up the odd borough anomaly that we see from time to
time.
5.30
pm
Mr.
Dunne:
In common with Members on both sides of the
Committee, I would like the Minister to clarify a point about the
definition of local government areas in relation to city regions. The
exclusions in subsection (4) suggest that it would be possible for a
future Secretary of State to decide that he or she wished to introduce
an additional tier of elected government using the city region device.
Such a decision would not infringe any of the exemptions in subsection
(4) because existing authorities could continue. I would appreciate
clarification on whether that will be extended for city
regions.
Mr.
Woolas:
The point that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove
made to try to get clarification has been validated by the three
interventions that we just had.
Subsection (4) is designed to
avoid the possibility of boundary changes effecting structural change
by the back door. The procedures would be required in any event,
irrespective of the invitation to propose changes.
I shall answer some of
the specific questions that have been raised. The measures do not
include the national parks, which are covered by separate legislation.
Of course, the authorities that have to be consulted on, or involved
in, proposals could change. It may be helpful to my hon. Friend the
Member for High Peak if I point out that the boundary committee has a
duty to take account of national parks and areas of outstanding natural
beauty when conducting its work. That is part of the definition
contained in subsection (2)(b), which mentions
“the need to reflect the identities
and interests of local
communities”
and is part
of our sustainable communities strategy, although, interestingly, it is
in this and not the Sustainable Communities Bill, as I recall from my
reading.
On the
question raised about London, the answer is yes. The proposals laid out
in the Bill would be required irrespective of clause 2, and are indeed
about tidying up. The assurances are in clause 8(4) to help to clarify
matters for the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and other
members of the Committee.
On city regions, there is
nothing in the Bill that allows for the idea of super-local authority
areas. Again, the issue is not subject to the measure, which is
about the common-sense tidying up of boundaries. A review can be
instigated by a request from the Secretary of State, a local authority,
or on the initiative of the boundary committee, which has the power to
do so under existing procedures and legislation. It is part of its duty
to consider such matters, and the hon. Member for Poole will agree that
it has a good record ofdoing so. Subsection (2) provides that the
boundary committee may make only recommendations for boundary change
that seem desirable to it,
“having regard to the need to
secure effective and convenient local
government”
under the 1972
definition, as we discussed earlier, and
“the need to reflect the identities
and interests of local communities.”
That is very important. As elected
representatives, we all know that the identity and interests of a local
community cannot be determined in all cases by simple arithmetic. If
the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), to whom I
wish a speedy recovery from illness—I understand that he is
doing well—were on the Committee, he would be the first to make
the point that one would not want an administrative boundary for the
Isle of Wight that was not the coastline—it would not make
sense. I think that Banham did that. [Hon.
Members: “Yes.”] It chopped the island in
two. I rest my
case.
The provision is
consistent with the boundary committee’s current approach when
undertaking boundary reviews. It may recommend a boundary change, the
abolition of a local government area and/or the constitution of a new
local government area. However, it cannot make recommendations for
boundary change that would permit structural change through the back
door. That is why the Bill provides that the boundary committee may not
recommend the alteration of a boundary of a single-tier area or a
London borough that would result in the abolition of a two-tier
area—to look at the point about the edge, which I think that the
London commission looked at—or the alteration of the boundary of
a two-tier area that would result in the abolition of a single-tier
area or a London borough. That refers to the point made about Heathrow
airport in reverse.
Finally, the boundary committee
may not alter the constitution of a new local government area that
results in the abolition of an existing local government area, where
the new area includes a combination of a single-tier area and a
two-tier area. For example, the boundary committee could not recommend
that the London borough of Harrow should be merged with Watford borough
council. Furthermore, the boundary committee may not recommend the
alteration of a local government area or the creation of a new local
government area that would extend into Wales, the City of London or the
Temples.
Mr.
Syms:
The Minister ruled out the London borough of Harrow
being merged with an area outside the Greater London boundary. However,
my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would be
concerned if Harrow were merged with Hillingdon or another
borough.
Mr.
Woolas:
The hon. Gentleman makes a slightly different
point. It is possible for a proposal to be made to that effect. It is
already possible for that proposal to be made. That is not affected by
our restructuring
proposals.
Mr.
Syms:
So is it theoretically possible that the Mayor of
London could request the boundary committee to review the boundaries of
London boroughs to reduce the number of boroughs—even halve the
number—under these
proposals?
Mr.
Woolas:
If the Mayor of London were to use that power, I
suspect that he would want to create one London borough. The request
for such a
review— [Interruption.]
The
Chairman:
Order. The background noise is getting a bit too
high. I am trying to hear what the Minister is
saying.
Mr.
Woolas:
Such a request can come from the Secretary of
State, a local authority or the boundary committee. What the hon.
Gentleman is suggesting is not the case. A request could only come from
a borough or boroughs, or from the Secretary of State or the boundary
committee.
Robert
Neill:
May I take it, just for the sake of clarity,
because it is important to my constituents, that that is because the
definition of “local authority” in the definitions
clause—clause 23—excludes the Mayor of London but
includes London boroughs? My only fear is what happens if the Mayor of
London nobbles the Secretary of
State.
Mr.
Woolas:
Hon. Members who took part in discussions on the
original Greater London Authority Bill will remember that the point
about whether the GLA is defined as a local authority for these
purposes was debated at length. It is not. In some circumstances, such
as capping, it is defined as a local
authority.
Subsection
(5) provides that the boundary committee must have regard to any
guidance that the Secretary of State issues in connection with boundary
review. That guidance may include, for example, clarification of the
legislative powers of the boundary committee—what it can and
cannot recommend—or relate to a specific proposal, to the
economic coherence of the area or to transport patterns in the
area.
Subsection (6)
provides that a local authority must provide information to the
boundary committee that it requests in connection with its role in
undertaking a boundary review. That is to ensure that the boundary
committee has all the information that it requires to make its
recommendation to the Secretary of State. The clause provides for the
independent boundary committee to review the administrative
boundariesof principal authorities. For its common sense, I
commend it to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 8
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses 9
and 10 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
11
Implementation
orders: provision that may be
included
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Alistair
Burt:
I would like a brief run around the course on clause
11, which contains rather sweeping Government powers to deal with the
implications of orders made and the ability to name new local
government areas and authorities. That is where Kellyshire comes within
the bounds of possibility, assuming some mental aberration on the part
of the Secretary of State, which I am sure will not occur.
On the face of it, these are
wide and sweeping opportunities. How on earth will the Minister
exercise such extraordinary powers? I refer to subsections (3) and (4),
which confer a whole series of powers. Subsection (4)(g) in particular
refers to
“the boundary
of any police area in England”.
We have just been through what must have
been a bruising experience, even for the present Home Office, in
dealing with the boundaries of police areas. Attempts were made to
rearrange the police areas in fairly short order, and they all fell
foul. How does the clause relate to the boundaries of police areas?
There would be widespread concern if the creation of new local
authorities under the Bill caused any disruption to existing police
areas.
Michael
Fabricant:
Does my hon. Friend recall that we also asked
for witnesses from the Association of Police Authorities? They could
have given us interesting
evidence.
Jonathan
Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab): We could have had a
whole busload of
them.
Alistair
Burt:
You know, Mr. Benton, that could have
been me talking. The hon. Gentleman took the words right out of my
mouth. Had the witness procedure only been that little bit more
extended, we could have thought ahead to these clauses and seen who
might have been able to accompany Sir Michael Lyons to give us advice
on them.
The boundary
of a police area in England is mentioned specifically. What is the
Minister’s consideration on that? There is a series of quite
substantial powers, including powers over parish boundaries, the names
of local government areas and the names of local authorities. He will
be aware of the difficulties and debates that have raged throughout
this country following any suggestion that traditional names should be
changed or that local authorities should be named differently. Where is
the indication that there will be public consultation and a degree of
public consent to any changes made as a result of the powers in the
clause?
I think that
the Minister has got the drift of our concerns about this wide-ranging
clause. If he could enlighten us to some degree, we might be able to
come to a reasonable arrangement.
Mr.
Dunne:
I rise to elaborate briefly on another provision to
back up my hon. Friend’s point. Subsection (4)(e) refers
to
“the establishment or
membership of public bodies in any area
affected”.
I draw the
Minister’s attention to clause 23, where the definition of a
public body includes
“a
joint board, or joint committee, on which a local authority is
represented”.
In
many local authorities, representation by local councils extends to a
vast array of bodies that would constitute public bodies under that
definition. Many of them include bodies such as charities, in which a
local authority is represented, housing associations and a host of
other bodies that, by my reading of this definition, would be caught
under the directive. It is not just a matter of the police authorities.
The definition extends across the whole gamut of the public sector
representation on bodies whether public, voluntary or
private.
5.45
pm
Mr.
Woolas:
The answer to the hon. Gentlemen’s
questions, both from the Front and Back Benches, is that the clause
essentially translates the powers from the structural change process as
laid out in the Local Government Act 1992. There is nothing new,
therefore, in what is being proposed. What the clause relates to, which
members of the Committee have picked up, is the definition of a local
authority—whether it be police or parishes is laid out in the
Bill.
The clause sets
out the matters that the Secretary of State may include in an order
implementing structural or boundary change. Those matters are necessary
to achieve structural or boundary change and include, for example, the
constitution of a new local government area, the abolition of an
existing local government area, the winding up and dissolution of an
existing local authority, the establishment of an authorityas
a county council or as a district council, and consequential matters,
such as the name of a local government area, electoral matters that are
covered under clause 12 and the boundary of a parish.
As hon. Members have commented,
subsection (5) defines the establishment of an authority, which also
includes increasing the remit of an existing authority; for example,
where a county council takes over the functions of a district
council.
Subsection
(6) makes it clear that the Secretaryof State’s power
to implement a proposal with modifications includes the implementation
of a proposal for an area with boundaries different from those
proposed. The Secretary of State can implement a proposal for any area.
She can change boundaries so that they do not run along existing county
or district boundaries under the procedure, as we have said before.
However, I would like to reassure the Committee that we intend to use
that power only following advice from the independent boundary
committee.
For example,
if we received a proposal for a single tier of local government for an
area and quite separately we received a recommendation from the
boundary committee relating to the area but with an alternative
boundary, the clause would enable us
to implement the proposal but with the boundaryas recommended
by the independent boundary committee. That is the extent of my
permissive review, and I hope that members of the Committee will
recognise that it is prudent to include that power in the
clause. Subsection (7),
however, clarifies that the Secretary of State may not implement a
proposal that extends an area into one that is not currently under
local government control; for example, Wales, the City of London or the
Temples. The clause is translating the powers that exist under the 1992
Act.
In answer to the
question of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire about police
authorities and other such public bodies, the provision would allow a
consequential change to a boundary—to, say, a police authority
or parish—to follow from a local authority boundary. That is
particularly important in combined police authority areas in which we
would want public representation through the elected
councillors—nominated by the principal local
authorities—who sit on such bodies to ensure that there is
coterminosity with the relevant public bodies that are listed in
subsection (4). It would, therefore, be necessary to amend the
membership of such a public body if changes such as those that I have
outlined had taken place.
I hope that that answers the
questions that have legitimately been asked regarding clause 11. The
provisions are rooted in the 1992 Act. The clause specifies what the
Secretary of State may include in an order that implements proposed
structural or boundary changes. It is not our desire that we should be
held responsible for the names of local council areas, which my
experience shows is often more controversial than the extent of the
boundary, the structure or anything else. I scratch my head at some of
those matters just as much as other hon. Members. I assure the
Committee that we would prefer to reach consensus on such a matter in
the local
area.
Question put
and agreed
to
.
Clause
11 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
