The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Roger Gale
Burt,
Alistair
(North-East Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Dorries,
Mrs. Nadine
(Mid-Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Goldsworthy,
Julia
(Falmouth and Camborne)
(LD)
Hain,
Mr. Peter
(Neath)
(Lab)
Hall,
Mr. Mike
(Weaver Vale)
(Lab)
Hamilton,
Mr. Fabian
(Leeds, North-East)
(Lab)
Healey,
John
(Minister for Local
Government)
Hurd,
Mr. Nick
(Ruislip-Northwood)
(Con)
Miller,
Andrew
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
Mole,
Chris
(Ipswich)
(Lab)
Neill,
Robert
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
Rogerson,
Dan
(North Cornwall)
(LD)
Ryan,
Joan
(Enfield, North)
(Lab)
Selous,
Andrew
(South-West Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Stewart,
Ian
(Eccles) (Lab)
Tipping,
Paddy
(Sherwood)
(Lab)
Watts,
Mr. Dave
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Ms A. Toft,
Committee Clerk
attended
the Committee
The following also
attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
109(5):
Hall,
Patrick
(Bedford) (Lab)
First
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 25
March
2008
[Mr.
Roger Gale
in the
Chair]
Draft Bedfordshire (Structural Changes) Order 2008
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Local Government (John Healey):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the Draft Bedfordshire (Structural Changes)
Order 2008.
Good
afternoon, Mr. Gale. It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship this afternoon. The draft order will bring into effect
proposals for two unitary authorities for Bedfordshire. All three of
the elected Bedfordshire district councils drew up the proposals, which
they submitted to the Secretary of State as the form of governance that
they believe will best serve the people, businesses and communities of
Bedfordshire. Equally, Bedfordshire county council, an elected local
council, put forward an alternative proposal. As one would expect, we
have considered all the proposals carefully during the past few months,
but we judge that the proposals implemented in the order will best
serve the interests of Bedfordshire in the long
term.
As the hon.
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will recognise and the hon. Member
for North-East Bedfordshire will knowboth as a local MP and
from his previous capacity as Front-Bench spokesman for his
partythe process for Bedfordshire has been more complex than
for any of the other areas that we have considered in the current round
of local government restructuring, not just because there were
competing proposals but because, rightly, we had to issue a further
invitation and undergo the process
involved.
When we
announced last July that we were minded to implement Bedford borough
councils proposal, we were clear that implementing it would
render the rest of Bedfordshire unviable as a two-tier local government
area. Therefore, we signalled our intention to invite all remaining
councils in Bedfordshire, including the county council, to put forward
unitary proposals for the remainder of the county. We issued that
invitation on 19 November, after the Local Government and Public
Involvement in Health Act 2007 received Royal
Assent.
As required by
the Act, and as I announced in the House on 18 December, we began a
further consultation on a new proposal received from mid and south
Bedfordshire. We asked stakeholders to comment on the proposal and say
which of the alternativeseither the two-unitary option or the
single unitary proposal, which was made by the county
councilwould best achieve our long-term
objectives.
Alistair
Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): It is rather like
the Alamo in here; there is an impressive amount of firepower on the
Government Benches. I am
not quite sure why it is needed, but the hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire and I are flattered.
Before the Minister leaves the
topic of consultation, what bearing did stakeholder consultation have
on his decision? It is quite noticeable that the published remarks on
stakeholder consultation contain three references supporting single
unitary, or at least two references in support of single unitary and
one reference of concern about the Bedford borough unitary, but only
the Bedford borough petition is tossed into the scales on the other
side. To what extent did stakeholder consultation weigh on the ultimate
decision?
John
Healey:
I was about to come to the matter of support, and
I will do so. The element of further consultation after 18 December, to
which I referred, was significant. It allowed, in particular, those
councils with a view of alternatives that were not in agreement to
submit further evidence and their critique of what had been proposed.
It allowed me, also, to seek independent financial advice on the
financial case that was put forward. I shall come on to that in a
moment. If the hon. Gentleman does not feel that I have answered his
questions, I am happy to return to the matter
later.
To return to the
question of support, and the responses to the consultation, our
judgment is that if the proposals are implemented, a broad
cross-section of support can be expected. I want to make it clear what
I mean by that. It was set out in our original invitation in October
2006. Our criterion is not and has never been whether a majority of a
particular group of stakeholders, a majority of citizens, or another
group of interested people, supports or disapproves of particular
unitary proposals. The invitation of October 2006 said explicitly that
our principal concern was to establish whether there was sufficient
support for a new unitary proposal to make it likely that it would be a
successful form of governance, should we choose to go ahead with it.
That is not the samedeliberatelyas majority popular
support.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): The issue is one
that we have rehearsed, but, for the sake of the record of this debate,
will the Minister confirm that there are no objective criteria?
Essentially we must rely on a subjective
assessment.
John
Healey:
As we set out in the summary of responses, it is
clear that opinion and support are broadly divided. The judgment that
Ministers must make is, as I have tried to explain, the one that we
described in our original invitation: whether there is a sufficiently
broad cross-section of support to make it likely that the proposal will
be successful and viable if we go ahead with it. We also said
explicitly in the invitation that no single body or group would have a
veto over a proposal. To be honest, the responses to both rounds of
consultation reflected divided opinion, and in some cases divided
politics and loyalties. Stakeholder opinion was, predictably, also
divided.
There was a
consensus from the majority of respondents in support of unitary local
government for Bedfordshire, but a majority of representations from
public sector stakeholders expressed, to begin with, a preference for
the county single unitary proposal. However, as I have said, this is
not a question of a majority. The two-unitary solution also has support
from some public sector organisations, schools and housing
associations, and a range of businesses, and it has some support from
the third sector. It also has support from some town and parish
councils.
It is on
that basis that the Government feel and I maintain, in bringing the
order before the House, that we are entitled to conclude that the
two-unitary solution that we have set out has sufficient support to
enable it to work. That was the criterion by which, from the start, we
intended to make our
assessment.
Robert
Neill:
The Minister refers to public sector stakeholders.
Could he help me by explaining the Governments response to the
observations of Unison, acting on behalf of the employees of the county
and all the districts? The union observed, giving reasons, that an
enhanced two-tier model should have been an integral part of the
options appraisal, so that in the absence of the objective criteria
that I mentioned there could have been an alternative benchmark. Why
did the Government reject that
course?
John
Healey:
Quite simply, we assessed the proposals that were
submitted to us, and those from this part of the country, as indeed
from others, did not include two-tier working. In this process, we set
out to consider the viability of reforms to produce unitary government.
Before I discuss the
order itself, let me turn briefly to the financial case. In response to
the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), I
mentioned the independent financial advisers whom I appointed on the
advice of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and
the Institute of Public Finance. Those advisers concluded that the
two-unitary solution was medium risk, but that it would meet the
affordability criteria within a payback period of less than five years.
They also concluded that once what they regarded as sufficient
provision for risk had been built in, the level of savings would be
lower than in the original proposal. Nevertheless, they believed that
the two-unitary solution would offer significant annual savings of more
than £18 million a year once the reforms were
implemented.
Alistair
Burt:
Is the financial advice that the Minister
received from CIPFA published and available for external scrutiny? I
genuinely do not know.
John
Healey:
I have not released it publicly because it is
advice to Ministers, and such advice is generally not published.
However, I have made available and been quite clear about the
conclusions that have been reached. As I have just said, the
savingssubstantial though they promise to beare less,
in the independent financial consultants view, than those in
the original proposal. The payback period is well below the five-year
limit, but it is nevertheless almost a year longer than that in the
original proposal. The transitional costs are slightly higher than
those in the original proposal, but they are nevertheless such that I
have confidence that the proposals in the order will well meet the
affordability criteria that we have set. In terms of value for
moneynot least the benefits for the
quality of services, the empowerment of local communities and strategic
leadership in the areas involvedthe proposals in the order are
a good deal for Bedfordshire council tax payers.
As with previous provisions, we
prepared the order following detailed consultation with all the
councils concerned. The order contains the arrangements that the
councils involved believe are best for them as they manage the
transition. First, it provides that there will be a single tier of
local government in Bedfordshire from 1 April 2009. Secondly, it
provides that the existing county council and the district councils of
Mid-Bedfordshire and South Bedfordshire will be dissolved. Bedford
borough will be transformed into a new unitary authority, and a new
central Bedfordshire will be created to cover the old mid and south
Bedfordshire district
areas.
The
order provides for an implementation executive in Bedford, which will
be led by the mayor of Bedford and whose membership will be drawn from
the county and all the district councils. In central Bedfordshire, the
order provides for a shadow authority to be created, comprising all the
current councillors, including county councillors for the Mid and South
Bedfordshire areas. From that shadow authority, a shadow executive will
be drawn to lead the preparations for the new authority. Those
executives will exercise the key transitional functions until elections
to both new unitary councils are held next year.
The order also
provides for a team of officers in each areaagain, they will be
drawn from the county and all the district councilsto support
the implementation of the proposals. It places a duty on all councils
to co-operate during the transition, and the indications are that that
is beginning to happen in both areas.
One final point about the order
is that it will cancel the district council thirds elections that would
otherwise have happened in south Bedfordshire and in Bedford borough in
May this year. That is necessary to maintain the credibility and
integrity of the democratic process, and I strongly argue that it is
the only practical solution because if the elections were to go ahead,
there would be serious questions about the purpose. Those elected would
not carry out the normal functions expected of elected councillors and
would in fact serve for 11 months.
Robert
Neill:
The Minister and other hon. Members will know that
the Committee was due to meet last week. The sitting was cancelled
because, as the Minister kindly informed me and others, further
information was requested by the Joint Committee on Statutory
Instruments. The information concerned the point that the Minister has
just made on the cancellation of district council elections. Will the
Minister say in what respect, if any, the order has been changed to
deal with the issues raised by the Joint Committee? Alternatively, what
information was provided to satisfy the Joint Committee that there is
no longer a problem? It had stated that the cancellation provision was
an unusual use of the statutory power, so what has happened to set our
minds at rest on that
matter?
John
Healey:
The delay in considering the
order was to allow us to furnish the Joint Committee on Statutory
Instruments with the information that it required to
answer its questions. We have made the case for the order clearly.
First, there is a strong legal basis under the 2007 Act to exercise the
provisions of the order. Secondly, as I have explained, there is a
strong policy case and a good rationale behind the order. Unlike the
observations in relation to the Cornwall and Shropshire orders, when
the JCSI questioned whether we had the vires for the orders, the JCSI
has, in the document that the hon. Gentleman has before him, has
accepted that we have the vires. However, it asks the same questions
about the policy rationale. In that sense, the JCSI has played a useful
role in the consideration of the order and has provided some of the
backdrop against which the Committee can consider its own
questions.
In light of
the Bedfordshire county council judicial reviewa challenge that
is currently before the High Courtthe Merits Committee invited
the Government to
explain
more fully what action they would take if the High Courts
ruling meant that the order could not go
ahead.
As I responded to
the issues raised by the JCSI, I feel that I should also respond to
that point. The county councils application was heard by the
High Court on 22 February. The court is in recess at the moment so we
await its judgment. However, in the meantime I stress that it is
important for the local authorities, staff and residents that we
continue with our original timetable. I argue strongly that it is good
administration to do so unless and until a court judgment requires us
to do otherwise. Even if the court found against us, it is not at any
rate clear what relief and implications would be forthcoming. The
reason for that is the challenge is not to the order and what we have
decided to do and have done from the late autumn onwards; the challenge
is to the 25 July decision of the Secretary of State when she was
minded to go ahead with the Bedford borough council proposal. Even if
the court decided that that decision was somehow flawed, it has been
significantly superseded by the Act coming into force and the decisions
that we have taken under the Act since that point of Royal
Assent.
Andrew
Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): Is he saying that
the judicial review is, in a sense, irrelevant because what we are
doing under this order will have legal effect, is legally watertight
and will happen anyway? Is he saying that the judicial review is, in
effect, a sideshow to the real business that is being debated
today?
John
Healey:
I would not go so far as to say that. Obviously,
it is a matter for Bedfordshire county council as to whether it regards
its legal proceedings as reasonable and justifiable to its residents.
The point that I am making is this. In these circumstances, there is
serious doubt about whether it would be appropriate for the court to
grant any relief if it came to the view that our decision was flawed in
any way, and it is quite difficult to see what relief it might
offer.
My reasoning
reflects the view that the court came to in the case of Shrewsbury and
Congleton, on a similar basis. The view was that decisions or actions
made in advance of the orders coming into force under the Act were no
more than preparatory steps. In the courts
judgment in that case, the only issue that ultimately mattered was the
legal effect of decisions taken under the 2007 Act. In the case of
Bedfordshire and this order, the decision taken under the Act that the
order is designed to implement is not subject to challenge. I hope that
that is
helpful.
Robert
Neill:
I have one final point in relation to the timetable
and the risks. Has the Minister received any advice, and can he assist
us on the basis of any advice that he has received, on the risk that
might apply if the judicial review were to be successful but the order
had passed through both Houses and the district council elections in
central Bedfordshire had been cancelled? Has he considered whether
there is any risk of a fresh set of parties feeling aggrieved at the
cancellation of district council elections under an order that might
fall foul of the judicial
review?
John
Healey:
In the end, I take the view, and I have done
consistently with other judicial review challenges, that the court is
highly unlikely to quash the order. There is little purpose in
speculating on entirely hypothetical developments that I think are very
unlikely to materialise. From the smile on the hon. Gentlemans
face, I think that he probably accepts
that.
We feel entitled
to continue with the process. I am convinced that we are right to push
on towards implementation of the changes on 1 April 2009. It is right
that we look to cancel the elections due in May this year. The
implementation timetable will be challenging and complex. I accept
that. However, I am encouraged by what I see as the growing willingness
of those affected by the decision to make the transition and the
changes work.
I pay
tribute to the three Bedfordshire Members on the Committee for the work
that they have done in discussing the matter with local authority
leaders. I pay tribute also to the local authority leaders most
directly affected, because irrespective of the view that is held of the
decision that we have takenperhaps in some cases there is
disagreement with thatthere is recognition, which provides a
strong basis for the future, that once the decision has been taken and
particularly when Parliament gives the go-ahead, as I hope it will, to
these measures, the important thing in the interests of the people of
Bedfordshire is that we make the transition work and that the new
authorities give a fresh lead and a fresh start. As Minister
responsible, I look forward to playing my part, with local authority
leaders and hon. Members, in helping to make that happen over the next
year.
4.54
pm
Robert
Neill:
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Gale. It is interesting for those of us who regard
ourselves as men of Kent or Kentish men, depending on which side of the
Medway we come from, to be considering what is happening north of the
river by quite a long way. I am grateful to the Minister for the
courtesy and care with which he has dealt with the presentation of the
order, as always. The official Oppositions concerns can be
summed up fairly succinctly: we accept that there seems to have been an
acceptance of a unitary structure in Bedfordshire from
the responses that have been received, but the proposal was not
benchmarked against any viable alternatives. Unison made a viable
pointa point of principlethat it would be good idea in
future for proposals for unitary structures to be benchmarked against
the alternative of enhanced two-tier working as a matter of course. It
such an option were floated, it might well command greater support and
offer an alternative way forward.
That is all the more important
because, as the Minister confirmed, the criteria are set out in the
consultation document in broad terms but, ultimately, the matter comes
down to a subjective ministerial judgment on the likelihood of success.
That is a vague set of criteria and it runs the risk of causing
uncertainty. We think that a policy of benchmarking against enhanced
two-tier working should have been pursued from the
start.
Patrick
Hall (Bedford) (Lab): I do not quite follow what the hon.
Gentleman is saying. Is he proposing benchmarking something that has
not yet happened against something that does not
exist?
Robert
Neill:
I commend Unisons appraisal of unitary
options in Bedfordshire to the hon. Gentlemanhe might well have
had rather more dealings with the local branch of Unison than me. The
appraisal sensibly points out that an enhanced two-tier model should
have been an integral part of the options appraisal. Instead of leaving
the options to pass or fail, the Government should have required each
proposal to be accompanied by an enhanced two-tier model. That would
have presented a genuine option to the public rather than the current
crude contest between unitary and two-tier statusbetween change
and no change. An enhanced two-tier developmental approach to unitary
government must be considered as a viable option and an alternative to
imposing a partially suitable unitary organisation. I think that there
is a lot of merit in that, and that it would sensibly be borne in mind
in future to avoid the conflicts between districts and counties that we
have seen in such
cases.
That said, we
will not be voting against the order, because there seems to be a view
that there should be unitary status, although there is a difference of
view about what form that should take. That could have been avoided had
the Government played the situation differently. The people of
Bedfordshires concern is the length of time that the process
has taken to come to fruition. After all, the invitation for proposals
went out in October 2006, and it was initially proposed that there
would be a final decision by July 2007. The Government had to go back
and redo the consultation because of some errors, which has added to
the uncertainty. My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the
county will wish to point out that the concerns created uncertainty
and, in some cases, staff losses and difficulties for the existing
local authorities. Ironically, a process in which everybody seemed to
agree on unitary status has been made a dogs
breakfastwith every respect to dogs that we know and
lovedue to the way in which the Government handled it. In turn,
that gave rise to a judicial review. It might be that the Minister,
fortified by the Shrewsbury decision, is right when he says that
the prospects for success are not great, but the fact is that we do not
yet know. The Government criteria mention minimising risk factors, but
going ahead with a proposal when there is an outstanding judicial
review increases rather than minimises those. I hope that lessons on
handling such proposals can be learned for when we go through the
process in future.
The
Minister was right to refer to the hard work done by local authority
leaders in Bedfordshire to ensure that the proposals work. I associate
myself with that because local authority leaders from both tiers have
worked extremely hard. I am sure that the people of Bedfordshire and
their elected representatives will ensure that the very best possible
outcome is achieved for the people of the county, but the Government
have not persisted in that regard.
Will the Minister clarify a
couple of further points about the cancellation of the district council
elections in central Bedfordshire? Again, the handling of that matter
has raised uncertainty. It is worth noting that due to the delays with
the running of the order, the cancellation of the previous hearings and
so on, we are in a situation in which the order must be passed by both
Houses by 5 pm this Thursday because, otherwise, the returning officer
will be obliged to issue the notice of poll for the district council
elections in central Bedfordshire.
That is a pretty high-risk
situation for the Government to get themselves into. However much we in
this House co-operate, there are still risks elsewhere. The situation
is entirely of the Governments making, and that cannot be left
to pass without remark. Bizarrely, the other place will consider the
order before we have heard the result of any deferred Divisions that
might be calledif not by us, by othersin this House.
With respect, that is a bit of a mess to have got into, and it is
something that I sincerely hope we will never see again in relation to
any such statutory
instrument.
From the
look of it, it seems that the new local authority in central
Bedfordshire will initially have a two-year term of officefrom
2009 to 2011. Can the Minister clarify the rationale behind that? Is it
to bring the time frame into line with the joining of the unitary
authorities, as unitary authorities do not always stick to a uniform
electoral cycle? Also, although it is pretty clear from the order that
the Bedford unitary authority will have all-out elections every four
yearsI know that the Minister will correct me if I am reading
that wronglyI understand that either central or south
Bedfordshire, or both, has elections by one third. Will that option be
open to the new Central Bedfordshire unitary? If so, at what point will
the option be exercised? Can it be undertaken by the shadow authority
in advance, or will it have to wait for a decision to be taken at the
2009 election, perhaps for implementation after
2011?
The other concern
that many of us have is that it is perhaps an undesirable state of
affairs for the leadership of a local authority in its infancy to have
a short term of office, because the local authority is most vulnerable
when it is setting up its processes. To have people in for a
comparatively short term of two years and then to make wholesale
political change is, again, a fairly risky process in terms of ensuring
a smooth transition. For all those reasons, although the Government say
that risk is an important criterion that
they take into account when assessing proposals, it seems to us that
they might have taken views on financial risks, but created a lot of
other needless risks through their handling of the
matter.
I hope that I
have flagged up our concerns to the Minister in a genuinely
constructive spirit. I have made it clear that we will not oppose the
order today, but I hope to hear some response to the concerns that we
have
raised.
5.3
pm
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. The hon. Member for
Bromley and Chislehurst spoke of the keen interest that Members from
Kent take in the order. I suppose that hon. Members might also question
the interest of a Member from Cornwall. Many people who grow up in
Cornwall end up spending time in exile, sometimes all over the world.
In my case, happily, it was in Bedfordshire for six years. Indeed, I
was a member of Bedford borough council for one
term.
I echo some of
the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst
about the process that has led to the order. As it is one of many such
orders that have come before the House as a result of the 2007 Act,
many of the arguments have had an airing before, but it strikes me that
certain issues surrounding this order and the situation in Bedfordshire
have led to uncertainty. We are having something of an 11th hour
debate. I understand, as the Minister explained in response to an
intervention, that that was not entirely within his control and that
questions were being asked. That was a problem, but we can contrast the
situation with the speed at which the whole consultation process on the
request for bids for unitary status has been
handled.
The Minister
and other members of the Committee served on the Planning Bill
Committee, on which we talked a great deal about the benefits of a
pre-application period so that people could settle all sorts of things
in advance of an application going in. The Minister might want to
reflect on what has happened in the process that we are talking about
and on whether a pre-application process might ensure that all sorts of
questions, some on emotive subjects such as peoples livelihoods
and participation in local governance and democracy, could be settled
in a more constructive manner than through the competitive nature
imposed by the bidding
process.
The order is
the culmination of a process that began when Luton was taken out of
Bedfordshire in the previous round of unitary bids that took place
under the Conservative Government. I was in Bedfordshire at the time,
and I recall that people who were elected to serve on a shadow
authority for the newer, smaller Bedfordshire said that the authority
might have problems delivering services because of its size, so I am
not surprised that the matter has returned. That is not in any way to
criticise the work done by officers and members of the authority, but
we are at the natural culmination of a process that began with
Lutons exit.
I am sure that the process will
be watched closely by people in parts of the country in which further
consultations are ongoing and where part of a county has submitted a
bid for unitary status. There are consequent questions for what happens
in the rest of such counties. There are such processes in Devon, which
is close to my area, and elsewhere, and people in those places will be
looking at how this order goes
forward.
There is a
clear indication and direction of travel, so people in Bedfordshire
know what is going to happen. The important thing is that they just
want to get on and do it. The elections issue, which was mentioned by
the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, is key to that. That
process will shortly be under way. I have spoken to local councillors
and former colleagues on Bedford borough council. They are watching
closely what happens this afternoonI shall not speak for too
long because hon. Members from the area will wish to
contributeand they would welcome a little clarity on the
process.
I understand
that there will be boundary ward issues for the new authorities. That
is not directly a matter for the Minister, but I hope that he will
signal, on record, that such arrangements should not disadvantage
certain communities, such as urban communities against rural
communities, and should ensure that the ward numbers of the new
authorities are representative of the
population.
Although
the order refers to parishes and parish council elections, the Minister
did not talk about them. They will clearly be affected by what is
happening today. Will he say something about the term for members of
town and parish
councils?
The Liberal
Democrats will not oppose the order. We have heard from local people on
the ground in Bedfordshire who want to get on and deliver the two new
local authorities. The process has been painful, and that can be laid
at the foot of the Government for their not allowing a better, more
open and longer process at the beginning to ensure that there was more
adequate opportunity for consultation prior to the bids going in. We
have had a longer process at the end, which has been less helpful. I
hope that the Minister will take things forward from this and other
examples that the House has considered so that, in future, we can have
a longer period at the beginning of the process that would result in a
speedy and efficient process at the
end.
Several
hon. Members
rose
The
Chairman:
Order. Precedent requires that I call voting
members of the Committee before other Members present, but I am sure
that hon. Members will realise that the hon. Member for Bedford is
present. Although he is not a voting member of the Committee, I trust
that he will have time to
speak.
5.10
pm
Andrew
Selous:
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr.
Gale.
I begin by paying
tribute to the county and district councillors from Bedfordshire county
council, Mid Bedfordshire district council and South Bedfordshire
district council who will not be part of the new authority. I know many
of them extremely well. Almost universally, they are extremely decent
men and women who have put themselves forward for election for no other
purpose than to serve to the best of their ability the people whom they
represent. We should not lose sight of the fact that many of those men
and women will not be part of the new authority, because there will
clearly be fewer councillors as part of the new unitary authority. It
is important that we put on record our thanks in this place for their
record of voluntary service. They receive no pay, very little in the
way of expenses, and often not much recognition for what they have
done.
The same is true
of the local government officers who will not survive the
reorganisation because some will lose their jobs. I think that we all
understand that that might be necessary for reasons of value for money
and efficiency. Nevertheless, they are decent men and women who have
perhaps given their whole careers to public service, so it is
appropriate that we pay tribute to
them.
With particular
regard to the local councillors who will not be part of the new
authority, I very much hope that public life in Bedfordshire will not
lose their services altogether, because there are many ways to make a
contribution to community and public life locally. I hope that the
people who find that they are not members of a new authority will
consider serving in another
way.
I echo the two
Opposition Front Benchers in saying that it is very unfortunate that
there has been such a delay in relation to the Governments
timetable. We heard earlier that there should have been a clear
decision on this matter by July 2007. I know for a fact, from talking
to the leaders of the local authorities concerned, that we have lost
very good local government officers in Bedfordshire, who, because of
the uncertainty, have upped sticks and gone elsewhere. None of us can
blame them, given that it was not at all clear whether they would have
a job.
I also know that
some key decisions on investment in local services have been put on
hold because we did not have a decision. That, too, has been
unfortunate and has not served well my constituents and those of the
other Bedfordshire Members here. As a Bedfordshire MP who has watched
the process going through Parliament, I hope that MPs for local
authority areas concerned will be a little more closely involved in the
future. I have great respect for the Minister. He has been unfailingly
courteous and helpful throughout the process, but in terms of the
dealings of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, I for one,
as a Bedfordshire MP, have had no contact with it. I do not know what
representations it has sought from within Bedfordshire. I should like
to put on record my view that it might be appropriate for that
Committee at least to have some form of contact with all Members of
Parliament for local authority areas concerned before it delays, passes
judgment on, or comments on any orders before the
House.
This is a
substituted order. After engaging in a little of my own pre-legislative
scrutiny and examining the original order more closely, I discovered
that Dunstable, my second largest towna town of some 35,000
people, which I think will be the second largest
town within the new Central Bedfordshirehad not been included as
one of the towns that needed to have its town council elections
cancelled. When I drew that to the attention of the Ministers
office, it transpired that a number of parishes had also not been
included and that their parish council elections needed to be
cancelled, but had not been. Indeed, some village names had not been
spelled correctly. Those are quite important details. If we are going
to have parish and town councils and elections to them, we need to
treat them properly and to ensure that they are considered fully and
properly in the legislation that is brought before the House.
I am grateful for the
Ministers comments about the effect of the judicial review. An
e-mail that I received from a senior officer of South Bedfordshire
district council on 6 March
states:
We do
still have to wait for the passage of the Bedfordshire Change Order
through Parliament, and also the County Council's own judicial
review.
Later in that
e-mail, the officer states, in relation to the judicial review,
that
we should have a
result by Easter.
Easter
has been and gone. Members might have chomped their way through more
Easter eggs than are good for them, but we still do not have a
decision. I do not think that any of us would want to live in a society
in which the Government were not subject to the proper and due process
of the law. It is right that they are subject to that process because
it provides an important safeguard against tyranny from a Government of
any colour. However, it does not serve our constituents or local
councils employees and councillors well when the judicial
process takes place in one silo, with a time scale of its own, and the
parliamentary legislative process happens in another silo, with its own
time scale, especially when that time scale has to move pretty fast to
meet certain deadlines. Although we, of course, acknowledge the
authority of the courts to question the Governments decisions,
some co-ordination between the two processes is necessary. I do not
know in what forums conversations could take place between the
Government and representative of the judicial process, but looking at
the matter as a Bedfordshire MP, given the uncertainty, it seems
slightly cack-handed that the current process is continuing.
Coming down from the
constitutional level that might leave some Bedfordshire residents
unmoved, I would like to talk about some of the services that are dear
to their hearts. If we have a shadow authority, what will be the
position regarding school closures and reorganisation over the next
year? The Minister might be aware that we have just been through a
bruising debate in Bedfordshire about whether our schools should move
from the three-tier to the two-tier school system. In my constituency
and, I think, those of other hon. Members present, there is
considerable attachment to the three-tier process. Is it in order for a
county council in its last year of existence to make changes to school
organisation in Bedfordshire? In that last year, and perhaps without
reference to the new Central Bedfordshire shadow authority, will it be
in order for the county council to decide to close a school? Brooklands
middle school in Leighton Buzzard, which is in my constituency, is
scheduled for closure. On such
incredibly important matters, I would be interested to hear what the
Minister feels should be the appropriate balance of consultation
between the outgoing county council and the new Central Bedfordshire
council.
The police
authority is currently made up largely of county councillors. Policing
matters are extremely close to the hearts of my constituents, so will
the Minister say how the arrangements for the police authority will
work over the next year? Will there be a shadow police authority to
which the police constable should pay attention? Finally, on local
health services, the Minister will know that the county council
currently takes a lead on local government scrutiny of our health
services. Will there be arrangements for the new Central Bedfordshire
shadow council to scrutinise health provision over the next year? Those
are important matters. Health issues are key to my constituency and
over the next year, Leighton Buzzard will seek to have some form of
major primary care facility. I will be grateful if the Minister
responds to my points about local
services.
Several
hon. Members
rose
The
Chairman:
Order. Although it is delightful to see the hon.
Member for Weaver Vale here, it has become apparent that he was
appointed to the Committee in place of his namesake, the hon. Member
for Bedford. It is important that that should be placed on record, as I
would not want the good burghers of Bedford to think that that was in
any way the responsibility of their Member of Parliament. The Lord
Commissioner of Her Majestys Treasury, the hon. Member for St.
Helens, North, might wish to raise that matter with the Committee of
Selection in due
course.
In the interest
of fairness, I propose to call the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire, as I properly should. I will then call the hon. Member
for Bedford, and then the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. I hope that
all hon. Members will bear that in mind in light of the time available
to
us.
5.21
pm
Alistair
Burt:
I echo the comments of others about serving under
your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. The efficacy of your
chairmanship has been demonstrated by the fair manner in which you have
handled the situation. We Conservatives are mindful of the role of the
hon. Member for Bedford in these matters, and of course there will be
time for him to speak. I shall do my best to speak
briefly.
As the hon.
Member for North Cornwall said in his remarks, there is an element of
unfinished business. Again, the hon. Member for Bedford will know that
very well. In Bedfordshire, political debates are intense and last for
a long time, and memories are equally long. That the process has been
divisive is of no surprise to anyone connected with the county or
anyone with a knowledge of Bedfordshire politics during the past 20
years. The fact that we are moving to unitary will at least remove one
source of dispute among politicians in the area, and to that extent, it
will benefit all.
I echo the comments of my hon.
Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst: I also
would have supported Unisons position. As the Minister knows, I
am not a fan of the reorganisation process. I therefore find myself at
odds with all the Conservative councillors in Bedfordshire who have
supported the unitary process, but I defer to their local knowledge and
their desire to move to unitary. I only express a little sadness that
the opportunity to consider further an enhanced two-tier was not taken
forward. I say that because in the memorandum Summary:
Interventions & Options, dated 6 March 2008, when the
Government were asked, Why are you doing what youre
doing?, one of the reasons that they gave
was:
to overcome the
weaknesses found in the existing council
structures.
In
all fairness, in relation to Bedfordshire, what weaknesses? The four
councils that make up Bedfordshire all have good, strong or excellent
ratings. Its county council is the fastest improving in the country,
Bedford borough council is excellent and both Mid Beds and South Beds
are good authorities. I do not think that there were many weaknesses in
the structure, and I would like to have seen that tested by the
consideration of an enhanced two-tier process. However, that was my
personal view, and after due debate among colleagues in Bedfordshire,
it was not the majority view held. Colleagues decided that unitary
status was the one to pursue, and the only question that arose was
which unitary it would be. That has understandably divided opinion.
Having taken a position not to support the unitary process in the first
place, I hope to take a neutral and detached position between the
respective bids.
I echo
the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire.
I thank those who have made their contribution to political life
through our local authorities generously and warmly, as has the
Minister. They have made an excellent contribution. Of course
Bedfordshire county council will feel it harder than most. The other
two authorities will go on in some way. Although they are for all
intents and purposes new authorities, the feeling is that Bedfordshire
county council has lost out because it has lost its battle for single
unitary status. There was a sense that this was a zero-sum game and
that winner would take all, and it feels that most keenly. Its
performance in the past few years has been excellent, and it was fully
entitled to put forward what was a strong case for single unitary
statusit was clearly a strong case because it has taken so long
to reach a decision. I should like to thank members of the county
council in particular for their extraordinary service to Bedfordshire
over many years and for the many good things that they have done in the
area. I sincerely hope that their skills and expertise will not be lost
to the new councils in
future.
Those
within the North East Bedfordshire constituency, the Conservative group
on the borough council, which is led by Nicky Attenborough, and the
leader of Mid Beds district council, Tricia Turner, have done an
excellent job. Tricia Turner leads a very good council, and I am sure
that the prospects for the new authorities are good. However, it is
important to pay tribute to those who fought hard for their particular
cause but who were not as successful as they would have
wished.
I should like briefly to put on
record my concern about the process and how the matter has been
handled, which the Minister will know well. It is not his
faulthe arrived when the process was part way
throughbut there are some unfortunate things in the background
papers. The Secretary of State for Transport, then Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government, spoke on Second Reading of the
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Billa record
of which is included in the memorandumabout a
short window of
opportunity[Official Report, 22 January 2007;
Vol. 455, c. 1148.]
for councils
to put forward their proposals. The memorandum refers to the need
to
keep to a
minimum
the period of
uncertainty for councils. In the invitations to councils to tender for
the new boroughs, much was made of the time scale. July 2007 was
referred to as a final date in the invitation and it was not considered
that some processes would go on after that if decisions could not be
made. In the end, I believe that the July 2007 decision was botched,
which prompted the judicial review from the county. It was fully
entitled to head for judicial review based on the decision, because it
was not really a decision at all. Had a decision been made, the new
councils in Bedfordshire would have had the same length of time as
other councils to prepare for new councils in 2009. Nothing can be done
about that now, but it was disappointing. Those of us who expressed
concern about the process of the invitation to reorganise and how it
would be handled have been
justified.
On costs, I
am grateful for what the Minister said on his financial advice which,
of course, I fully accept. However, what elements of the private advice
that he has received can be put in the public sphere? Savings from the
unitary process are often brought forward by those in local government
as a significant reason for undertaking the kind of process that we are
talking about, but there is concern about whether such savings are
actually realised. Local government finance being the labyrinth that it
is, as you know, Mr. Gale, it is easy to hide costs over a
period, and the electors of Bedfordshire are entitled to see how the
costs and savings will be devolved to them and whether they will derive
any benefits. Some in Bedfordshire feel that they have been told that
the process will mean that the pound in their pocket is not only safe
but enhanced by the
process.
I put that to
the Minister for the Environment, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and
Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who was the Ministers
predecessor at the Department for Communities and Local Government,
when he gave evidence to the Local Government and Public Involvement in
Health Bill Committee on 1 February 2007. When I raised the issue of
cost and reorganisation, I asked him whether he could recall any
reorganisation that saved money. He thought carefully and produced the
East Riding of Yorkshire as an example, but no others. Further to that,
I asked him:
Do
you think that we would be right to wary of those who wave cost savings
at their electors as the potential good news behind a restructuring,
going by all our collective
experience?
He replied:
The answer to that is
yes.[Official Report, Local Government and
Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2007; c.
89, Q147.]
Hansard does
not record the smile on the Ministers face that revealed what
we all knew to be the case. On behalf of my constituents, I want to see
that this reorganisation, which has been strongly pushed by the hon.
Member for Bedford, means that there will be cost savings to electors
at the end of the day. Accordingly, if the Minister would examine the
advice that he has been given and see what he can publish, that would
help the
process.
Andrew
Selous:
Does my hon. Friend expect the cost savings to be
in the form of reduced council taxes for our constituents, by any
chance?
Alistair
Burt:
My hon. Friend makes a point that has been made to
me by many constituents. Straightforward folk though they are in
Bedfordshire, they seem to feel that if there is a cost saving to the
council, it might trickle back into their pockets. Despite evidence to
the contrary over many years, they are on this occasion holding to the
view that this reorganisation, which has been sold to them partly on
this basis, will result in what my hon. Friend mentions. Like him, we
hope that that will be the case. If the Minister could help on that, I
would be grateful.
I
also have one or two questions and would be grateful for the
Ministers views. Both new authoritiesfirst, the
continuing one in Bedford borough and, secondly, the new Central
Bedfordshire authorityare required under the Act to produce
implementation plans. First, could he let us know whether those
implementation plans will be published and available to the public, so
that they can trace through what is going to happen? If that will be
the case, when will the process start? When can the public expect to
see how all this will be
managed?
Secondly,
my understanding from Conservative colleagues in the area is that we
should agree with the Minister that elections are not wanted, and there
is no pressure from Conservatives to delay the orders in order to have
the election process for no particular purpose. Normally, most of us
are keen to fight elections on all available occasions, or at least
that is what we claim, but I think everyone is agreed on this occasion
that it makes good practical sense not to do so. As my hon. Friend the
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the orders have been taken to
the wire. We are crossing our fingers that eagle eyes in another place
do not find a further problem with them and thus force us into
reconsideration and perhaps even a quick Bill pushed through the House
to remove the elections, but we have no objection to the cancellation
of the
elections.
Thirdly, in
relation to staff and co-operation, I again echo the Ministers
sentiments. This has been a bruising process. Inevitably, part of the
process of one council making the case for a particular end has
involved not only promoting its own case, but having to deal quite
sharply with arguments advanced by the other councils. It would be
disingenuous to suggest that that has been done without pain. I think
that all of us in Bedfordshire who represent constituents in Parliament
would say to those involved on local councils, You
fought your case as hard as you could. Please now do everything you can
to give your full support to the new authorities. Do not remember what
has been said and written. Your staff have been caught up in the
process. They have found themselves in great uncertainty and have been
loyal to their respective councils throughout the process. Could you
now put them first and foremost in your considerations and make every
attempt to co-operate, one council with another, in the new
processes? That would be warmly
welcomed.
Lastly, I
want to raise a point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for
South-West Bedfordshire in relation to education. In parts of my
constituency that are covered by the new Bedford authority, Bedford
borough, there has been renewed interest in a change from three tiers
to two tiers. That relates partly to the new schools funding being
brought forward by the Government. An argument is being promoted that
only a change from three tiers to two tiers will unlock and release
that money. As my hon. Friend said, the decision about three tiers or
two tiers was quite divisive and firmly fought. When a decision was
made, everyone assumed that it would last for at least four years,
although I would have wished it to be longer, such are the issues at
stake. However, it is back on the agenda barely a year afterwards.
Which authority should be able to make a decision, if at all, in the
intervening 12 months on such an important issue? I do not believe that
Building Schools for the Future is dependent on a move from three tiers
to two, and I should be grateful if that were confirmed. In view of the
uncertainty, however, will the Minister provide some clarity about
which authority might be able to make a decision about the issue, or
whether any decision should be held over until a new education
authority is fully fledged from April 2009?
I have appreciated the
opportunity to make a few remarks. This has been a difficult process in
Bedfordshire, but the Ministers good sense and good grace will
no doubt help it along, because now that we have had all the discussion
and debate for so long20-plus years as far I can see, if not
even longerthis is an opportunity for a fresh start for
Bedfordshire. Conservative councillors, who dominate Bedfordshire, have
made a significant contribution to the county, district and borough
councils over the years and have done a tremendous job. I have
absolutely no doubt that their successors will be able to do so in the
new authorities, and we are determined to ensure that they do, but
whoever fills the council seats, I am sure that they will do a terrific
job for Bedfordshire. I personally wish the new authorities very
well.
5.36
pm
Patrick
Hall:
Thank you for your comments about my status in the
Committee, Mr. Gale. As you would expect, I, as a Member
with a constituency in Bedfordshire, had been in touch with the
Department and the Ministers office for months, and I was told
that it was normal practice for a Member who represents an area
affected by such orders to be a voting member of the Committee. That
was what should have happened, but it seems that the Committee of
Selection does not know that Weaver Vale is not in
Bedfordshire. It would have been quite embarrassing and somewhat
outrageous if, because of that, my constituents had been denied the
opportunity to be represented, should there have been a
votewhich there will not beor, indeed, I had been
denied the opportunity to speak. I thank you for your attempts to
correct the situation, Mr. Gale. You have indeed acted
fairly.
Earlier,
reference was made to the fact that there was a great battalion on the
Labour Benches to deal with the matter. There is no longer such a
battalion, but if I had been able to speak earlier, I would have said
that that demonstrated the wide understanding, at least among Labour
Members, of the importance of Bedfordshire, which is something that the
hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire should welcome.
Many have said that we
are dealing with unfinished business from the mid-1990s, when the then
Conservative Government launched the Banham process to examine the
reorganisation of local government throughout the country. The process
was divisive and much more drawn out than that which this Government
launched: a limited opportunity, for those parts of the country that
wanted to, to opt in and consider reorganisation. They were facilitated
to do so if they opted in, but in the 1990s, there was a longer
process, which was highly divisive in Bedfordshirefar more so
than the current one.
The proposals for Bedfordshire
were for three unitary district councils: Luton, Central Bedfordshire
and a Bedford borough or North Bedfordshire. The then Government,
however, accepted only the Luton proposal, leaving Bedfordshire county
council much reduced in population and revenue and with three
districts. Four councils in a reduced territory was clearly going to
become a difficulty, and many of us in Bedfordshire thought then, and
continue to think now, that the county was weakened by that
process.
I have good
memories of being a member of Bedfordshire county council, but in such
matters, we must think about what is good for Bedfordshire and our
constituents, and I have no doubt that there were too many councils in
Bedfordshire. Today, we are back to the unitary question, on which the
previous Government opted out of making a decision, despite inviting
Sir John Banham to put forward proposals. What a shame that it has cost
a decade of time and effort to do so.
It is clear that the reduced
Bedfordshire county council struggled. For many years, it performed
poorly and had one of the highest tax rates in the country. In recent
years, it has improved its performance, but it is too little too late,
so we are where we are, with the opportunity to opt in. Since autumn
2006, we have gone through a process that has had its problems. I have
been critical of elements of it, but none the less here we
are.
Others have
performed along the way but have not helped. Although we contemplate
moving forward, the process is not yet entirely over as far as some
people in Bedfordshire county council are concerned, particularly its
leader, Councillor Madeline Russell. I have got on well and worked
constructively with her on many issues over the years, but until very
recentlyI do not know if she has changed her mind
yetshe has seemed unable to accept the reality of the
situation,
and the county continues to press on with its judicial review. I think
that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said that he supported
the review, but he also expressed concern about costs. We now know that
the process of judicial review has cost well over £500,000, not
including the staff costs of members of Bedfordshire county
council.
Alistair
Burt:
I pay tribute to Councillor Madeline Russell for the
effort that she has made in the past couple of years to improve the
county councils performance, as the hon. Gentleman said. As I
said, I entirely support the county council in taking the judicial
review forward, because of the botched decision made in July 2007. If a
clear decision had been taken by the hon. Gentlemans
Government, we would not be here, and if there had not been a case for
judicial review, it would have been thrown out at the earliest possible
stage. The costs that he mentioned should be laid at the
Ministers door, and the hon. Gentleman should, like me, be
asking for the money to be returned to the taxpayers of Bedfordshire,
as the costs were caused by not the county council, but the
Government.
Patrick
Hall:
What happened in Bedfordshire last summer was led by
Bedfordshire county council. All three districts and the county council
agreed before the decision was announced in July that whatever the
outcome, they would all respect it. The decision was initiated by
Bedfordshire county council, and the districts went along with it, but
when it came to the actual decision, the county council was the first
to renege on it, and was then minded to launch its judicial review.
That is where we still areunfortunately, the matter has not yet
been resolvedand until the order takes effect, Bedfordshire can
still waste vast sums of money. Once the order takes effect, its
spending on single projects will be cappedat £100,000, I
believe. However, we are not quite finished
yet.
I noted the
comments of my hon. Friend the Minister about all the council leaders
in Bedfordshire, but a bit more co-operation is needed to reassure the
districts that the county council will co-operate on the shadow
executive arrangements at both officer and councillor level so that we
can put behind us some of the nonsense that has gone on, in terms of
campaigns, advertisements and all sorts of things that waste public
money, and get on with our task in the remaining months of reassuring
staff, local businesses and local voluntary organisations such as
parishes that there will be as strong a set as possible of two unitary
district councils working for the people of Bedfordshire from April
next year. Unfortunately, the current mood has promoted too much
instability and uncertainty, and the time for that is at an end. I hope
that the House, in the vote tomorrow night, and the other place, in its
vote the day after, will send a clear message that people need to work
together.
It would be
useful to have reassurance on a number of issues. I do not know what
role the Minister or the Department will have, so assuming the order
goes through, what influence will the Government have, if influence is
necessary? They might not particularly want to have any influence, but
if there are indications of a lack of co-operation, what influence will
my hon. Friend have over the requirement or necessity for joint
arrangements to be put in place in relation to the issues raised by hon.
Members, such as social services, health and education? From talking to
people in Bedfordshire and council leaders from all parties, I believe
that joint arrangements will be seriously contemplated. When the
unitaries are established, will it be left entirely to them to decide
how such arrangements are to be arrived at? Alternatively, as I believe
should be the case, will work on that be done before so that we hit the
ground running next April? I hope that there will be signs that those
matters will be dealt with in a constructive way over the next few
weeks because they are too important to be left until next year, which
I am concerned might
happen.
After the next
couple of days, I hope that the message will finally sink in in
Bedfordshire, including at county hall. The time for posturing and
gestures is over. The people of Bedfordshire want the best for the
future and expect elected politicians of whatever party to try to
deliver that. From April next year, it is important that we have the
best possible arrangements for local government in place. Many staff
will still be required to continue with their jobs. However, there will
be some changes and, of course, there will be opportunities for
efficiencies.
My final
point is about cost savings. A number of people have made promises
about cutting council tax, but I have never associated myself with such
statements. Council tax cuts will not necessarily happen, but the
important point is that more efficient council structures could lead to
a more cost-effective use of existing resources. After all, Bedford is
part of a growth area and the county town. It will now be a county town
with enhanced powers, rather than being reduced to town council status,
as would have happened if Bedfordshire had become a
unitary.
5.47
pm
Mrs.
Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con): I join other hon.
Members representing Bedfordshire in expressing my gratitude for the
members who have worked as councillors and the officers who have been
in a state of uncertainty over the past 18 months or so. They have not
known whether or not their jobs would continue and, as has been said,
many have already left. That raises again the difficult issue of the
procrastination that has taken place throughout the whole process. What
has concerned me about the procrastination is the expense, as has been
highlighted. Whenever local authorities and government are involved and
nothing seems to happen for a long time, there will always be large
amounts of money involved. That has been the case and I would like to
see an end to it.
We
know that the change order and the judicial review are going through,
so everything is not yet in place. In relation to the change order, if
we need further legislation or a Bill to be introduced, I urge the
Minister to do so with some speed. I would like to see a new broom
sweeping through Bedfordshire. If we are to have the unitary
authorities, let us make the most of the change that is about to take
place. I would like to see education and health working hand in hand in
some kind of renewed partnership, particularly in relation to children
with special needs. I would like there to be more synergy between the
education and health departments in relation to speech and language
therapists. Provision should be made for children with special needs.
However, that does not happen to a great degree in Bedfordshire or in
any borough across the country.
A new unitary authority is a way
of saying, Lets have a new drawing board and look at
how services are provided, who provides them and how theyre
paid for, and lets improve on them. In some areas,
those services are not as good as we would like them to be. I see this
as a great opportunity that needs to be seized, particularly in
relation to children with special needs. Good decisions happen only
with momentum and with a sense of urgency and speed. If we enter a
longer period of procrastination, some of the urgency and importance
attached to these decisions and the new provisions may be lost in the
indolence of procrastination. For the sake of better services, for the
benefit of children with special needs, for the benefit of the services
and the people who will be working in those departments, I urge the
Minister to let us move with some
speed.
Regarding
policing, Bedfordshire police did not do terribly
well in a recent poll. It is not the best performing police force in
the country. The chief constable has identified the weak spots, and she
has introduced some good measures to address those and to try to bring
the force back up to a good standard of provision. The last thing the
force needs is continued uncertainty, or further procrastination. For
the sake of the policing in Bedfordshire, I ask the Minister for
speed.
Almost every
provision for residents in Bedfordshire, the primary care trust, the
strategic health authority, the setting of their council tax banding,
the emptying of their bins, and their health, education and social
services and services for the more needy are all dependent on how well
the authority is formed, the working between the existing councils and
authorities, the efficiency of handover of services and the speed with
which it all happens. Everything that benefits residents in
Bedfordshire is dependent on the Minister guaranteeing and ensuring
that an efficient process takes place from now on. Unfortunately that
has not happened up to now. I will now conclude my speech, and would
like the Ministers reassurance that he will personally
supervise what happens in the new unitary authorities and keep an eye
on the detail and on the speed with which it
happens.
5.52
pm
John
Healey:
We have had a good debate. I pay tribute to
Members on all sides for the constructive contribution that they have
made, while still raising some of the difficult questions that are part
and parcel of the Committees scrutiny
role.
My hon. Friend
the Member for Bedford described this as unfinished
business from the previous local government reorganisation,
under the previous Government. The Committee can finish that business
this afternoon. I welcome the reassurance from both Opposition parties
that they do not propose to oppose the order. Regarding the time that
it has taken to get to this point, I explained in my opening remarks
the complexities of the situation in Bedfordshire, and have
at each stage looked to make decisions but also to allow proper
consultation and a chance for views to be expressed. With Bedfordshire,
we have rightly been required to go through stages that were not
required elsewhere. I reassure the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire
that although I will not personally supervise the arrangements over the
next year I will follow them closely. I am conscious of the uncertainty
that there has been, and I hope that this afternoon will signal a fresh
start, which will allow things to move smoothly and rapidly towards the
establishment of the new
councils.
The
hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the impact on parish council
elections. He will see that the orders specify that the parish council
elections that were due to be held in 2008 will be cancelled along with
the district ones, and moved to coincide with elections to the new
unitary authorities in 2009. The term of office for parish councillors
will be amended accordingly, to avoid unnecessary duplication. The
election cycles of all other parishes will be brought into step with
the proposed cycle for elections to the unitary councils, which will be
in 2011 and then every four
years.
I made it clear
in my opening remarks that all councils concerned were consulted on the
content of the draft orders and they all wanted whole-council
elections, which is reflected and provided for in the order. Doubtless
the Chairmen of the Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory
Instruments and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments will take
note of the comments that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire
made about Members in the areas affected not being consulted as part of
their deliberations.
I
should answer the three questions on schools, police authorities and
NHS scrutiny that the hon. Gentleman asked. The order requires that all
councils co-operate during the transition period, not only with each
other, but with the shadow authorities. Any decisions on school
reorganisation that are taken in the next year should be taken in the
context of that expectation and duty. Such decisions should therefore
be taken in consultation with the implementation executives in the two
potential unitary areas. I see no reason why council reorganisation
should delay any schools reorganisation if decisions are approached in
such a way.
Clearly,
the police authority membership will need to be adjusted in future to
reflect the fact that members will not be drawn from the existing
county council but from the two new unitaries, and there are plans,
which hon. Members may wish to take up with the implementation
executives, for joint arrangements to establish good scrutiny of the
NHS in the Bedfordshire area.
On costs, which the hon. Member
for North-East Bedfordshire mentionedI appreciate that he did
not press me to publish the advice that I have received as a
MinisterI shall write to him the main details of the assessment
of savings and the financial case that were provided to me. The
financial case is only part of the reorganisation case set out in the
order. As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire suggested, the new
unitaries provide an opportunity to deliver services and involvement to
reflect community aspirations in a different way, which is precisely
what we are looking
for. The implementation executives will prepare and publish their plans
as soon as practicable following the approval of the order by
Parliament.
This is
fresh start for Bedfordshire, as the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire said. I hope that all the councillors on the current
councils will offer their full support to the transition preparations
and that we get the full co-operation, as the order requires, that is
necessary for implementation from the current councils. If that
happensI will work as closely as
necessary with themthe new unitary authorities should become the
flagship authorities that we want to see in this country, providing
good governance for the residents, communities and businesses of
Bedfordshire.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Bedfordshire (Structural
Changes) Order 2008.
Committee rose at two minutes
to Six
oclock.