The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Mike Hancock
†
Armstrong,
Hilary
(North-West Durham)
(Lab)
†
Clelland,
Mr. David
(Tyne Bridge)
(Lab)
†
Cryer,
Mrs. Ann
(Keighley)
(Lab)
†
Goldsworthy,
Julia
(Falmouth and Camborne)
(LD)
†
Healey,
John
(Minister for Local
Government)
†
Heppell,
Mr. John
(Nottingham, East)
(Lab)
Hesford,
Stephen
(Wirral, West)
(Lab)
†
Howarth,
Mr. George
(Knowsley, North and Sefton, East)
(Lab)
†
Hurd,
Mr. Nick
(Ruislip-Northwood)
(Con)
†
Kilfoyle,
Mr. Peter
(Liverpool, Walton)
(Lab)
†
Mole,
Chris
(Ipswich)
(Lab)
†
Neill,
Robert
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
†
Prisk,
Mr. Mark
(Hertford and Stortford)
(Con)
†
Rogerson,
Dan
(North Cornwall)
(LD)
†
Syms,
Mr. Robert
(Poole)
(Con)
†
Watts,
Mr. Dave
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Wilson,
Mr. Rob
(Reading, East)
(Con)
Celia Blacklock, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
The following also attended,
pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Breed,
Mr. Colin
(South-East Cornwall)
(LD)
George,
Andrew
(St. Ives)
(LD)
Taylor,
Matthew
(Truro and St. Austell)
(LD)
Eighth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Thursday 7
February
2008
[Mr.
Mike
Hancock
in the
Chair]
Draft Cornwall (Structural Change) Order 2008
8.55
am
The
Chairman:
Order. If hon. Members wish to remove their
jackets, they may do so. As hon. Members know, those who are not
members of the Committee may intervene, speak and ask questions about
the order, but they may not vote; only those who are bona fide members
of the Committee may vote. If many members of the Committee wish to
speak, I will give preference to them; it might be fairer if other hon.
Members were to intervene and ask questions, as we have only one and a
half hours.
The
Minister for Local Government (John Healey):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Cornwall (Structural Change) Order
2008.
It
is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hancock; I
have not served under your chairmanship previously, and I look forward
to doing so.
The
order is the latest in a batch. It will establish a new unitary council
for Cornwall. It implements a proposal submitted to the Government by
Cornwall county council, the locally accountable and locally elected
body. The council, representing the people of Cornwall, believes that
the proposal will give the best form of governance for the county.
Unlike previous local government reorganisations, the proposal does not
come from the Government, and it does not reflect some central
Government blueprint. It was developed by the county
itself.
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): The message to the councils in
Cornwall was that no change was not an option. Paragraph 1.2(ii) of the
invitation to all councils states:
“In short, the
Government believes that the status quo is not an option in two-tier
areas if councils are to achieve the outcomes for place shaping and
service delivery that communities expect, and deliver substantial
efficiency
improvements”.
The
proposal was very much driven by the Government, was it
not?
John
Healey:
It was not driven by the Government. The
invitation was issued by the Government in October 2006. Certainly, we
had previously explained in the local government White Paper what we
saw as the clear advantages of unitary councils over what are commonly
known as two-tier authorities. Nevertheless, there was an open
invitation to all councils and areas to make proposals. That elicited
26 proposals, so the large majority clearly did not feel the sort of
obligation that
the hon. Gentleman describes.
[
Interruption.
] Will
the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) let me finish? He asked a
question, but he is still chuntering away.
Those 26 proposals were
whittled down to 16, but as things stand only six of them are going
ahead. The idea that it is a centrally directed, centrally driven and
centrally prescribed process is
ridiculous.
Mr.
Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): The Minister
for the South West said that one of the key reasons that the Cornish
bid went forward, and that the Government approved it, was that it had
the unanimous support of all Members who represent the
county—all five of them Liberal Democrats. Does the Minister
share his ministerial colleague’s view that that unanimous
support was an important
factor?
John
Healey:
To be honest, and with no disrespect to the five
Members of the House who represent Cornwall, the short answer is no.
The most important thing was that support was sufficiently broad to
give us the confidence to believe that if we went ahead with the
proposal it could be successfully implemented. The reason that the
proposal is proceeding is that it met the five tests, the five
criteria, which we set in October 2006. We made it clear that we would
bring those tests to bear in judging whether a proposal had a
reasonable chance of success if it was implemented. It is because this
proposal met those tests that we decided to go
ahead.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): The hon. Gentleman
knows what I am going to say, because the Opposition said it on the
previous orders. Just for the record, however, will he confirm that
there are no objective or numerical criteria to determine whether the
tests have been met? We have raised that point on every one of these
orders, because the issue of whether the tests are met is essentially a
matter for the subjective judgment of
Ministers.
John
Healey:
It is clearly possible to put figures to the
financial criteria that we have set for affordability. On the other
four areas, we have set yardsticks or benchmarks, but I do not shy away
from the fact that a judgment had to be taken, based on the evidence
relevant to those criteria. As the Minister, I reached that
judgment—that is partly what I am elected to do and partly what
I am accountable to the House and others for.
The hon. Gentleman keeps saying
that the criteria should be more objective and that the proof should be
more conclusive, but it would be interesting to know precisely how he
would set objective criteria and what level of proof he would regard as
more conclusive. [
Interruption.
] From a sedentary
position, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggests that it
might take him a couple of years to come up with the answer to those
questions, but those are the questions that he is posing to me. What I
want to do, however, is to explain to the Committee the process that we
have gone through and to outline the reasons that the order and the
reform of local government in Cornwall are important and will provide
the best form of governance for the people of the county.
In reaching
our view that the proposals would offer the best form of local
governance for Cornwall, we carefully considered all the information
and representations that we had against the five criteria that we had
set out at the beginning. We judged that, if we proceeded, there was a
reasonable chance of the proposal being successful and of the criteria
being met.
We set five
criteria. The first related to stronger strategic leadership, the
second related to genuine opportunities for more neighbourhood decision
making and influence and the third related to improving the quality and
value for money of the services that could be delivered, while the
other two related to affordability and a range of support.
On
affordability, the council provided the figures, and the financial case
was tested against any comments or criticisms that others had of it,
before being assessed by independent financial experts whom I had
appointed to advise me on the issue. The expectation is that the order
will lead to annual savings of more than £15 million once the
unitary authority is established.
We have debated the issue of
support in relation to Durham, Northumberland and Wiltshire. To be
clear, however, let me add that we made it clear at the outset that our
criteria on support are not, and never have been, related to whether a
majority of stakeholders, local citizens or any other interest group
were in favour of the proposal. The issue is whether there is
sufficient support in Cornwall to make the change work, and we are
confident that that is the case. That is why we believe that the
proposal meets our test of support.
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): Like many of his
predecessors, the Minister will be aware of the strength of feeling in
Cornwall about its identity and the possibility of devolving power.
Discussions took place with his predecessor on the basis that we were
potentially at the beginning of a process in which Cornwall, as a new
authority organised along more innovative lines, could bid for greater
responsibility. Indeed, the regional development agency has recognised
that Cornwall is a special case in the south-west. Does the Minister
still agree that there is far more potential for further powers coming
to Cornwall through a new innovative authority than there would have
been through conventional county and district
councils?
John
Healey:
To clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman, no
specific additional powers are attached to this restructuring to
establish a single unitary council. Nevertheless, according to the
evidence that we received, Cornwall will be better placed to have a
strong unified and unitary voice for the county in the future. That is
also the view that I take from my knowledge, and the view that hon.
Members who represent some of the constituencies
take.
For instance,
with proposals under the sub-national economic development and
regeneration review, we are setting in train a process that will
increasingly allow confident, well-led, strategic local authorities,
acting sometimes on their own and sometimes with agencies other than
local authorities, to do more for themselves. They will increasingly be
able to draw down some of the responsibilities that currently sit at
regional level, and increasingly we will be looking to devolve more
from the centre as well, where there is a good case for doing so. I
think that this would be the argument of the hon. Member for North
Cornwall: Cornwall should be well placed in the future with the order
in place and the restructuring that it
proposes.
We prepared
the order in full discussion and consultation with Cornwall council. In
doing so, we took views from others as well. Where possible, the
contents of the order capture a consensus where it exists in the
county.
Robert
Neill:
I do not intend to trouble the Minister much more
on the order, but a particular issue arises with Cornwall. He says that
there were discussions with other parties and advice was taken. What
legal advice did he have about the legal status of the order? Will he
deal with the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments?
That Committee suggested that the order may be ultra vires because of
the exceptional and legally questionable use of the general power to
annul district
elections.
John
Healey:
I have read the JCSI report. In fact, the hon.
Members for Falmouth and Camborne and for North Cornwall got in before
the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst yesterday. They wrote to me
on that matter and I wrote back to them yesterday. I will send the hon.
Gentleman a copy of that letter because it answers the concerns that
the Joint Committee raises. It gives me no cause for concern, as the
Minister responsible, that we should not be proceeding in this way. If
he wishes, I will touch on that again in a
moment.
The order
provides, first, that from 1 April 2009 there will be a single tier of
local government in Cornwall. Secondly, it provides for the existing
district councils to be dissolved on that date. From that date, the
county council will be transformed into a new unitary authority, having
both district and county
functions.
Matthew
Taylor (Truro and St. Austell) (LD): I think that the
Minister is aware that an issue arises in relation to transformation.
Perhaps he can touch on it. The bid was about setting up a new
authority that brought together district and county. The order, for
technical reasons that I understand, in effect keeps alive the
statutory basis of the county and not the districts. Can the Minister
explain why the order is in that form and give some reassurance, if
that is appropriate, that this is intended to be a new authority and
not simply the county council expanding its
remit?
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman is right to press me on that
point. Our intention from the start and our prescription have been
clear. We are looking for the establishment of a new authority. We are
not looking for the county council in any way to carry on as it has
been or for it to see this as a takeover. Everything that we are
setting out as an expectation, and that we can require in the detail of
the programme of implementation under the order, will underline
that.
Technically,
we could have dissolved the county and the districts together. We
looked at that option, but in the end, on the balance of the arguments
and given the complexities and legal technicalities of providing for a
transfer of all the staff and assets, our judgment
was that the better option, in practical terms, was the legal solution
by which, technically, the county would continue as an authority. We
are using that technical formula, but we are clear that we do not
expect the county council in Cornwall to carry on as before. We are
looking for a new authority with new staff. I think that the
people of Cornwall will rightly be looking for no
less.
Of
course, new members might be leading the authority from 2009, and the
senior managers responsible for it will also be thoroughly overhauled
as part of the process. The order, as part of the transition, provides
for an implementation executive to be led by the county council as the
proposing authority, but with membership drawn both from the county and
all the district councils. It requires that the transitional functions
should be discharged by the implementation executive until 1 April next
year, at which point the functions, assets and liabilities of the
district councils are to be transferred to the new unitary Cornwall
council.
The first
election to the new council will be in May 2009, in keeping with the
normal county electoral cycle. That is also set out in the order. The
advantage—the proposing authority argued this strongly—of
elections in May 2009 rather than May 2008 is that the Electoral
Commission could undertake the necessary review of the electoral wards
to ensure that the newly elected members would be based on wards that
better reflected communities and neighbourhoods in the
area.
Julia
Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD): Will the
Minister shed some light on the time scale to which the boundary
committee for England needs to work? We are concerned that we are now
tightly against its deadline and that if we do not meet it we shall
have the worst of all worlds—elections on the existing
boundaries in
2009.
John
Healey:
I have a lot of confidence in the boundary
committee. Clearly, it cannot formally start its work until the House
and the other place have passed the order. As soon as that is done, the
boundary committee will be ready to begin work. It aims to have
completed the work by this time next year at the latest, and it is
clear that one of the main objectives, certainly with respect to
timing, is to ensure that any appropriate changes can be made to enable
the 2009 elections to be based on new ward
arrangements.
The
order also provides for the cancellation of the district council
elections that would have taken place in May this year by thirds. That
applies to Penwith district council only, where a third of members were
due for re-election in May. We now move on to the territory covered by
the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the Joint Committee
on Statutory Instruments. To proceed in May with elections of members
to district councils that will be wound up at the end of March next
year would in the view of the Government be potentially confusing and
damaging to the process of democracy.
We have
explained why we take that view in our memorandum to the Joint
Committee. In such circumstances, the purpose of the elections would be
open to question. Candidates elected under such circumstances would
certainly not have many of the key functions that those who have been
elected would normally be expected to have and to undertake, such as
setting budgets and council taxes for the following year.
There is then
the question of whether candidates would be prepared to stand in such
circumstances. If they did stand, however, there would then be the
question of potential confusion and damage to the election process
itself, because people would be invited to vote for candidates whose
functions and term of office, which would be less than a year, would be
unusually limited. Another, albeit secondary issue, is that there would
be a question mark over whether it would be a sensible use of resources
to undertake such a process for a relatively restricted and rather
unusual purpose.
Andrew
George:
I am grateful to the Minister for his
explanation of the issue. Given that Penwith falls entirely within my
constituency, and given his earlier remark that this process is being
driven locally, rather than by the Government, will he tell us to what
extent his Department consulted Penwith district council before
reaching its conclusions?
John
Healey:
I was prepared to consider any information that I
had, but I had to take a decision in the end, and I have set that
decision out. There is a powerful case for cancelling Penwith’s
election for a third of its members, and it is reasonably widely
recognised in Cornwall that that is a sensible thing to
do.
There is also the
issue raised by the JCSI of whether cancelling district elections in
this way would be intra vires. I have explained the position in my
letter to the two hon. Members who wrote to me yesterday and I shall
certainly copy a letter to the hon. Member for St. Ives, given
that Penwith is in his constituency. In our view, the order, which
gives effect to the policy, would be clearly defensible if legally
challenged. There are clear and reasonable arguments to support the
position that the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act
2007 contains powers to make such provision, as I detailed in my letter
to the hon. Members for Falmouth and Camborne and for North Cornwall,
and those powers lie in sections 11, 12 and 13 of the
Act.
In short, the
order creates new unitary Cornwall council and puts in place the
essential elements required for the transition. It provides for an
effective transition, which should minimise the disruption to services
for the people in Cornwall. It also gives citizens and service users a
good deal, as well as protecting and being fair to staff. Above all, it
paves the way for the creation of a council that should be at the
forefront of implementing top standards and leading practice in English
local government.
9.18
am
Robert
Neill:
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your
chairmanship and to see you here, Mr. Hancock?
I shall be as brief as a I can,
because other hon. Members want to contribute. The Opposition’s
stance on all these orders—this is one of a series—is
that the
premise on which the Government have commenced is flawed. They believe
that there is great demand for reorganisation, but we do not think that
their case has been made.
Mr.
Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall) (LD): Does the hon.
Gentleman realise that there was a huge campaign to get a unitary
authority 13 years ago, but the central Administration at the time did
not get their act together and pursue the
issue?
Robert
Neill:
In my experience, a lot moves on in 13
years. Recent polls, when people were given a chance to vote in many
Cornish districts, seem to have given a very different
result.
Mr.
Breed:
According to my information, 1,750 campaign
responses were received—that is from the whole of Cornwall. The
weekend before last, nearly 700 people were on the streets in Saltash
protesting against a Sainsbury’s supermarket. Getting 700 people
from one town really would be public opinion; but 1,750 out of nearly
half a million is not.
The
Chairman:
Order. It is not fair to compare Cornwall to
Sainsbury’s.
Robert
Neill:
That would be extremely harsh on
Cornwall.
I am sorry
to hear the hon. Gentleman denigrating his county in such a
manner—but I am sure it was not intended. Perhaps those hon.
Members who represent Cornwall need to talk to some of their colleagues
on the matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the leader of the Liberal
Democrat group in Penwith praised the high turnout in that local poll,
which showed 89 per cent. opposition to the proposal; he said that he
was pleased that the people had voted for a continuation of grass-roots
democracy. The Liberal Democrats should get their house in order before
criticising
others.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
Will the hon. Gentleman say whether that poll
was independently audited? Liberal Democrat Members would have welcomed
such an opportunity, but unfortunately there was not time, so it
resulted in a deficient, small and partial poll that was not
independently
audited.
Robert
Neill:
As far as I am aware, there is nothing to suggest
that that poll was less well audited or less properly conducted than
the other polls on which the hon. Lady and I have relied in other parts
of the world in relation to grass-roots
opinion.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Robert
Neill:
I have been generous in giving way, but the hon.
Lady will get her chance.
In our view, the proposition is
fundamentally flawed. The Government have embarked on a series of
reorganisations. The general suggestion that it is locally driven is
disingenuous because the idea that we really
want unitary authorities has been given a heavy steer by central
Government—nudge, nudge; wink, wink.
Ministers are
probably disappointed that so few proposals were viable, but it sits
ill with the Government’s previous stance, as suggested by other
heads of this Department. For example, a previous Secretary of State
described local government reorganisation as a great distraction; and a
former Chief Secretary to the Treasury questioned the economic
viability of reorganisation, saying that the risk was that the Treasury
might not be able to afford it.
Regrettably, whatever the
Government’s good intentions, those who have lived through
previous local government reorganisations, as many hon. Members have
done, find that transitional costs are often much more than we thought
they would be; that the savings are much less; that bureaucracy has
grown rather than reduced; and that democratic accountability is hard
to maintain, particularly in large rural areas. We are not convinced by
the Government’s argument that, either in general or in this
particular case, there is a real groundswell of opinion or a consensus.
We think that much more caution is necessary.
I am grateful to the Minister
for saying that he will send a copy of the letter about the legal
arguments. I look forward to reading it, although it is still an issue.
I can understand his point that there may be perfectly sound pragmatic
reasons, that we can all see, as to whether we should have an election
for an authority that might have a short shelf life. I do not think
that, but I take his argument on board. However, that does not deal
adequately with the question of legal probity, and there may be a legal
defence.
In most of
the cases that we lawyers come across, a defence can be mounted, but
whether it is likely to be successful or viable is a different matter;
it may involve expensive and time-consuming litigation. I question
whether it is desirable, as a matter of principle, to extend the
general power incrementally through the use of legislation, each little
bit of which might hold up in court if judicially reviewed, as it might
lead overall to a considerable increase. I have a real worry about the
principle of using a general power in this
case.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am intrigued as to what approach the hon.
Gentleman took on the issue yesterday, with regard to the situation in
Northumberland. Did he raise the same issues then? What position did he
take when it came to voting on the
matter?
Robert
Neill:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I took exactly the
same approach on the general proposition; we thought it ill-served, as
did the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench team. First, there is a difference
in relation to the use of the general power under the order, but that
is a separate consideration that relates only to Cornwall and
Shropshire. Secondly, for purely pragmatic reasons, there is a
difference in the time scale for implementation between 2008, the year
that is upon us, and 2009. That is why it will not surprise the
Minister to hear that we remain unconvinced by the overall scheme. I
shall not repeat points that have been rehearsed before; I know other
hon. Members want to make more specific ones. We do not believe that
the case for change has been made. In any instance, the onus of proof
is on those who propose change, and the onus is not met in
this case.
9.25
am
Julia
Goldsworthy:
It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr. Hancock. If I may seek your indulgence for
a moment, I thought it would be useful to set the context of the
debate. The Liberal Democrats believe that Cornwall is a unique place,
and it might help if the Committee could understand that, especially in
the light of the comments by the hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst. It is clear that the Conservatives do not understand the
political context and they certainly did not understand
Cornwall’s uniqueness when they were in
Government.
Cornwall
is unique. One can tell simply from looking at a map: geographically it
is easily distinguishable. That has had significant knock-on effects
for its cultural and economic identity. That was a key reason for
Cornwall’s recognition as an objective 1 area for additional
funding. The differences between the economies of Cornwall and its
immediate neighbour, Devon, were so dramatic that it needed special
recognition. Its uniqueness is widely
acknowledged.
There is
a political heritage associated with that background too. My hon.
Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed)
referred to it earlier. There has been a long history of calls, on a
cross-party basis, for Cornwall to have a more distinctive voice, and
recognition of its special needs. For many people, Cornwall needed
additional powers and strong representation at a county-wide level, to
make its views heard and make progress.
In addition to all of that,
there is frustration at some of the complexities and duplications in
the existing system of local government. In some cases, local
government at town and parish level has been seen as devalued. People
come to my surgery frustrated about things that are entirely caused by
the current local government structure. I regularly give the example of
someone who came to see me concerned that the main road along Falmouth
sea front was not being maintained properly, and wanting to ensure that
it would be. The natural thing to do was to write to the county
council, which controls highways and is responsible for keeping them
clear.
I was,
however, sent on a circular journey, because it turned out that,
because the area in question is so crucial to tourism, the town council
had wanted more of a say in making sure the road was kept clean. The
county council, being entirely reasonable, said that was fine and
provided a pot of money to enable that work to be done when it was
thought necessary. The money went from the county council to the town
council, which subcontracted the cleaning to the district council. To
find out who would clean the road, I went round in a circle and spoke
to people at every level of local government.
People see the present process
as a way of reforming such duplications and inefficiencies, which exist
at all levels, such as with regard to numbers of officers. Is it
efficient for the county to have seven chief executives? Those
questions are valid ones and have framed the debate on local government
reorganisation and the opportunities presented by the bid. There was a
broad feeling that the invitation from Government to submit proposals
was an opportunity to resolve some of those issues and at least to
start a process of addressing some of the fundamental ones.
The result was
that both the district and county councils submitted proposals in
response to the invitation. That demonstrates that both saw the
mechanism, albeit flawed and imperfect, as an opportunity to get closer
to the aim of a stronger voice and more powers for Cornwall. However,
there were constraints on the process. There have been huge
frustrations with the time scale and the way in which it constrained
more widespread and independently audited consultation on the
process.
Some of the
early frustrations were about the limitations imposed on the number of
councillors that could be suggested in proposals. The options presented
were either having the same number of councillors at a county council
level as we already have, or having the same number of councillors as
we have at district level, both of which were entirely unsatisfactory.
Neither the county nor the district bids were perfect because of those
constraints, but it was clear to me that the county council bid had the
best opportunity of being taken forward
successfully.
The
process has been far from perfect and has been incredibly difficult for
everyone. There is still huge uncertainty at the parish and town level
about what the process could achieve and with understanding its
potential. Staff at district and county level face huge uncertainty:
they know that the changes will make a significant difference to the
way in which the county is governed. There is also uncertainty among
the public about exactly what the process will deliver. That is why the
Minister must clarify a series of important issues.
There have been successes
throughout the process. It is incredibly welcome that a new authority
will be created with a different number of members at the county
council level. That is fundamentally important because we have a
population of 500,000 to represent. The population is dispersed across
the county, which is made up of a series of market towns. There is no
central hub, so it is important that each area feels that it will have
adequate representation on the strategic board and that there will be
significant enough momentum at a local level to drive decision making
at a local level. Having 82 members simply was not enough, so that is
welcome.
There are
also huge frustrations with the time scale. We are concerned about what
will happen if there is any further delay to the process, because we
are very close to the boundary review timetable. I would appreciate it
if the Minister commented on this specific point. If instructions are
not received shortly, the boundary review will not be completed in
time, and I am concerned what impact any further delay in this place
could have on that process. We are approaching a recess. If there is a
Division today, there will not be a deferred Division until Wednesday.
What is the latest date that the order could be laid and what knock-on
impact could that have on the boundary review process? We are very
worried about that. If that happened and we did not get the boundary
review, that would leave us in the worst of all worlds. It is
absolutely critical that if we are to have a new authority, it should
be delivered with new boundaries and a larger number of
councillors.
There
are other frustrations with the limitations on the powers that the
Government are prepared to devolve. Hon. Members have raised the issue
of Cornwall being increasingly recognised as having a separate economic
identity. That has been reflected in the objective 1 funding from Europe
and has increasingly been reflected by the regional development agency.
There is still frustration, however, that we have not gone as far as we
would like to with the process of drawing down additional powers and
achieving the double devolution that the Government like to talk about
so much.
Having given
that potted history of how we reached this point, I emphasise that it
has been a difficult history: we have seen some progress, but there are
still frustrations. Currently, there is a real sense that the changes
will happen and everyone has accepted that there will be elections to
the new authority in 2009, so there is momentum. There is also
co-operation on the implementation executive from the districts and
county; there is real cross-party work to make the best of the
situation. That is reflected in the make-up of the implementation
executive and its
work.
In
the context of the order, however, concerns still need to addressed.
This was raised earlier, but it is important to re-emphasise it: only
the districts are abolished; the county is not. The Minister gave the
legal explanation for that, but there are concerns that this will be
seen as a county takeover. I would appreciate his comments on what he
could do to emphasise that that is the case purely on a legal basis and
that in fact the existing councils are being abolished and a new one is
being created. That is a very important issue locally, so I would
appreciate his comments. Of course it needs to be demonstrated at local
level, but the whole process could be supported by what happens in
relation to measures that we debate in this place as
well.
Parish council
elections are another example of an issue on which the Minister could
facilitate the process of showing and underlining the extent to which
there will be real change and additional powers will be pushed down to
a more local level. Parish and town councils need to play a role
themselves in maximising the opportunity that the reorganisation
presents. To varying degrees, parish and town councils throughout the
county are trying to make the most of that opportunity, but that
process is being undermined by the proposal in the order not to hold
any parish council elections until
2013.
The Minister
talked about the importance of matching the electoral cycle. As this
process would fit in the existing electoral cycle anyway, why not have
the parish elections in 2009 as well as the all-out elections to the
new authority? That would mean that the new authority had a mandate and
parish and town councils, which will also be working from a new mandate
from that date, would have the opportunity to see it as their crunch
day to take on the new powers. Otherwise, parish and town councillors
who were elected in 2007 will suddenly find themselves working on an
entirely different basis. Some people will not even have been elected;
they will have been co-opted to that role and they will be working on
an entirely different basis. It would be helpful if parish and town
councils could be in sync with the process from the outset, rather than
the elections being delayed for another four
years.
I am grateful
to the Minister for responding to the issue that we raised about the
2008 elections. There are concerns about the way in which that process
has gone through. We need to be clear that there will be a new
mandate from 2009 and that will go right down through all levels of
government.
In
Cornwall, we are incredibly ambitious about what we want to achieve.
When I say “in Cornwall”, I mean that everybody in
Cornwall wants to see those greater powers and to have that stronger
say. This has been a highly unsatisfactory, frustrating and imperfect
process, but we have persevered with it because it provides us with the
opportunity to take the first step along that road and it was the only
game in
town.
Matthew
Taylor:
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right when she
says that people in Cornwall all share the ambition for greater powers
for Cornwall. She might reflect on the fact that most of the district
councils themselves proposed a unitary authority. There is no
disagreement on the principles; there is disagreement on the detail of
the implementation. Those are the concerns that we raise today, but our
comments do reflect the overwhelming desire in Cornwall for greater
power both for Cornwall and, within Cornwall, for local
communities.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To
demonstrate the strength of that feeling, 50,000 people signed a
petition for a Cornish assembly, which was never delivered on. It shows
how little the Conservatives understand that strength of feeling in
Cornwall if they can say that they seek to draw back from the whole
process. It is an opportunity to begin the process of having a
strategic voice for Cornwall in a way that we have not had previously.
It is an opportunity to draw down powers from the region, with which
people in Cornwall do not identify—they see it as remote and
democratically unaccountable. It is an opportunity for powers to be
delivered down to local communities in a way that they identify
with.
If
I asked people in my constituency what the boundaries were of some of
the districts, a lot of them would not know. They would know that they
lived in Falmouth, but they would not necessarily define themselves as
a Carrick resident. They would define themselves as living in Camborne,
not as living in Kerrier, but they would absolutely define themselves
as living in Cornwall. It is really important to recognise
that.
To
throw out the order, imperfect as it is and as frustrating as that is,
would derail the process that we are a long way down the line with.
This is neither the game that we wished to play nor the rules that we
wanted, but we know what we want the final score to be, which is why we
are still in the game. We need to hear in the Minister’s
response that he has that commitment, that he is with us in trying to
achieve that ultimate aim and that he will produce further statutory
instruments to get closer to it. The issue is summed up by the fact
that the order provides for a duty to co-operate with the districts and
the county in delivering the new authority. Does the Minister also have
a duty to co-operate to ensure that the process is successful and
brings us closer to achieving our ultimate
aims?
The
Chairman:
Order. Before we proceed, let me say that I
intend to allow everyone to speak and to give the Minister sufficient
time to answer all the points raised. To do that, I ask Members to
co-operate.
9.41
am
Mr.
Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I shall try to be brief, simply
because it is quite clear that Cornish Members want to have their say.
I am sure that there is a Cornish identity. Poole is in the south-west,
and one reason that we do not like being in the south-west is that ours
is a relatively prosperous area, whereas the further west one goes, the
more difficult things sometimes become—one need only look at
income per household and housing problems. Cornwall is very
picturesque, but there are certainly many areas of poverty.
There is a good argument for
having special arrangements for the governance of Cornwall to help
cultivate tourism and to access more funds from Europe. I perfectly
understand why 50,000 people would sign a petition for an assembly. I
would probably do the same, if I lived in Cornwall. My problem with the
order is that, as the Minister said, it will basically mash together
the district and county councils, but not give them any more power. At
the end of the day, the only benefit will be that, if it saves money,
additional money will be available to provide better
services.
Dan
Rogerson:
I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman
recognises some of the specific circumstances pertaining to Cornwall.
Is he aware that the Conservative-controlled town council in Newquay,
in my constituency, has expressed its support for the new proposals? It
has never felt that citizens of Newquay belong in the Restormel
borough, which it sees as an artificial construct. Actually, many
people, from all parties, and particularly from his, are in favour of
the new
arrangements.
Mr.
Syms:
I am delighted to hear that we control some tier of
local government in Cornwall. That has cheered me
up.
I agree that the
districts are artificial constructs. I think that I have paid car
parking charges to Restormel borough council and to just about every
other borough council in Cornwall. I do not say that those are ideal,
but my basic point is that we are mashing everything together. We will
lose quite a lot of councillors and local council headquarters nearer
to communities—it is a very large county. We will end up with a
single-tier authority, which will benefit the county only if
it saves money.
I am a
sceptic on savings in local government, particularly after the Transfer
of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and
everything else is taken into account. The only argument for heading in
that direction is that it represents the first stage of trying to get
more power. I get the feeling from some of the Cornish Members that
that is where they want to go. However, the order will provide for the
same local government, except that it will be based, I presume, in
Truro. I am therefore sceptical about the order, which is why I shall
probably follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst
and vote against it. However, I understand the special needs of
Cornwall and I think that a lot more could be done. I am not sure that
the order is the answer, but time will
tell.
Hilary
Armstrong (North-West Durham) (Lab): I apologise for
coming to the Committee late, Mr. Hancock. I had an earlier
meeting and I knew that this debate
would continue for some time before we got to a vote. However, I want to
challenge the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I come from Durham,
which is going through the same process as Cornwall. The Conservative
Government tried very hard to deliver unitary government across much of
Britain and came up against all sorts of problems. Since arriving at
the Committee, I have heard discussion that has not taken account of
the pain and anguish that has occurred every time there has been talk
about changing local government structures. We must start to do it: if
we simply consider waste in our communities, Durham, for example, has
seven authorities collecting, all in different
ways—
The
Chairman:
Order. This is becoming a
speech.
Hilary
Armstrong:
I am simply trying to say that there is reason
to move in this direction, in relation to this county and others.
Everybody wants the perfect way, but no previous Government have been
able to find any
way.
Mr.
Syms:
I want to wind up my remarks, otherwise others will
not get a chance to speak.
The
Government were brave when they tried to reorganise the north-east and
have a regional assembly, and put forward alternative proposals for
local government. They had a vote, and they lost it. My concern about
the proposals is that whatever the arguments about opinion polls, the
case would be stronger if there were a proper test of public opinion to
find out, one way or the other, what people actually wanted. I will be
interested to hear what other members of the Committee
say.
9.46
am
Dan
Rogerson:
It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr. Hancock, to discuss a matter of huge
importance to my constituents and people across
Cornwall.
My
hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne has set out the
history of the matter. I do not wish to labour the point, but it is
crucial to acknowledge that there is huge support in Cornwall, and has
been for many years, for a recognition of its specific status. Many of
my constituents are proud to talk of Cornwall as one of the constituent
nations of the United Kingdom. People outside Cornwall sometimes do not
appreciate just how seriously people take that—it is something
alien that they cannot understand. If we look at how Wales and the
Welsh language was treated in the past, we see that the resurgence of
people’s pride in their regional and national identity has been
recognised elsewhere in the UK but not in Cornwall. I hope that that
will be addressed, and I am grateful that the Government have finally
given some cash to support the language—there have recently been
announcements on the language’s single written form. There is
great potential for recognition of people’s spirit and
aspiration. I shall not return to that specific matter, but the order
necessarily reflects
it.
For the past 100
years or so, Cornwall has been officially recognised as a county, with
a county council. Many laws that are still on the statute book mention
a different status for Cornwall, but perhaps that is a debate for
another time. The Minister was present in the Planning Bill Committee
when I mentioned the
constitutional position of the duchy, and we might wish to return to
that. That awareness of Cornwall’s status has meant that tens of
thousands of people in Cornwall have supported having an
assembly.
I do not
intend to argue that the authority that the Government plan will be an
assembly, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne
has acknowledged, it is the beginning of a process. Unless we begin
that process, we will get nothing. Cornish people have travelled all
over the world and taken with them a spirit of ingenuity. They will
apply whatever is to hand to get the job done, and that is the spirit
in which they approach this matter. The tools are not the ones that
they want to deliver devolution to Cornwall, but they are what is
available. People in Cornwall have therefore grasped them and will seek
to use them as the beginning of something more
significant.
I have
mentioned Conservative councillors in Newquay, who support the idea, as
do many members of my party, although not all. I am aware of Liberal
Democrat district and county councillors who have reservations about
it, so the matter is not party political. Something of such
significance is bound to cause discussion and debate within parties as
well as between them. Certainly, the pain that we heard about from the
right hon. Member for North-West Durham is off-putting—there is
pain as well as gain, and many people are concerned that the pain is
not worth going through. However, as I shall argue later, the bidding
process and the debate in Cornwall have already caused a considerable
amount of that pain.
District council officers have
had a tough time considering their future, but, from talking to them,
it seems that many now recognise what is coming. They are looking at it
as an opportunity for their own careers and as an opportunity to
achieve what they have always worked hard for, which is the delivery of
excellent public services. They are relishing the opportunity that the
proposals could present, if enacted in the way that I hope they will
be, to deliver new opportunities for innovation in
Cornwall.
Through
discussions that the Minister’s predecessor had with local MPs,
the Government agreed that there is a prospect of further recognition
of Cornwall’s position, and I am grateful for what the Minister
said earlier. He did not go as far as I would like, but there was a
cautious acknowledgment that without some form of strategic authority
for Cornwall, opportunities might not be available. With it, they
should be, but it is up to us in Cornwall, and it is up to the Minister
and his colleagues, to respond to
that.
We
have had discussions with the Minister’s colleagues in the
Department of Health about the greater scrutiny role that we would like
in respect of health and other local services. There is a great
willingness in Cornwall to engage and to make the process work. What we
are looking for from the Government, not just today but in the future,
is a continuing engagement to respond to that call from the people of
Cornwall.
I have great
concerns about some aspects of the order, as does my hon. Friend the
Member for Falmouth and Camborne. The parish council issue was raised.
I represent a constituency that contains 70 parish councils. When I
mentioned that in the Planning Bill Committee, some Labour Members were
quite stunned that such a constituency could exist. The
parishes range hugely in size, from Newquay, which is the largest town
in the constituency, down to parishes such as Trevalga, which has 50 or
60 electors. Clearly, they will all respond to the challenge in
different
ways.
John
Healey:
This question is relevant to the point that the
hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne were
making. What proportion of the seats on those 70 parish councils were
contested in the last
election?
Dan
Rogerson:
Sadly, not as many as we would have liked. One
of the many reasons for that—there have been many studies
looking at people’s attitude to serving in public
life—was a cynicism about what those authorities are actually
able to do. One of the crucial parts of this proposal is the potential
for devolving power from the new authority in Cornwall to parishes, or
groups of parishes, to encourage them to take greater responsibility.
We have not discussed that in much detail today, although there has
been a great deal of discussion about it in
Cornwall.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne referred to the Falmouth
seafront, and I am sure that the town council takes a great deal of
pride in it. There are many more significant areas, which some parishes
are keen to take on immediately, while others may want to work in
groups.
That has a
bearing on parish council elections, because with powers and
partnership arrangements with the new authority and other parish
councils, parish councils will be different creatures. They will have
the potential to do far more, and I believe that that will encourage a
greater number of people, of all parties and of none, to come forward
and contribute to their communities. That is why, as my hon. Friend
rightly said, 2009 will be a crucial date not just for the new
authority in Cornwall but for parishes as
well.
I very much
regret that limitation in the order. It tempts me to oppose it—I
shall return to that. There is a limit in scope, which, as I said, does
not reflect the ambition of the people of Cornwall or the ambition in
the bid, and that is unfortunate. Many things in the bid are not
covered in the order; it is not a fair reflection of what the bid from
the county sets out in terms of what it wants to
achieve.
My hon.
Friend said that there were two bids from Cornwall. My local district
authorities, Restormel borough council and North Cornwall district
council, which cross the boundary of my constituency, were not
signatories to one of them. It is only fair to reflect that. The
district council has been a fantastic local authority, and nothing that
I have done in support of the county bid as an alternative to the
fairly ridiculous bid from the other four districts is any reflection
on what I think of North Cornwall district council. But if four
district councils say that they want a unitary authority, and if the
county council wants a unitary authority, change is coming, as long as
it stacks up with what the Government have set out in respect of
financial probity. The district bid did not stack up, but the county
one did, which is why it has my support—not to mention the fact
that it was also far more ambitious in terms of devolution.
I regret the pain that district
councillors, and particularly officers, are going through, but there is
no way around that; experience across the country has shown that such
things are a factor in the transition process. However, there is a
growing awareness at all levels that there is a huge gain to be made,
and it would be utterly disastrous to stop the process now that it is
under way. We should be honest about the fact that we could not go back
to where we were even if we stopped the process today.
Local authority members of all
parties are working on the joint group that is implementing the
proposals. Graham Facks-Martin, a Conservative district councillor in
my constituency, is a great supporter of the South West regional
assembly, in contrast to his party and, indeed, to me—I believe
that we should have a Cornish assembly—and we have corresponded
on the issue. He opposed the bid, but he is now working with others to
deliver it and make it work, and that is a mature and responsible
approach. It would be utterly disastrous to tell district council
officers, “Actually, it’s all off again,” when
they have started to change their careers on the basis that everything
is going ahead.
The
order does not go far enough. We need more and I hope that we will get
more. Today, however, I shall support the
order.
9.56
am
Mr.
George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): I
shall be brief because people with a greater interest in the issue have
things to say.
I have
an interest in the process of regional government. I did not support my
party’s attempts to bring about statistical regions,
particularly in the north-west, part of which I represent. We seem to
be heading in the direction of two separate kinds of development, the
first of which is taking place in large urban areas such as Merseyside.
I represent part of Merseyside and I would support creating a
Merseyside-wide authority that could take strategic decisions along the
lines of the Greater London authority. The Government are increasingly
looking at city regions as an interesting and useful way
forward.
That leaves
the rest of the country, which I have struggled with a little. What
people are supporting—there is support for this in
Cornwall—is the idea of pooling resources into one strategic
authority for an existing county, with each town and village
maintaining its unique identity within that. What we really have,
therefore, is some kind of federal structure in which a lot of
different interests can be represented, and that is really interesting.
On the basis of what I have heard today, I am happy to support the
Government.
9.57
am
Mr.
Prisk:
I rise to speak against the order. In my view, and
that of many fellow Cornishmen, it is half-baked, undemocratic and of
dubious legality, and I shall look briefly at that last
point.
The proposals
have been promoted by the Liberal Democrats on Cornwall county council
against the wishes of 80 per cent. of the Cornish people, not to
mention some of the party’s own
councils.
Dan
Rogerson:
First, I take issue with the fact that the hon.
Gentleman is talking just about Cornish people, because it is people in
Cornwall who should have the final say. He also says 80 per cent. of
people oppose the proposal, but no serious survey was conducted to show
that, and there was certainly no poll of any significance in the
district and borough that cover my area. I would seriously question the
biased poll that was carried out by the district council and the
evidence that it put before people.
Mr.
Prisk:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but if he is a
little more patient, I shall come to the figures, which I have with me
for the Committee to consider.
The Minister is a decent man,
but the measure that he is being asked to promote will not, on
examination, deliver the improvement in public or financial services
that has been promised. Let me start, however, with the democratic
deficit.
Cornwall
county council’s public consultation got into serious
difficulties and had to be abandoned when the council managed to get
just 665 replies from a county council area that contains about 250,000
households. Of those 665 replies, 246 supported unitary status. By
contrast—the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred to
this—four district councils organised a poll of 263,000 people
and got replies from 72,000 of them. In that survey, 81 per cent. of
people rejected unitary status. A fifth council in the constituency of
the hon. Member for North Cornwall did a random survey of a further
6,000 households, in which 82 per cent. said no. Those were different
surveys that were done in different ways, but they covered the vast
majority of the community. The popular evidence is clear: the Cornish
people have said no.
Equally, the town and parish
councils are deeply sceptical. In one district alone, 19 out of the 20
town and parish councils that were asked did not support the bid. Even
at the county hall, the Minister might be surprised to learn, only 32
of the 82 county councillors voted to support the
measure.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware how members of
his party on the county council voted and how many of them attended the
vote on that authority, because there were some who were not there to
register their
opinion?
The
Chairman:
Order. I remind the Committee that interventions
are taking up time. I want to get everyone in, so be fair to each
other.
Mr.
Prisk:
The clear point here is that it has been argued
that there is a strong swell of support on the ground, but I do not
think that the evidence shows that. I am happy to take further
interventions, but they will be at the expense of other hon. Members
who are yet to speak, so I hope that the hon. Member for Falmouth and
Camborne understands that. It is important to realise that we have seen
town councils, the public and stakeholders ignored. Unison itself has
denounced the Secretary of State for ignoring the wishes of local
people, and I hope that the Minster will respond to that.
The second reason for opposing
the measure is that the projected savings that were suggested are
wrong. The bid for the reorganisation shows an estimated net annual
saving by the county of about £15 million, and they think that
the one-off transition costs would be £19.3 million. The problem
is that the independent analysis has shown that that is not the case
and that annual savings could only ever be £9 million, while the
likely transition costs would be nearer £28 million. The reason
for that difference is that there are serious flaws in the
county’s bid. For example, it left out the costs of running the
shadow authority and, although it talks about the need for a network of
community officers, it has not put in the budget for either setting
those offices up or running them.
The Minister might not be aware
of those problems, and equally might not be aware of one of the more
fundamental differences: the county’s bid specifically assumes
savings of £11 million and does so by bringing the expenditure
on services down to the lowest costs across all the districts,
regardless of circumstance. That assumption is false for one simple
reason. The North Cornwall district, as an example, has 86,000 people
in 463 square miles and is a long and rural area. Kerrier, where I was
born and bred and which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne
represents, is an urban area that has 96,000 people living in an area
of only 183 square miles. Members will realise immediately that because
both areas—one is largely rural and one is largely
urban—are fundamentally different, the ability to deliver them
on the same cost basis cannot be achieved. It could be achieved by
driving down the costs, thereby sharply reducing the accessibility and
quality of services. If that is the purpose of the exercise and what
the bid is based on, the Minister will realise immediately that it
contradicts the purpose of the
reorganisation.
Hilary
Armstrong:
The hon. Gentleman does not take account of the
fact that if the service is organised by one authority with effective
devolution, all the back office costs are combined, and that is where
the savings come from. The evidence on that is extremely strong and
some councils have co-operated to do that. That has happened neither
here, nor in my own area, but there are good back office savings to be
made by doing it, thus improving delivery without increased
costs.
Mr.
Prisk:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and the principle
that she raises is right. The problem is shown in the analysis of
Professor Michael Chisholm, for example, who has looked carefully at
the issues independently of all the local authorities
involved—
[
Interruption.
] Hon. Members may
laugh, but he is an independent commissioner, was on the Banham
commission and knows the issues involved. He has looked at this and
said that the bid to which the Ministers have had to respond has some
fundamental flaws. My concern is that if we proceed with this
particular bid, there is danger that we will not get the quality of
service that the right hon. Member for North-West Durham and I both
want. I take her point because she is right in principle, but the
problem in this case is that it is wrong in practice.
The last
reason why I oppose the order is that it includes a plan to postpone
May’s elections. The current
county council members were elected in 2005, and not one was elected
with a manifesto to create this unitary authority, so to proceed beyond
May is undemocratic.
There is a transition team in
place, so May would be the right time to put the proposal to the people
of Cornwall. Its proponents could then say what its merits are, its
detractors could say what its flaws are, and the people could speak. To
postpone the elections until after the key decisions have been made
would be wrong in principle and foolish in practice. It would create a
council that the public had not sought. In fact, it would create a
council that most had
opposed.
In
addition, as we heard from the Minister and in earlier contributions,
the very legality of the measure has been questioned by the Joint
Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is extraordinary that the
Committee has reported that it doubts whether the order, if
approved—we shall vote on it shortly—would be intra
vires. It is the opinion of the Joint Committee that such a significant
intrusion into the liberty of the subject cannot be effected legally by
this means, so it is open to challenge. The Minister said that the
Government had a reasonable defence, but as the hon. Member for Bromley
and Chislehurst rightly pointed out, everyone has a reasonable defence.
The question is whether it will end up in the courts. Those who choose
to vote for the measure should be very clear that they may be
supporting a measure that proves to be ultra
vires.
On all those
grounds, this measure is wrong. It has been poorly prepared, it is
financially flawed, and it is being pushed through without a public
mandate. Its legality is dubious, so I ask all hon. Members to think
carefully about what they might be voting for, and what the impact of
the measure would mean. Let me be clear. I strongly support giving back
to the people of Cornwall more powers and choices. I want to get rid of
the regional assembly—regional planning—and give back to
people in Cornwall the opportunity to decide what is built in their
communities and where.
This measure is not about
devolving power from Whitehall. The Minister made that clear. It is
about centralising power at county hall. The people of Cornwall have a
strong sense of identity, as hon. Members and I know well. They are
rightly proud of their heritage and their unique status as a county and
a duchy. Scrapping local councils without the public’s approval
will not empower the Cornish; it will be swapping one arrogant
bureaucracy for another. I hope that all hon. Members will
join me in opposing the
motion.
The hon.
Member for St. Ives said in The Cornishman that he hopes to
speak against and to vote against the measure. I hope that he will have
the chance to do both, and that his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat
Front Bench will also have the courage of their convictions, and vote
against
it.
The
Chairman:
Order. I intend to call the Minister at 10.20.
The two remaining speakers have until then between them. I hope that
they will be generous to each
other.
10.8
am
Andrew
George:
Thank you, Mr. Hancock. I shall
certainly do my best for my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St.
Austell.
The order is a major change for
Cornwall, and we must ensure that we proceed with care, because it is
not just a matter of speed. I very much appreciated the contribution
made by the hon. Member for Poole, who clearly understands the nature
of Cornwall, including its poverty, its identity and its
distinctiveness.
My
hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall made it clear that
Cornwall’s ambitions to draw down reasonable and modest powers
on economic development, planning, health management and so on is not
about cutting ourselves off. It is about cutting ourselves into the
celebration of diversity. Cornwall has a distinct history and culture,
and I am grateful to the Government for having recognised that through
their support for the Cornish language. Its constitutional history is
unique, with the duchy, the stannary and other things that currently
lie dormant but remind us of Cornwall’s unique
status.
I said earlier
that the order was largely driven by the Government. The Minister said
that it took local authorities to bid into the process, but the advice
that I quoted made it clear that if local authorities did not undertake
the process themselves, the Government intended to rearrange the
structure of local government in those areas where there are two tiers.
In other words, no change was not an option.
Overall, the order is a
catastrophe for the aims that the majority of people in Cornwall are
ambitious to achieve. The order does not contain any provision for
drawing down powers, and if the Minister says that they are not
appropriate, we need a parallel process and dialogue that provides
Cornwall with a clear timetable, a route map and a means by which those
ambitions can be achieved. Even if the provision is not in the order,
we must ensure that the dialogue is
enabled.
On
double devolution, and on the local side of the issue, the order not
only creates a big county council, which symbolically sends the wrong
message to Cornwall, but draws power up to create an authority that
will result in the micro-management of local communities from Truro.
Nothing in the order enables parish and town councils to cluster their
administrative arrangements to achieve economies of scale locally, or
to draw down powers from the centre when it is appropriate for local
communities to start running services themselves. The principle of
subsidiarity is straightforward, and decisions that affect only one
community and no other should be made in that community, not by people
outside it. We want to apply that simple principle throughout Cornwall,
provided that we have the structure to do so.
I do not want to slog it out in
the gutter with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, who seems
to want to turn the debate into an occasion for political opportunism.
He may think that it is a jolly good hoot to come along and take
advantage of what is an extremely difficult situation for all
concerned, but he must be reminded that, as my hon. Friend for North
Cornwall said, two bids came from Cornwall: one from the county
council, and one from the district councils—certainly from the
council covering my area, which included Conservative members who bid
for a single unitary authority. When the districts failed with their
unitary bid, they decided that they were against
the measure. Ultimately, when it was decided that the measure would go
ahead, they joined a joint committee to make it work, while at the same
time Penwith district council pursued the matter through the courts.
There is a serious and substantial issue about the future of, and the
delivery of power to, Cornwall. The hon. Member for Hertford and
Stortford is smiling now, because he thinks that it is a jolly good
hoot to make such politically opportunistic comments, but this is not
about tribalism; it is about trying to achieve genuine progress in
Cornwall.
The order
is not only technically and, potentially, legally defective, but
politically defective. Although I appreciate that some will say that we
should be concerned about the boundary committee’s timetable so
that it can get on with its work, we, as Members who sincerely want to
ensure that the order goes forward properly, cannot be blackmailed by
administrative niceties, which is why I have concluded that the order
is defective. It fails to achieve our objectives, and it is so
important to get the matter right, rather than to go ahead with a
botched job. It is a minimalist order.
Dan
Rogerson:
Will my hon. Friend confirm, however, that the
deficiencies are in the order, and not in the
bid?
Andrew
George:
I agree that, fundamentally, the original bid was
clear about the ambition to draw down power, which was important. The
order is defective, however, and if I had the opportunity to vote
against it, I would. I hope that the Minister will ensure and promise
that, whatever happens to the order, and it seems that it will go
ahead, he will continue the dialogue to achieve the double-devolution
outcomes that, as he has heard clearly today, we in Cornwall want to
achieve.
10.15
am
Matthew
Taylor:
In the time remaining, I shall touch on two or
three key points. I was involved in some of the discussions on reform
that took place during the Banham review. I know that John Banham, who
is himself a Cornishman, believed that there was real value in having a
single authority for Cornwall. However, he was well aware of the
disputes between district and county and that, although the people of
Cornwall might have wanted change, councillors, district officers and
county officers were not prepared to go for it because the status quo
is always more comfortable. As long as the process needed agreement
between those groups, it was never likely to progress.
On this occasion, both county
and district believed that a unitary authority was the right decision.
Four of the six districts, the county and, incidentally, most of the
major bodies operating in Cornwall—private and public
sector—took exactly the same view. A remarkable transformation
has taken place as a result of two fundamental facts. Local government
right across the country, not least in Cornwall, is struggling with a
lack of resources. We see that at county and district levels. I have
sat in rooms at district councils where people talk to me about how
they will find, for example, £250,000 for one service or
another. The officers who were in the room were probably paid
substantially more than that. Such councils are top-heavy because they
are small. The costs of running them are huge and they struggle to
deliver the services that they need to. Although the county council is
much bigger and has less of an imbalance between the costs of the
bureaucracy to run it and the services that it delivers, it also
suffers hugely from inability to deliver.
One fundamental change that has
taken place is that as finance has been increasingly squeezed, the
opportunity to come together is considered to be the only solution to
the delivery of front-line services. That is basically the answer to
the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, who talks a lot about being
a Cornishman when in Cornwall. I judge from his website that he talks a
lot about being from Hertfordshire when he is in Hertfordshire. If he
is a passionate Cornishman who cares about Cornwall, he should do what
the five Cornish people sitting here did: stand in Cornwall and put
himself before the electorate. If he has the courage of his convictions
and really wants to talk about Cornwall, he should stand as a candidate
in Cornwall; otherwise, we might as well pay no attention to
him.
The second thing
that has changed in Cornwall, which is a fundamental driver of the
change that has taken place, is that people have come to understand
that there is an opportunity as well as a risk. The opportunity is for
an infinitely more powerful voice for Cornwall and a single elected
authority that can champion the county and bid to draw down the powers
that are currently exercised in the Government’s artificial
region, originally set up by the Conservative party. Such powers do not
currently exist at a local level, where the voice of local people is
taken into insufficient account, whether in relation to health,
strategic planning or many other issues. There is the opportunity to
deliver on that and most of all to deliver, through a Cornish
development agency, the convergence programme—hundreds of
millions of pounds that are for Cornwall and should be spent in
Cornwall, for which the regional development agency, Government office
for the south-west and half a dozen different Government Departments
are currently answerable. That opportunity is not in itself delivered
by the programme, but people have realised that it will be created by a
single strong council that is able to argue for it.
The hon. Member for Poole
rightly identified the artificial constructs of the districts. During
the 20-odd years that I have represented Cornwall, people have never
felt that they lived in Carrick, Kerrier or Restormel, unless they were
a councillor or an officer of the council. People believe that they
live in and around Truro, Falmouth or St. Austell and that they live in
Cornwall.
The second
part of this programme is the opportunity to devolve powers to those
local communities to give them a greater say over what they can do. I
hope that the role of the district councils, in recognising that this
programme will happen and in taking part in it, can be to help us to
ensure that devolution takes place at the local level to the maximum
degree possible. The district councils have a key experience of doing
such work. They can bring that
experience to the table; I wish they had done so right from the start,
rather than pulling out at the moment that their particular bid for a
unitary authority did not get accepted, and then opposing the idea of a
unitary authority as if they were never in favour of it in the
first place.
Those
opportunities are there. I believe that they can be delivered. However,
the Minister has to persuade us that the Government are also committed
to all of that
programme.
10.20
am
John
Healey:
This has been a good and rather hard-argued
debate, which is not always the case with Statutory Instrument
Committees. I welcome the fact that we have had 10 good contributions
today—and my own—including contributions from all five
serving Cornish Members and an expatriate Cornishman who is serving as
the Member for Hertford and Stortford.
There have also been good
contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley,
North and Sefton, East and for North-West Durham; the latter has, of
course, served with distinction as a senior Minister.
A number of
hon. Members, including the hon. Members for North Cornwall, for Truro
and St. Austell and for Falmouth and Camborne, made it clear that the
thrust of the order is generally supported across all parts of Cornwall
and across all parties in Cornwall, although the order does not go as
far as many people would have liked. However, that is an argument for
another day.
I want
to pay tribute to the councillors and officers of all parties and in
all councils who are already working to make a success of implementing
the new council, and we should be conscious of their efforts as we
consider our deliberations and our votes this morning.
I must say that the hon. Member
for Hertford and Stortford showed traces of the time that he spent in
the shadow Treasury team in the way that he made his points. I have
looked at Professor Chisholm’s analysis of the finances, to
which I think that the hon. Gentleman referred. I am aware of that
work, and that is why I got independent financial advisers through the
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Institute
of Public Finance to advise me on the claims and counterclaims on the
figures. I am satisfied that there will be savings and that the payback
period for the change will be only about two years, and that it is
therefore sensible and affordable.
The other point made by the
hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford was about the legal grounds; the
hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst laboured this point too. Let me
say to the Committee that we have good legal grounds, and very good
practical and electoral grounds, for acting in this way. Contrary to
the comments of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, in doing so
we would not somehow be extending the general powers, because we can
see that the general powers are well-precedented. For example, the 1995
order that abolished the Humberside authority made a similar provision
to the one that is proposed in this order.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and
Camborne said that she was concerned about towns and
neighbourhoods, as other hon. Members are. I suggest that towns and
neighbourhoods need to make sure that this plan for community network
areas is developed to the full. If that happens, there is great
potential in these
proposals.
The
question of whether there should be more county councillors is clearly
a matter for the Electoral Commission, which will reach its conclusions
as it reviews the electoral arrangements for May 2009.
Regarding the question of
parish council elections, which will not take place until 2013, parish
councillors were elected last year; furthermore, as the hon. Member for
North Cornwall said, in many areas there were not even candidates for
some of the seats. Having said that, once this order is passed I am
perfectly willing to consult the implementation executive, and if there
appears to be a widespread sense that we should have parish council
elections in 2009 we could bring forward an amending order to make that
change.
The
Government have previously discussed this draft order with all the
councils involved, including Penwith council, addressing all the
elements of its content, including the cancellation of the May 2008
elections. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will support the order
this morning, so that the preparations to set up the local governance
that Cornwall needs for the future can truly
begin.
Question
put:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes
4.
Division
No.
1
]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Cornwall (Structural Change) Order
2008.
The
Chairman:
May I thank everyone for their co-operation in
getting through our deliberations today? Everyone who indicated that
they wanted to speak got to do so. I thank hon. Members for their
co-operation, for their good humour and for the pleasantries expressed
to the Chair.
Committee rose at twenty-six
minutes past Ten
o’clock.
