The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Allen,
Mr. Graham
(Nottingham, North)
(Lab)
Davies,
David T.C.
(Monmouth)
(Con)
Dorries,
Mrs. Nadine
(Mid-Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Dunne,
Mr. Philip
(Ludlow)
(Con)
Gerrard,
Mr. Neil
(Walthamstow)
(Lab)
Goldsworthy,
Julia
(Falmouth and Camborne)
(LD)
Healey,
John
(Minister for Local
Government)Kawczynski,
Daniel
(Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
Love,
Mr. Andrew
(Edmonton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Marshall-Andrews,
Mr. Robert
(Medway)
(Lab)
Miller,
Andrew
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
Neill,
Robert
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
Salter,
Martin
(Reading, West)
(Lab)
Smith,
Mr. Andrew
(Oxford, East)
(Lab)
Teather,
Sarah
(Brent, East)
(LD)
Watts,
Mr. Dave
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)Gordon Clarke,
Committee Clerk
attended
the Committee
Eighth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 21
January
2009
[Janet
Anderson in the
Chair]
Draft
Local Government (Structural Changes) (Areas and Membership of Public
Bodies in Bedfordshire and Cheshire) Order
2008
2.30
pm
The
Minister for Local Government (John Healey): I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the Draft Local Government (Structural
Changes) (Areas and Membership of Public Bodies in Bedfordshire and
Cheshire) Order
2008.
It
is a pleasure, Mrs. Anderson, to speak with you in charge
this afternoon. I thank Members on both sides of the Committee for
their attendance. I am happy to deal with any detailed interest that
Members take in the order, but I hope that I will not detain the
Committee too long, because this is a relatively straightforward
measure. It is a consequential and technical measure that amends the
definition of areas, as well as the membership of fire and rescue
authorities, police authorities and valuation tribunals in Bedfordshire
and Cheshire. It was introduced as a result of the local government
restructuring that is due to come into force on 1 April this year. It
makes minor changes in those areas, and it follows the details that we
sent out in August of our proposals to all local authorities, fire and
rescue services, police authorities and local MPs in the affected
areas. The contents of the order have since been worked up with senior
officers in those authorities. I have not received any letters from any
Members of Parliament on the issues at any stage, and nor have I
received any parliamentary questions. In light of that, I hope that
hon. Members see fit to approve the order, and I commend it to the
Committee.
2.32
pm
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): May I, too, say
what a pleasure it is, Mrs. Anderson, to see you in the
Chair? I have listened to what the Minister said and I have read the
order. I do not see anything that will cause problems, and I have
nothing more to say.
2.33
pm
Julia
Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD): I, too, shall
attempt to keep it short and sweet. We shall not oppose the proposals,
as the measure is mainly a consequential and technical one. However, I
am pleased that we have an opportunity to debate the order, because the
wider restructuring involves some significant changes, and I would
rather have the opportunity to debate consequential changes than not
have that opportunity and perhaps miss more major changes. It is right
to take that approach, to ensure that there is every opportunity to
ensure that all the details are ironed out.
I should like
to underline the fact that, because of the early notice that the
Department has been able to give to the areas undergoing change, the
new authorities have been able to anticipate many of the proposals in
the order. In Cheshire, new members of the police authority who will
represent east and west Cheshire have been nominated, and are
participating in police authority meetings to aid their induction. They
are one step ahead of us, which is reassuring.
There are
concerns about the way in which police authority places are allocated.
I understand that when the matter was debated in the other place, the
Home Office considered those concerns, so can the Minister update us on
whether anxieties about proportionality have been resolved. In the
particular case of[Interruption.] Yes, in
Bedfordshire, there was a question about whether Bedford borough
council would be expected to have greater representation by virtue of
proportionality, and whether that would be done on the basis of the
electorate or of the population. I would be grateful for clarity on
that issue.
Some of my
local colleagues are concerned that it would be cumbersome to name all
the local areas served by the new authorities. Is rebranding an issue?
How often can people be expected to name all the constituent
authorities, as doing so is a mouthful? Are there any costs associated
with the changes? However, those are only minor points, and we offer no
major opposition to the order.
2.34
pm
John
Healey: The way in which the Committee has conducted its
business is a useful reflection of the value of stability in Government
ministerial teams and their shadows, because it allows us to see the
complex and contentious issues, and focus our attention on them. As
hon. Members will understand, the order is relatively straightforward
and uncontroversial. It has been developed in detailed discussion with
those affected. May I tell the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne
that it is essentially about definitions of areas, so I do not envisage
that the formalities of proposing and composing the membership of those
authorities will involve a huge cost or any sort of rebranding
exercise?
This is a
consequential order, but I agree with the hon. Ladythis is not
always a view taken by Ministersas I am an advocate of the
affirmative process for secondary legislation. Because restructuring,
as I have learned over the past 18 months, can be complex, detailed and
contentious, it is not always appropriate to follow affirmative
procedures, but as a Minister, I tend to err towards them rather than
towards negative procedures, as they give the Commons in particular a
chance to look at important details in local areas.
Finally, in
Bedfordshire, there is still a question mark over the composition of
the joint committee that proposes the nine council members of the
Bedfordshire police authority. There are two viewpoints: first, the
composition of the committee between the three new
authoritiescentral Bedfordshire, Bedford borough and
Lutonshould be based on population. Secondly, it should be
split equally, and based on perceived need. In the end, those three
authorities have not been able to reach consensus. Both viewpoints have
been put to the Home Secretary, who will shortly make a decision. That
will enable the
arrangements that those three authorities need to work to be cleared in
good time, before 1 April. That will ensure that the nine council
members of that police authority are properly in place to do their job
from 1 April as representatives of the three authorities in
that county.
Julia
Goldsworthy: I have one more question, but I cannot
remember what I was going to say. It has completely
gone.
Andrew
Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): Before my right
hon. Friend concludes, he will agreeand I am sure that I have
the support of all hon. Membersthat while it is important that
we get the details of things such as the membership of the authorities
right, the strong message that we should send to those new authorities
is that the challenge for them is to identify best practice in all the
areas in which they seek to deliver services, and make sure that they
hit the ground running, delivering the best possible practice to the
citizens whom they seek to represent.
John
Healey: My hon. Friend is right. He will know from our
debates about restructuring in his own area in Cheshire that we regard
this as a new arrangement for the governance of the new unitary areas.
I am personally convinced that over the next couple of years it will
come to be regarded as a model for many other parts of the country.
Those authorities should seek to set standards in services, in the
leadership of their area, and in the way in which they allow local
residents to reflect their identity within local areas and make
decisions for themselves. In his own area of Chester and west Cheshire,
for instance, the new unitary council clearly provides
much greater leadershipand I applaud thison the economic
front. There are still some question marks, however, as it needs to
work harder on arrangements to bring decision making closer to people
to reflect the identity of the towns in the area so that it can become
a model in that respect, too, in future.
John
Healey: I shall give way again to the hon. Lady. I had
concluded my remarks, but I happy to accept her
intervention.
Julia
Goldsworthy: I am grateful to the Minister for his
patience and generosity. My understanding is that the order has been
introduced in good time, to allow authority members to participate in
the budget-setting process. Not only should the membership be in place
when the new authorities start their work, but there should be an
opportunity to participate in that process. Can the Minister give us an
assurance that the Home Office will make its determination in time for
the new authority to engage before 1 April, as that will help it to put
out the budget details?
John
Healey: Home Office Ministers and the Home Secretary are
acutely aware of police authorities budget-making process, for
a number of different reasons, so I do not expect any delay in the Home
Secretary considering and deciding the matter. I thought that as a
Committee we might set a new standard for proper scrutiny but rapid
dispatch of business. On that note, I hope that the Committee can
accept and approve the
order.
Question
put and agreed
to.
2.41
pm
Committee
rose.