The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mrs.
Janet Dean
Brown,
Lyn
(West Ham) (Lab)
Burden,
Richard
(Birmingham, Northfield)
(Lab)
Cruddas,
Jon
(Dagenham) (Lab)
Davies,
David T. C.
(Monmouth)
(Con)
Flynn,
Paul
(Newport, West)
(Lab)
Follett,
Barbara
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and
Local
Government)Goldsworthy,
Julia
(Falmouth and Camborne)
(LD)
Greenway,
Mr. John
(Ryedale)
(Con)
Harris,
Mr. Tom
(Glasgow, South)
(Lab)
Mactaggart,
Fiona
(Slough) (Lab)
Neill,
Robert
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
Rogerson,
Dan
(North Cornwall)
(LD)
Smith,
Chloe
(Norwich, North)
(Con)
Turner,
Mr. Neil
(Wigan)
(Lab)
Watkinson,
Angela
(Upminster)
(Con)
Wright,
Mr. Anthony
(Great Yarmouth)
(Lab)
Mrs. S. Davies,
Committee Clerk
attended
the Committee
The following also attended,
pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Bellingham,
Mr. Henry
(North-West Norfolk)
(Con)
Simpson,
Mr. Keith
(Mid-Norfolk)
(Con)
Seventh
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 22
March
2010
[Mrs.
Janet Dean in the
Chair]
Draft
Exeter and Devon (Structural Changes) Order
2010
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Barbara Follett): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Exeter and Devon (Structural
Changes) Order
2010.
The
Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
draft Norwich and Norfolk (Structural Changes) Order
2010.
Barbara
Follett: It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mrs.
Dean.
The
orders were laid before the House on 10 February. They bring into
effect proposals for unitary authorities for the cities of Exeter in
Devon, and Norwich in Norfolk. I know that the proposals are, to say
the least, controversial. I also know that the Governments
decision to implement them has aroused strong feelings inside and
outside the House. That is why I want to assure hon. Members that the
decisions were made because we sincerely believed them to be in the
best interests of the people of Devon and Norfolk, and because there
was a genuine local appetite for unitary
authorities.
The
rights and wrongs of the decisions have been the subject of two debates
in the House over the past few weeks, so I do not intend to cover them
in any great detail today. However, there are a few points, especially
those raised in reports published by the Joint Committee on Statutory
Instruments and the House of Lords Merits Committee, that I would like
to raise before briefly speaking about the orders
themselves.
One
thing on which we can all agree is that in Exeter and in Norwich the
cases for and against unitary status have been and are being strongly
contestedthere are those who are for it and those who are
against it. Among local people, whom, after all, will benefit the most
if we get it right or suffer the most if we get it wrong, opinion does
notcertainly in my experiencefollow party political
lines. Otherwise, why would a senior member of the Conservative group
on Exeter city council have come to see the Minister with
responsibility for local government to tell of his support for a
unitary city council and, equally, why would the Labour leader of Devon
county council be so opposed to unitary status for
Exeter?
In
Norwich, the unitary proposal is supported by a coalition of Liberal
Democrats, the Green party and Labour. Just last month, we received
representations from a Conservative group for a Norfolk-wide unitary. I
hope that the politically diverse nature of the representations made on
both sides of the argument shows that the
decisions were most emphatically not taken on party lines or for party
political reasons. Quite simply, they were taken because the majority
of democratically elected members in Exeter and Norwich wanted unitary
authorities.
In
such situations, the Government have the difficult task of balancing
competing arguments, assessing the evidence carefully and, finally,
deciding the best way forward for the people involved. That is exactly
what my colleagues have done, and they did it in the knowledge that,
before either unitary structure could be established, the issues had to
be fully considered, debated and decided on by Members of this House
and another place. I am confident that the decisions are based on fair,
sound and well-established principles that recognise that arguments
must be weighed and issues must be judged on their merits, not just on
the fulfilment of a set of mechanistic
criteria.
Local
government reorganisation is nothing new, particularly in Exeter and
Norwich. Over the past 50 years, both cities have undergone
big changes. Until the 1960s, they had for centuries been independent
and largely self-governing. In 1974, a set of reforms created the
two-tier local authority system, from which Exeter and Norwich city
councils emerged, but the real money and real power that those cities
had held for hundreds of years had been transferred to the largely
rural county councils of Devon and
Norfolk.
Unsurprisingly,
it was not long before the two-tier system was being questioned, and
the pros and cons of unitary structures were debated throughout much of
the 1990s. Those were the days that saw the creation of a unitary
Southampton in the county of Hampshire, and a unitary Nottingham in the
county of Nottinghamshire, as agreed by the then Conservative
Government. That Governments policy was such that they directed
the Local Government Commission for Englandas the Electoral
Commission was then knownon 21 separate occasions to revisit
its conclusions that the two-tier status quo should prevail. Two of
those 21 directions required the commission to look again at the
possibility of a unitary Exeter and a unitary Norwich, although in the
end both remained two-tier
authorities.
In
the 1990s, there was a difficult balance to strike between the benefits
of focused and clear leadership for urban areas, and the greater
economies of scale that could be delivered by councils that covered
wider areas. That balance is still relevant today, although the Total
Place approach, which is supported by both major parties, is
transforming local public service
delivery.
For
Exeter and Norwich and their surrounding counties, that approach means
that, with much good will and much hard work, they can have the best of
both worlds. The cities can have one strong authority and the county
councils can have a more focused approach to the rural areas. Together,
in a partnership of equals, the two can work jointly with other service
providers to deliver high-quality services that are tailored to their
diverse
communities.
Throughout
history, cities have been engines of economic growth, and Exeter and
Norwich have been just that in their sub-regions. I know that a great
deal of such activity takes place outside the actual city boundaries
but, nowadays, most businesses do not choose their location on the
basis of a district council area but because they want to be in or near
a particular urban
conurbationin this case Exeter or Norwich. The strategic
leadership that unitary councils can provide will help such activity to
grow. Exeters gain will be Devons gain, and
Norwichs will be Norfolks, because the benefits accrued
do not recognise administrative
boundaries.
Mr.
Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): What the
Minister says about a city being able to pursue a course as an engine
for growth is fine in theory, but does she agree that if one looks at
Norwich citys record on supporting enterprise, initiative and
small businesses, one cannot be very confident that it can be an engine
for any form of growth
whatsoever?
Barbara
Follett: I am afraid that, as the Minister for the East of
England, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I might agree
with him on other
things.
I
now turn briefly to the report on the orders published by the House of
Lords Merits Committee. It discusses the extent to which interested
parties should have been given a chance to comment on and evaluate the
compelling reasons that informed our decisions to implement unitary
councils for Exeter and Norwich. The representations that my
ministerial colleagues and I received from affected councils and
others, in writing and in person, covered a wide range of matters. Some
representations argued that the proposals should not be implemented,
not because they did or did not meet the criteria, but, for example,
because the present form of governance was better than a unitary
structure, because even if unitary structures had merit, the change was
not worth the candle, or because the change to unitary was unnecessary
because reforms to how existing two-tier structures worked were
yielding similar
benefits.
Mr.
Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con): The Minister talks
about responses during the consultation period. Will she confirm that
of the 1,424 responses to her Departments consultation on the
boundary committees proposal for a Norfolk unitary, 10 per
cent. were in favour of a Norfolk unitary, 85 per cent. were in favour
of the status quo, and only 3 per cent. were in favour of a Norwich
unitary. Where is the broad-based support for a Norwich
unitary?
Barbara
Follett: I cannot confirm those figures at the moment, but
I will shortly. The broad base of support for the Norwich unitary comes
from Norwich itself. That is important because we are talking about the
people of
Norwich.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): For the sake of
consistency, will the Minister explain why a broad base of support from
people within the Norwich and Exeter unitaries is acceptable when, in
the same round of local government reorganisation, the unitary bids
from Oxford, Lancaster, Preston, and Burnley and Pendle were not
acceptable, although those bids were supported by majorities in the
local
councils?
Barbara
Follett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I will go on
to say, our decisions had to be taken in context. On the other
representations that he cites, we decided that the wider context did
not fit.
We received
representations arguing that unitary proposals that did not meet the
criteria should none the less be implemented because the benefits that
they would bring outweighed the downside of not meeting the criteria.
Those making such representations felt that there were compelling
reasons, over and above the criteria, why a proposal should or should
not be
implemented.
The
Merits Committee questioned the extent to which unitary proposals that
relied on collaborative working were feasible. Unitary status for
Exeter and Norwich will have benefits for the residents of those
cities. There will also be advantages for all residents in Devon and
Norfolk from their councils working with the new unitary
councilsand also Torbay and Plymouth in Devonto deliver
improvements for all. The Governments expectation is that
elected representatives will recognise those opportunities, put aside
their differences and work together in the best interests of their
residents.
Robert
Neill: Before the Minister leaves the report of the House
of Lords Merits Committee, I will cite a quotation from it. It
stated:
it
would be helpful to the House if DCLG would give a much more explicit
analysis of how much economic growth each city, as distinct from each
county, is expected to generate as a result of becoming a unitary
authority.
That
goes to the heart of her point about the broader economic benefits. Can
she point me towards any document that gives the additional analysis
that was
requested?
Barbara
Follett: Once again, I cannot do that at the moment.
However, I can confirm that the figures cited by the hon. Member for
Mid-Norfolk were
correct.
Before
I conclude, I want to respond to the points raised in the report by the
Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about the orders and to
explain a little about how the orders work. The JCSIs most
serious concern was
that
there
is a doubt as to whether the Orders, if approved and made, would be
lawfully
made.
The
JCSIs reason for that doubt is that if the High Court finds for
the claimants in the judicial review proceedings being brought by Devon
and Norfolk county councils against the decisions, the orders might be
rendered unlawful after they have been made. The implication seems to
be that we should await the outcome of the court proceedings before
completing parliamentary consideration of the
orders.
We
do not accept those concerns because they confuse parliamentary
accountability with issues of legality. The suggestion is that
Parliament cannot decide on an issue until any court proceedings have
been resolved. We do not accept that the legislative process and the
business of government should be halted because of judicial
proceedings. If Committee members consider the full implications of the
JCSIs view, I am sure that they will also support that
position.
The
JCSI also draws attention to the orders on the grounds of unexpected
use of powers, drafting that requires elucidation, and failure to
accord with proper legislative practice. Officials in my Department are
confident that they have followed the proper drafting practice and that
the instruments achieve their objectives.
We have
prepared the orders following consultation with the councils concerned
so that the arrangements that we are setting up are those that local
people believe are best for them. The orders provide that, from 1 April
2011, Exeter and Norwich will become the sole principal councils for
those cities, having both district and county functions. This will be a
wholly new start. There will be refreshed senior management teams and
potentially, once elections are held in 2011, new members. Those points
are important for those who would wish to draw attention to Norwich
city councils past
performance.
The
orders provide for the establishment of an implementation executive to
lead preparations for both new councils, which will be led by the
leaders of the current city councils with membership drawn from the
city councils and also from county councillors who represent areas in
those cities. To provide the necessary support for implementation, the
orders also provide for the creation of a team of officers in each
area, again drawn from the city and county councils. The orders place a
duty on all councils to co-operate during the
transition.
I
should like to pick up on the JCSIs concern that the provisions
seeking to cancel the thirds elections due in both Norwich and Exeter
in 2010 are an unexpected use of powers under the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. We gave all the
affected councils in Norfolk and Devon the opportunity to comment on
the proposed transitional arrangements for creating new unitary
councils, including the option of holding elections to any new unitary
council in either 2010 or 2011. All the local authorities in Devon and
Norfolk expressed the clear, reasoned view that any elections should
take place in 2011, and the draft orders would achieve that. In our
view, that is necessary to maintain the integrity of the local
democratic
process.