Tenth Report
Instrument drawn to the special attention
of the House
The Committee has considered the following instrument
and has determined that the special attention of the House should
be drawn to it on the ground specified.
Draft Cheshire (Structural Changes) Order 2008
Summary: The Order provides for two new unitary
local authorities to replace the existing county council and district
councils in Cheshire from April 2009. The Government believe that
the proposal will establish new and innovative local governance
in Cheshire, combining strong, strategic councils and effective
arrangements for empowering communities at the most local level.
Evidence submitted to the Committee show that there is a clear
division of views among the local authorities themselves who will
of necessity be the motors of the proposed re-structuring; and
also that there are particular concerns in the schools sector
over the proposed winding-up of the county council. We understand
the Government's wish to achieve an early resolution of uncertainties,
but suggest that this be weighed carefully against allowing more
time to prepare for the establishment of the new authorities.
The Order is drawn to the special attention of
the House on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House.
1. The Department for Communities and Local Government
(DCLG) have laid this Order under sections 7, 11, 12 and 13 of
the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007
("the 2007 Act"). An Explanatory Memorandum (EM), Impact
Assessment (RIA) and summary of responses to a consultation exercise
in March 2007[1] have also
been provided.
PURPOSE OF THE ORDER
2. The Order provides for unitary local authorities
in the county of Cheshire with effect from April 2009. Two new
non-metropolitan district councils are to be established: Cheshire
East Council; and Cheshire West and Chester Council. The existing
county council (Cheshire) and district councils (the boroughs
of Congleton; Crewe and Nantwich; Macclesfield; Ellesmere Port
and Neston; and Vale Royal; and the City of Chester) are to be
wound up and dissolved.
3. The Order provides for the election in 2008
of a "shadow" authority for each of the two new districts.
The main function of each shadow authority will be to prepare
for the transition in April 2009 to single-tier local government
in its district. Pending elections to the shadow authorities in
2008, preparations for transition to the new structures are to
be the responsibility of the existing district councils and the
county council, working through two joint committees (one for
Cheshire East and the other for Cheshire West and Chester). The
joint committee for Cheshire East will consist of representatives
of the County Council and the East Cheshire district councils.
The joint committee for Cheshire West and Chester will consist
of representatives of the County Council and the West Cheshire
district councils.
BACKGROUND
4. This is the sixth structural change Order
which DCLG have laid under the 2007 Act. We drew the first five
such Orders (relating to Cornwall, County Durham, Northumberland,
Shropshire and Wiltshire) to the special attention of the House
in our Seventh Report of this Session.[2]
In that Report, we summarised the process which the Government
had followed before bringing forward these Orders, including the
publication of the White Paper entitled "Strong and Prosperous
Communities" in October 2006, the parallel issue of an "Invitation
to Councils in England" ("the Invitation") to submit
proposals for unitary structures, and the passage through Parliament
in 2006-07 of the legislation which became the 2007 Act.
5. In the case of the latest Order, the EM refers
to the Government announcement on 25 July 2007 that it was minded
to implement nine unitary proposals which, it considered, had
a reasonable likelihood of achieving the outcomes specified by
all the criteria set out in the Invitation. As regards Cheshire,
two proposals had been included in the stakeholder consultation
exercise launched in March 2007: a proposal from the county council
for a single unitary county council; and a proposal from a number
of the district councils for a two-unitary Cheshire. The July
2007 announcement made it clear that, while the Secretary of State
took the view that both proposals might well meet all the criteria
set out in the Invitation, she was minded to implement the two-unitary
proposal as she considered that proposal "more likely to
deliver to a greater extent the long-term outcomes around strategic
leadership, neighbourhood empowerment and value for money and
equity on public services".
6. On 18 December 2007, after further consideration
of relevant representations and other information, the Secretary
of State announced her decision to proceed with the two-unitary
proposal (which is the subject of this Order), for the reasons
previously given.
CONSULTATION
7. The summary of responses to consultation provided
by DCLG shows that views about the different options - two unitary
authorities, one, or no change - were divided. As noted above,
Cheshire County Council proposed a single unitary authority; the
two-unitary solution was first proposed by Chester City Council,
and then supported by Ellesmere Port and Neston, Macclesfield,
and Vale Royal Councils; Congleton, and Crewe and Nantwich, Councils
voiced concerns about both unitary proposals. The summary acknowledges
that the single unitary authority proposal was supported by many
respondents representing the education, voluntary and community,
and business sectors, and also by the great majority of members
of the public who expressed a view.
COMMENTS MADE TO THE COMMITTEE
8. Against this background, and mindful of the
fact that in this case the final decision between competing proposals
had been taken only in December 2007, we considered it appropriate
to extend an invitation to interested parties to offer us comments
on the proposal in the Order. We suggested that comments could
focus particularly on the process of preparation for transition
to the new unitary authorities. We did so bearing in mind that
the Order proposed that two new authorities should be created
to take over responsibilities from seven existing authorities,
and that the new authorities should come into existence some 15
months after the Order was laid before Parliament. We received
a large number of comments, which are reproduced as an appendix
to this report.
9. We asked DCLG if they wished to provide additional
information about the process of preparation beyond that which
is contained in the EM. Their further submission describes the
arrangements that have been put in place already, and states that
"it is the Department's judgement, having regard to the circumstances
of Cheshire, the arrangements for implementation for which provision
is made in the draft Order and the matters described above, that
- whilst implementation will present challenges - the prospect
is, if the draft Order is approved and made, that strong, strategic
councils, and effective arrangements for empowering local communities
will be achieved in Cheshire by 1 April 2009."
10. The comments which we have received from
Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council, Macclesfield Borough
Council,[3] and Vale Royal
Borough Council[4] stress
that the six district councils and county council are now fully
engaged, at both officer and Member levels, in developing the
transitional change programme. They are at one in expressing the
view that "the Order as proposed and the implementation arrangements
which are now at an advanced stage will achieve the objectives
of establishing strong, strategic councils and effective arrangements
for empowering local communities from the proposed date of April
2009."
11. The Western Cheshire Primary Care Trust (PCT)
has also written in support of the Order. In particular, the Trust
has commented that "by working with local Primary Care Trusts
at such an early stage, the new authority and the Primary Care
Trust will both be able to engage with our local population on
any proposals to ensure local ownership and participation. The
draft Order seems to provide a framework which will facilitate
such discussions as well as allow strong and strategic councils
to be established."
12. However, other comments which we have received
are less supportive, and this is notably the case with the other
local authorities affected by the proposed re-structuring:
- the Executive of Chester City Council has confirmed
its commitment to "working to ensure that the transition
to the new authority is as painless as possible for the residents
of Chester and Cheshire", but it considers that "a further
year for transition would enable a more considered response to
ensure potential risks are identified and mitigated";
- Congleton Borough Council have referred to the
judicial review which they sought of the proposals for unitary
authorities and to a number of concerns which underlie their position.
They have commented that "the need to bring in the expertise
of the County to develop the proposal submitted by Districts and
the impossibly short timescale for an almost unprecedented reorganisation
provides too high a risk to the performance and effectiveness
of key services and should be reconsidered." Crewe and Nantwich
Borough Council have written to endorse the comments made by Congleton
Borough Council and to set out a number of additional concerns
with the current proposal;
- Cheshire County Council have written to draw
attention to difficulties that they see in relation to the timing
and achievability of the proposal, as well as what they describe
as inadequate finance, and the inappropriateness of lead arrangements
for the new unitary authorities, and also to question the extent
of stakeholder support for the proposals. As regards the issue
of whether the process envisaged is likely to achieve the objectives
identified by the Government, from the proposed date of April
2009, the Council have said that "the candid answer is that
the process is highly unlikely to achieve those objectives by
the date stated."
13. We also received separate comments from Cheshire
County Councillors, which they put forward on behalf of children's
services in Cheshire as members of the Children's Services Authority.
They commented that "the dis-aggregation of one authority
to build two will in reality bring huge disruption to Children's
Services, and especially to outcomes for children", and they
considered that achieving the stated objectives "seems highly
unlikely under the present proposals and transitional arrangements
and particularly the timescale, and certainly less than likely
than a single unitary authority built around the County Council
as a continuing authority."
14. Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, MP for Crewe and Nantwich,
wrote to us to set out a range of concerns about the proposals
in the Order. The concluding paragraph of her letter of 12 February
2008 offers a summary of the position:
"Significant concerns remain amongst my constituents
and local representatives about the elections to the 'shadow'
authorities to take place this year; the Department has yet to
give details as to how this complex system will work. This has
caused alarm and apathy amongst many of those who were previously
dedicated to Cheshire; the lack of support for the new arrangements
and the total disregard of the views of Cheshire residents, coupled
with the lack of information as to how these new arrangements
will impact Cheshire's services and democracy will clearly not
achieve the objectives of establishing strong, strategic councils,
and effective arrangements for empowering local communities, from
the proposed date of April 2009."
15. Mr Martin Bell, who served as MP for Tatton
between 1997 and 2001, also wrote to us to emphasise the extent
of opposition to the proposals among many of his former constituents,
and to stress that there was particular concern about the uncertainty
which the re-structuring would bring to Cheshire's schools.
16. This concern was demonstrated by a joint
submission to the Committee from the Chairs of the Cheshire Secondary
and Primary Heads Associations, the Chair of the Cheshire Schools
Forum, the Chair of the Cheshire Association of Governing Bodies,
and the Chair of the Cheshire Association of Special School Heads.
The authors of the submission commented that "the timescale
for implementing the (still vague) changes to the local education
authority is hasty. We are concerned that rushed through change
in relation to education will end up in worse services and poorer
outcomes for Cheshire's children." We had a separate set
of comments from Mrs Diana Morrison, a Primary Teacher Representative,
which reiterated this concern.
17. The Cheshire Fire Authority wrote to us to
express the view that "it is both inconsiderate and naive
of the Government for the Order to be issued without explicitly
recognising the impact on organisations which draw their Members
from the affected Authorities, such as ourselves and the Police
Authority."
18. Finally, we also received comments which
raised doubts about the timely achievability of the objectives
proposed by the Order from the Cheshire Association of Local Councils;
the Cheshire Community Council; Mrs Helen Carey, Chair of the
Cheshire Local Strategic Partnership between 2002 and 2006; and
Mr Will Charlton, a former councillor with Vale Royal Borough
Council. In addition, Mrs Carolyn Wilde, for the Cheshire Federation
of Women's Institutes, wrote to voice the Federation's concerns
with the present proposal and its preference for a single unitary
authority solution.
CONCLUSION
19. The Department have re-affirmed their belief
that implementation of the proposal for two new unitary authorities
will establish new and innovative local governance in Cheshire,
combining both strong, strategic councils and effective arrangements
for empowering communities at the most local level. A number of
the stakeholders who have commented to us have argued for a different
approach to local government re-structuring in Cheshire, but we
have not taken this argument as the focus of our consideration
of the draft Order.
20. Instead, we have looked at the process of
preparation for the establishment of the two new authorities in
April 2009. What emerges from the comments received that there
is a clear division of views among the local authorities themselves
who will of necessity be the motors of the proposed re-structuring.
On the one hand, Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council, Macclesfield
Borough Council, and Vale Royal Borough Council have voiced their
confidence that an effective re-structuring can be achieved by
April 2009. On the other, Cheshire County Council, Chester
City Council, Congleton Borough Council and Crewe and Nantwich
Borough Council consider that the timescale is too short and risks
damaging the provision of services. We have also been made aware
of the concerns felt in the schools sector, with the proposed
winding-up of the county council
21. We recognise that creating two new authorities
to run some of the most complex services, such as child protection
and adult care, must pose particular challenges. We understand
the Government's wish to achieve an early resolution of the uncertainties
caused by re-organisation, but suggest that this should be weighed
carefully against allowing more preparation time for the new authorities
to be established, bearing in mind the complexities that have
been identified.
1 See: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/550256
Back
2
HL Paper 34 Back
3
Macclesfield is the designated "lead authority" for
the proposed new unitary authority of Cheshire East. Back
4
Vale Royal is the designated "lead authority" for the
proposed new unitary authority of Cheshire West and Chester. Back
| 
