House of Lords - Merits of Statutory Instruments

12. In conclusion, 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.

12 February 2008

Memorandum by Cheshire County Council

The likelihood of the Order achieving its objectives

1. The Committee asks particularly whether the process envisaged is likely to achieve the objectives of establishing strong, strategic councils, and effective arrangements for empowering local communities, from the proposed date of April 2009.

2. The candid answer is that the process is highly unlikely to achieve those objectives by the date stated.

Timing and achievability

3. The process, as it has evolved, means that the most conspicuously complicated of all the Local Government Reorganisations in the present tranche has the least time to bring it about, by some considerable margin. The timetable has already slipped seriously.

4. Of all the shire areas affected, Cheshire alone will have no continuing authorities, all seven existing councils being proposed for abolition. All other reorganisations involve an assimilation of District services, whereas this involves a disaggregation of the 80 per cent of services currently provided by Cheshire County Council.

5. The two Joint Committees will be barely up and running when they are effectively rendered meaningless under the current timescale, since they will be replaced by new elected Shadow Authorities in May 2008 which will themselves inevitably need time to bed in and become effective.

6. This means that all "big" decisions will be deferred well beyond May leaving very little time for two completely new principal authorities to be set up effectively.

Inadequate Finance

7. Government has been repeatedly warned of the high financial risk of the proposal to split Cheshire in two. It has been estimated that far from saving money, it could cost over £100m over the next 5 years (see the County Council document, "The Financial Reality"). The independent analysis commissioned by the proposers of the bid identified 18 out of 23 factors as "above normal risk", with key areas such as Information Technology, Contingency and Accommodation costs, presenting an "adverse" or "significantly adverse" level of risk.

8. There can be little confidence in the proposed figures which have now changed significantly three times. Even more disturbing is the fact that the figures presented in the Explanatory Memorandum provided by CLG to the Select Committee are again different from those given in the two unitary proposal which this Draft Order seeks to implement. These new figures (at para 7.17 and 8.2) are a tacit acceptance that the District figures in that Submission were wrong, since costs have now increased by 50 per cent, and savings reduced by 50 per cent.

9. It has not been possible to ascertain where these new figures, upon which the Secretary of State has based her decision, have come from. Neither the affected authorities nor stakeholders have had the opportunity to scrutinise them. The culture of secrecy is disturbing since an open and transparent process was promised from the outset, as was an independent appraisal from the Institute of Public Finance (IPF). If IPF's analysis supports the Secretary of State's decision it is difficult to understand why repeated requests for it (including under the Freedom of Information Act) have been denied.

10. Since the new councils are meant to "have regard to" their submissions in setting up the new authorities, to which figures are they meant to have regard?

11. Both new authorities will consequently begin life with very inadequate finances to sustain existing service levels and are highly dependent on quick transformation, so that the achievement of the objectives of the reorganisation and of the Order are unlikely to be achieved.

Inappropriateness of Lead Arrangements

12. The Order gives lead responsibility and control to the proposing authorities. This means the change is led both in East and West Cheshire by authorities who have no experience of running the major services such as Adult Social Care and Children's Services, which will make up over 80 per cent of local government services. This is getting in the way of effective implementation. The mismatch is becoming very apparent in the workings to date as the following examples demonstrate:

The approach to service delivery principles (e.g., disaggregation/aggregation) is still not decided

The administrative/support and democratic bases/locations of the two new authorities have not been decided

Clear and cogent proposals for programme management and an approach for developing an Implementation Plan properly resourced with clear milestones are yet to emerge.

13. There is consequently no certain information upon which to build in respect of staffing, structures or affordability.

Support for the proposals contained in the Order

14. If outcomes sought by the Order are to be achieved, the support of stakeholders (in view of the emphasis on partnerships in service delivery) is essential. The decision embodied in the Order is contrary to the evidence of stakeholder support, which was overwhelmingly in favour of a single unitary authority. CLG's published figures (referred to in the Memorandum) show that, without any campaign responses, support for the two unitary option (which will be implemented by the Order) was negligible with the single unitary authority having the highest level of stakeholder support for a single unitary authority of any of the review areas

Conclusion

15. In light of the above, there are serious risks of service failure and to service delivery and continuity, notably in the two vital areas of Children's Services and Adult Social Care, the more especially as, in Cheshire, the two PCTs are simultaneously undergoing reorganisation.

16. In short, the arrangements contained in the Order are not fit for purpose and will not deliver the desired outcomes.

12 February 2008

Memorandum by City of Chester Council

1. We welcome the chance to respond to the important issue of implementation of a two unitary structure for Cheshire. Members of the Committee may be aware that Chester City Council was the original proposer of the People & Places Unitary Submission.

2. In May 2007, political control of Chester City Council changed and on 7^th June 2007 the new Administration's Executive passed the following resolution:

The Executive deplores the manner in which the Government has approached the Review of Local Government, in that:

the timescales were too short to enable a thorough and detailed review to be carried out;
the options being offered are limited and unnecessarily restrictive.

The Executive deplores the lack of public consultation carried out on the options made available and the exclusion of members of the public.

The Executive opposes both unitary bids for Cheshire and supports Improved Two-Tier working as the sensible approach to tackle the challenges in Chester at this time and being the best option for the people of Cheshire.

The Executive will work with all other local authorities and public bodies in Cheshire to adopt the position of supporting Improved Two Tier working and make it work effectively for the residents of the District and County Councils.

3. On the 27^th September 2007, the Executive of Chester City Council met and considered the financial appraisal of the People & Places bid. Although the Executive agreed the Deloitte's overview of the financial case was robust, it was nonetheless concerned that the "financial proposals may be optimistically stated" and that they "may create a range of challenges for the two authorities leading to potentially very difficult political decisions at the very early stages of the new councils".

4. That view was largely influenced by the volatility of the public sector environment and the uncertainty of change. This uncertainty is further evidenced by the way in which the original financial case has been remodelled during the process.

5. In addition, a letter from the DCLG to Chester City Council, dated 25^th July 2007 stated "the Secretary of State considers that there are risks in the financial case as set out in the proposal. These relate to the potential diseconomies of scale inherent in disaggregating County services and the identified potential savings that new unitary councils could achieve".

6. The Executive considers that a further year for transition would enable a more considered response to ensure potential risks are identified and mitigated

7. Notwithstanding our concerns that the financial case in the People & Places submission seriously understates the transitional costs and overestimates the potential savings, Chester City Council will keep working to ensure that the transition to the new authority is as painless as possible for the residents of Chester and Cheshire.

12 February 2008

Memorandum by Congleton Borough Council

1. We welcome the chance to respond to the important issue of implementation of a two unitary structure for Cheshire. Members of the Committee may be aware that Congleton Borough Council (along with Shrewsbury & Atcham) took out a judicial review against the process for potentially implementing unitary proposals and that the results of the appeal against the judicial review are pending.

2. You have asked for specific comments on the process of preparation for transition and whether the process is likely to lead to achievement of particular objectives. However, I do want to also briefly outline some other key points which I believe are of interest to Members of the Committee:

We do not agree that there is a broad cross-section of support. Public consultation by the government was extremely limited and the public consultation that has been done locally in Cheshire shows very little support for the split Cheshire solution. In Crewe and Nantwich, for example, a properly constituted and independently verified ballot showed that only 5% of the electorate supported it, with an overwhelming majority in favour of improved two tier working. These sorts of conclusions are replicated in an IPSOS MORI telephone survey across Cheshire and various other more informal means of gauging views. The DCLG's own criteria that the proposals required a broad cross-section of support has not been established. In the letters to Councils in July 2007 the government acknowledged "mixed view of broad cross section of support." Indeed the criterion changed from requiring a broad cross section of support to "reasonably likely to have the support if implemented." Prospective support is being used as the measure of support. This is a flawed assessment method and in any case, the evidence before us confirms lack of support. The Education sector, for example, are unanimously opposed to the reorganisation and have expressed this view both during the consultation period last Summer and since the announcement. The DCLG's "Proposals for Future Unitary Structures: Stakeholder Consultation - Summary of responses" confirms the lack of support. See attached annex analysing the responses.

The financial case has been subject to challenge from a number of areas. Significantly, independent experts have predicted that transition costs will far exceed the predictions and savings will not be realised. Indeed, the government's own analysis and predictions show that the proposers had underestimated transition costs by over 50% equating to at least an additional £9m. As work progresses it is apparent that transition costs are understated, the first example being the amount put aside for members allowances to set up the new authority (potentially understated by £600,000).

This Council do not believe that the huge upheaval, huge risk to service delivery and huge transition costs are worth the benefits that are being projected. The benefits are uncertain whereas the major risks are certain.

This Council do not believe that there is any likelihood of more effective strategic leadership or neighbourhood engagement than could be achieved with current structures.

3. With reference to your specific request for comments, the following statements are sent without prejudice to this authority's current Judicial Review (now at the Court of Appeal) of the decisions made by the Secretary of State in relation to Cheshire and to the contentions which we advance in that case. They are sent on the basis of responsibility and not to be taken as an indication that we consider our case to be weak or as an admission as to the legality of the process undertaken by the Secretary of State:

Such a significant disaggregation of a County Council and the absorption of District functions is too complex to manage effectively in a one year timeframe
Given the uncertainty on the outcome of the judicial review appeal, the level of continuing opposition to the proposal and the very tight timescale it would be more realistic to aim for a start date of at least 1st April 2010.
The original timetable and assumptions were based on an absolute decision in July 2007 with secondary legislation being in place shortly afterwards. In reality the new Joint Committees will be set up in March 2008, at the earliest, meaning that an already challenging timetable is now almost halved.
There remains, understandably, a lack of clarity over whether services will be disaggregated to the two proposed new Councils. Decisions around having one or two Children's services for the two authorities and the whole administration of Education are not close to resolution. There is a significant risk that the timescale of one year will lead to unnecessary risk to key services and put vulnerable children and adults at risk.
The existing authorities across Cheshire have enjoyed very positive Performance assessments over the last five years - indeed 3 of the 7 authorities are classed as excellent. It is becoming increasingly clear that the effectiveness of the existing service delivery and community engagement will be put at risk as a result of the need to dedicate resources to the setting up of the new authorities in such a tight timeframe.
The timescale puts at risk the likelihood of achieving strong, strategic councils particularly in the short term. The appointment of the Chief Executives is not likely to even begin until June 2008 meaning that the key strategic leaders will either not be in place when key decision are taken, or key decisions will have to be delayed to the detriment of meeting the 1st April 2009 implementation date.
Effective arrangements for empowering local communities are likely to be jeopardised by the rushed nature of the implementation. Ideally communities and key partners should be involved in the vision, identity, values and development of the new organisations. The one year timeframe is likely to mean that some of this work is sacrificed in the need to get things running from 1st April 2009.
Added to the above point is that many local communities and groups were either not supportive of the proposed split of Cheshire and/or need to be made more aware of the intentions of the proposals. They are not yet in a position to fully influence the process or the transition and this is not in the spirit of effective community engagement.

4. Thank you for reading these comments. They are designed to give an outline of the major reasons for opposing the proposed two-unitary reorganisation and raise some genuine concerns on the process thus far. Aside from the judicial review appeal, we believe in doing the best for our residents and communities and will, therefore, operate with integrity and a helpful attitude towards transition and implementation. Given the uncertain outcome of the appeal and the significant delay in DCLG announcing its preferred solution it does not seem sensible to expedite the original implementation date. 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.

11 February 2008

Town and Parish Councils Public Voluntary & Community Businesses Public Sector Total

East / West Split (2 Unitaries) 5 31 2 3 5 46 5.19%

Single Unitary 15 441 24 26 48 554 62.53%

Improved Two Tier 33 196 1 2 7 239 26.98%

Undecided / "Don't Care" 13 20 8 3 3 47 5.30%

66 688 35 34 63 886

Letter from Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council

1. We welcome the chance to respond to the important issue of implementation of a two unitary structure for Cheshire. You have asked for specific comments on the process of preparation for transition and whether the process is likely to lead to achievement of particular objectives. There are a number of concerns regarding the consistency with which the DCLG criteria have been applied and some feeling that Parliament may have been misled in regard to the preferred option in Cheshire. This response relates to these concerns and also to your specific request regarding the process for transition and whether the process will lead to establishing strong, strategic councils and effective arrangements for empowering local communities.

2. We endorse the comments made in the submission by Congleton Borough Council and our response adds some additional material. These can be found in the Annex to this letter.

11 February 2008

Annex

Value for Money

1. In the letters to the Cheshire authorities from DCLG dated 18^th December it is stated "in relation to value for money and equity on public services, the Secretary of State continues to accept that the potential economies of scale would be larger for the County unitary. She has concluded, that, on balance, a single Cheshire unitary would be reasonably likely to achieve, to a greater extent, the outcomes specified by this criterion." This contrasts markedly with what John Healey said to Parliament on the 18^th December 2007 "Overall, she (the Secretary of State) has decided that it is more likely that the long term outcomes around strategic leadership, neighbourhood empowerment and value for money & equity on public services would be delivered to a greater extent by the proposal for a two-unitary Cheshire." We believe that Parliament has been misled with regard to the value for money criterion. Recognition that the DCLG has doubts about the financial viability of the two-unitary proposal is evidenced from a letter to Chester City Council from DCLG dated 25^th July 2007: "the Secretary of State considers that there are risks in the financial case as set out in the proposal. These relate to the potential diseconomies of scale inherent in disaggregating County services and the identified potential savings that new unitary Council's could achieve."

2. Whilst further work has been completed on the financial case it does not, and could not, change the diseconomies of scale factor. The further independent analysis shows that the original case for two unitary councils, significantly underestimated transition costs (originally estimated at £14m - now thought to be £25m) and over-estimates the savings (projected to be £30m by the proposers but judged by DCLG to be nearer to £16m). Our own independent advice has always contended that transition costs would be in the region of £30m but we have also always believed that there will be no significant revenue savings, largely as a result of disaggregating county services.

3. When the intention to create 5 unitary Counties was announced in Parliament on 5^th December 2007 it was stated that "the savings from these 5 proposals, once implemented, will be over £75million annually." In John Healey's announcement on 18^th December in relation to Cheshire's two-unitary proposal, we find it significant that no saving was announced. It is also significant that in the letters to Cheshire authorities on the 18^th December 2007 there was no reference to affordability.

Broad Cross-Section of support

4. We would like to refer the Committee to the DCLG publication "Proposals for Future Unitary Structures: Stakeholder Consultation - Summary of Responses" (pages 8 and 9) concerning support for the Cheshire proposals. That report clearly shows that there is little support (less than 5%) across any of the sectors for the two-unitary proposal. We would also refer the Committee to the two-unitary proposal as originally submitted when the criterion, at that time, was to show that the proposal already had support. The Committee will see from the proposal that the only tangible support detailed is that of Christine Russell MP. There is absolutely no evidence that there is a broad cross-section of support for the proposal nor that this support is increasing. Recent letters from the education sector are an example of the continuing lack of support for, and indeed opposition to, the proposal.

Neighbourhood empowerment

5. In the December 18^th 2007 letters from DCLG to Cheshire authorities, the Secretary of State says that "she accepts that what is proposed (by the County Council) is imaginative and interesting, but considers that these proposals are largely theoretical. She notes this contrasts with the proposed neighbourhood arrangements in the two-unitary option which builds on current experience developed by District Councils on the ground, in particular, drawing on best practice in the model arrangements used by Chester." We ask the Committee to compare these comments in the July letters to three counties whose proposals for neighbourhood empowerment were deemed to have satisfied that particular criterion.

6. Somerset (population 517k, area 3452 km). Having expressed concerns about the area governance proposals' lack of clarity, she (Secretary of State) "recognised however, that clarity and devolution could readily be introduced." In summary, her view was based on what is possible not already in place.

7. Co. Durham (population 500k, area 2,232km). "Notwithstanding the size of the proposed authority, the Secretary of State considers that the neighbourhood arrangements … will reduce the risk of the authority being seen as remote from local people and will enable local communities to influence decisions that affect their lives. She further considers that the proposals provide strong, 'top-down' corporate neighbourhood governance arrangements …" Again, the view is based on what might happen.

8. Bedfordshire (population 398k, are 1,192km). The Secretary of State "considers …. likely to deliver neighbourhood empowerment … build on existing arrangements … ensure that 'place based' issues in the area are raised properly." However, she considers that these arrangements involve little real delegation.

In view of this evidence from the other three Counties, it is our view that the assessment for Cheshire is meaningless and that there is no evidence that this process will achieve effective arrangements for empowering local communities.

Strategic leadership

9. The December letters report that the Secretary of State, has taken the view that, "economic realities" underpin strategic leadership, and that the East/West split of the County would mean better performance under this criterion than one Council. The Secretary of State "remains of the view that the two-unitary Cheshire would be reasonably likely to achieve, to a greater extent, the outcomes specified by the strategic leadership criteria." The opinion that the two-unitary is more likely to achieve better strategic leadership appears to have been made on the basis that the economic split of East/West is sound. We do not think this is a fair assumption nor a fair interpretation of strategic leadership. The fact that they are both "reasonably likely to achieve" seems to point to a 50:50 probability that they will provide strong strategic leadership.

10. There is very little support for the two-unitary proposal from Parish and Town Councils (with only 5 of the 64 respondents expressing any support) and yet the successful delivery of a strong, strategic council depends on them. This appears to have been ignored in the assessment. The lack of positive engagement with parish and Town Councils to date is likely to jeopardise their longer term engagement if this change is implemented in such a short timescale, i.e., implementation in April 2009.

11. We would not, therefore, agree that the process is likely to achieve the objective of establishing strong, strategic councils.

Example of a Service Specific Issue

12. To illustrate the risks to Cheshire of implementing this solution, particularly within such a tight timeframe, the issue of Waste Treatment is an interesting example. Increasing landfill costs and Government restrictions on land-filling mean that Councils need to reduce dependence on land-filling and introduce new forms of treatment. The procurement of waste treatment facilities by the County Council is in progress and is currently in the competitive dialogue phase. Eight firms remain as participants in the process with 25 different solutions being considered. The appointment of a preferred bidder is expected in late Autumn 2008 with the final award of contract in late spring/early summer 2009. The procurement timetable clearly spans the establishment of the new unitary authorities. All of the participants are proposing county-wide solutions which cannot be split into two. There is a greatly increased risk of delay or even cessation of the procurement process as the originators of the procurement programme (Cheshire County Council) is replaced by two independent unitary authorities who may have fundamentally opposing views over infrastructure issues such as the location of an Energy from Waste Plant (incinerator). Every month's delay will cost an estimated £1m and cessation would cost at least £100m due to the loss of PFI credits. How will this risk be managed when there are so many considerations during a 1 year transition period? We believe there is a strong likelihood of these sorts of issues being put to one side in order to ensure a smooth transition but at what cost?

13. Given the complexity of the procurement process, it would seem more sensible to defer the start date for the two new unitary authorities until 2010 in order to allow the procurement process to conclude.

14. Thank you for reading these comments. They are designed to show a pattern of misrepresentation and show that there is little evidence to give confidence that the process will either be delivered in time nor result in the outcomes intended. Despite our significant reservations, we believe in doing the best for our residents and communities and will, therefore, operate with integrity and a helpful attitude towards transition and implementation. However, 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.

Memorandum by Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council

1. This submission responds to the invitation for comments on the process of preparation for transition to two new unitary authorities in Cheshire and its likelihood of achieving the objectives of establishing strong strategic councils and empowering local communities.

2. CLG officials have fully involved officers of the seven existing authorities in drafting the Order who in turn have consulted council Leaders. This has been a lengthy and thorough process through which the Order has changed and evolved. We can confirm that the document as laid before Parliament reflects the particular circumstances of Cheshire and is a sound basis for the transition to the new structure.

3. We are also satisfied 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.

4. Once these councils are established, the process of change will continue to ensure that the outcomes as required by government in its invitation to submit proposals and timetabled within the transition plan that formed part of our business case, will deliver the benefits to our communities. The main transitional timetable takes the new councils through to the elections scheduled for May 2011.

5. We have made considerable progress in our planning to secure the smooth and effective implementation of the proposals. Our overall joint implementation team of senior officers has been meeting for some time and, in accordance with what is envisaged in the Order, teams are now meeting separately for Cheshire West and Chester and Cheshire East.

6. Also, leaders of all seven Cheshire Councils have been meeting regularly to oversee transition. As a result it should be noted that all seven of Cheshire's councils have already appointed representatives to the respective joint committees and arrangements and protocols are now in place for them to meet in advance of the confirmation of the Order. Induction sessions for Members have been organised.

7. In recognition of the need to maintain a mechanism to deal with issues of crosscutting interest and concern, a joint liaison committee, comprising four members representing the authorities from each of the east and west, has also been agreed as a continuation of the joint leaders' meetings. The Committee will be supported by the lead authority Chief Executives in consultation with their colleagues from the other authorities.

8. The six district councils and Cheshire County Council are now fully engaged, at both officer and Member levels, in developing the transitional change programme, including clear leadership of the various project groups.

9. The entire programme is being developed in accordance with the principles of programme and project management as set out in the approved proposal. This will ensure that there are the clear lines of responsibility and accountability necessary to achieve the programme outcomes within a defined framework.

10. The systematic approach to the planning of change will lead to the development of strong councils well able to deliver effective strategic and community leadership and empower our local communities. Our service philosophy is shaped around the needs of our citizens and the communities they live in and bringing public sector and other partners together both strategically and at neighbourhood level to deploy resources jointly and effectively. We have evolved a vision that seeks to establish high performing councils, which provide excellent public services.

11. Our strength comes from our size, capacity and resources and the wealth of knowledge and expertise from across Cheshire, which we can use to shape and monitor the plans for transition. As individual authorities we already have strong networks and partnerships, both locally and regionally and the transition to two large and powerful authorities will enable us to build on this and extend our capacity for influence and collaboration.

12. Our strategic approach is demonstrated by our intention to create a senior management team including three deputy chief executives who will have defined programme responsibilities for People, Places and Performance and Capacity respectively, whilst supporting the Chief Executive in developing and overseeing the strategic direction of the authorities.

13. Key partners are keen to be part of our change programme and have offered resources to assist. We have discussed our proposals in our existing local strategic partnerships and have already begun the process of engaging with our many parish and town councils. Consultation is taking place with the voluntary sector and the transition plans for both councils include objectives for customer access and neighbourhood working.

14. Our business case for two unitary authorities, as submitted to Government in June 2007, included a transition plan, which now has a more detailed structure to ensure development and delivery. Notwithstanding the delay in laying the Order we have every confidence that we have both the organisational capacity and financial arrangements (which have been independently confirmed as robust by Deloitte's) to deliver the change programme within the timescales it contains. We look forward to the smooth process of the Order through its remaining stages so that we can build upon the substantial progress we have made so far.

12 February 2008

Memorandum by Macclesfield Borough Council

2. CLG officials have fully involved officers of the seven existing authorities in drafting the Order who in turn have consulted council Leaders. This has been a lengthy and thorough process through which the Order has changed and evolved. As the designated lead authority for Cheshire East, we can confirm that the document as laid before Parliament reflects the particular circumstances of Cheshire and is a sound basis for the transition to the new structure.

12 February 2008

Memorandum by Vale Royal Borough Council

2. CLG officials have fully involved officers of the seven existing authorities in drafting the Order who, in turn, have consulted council Leaders. This has been a lengthy and thorough process through which the Order has changed and evolved. As the designated lead authority for Cheshire West and Chester, we can confirm that the document as laid before Parliament reflects the particular circumstances of Cheshire and is a sound basis for the transition to the new structure.

7. In recognition of the need to establish a mechanism to deal with issues of cross-cutting interest and concern, a joint liaison committee, comprising four members representing the authorities from each of the east and west, has also been agreed as a continuation of the joint leaders' meetings. The Committee will be supported by the lead authority Chief Executives in consultation with their colleagues from the other authorities.

10. The systematic approach to the planning of change will lead to the development of strong councils well able to deliver effective strategic and community leadership and empower our local communities. Our service philosophy is shaped around the needs of our citizens and the communities they live in and bringing public sector and other partners together both strategically and at neighbourhood level to deploy resources jointly and effectively. We have evolved a vision which seeks to establish high performing councils which provide excellent public services.

11. Our strength comes from our size, capacity and resources and the wealth of knowledge and expertise from across Cheshire which we can use to shape and monitor the plans for transition. As individual authorities we already have strong networks and partnerships, both locally and regionally and the transition to two large and powerful authorities will enable us to build on this and extend our capacity for influence and collaboration.

14. Our business case for two unitary authorities, as submitted to Government in June 2007, included a transition plan which now has a more detailed structure to ensure development and delivery. Notwithstanding the delay in laying the Order we have every confidence that we have both the organisational capacity and financial arrangements (which have been independently confirmed as robust by Deloitte's) to deliver the change programme within the timescales it contains. We look forward to the smooth process of the Order through its remaining stages so that we can build upon the substantial progress we have made so far.

12 February 2008

Letter from Mr Martin Bell, OBE

1. I served the people of Tatton as their Member of Parliament from 1997 to 2001. I am making this brief submission because many of my former constituents and other residents of Cheshire have asked me to. They strongly oppose the proposed division of the county into two unitary authorities. They believe that a centrally devised scheme is being imposed on them against their wishes. They feel disenfranchised and unrepresented, since in some cases their MPs either support or do not oppose a proposal that has been forced through without adequate consultation and which they believe will be damaging to all the people of Cheshire. They agree with the Chief Executive of Cheshire County Council that it is "perverse and deeply flawed".

2. Cheshire is not a large county like Yorkshire that can be easily and conveniently divided. The County Council has served it well in the past. It is neither too large nor too small to sustain a single unitary authority. There is no sense, financially or administratively, in splitting it in two and setting the East against the West. Those who ask me to write on their behalf believe that One Cheshire is in everyone's interests.

3. There is particular concern about the county's schools, which face a period of great uncertainty. In place of one education authority, which has been a model of its kind, there will be two of unknowable quality. Disruption is inevitable. The cost alone should cause the government to reconsider its decision. Cheshire's most precious asset is its children. We cannot afford to experiment with their future.

4. The division of Cheshire, finally, is profoundly undemocratic. It is opposed by people of all parties and no party. Indeed, some councillors who wish to speak out against it have been threatened with de-selection by their own parties. That is why they have asked me, as an Independent and former MP, to speak for them. I trust that the House of Lords Select Committee will give due weight to their views.

12 February 2008

Letter from Cheshire Association of Local Councils

1. The Cheshire Association of Local Councils has enjoyed a long history of effective partnership working with the County and District Councils of Cheshire. Through this partnership working Cheshire was, for example, the first County in the Country to successfully negotiate a three tier Quality Council Charter that was signed up to by every local authority in Cheshire.

2. The 'People and Places' proposal naturally makes reference to Parish and Town Councils as distinct from the Community and Voluntary Sector and we welcome that important distinction. The proposal sets out the vision which we have set out at the end of this document.

3. However, what is needed even at this very early stage is a clear strategy backed up with transparent resourcing to ensure that the parish council movement is sufficiently well informed and able to participate fully with the emerging structures. Further there is a lack of clarity in the proposals defining how effective partnership will be established during the transitional stages. Where is the adequate resourcing within the area working concept as proposed which will ensure a meaningful ability of local people through their parish and town councillors where these exist, as distinct from Unitary councillors, to actively contribute to devolved decision making.

4. In the current climate with every structure in Cheshire facing change it is difficult to see how sufficient resource and energy will be put towards the development of the necessary protocols and structures to enable town and parish council to fully play their part. We fear that there may not be sufficient time for this issue to be given any priority by the Joint Implementation Teams and the future Shadow Authorities.

5. There is an acute danger that in trying to implement the full transition by April 2009 the opportunity to build and develop a new and innovative way of partnership working with town and parish councils will be lost and partners will simply revert to previously tried methods of working which may not produce the strong and effective partnership working we all seek.

Annex

People and Places:

1. Parishes will be full partners with the new authorities and work together to address the democratic deficit in our communities. Their relationship will not be impeded by the problems of two-tier working. The authorities will carry out a review of the unparished part of their areas to establish what form of community governance is best suited to each community or collection of communities. This will be undertaken through area based working with local members playing a leading role in finding out what carries the broadest measure of support.

2. This will result in some new parishes under the legislation currently before parliament. And it may well include other forms of governance to reflect the needs and wishes of people in each locality.

3. The new authorities will continue to promote with the Association of Parish Councils the Quality Parish Council initiative through which the parishes can draw down additional authority and powers.

4. Each parish council is unique and will be respected as such. For new roles they will need support tailored to their needs and wishes. Some will take on additional services, others will want better consultation. The new councils will give support through training, central services and strengthen their role as local community champions by co-ordinating work at the local level. Parish Plans are valued, their production supported and used by the new councils to inform their local planning policies and decisions.

5. Town and parish councils should also be a significant part of Equality Impact Assessments and the consultation and research processes of the new authorities.

6. All of this will need to reflect the core value of the new authorities in working in partnership at a local level. Everything they do will reflect the diversity of their communities as they continue to find ways of working with residents, voluntary and community groups so as to create a variety of local arrangements that reflect what works best in each area.

7. Existing good practice and principles will guide their approach:

they must be inclusive and provide equal and fair opportunities for every one in local communities to engage in local decision-making
they will need to invest where necessary in community and partner capacity building to achieve this
they will devolve local decision-making and operational responsibilities wherever possible and where it makes sense.

Comments from the Chairman of the Cheshire Association of Local Councillors

8. I submit that the draft order will not achieve the stated objectives because the decision on which these are based and taken by the Secretary of State was perverse and not properly justified. In particular the original financial projections were investigated and reported on by an independent organisation. Their report has not been published and it is understood the Government have refused to make this public under the Freedom of Information Act. Selected figures only now appear in an addendum to this Order presumably in attempt to avoid further criticism. The savings appear to have been overestimated and the pay-back time extended leaving little confidence in both the decision making process, and the subsequent parliamentary Order. Certainly it is unlikely to achieve the objectives of establishing strong, strategic councils, and effective arrangements for empowering local communities where parish and town councils have a major part to play. They were not involved in the preparation of 'People and Places' the Districts document on which the DCLG decision was based which made only generalised statements on parish and town councils.

9. I would urge the Merits Committee to undertake an investigation into a process which seems unlikely to deliver the benefits claimed for the residents of Cheshire based on flawed decision making and in the absence of any recognition of concerns expressed by hundreds of these residents. I write as a parish councillor keenly interested in the delivery of the local agenda and Chairman of the Cheshire Association of Local Councils whose members are parish and town councils in the County.

12 February 2008

Letter from Cheshire Community Council

Is this process likely to achieve objectives to establish strong, strategic councils and effective arrangements for empowering local communities from April 2009?

Concerns:

Short timeframe for transition period for existing Authorities to converge.

This short timeframe may in fact detract from a community empowerment focus as Authority Officers and Shadow Councillors will be pre-occupied with the structural changes that need to be implemented.

There are also concerns of the continual referral to the new single-tier Authorities, whereas there still remains the second tier of Parish and Town Councils who have not been involved with this process of consultation and who are important community representatives. If this process is to ensure local communities are empowered, it must involve and consider the needs of Parish and Town Councils who are the elected community leaders within their localities.

12 February 2008

Memorandum by Cheshire County Council members of the Children's Services Authority

1. The Committee invites views as to whether the proposals and implementation process are likely to achieve the objectives of establishing strong, strategic councils and effective arrangements for empowering local communities from the proposed date of April 2009.

2. Our collective view on behalf of Children's Services in Cheshire as Members of the Children's Services Authority is that this 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.

Introduction

3. As a Children's Services Authority we are mindful that the Secretary of State has taken her decision and that we must now work constructively to implement it. However, we have been deeply concerned about the rationale behind the decision, which will result in the division of Children's Services in Cheshire, and the impact that this will have on schools, education and services to children. We feel this is the last opportunity to highlight our concerns and are grateful to your Lordships' Committee for the opportunity so to do.

4. Government's own inspections show that Cheshire has high-performing, yet low-cost, education and children's care services, with good capacity to improve. What, it may be asked, is the imperative for change to Children's Services in Cheshire? Cutting Children's Services in half will not deliver any notable improvements to current services, or indeed outcomes for children, that could not be better, more effectively and much more economically delivered by a single pan-Cheshire Children's Services Authority. The disaggregation of 1 authority to build 2 will in reality bring huge disruption to Children's Services, and especially to outcomes for children. A loss of political continuity, the break-up of key service teams and the diversion of staff onto change and implementation activities will all impact on current visions and services. There are also major fears about funding of services due to the financial weakness of the two unitary case, as well as the loss of economies of scale that Children's Services currently benefits from. We continue to await proper advice from the DCSF about future funding arrangements for schools in each unitary area.

Leadership and Accountability

5. Political leadership will not stabilise immediately after the two new authorities take up their powers in April 2009. As the vast majority of Unitary Councillors will be entirely new to Children's Services, and even to the role of a top-tier strategic authority, then clearly a significant period of induction, well beyond May 2009, will be needed. For the Government to suggest that a 'smooth' and seamless transition of power will be achieved for April 2009 is exceptionally optimistic, particularly in relation to Children's Services.

6. The proposed changes involve the merger of Children's and Adults' Services under a single Director. The Committee will form its own view about the sustainability of that workload when each authority will serve over a third of a million people, and particularly when it incorporates an Assistant Chief Executive role. What might also be considered is how many candidates for the Directorship will truly possess the experience and qualifications in both those crucial areas of expertise. Cheshire's schools are united in their opposition. This proposal seems to give little priority to education, ostensibly the Government's highest priority issue. While closer links between children's and adults' services could bring benefits in terms of seeing children's issues in the context of the whole family, it would be a much better idea to forge better links between those two services within a single continuing authority. Would that not be an altogether safer, less complex, and more rational proposal than trying to merge these two key service areas while at the same time disaggregating them from an authority that is being abolished, cutting them in half, and then re-aggregating them within two new authorities that don't yet exist and which are at the same time trying to create themselves from the mergers of 3 different Districts?

7. Will the proposed joint arrangements for Local Safeguarding of children and for a joint Children's Trust deliver the clear political and partnering accountabilities that the Children Act 2004 envisaged? Our view is this will be a struggle. We note that the Government itself seems to have decided on separate LAA and CAA arrangements for East and West unitary areas.

Our Key Stakeholders' Views

8. There is little evidence that the Cheshire's people want Cheshire split. The DCLG acknowledged that in its summary of stakeholder responses. There is however very clear evidence that all 350 schools in Cheshire, the Cheshire Association of Governing Bodies representing over 4,000 governors, and the Cheshire Schools Forum want the current Children's Services Authority to continue. This evidence seems to have been ignored by Ministers in taking their decision.

9. Schools rightly point out that Cheshire has had a high-performing education authority for many years as a result of the very strong partnership that has existed between schools and a local authority that has provided strong and high-quality strategic leadership. Schools query how in future the same strong strategic leadership will be provided by the proposal for single Directors for children's and adults services in the new authorities. Schools also fear that 2 smaller authorities will result in a greater proportion of educational resources being spent on fixed costs and administration than under the present single department. Schools want to know what measures will be put in place to ensure that the amount of money spent on educating (and caring for) children in Cheshire, as opposed to administering their education (and care), will not be reduced. Several schools have observed that this decision will leave their catchment areas part in one authority and part in another.

Costs and Funding

10. This is a hugely complex organisational transition process. To suggest that it is simply an administrative fix grossly, perhaps even negligently, underestimates the scale of the change. The high costs are to be funded by the authorities themselves from within their existing resources. The Government is not providing any extra capacity or budget. This, taken with the certain loss of some significant economies of scale, and the need to duplicate bureaucracy in order to create two smaller Children's Services departments from a large single one, must surely put services to children at risk. Our commitment has been consistently to invest in frontline services rather than administration and bureaucracy. It seems most likely that frontline services will pay for these proposed changes rather than benefit from them.

11. Schools have, by law, to be set three-year budgets by 31 March 2008. Given the absence of any information from the DCSF about what the indicative Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocations will be for each new authority from April 2009 it remains unclear how we do this with any confidence or accuracy. What will be the guaranteed units of funding the DCSF uses to distribute DSG to East and West respectively? The DCSF has not yet offered any advice on this matter. How, therefore can the County Council set reasonable 3-year budgets by 31 March 2008?

12. From a practical and local perspective there are concerns that the East will be unable to afford the Minimum Funding Guarantee from 1 April 2009. There is no evidence that the DCSF has undertaken any analysis of the funding position and needs of a future East Cheshire Unitary (or indeed the West). Our evidence suggests this will be a serious challenge in the East.

Conclusions

13. The evidence is that Cheshire and its children will be best served by a continuing single Children's Services Authority. There is tacit admission of this by the proposers of the two unitary model and by DCLG when they say that they are in favour of a joint Children's Trust, joint safeguarding arrangements, and pan-Cheshire, shared provision across a range of service areas. It remains unclear how pan-Cheshire 'provision' can be decided in advance of the new authorities understanding their needs and resources, which will underpin their 'commissioning' of services. The new authorities have to understand what they need (and can afford) before they can even begin to think about deciding what to provide and how to provide it.

14. The future Administrations of the new authorities will have their own Visions and Priorities. New Chief Executives will also bring their own ideas. Neither will feel fettered by the bidding proposals that DCLG has approved. The absence of a continuing authority is therefore a key weakness in this transition process. However, there is a parallel operational imperative for quick but lasting key decisions in relation to schools and Children's Services. This is essential if the Government really wants a smooth transition of power and seamless service delivery. The only authority that can lead that decision making, and indeed effectively lead this entire process as a continuing authority, is the County Council. It is the only authority in Cheshire with the capacity and range of skills that are essential to successful and smooth implementation of unitary government arrangements in Cheshire. Additionally, the work needed to implement this proposal is too complex to be achieved to the timetable proposed without disruption and damage to children's services.

February 2008

Memorandum by Cheshire Federation of Women's Institutes

1. The Board of Trustees responded last year on behalf of its 8,000 members by firmly advocating the one Cheshire approach. In their view one unitary authority covering the whole of the present area of Cheshire CC would provide the best chance of obtaining excellent services and value for money.

2. They are also concerned that the voices of the people of Cheshire have had no chance to be heard neither were Town and Parish Councils included in the consultation exercise.

3. The Secretary of State proposes that local authorities should respond to petitions signed by 250 residents. As over 1500 residents of Cheshire have now signed the petition on the Downing Street e-petition website to "Save Cheshire". A case of don't do as I do, do as I say?

4. The view of the Cheshire Federation Board of Trustees remains as follows:

Experience shows that small authorities struggle to provide the level of services to improve the quality of life of residents', one service provider must be the most cost effective way of delivering those services.

One authority will mean services are standardised and will remove any confusion over 'who does what'.

The majority of our members live in the rural areas of Cheshire and although the deprivation in these areas is less obvious in comparison to larger conurbations, peoples experiences of poor or declining services need to be vocalised and this can be done more effectively through one powerful body.

Cheshire needs to retain a strong voice in the North West region otherwise it is in danger of being overpowered by the more powerful voices of the conurbations of Liverpool and Manchester

If Cheshire is divided, then this voice will be less effective and may also impact detrimentally on funding opportunities.

The County Council proposal for 15 Area committees, will still give the WI an opportunity to influence local decision making and feed in the views of its members whose needs vary across a very geographically diverse area.

The Federation has always had a strong and very supportive relationship with the Cheshire County Council, this contact with both elected councillors and officers is highly valued and is something which the Federation would like to see continue for the benefit of WI members and their communities.

As a voluntary organisation which covers the whole of the county of Cheshire our capacity to respond to more than one authority will always be less effective.

The boroughs of Crewe & Nantwich and Congleton are opposed to the proposal and supported the retention of two-tier local government. This we understand is not an option and as approximately one third of our members live in this area we therefore consider that the proposal to break the county into two is fundamentally flawed.

5. The Board of Trustees believe that single unitary authority status will give Cheshire the best opportunity to keep Cheshire on the 'map' as a strong and vibrant part of the North West region, but retain its own local distinctiveness for which our members are very proud.

12 February 2008

Memorandum by Cheshire Fire Authority

1. Cheshire Fire Authority is grateful for the opportunity to be able to feed into the consideration of this draft Order, setting out plans for the establishment of two new unitary councils in Cheshire.

2. Firstly, it is important to state that the Fire Authority will be heavily impacted by the changes to the council structures in Cheshire, both from a partnership perspective, and constitutionally, as the combined Fire Authority draws a majority of its Membership from the current County Council (in addition to Warrington and Halton Borough Councils - who will not be affected).

3. Although earlier Government guidance suggested that arrangements for re-constituting the Fire Authority would be dealt with separately, we feel 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.

4. Moreover, the inability to spell out what impact the transitional arrangements will have on the Fire Authority and at what point changes will be made to our constitutional arrangements, is likely to damage the objective of establishing strong, strategic arrangements for empowering local communities, from the proposed date of April 2009.

5. As importantly as for the new and existing councils, the Fire Authority will have to ensure the continuity of its services, despite the potential for changes to over half of its existing membership.

6. The Fire Authority is required to respond to the changes in the same timescale as other affected authorities and during the transition phase Members will have to agree their budget and Integrated Risk Management Plan for 2009-10. Therefore, it seems odd that Cheshire's Fire and Police Authorities have not been mentioned explicitly, particularly in relation to section 22 of the Order, which sets out the transitional duties.

7. In light of the new partnership agenda and the new regime for Local Area Agreements (LAAs) and the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA), it is vital that all partners, particularly other local authorities with statutory duties to discharge are fully engaged.

8. The Fire Authority expects to be fully consulted on any amendments to its Combination Order, to ensure it can plan effectively for the next twelve months, ensuring there is a process for engaging with the new unitary authorities and any councillors who might be appointed to the Fire Authority after 1 April 2009.

February 2008

Memorandum by Cheshire Schools[6]

1. In response to the Committee's request for comments on the above Orders Cheshire's schools wish to make the following comments.

2. Firstly, if these Orders are approved by Parliament, we seek reassurance that the Government (DCSF) will closely monitor the impacts on Children's Services over the next few years while the changes are implemented. It would also be helpful to know what specific measures the DCSF proposes to use for this purpose.

3. We hope that the Lords will ask Ministers what considerations have been given by DCLG and DCSF to the impact on the Every Child Matters (ECM) agenda in Cheshire. Such fundamental organisational change to children's services risks significant delay to that agenda. There will be an absence of long term political leadership until April 2009 when the two new authorities formally take power. Officers will of course continue to work hard on the day to day delivery of services, but the political turmoil seems bound to last until such time as the new authorities are fully bedded in. There is also the reality that officers in education and children's services will be separated into east and west divisions over the next 15 months. Continuity of service delivery is clearly at risk, and each new authority is bound to lose access to highly skilled officers.

4. Given these risks, 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 ask your Lordships to seek formal assurances from Ministers that the timescale is both sensible and deliverable in proportion to the risks involved.

5. Cheshire has had a very high performing education authority for many years as a result of the very strong partnership that has existed between schools and a local authority that has provided strong and high-quality strategic leadership. External inspections have recognised this. Schools and the County Council have worked closely together on many key national strategies including the 14-19 agenda, Education Improvement Partnerships, Special Educational Needs and Early Years provision and on school reorganisation matters. Trust has been built and expertise developed between schools, politicians and officers.

6. We need as our strategic partner a local authority which both understands education at a political level and which has the capacity, authority and skills at officer level to deliver the strong strategic leadership that is needed. We would respectfully query how the same strength of leadership will be provided by the proposal for a single Director for children's and adults services in the new authorities. We appreciate that Ministers have to consider the issue of local government in Cheshire in the round, but we are nonetheless unclear as to how the Government can assert that two unitaries will provide stronger leadership. This is highly questionable in relation to both children's and adults' services. The proposal effectively diminishes the role of the DCS by merging it with what we believe should be a separate directorial position. We seek to continue to be a high performing education authority by embracing ECM to support improvement in our education provision. We hope that your Lordships will query how amalgamating children's and adults' services will help this.

7. In our opinion the decision to split Cheshire places in some jeopardy the above strategies and agreements that Cheshire's schools have been working towards in recent years. We consider it important therefore that your Lordships seek from Ministers at this time of extensive and fundamental change in Cheshire's education system a personal assurance about the future. It is essential that the future Children's Services authorities have as an absolute minimum the same resources as at present, and would urge increases if schools are to improve on the quality of provision in the future. Without the right resources, the current Children's Services vision will stall in Cheshire. However, given the stated financial risks relating to the two new authorities, the inevitable high costs of such huge organisational change, and the need to duplicate senior management and administrative arrangements in order to create two Children's Services authorities from one, we fear there will in fact be fewer resources.

8. With this in mind we particularly seek assurances about future school funding in Cheshire. This point is crucial. DCLG has acknowledged the loss of economies of scale that will result from splitting Cheshire. Two smaller authorities will surely result in a greater proportion of educational resources being spent on fixed costs and administration than under the present single department. We wish to know what measures are to be put in place to ensure that the amount of money spent on educating (and caring for) our children, as opposed to administering their education (and care), will not be reduced.

9. In relation to certainty of educational resources, of exceptionally high importance to us is the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). We would be immensely grateful if your Lordships would seek a response from the Government as to how it envisages that schools can be set reasonably based three year budgets by 31 March 2008, as now required by law, given the absence of any information from DCSF about what the indicative DSG allocations will be for each new authority from April 2009?

10. Finally, what consideration has been given to the portfolio of services that has developed over many years and whether it is desirable in terms of outcomes for children to split these in half on an East / West basis? To give an example, there are 14 Special Schools in Cheshire: 4 in the East and 10 in the West - which of course has tended historically to have more pockets of deprivation and need. However, there is need in the east, but the future East Cheshire Authority will have no special school provision of its own for physical disability or autism. Neither will there be any residential provision in the East.

11. We thank your Lordships for taking the time to consider our concerns, which we make in good faith as the representatives of 350 schools in a highly rated Children's Services authority.

February 2008

Memorandum by Mrs Helen Carey, OBE, DL

1. I have been asked to send you my comments on the draft Order for Structural Changes to Cheshire. I have lived almost all my life in the county of Cheshire and my comments are based on my experience as Chair of the Cheshire Local Strategic Partnership for four years from 2002 - 2006 and over thirty years experience with various voluntary organisations in Cheshire, which include past Chairman of the Cheshire Federation of Women's Institutes from 1991 - 1995 (membership over 7,000), current Vice Chairman of the Cheshire Rural Community Council, Chairman of the Cheshire Landscape Trust and a Board member of Groundwork Cheshire. I am also currently Chairman of the Independent Panel for Members' Allowances in the county. My national experience has included being National Chairman of the Federation of Women's Institutes from 1999 - 2003, a Council member of the RSPB from 2001 - 2006, current Council member of the National Trust and current Vice Chairman of ENCAMS (formerly Keep Britain Tidy and Going for Green).

Implementation

2. I have noted that the objective of the order is to "establish new and innovative local governance in Cheshire, combining both strong, strategic councils and effective arrangements for empowering communities at the most local level". My personal experience as Chair of the LSP is that the six districts in Cheshire have had great difficulty in working in partnership. Not only has there always been tension between them and the County Council but also between each other - indeed I have been told on many occasions that there is no reason to share good practice or work together as no district bears any relation to another. Experience to date would indicate that there is no evidence that members of the three formers districts, working within each proposed authority, will achieve the objective stated above. We already have an effective four star county council which works closely with local people, has in place an innovative proposal for more closely empowering local communities and could be transformed into a single unitary with small disruption to the people and communities of Cheshire.

3. The reorganisation of Cheshire is different from and more complicated, than other reorganisations as there is no continuing authority in place to lead the process. The Order has given the lead responsibility for the change to the proposing districts. They have neither experience nor understanding of how to deliver the big services - education, social services, waste management etc. Having only been responsible for less than 20% of service delivery in their districts, they do not have the experience, nor the staff capacity, nor experienced elected members to provide an effective and sustainable wider service delivery to the people they are expected to serve. As a result, vulnerable people (especially children and adults in social care) will be put at risk. As political leadership will be unstable until April 2009, at the earliest, there is already concern that continuity of vision and service delivery for programmes such as Every Child Matters will be put at severe risk.

4. The necessary two Joint Committees are not yet in place and, as these will be replaced when the Shadow authorities are elected in May, will have no time to be effective. As none of the critical decisions required to deliver the changes will be taken until after the elections, there will be no time to set up two new authorities and close down seven. I would be surprised if anything this complex has been attempted previously. There is no evidence to suggest that the details of the transition process have been thought through.

Stakeholder Consultation

5. At the moment, the county is in limbo, the districts are floundering and leadership appears to be non-existent. Far from being empowered, the people of Cheshire feel angry and upset. The Minister has stated that her decision was made "having considered all the information and representations available to her" and yet it is my understanding from widespread comment throughout Cheshire that almost all the stakeholders who were consulted were in favour of a single unitary authority and the CLG's own published report demonstrates this. The consultation process was extremely limited as very few voluntary and community sector organisations were consulted and no town and parish councils were asked for their views. When they did respond unprompted, they supported a single unitary authority. The whole process has been completely undemocratic and people are only now, as information percolates down to them, beginning to appreciate what this Order, if implemented will mean to them, financially and socially.

Financial

6. Being involved in many pan-Cheshire community and voluntary organisations, delivering valuable community and environmental services and opportunities to people throughout Cheshire, it is already apparent that funding and grants to sustain these services are being put 'on hold' for the foreseeable future. This could have serious consequences on social, adult learning and environmental projects already planned.

7. The Minister also states that a two unitary Cheshire "will provide the best value for money, together with equity on public services" and that this will "bring potential savings for council tax payers." Deloitte has already expressed the opinion that the figures, as presented by the districts, contain considerable risks and the Explanatory Memorandum provided by the Select Committee has provided new figures (for which there has been no opportunity for public scrutiny) completely different from those used to justify the decision to divide Cheshire. This would not seem to be a reasonable basis on which to make a sound judgement about restructuring Cheshire, especially when one considers that the single unitary submission was deemed to "meet the outcomes specified" by the original criteria on October 26 2006. An examination of the available proposed figures would suggest that the single unitary option is the most cost effective and sustainable option.