Clause
57Transfer
of functions relating to boundary
change Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 4— Amalgamation of one or more local
authorities— ‘(1) One or
more principal councils may request the Local Government Boundary
Commission for England to advise, no later than a date specified in the
request, on proposals for the amalgamation of the relevant principal
councils. (2) The Local
Government Boundary Commission for England shall provide the advice
requested. (3) Where they
provide that advice, the Local Government Boundary Commission for
England must also do any of the following that they think
appropriate— (a)
recommend that the Secretary of State implements the proposal without
modification; (b) recommend
that he does not implement
it. (4) Any
principal council submitting a proposal for amalgamation must if
requested by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England by
such date as they may specify with any information that the Local
Government Boundary Commission for England may reasonably require in
connection with its functions under this Clause.
(5) If the Local Government Boundary Commission for
England recommends the proposal without modification the Secretary of
State
may— (a)
by order implement the proposal, with or without modification;
or (b) decide to take no
action. (6) The Secretary of
State may not in any case make an order under subsection (5)(a)
implement a proposal unless he has consulted the following about the
proposal— (a) every
authority affected by the proposal (except the authority or authorities
which made it); and (b) such
other persons as he considers
appropriate.’.
Mr.
Goodman: Unlike many of the clauses being considered this
afternoon, new clause 4 concerns a request to the Local Government
Boundary Commission to advise on proposals for the amalgamation of
relevant principal councils. The request does not flow from the
Secretary of State, but comes up from the bottom, the councils
themselves, which is why we thought that it was worth tabling the new
clause. It is a relatively simple measure, and I commend it to the
Committee.
Julia
Goldsworthy: We welcome the transfer of functions relating
to boundary changes from the Electoral Commission’s boundary
committee to the Local Government Boundary Commission. Those are two
different jobs and it is important that they are separated. New clause
4 is self-explanatory, and we wish to see a bottom-up process. We
welcome variety in local government, and acknowledge that some places
will have different set-ups that will be more appropriate for them than
others would be. It is important that any review of the boundaries of
local government, or any amalgamation of authorities, should be driven
by what people want on the ground, rather than by a centralised
process. If the new clause is aimed at achieving that, we will be happy
to support it.
Mr.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. It is the first time
that I have had the opportunity to address the Committee, but I will be
brief. I wish to emphasise that the new clause also stands in my name.
I draw that to the Committee’s attention because I represent a
constituency that has just gone through a transition from a two-tier
structure to a unitary tier.
In the process
of allocating the new unitary ward boundaries, in one part of my
constituency we found ourselves in the extraordinary position of not
having a single advocate for a particular two-member division that had
been proposed. The proposal appeared from nowhere and was imposed by
the Electoral Commission on the communities of Church Stretton and
Craven Arms in my constituency. It is one of the relatively few
two-member wards in my constituency, and within the county. Those two
communities have very little in common. They are united by the A49,
which is the only Highways Agency trunk road that passes through the
constituency. They are seven miles apart.
The community
of Church Stretton nestles in the Switzerland of Shropshire. For those
of you who do not know that area, it is as it is described. It has some
magnificent hills, which are famous for providing the best views
between there and the Urals. Travelling eastwards, one cannot get as
good a view as one can from the top of the Long Mynd until one hits the
Urals. Yet just to
its south, in Craven Arms, nestling on the edge of the area of
outstanding natural beauty, people do not benefit from quite such
spectacular views, beautiful and attractive as the place is, and there
is relatively little that unites the two separate towns. Each has its
own town infrastructure, yet they have been lumped together in a single
ward. That caused intense frustration at every level in the community,
including among those wishing to stand for election to the town
councils in the respective areas, as well as a couple of the
villages that were lumped in with them. I have been
going on at some length and you have been very indulgent in allowing me
do so, Mr. Illsley. However, that example lends emphasis and
support to the purpose of the new clause: that if areas are going
through the fundamental change of a reorganisation of structure, the
views of the people on the ground should carry rather more weight than
the views of the bureaucratic organisation many miles away, probably in
London, seeking to impose some sort of arithmetic calculation to the
considerable distress of the local people affected by it. So I
encourage the Minister to consider accepting the new clause when she
sums
up.
The
Chairman: The Chairman has been a little bit indulgent
because he recalls doing his geography A-level field course in Church
Stretton. He rises simply to explain to the Committee that we are
debating new clause 4 with clause 57 because the new clause fits into
that part of the Bill. We will not take a vote on new clause 4 until we
take votes on the new clauses.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The Government broadly support the
principles behind the new clause. We agree that it is right that it
should be open to local authorities to initiate reviews of their
boundaries and, if they consider it appropriate, mergers with
neighbouring councils. However, we legislated for such a process in the
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Section 8
of the 2007 Act, as amended by the Bill to include reference to the new
Boundary Commission, enables any local authority to make a request to
the Boundary Commission to conduct a boundary review. Such a review can
consider altering local government boundaries, and abolishing or
creating local government areas. It therefore provides a mechanism for
principal councils to request a review to consider whether two or more
local authorities should be amalgamated. The 2007 Act also enables a
review to be instigated by a request from the Secretary of State, or on
the initiative of the boundary committee.
Clause 57
provides that those functions of the boundary committee will be
transferred to the new Local Government Boundary Commission. The new
clause is unnecessary as there is already provision to enable councils
to make requests for such reviews. In addition, the 2007 Act sets out
statutory criteria which the Boundary Commission will have to have
regard to when considering any boundary change. These are the need to
secure effective and convenient local government, and the need to
reflect the identities and interests of local communities. Those are
important requirements when any boundary change is being
considered.
Section 9 of
the 2007 Act provides that, where the Boundary Commission is
undertaking a review of local government areas, it must consult the
councils of those
areas under review and other local authorities, parish councils, or
other persons it believes to have an interest. Those could include, for
example, local authorities, MPs and police authorities. Section 10 of
the 2007 Act allows the Secretary of State to implement, by order,
recommendations made by the boundary committee with or without
modification. Such an order would be subject to the approval of both
Houses. We believe that the statutory process that currently exists
provides statutory criteria and a full review process and meets the
objectives that the hon. Member for Wycombe has sought to achieve
through this clause. I hope that, in the knowledge that the provision
already exists, he will withdraw the new clause when we reach that
stage. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
58 to 61 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
3 agreed
to. Clauses
62 to 64 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
4 agreed
to. Clause
65 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
66Local
authority economic
assessment 2.30
pm
Mr.
Goodman: I beg to move amendment 60, in
clause 66, page 49, line 13, leave
out ‘must’ and insert
‘may’. To
address amendment 60 I must say a word or two in introduction to part 4
of the Bill, since neither Minister has risen to her feet to do so. We
are now approaching the heart of the Bill. The clause on local
authority economic assessment will provide space for many of the
arguments that you have already heard, Mr. Illsley, I am
afraid, in relation to other parts of the Bill, in particular about the
first three sets of duties.
What members
of the Committee see before them is a proposal that
a “principal
local authority in England
must”— note,
“must”— “prepare
an assessment of the economic conditions of its
area.” In
subsection (2) it may revise the
assessment “or
any part of it...at any
time”. That
provision was introduced presumably in case subsection (1) proves in
practice to be even more inflexible than the clause looks as a
whole. Let
us pause for a moment and look at the whole business of economic
assessment. Obviously, any reasonably sized local authority worth its
salt will have an eye to the economic conditions of its area. In our
area, Wycombe district council, which is one of the larger district
councils in England, has all sorts of data available to it about the
economic conditions in the area as a whole and in the Thames
valley—the information is easily accessible—and it makes
assessments of the information that is in front of it. However, the
first question that the clause and its first two subsections give rise
to is, as ever, why that has to be on the statute book. We have asked
the question so many times that I shall not repeat it at length.
However, I will ask a variant of it. Why is it that Ministers believe
that it is important to put an economic
assessment—only—on the statute book?
Any local
council worth its salt, such as Wycombe district council, does not only
prepare economic statistics; it also prepares social, housing and
education statistics and assessments. If one burrows through my local
council’s website, one can find child poverty statistics. As it
is a feature of this clause, I am curious to know why so much stress is
placed on economic assessments of the workings of the economy and the
issue of prosperity only. Far be it from any member of the Conservative
party to take a view that seems sceptical of business—we are not
doing that at all—but it is curious that the Government have not
thought fit to put a social, environmental or sustainability assessment
in the Bill, given that they have thought fit to include an economic
assessment.
There are
always questions about the balance between growth and the environment,
between standard of living and quality of life and how the two
interact. The Minister will be aware that Opposition parties have
received representations arguing that in this Bill the Government have
become over-focused on growth. When the Bill was drawn up, I do not
know whether anyone anticipated the promotion of Lord Mandelson to
First Secretary of State and his Department’s subsequent
swallowing-up of whole other areas of Government, but there seems to be
a case for arguing that the Government have put their eggs very
strongly in the basket of economic, rather than other forms of
assessment. That is a
curiosity. That
is the background. If hon. Members cast their eye down the clause, they
will see multiple instances of the word “must”—I
have highlighted the word five times in my copy, and the clause even
starts with a “must”—hence amendment 60. It is an
amendment, Mr. Illsley, of a type with which you will be
familiar. A moment ago I said that we have no objection to a local
authority carrying out economic assessments—how could we? If
this clause must be on the statute book, we would prefer to take
“must” out and insert the word
“may”.
I obviously
cannot speak to the amendment that was tabled by a Member who was going
to be on the Committee, but no longer is; perhaps the Whips got him and
bound him in a dark
cupboard.
Mr.
Goodman: Indeed. Amendment 60, as ever, seeks to tone down
the element of compulsion in this clause by inserting
“may” instead of “must”. That would allow
local authorities the freedom to conduct economic local area
assessments if they so wish. Yet again, we cannot see why it is
necessary to include such a restrictive term in the statute
book.
Julia
Goldsworthy: On local authority economic assessments, in
part 4 of the Bill, it is understandable that during difficult economic
times the priority of the Government and local authorities is to focus
on understanding the nature of the problem and how it may best be
resolved. I share some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for
Wycombe, in particular the reason for framing this measure as a
requirement on all local authorities. Most local authorities already
have a sustainability strategy, and one would hope that some
information might inform that. I wonder to what extent this provision
will underline work that already takes place.
The key thing
about assessments is that they should inform future actions; councils
should not be allowed simply to tick a box stating that they have done
one. My concern is about the next stage in the process. If the
Government think that the economic assessment is important, surely the
next stage is just as important, but the Bill does not really contain
anything about
that. I
also have some concerns—the Conservatives’ amendments
highlight these—about the idea that economic assessments must
stick rigidly to the boundaries of a local authority, even thought they
might bear no relation to the boundaries of economic experience. Some
principal authorities might find that their economic circumstances are
very similar to those of a neighbouring authority, but within local
authorities there might be very different circumstances. It might be
difficult to reflect that in a single assessment. For example, I
imagine that the economic assessment of the council of the Isles of
Scilly would be very similar to that of west Cornwall, but the clause
would make it impossible for the council to produce a joint economic
assessment with west Cornwall. It requires the whole of Cornwall to
conduct one assessment and the Isles of Scilly to conduct another.
There is a danger of both duplication and of missing out some of the
variations within a local authority, because the clause is so
prescriptive in focusing on an economic assessment across a single
local authority
area.
| 
