Northumberland (Structural Change) Order 2008

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions and particularly for the support of my noble friend, who captured precisely why we went about things in the way that we did. In these debates, I am always conscious that I am confronting noble Lords with many years of experience and great commitment to local government. I always feel that I am a relative novice on this, and I stand in awe of that collective experience. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and my noble friend took us through some of that history and made me aware again that the concept of the unitary council has a long and honourable, if somewhat complicated, history. It commands a lot of intrinsic support and receives positive responses. I am equally aware from the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, spoke that, as we have searched for better solutions for things, there has inevitably been disruption. I join him in all that he said about the work of local government. He said it with a full heart. It was partly because of our awareness of that sort of distraction, and our desire to minimise it, that we did things by invitation this time. I assure the noble Lord that we do not have hidden plans for future change or a rolling programme up our sleeves. During the debate on the local government Bill, I said several times that we have no plans for a rolling programme, restructuring or any further invitations to councils. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, we are where we are now with other aspects of this initiative. We have some way to go with the outstanding councils and there is no rolling programme, but we recognise that in certain areas there might in future be an appetite for more unitary structures and it might be right to issue a targeted and focused invitation, but under specific and exceptional circumstances. This programme has been discrete and sufficient unto itself. The noble Lord raised a point about the length of elections, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. For those county councils which are moving to hold elections in 2008, we are conscious that when the Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee carry out their review, they might indicate that 2010 is a better alternative to 2013. Our feeling is that we need as much stability as possible. While it is up to the Electoral Commission to make its recommendations—it has the power to do so—our view is that we should be looking for stability. I feel fairly confident that the Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee will take into account the views of the people they are working with as a result of these changes. They will look at the implications, the local geography and so on, and I am sure that they will have regard to the representations they receive. We cannot second-guess them but we have made it clear that, although it is a longer time than usual, it is probably wise to have stability. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised a point about parishes. Parish council elections are usually held at the same time as elections to the principal authority. That is a sensible use of resources and sensible timing. The problem is that parish councils are not always successful in finding people to stand, so one has to look at the conservation of resources as well. Most parishes held elections in 2007 and we think that having to hold elections again in 2008 or 2009 would be disruptive. Most local authorities agree with us, and many parishes that responded also agree. The order cancels parish elections so that they can be held at the same time as future elections. [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 3.20 to 3.30 pm.]