Wiltshire (Structural Change) Order 2008

I hesitate to intervene but I have a general question about all the orders. The wording in Article 6 of each of them is similar, stating: "““On the coming into force of this Order there shall be added to the functions of the Wiltshire council the function, which is to be exercisable only during the transitional period … of preparing for and facilitating the … effective, efficient and timely transfer of the district councils’ functions, property, rights and liabilities””. " Nowhere in the orders or the Explanatory Notes is it explained, apart from implicitly in Article 9, where they are to be transferred to. Having looked at what happened with Northern Rock, I found myself naughtily wondering about that. I am sure that the Minister will explain that this is a standard way of drafting the orders, but it is a peculiarity to which I would have objected. I turn to my noble friend’s point. I have had a long correspondence with the Government Whips’ Office on what to do about the Cheshire orders, which are due to come forward in about a fortnight. I shall summarise the correspondence: ““Would you agree a date?””. ““Hang on a minute. That is subject to a judicial appeal. I don’t think we should hear it until we have the result of the appeal.”” ““Do you know something I do not know?”” One thing that the Whips’ Office knew that I did not was that the judicial review was heard and the Government won, as the noble Baroness said. It has since been appealed. However, the judge said, in accepting the situation, that none the less it was thought that the audit should progress. I said, ““Fine, I understand that, but what happens if the judgment goes against the Government? Will the Government have to backtrack?””. The reply was, ““Well, it would depend on the terms on which the judgment was made””. That is why my noble friend’s point is important. The judge would have the power to find against the Government but, because of administrative and other costs already incurred, would not stop the process going forward. That struck me as an improper use of force majeure. I was told that, even if that were so, there was still no reason for the orders not to go forward because we did not know what the judge was going to decide and when he was going to decide it. Therefore, after two and a half pages of swapping e-mails, I had to climb down and agree a date for Cheshire. This is the dilemma that we face: the Government are in a procedurally correct situation that is not satisfactory, but there is nothing that we can do about it, so there we are. I do not know whether I have saved the Minister some trouble, but that is the position we are in.