Cornwall (Structural Change) Order 2008

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Cornwall (Structural Change) Order 2008. The noble Baroness said: The order establishes the new unitary Cornwall Council. It implements a proposal which Cornwall County Council submitted to us in response to our invitation to councils, issued in October 2006 in parallel with our White Paper. We have judged their proposal against the same five criteria set out in our invitations to councils against which, as I discussed earlier, we assessed all 26 proposals that we originally received. On 5 December, I informed the House that our judgment was that if the proposal for a single-unitary Cornwall were to be implemented, there was a reasonable likelihood that it would achieve the outcomes specified by all five criteria in the invitation. That is, we believe that the proposal, if implemented, will achieve the outcomes on strategic leadership, neighbourhood flexibility and empowerment and delivery of value for money and efficiency in public services specified in the criteria. Equally, we believe that the change is also affordable and supported by a broad cross-section of partners and stakeholders. We also received a proposal for a unitary authority from a number of district councils. However, we judged that there was not a reasonable likelihood that the proposal, if implemented, would achieve the outcomes specified by each criterion and hence should not proceed to stakeholder consultation. On the basis of the proposal that we received from Cornwall County Council, having regard to all the other material and representations that we have received, including the advice which our independent financial experts provided on the financial viability of the proposals, the expectation is that the change in Cornwall will lead to savings of more than £15 million annually once the new unitary is established. On the basis of the criteria which we have already discussed, we judge that the proposal meets the affordability criterion. As I have said, it is our judgment that the proposal meets the support criterion, which we have also discussed earlier in this debate. However, as in other instances, the consultation last spring revealed both support and concern. The district councils had already put in their own bid for a unitary solution. They were clearly opposed to the solution proposed by the county. They commissioned polls which appeared to support their position. However, there was a wide range of public sector support, including from the South West Strategic Health Authority, the Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust, the Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, and the police authority. There was support, too, from across the business and enterprise communities, including Connexions Cornwall and Devon, the Cornwall Commercial Tourism Federation and some local but important businesses such as St Austell Brewery. The majority of responses that we received directly from the public were opposed, but they came from only a small proportion of the overall population. A poll of 1,750 people out of a population of 500,000 cannot be seen to represent a majority of people hostile to the proposal. There was an interesting exchange in the other place during the debate on the Cornwall order. It was pointed out that 700 people, which is half that number polled, protested against a proposal for a supermarket in Saltash. The Cornwall districts polls, which again were postal and therefore, as I pointed out earlier, not subject to the same degree of protection and scrutiny as national postal voting, were described in the same debate as ““deficient … and partial””. The case was made by a Member of Parliament not just about the Cornwall poll, but about the way in which postal polls are conducted generally. The majority of parish and town councils that responded also expressed concerns, but others such as Newquay expressed support. However, overall, we concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood of the proposal achieving the outcomes specified by this criterion. As with all the orders being discussed today, we have prepared this order following consultation and full discussion with the councils concerned. Like the other orders, it provides that, from 1 April 2009, there will be a single tier of local government for Cornwall. It provides that the existing district councils will be dissolved, and that the county council will be transformed into a new unitary council, having both district and county functions. It makes provisions for the key transitional arrangements. It provides for the establishment of an implementation executive, to be led by the county council and whose membership will be drawn from the county and all the district councils. The membership and make-up of the implementation executive was discussed in detail with all the affected councils and a consensus was reached. It is this consensus that is reflected in the order. The order provides that the county council will have the function of preparing for and facilitating the economic, effective, efficient and timely transfer of the district councils’ functions, property, rights and liabilities to the new council. It requires that these transitional functions be discharged by the implementation executive until April 2009, and provides for the creation of a team of officers, again drawn from the county and all the district councils, to provide the necessary support to the implementation executive. In evidence heard in the recent debate in another place, Julia Goldsworthy paid tribute to the fact that, despite the difficulties that had been faced,  "““there is real cross-party work to make the best of the situation … reflected in the make-up of the  implementation executive and its work””.—[Official Report, Commons, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 7/2/08; col. 13.]" Where the order differs from those for Northumberland and Durham is that, in Cornwall, as in Shropshire and Wiltshire, elections to the new unitary council will take place in line with the usual county cycle in May 2009. As we have discussed previously, that will allow the Electoral Commission to undertake an electoral review and put in place electoral arrangements. This order, together with that for Shropshire, which we shall come to finally, also differs from the others in that it provides for the cancellation of district council elections that would otherwise take place in May 2008 in any district council that elects in thirds. In Cornwall that applies to Penwith only. One of the new features, which is worth reflecting on in relation to the nature of the debate with district councils in Cornwall and between Members of Parliament, is that the new unitary will bring a far closer connection across this large and dispersed area because there will be new opportunities for local connections, based not on artificial district boundaries, such as Restormel, but on real places.  It is encouraging to see that the proposal envisages 16 community networks as the single forum for each area. They will include other public sector partners, local people and the VCS. They will be multipurpose bodies with some devolved powers to influence service delivery and to monitor performance. They will be a basis for gathering intelligence at local level and a public consultation forum. The proposal also envisages community access points—one-stop shops—to enable greater public access to council services. They will involve local parish and town councils, with delegation of responsibilities where appropriate and where wanted and access to shared community network architecture. The proposal is to parish unparished areas to provide consistency across the county through a new local council charter. That is excellent. I shall not reiterate what I said about the argument for cancelling the elections; it is powerful and widely recognised locally. I explained that we reflected on the JCSI report in that context. In short, this order will establish a new unitary Cornwall Council that will have the form of local governance to which local people can look forward. It will deliver a clearer strategy and better, higher quality services. It will have more appropriate local connections, which will be helpful to local communities. I beg to move. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Cornwall (Structural Change) Order 2008. 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 7th Report from the Merits Committee.—(Baroness Andrews.)