Cornwall (Structural Change) Order 2008

In common with other Members of the Committee, I ought to give my credentials. I was elected to a county council in 1964. It was to my considerable surprise and to the even greater surprise of my Conservative opponent because I was just eligible; I was 21, which was then the age of consent, as it were. Professionally and as a representative, I have lived through so many reorganisations that I hope I come to this one with that experience in the bag. In Cornwall, there is real recognition that we are rather special. We have a special identity. To illustrate that, when my noble friend Lord Teverson and I cross the Tamar we have a more distinct boundary with the rest of England than the Welsh or the Scots or than Northern Ireland has with the Republic. It is the Tamar, which almost goes up into the Irish Sea. Indeed, at the time of the millennium there was a proposal that we should get a large JCB and complete the process, and join up with Ireland where we would perhaps get better treatment from the EU than we would from London. In this context, it is extremely important—my noble friend has already referred to this—that we see these orders not just as little piecemeal operations but hopefully as part of a general proposal that we should be looking at for greater decentralisation in this country. Where an identifiable area can take on greater responsibility, devolution rather than greater centralisation should be the order of the day. If we saw these orders simply as rearranging centralised government in this country, we would be missing an opportunity. I pay tribute to the Minister’s colleague in another place, who made specific reference to that in the extensive debate—a much better debate on this order compared with the others—in the Delegated Legislation Committee on Thursday 7 February. The Minister for Local Government, John Healey, said, apropos Cornwall in particular, that the new authority will, "““increasingly be able to draw down some of the responsibilities that currently sit at regional level, and increasingly we will be looking to devolve more from the centre as well, where there is a good case for doing so. I think that this would be the argument of the hon. Member for North Cornwall: Cornwall should be well ""placed in the future with the order in place and the restructuring that it proposes””.—[Official Report, Commons, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 7/2/08; cols. 5-6.]" In that context, I am sure that my noble friend and I would agree that this order could be a real step forward for greater self-determination—home rule, if you like; a good Liberal principle—for Cornwall. However, if it is not going to be considered in that context but, instead, there is to be a simple moving around of the proverbial deckchairs on the ““Titanic”” for an ever-increasing centralisation of government, that would be extremely unfortunate. This is not the first time that we have been here. There have been proposals in the past and, regretfully, the Conservative Government never sought the opportunity to give Cornwall greater authority and autonomy over its own affairs. Specifically on the point about the different options put before the Government as a result of the bid process, it would be fair to say that there was considerable confusion. At one stage, as the Minister will recognise, there was even a suggestion that there should be two unitary authorities in Cornwall, splitting the great Royal Duchy of Cornwall down the middle. Frankly, that did not go down particularly well with my colleagues and fellow residents in the county. We are proud of the unity of Cornwall. The slogan—it is more than a slogan—used in recent months of ““Cornwall united”” has some meaning here, when it is perhaps not so evident in a number of the other areas that the Committee has been discussing today. As my noble friend did earlier in relation to all these orders, I welcome the Government’s emphasis on the fact that this is not just a county council rebuilt. These are new councils, and I am delighted to see that that is in the order. There is constant reference to ““the Cornwall Council””. That is helpful, and it emphasises all the more that this is a new beginning for the county and not simply the county council in a different format with existing powers. That, again, relates to the issue I referred to just now. If the Government simply seize this new council as a vehicle for exercising county council responsibilities and concerns, it will be an opportunity lost and will not meet the strategic objectives to which the Minister has already referred. The Explanatory Memorandum is specific, as the Minister has said this afternoon. If she can refer to it again in her wind-up in a moment, that will be helpful. The more we say that this is a new way to bring together existing powers and potentially add new responsibilities to a distinct area, the better. There is one area where there is still a bit of doubt, about which I am anxious. This was very much reflected in the Delegated Legislation Committee on 7 February by all my honourable friends, who are naturally persuasive on this issue, being Liberal Democrats. We all believe that it is extremely important that the whole new framework—the new unitary authority and the network to which the Minster has just referred—is in place at the same time. To delay the parish and town council elections until 2013 is, frankly, flying in the face of local democracy. It would mean that those local councils would be left behind in these changes. The so-called neighbourhood networks—I think the reference is in the Explanatory Notes on Cornwall—will be ineffective and will not have real democratic legitimacy if they are not linked in with town and parish councils. Annexe B of the Explanatory Memorandum sets out the reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision, and the situation under ““Neighbourhood empowerment”” will be gravely weakened if new members are not in place on the town and parish councils in the county. References have been made on previous occasions to the difficulty in getting people to serve on those councils. If they are left behind in this important change to the governance of Cornwall, if they are not in place on the same date as the new Cornwall authority in 2009, I think it will be a grave mistake. In the legislative committee on 7 February, the Minister for Local Government made a specific promise. He said: "““I am perfectly willing to consult the implementation executive, and if there appears to be a widespread sense that we should have parish council elections in 2009 we could bring forward an amending order to make that change””.—[Official Report, Commons, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 7/2/08; col. 27.]" It would be very helpful if the Minister made that specific commitment and gave us that assurance this afternoon: that the order as it stands in Article 13(2)(c) can effectively be overruled by a subsequent order to that effect. I recognise that the implementation process should be involved in that. We would not want a number of individuals here in either House to say that this must happen, but I believe that there is a very strong move now in Cornwall for the whole democratic structure to be in place at the same time. Frankly, there will, quite rightly, be new responsibilities at that level. Those of us who have argued for a unitary authority for many years have always said that this is an opportunity for double-devolution: devolution from central government, from the regional agencies of central government to Cornwall, but also from the centre of Cornwall to local neighbourhoods. I believe that like so many orders, this is like the curate’s egg. Members of the Committee will recall that, when asked by the visiting bishop, the curate said that parts of it were excellent. I believe that parts of the order are excellent and it is better to have some breakfast rather than none.