Local Government (Structural Changes) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provision) Order 2009

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so comprehensively the case for the orders and explaining them in considerable detail. She has a well deserved reputation for going through the detail on these things and that is very much appreciated. We cannot miss an opportunity to mention again the big-picture issue here: consequential orders on the reorganisation of local government. These orders are necessary because of the introduction of the five new unitary authorities that are coming our way. This side of the Committee tried to resist the change because we felt it was taking decision-making away from small local authorities that were closer to the people whom they represented and the place where they raised taxes. Moving to these monolithic, giant authorities, particularly in the case of Durham and Northumberland, is detrimental and has a democratic deficit attached to it. I speak and declare an interest as a council tax payer of the County of Durham—or should I call it Durham now? I am not quite sure. Perhaps it is the Shire of Durham. I remember being taught in my history lessons that, when it was originally founded, the proper name for the County of Durham was the area of St Cuthbert between the Tyne and the Wear. I am not sure that we need to go back that far, with all due reverence to St Cuthbert, but the point is that County Durham has a traditional position, as did the district authorities in places such as Sedgefield and the City of Durham where the local authorities were making a real difference and working very well. The change was sold to us on the basis that it would reduce expenses and be a much cheaper way of conducting local government. In her comments on 21 February 2008, at col. GC48 of Hansard, the Minister said that in the case of County Durham, for example, the savings would be £11 million annually. If that is so, we in Durham do not understand why it is proposed that our council tax bills should increase by 5 per cent this year. That is causing a lot of people and a lot of businesses a lot of hardship in the present climate. An opinion poll conducted in Durham found that a massive 76 per cent of people across the whole of the county were against this single unitary authority. The people of the north-east have a long tradition of their views expressed in opinion polls and referendums being overridden by this Government. Of course, we had a referendum on a regional assembly, which was rejected by 78 per cent to 22 per cent. I take the opportunity to say that we would have preferred it if the orders had not been necessary. We think that the previous arrangements represented something closer to the aspiration of the local people and something that local people clearly said they wanted. I have not seen a reorganisation in local government that does not end up costing a lot more money than the previous arrangements. Perhaps I may run through some parts of the order. I turn, first, to ceremonial matters. The Minister mentioned that the charter trustees would hold on to these ceremonial rights until a parish authority or another authority could be formed. It would be useful to know what it is envisaged that authority should be and when it will come into being. There is some reference in the order to how charter trustees, which is a very grand name, will be appointed. We would want to resist and probe further anything other than charter trustees being elected representatives and being democratically accountable. Perhaps the Minister could look at that. The next issue that I want to mention briefly is local government pension funds in Cheshire. The order, in Article 13 under Part 4, makes provision for the division of rights and liabilities in respect of the fund to rest with Cheshire West and Chester Council. There may be a miracle under way here whereby the complex negotiation concerning who falls within each pension fund and who is liable for the contributions as between the two councils of Cheshire West and Chester Council has been resolved amicably, but it would be good if in her response the Minister could tell us whether that has now been formally agreed between the two councils or whether there is still some element of dispute. I was interested to see that Part 5 refers to the amendment of port health authority orders. Last week, we debated the very distressing effect of the backdating of the rating revaluation on ports. I hope that I will be forgiven if I take this opportunity to remind the Committee about the rating revaluation in the context of these port health authority orders. I should be interested to know, for example, whether the port health authorities are classed as port-side operators. In other words, will these health authorities, whose buildings are on the port side, be hit like other businesses by the backdated rating revaluation? If so, that adds further strength to what was demonstrated by a vote in the Chamber last week to resist that revaluation. Part 7 deals with amendment of the European Parliamentary Elections Act and concerns some changes that are going through. In the context of the Minister’s remarks about elections and the timeliness of elections, is it acceptable to be putting through amendments with regard to boundaries for European parliamentary elections and to be passing them in relation to Bedford and Bedfordshire with name changes this close to the European elections? Will it not lead to confusion? Could it not have been done at an earlier date? Perhaps I may also ask for clarification in respect of the amendment of the Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Order 2006. This provision suggests that governorship of the River Tweed will now become a joint responsibility; the council for the county of Northumberland will take over from Berwick-upon-Tweed. As someone who is regularly in Berwick, I am interested in where the actual boundary falls between England and Scotland. What consultations took place with the Scotland Office and what is the arrangement? Fish, I am reliably informed, often swim between England and Scotland, and not only to get free prescriptions and avoid tuition fees. It would be useful to know that. On the Cornwall (Electoral Arrangements and Consequential Amendments) Order, some real concerns were mentioned. The Minister has explained at considerable length the background to the order, so I do not intend to test her patience or that of the Committee in going through it further. However, it is important to place on record our support for the conclusion of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee. It said: ""It is clear that the decision to proceed with Cornwall Council elections in June 2009 has not been an obvious one for the Department to take"." In parliamentary draftsman-speak, I suppose that means that it was the wrong decision to take. It continues: ""The proposal advanced by DCLG at the outset of the December 2008 sounding exercise was the postponement of these elections from June to October 2009, and this proposal was supported by the existing County Council … DCLG now say that, in confirming June 2009 as the date for the elections, the Minister for Local Government believed that this would give the new Cornwall Council ‘full democratic legitimacy as soon as possible after its inception’"." There seems to be some confusion because when Mr Khan referred to this on 16 March in the Committee considering the order in another place, he said: ""The approach that we are proposing will give the new Cornwall council full democratic legitimacy as soon as possible. In the expectation that the next council election will be held in May 2013 on the basis of the Electoral Commission’s final electoral arrangements, the new council will, from its early days, have the strength and stability necessary to pursue innovative and demanding improvements in service delivery".—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 16/3/09; col. 5.]" That suggests that Sadiq Khan believes that that democratic legitimacy will come into effect in May 2013, as opposed to June this year. That is regrettable. It is not as if these orders are new; the draft Cornwall (Structural Change) Order 2008 was debated in Standing Committee on 7 February 2008 and approved by the House on 18 February. A whole year has passed, and it would seem that it was not too difficult to have the Boundary Committee look at those issues. When this issue was taken to judicial review before Justice Cranston, he found on 8 January 2009 that, ""consultation could properly proceed in stages so that the decision to defer the issue of affordability was not improper; nor was it irrational; … While it was correct that consultation should not be narrowly confined to expert opinion, but should extend to the public as a whole, and that consultation required the publication of sufficient information in a timely fashion, the Boundary Committee had not failed in these respects; … The Boundary Committee had given proper consideration to the earlier Exeter proposal and had duly reached its own decision on the matter … Nor had it been in error in considering the requirement that any proposal must ‘in aggregate’ have to deliver outcomes specified in the five applicable criteria … Its considerations had, however, been constrained by legal advice that it could advance only one alternative proposal"." The Minister touched on that point, but, for the record, in a debate on this issue in another place my colleague Hugo Swire said that he believed the Boundary Committee had misinformed Devon Members of Parliament by saying that the status quo was not an option. Following a legal challenge for judicial review by East Devon, Mr Cranston made the point that I have just made. It would be good to have the Minister’s response to that. Other than that, we are happy to accede to the orders going through.