Written evidence to be reported to the House
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
2:16 pm
Phil Woolas: When we set out the invitation to propose, we were—and we remain—committed to a genuinely permissive regime. We did not wish to adopt a one-size-fits-all model because there is a paradox between devolution and equal treatment. We cannot genuinely say that we are devolving for local decision making and then say, “This is how you are going to do it.” Previous reviews, particularly the Banham review, had a role within that process for the boundary committee, so that it could have the power of direction to ensure that, if a proposal for unitary were to be adopted, it was fair for the whole area that was affected—that is, for the neighbouring councils—it was robust and it met the criteria in the proposing area. It is clear that there is support for that power among some of the people who are proposing.
It is equally clear that there is a suspicion—let me put it that way—that that power could be used in a different way. The Local Government Association made that point clear on an all-party basis. Our policy intention was to allow a window of opportunity for proposals for unitary, but to close that window, not in haste, but so as not to allow an undue period of uncertainty. All local government knows that that is damaging for it.
Representations have been made by the Local Government Association. We accept its point. We are working on parliamentary counsel instruction to have a power of direction that is defined in both geography and time to the satisfaction of the LGA. Indeed, that was a major issue that came up on Second Reading. It is not our intention to impose change. I think that the evidence now backs up that point, although there is a raging debate out there in some councils and motives are often ascribed that are not intended. We intend to listen to the points that some hon. Members madeon Second Reading and well as those made by the LGA.