Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I think it is right to say that, although we have had sittings in the other room, it now feels as though we are back in more familiar territory. I look forward to serving under you, Mr. Benton, and under Mr. Chope. I wish to put on record my thanks to the Committee for the sensible way in which the evidence session was approached. The Government found it useful, if at some times awkward, but that is the purpose of the new Committee procedures. I also note that the tone of consensus lasted approximately two and a half seconds before the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire reverted to his role of opposing the Government by raising a point of order. I was pleased that you commented on that, Mr. Benton.

Let me try to explain what the Government are trying to do, because the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has made a reasonable point about the time, geography and powers. I will also try to expand upon the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, even though it was not a point of order. Three groups of amendments are coming up on that point, so perhaps in the round we shall see the outcome.

Both the Secretary of State and I have made clear on several occasions our view that restructuring should be off the table after the current window of opportunity. That was my right hon. Friend’s commitment to local councils and Parliament. I am therefore happy to reassure the Committee that we have no plans to launch a further round of reorganisation following consideration of the Bill. On the face of it, amendment No. 92 would do no more than make an absolute reality of that assurance. It would perhaps be reasonable of him to expect me just to accept the amendment, but there is a good reason why I shall have to disappoint him. None the less, but the intent of his amendment is accepted.

We believe that we need to retain the ability to invite councils to make proposals for structural change, not because we as the Government want such change in itself, but because in certain circumstances councils might want and need a structural change to make sense of a boundary change. Clauses 8 to 10 provide a mechanism for changes to be made to local authorities’ boundaries. As members of the Committee are aware, there are certain places where local authority boundaries are no longer sensible—for example, where  the pattern of development around towns or urban areas means that boundaries are simply out of date and where some change would result in boundaries that better reflect community identities and provide a more sensible basis for the effective and cost-efficient delivery of local services.

Following her statement on the White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South that she recognised that the option of a boundary review should always be available for dealing with too tightly drawn boundaries of urban areas. However, without the continuing ability to make structural change, that option would not always be available. Let me explain and give some reassurance. That issue would be before us were it not for the debate that has been prompted by the amendment.

The provisions in clause 8 to 10, to which I have already referred, allow the independent boundary committee for England to recommend a boundary change following a review. However, without safeguards, a simple power to make boundary changes could also enable structural change to be made by the back door. For example, the boundary of a unitary authority could be altered to such an extent that it swallowed entirely a neighbouring two-tier district. That would not be right. We firmly believe that structural change should be a bottom-up process, built on the proposals that authorities themselves make. That is why clause 8 contains safeguards that ensure that structural change cannot be made by the back door. Those safeguards take the form of restrictionson the kind of recommendation that the boundary committee can make. In particular, they preventthe committee from recommending expanding the boundaries of a unitary council to the extent that the residual neighbouring two-tier area was no longer viable and hence should be abolished.

See this speech in context