Clause 2
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
10:45 am
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
I am wary of the word “annex”; I do not think that Bournemouth would annex Poole in any circumstances. Some people in Bournemouth might like to, to get hold of the—I will go no further.
Let me briefly explain the Government’s policy. The process that I am describing in response to comments of the mover of the amendment, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, is designed to retain the ability of the Government and local authorities to allow for slight changes—tinkering with boundaries—through the independent boundary committee process. The process of the invitation to propose a change to unitary status, however, makes it clear that that will be on the basis of existing boundaries. Invitations to bid are based on the possibility of abolishing boundaries if, for example, two or three districts join together or if there is a county unitary proposal, but not on proposals to move boundaries, although a number of authorities asked whether the latter might be possible under the process. The issues are related, but the processes are separate. It is because we are proposing the replacement of legislation that I am making these caveats, but if the Committee bears with me I think that I can answer the point.
We recognise that there might be circumstances in which redrawing a unitary area boundary might be right for that area even though it cast doubt on the viability of the residual neighbouring two-tier area. In such circumstances, the sensible option might be to provide that the remaining area should be abolished and merged with either a neighbouring unitary or a two-tier area. In such a situation we would want to be able to invite the authorities to say what they thought should happen and make proposals for change.Hence, we would need to issue an invitation under clause 2—the process that is underway—but that option would not be available if the amendment were made.
In summary, we have no plans for a further round of restructuring, but, as I say, there may be circumstances in future where a limited structural change is necessary to enable a sensible boundary change. In such circumstances, we need the power of invitation under clause 2 to allow that change.