Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in clause 6, page 5, line 17, leave out ‘four weeks’ and insert ‘three months’.

The amendment is part of a theme, namely the speed of the timetable, that has been developed throughout this Bill and may last some weeks. Under clause 6, the relevant period for consultation back to the boundary commission is defined as four weeks. The amendment would clearly make it 12 weeks, and three months and is designed to tease out why the timetable is so tight. At this stage, the Minister usually gets up and says that this follows the Conservative legislation of 1992. However, I would be interested to know why four weeks is specified and why a little more time cannot be left for people to make further representations.

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

I was hoping to be able to say that it follows the Conservative precedent in 1972. I will attempt to explain why we think the amendment is not necessary. Where the boundary committee is asked for advice on an alternative proposal for a single tier of local government, the procedure already provides for significant opportunities for interested parties to make their representations. Where the committee is minded to make an alternative proposal, it must first publish a draft of its proposal and must also ensure that those who have an interest are informed of the proposaland the deadline for making representations to the committee on that matter. The boundary committee must take account of those representations.

Where the boundary committee subsequently, as a result of that consultation, makes a proposal to the Secretary of State, we provide for a further opportunity for interested parties to make representations. The committee must inform anybody who previously made representations on a particular proposal that it has made a subsequent proposal to the Secretary of State. It must also inform those people that they have a further four weeks to make representations to the  Secretary of State. That will be four weeks from the date, unless revised, set by the Secretary of State for advice from the committee. In essence, that means that Parliament has its boundary committee to consult and look at the proposals and the four further weeks is then another opportunity to comment on the proposal coming from the boundary committee.

Given that deep and broad consultation by the independent boundary committee, we believe that four weeks is an adequate period to comment on the proposals that arise from the consultation. A further extension of the period—I think that the hon. Member for Poole’s amendment refers to three months—would have no other purpose than to replicate the role of the boundary committee, which is, of course, independent. That would, I argue, be an inappropriate period of time. The reference to the Secretary of State’s time period is a further one on which to comment on the boundary committee’s proposals, having already had the substantial consultation by the boundary committee itself.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)

Essentially what happens is that boundary committee publishes a proposal, there is normally an inquiry, it considers the inquiry, gives a month for people to come back with further comments and usually goes with whatever the inquiry has decided. Under this proposal, there does not seem to be any inquiry. That means that if the boundary committee makes a proposal, having carried out consultations, there are four weeks for people to respond to it. But what happens during that four-week consultation, or with the three months under our amendment, which would give people more time? Does the boundary committee have to consider that and add it to the representations from the Secretary of State, or does the Secretary of State have to consider those further representations when she gets the main boundary committee submission?

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

The Secretary of State is obliged to consider those representations, but the purpose of the procedure is that those would have been made prior to the ones from the boundary committee. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is wary of the boundary committee making an alternative proposal outsidethe expected remit of the proposals that have been consulted on. The boundary committee, in its consultation period, has to pay regard to the representations that are made. The idea of the further four weeks is to give interested parties time to comment on the tidying up of loose ends in areas that may have not been foreseen by the boundary committee—the unintended consequences, rather than the substance, of the proposals that it is obliged to take into account in its consultation period.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

Mr. Benton, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in these more familiar surroundings.

I was interested in what the Minister said, because it seems to confirm my hon. Friend’s concern that there will not be public inquiries under this procedure. If that is so, it would be as well if that were spelled out specifically. Is that intended to be a departure from the norm, purely for the circumstances of this small  tranche of changes, or does this presage a broader thought that the Government would in future not propose to use public inquiries if local authority boundaries are to be changed? What is the thinking behind that?

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

On the face of it, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, because there are not public inquiries in such instances. We are not taking about the sort of procedure that is undergone in relation to parliamentary changes, but about tweaking boundaries. Indeed, public inquiries do not take place in such circumstances, so we are not envisaging that that should change. This is an open and liberal—if I can use that word without too much criticism from behind me or in front of me—measure and a reassurance to local authorities. It will put into the legislative framework, if the House accepts it, a sensible framework to fit the proposed new arrangement that reflects the principles that are already in place.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)

This has been a useful debate. Public inquiries after local government reorganisation have not been a feature in the past, but we have not had authorities making sometimes competitive bids, leading to a ripple effect, with one borough making a bid and another at the other end of the county making another to move things forward. As the Minister acknowledged earlier in respect of Bedfordshire and a number of other authorities, the multiple proposals will lead to a slight headache in respect of what one ends up with. I wonder whether it might be appropriate sometimes to put such matters to a public inquiry. My other concern is that the provision diminishes the work for barristers within our system, and that must be a concern for us all.

We have had a useful debate. I still think that the period should be slightly longer than four weeks. That would be better, given that there is not to be a public inquiry. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.