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

The clause deals with changes to boundaries. There have always been modest changes to local government boundaries, usually because of a growing housing estate, the sides of a road straddling a boundary, or a rural parish being added to a borough or a town simply because it made sense in respect of emptying the dustbins and other basic services. During debate on the Bill, the issue was raised occasionally of extending the boundaries of towns or cities from where they might have been drawn in mediaeval or Victorian times because the communities had expanded since then.

Clause 9 covers a number of constraints. Will the Minister set out in a little more detail how the process would operate? If Leicester wanted to expand into neighbouring boroughs, could it do so? Normally, the boundary committee would undertake a review of all local authority boundaries. I can understand a local authority asking the boundary committee to review a particular boundary issue, but the Bill states that the boundary committee may “on its own initiative” undertake an inquiry. I wonder what that means. Will the boundary committee go marauding round, trying to expand our cities and annex suburban communities? Am I making a more sinister interpretation of the Bill? I hope that the Minister can give an elegant reply on the subject.

Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

My comments are addressed first to subsection (2)(b), which refers to

“the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.”

That seems to me to be the heart of the proposal. I hope that the Minister will assert that that factor must be given due weight when boundary changes are considered. Certainly in my local authority, Stockport, there have been such changes between us and the Tameside authority and between us and the Derbyshire authority. Those were common-sense changes to boundaries that were no longer relevant. They were not particularly difficult or contentious changes; they made common sense and were at quite a low level.

However, in the context of the Bill, it is only right that we hear from the Minister that he does not see clauses 8, 9 and 10 as changing existing practice to any substantial degree. That brings me back to some of the remarks that he made in responding to a debate on clause 2, when he referred to this provision as though it somehow absolved him from dealing with the point about clause 2. We are now dealing with a completely different set of propositions, which is not directly connected, as far as one can tell, with the proposals in clause 2. I seek the Minister’s confirmation of that point and that the extent of the provision is not being taken beyond what one might call the common law practice of present procedures in terms of tidying things up. Clause 8(4) contains a list of four things that cannot be done, which is on the whole very encouraging. Perhaps the Minister would like to underline again the fact that there is no intention to stretch current practice in the direction that the Opposition are concerned about.

Tom Levitt (PPS (Rt Hon Hilary Benn, Secretary of State), Department for International Development; High Peak, Labour)

I rise to make a brief contribution, having read clause 8 in some depth. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for not giving him notice of this question, but he will appreciate why it might be particularly relevant to his constituency and mine. Do the words “local government” in the clause refer to national park boundaries, given that national parks are arms of local government? My hon. Friend and I both have an interest in the boundaries of a particular national park, because we have adjacent constituencies, albeit with no road passing over the boundary between us.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

My point follows on from those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I would like some reassurance about the position of London boroughs because, unlike in the previous portion of the Bill, the definition of local authority and local government area in this portion—by virtue of clause 11, I think—includes London boroughs. I appreciate that it was not intended that they should form part of the unitary changes and the associated tinkerings, but I am interested to know for what purpose London boroughs are included in this portion of the Bill, other than perhaps for the occasional sensible adjustment where it is found that the odd piece of housing development strays over the boundary between two boroughs, as I said.

I do not want to be unduly suspicious but, asthe Minister knows, some people in London government—I am sure that such people are a great  minority, even in the Labour party—would favour and have occasionally advocated wholesale change to the boundaries of the London boroughs. As the Minister knows, the Commission on London Governance, which we referred to earlier in our proceedings, completely and on a cross-party basis rejected any significant change of that kind. None of the boroughs wants it.

Can I have some reassurance that the measure will not be misused by someone not a million miles away from here at City hall to set in train a reorganisation of the London boroughs, which will make all that we have discussed in earlier clauses on unitary authority bids look minuscule by comparison? It is clear that the boroughs do not want such changes. The measure should be used simply to tidy up the odd borough anomaly that we see from time to time.

Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)

In common with Members on both sides of the Committee, I would like the Minister to clarify a point about the definition of local government areas in relation to city regions. The exclusions in subsection (4) suggest that it would be possible for a future Secretary of State to decide that he or she wished to introduce an additional tier of elected government using the city region device. Such a decision would not infringe any of the exemptions in subsection (4) because existing authorities could continue. I would appreciate clarification on whether that will be extended for city regions.

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

The point that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove made to try to get clarification has been validated by the three interventions that we just had.

Subsection (4) is designed to avoid the possibility of boundary changes effecting structural change by the back door. The procedures would be required in any event, irrespective of the invitation to propose changes.

I shall answer some of the specific questions that have been raised. The measures do not include the national parks, which are covered by separate legislation. Of course, the authorities that have to be consulted on, or involved in, proposals could change. It may be helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak if I point out that the boundary committee has a duty to take account of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty when conducting its work. That is part of the definition contained in subsection (2)(b), which mentions

“the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities”

and is part of our sustainable communities strategy, although, interestingly, it is in this and not the Sustainable Communities Bill, as I recall from my reading.

On the question raised about London, the answer is yes. The proposals laid out in the Bill would be required irrespective of clause 2, and are indeed about tidying up. The assurances are in clause 8(4) to help to clarify matters for the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and other members of the Committee.

On city regions, there is nothing in the Bill that allows for the idea of super-local authority areas. Again, the issue is not subject to the measure, which is  about the common-sense tidying up of boundaries. A review can be instigated by a request from the Secretary of State, a local authority, or on the initiative of the boundary committee, which has the power to do so under existing procedures and legislation. It is part of its duty to consider such matters, and the hon. Member for Poole will agree that it has a good record ofdoing so.

Subsection (2) provides that the boundary committee may make only recommendations for boundary change that seem desirable to it,

“having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government”

under the 1972 definition, as we discussed earlier, and

“the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.”

That is very important. As elected representatives, we all know that the identity and interests of a local community cannot be determined in all cases by simple arithmetic. If the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), to whom I wish a speedy recovery from illness—I understand that he is doing well—were on the Committee, he would be the first to make the point that one would not want an administrative boundary for the Isle of Wight that was not the coastline—it would not make sense. I think that Banham did that. [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] It chopped the island in two. I rest my case.

The provision is consistent with the boundary committee’s current approach when undertaking boundary reviews. It may recommend a boundary change, the abolition of a local government area and/or the constitution of a new local government area. However, it cannot make recommendations for boundary change that would permit structural change through the back door. That is why the Bill provides that the boundary committee may not recommend the alteration of a boundary of a single-tier area or a London borough that would result in the abolition of a two-tier area—to look at the point about the edge, which I think that the London commission looked at—or the alteration of the boundary of a two-tier area that would result in the abolition of a single-tier area or a London borough. That refers to the point made about Heathrow airport in reverse.

Finally, the boundary committee may not alter the constitution of a new local government area that results in the abolition of an existing local government area, where the new area includes a combination of a single-tier area and a two-tier area. For example, the boundary committee could not recommend that the London borough of Harrow should be merged with Watford borough council. Furthermore, the boundary committee may not recommend the alteration of a local government area or the creation of a new local government area that would extend into Wales, the City of London or the Temples.

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

The Minister ruled out the London borough of Harrow being merged with an area outside the Greater London boundary. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would be concerned if Harrow were merged with Hillingdon or another borough.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a slightly different point. It is possible for a proposal to be made to that effect. It is already possible for that proposal to be made. That is not affected by our restructuring proposals.

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

So is it theoretically possible that the Mayor of London could request the boundary committee to review the boundaries of London boroughs to reduce the number of boroughs—even halve the number—under these proposals?

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

If the Mayor of London were to use that power, I suspect that he would want to create one London borough. The request for such a review—[Interruption.]

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Order. The background noise is getting a bit too high. I am trying to hear what the Minister is saying.

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

Such a request can come from the Secretary of State, a local authority or the boundary committee. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is not the case. A request could only come from a borough or boroughs, or from the Secretary of State or the boundary committee.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

May I take it, just for the sake of clarity, because it is important to my constituents, that that is because the definition of “local authority” in the definitions clause—clause 23—excludes the Mayor of London but includes London boroughs? My only fear is what happens if the Mayor of London nobbles the Secretary of State.

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

Hon. Members who took part in discussions on the original Greater London Authority Bill will remember that the point about whether the GLA is defined as a local authority for these purposes was debated at length. It is not. In some circumstances, such as capping, it is defined as a local authority.

Subsection (5) provides that the boundary committee must have regard to any guidance that the Secretary of State issues in connection with boundary review. That guidance may include, for example, clarification of the legislative powers of the boundary committee—what it can and cannot recommend—or relate to a specific proposal, to the economic coherence of the area or to transport patterns in the area.

Subsection (6) provides that a local authority must provide information to the boundary committee that it requests in connection with its role in undertaking a boundary review. That is to ensure that the boundary committee has all the information that it requires to make its recommendation to the Secretary of State. The clause provides for the independent boundary committee to review the administrative boundariesof principal authorities. For its common sense, I commend it to the Committee.