Clause 11
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
5:30 pm

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I would like a brief run around the course on clause 11, which contains rather sweeping Government powers to deal with the implications of orders made and the ability to name new local government areas and authorities. That is where Kellyshire comes within the bounds of possibility, assuming some mental aberration on the part of the Secretary of State, which I am sure will not occur.

On the face of it, these are wide and sweeping opportunities. How on earth will the Minister exercise such extraordinary powers? I refer to subsections (3) and (4), which confer a whole series of powers. Subsection (4)(g) in particular refers to

“the boundary of any police area in England”.

We have just been through what must have been a bruising experience, even for the present Home Office, in dealing with the boundaries of police areas. Attempts were made to rearrange the police areas in fairly short order, and they all fell foul. How does the clause relate to the boundaries of police areas? There would be widespread concern if the creation of new local authorities under the Bill caused any disruption to existing police areas.

Michael Fabricant (Whip, Whips; Lichfield, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend recall that we also asked for witnesses from the Association of Police Authorities? They could have given us interesting evidence.

Jonathan R Shaw (Assistant Whip (funded by HM Treasury); Chatham and Aylesford, Labour)

We could have had a whole busload of them.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

You know, Mr. Benton, that could have been me talking. The hon. Gentleman took the words right out of my mouth. Had the witness procedure only been that little bit more extended, we could have thought ahead to these clauses and seen who might have been able to accompany Sir Michael Lyons to give us advice on them.

The boundary of a police area in England is mentioned specifically. What is the Minister’s consideration on that? There is a series of quite substantial powers, including powers over parish boundaries, the names of local government areas and the names of local authorities. He will be aware of the difficulties and debates that have raged throughout this country following any suggestion that traditional names should be changed or that local authorities should be named differently. Where is the indication that there will be public consultation and a degree of public consent to any changes made as a result of the powers in the clause?

I think that the Minister has got the drift of our concerns about this wide-ranging clause. If he could enlighten us to some degree, we might be able to come to a reasonable arrangement.

Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)

I rise to elaborate briefly on another provision to back up my hon. Friend’s point. Subsection (4)(e) refers to

“the establishment or membership of public bodies in any area affected”.

I draw the Minister’s attention to clause 23, where the definition of a public body includes

“a joint board, or joint committee, on which a local authority is represented”.

In many local authorities, representation by local councils extends to a vast array of bodies that would constitute public bodies under that definition. Many of them include bodies such as charities, in which a local authority is represented, housing associations and a host of other bodies that, by my reading of this definition, would be caught under the directive. It is not just a matter of the police authorities. The definition extends across the whole gamut of the public sector representation on bodies whether public, voluntary or private.

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

The answer to the hon. Gentlemen’s questions, both from the Front and Back Benches, is that the clause essentially translates the powers from the structural change process as laid out in the Local Government Act 1992. There is nothing new, therefore, in what is being proposed. What the clause relates to, which members of the Committee have picked up, is the definition of a local authority—whether it be police or parishes is laid out in the Bill.

The clause sets out the matters that the Secretary of State may include in an order implementing structural or boundary change. Those matters are necessary to achieve structural or boundary change and include, for example, the constitution of a new local government area, the abolition of an existing local government area, the winding up and dissolution of an existing local authority, the establishment of an authorityas a county council or as a district council, and consequential matters, such as the name of a local government area, electoral matters that are covered under clause 12 and the boundary of a parish.

As hon. Members have commented, subsection (5) defines the establishment of an authority, which also includes increasing the remit of an existing authority; for example, where a county council takes over the functions of a district council.

Subsection (6) makes it clear that the Secretaryof State’s power to implement a proposal with modifications includes the implementation of a proposal for an area with boundaries different from those proposed. The Secretary of State can implement a proposal for any area. She can change boundaries so that they do not run along existing county or district boundaries under the procedure, as we have said before. However, I would like to reassure the Committee that we intend to use that power only following advice from the independent boundary committee.

For example, if we received a proposal for a single tier of local government for an area and quite separately we received a recommendation from the boundary committee relating to the area but with an alternative boundary, the clause would enable us  to implement the proposal but with the boundaryas recommended by the independent boundary committee. That is the extent of my permissive review, and I hope that members of the Committee will recognise that it is prudent to include that power in the clause.

Subsection (7), however, clarifies that the Secretary of State may not implement a proposal that extends an area into one that is not currently under local government control; for example, Wales, the City of London or the Temples. The clause is translating the powers that exist under the 1992 Act.

In answer to the question of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire about police authorities and other such public bodies, the provision would allow a consequential change to a boundary—to, say, a police authority or parish—to follow from a local authority boundary. That is particularly important in combined police authority areas in which we would want public representation through the elected councillors—nominated by the principal local authorities—who sit on such bodies to ensure that there is coterminosity with the relevant public bodies that are listed in subsection (4). It would, therefore, be necessary to amend the membership of such a public body if changes such as those that I have outlined had taken place.

I hope that that answers the questions that have legitimately been asked regarding clause 11. The provisions are rooted in the 1992 Act. The clause specifies what the Secretary of State may include in an order that implements proposed structural or boundary changes. It is not our desire that we should be held responsible for the names of local council areas, which my experience shows is often more controversial than the extent of the boundary, the structure or anything else. I scratch my head at some of those matters just as much as other hon. Members. I assure the Committee that we would prefer to reach consensus on such a matter in the local area.