Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Amalgamation of one or more local authorities—

‘(1) One or more principal councils may request the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to advise, no later than a date specified in the request, on proposals for the amalgamation of the relevant principal councils.

(2) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England shall provide the advice requested.

(3) Where they provide that advice, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England must also do any of the following that they think appropriate—

(a) recommend that the Secretary of State implements the proposal without modification;

(b) recommend that he does not implement it.

(4) Any principal council submitting a proposal for amalgamation must if requested by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England by such date as they may specify with any information that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England may reasonably require in connection with its functions under this Clause.

(5) If the Local Government Boundary Commission for England recommends the proposal without modification the Secretary of State may—

(a) by order implement the proposal, with or without modification; or

(b) decide to take no action.

(6) The Secretary of State may not in any case make an order under subsection (5)(a) implement a proposal unless he has consulted the following about the proposal—

(a) every authority affected by the proposal (except the authority or authorities which made it); and

(b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.’.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

Unlike many of the clauses being considered this afternoon, new clause 4 concerns a request to the Local Government Boundary Commission to advise on proposals for the amalgamation of relevant principal councils. The request does not flow from the Secretary of State, but comes up from the bottom, the councils themselves, which is why we thought that it was worth tabling the new clause. It is a relatively simple measure, and I commend it to the Committee.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

We welcome the transfer of functions relating to boundary changes from the Electoral Commission’s boundary committee to the Local Government Boundary Commission. Those are two different jobs and it is important that they are separated. New clause 4 is self-explanatory, and we wish to see a bottom-up process. We welcome variety in local government, and acknowledge that some places will have different set-ups that will be more appropriate for them than others would be. It is important that any review of the boundaries of local government, or any amalgamation of authorities, should be driven by what people want on the ground, rather than by a centralised process. If the new clause is aimed at achieving that, we will be happy to support it.

Philip Dunne (Whip, Whips; Ludlow, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. It is the first time that I have had the opportunity to address the Committee, but I will be brief. I wish to emphasise that the new clause also stands in my name. I draw that to the Committee’s attention because I represent a constituency that has just gone through a transition from a two-tier structure to a unitary tier.

In the process of allocating the new unitary ward boundaries, in one part of my constituency we found ourselves in the extraordinary position of not having a single advocate for a particular two-member division that had been proposed. The proposal appeared from nowhere and was imposed by the Electoral Commission on the communities of Church Stretton and Craven Arms in my constituency. It is one of the relatively few two-member wards in my constituency, and within the county. Those two communities have very little in common. They are united by the A49, which is the only Highways Agency trunk road that passes through the constituency. They are seven miles apart.

The community of Church Stretton nestles in the Switzerland of Shropshire. For those of you who do not know that area, it is as it is described. It has some magnificent hills, which are famous for providing the best views between there and the Urals. Travelling eastwards, one cannot get as good a view as one can from the top of the Long Mynd until one hits the Urals. Yet just to  its south, in Craven Arms, nestling on the edge of the area of outstanding natural beauty, people do not benefit from quite such spectacular views, beautiful and attractive as the place is, and there is relatively little that unites the two separate towns. Each has its own town infrastructure, yet they have been lumped together in a single ward. That caused intense frustration at every level in the community, including among those wishing to stand for election to the town councils in the respective areas, as well as a couple of the villages that were lumped in with them.

I have been going on at some length and you have been very indulgent in allowing me do so, Mr. Illsley. However, that example lends emphasis and support to the purpose of the new clause: that if areas are going through the fundamental change of a reorganisation of structure, the views of the people on the ground should carry rather more weight than the views of the bureaucratic organisation many miles away, probably in London, seeking to impose some sort of arithmetic calculation to the considerable distress of the local people affected by it. So I encourage the Minister to consider accepting the new clause when she sums up.

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

The Chairman has been a little bit indulgent because he recalls doing his geography A-level field course in Church Stretton. He rises simply to explain to the Committee that we are debating new clause 4 with clause 57 because the new clause fits into that part of the Bill. We will not take a vote on new clause 4 until we take votes on the new clauses.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Portsmouth North, Labour)

The Government broadly support the principles behind the new clause. We agree that it is right that it should be open to local authorities to initiate reviews of their boundaries and, if they consider it appropriate, mergers with neighbouring councils. However, we legislated for such a process in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Section 8 of the 2007 Act, as amended by the Bill to include reference to the new Boundary Commission, enables any local authority to make a request to the Boundary Commission to conduct a boundary review. Such a review can consider altering local government boundaries, and abolishing or creating local government areas. It therefore provides a mechanism for principal councils to request a review to consider whether two or more local authorities should be amalgamated. The 2007 Act also enables a review to be instigated by a request from the Secretary of State, or on the initiative of the boundary committee.

Clause 57 provides that those functions of the boundary committee will be transferred to the new Local Government Boundary Commission. The new clause is unnecessary as there is already provision to enable councils to make requests for such reviews. In addition, the 2007 Act sets out statutory criteria which the Boundary Commission will have to have regard to when considering any boundary change. These are the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. Those are important requirements when any boundary change is being considered.

Section 9 of the 2007 Act provides that, where the Boundary Commission is undertaking a review of local government areas, it must consult the councils of those  areas under review and other local authorities, parish councils, or other persons it believes to have an interest. Those could include, for example, local authorities, MPs and police authorities. Section 10 of the 2007 Act allows the Secretary of State to implement, by order, recommendations made by the boundary committee with or without modification. Such an order would be subject to the approval of both Houses. We believe that the statutory process that currently exists provides statutory criteria and a full review process and meets the objectives that the hon. Member for Wycombe has sought to achieve through this clause. I hope that, in the knowledge that the provision already exists, he will withdraw the new clause when we reach that stage.