Gateshead and Northumberland (Boundary Change) Order 2013
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Rosser(11 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I support both these simple proposals, which reflect common sense. However, I am puzzled by one matter: why it has taken so long. The final recommendations were published in May 2012, based on the consultation a year ago. Why has it taken nine months for the matter to arrive now, in February of the following year? There may be explanations that I have not understood, but it strikes me as a long time when the consultation occurred almost a year ago. Any guidance or further details on the procedure being followed and the timetable to which those involved should keep would be helpful to know.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we have no objection to the orders, which are clearly not of the greatest significance for the nation. Indeed, when I read them—and in this position one surely has to try to speak for at least two or three minutes—I thought I had been reduced to reading extracts from the Oxford English Dictionary. I feel even more that way since the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has taken away about 90% of my contribution.
I will raise one or two points for clarification as much as anything. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that, from its establishment, the Boundary Commission,
“has compiled and maintained a list of boundary anomalies that have been notified to it”.
It goes on to say that the Boundary Commission,
“has sought the views of the local authorities concerned on all these anomalies”.
It says further:
“In three cases there was local agreement”.
Are there in fact lots of cases that the Boundary Commission is looking at in which there is no agreement? Obviously, one inference can be drawn from that. If there is no agreement, are we to assume, as paragraph 7.2 rather implies, that the Boundary Commission would not put any recommendations in front of the Secretary of State? In the two cases that we are considering, I think the Minister has probably already answered the question in her opening comments, but who actually initiated these two? Was it one or more of the four local authorities concerned? Was it the Boundary Commission’s own initiative? I can hardly imagine it was at the request of the Secretary of State, which is the other basis on which a review might be undertaken.
I will make exactly the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, so eloquently made as to what exactly has been going on over what appears to be the past 11 months since the consultation ended—on draft recommendations on which, we are told, there has been no significant disagreement. It would certainly be of interest to know why there has been this delay.
A further point that I should like to pursue—I am not seeking to suggest that it is a major point because clearly it is not—is that paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the normal minimum period of consultation is six weeks. In the case of Gateshead and Northumberland it was less than six weeks. In fact, it appears to have been about four weeks, the argument being the small scale of the change. One might have some sympathy with that argument, but what exactly has been achieved by reducing the consultation from the normal minimum of six weeks to somewhere around four weeks? Looking at the timescale, I cannot see that anything at all has been achieved. I appreciate that it was a Boundary Commission decision, but does the Minister know why it was done if it has not speeded things up, or has the Secretary of State perhaps asked the Boundary Commission why it thought it necessary to reduce the period of consultation when it does not appear to have been done in order to speed up the process?
In her comments on the Gateshead and Northumberland order, the noble Baroness referred to those who had responded. However, can she be a bit more specific about how many people responded to the draft recommendations? No figures are given, but figures, including a breakdown by category, are given for the East Hertfordshire and Stevenage order. Paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the Gateshead and Northumberland order will affect only two electors. Are the residents of Ravenside Farm, who were not exactly supportive, the two electors in Northumberland referred to in paragraph 7.8? If they are, they are apparently the only ones affected by the Gateshead and Northumberland order. They did not appear to support it and if they are the two concerned, I suppose you could say somewhat facetiously that there was 100% rejection by the electors affected. I do not want to turn this into a major point, but it would be interesting to know.
My final point is very minor. Indeed, some might think that it is more nitpicking than anything else. Paragraph 7.3 says:
“In three cases there was local agreement that the anomalies should be addressed”.
The two in front of us are two of those three. However, paragraph 8.3 indicates a measure of disagreement from the residents of Ravenside Farm, which would appear to contradict what is said in paragraph 7.3. The reply may be that there is a distinction between agreement that the anomalies be addressed, and agreement over the recommendations and how they should be addressed.
I hope the noble Baroness will be able to respond to those points. I reiterate that we support the orders. I do not wish to suggest that the points that I have raised are of fundamental importance, although it is interesting that both the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I are extremely interested in why it has taken so long to bring these instruments forward.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am lost in admiration that the noble Lords managed to find so much to raise on these rather small orders. However, I do not deny that they are more than reasonable questions, and I am very happy to try to deal with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about the delay between the consultation ending and the orders being brought forward. Once the Boundary Commission had undertaken its inquiries, it then had to deliver its results to the department. The issue has been with the department since June and has been waiting for, first, the necessary parliamentary time and, secondly, the time of the officials to deal with it. That, I think, is the straightforward answer to the noble Lord’s question, although I agree that this is not a matter that should require an awful lot of effort.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the number of applications that have been made to the Boundary Commission. I said in my notes that the Boundary Commission sought applications widely and that there were only three in total. We have dealt with one and we are now dealing with these two. It is not anticipated that there will be any more. Given the size of this nation, the fact that there are only three tweaks probably means that the Boundary Commission gets it right most of the time.
Lord Rosser
This may sound like nitpicking, but that is not the spirit in which I am saying it. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the Boundary Commission,
“has sought the views of the local authorities concerned on all these anomalies. In three cases there was local agreement”,
the inference being that there were more than three.
Baroness Hanham
There was a list of more than three, but it was only within these three that the local authorities were agreed.
Baroness Hanham
Yes. I hope that is correct. The noble Lord also asked about representations for East Hertfordshire. The responses came from three councillors, the local authorities and 14 residents, and they supported the boundary amendments. As for Gateshead and Northumberland, where there was only one property, two electors, one in the Ravenside bungalow and one in the parish, responded. The one from the Ravenside farmhouse wondered why the boundary had to be changed, and the residents of the Ravenside bungalow would live within one county boundary, with all the land they owned being within another. They had no objection, but they put forward some reasons; they were mostly complaining about the glossy brochure and the cost of this tweak.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about the period of consultation. It is entirely a matter for the Boundary Commission, which carries out consultations as it wishes. It has completed them now and the order means that the changes have to take place from 1 April.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked who initiated the reviews. Again, they are initiated by the Boundary Commission. As I said in my remarks, it carried out a countrywide search and come up with the list, but there was no agreement from the local authorities except from these three. I gather that there are no further reviews in the pipeline. If I have missed answering anything that either noble Lord has asked, I shall respond in writing.
Local Government Bill [HL]
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Rosser
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I can say simply that I will not accept this amendment. I have heard once again all the arguments in favour, and I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Low, very carefully. Statute is for interpretation. The fact is that these two authorities have landed themselves in a situation in which elections are needed. They have known from the outset that if things went this way, a third of their councillors would be disbarred from the moment the decision was made and elections would have to follow. They chose to seek legal advice on whether those elections should be held, and I understand that it has now been agreed that they will be held on 9 September. They will form a normal part of proceedings. The only additional expense will, I understand, be in the manning of the polling stations, which they would have to do in any event when elections are held. It is not for the Government to pick up this bill. The local authorities, even in these difficult circumstances, have the money to do so, so I do not accept the amendment.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am sorry that the Minister has felt unable to move on this, particularly in the light of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston.
As I mentioned earlier, the Minister said in Committee that she had been given to understand that no representations on the timing of the by-elections had been received from Exeter and Norwich councils. My understanding, as I said, is different. I notice in her response that she did not comment on that issue. I hope that she will make further inquiries on this point, particularly in the light of the response, which I am informed was given in reply as a ministerial stance and which once again reaffirmed the Minister’s position. So far as I am concerned—and the Minister did not seek to refute this from the Dispatch Box just now—the statement of the law on the timing of these by-elections was incorrect. The facts, including the recent High Court judgment, also indicate that the Secretary of State’s ruling on the law was wrong and that it has led to additional costs as far as Exeter and Norwich councils are concerned.
I simply repeat that the local authorities in Norwich and Exeter have been in no way at fault, as Mr Justice Ouseley said in the recent decision of the High Court. He said that the local authorities,
“are not themselves to blame for the pickle”, in which they find themselves.”
As I have said previously, to Norwich and Exeter, and to everyone else, central government does not become some new or different body or organisation simply because of a change in political control. The same of course applies to local authorities.
I hope that the Minister might be prepared during the next few weeks to reflect further on this issue and on the stance, which I suspect the Secretary of State in reality is taking rather than the Minister, and that she might be at least prepared to indicate to the two local authorities concerned that, without any commitment to change her stance, she would nevertheless, if they so wished, be willing to meet them to hear what they wanted to say to her on costs.
It will be up to others to decide whether to pursue this issue further when the Bill reaches the other place, but as far as the proceedings in your Lordships’ House are concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Local Government Bill [HL]
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Rosser
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, if the noble Baroness had continued to sit for a bit longer, she would have heard me get to her point. It is correct that the Bill does not repeal the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, but it would also be fair to say that the Government have no plans to issue further invitations for unitary authorities and, if there were applications, they would be viewed against the serious economic situation we are in at the moment and consideration would be given to whether they offered any value for money whatever, which these applications have proved not to have. I should have thought that any local government worth its salt would think twice about putting forward an application under those circumstances.
Lord Rosser
The noble Baroness raised the issue of the Merits Committee report. I stand by what I said in response to the intervention from the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. The report states:
“The Committee emphasises that it is not our role to reach a view on whether some form of unitary status is right in these circumstances, but to draw to the special attention of the House issues which it may wish to take into account when reaching its decision on the specific proposals in these Orders”.
That is the role of the Merits Committee. As the report states, it is not the role of the Merits Committee to reach a view on whether some form of unitary status is right in these particular circumstances.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that I did not say that the Merits Committee report supported or not unitary status. I said precisely what he said: that the Merits Committee drew the attention of the House to certain aspects with which it was deeply unhappy. I am certain that that is what I said; it is certainly what I meant to say; I do not believe that the noble Lord can draw any inference from what I said that I thought that the Merits Committee was either supporting or not supporting unitary authority status.
Housing: Market Renewal Partnerships
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Rosser
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that went a bit wider than this Question. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I shall reply in writing.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment. In the light of the cuts announced in the Homes and Communities Agency’s budget, what has changed about the demographics of the United Kingdom which means that fewer people need affordable housing? Is cutting back on affordable housing an example of the shared values of the coalition Government?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we keep mentioning the situation of which the noble Lord will be aware, whereby the previous Government left us with an enormous hole to fill. Unfortunately, there are areas where savings will have to be made to these programmes. Social housing remains high on the agenda and will continue to be built under the new regime. The way that those funds are allocated may differ slightly, but I can assure noble Lords that there is no relaxation on social housing.