Local Government Bill [Lords]

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I have some sympathy for the Minister, who is having to try to justify the Government’s position on the Bill. Essentially, as he knows, he is trying to defend the indefensible. He knows that unitary councils are far more efficient than the two-tier model that he seeks to retain, and that they save money. He knows that the people in Norwich and Exeter want unitary councils. They want to have some control over their own destiny, and they do not want to be subject to the two-tier system that he seems to think is so wonderful.

The Minister also knows that most of the councillors in Exeter and Norwich support unitary status for those great cities, and that the unitary model is a better governance model for the local authorities there.

[Robert Neill]

Does it follow, then, that it is the official Opposition’s policy that there should be unitary authorities across the country?

[Chris Williamson]

The Minister knows that we support local determination, and we know from the facts surrounding Exeter and Norwich that local councillors and the local people support unitary status for those cities. It is a fact that it offers a better governance model than the two-tier system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

With the leave of the House, I will briefly reply to the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on a remarkable display of political chutzpah. I kept my opening speech brief not because I am embarrassed by the Bill—I am not remotely embarrassed by it—but because when I was a young barrister, those who taught me often said, “The stronger the case, the shorter the argument should be.” As briefly as possible, I shall briskly rebut some of the points that were made in the debate.

First, the Bill is not about the merits or otherwise of unitary authorities per se, but about the specific proposals for Norfolk and Norwich and Devon and Exeter, and the hangover arrangements relating to the county of Suffolk—no more than that. That came about, I observe, because the former Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), attempted to rush through these unitary proposals, against the advice of his Department’s accounting officer and his own party predecessors, in the dying days of the last Parliament. That was struck down as unlawful by the High Court, however, so the matter remains outstanding and has to be brought to a close.

[Chris Williamson]

If this is not an argument against the merits or demerits of unitary councils, it would seem that the Minister has inadvertently conceded that this is an act of political spite.

[Robert Neill]

On the contrary, it is clearing up an act of partisan manoeuvring by the previous Government, who abandoned their own criteria. It is worth remembering that a previous Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), concluded that neither the Exeter bid nor the Norwich bid met the value-for-money test that she had set. Was she acting out of political spite? I rather doubt it. It was also concluded that the Norwich bid was questionable on the affordability test. So the Labour party set out certain criteria, but these proposals did not meet them, and it then completely changed its tune. It is the ultimate hypocrisy, therefore, for Labour Members to accuse the Government of having changed their stance; it is they who have been so inconsistent that the High Court overturned their attempted gerrymandering.

[Chris Williamson]

How does the Minister respond to the point that the impact assessment concluded that there would be ongoing savings of £6.5 million per year? Surely that is an example of good value for money, and it would be brought about by creating unitary councils in Norwich and Exeter.

[Robert Neill]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the impact assessment, which I was going to come to, because throughout this debate Labour Members have singularly failed to understand how the impact assessment operated. First, it set out and commented on the costs and savings by reference to the previous Government’s assessments. If they think there is a problem with the previous assessments, it is not our difficulty—we did not create them. It was the previous Labour Government who judged that these proposals did not meet the financial criteria and, in the case of Norwich, the value-for-money criteria as well. They cannot have it both ways; their impact assessments were used by their own Ministers to condemn proposals that they later chose to bring forward—so I will not hear any arguments on the impact assessment.

Secondly, it is quite clear—there is ample evidence from across the country, from joint working by local authorities, including those in Devon, Suffolk and Norfolk—that considerable savings can be made through collaborative working without the on-costs and up-front costs of reorganisation. So we can have the benefits without the costs.

At the end of the day, this was a political act by the Labour Government, who, finding it inconvenient to stick with the decisions of their own Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, decided to wriggle out of it by inventing a reason that had never existed before for departing from their own criteria. That was struck down by the High Court. We have concluded that enough is enough, and that this would not serve the good interests of the governance of the counties of Devon and Norfolk, of which the cities concerned are an integral part. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.