Written Questions are submitted by MPs or Lords to receive information from a Department.
|24 Apr 2018, 4:33 p.m.||Sir Christopher Chope MP (Conservative - Christchurch)||Sir Christopher Chope MP (Conservative - Christchurch)|
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to paragraph 4.8 of the report laid before Parliament explaining the effect of the Dorset (Structural Changes)(Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2018, for what reasons he did not consider an alternative proposal from Christchurch Borough Council to be implementable; and whether that proposal could have been implementable through retrospective amendment of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
Answered by Rishi Sunak - Chancellor of the Exchequer
As my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State explained in his letter of 19 February 2018 to my Hon Friend the member for Christchurch, he considered that the alternative proposal from Christchurch Borough Council was not implementable. This was because it involved the retention of the two tier structure in rural Dorset and hence would be likely to undermine the very purpose of, and support for, the proposed reforms. It also involved a merger of two unitary district councils wholly outwith the area of Christchurch, which was not proposed or supported by either of the councils concerned, and would be contrary to the criteria the Secretary of Sate had announced that he intended to apply to any proposed merger of district councils.
Regulations under section 15 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 which affect a unitary authority may only be made with the consent of that authority; such regulations would not have retrospective effect.