Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 24 February 2009. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Unitary Authorities.


Unitary Authorities

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing this important debate on a subject that has caused enormous frustration in our county of Norfolk. I will keep my remarks brief, because other right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I want to deal with three issues that have caused me real concern. First, when the process got under way, I assumed that it would be evidence-driven and that there was clear evidence in support of the case for unitary authorities. Instinctively, I could see a potential case for unitary authorities: one level of local government serving local people and delivering all local services seems to be a sensible way to proceed. However, my confidence in the process was undermined at my first meeting with the boundary committee, when I started the conversation by saying that I assumed that there was clear evidence for the case for unitary local government. The answer, which came swiftly, was no.  There is no clear evidence at all. The picture is patchy. Some have worked well and others have failed rather badly. The answer to my questions, ““Does it deliver better services and better value for money?”” and ““Does it deliver services that are more easily understood by the public?”” was, on an evidence basis, no. That undermined my confidence in the whole process. Surely this process should be based on evidence and should not be a political process driven from the centre. Secondly, the process has passed the public by: they have been largely ignored. The views of bodies such as parish councils, as the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned, appear to have been ignored, too. For me, if there is to be a review of local government—I have an open mind; if there is a better system than the one we have at the moment, we ought to be prepared to consider the evidence—the evidence should be put before the public and the public, locally, should be given the final say in determining the model of local government, delivering their local services, for their area. The public have been excluded from that process. The process started in Norfolk with a bid from Norwich city council for self-government. One was left with the clear impression that rural areas were an afterthought. Consideration of them was left until after unitary local government was provided for Norwich. To me, as an MP representing a rural part of Norfolk, that was wholly unsatisfactory. I am conscious that there are some real challenges in Norfolk to do with economic development and, in particular, education, where our county has not been performing well enough. Some review of local government may be necessary in order to deliver the improvements that are so important for the future of our county.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
488 c5-6WH 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Cost effectiveness Devon Local government Norfolk Reorganisation Unitary councils Suffolk Local Government Boundary Commission for England
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk