Proceeding contribution from Robert Neill (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 9 March 2010. It occurred during Opposition day on Local Government (Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk).
Local Government (Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk)
Indeed. It is extraordinary behaviour, and we can set out why. We make no bones about tabling a motion condemning in trenchant terms the attitude and behaviour of the Government towards restructuring in Norfolk and Devon. It is worth reviewing a little of the background to the present situation. Hon. Members will recall that back in 2007 the then Secretary of State invited a number of local authorities to make bids for unitary status. The key point is that about 26 bids were received. It was made clear by the then Secretary of State that they were to be judged against five strict criteria, which have been the basis upon which all subsequent decisions have been taken. It was made clear that to be successful, bids would be expected to meet all five criteria. Particularly relevant to this case were the criteria of affordability and value for money. It is perfectly reasonable to take differing views about the virtues or otherwise of unitary local government. There are unitary local authorities across the country. Some of them work well and are successful. There are two-tier areas of local government across the country—three tiers, the parish councils would want to say—in county and shire districts, and they often work well too. That is not necessarily the driving consideration, although I will come to a point where there are real grounds for concern about the methodology that the Government have adopted, through the Department for Communities and Local Government, in assessing some of the supposed benefits of the recent tranche of reorganisations, but that is not necessarily the principal consideration here. The principal consideration is the Government's extraordinary behaviour in departing from their own tests and well trailed standards to produce two unitary proposals that they had unequivocally rejected out of hand as unacceptable and unable to meet two of their own criteria. The intellectual—and, some might be tempted to say, political—dishonesty is the principal issue that gives rise to this debate.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 507 c219-20
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Cost effectiveness Devon Ipswich Exeter Local government Local government finance Local government services Norfolk Norwich Standards Reorganisation Unitary councils Suffolk
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:01:49 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_628196
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_628196
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_628196