---

Local Government (Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk)

There are occasions when I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, and he speaks from experience about Northumberland. I shall return to the finances, but I want to deal with the latest developments, because the Secretary of State and the Minister, having decided on that wholly new departure, provoked a letter from the permanent secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government, in his capacity as accounting officer. He felt constrained to write to the Secretary of State, in effect seeking a direction, saying in terms that because of his concerns he required a direction from the Ministers in order to implement the proposals. It is worth saying why the permanent secretary felt obliged to do that—the background being that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State had to concede, as was apparent to anyone who looked at the evidence, that the proposals still did not meet the five criteria. Nothing had changed in that regard, but they had a new idea that there were now compelling grounds to permit departure from the criteria. I am glad that at the fag end of a Government there is still some inventiveness left in Ministers; it is a pity that all it involves is their trying to punch their way round the rules. In any event, they invented the new concept of the two compelling criteria. The permanent secretary had this to say:""Whilst I understand these wider reasons, I am concerned that the approach you are currently proposing makes it difficult for me to meet the standards expected of me as Accounting Officer.""My main concern about your proposed course has to be value for money for the public purse. It would impact adversely on the financial position of the public sector as compared with the alternative courses of action open to you."" In reference to the costings in the Secretary of State's proposed version, he says:""I recognise that if your proposed approach of a unitary Norwich and Exeter achieves the economic gains you envisage"—" That was one of the compelling reasons why it was thought that economic development would be better advantaged by these small city unitaries, though I note in parenthesis that the evidence submitted to the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee in the other place points out most compellingly that all the development areas and opportunities for the two cities are in fact outside the boundaries of the new unitaries. None the less, it was thought that having small unitaries would be better. The letter continues:""there may be off-setting benefits to the public purse from increased jobs of extra local and national tax revenues and reduced benefit payments. The evidence for such gains is mixed and representations that you have received provide no evidence to quantify such benefits. I also recognise your proposed approach may open the way for improved public services through the Total Place approach"—" that was the second compelling reason—""but this will be dependent on the collaboration of all the councils concerned and as yet there is no clear evidence of the costs and benefits that may arise.""