---

Norwich and Norfolk (Structural Changes) Order 2010

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments I have tabled. I shall, in due course, ask the House to support me if the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, do not meet with the approval of the House. I feel the wording of my amendments perhaps more appropriately reflects the spirit of this House than the fatal amendments, about which you have just heard, and I propose therefore to abstain on the amendments tabled by noble Lord, Lord Tope. I hope very much that the House will support me in due course on the amendments to which I am about to speak. I declare an interest as a member of the Merits Committee, but I made a point of not attending on the occasion when it considered these two orders in order to feel that I can speak entirely freely. I live 10 miles outside Exeter and my parents and grandparents and all my family on my maternal and paternal sides come from Norwich, so I know and love both cities. However I feel strongly that it is the duty of a Cross-Bencher, as a Peer independent of all political parties, to speak out if the Government of the day, of whichever political persuasion, seek to pass legislation that is seriously flawed, and that is what I propose to do today, even though it is unusual for a Cross-Bencher to do so. Noble Lords have already heard a great deal from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about the background to this, the issues that arise on the orders and the reasons why they are objectionable. These two orders are different from earlier unitary authority orders that came before this House. Indeed, they must be unique in the way in which the government department is presenting them. They therefore require the special attention of this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said. The Merits Committee pointed out: ""Both these proposals differ geographically from the seven previous orders, because they intend to convert only the central part of the defined area to unitary status, leaving it surrounded by a ‘doughnut’—" a lovely word—and that, ""geography is important to the Impact Assessment"," and therefore to the cost implications. I shall concentrate upon the other points made in the report by the Merits Committee and then summarise the points upon which I rely in support of the two amendments in my name. It is inevitable that I will tread a little over the ground already trodden by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I hope the House will forgive me. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has already set out the conclusion of the Merits Committee. In coming to that conclusion, the committee received a considerable volume of written evidence that it considered and dissected. It raised questions on the unsatisfactory nature of draft orders. The main points made by Merit Committee were that the proposed implementation of bids did not conform to all five criteria and that the introduction of additional reasons for selection would therefore appear to be contrary to previous practice—it had not happened before these draft orders. The Merits Committee stated that it would have expected the department to set out in more detail the basis for setting aside the Boundary Committee’s recommendation. It pointed out the lack of evidence for the two compelling reasons, and when it asked the DCLG, as it tends to do, how the change of status was likely to overcome the cost disadvantages in this area, the department simply repeated the Written Statement and did not estimate any cost savings or efficiency gains. The Merits Committee commented that it would be helpful to the House if the DCLG made a much more explicit analysis, which I do not believe we have yet received, of how much economic growth each city, as distinct from each county, is expected to generate as a result of becoming a unitary authority. As I understand it, the likely growth is expected to be outside the boundaries of each city. This is true particularly of Exeter; Cranbrook is a new village that is about to be built, and there is to be a Skypark and various other things that will grow very dramatically but not within the city boundary. The Merits Committee asked why the department relied on the Total Place approach as a compelling reason. It suggested that the House might wish to seek a clearer explanation from the Minister as to why this approach was considered a compelling reason for granting the city unitary-authority status. I may not have listened as carefully as I hope I did, but I do not think that I got a very good answer on that. The committee pointed out the lack of consultation—there has been a great deal of consultation, but not on the two so-called compelling reasons—and, in view of the very strong opinions for and against the Government’s proposals, questioned the extent to which these unitary proposals, which rely on collaborative working, were now feasible. The committee made a very practical point here. The Merits Committee also supported the point made by the Permanent Secretary in his letter that, ""as yet there is no clear evidence of the costs and benefits that may arise"." It suggested that the choice between preserving the status quo and creating new unitary authorities, ""is one of the key issues on which the House may wish to take a view: which course of action best represents ‘the public interest’ and which section of the public's interests should take priority"." The Merits Committee also suggested: ""The House may wish to consider whether or not sufficient evidence that the course proposed in the Orders will solve the problems identified without creating unacceptable consequences elsewhere, has been provided"." I suggest that it certainly has not been. The committee questioned whether there had been a consistent decision-making process, and asked whether it was right to depart from the published procedure during the same tranche of applications, particularly without further consultation. Were the compelling reasons persuasive or was sufficient evidence published elsewhere to reassure the House? The answer is clearly no. The committee also questioned the timing of these orders when there are to be council elections, about which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has already spoken. I will now summarise the points that demonstrate clearly that these orders should not be supported by this House without further consultation and without the Government reconsidering them much further. First, neither Norwich nor Exeter meets the Government’s own criteria of affordability and, in the case of Norwich, value for money. Secondly, in December 2007, the Secretary of State rejected the Norwich and Exeter proposals. Thirdly, the Secretary of State asked the Boundary Committee for its advice, and on 7 December 2009 it advised that the Norwich and Exeter proposals should not be implemented as the Secretary of State’s previous concerns had not been displaced by any evidence received by the committee during its review. Fourthly, on 8 February, the Secretary of State received a letter from the Permanent Secretary, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has referred, which said: ""The approach you are currently proposing makes it difficult for me to meet the standards expected of me as Accounting Officer"." Those are extremely strong words. On 10 February of this year, the Secretary of State accepted that the criteria were not met, but found compelling reasons without any supporting evidence and without the consultation on the compelling reasons. The Merits Committee reported that the orders may imperfectly achieve the policy objective. The cost implications have not been properly considered, nor the impact on truncating each county and the effect on some district councils, nor the consideration of unforeseen consequences. Perhaps most damning is the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments as recently as last week. It drew the special attention of both Houses to each of the draft orders on the grounds that if they are approved and made, there will be a doubt as to whether they will be lawfully made. The JCSI went on to say that, ""the Houses should be in no doubt as to the proposition which the Secretary of State puts to them. It is that they should approve legislation implementing decisions which the Secretary of State himself is advised may well be successfully challenged"." That seems to me to be the most extraordinary situation which this House faces today. Will the Minister explain why this legislation has to be pushed forward at this time? What is the urgency for it? Why do we need it now, particularly in the light of the warning of the Permanent Secretary that the judicial review may well be successful—it has a high chance of success—the issue of lawfulness as raised by the report of the Joint Committee, and the impact of the cancellation of the May local elections? I am saddened that the Government do not seem to think that these are matters which weigh with them. I would urge the Minister again to consider withdrawing these orders and to reconsider the overall plans for the counties of Norfolk and Devon, and the cities of Norwich and Exeter.