Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Whitty (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 22 March 2010. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Norwich and Norfolk (Structural Changes) Order 2010.


Norwich and Norfolk (Structural Changes) Order 2010

I have known and loved the city of Exeter since I was a child. In those days—the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has gone—you would drive into Exeter and see a sign which said, "The City and County of Exeter". That is what the people of Exeter wanted. Yes, it does have implications for others, but the main implication is for those who live and work in, and draw their living from, Exeter. Overwhelmingly, those people have demonstrated through their votes, their council representatives and their businesses their support for unitary status. Institutions, civic and educational, all support unitary status. An article written by the chair of the chamber of commerce a few days ago indicated all the frustrations which businesses in Exeter city have with the two-tier process. They oppose the kind of red tape that I would normally expect the Benches opposite to raise as a problem for the operation of businesses. Others have asked where the localism is in the opposition to the orders. If we are to devolve to the lowest possible level of community decisions which mean something to the community, then let us do so in relation to the citizens of Exeter and of Norwich. I make my second point on process. It was quite proper for the Permanent Secretary to write the letter. It was equally proper for the Secretary of State to override it, because the option which would have met most of the criteria, and the cheapest option, is not on the table, because no political party, no major institution and no major business representatives in the city of Exeter—I believe the same to be true in Norwich—supported a double unitary solution. It is either a unitary solution for Exeter, with Devon remaining two-tiered, or it is what is proposed. The Permanent Secretary’s letter is therefore to some extent irrelevant; the process is at this stage irrelevant; the timing is at this stage irrelevant. Parliament has had a substantial debate on local government issues. I would love it to discuss these things in more detail and more frequently. We do not want to be hung up on process; we want to take our decision on the basis of what the people of Exeter and Norwich want and what is best for them. That is encapsulated in the orders before us. I have heard no argument tonight that should be sufficient to deny the people of Exeter and Norwich their wishes.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c817-8 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Councillors Costs County councils Devon Elections Judicial review District councils Exeter Local government Norfolk Norwich Rural areas Unitary councils Devon County Council Exeter City Council Norfolk County Council Norwich City Council
Legislation
Exeter and Devon (Structural Changes) Order 2010
Norwich and Norfolk (Structural Changes) Order 2010
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk