Local Government Bill [HL]

My Lords, if I may put it delicately, the noble and learned Baroness misunderstands the import of her own amendment. She tabled a Motion of regret, but the orders went through. Had Members opposite chosen to do so they could have put down a Motion opposing them, as the Lib Dems did. The House chose not to support the Lib Dems. I understand why the Lib Dems opposed the Motion—it is a convention that we have established—but, none the less, when the House chose not to support the Lib Dems’ Motion it did not say, ““We do not support these””; instead, it called on the Government to consider and review their position—which they did— and then to proceed, as the Government are perfectly entitled to do. Noble Lords had a choice between two Motions: one to nullify, the other to regret. They chose not to nullify, only to regret. Therefore, I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that this House supported through that mechanism the Government’s intent, as did the other place. I am sure that, on reflection, she will accept that that is a proper interpretation of what happened on that night. In bringing forward Amendment 2, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, seeks essentially to strike out the orders for Norwich and Exeter over and beyond the impact of the JR. I do not want to talk about the election issue, which is part of the subsequent clause—I shall come back to that on Amendment 4—but to refer to the arguments made by the Minister at Second Reading, together with her follow-up letter of 8 July. At Second Reading the Minister said that her position and this debate was not about the, "““value or virtue of unitary government: it is about the mismanagement and mishandling of two applications for unitary government””.—[Official Report, 30/6/10; col. 1831.]" So it was not about the virtues of unitary government but about the process. She said—rightly—that this was because two additional criteria were added late and were not consulted on. This was because, as we know, an ineffably incompetent Boundary Committee delayed its final report by some nine months. The Minister may also know that her officials in DCLG, as the judge states in his conclusions, could have met the judge’s concerns by sending out a letter on behalf of the Secretary of State in the December or January preceding the introduction of the orders. The judge made it very clear that DCLG officials could have asked the Secretary of State to do so—the Secretary of State may have refused to follow their advice, of course. Had such a letter gone out in December or January, the transcript of the judge’s conclusion makes it clear that that would have satisfied his concerns and that he would not have squashed the orders—although I do not doubt that he might still have had serious concerns about the process. Why that letter, telling the relevant four authorities of Norfolk, Devon, Norwich and Exeter that there were compelling reasons—that is, the issue of economic development in a period of economic recession on the one hand and the concern with Total Place on the other—was not sent out, I do not know. I can only assume that it was cock-up and not conspiracy. If the Minister’s opposition is on grounds not of principle but of process, as she said on 30 June, then why not allow Norwich and Exeter to follow any or all of the due processes that she thinks were cut short and resubmit their bids? Why cancel this clause? The courts have JR’d the original orders and therefore squashed them, but if the Minister agrees with what she said on 30 June—that she was opposed not to the virtues of unitary authorities but merely to the process—we could make a fresh start. We cannot know the outcome of further consultation, which was short cut because of the inexcusable behaviour of the Boundary Committee, until it happens. So I presume that we go back to what the Minister said on the previous amendment, that her residual reason for objecting to the orders was not the issue but cost. We debated that on the previous amendment, when the noble Baroness—I really do not want to be personal about this; I am sure that it was not intentional—was again in danger of misleading the Committee by telling us that the cost of transition would be £40 million. She was not going to go on to the second part of her own impact analysis, which showed that the savings over the six years would be £39.4 million—funny, that. The net cost, therefore, would not be £40 million but £600,000—£300,000 per authority, £50,000 a year. Moreover, the Minister was unwilling to commit again to say what she said in her letter and in the impact analysis: that, after those first six years, the net savings between the two authorities would be more than £6 million a year, or more than £3 million per authority per year. I repeat: on any cost/value-for-money argument, the net costs—which is what matters despite what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and others have argued—for the first six years are £50,000 a year and the savings thereafter per authority are £3 million per year. That £300,000 over the first six years would be recovered in the first six weeks of the seventh year. If the Minister thinks that that is bad value for money, I find it hard to understand what will ever meet with her approval for being good value for money. What is for sure is that the option that she is arguing for today, the status quo, is the most expensive option of the three. It costs far more than unitary Norwich and Exeter and far more than unitary counties, which is what the Permanent Secretary argued for. On the previous amendment, however, the Minister was not giving the Committee the full picture. I assume that most of your Lordships will have read the impact analysis and know the stats for themselves; they will know that what I am saying is accurate. Is a net cost of £50,000 a year for six years and £3 million of savings per authority thereafter really bad value for money? As it is clear that the Minister cannot rely on the process point, because we could restart that, or on the cost point because, as she says in her own letter of 8 July, the savings will effectively far outweigh the costs over the period, will the Minister tell us why she is really opposed to this? If it is not process, which can be remedied, or costs, which she admits are a fiction, what is it? It is political. Frankly, we could be into savings in year one and the Minister would still be making a speech opposing the unitary status of Norwich and Exeter, because—this is not personal at all—she is not being moved by information, or evidence, or statistics, or finance, or even by the impact assessment or the letter that she has written to me, both of which she herself has signed off. She is not influenced by any of that, but only by the political considerations which are motivated—as I say, this is not personal—by her party on grounds of political spite. There ain’t no other argument: not the value of unitary government, because she accepts that it is only a process point, or the issue of costs, because there will be huge savings. What, then? Spite. I recognise that your Lordships will support the Government on this position; none the less I hope that your Lordships will reflect and not come back today at any stage on the value-for-money-argument because, frankly, if any of us had spent even five minutes looking at the impact assessment, we would know that value for money rests with making Norwich and Exeter unitary. The Minister accepts that even though she only gives half the argument today. It is there and it cannot be ducked. It may be an inconvenient truth, but it is a truth. I support my noble friend’s reservations on these amendments and oppose Amendment 2.