HL Deb 02 March 1995 vol 561 cc106-8WA
Baroness Seccombe

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is the latest position on the reorganisation of local government in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and County Durham.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)

Bedfordshire:

On Bedfordshire, the Secretary of State for the Environment has concluded that the balance of evidence lies in favour of accepting the commission's recommendations for a unitary Luton, but rejecting the recommendations for unitary status elsewhere, so that the remainder of the county will continue as two tier. The Secretary of State is satisfied that this solution best reflects the identities and interests of the local communities concerned and best secures effective and convenient local government.

Although there was unanimous support for an all unitary solution among the districts, the Secretary of State was not persuaded that this is the best solution for the county as a whole. There is a very strong case, which few would challenge, for a unitary Luton, given its size, population density, and former county borough status. However, for the remainder of the county the Secretary of State considered that the balance of the evidence points to retaining the present two-tier structure. The districts of Mid and South Bedfordshire, which would be merged in the commission's proposals, have no particular focus or strong identity. On the issues of service delivery and viability, considerable doubts have been expressed about the fragmentation of county services, and whether the relatively small authorities proposed in the commission's recommended structure could deliver effectively, entailing some risk to local taxpayers. An all unitary solution would also lead to higher transitional costs, as well as greater disruption.

The Secretary of State is accepting the commission's recommendations on other matters, namely police and fire services, land use planning, ceremonial matters and electoral arrangements, with minor modification to take account of the decision on structure.

Buckinghamshire:

Having weighed all the arguments, the Secretary of State has accepted part of the commission's structural recommendations-namely a unitary authority for Milton Keynes-but rejected the rest, so that the remainder of the county would remain two tier. The Secretary of State is satisfied that this solution best reflects the identities and interests of the local communities concerned and best secures effective and convenient local government.

There is a strong case for a unitary Milton Keynes, which is now also accepted by the County Council. The town has a strong and distinct community identity and is in many ways different from the rest of the county. Its population is already large and we have little doubt that it would be able to provide all local authority services, particularly with further substantial growth expected.

However, it seems to us that the position in the rest of the county is much less clear. Popular opinion is finely balanced and doubts have been expressed about the fragmentation of services. We are also conscious that it is likely that an all unitary solution would give rise to considerably higher transitional costs.

The Secretary of State is accepting the commission recommendations on police and fire services, land use planning, ceremonial matters and electoral arrangements, with minor modification to take account of the decision on structure. He is still considering the commission's recommendations for parishing Aylesbury and High Wycombe.

County Durham:

In the case of County Durham, the Secretary of State has decided to accept the commission's recommendation that there should be a unitary authority based on the present borough area of Darlington and that there should be no change to the existing two-tier arrangements in the rest of County Durham. The Secretary of State agrees with the commission that this solution will best reflect the identities and interests of the local communities concerned and best secures effective and convenient local government.

The case for a unitary Darlington is strong. Darlington is based on a former county borough and has a population in excess of 100,000. The commission has identified a strong sense of community identity with the borough council area. Its natural and communications links are with the unitary authorities which are to be established in Cleveland—it shares with Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Stockton a dependence on the infrastructure based on the Tees Port, the A.66—A.1 road connection, the East Coast main line railway and Teesside Airport. Therefore the Secretary of State also proposes to accept the commission's recommendation that Darlington should establish joint structure planning arrangements with the proposed unitary authorities of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and East Cleveland and Stockton on Tees for the whole of their areas.

The Secretary of State also proposes to accept the commission's recommendations for the police and fire services, and for electoral arrangements. He is still considering the commission's recommendations for ceremonial arrangements and for parishing in the county.