---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 1: 1: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out ““or direct any”” and insert ““a relevant”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as the gallery departs, perhaps I may say that, in addition to moving the amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 9, 12 to 16, 18, 23, 49, 50 and 51. It is a great pleasure to be back after the Recess and to be taking part once again in the local government Bill. I had, as I suspect most other noble Lords had, a blinding flash of hope that we might all be denied having to come here at all—in which case, I could have given myself a week off and not had to deal with this and the two other Bills coming my way this week. However, wiser counsels seem to have prevailed—otherwise I might have been exchanging places with the noble Baroness rather swiftly and be considering the Bill from the other side. However, hope fails and I am moving the amendment. This opening debate takes us to the heart of the first part of the legislation, to the heart of the principles of reinvigorating democracy and to transposing power and local decisions back to local people—which is what we understand this Bill to be all about. The Minister says that that is what the Bill intends to do—in fact, we spent a long time in Committee debating that aspect—giving power to the people. We are told that that is what the Prime Minister wants the Bill to do. Of course, the Prime Minister has been changed since the Bill was introduced and we still hope that the new Prime Minister has the same view of this Bill and that it is being executed under the joy of his hand. However, transposing power to local communities is one thing that the Bill does not do. As it stands, it will not succeed in its stated aim of reinvigorating the democratic process. These amendments address two issues: first, the power of the Secretary of State to issue directions relating to the reorganisation of local government, which we oppose, and, secondly, the power of the Secretary of State to issue either directions or invitations to any local authority. As I made clear in Committee, the Government claim that the ethos of the Bill is to enable local authorities to improve their own structures of government. Indeed, all the Government’s rhetoric places the emphasis on giving local authorities power to take their own initiatives. But, as usual, the rhetoric is a far cry from reality. I have re-tabled these amendments to give the Minister another opportunity to confirm her statement in Committee that the principle of the first part of the Bill is improvement and restructuring by invitation. The Minister noted that this part of the Bill was an invitation-only realm. She went on to say: "““The Government are imposing nothing on local authorities””.—[Official Report, 5/7/07; col. 1146.]" I accept that the current orders for local authority restructuring fall into the category of coming about by invitation or in response to an invitation—not by direction. Whether by invitation or direction, the proposals in most of the nine local authorities affected are far from uncontroversial. In spite of the Minister’s words, it is loud and clear that the power remains in the Bill for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to local authorities to form unitary councils—in other words, to order them to dissolve and reform as unitary authorities. While Clause 3 is limited in that regard until the end of January 2008, nothing in the Bill would prevent the Secretary of State before then from issuing an order or direction against the will of the majority of councils in any given area, let alone making a direction against the wishes of the electorate in the area, because the Bill does not yet provide for proper consultation with the electorate. We shall return to that matter later. The key issue is the power that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State to alter local government by direction. I am sure that the Minister, with her goodwill and optimism, believes 100 per cent that the Government, having not issued a direction so far, will not do so in the future. To some extent, this is a matter of trust. But unfortunately legislation cannot always be built on trust because it can be used thereafter not just by those of us who have seen it through, but by others. It will therefore not come as a surprise to the Minister that we on these Benches want such a guarantee to be included in the Bill and the power to give directions in the future abolished. Indications about which authorities will be re-formed have caused a lot of damage over the summer. As I said in Committee, the trouble is that some people in the areas being considered want it to happen and some do not; the issue is controversial. That is a pity, but it is not too late to change that particular aspect. The Government seek to introduce a new process of structuring local government. Instead of testing the likely success and popularity—essential agreements in the overhaul of local government—in Parliament, and more importantly, through proper consultation, they have set in motion a process that goes before the legislation that mandates it in law. I do not know whether this situation is unique, but it must be pretty close. The legislation is almost useless to prevent what is happening because everything is happening before the legislation has had proper scrutiny in Parliament. It is deeply disappointing to have to depict the situation in that way. I wish that it had not come to this and that Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, Congleton Borough Council and Harrogate Borough Council were not all seeking judicial reviews. Throughout the country there has been outrage at grass roots level at the speed of this reconstruction process. However, that is the reality. Nobody actually believes that this part of the Bill will cease in January 2008 or that these nine newly proposed authorities will be the end of it—far too much has gone into this for the Government just to sneak away. I ask the Minister not to ignore these amendments and hope that at least this aspect of direction will be dropped from the Bill in due process. I beg to move.