---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

My Lords, Amendment No. 11 seeks to do pretty much the same as Amendment No. 10 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I return to the remarks I made at the introduction of the first group of amendments; namely, that there is no discernible government vision for moving forward on the framework and structure of local government in this country. What we have is something of a free-for-all, and it is disingenuous to suggest that this is entirely a matter for local choice. Taking the example just used by the Minister, while it may meet the aspirations of the people of Bedford, as the urban conurbation will provide them with a unitary authority, it looks like the neighbouring area will have precious little choice over how it is structured. That decision will be foisted on it either because of the pressure of dealing with services once the urban centre is taken out or because the Secretary of State eventually exercises her discretion and uses her power to direct. So other areas actually do not have a choice and many local authorities will face the worst of both worlds. If neighbouring authorities decide to use the provisions of this Bill, they will be affected. That would not matter so much if there was a clear understanding of what the Government are seeking to achieve, but the fact that this feels so arbitrary is unsettling for local authorities. While I do not expect noble Lords or anyone else to feel sympathy for local authorities per se, the fact is that a huge amount of energy goes into this sort of exercise, energy that is diverted away from the core functions of local government in delivering services. What is more, it makes partnership working, which the Government regard as so important, almost impossible. Council is set against council in a process that is not well understood and apparently has no timetable. When this Bill came to your Lordships’ House, it was accompanied by what seemed to be a clear commitment on the part of the Government that its provisions would apply only to those local authorities which have currently volunteered for restructuring. Clearly, there will be knock-on effects on local authorities that do not want to be restructured; indeed, they are what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to as ““collateral damage””. If we accept progress in some areas, we have to accept that other areas will not get what they want. Members on these Benches have taken a pragmatic view and we accept that we are where we are and that these authorities have moved forward. However, that does not make it right for the future. The Minister referred to the fact that these provisions may result in invitations being given in the future, and that worries us. With no clear structure or well understood endgame, these proposals will remain on the table and local authorities up and down the country will focus their efforts on restructuring without really understanding what they are seeking to achieve and whether they have any chance of success. At a fundamental level, that can only be bad for local authorities, and what is worse, it is bad for the people they represent because the authorities will not be focused on their work. Amendment No. 11 would do what we thought we had already done: that is, it would limit the provisions of this Bill to the current round and the immediate knock-on effects. If a future restructuring is envisaged, we ought to have another Bill that is not in any way retrospective and is firmly embedded in a government view for the structure of local government.