---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

My Lords, perhaps I can ask some questions and make some brief points. On Amendment No. 31, it seems to me that to have to spell out the fact that the Secretary of State may decide not to do something after consultation rather begs the question of what is meant by consultation. That is a rhetorical point, not a question. If the Secretary of State is required to consult and may then do something, one would have thought he might also not do something, otherwise what is the point of consultation? In Amendment No. 32—there is an awful sense of déjà vu about this—do the instances of the term ““may”” in the proposed new subsections (6) and (7)— "““the Secretary of State may request the Boundary Committee to provide him with information,””" and, "““the Boundary Committee may provide””" it—mean ““shall””? I suspect they might. In Amendment No. 35, paragraph (e)(i) has an instance of a county ““comprising one district””. I am confused as to whether that is a unitary authority. I had thought that unitaries were technically districts rather than counties. The meaning of Amendment No. 47 is quite clear, and the Minister has explained that it allows an order to be made under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, which affects previous legislation. That seems to mean that one can make an order under new legislation altering previous primary legislation. I am confused about the constitutional position here. I suppose the short question is whether this is something for which there are many precedents but one has simply not noticed them. Finally, Amendment No. 224 determines the order of retirement of members. The Minister looks perplexed. Have I got the right amendment?