---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to listen to the combined power of not least my noble friends Lady Hollis, Lord Howarth, Lord ““Ted of Ed””—as I may call him—Lord Howie and Lord Smith, who were extremely interesting. All sides of the argument against referenda were presented very cogently. Perhaps I may run through some of the contextual arguments attached to the amendment. Rightly, this has been a passionate debate because we have touched on some important issues on the relationship between local government and the electorate. I was struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said about her concern that people do not know or care. In a way, referenda do not address that issue for different reasons. That is precisely one of the reasons why we think, when we talk about Part 3, that visibility and accountability are best assisted by stronger and clearer leadership. In addition, because we have been talking about the process, it is worth putting on the record what we have done to make sure that the timetable has allowed a process to unfold which allows the engagement of local people in different ways. The invitation to local authorities was issued on 26 October 2006. This Bill was introduced on 12 December 2006. The proposals had to be submitted by 25 January 2007. The stakeholder consultation started on 27 March 2007 and ended on 22 June 2007. The ““minded”” decisions were made by the Secretary of State on 25 July. There has been a lot of time for democratically-elected accountable councils to prepare proposals and to submit them for consultation, which was shown in the response to the proposals. We are not engaged in a process just for the sake of it. As we have said earlier, this is very much about delivering better services and better accountability. Amendment No. 30 has the effect that the Secretary of State may not implement a proposal received as a result of an invitation or direction under Section 2, or an alternative proposal received from the Boundary Committee under Section 5 if those proposals have been rejected by a referendum. Noble Lords have spoken about the democratic process that this Bill has generated. It establishes a new framework for structural and boundary change. It is a devolutionary system and a process led by councils. In this approach to restructuring, we believed that it was right that local councils would be required to demonstrate local support for their proposals. The invitation document was very clear. It set out that one of the criteria to which any proposal must conform, "““must be supported by a broad cross section of partners and stakeholders””." It continued: "““While no single council or body, or group of councils or bodies, will have a veto, it will be necessary for any proposal to have support from a range of key partners, stakeholders and service users/ citizens””." For very good reason, we did not prescribe the way in which democratically-elected councils should engage with local people. The amendment would call for a prescription, an imposition. Local authorities have demonstrated that their criterion was satisfied as they saw fit. In some places, it was through citizens’ juries, user panels, opinion polls or local referendums. For example, in Exeter, which we have been talking about, an Ipsos MORI poll surveyed more than 1,000 residents. Ipswich and Shropshire County Council also commissioned Ipsos MORI polls of more than 1,000 residents. In Cornwall, district results were as the noble Lord described. But he did not tell the House that the county council commissioned a properly sampled poll, which found that 68 per cent of people would support a unitary authority if it provided savings, which was one of our criteria. As my noble friend Lord Smith said, it depends on who asks the question and how the question is asked. Many examples have been given. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, referred to how that influences the outcomes. We do not believe that it is appropriate to impose a referendum. On the point that a referendum by definition excludes some stakeholders’ interests, that is precisely the reason why the second stage of our engagement was with local stakeholders. We carried out a 12-week consultation on the 16 bids that were successful in phase 1. It was open to anyone to make representations. We wanted to ensure that the key stakeholders whose views we sought were the ones able to provide the evidence to show that the proposals met the criteria of affordability, strategic leadership, neighbourhood engagement and value-for-money services. This was how to get the sense of the local area and place which meant that it was properly viable and deliverable. The amendment would also require that a referendum be carried out on an alternative proposal as made to the Secretary of State by the Boundary Committee. I have already set out why that is not necessary. Additionally, a referendum in such circumstances would ask a local electorate to arbitrate between the views of its council and the views of the independent expert committee, which is hardly a sensible way forward. I conclude by addressing the questions raised on the referendum itself. We believe that imposing referendums would be unnecessary. Noble Lords have explained eloquently why a referendum is not appropriate. They have explained in different ways why this process, this poll/referendum, would not enable an outcome that really addresses the issues that need to be addressed. Let us imagine a process where one collects opinion, but does not end up knowing whether it is affordable, workable, manageable and, ultimately, democratic. A referendum will not give a way of resolving differences. Only consensus and working through democratic processes will give that sort of result, which is precisely what we need in a situation where local authorities are being required to think so strategically and boldly about their future. That is the result we need to be able to guarantee and noble Lords have explained that that is the case. It is crucial that any decision for structural change must be a decision for Parliament, which of course is provided for. All the implementation orders for structural change are subject to affirmative resolution. They will have to be debated and voted on in this House and in another place. I am very grateful for the opportunity to have had a debate on something so important. I hope that the noble Lord is as convinced as he should be about the need to withdraw his amendment.