---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 52: 52: Clause 33, page 19, line 30, after ““meeting”” insert ““which is”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government are bringing forward a number of technical amendments to Part 2. My noble friend wrote to noble Lords on 1 October 2007 setting out why these amendments are required. I will briefly cover some of the key points for the record. First, we are bringing forward an amendment on resolution periods in response to concerns raised during Committee. Part 2 contains resolution periods in which local authorities can resolve to change their scheme of elections. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tabled an amendment to extend the resolution periods set out in the Bill from three months to six months. We have considered the points raised and believe that the proposal to extend the resolution periods will strengthen the Bill. We therefore propose an amendment broadly along the lines of that put forward in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We are, however, making one slight change. Her amendment proposed that resolution periods should begin on 1 June rather than 1 October. Our amendment proposes that the resolution periods set out in the Bill should begin on the day after the council’s annual meeting and should end on 31 December. The reason for this is that, as the House is aware, Clause 60 provides for local government elections to be moved to the date of the European elections, which take place in the second week of June. If the resolution periods ran from 1 June in a year when the local government elections were moved, this could result in a resolution being passed by an outgoing council just before an election. That would clearly be undesirable. Linking the resolution periods to the annual meeting, which will always take place after the election in an election year, will avoid a local government election taking place during a resolution period. Amendments Nos. 55, 56, 60, 64 and 65 to Clauses 33, 38 and 40 make the necessary amendments to Part 2. We are also introducing a number of technical amendments to these clauses—Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 57, 58, 61 and 62—to ensure that notice of the specially convened meeting at which a resolution will be passed is given, in line with the existing provisions in the Local Government Act 1972 and, in Amendments Nos. 54, 59 and 63, to clarify that all members of a council can vote on the resolutions; that is, all the councillors and the mayor or members of the directly elected executive, where these models exist. To ensure consistency between Parts 2 and 3, we are amending Clause 64 in Part 3—Amendments Nos. 96, 97, 99 to 101 and 110 to 113—to extend the resolution periods, ensure that notice of the specially convened meeting is given and clarify who can vote on the resolutions. We have also made similar amendments to Schedule 5. We are bringing forward Amendments Nos. 71 to 76 to Clause 59, again responding to concerns raised by noble Lords during Committee about the provisions for changing the names of electoral areas. Electoral areas are district wards and county divisions. While there was support for the general thrust of Clause 59 to devolve the decisions on changes to the names of electoral areas to local authorities, concerns were raised about ensuring that appropriate measures were in place to prevent changes from taking place too often and without local debate. A number of amendments were tabled against Clause 59 during Committee. We have reflected on those amendments and the concerns raised by noble Lords and have brought forward amendments in this group. Amendment No. 71 requires a local authority to consult such persons as it considers appropriate on any proposed name change prior to a resolution being passed. This will ensure that there is the opportunity for local debate on any proposed name change. In Amendments Nos. 72 to 75, we propose that the resolution to change the name of an electoral area must be passed by a two-thirds majority. This is in line with part of an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am sure that we are all sorry that he is unwell and unable to be in his place to hear me explain this amendment. We agree with the noble Lord that a requirement for a two-thirds majority is a useful safeguard, which will require a strong case to be made for any change in name to gain the necessary support. This will provide greater stability so that the names of electoral areas are not changed too often and without the support of a significant majority of councillors. We are also proposing a technical amendment, Amendment No. 76, to clarify that a mayor or members of a directly elected executive can vote on the resolution that I have just described to change the name of an electoral area where those models exist. The amendments respond to concerns raised by Members of the Committee during Committee stage and I beg to move.