Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Smith of Leigh (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.


Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

My Lords, I do not understand this amendment as it seems to me that the size of the executive should relate to the functions of the authority. The size of the authority does not affect the number of functions. What roles will the people on the executive play that we need more of them? One cabinet member will be responsible for children’s services. The fact that it is a bigger authority will not mean that we need more than one. Surely there will not be cabinet members on an executive for different parts of an authority. It seems that we should look at the whole area as one. If the executive is to have people playing real roles in the authority, size does not matter. Ten seems to be perfectly adequate for most large authorities for which we now have executives. Under this scheme my council could probably go up to an executive of 50 or 60, but there are not that many executive roles. Will we have executive members with no portfolios just to have more people being paid executive allowances? Size is not everything. We should just make sure that the executive is doing a real job; we do not need more people to do it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
695 c282 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Councillors Elections Local government Political parties Parish and town councils Local government executive
Legislation
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk