---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 146: 146: Clause 82, leave out Clause 82 The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 146 also deals with appointed parish councillors. I welcome the assurances which have just been given by the noble Baroness to my noble friend Lord Greaves. When scrutinising legislation, it is always a problem when so much is left to subsequent regulation. It means that we have to take everything on trust, but it makes it essential that we go into the detail of these matters at this stage in order to feel comfortable about going ahead. My amendment is much more straightforward. I should like to do away with this provision altogether. I am still unable to see what an appointed parish councillor will be able to do that a co-opted member cannot. The principle of co-option is widespread, particularly where you cannot find enough people to stand for a parish council. But it is well understood and people know what they are getting. It is not entirely clear why this whole new category of appointed members is required. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, outlined the Government’s intentions. She said that there would be a body of non-elected councillors who would be appointed and co-opted—they would be one category—and that elected councillors would form another. She then suggested that councillors would be appointed by both the elected and the co-opted members; that is, one bunch of non-appointed people will have a say in appointing more non-elected people. I am slightly nervous about where that ends. Is there a limit below which the people who are either appointed or co-opted can fall? Otherwise, the elected element could become smaller and smaller. Can the noble Baroness confirm beyond doubt that appointed members will be within the scope of the standards regime and the ethical code of conduct? What advantage might an appointed member have over a co-opted member? If they are subject to the standards regime, they will have to declare interests in all sorts of things and probably not take part in the business. If the whole point of appointing them is to bring in some specialist expertise or because they represent a group and they then cannot do that because they are barred by the code of conduct, it would be a bit of a nonsense. We have to take parish councils very seriously. ““The Vicar of Dibley”” is a splendid programme, but it gives the impression that parish councils are funny little bodies populated by odd characters. The ““Vicar of Dibley”” is about a parochial church council and not a parish council: it is not the same thing. People do not understand that their parish council is a tier of government and that larger parish councils spend many hundreds of thousands of pounds and set a precept. Therefore, we have to take their provisions seriously in so far as they are a properly constituted tier of local government. We should not treat too lightly this proposal to do away with the democratic process and to appoint people. My big fear is that we are seeing the thin end of the wedge and that some years down the road we will be in your Lordships' House debating a proposal to appoint councillors to principal authorities. That frightens me even more and is one of the reasons why I am very keen to understand more about why the Government see this as necessary. I beg to move.