---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 196: 196: Clause 188, page 130, line 21, leave out subsections (1) to (3) The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment takes us to the part of the Bill on ethical standards. The amendment is to probe the status of appointed councillors. Subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 188 extend certain sections of the Local Government Act 2000 that already apply to members and co-opted members. They are referred to at the beginning of Section 49(1) of the 2000 Act: "““The Secretary of State may by order specify the principles which are to govern the conduct of members and co-opted members””." On 10 October, I used the amendment of my noble friend Lord Greaves at col. 298, to ask how appointed councillors—and the Minister knows that that is a concept about which Members on these Benches have some doubts—came to be covered by the ethical standards regime. The Local Government Act 2000 states: "““The Secretary of State may by order specify the principles which are to govern the conduct of members and co-opted members””." In that Act, a co-opted member is someone who is a member of a committee or subcommittee or represents the authority on a joint committee and is entitled to vote. I asked then and have the same question now: does an appointed member fall within that definition? If there is a difference between appointment and co-option—and we are told that there is—an appointed member does not fall within the definition. New Section 16A(3)(e) allows for regulations as to the, "““purposes for which a person appointed is to be treated as an elected councillor””." As I said privately to the Minister, I have not followed the audit trail as to how an appointed member comes within the regime. The definitions do not seem to do it, and I cannot quite see that regulations are adequate to change the definition, if that is the way in which it is being approached. I beg to move.