---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

Whatever the hon. Gentleman says, I have given no hint of anything. I am dealing with the facts of what happened in 2004 and the details of the amendments before us, as I am sure you would wish me to do, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I will come to the hon. Gentleman's point about 12 months in a moment. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked me two things. Elections for the shadow authority, under proposals for a move towards a unitary authority as part of the reorganisation, will be a matter for orders made under the Bill once it receives Royal Assent. Such elections are not dealt with in the amendments before us. He and I have already discussed a suitable date for elections in Northumberland, and I am grateful to him for putting his points on record in the House this afternoon. I was not aware of the particular local circumstances of the parliamentary boundary review in his area. I will ensure that I draw his points to the commission's attention. Let me deal with the amendments that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has tabled. He conjured up images of political advantage in the decision, which I believe are baseless for two reasons. First, the proposal in the amendment from the other place that I am urging the House to accept will distance the decision to combine the election dates from the arrangements for the elections, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal urged us to do. That provision would be on the face of the Bill. Secondly, there are safeguards in the process to ensure that there should be no question of perceived political advantage. Were a decision to be taken to combine the elections, there would have to be consultation with the Electoral Commission and others. Furthermore, any order would have to be approved by the affirmative resolution procedure in the House. If there were any question of perceived political advantage, I submit that it would become a serious issue and a matter of strong debate. I therefore do not accept the concerns that have been set out. The six-month period refers not to the decision but to the order to be made. The amendment proposes a 12-month period for the order to be made. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) wanted to align the elections for 2009 and said that we could make such an announcement this week. If there were a requirement for the order to be made 12 months in advance, we would probably have had to have made such a decision already. It would not simply be a question of 12 months from when the order was made. In order to make an order, there would have to be a period of consultation of three months, if we were to follow the Cabinet Office guidelines. There would then have to be a period in which we considered the responses to the consultation, drafted the order, and found the time for it to be properly debated in the House. So we can see immediately that we are not talking about six months from when an order is made. The decision has to be made, and the notice given, substantially before that. Requiring an order to be made 12 months in advance would get ourselves into the situation that we have at the moment under the Representation of the People Act 1983, which provides, in effect, for a 15-month notice period. That has resulted in that provision being used only once in almost 25 years, because the period is too long, and the arrangements are too inflexible and do not serve the purpose that hon. Members would wish them to serve. I say to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire that placing in the Bill the provision for a six-month period between an order being made and an election being held will provide the necessary certainty and safeguards, give the necessary notice, and strike the balance that we are all striving for. I hope that he will not press his amendment to a vote, but if he does, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to resist it. Lords amendment agreed to. Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 47 agreed to.