Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

That is a point often made to me by the cross-party leaders of the 10 authorities in Greater Manchester. I suspect that the results would be better for us in both sets of elections were that not the case—but I will not be tempted down that road. I am grateful to hon. Members for their response to the amendments, and will deal briefly with the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) mentioned our manifesto commitment. For the record, the manifesto required the Government to look at the Electoral Commission’s proposals on all-out elections. We have done that, so we have fulfilled the commitment. The manifesto did not commit the Government to moving to all-out elections, but gave that as a preference. Our debate has reflected that. The hon. Member for Poole welcomed the requirement for a two-thirds majority, which provides more of a guarantee that a resolution would not be used in a partisan way, or by a small number of councils for tactical reasons. That principle is already enshrined, because in districts that have the power to request the Secretary of State to move to all-out elections, the resolution requires a two-thirds majority in the council. The hon. Gentleman mentioned whole council decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan put his finger on the main point, which is that this section of the Bill allows local authorities to decide. The research that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) did in the Library and elsewhere teaches us something, although circumstances will change in future, given that councils know that decisions are in their own hands and are not subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, who may or may not agree with the resolution.