Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I thank Members for their contributions. The tone of our discussion has reflected our discussions in Committee on this and other issues. I, too, was surprised that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) did not speak to his own amendments, but I shall be able to respond to what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about his new clause. The hon. Member for Poole was worried about the two years that must elapse before a petition can be presented again. He thought that that the Government were being too generous, and that the period was not long enough. Much as I would like to take credit for that generosity, I must ascribe it to the hon. Gentleman’s own party. Our proposal reflects a provision in the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, introduced by the last Government, which also allowed a two-year period between petitions. We are applying the provision to community governance reviews in general. The hon. Gentleman asked about limits in relation to signatures. Clause 60(3) states that"““if the area to which the petition relates has fewer than 500 local government electors, the petition must be signed by at least 50% of the electors””." The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if it took six years to collect the signatures. I suspect that during that time it might be necessary to go back and start again, as many electors might have moved on and might no longer be on the electoral roll. The electoral roll will enable councils to ensure that a petition is valid. Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked which would be the principal council. The principal council will be the council that currently makes recommendations to the Secretary of State, whether it is a district council, a metropolitan authority or a London borough. There will be no conflict, because county councils have no governance role and no say in the matter. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about the power to promote well-being, which was raised in other amendments. I can tell him that we would have to reject the Conservative proposals to extend that power, because its application could be very broad. We do not seek to place constraints on parishes’ expenditure, but we believe that there must be safeguards to ensure that the power is not abused. Parish councils vary enormously in size, shape and general nature. The largest is Weston-super-Mare, which is larger than some of the smaller district councils. There will be a basis for eligibility, which we are discussing with the National Association of Local Councils and other stakeholders, including the Local Government Association. We intend to draw on the guidance provided by the quality parish scheme. If amendments Nos. 164 to 168 are pressed to a vote, we will reject them for those reasons. In new clause 63, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has tried to deal with an issue that I know has concerned him for some time. I have some sympathy with what he said and I think that the issue needs clarification, but I would have to advise the House to reject the amendment if it were put to a vote—although the hon. Gentleman said that he was merely testing the water. I believe that there are defects in the drafting of the new clause. I also believe that we need to understand all the implications of the policy that it recommends, and any risks that it would pose to council tax payers in relation to parish precepts. The position is fairly complex. There has been some communication between parish clerks and the Department, but I should like to think further about the hon. Gentleman’s proposal. I realise that he was trying to be helpful in subsection (3), which acknowledges that the Secretary of State cannot issue an open guarantee. However, it merely requires councils to ““have regard for”” an order by the Secretary of State. It would not be possible to pass legislation on that basis. We need to consider the hon. Gentleman’s proposal in some depth, particularly in the light of the proposed extension of the power to promote well-being. I cannot guarantee that our consideration will be completed before the Bill reaches the House of Lords, but he may wish to meet me to discuss the matter. I am rather concerned about Peter Lacey: the hon. Gentleman did not say how old he was. If he is 25, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter will definitely be resolved before he retires.