Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 2: 2: Clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out ““or direct any”” and insert ““a relevant”” The noble Baroness said: I too say how nice it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, back; we were sitting with our fingers crossed in a most unpolitical way over recent days. I thank her for giving me her cold. That was a very long and interesting debate on Amendment No. 1. I hope that the debate on Amendment No. 2 will not be quite as long but it is important. We are talking in Clause 2 and onwards about retrospective legislation. There has been no opportunity for Parliament to consider the proposals in this part of the Bill before they were implemented. That is very unusual. The House of Commons was debating this clause about invitations and directions to local authorities to form unitary authorities in February, but the invitations had gone out in January. It has therefore not been possible to either stop or control this aspect of the legislation. I took exception to Clause 2(1), on the Secretary of State being able to direct ““any”” principal authority, because that is not what the clause is about. It is about a small number of authorities wishing, or not, to become unitary authorities and the Government opening the door for that to happen. This has put council against council, district against council and council against district. That curious proposal is winding its way through the systems. We did not get ““any”” principal authority; we got a few authorities, so we cannot have this legislation saying that a Government can go to ““any”” local authority, because they cannot. That was not what this was about in any event at any time. That is why I am trying to change this to ““a relevant”” principal authority. The House of Commons managed to insert into the Bill Clause 3(1)(a), which limited the time for which these provisions could be available, stopping the proposals for putting unitary government to more and more councils. But where did the provision come from? Why is it in the Bill? Why is it in the Bill in a way which allows Parliament no chance to amend it? I understand that there were 16 applications originally and that it is likely the Government will go for no more than eight. We have had a turn-up of the local government system and some unhappy and anxious councils being put forward, but we have been able to do nothing about it. I must therefore ask the Minister for an explanation as to why this part of the Bill has been implemented and why it is almost at the end of its process. I understand that the eight or 16 authorities—which in terms of the number of authorities in this country are trivial—will be advised whether they are going to become unitary authorities by the end of this month. The Bill will have barely finished Committee by the end of this month. It certainly will not have got to Report. By the time we get to Report, as I understand it, the orders will just about have been laid. It is not often that one accuses the Government of mismanagement, but I have to on this occasion. They have allowed this to go ahead without allowing Parliament to have a say in it, or an opportunity to amend the provisions or to consider further whether it is a good idea. I beg to move.