Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I am grateful to Members of the Committee for addressing their amendments in the way that they have. I want to take them through the argument for the government amendments, Amendments Nos. 27 and 29, and address the various amendments tabled alongside them. The whole group of amendments deals in various ways with processes of consultation. I am certainly happy to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, by clarifying our intention in our amendments, which will not restrict consultation in any perverse way, but which will align the consultation processes of the Bill and the invitation. Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 are intended to ensure that the Secretary of State is required to consult those whose views she needs to know to fulfil her role in the restructuring process, but does not duplicate the extensive public consultations that councils themselves will be carrying out. Amendments Nos. 16, 28, 28A, 30, 31 and 52, which have been tabled by opposition Members of the Committee, are also intended to develop in more detail the consultation requirement. Amendment No. 20A would allow a council when responding to an invitation to make a proposal reflecting consultation with its electorate, as the noble Baroness said. Finally, Amendment No. 25 would modify the period for representations to be made about a unitary proposal which the Boundary Committee has made as an alternative to the proposal put forward by a local authority. I fully understand the motives that inspire the amendments, and I hope I can persuade the Committee that they are more than met by the restructuring processes that we are establishing. In brief, we are bringing our amendments forward to ensure that the Bill and the process which we have followed throughout the invitation to local authorities to come forward with plans for restructuring are fully aligned with each other and with the principles of devolution itself. The amendment would replace the words in Clause 7(3)(b) with, "““such other persons as he considers appropriate””." The significance of the change is, quite simply, to correct the drafting—I have to hold my hands up to that need—so that the clause does not mean that the Secretary of State herself is required to impose a form of central general consultation on local areas, at a later stage of deliberation, above and beyond that which has already been undertaken earlier in the process, rightly, by the local authorities concerned. The proposed changes are consistent with the intention and the process of restructuring by invitation, which has been welcomed by local authorities. Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 seek to restore the detail of the consultation requirement. They both use the same wording as in the present text of the Bill, which is inappropriate and redundant, because in any administrative process the Secretary of State must necessarily have regard to representations made to her by any person, whether or not she has consulted that person. I will address the process that we have already determined in the invitation. The whole process was to enable local authorities to decide whether to seek unitary status. One of the key tests for any such proposal was that it must have support from a range of key partners, stakeholders and service users or citizens—the electorate. That was a deliberate form of words, because we wanted a formative process of consultation. We wanted people to be part of the process of deciding—to ensure that the people most affected, such as the local partners and key agencies, could respond and contribute to the proposals, and that local authorities should seek the views of local people in whatever way was thought best. The key consultees, as they have emerged in the process and we have got to know, have been primary care trusts, strategic health authorities, police authorities, chambers of commerce, learning and skills councils, universities and so on. Within that notion of broad support is the principle that local authorities have got to show, in whatever way they think has been most effective, that they have involved local people. That is the most effective way to engage local people and to obtain well informed views of those affected. The variety of ways adopted by local councils in obtaining views is very interesting—citizen juries, opinion polls, local referendums in some cases and citizens’ panels. I am not making relative judgments on which are effective. In North Yorkshire, for example, the county council commissioned a citizens’ panel survey—2,500 people took part—and three focus groups. Members and officers of the council attended approximately 250 parish and town council meetings. Three newsletters were sent out and there were 10 meetings with the VCS across the county. Key stakeholders, such as the chamber of commerce, received information through the LSP. The district council commissioned a MORI poll, directly communicated with the community—for example, council tenants—and contributed to newspaper articles. That is one example which is very typical of what has happened. I have other examples, but I will not go through them, unless noble Lords would like me to. When we come to the definition of ““person”” in the noble Baroness’s amendments, a person includes a body by means of the Interpretation Act 1978—that means real people, but also organisations and companies. I have described what councils have done, some of which was before the proposals were submitted in January. It was in a way a pre-consultation process, which provided key evidence about how the proposals stacked up against the support criteria. Councils have done more, following the decision in March as to which proposals on the information that we had then met the criteria. Councils have done that to provide more evidence. The Secretary of State’s consultation, which Clause 7 refers to and is the process in the current round of restructuring that ended on 22 June, had a very specific purpose. That purpose was to help her satisfy herself—by seeking the views of those who are in a position to give an informed judgment—that the evidence available showed that the proposals met the criteria. It was not a process for her to duplicate—almost certainly less effectively—what councils had already done in gathering evidence. Clause 7 provides for the consultation period—ending on 22 June—for the Secretary of State to satisfy herself that the proposals meet the criteria. As part of that, a consultation paper was issued and sent to stakeholders, inviting consultation responses. It was put on the website and was open for anyone to respond to. Gratifyingly, we had almost 60,000 responses; some were in the nature of campaigns, but many were individual responses. At this very moment the Secretary of State is, as it were, wading through the consultation responses, to see how people have responded. It is important to be clear because, although there would be some additional decision-making through popular referendums or suchlike, I want to stress that the amendments were never intended at this stage to impose from above on the local authorities some requirement for a universal public consultation. It is not intended by the Secretary of State to parachute in with a consultation that seeks to second guess the views and decisions of the democratic councils. The Bill recognises this, because it provides that when all councils are in agreement, no consultation is necessary, although the Secretary of State may if she wishes consult. In the last 12 weeks—since we announced the 16 proposals—the Secretary of State has been consulting with partners and stakeholders, considering the stakeholders’ consultation and then, at the end of July, she will make those decisions. Amendment No. 16, the call for guidance, would contradict some of that process. It would remove the power of local authorities to decide for themselves. Amendment No. 20A does nothing that a council cannot and does not do already—having regard to the electorate when making a proposal. Amendment No. 16, the notion of central guidance, is inimical to the spirit of the Bill. Amendment No. 20A would mean that the Secretary of State must consult every member of the electorate before implementing proposals. None of that is necessary or, indeed, compatible with the very thorough process that we put in place. Before going back to my own amendments, I will turn briefly to Amendment No. 52, which also would require of the Secretary of State to take full account of representations made at any time prior to the commencement. We are doing that, and I hope that what I have said reassures noble Lords. Let us turn back to the Government’s amendments about why we have to correct the Bill. Discussions around judicial review also highlighted that the consultation provisions in the Bill are drawn too wide, by proposing a consultation process that involves any other person believed to have an interest. That would add nothing but delay to a process that we have tried to make as swift and precise as possible, but we need to make the change, because it is possible that a court would be likely to require such a wider consultation than is appropriate or necessary. That would require the department to impose a consultation aimed directly at every citizen, taxpayer, council tax payer, business, voluntary group and so on, or consultations through advertisements. We have placed our trust in local authorities and believe that that would duplicate what has been done. Finally, I come to the timescale for the Boundary Committee and Amendment No. 25. Let me make it clear that the four-week opportunity is at the end of a process that itself provides for sufficient consultation and engagement. I will explain. Where the Boundary Committee is minded to make an alternative proposal, it must publish a draft. That is the principal opportunity for people to comment—it is provided through a requirement on the committee to ensure that those who have an interest are informed of the draft proposal and the deadline. As a matter of course, the Boundary Committee follows the Cabinet Office guidance on consulting for a minimum of 12 weeks. The Bill follows the precedent in the Local Government Act 1992 and allows the independent Boundary Committee to set a window for the receipt of recommendations that it considers appropriate; the Boundary Committee has then to take account of those representations. Where the Boundary Committee subsequently makes a proposal to the Secretary of State, we are providing a further opportunity—an additional one—hence the four weeks’ window. The Boundary Committee has to inform anyone who has made representations that it has made a proposal, and has to inform those people that they can go directly to the Secretary of State in that four-week period. Unless revised, that will be four weeks from the date set by the Secretary of State for advice from the committee. Those two processes should provide enough opportunity for people to make sufficient representation to ensure that their voices have been heard. I hope that noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendments.