Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 43: 43: Clause 11, page 8, line 19, leave out paragraph (c) The noble Baroness said: In the light of previous discussion, I move this hesitatingly. We may be coming back to this as well. I rise to speak to Amendment No. 43 and oppose the Question that Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill. Amendment No. 43, combined with the deletion of Clause 12, would erase the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe so-called ““electoral matters”” within an order under Clause 7 or Clause 10. Clause 7 applies to the restructuring that we are talking about in the first part of the Bill. As the Bill is currently drafted, the Secretary of State can prescribe the total number of members of any local authority, the number and boundaries of electoral areas for electing councillors, the number of councillors to be returned in an electoral area, the name of an electoral area, the order of retirement of councillors, the election of a mayor or executive, the appointment for a transitional period and the functions of a local authority. However, Clause 10(4)(c) in combination with Clause 12 gives the Secretary of State a completely free reign in an order made under Clauses 7 or 10. The resulting effect is that even if a council chooses to undergo a restructuring, the Secretary of State will decide to the last details, the terms of management. Reading these measures, I am baffled that the Government make the claim in the White Paper that they will empower local communities through this legislation. Try as I might, I cannot reconcile Whitehall powers reaching lower authorities—and down to the names of electoral areas—with the empowerment of those authorities. My honourable friend in another place mooted the possibility of a local area called Kellyshire—that would be Blairshire now—which I suppose has a certain ring to it. The point remains that the Secretary of State’s stamp will be all over this local government. The Minister in the other place noted that Clause 12 translates powers from the 1992 Act. I did not notice him justifying the translation of powers with the different provisions and wider applications. While I appreciate that the Secretary of State may need powers to affect an overall change in the boundaries, I cannot agree with the Minister in another place that the name of a local government area, electoral matters and parish boundaries are simply consequential matters. Indeed, the Minister in another place, Phil Woolas, said that it was not the Government’s desire that they should be held responsible for name changes. It seems only sensible to take the opportunity to debate this today and the opportunity to amend and improve the legislation, whether it was included in the 1992 legislation or not. I beg to move.