Before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, I would like to say one or two things. I do not want to start talking about leadership models at this stage, even though the Minister tempted us to do so, because we will be having some exciting discussions about that next week, I hope.
I have three points. First, the Government have got themselves into a mess over the question of the electoral arrangements for the new authorities, because the electoral arrangements depend on the leadership model that is chosen and so have to be decided before the authority is elected. There is a democratic paradox here: the people getting elected to the authority might have strong views about which model they want, but they will not be able to campaign on that—to get elected or not elected on that basis—because the decision will already have been made. For example, if people do not want a mayor but it has been decided to have a mayor, they will be lumbered with one whether they like it or not. My question is whether the time limit on changing from one set of executive arrangements to another set of executive arrangements—somewhere else in the Bill—applies to the new authority. Will a new authority, once elected, be able to change its executive arrangements within its first period of office? That would seem to be the best possible democratic compromise under what is a fairly unsatisfactory situation. That is my first question.
Secondly—actually, I think that I have four questions—if a new unitary authority is to be elected as a result of the invitations being sent out and the decisions currently being made, how will the decision be made about which executive model is to be chosen? Will it be on the basis of the bid that has been made and what the authority or authorities putting forward the unitary authority proposal have said that they would like? As I understand it, at least some of them have set out in great deal the models of government and so on, because they have to do it. Alternatively, will the Secretary of State say, ““No, you want this system, but you are not going to have it. Sorry, you are going to have something different””? That is my second question: is there a presumption that it will be on the basis of the bids being put in?
Thirdly, the Minister was concerned about the amendment removing Clause 12(1)(j), which is about, "““the appointment by the Secretary of State of existing councillors to be members of a new local authority for a transitional period””."
That is not, in my understanding, what the Government have been telling local authorities will happen. They have been saying that decisions will be made by November this year, that the proposals for which ones can go forward from whatever phase we are in at the moment will be made at the end of July and that the affirmative instruments for creating the new authorities will go through Parliament in November with elections next May. The new authorities will then come into being straightaway and take over after a transitional 12 months. That is my understanding.
In that situation, I do not understand during which period appointed councillors will be needed. If there are to be appointed councillors in, for example, a unitary authority such as Shropshire, to pick one at random—where there are five districts and the proposals are to double the size of the county council to around 90, which would still be less than half the number of councillors currently on the district and county councils—who is going to choose which of those councillors should be appointed? Who is going to look at those councils? Is the Secretary of State going to say, ““Ah, we’ve got Shrewsbury Council; I’ll have these people, but I won’t have those people””? This seems an anomalous process. Can the Minister explain what this business of appointed councils is all about, under what circumstances it would be necessary and how on Earth the Secretary of State would choose which ones were worthy of being on the new authority and which were to be said goodbye to?
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Greaves
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 5 July 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c1196-7 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:17:34 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_408964
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_408964
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_408964