Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 58: 58: Clause 24, page 16, line 19, at end insert— ““(5) Nothing in this chapter nor in any direction from the Secretary of State shall restrict a relevant authority from utilising their financial reserves to reduce their budget requirement for council tax purposes.”” The noble Baroness said: I wish also to speak to the Questions whether Clauses 24, 25 and 26 shall stand part of the Bill and to Amendments Nos. 59 and 60. This is a group of probing amendments that will, I hope, allow us to clarify the function of these clauses. Clauses 24, 25, and 26 provide for the transitional arrangements between councils, which I am sure are all well in order. However, I have a few concerns about the thresholds established in Clause 24. The clause allows the Secretary of State to direct that an authority may dispose of land if it is worth less than £100,000, enter into a capital contract which is worth less than £1 million or enter into a non-capital contract worth less than £100,000. The clause is expressed in negative terms so the Secretary of State can direct a relevant authority not to enter into such contracts above those thresholds—but these are simply two sides to the same coin. It was my initial concern that such a direction could supersede existing contract law—though I am no expert in contract law—and create extremely difficult situations for those who enter into contracts with authorities that are ongoing. While I cannot believe that this could actually be the case, I would be grateful to the Minister if she could set out on the record the safeguards, however well hidden, in this clause. Clauses 25 and 26 are consequential on Clause 24 and, if that clause can be shown to be in order, I would be content not to press the Questions whether they should stand part. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 go hand in hand; they perform a double function. First, they would uphold the principle in our earlier debate that activity under the legislation should not anticipate its passage by the House. Secondly, it would provide local authorities and those taking out contracts with a little more flexibility in the negotiating process. It has been pointed out that decision-making froze in the 26 local authorities that tabled bids. Nobody knows which bids will be accepted and, in the interim, local authorities are in a hiatus. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 would simply allow local authorities flexibility to make their own decisions in the coming months while giving them the certainty that if their bids are not to be accepted they may simply continue as before. Those amendments also prevent this law applying retrospectively to any contracts or investments that authorities may have made. While the clause stand part Questions in this group are probing, Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 simply express a reasonable wish to give local authorities beneficial certainty about their situation, and flexibility and freedom in their negotiations. I beg to move.