Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 65: 65: Clause 33, page 19, line 19, leave out subsections (4) to (6) The noble Lord said: This group and the following group are more substantial and come to the heart of the question of whether the Government are really willing to give local authorities more freedom—to let go, to use the phrase used by the Minister this morning. Amendment No. 65 and the other three amendments, Amendments Nos. 68, 77 and 85, which stand in my name in this group are a linked series of amendments intended to remove the concept of permitted resolution periods and permitted resolution years for changing electoral systems. They would allow local authorities to make that decision at any time during the electoral cycle. There does not seem to me to be any particular reason why they should be restricted to one year or a part of the year. What I propose concerning parts of the year would allow people to make earlier decisions, which would allow more planning for the changes that must take place. Concerning the years, there seems to be a belief that all councils that have whole-council elections in a particular category should poll on the first Thursday in May in the same year. I see no reason why that should happen. It is a view of neatness which is a national view but has no relevance whatever to people in a particular authority. What does it matter to someone in Leeds whether the council polls in the same year as a council in Scunthorpe? It really does not matter at all. There will be local elections of some sort somewhere in pretty well every year. It seems to me that people should be allowed to make the decision when they want and get on with it. That is the basis of the amendment. I beg to move.