Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I am grateful for the opportunity to resume the debate on the amendment. It was a good idea to break, because I understand noble Lords’ frustration when some of the details of the Bill are not explicable. It is a complex Bill and we are talking about an innovative model. I am happy to explain it and hope that I can answer the questions that have been raised. I shall certainly take advice if I cannot. I shall go into a little more detail on how the model works. The nomination system for slates is the same as is used for mayors. Parties will submit their nomination papers with relevant supporting signatures 19 days before polling. Nominations from corresponding ballot papers will clearly identify the prospective leader and contain between two and nine executive members, as provided for in the council’s constitution. There is a limit of 10 members for such an executive, as laid down in the 2000 Act. The minimum number laid down in the Bill is three. The statutory boundaries of the slate, therefore, are three and 10, but the council can decide to vary them to four and nine. There is definitely scope, therefore, for the elected executive to vary in size, which will govern what triggers by-elections. Voting takes place by the supplementary vote. I am sorry to say that to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but that is the position. It is the same with mayors. The whole area of the council votes for the slate. The elections will take place at the same time as either whole-council elections or by thirds and halves, but the slate is elected for four years. That is the common thread which goes through the three models. Individuals can stand for election to the slate and for ward councillor. As I have said, if they are elected for both, they have to resign as ward councillor and a by-election is held for the resulting vacancy. It is necessary to allow candidates to stand for both positions; otherwise, there would be hardly be any incentive for those who fail to secure an executive post to stand in the first place. The alternative would be to allow for a dual role, but, as I said, the model creates a sharp distinction between the role of the executive and the role of the ward councillor as scrutineer and challenger. The successful slate can be made up of ratepayers—it can have a ratepayer mayor, for example. Members of the slate will take office for a fixed term of four years, four days following the election. The leader will allocate portfolios and appoint a deputy, who can also have portfolio responsibilities. If the executive leader dies or resigns, a by-election for the whole slate must be called. That is essentially because the slate is branded with the leader: they stand and fall together. If a cabinet member dies or resigns, the executive leader decides whether to hold a by-election or to continue with a smaller executive, subject to the executive remaining above the effective minimum as specified in the council’s constitution. Perhaps I may explain that in a little more detail. The leader chooses, except in certain circumstances, what happens. The leader can decide to carry on with a smaller executive, or he has to call a by-election where the size of the executive is reduced to below the effective minimum. Therefore, if it is below three, he has to have an executive or if the council has set a non-statutory minimum of four or five, then as soon as it drops below that, it has to have a by-election. That introduces some stability. The detail is set out in Schedule 4. Therefore, there are provisions which are designed to prevent constant turmoil. Local authorities are going to have to consult very widely before they adopt this model and in drawing up the proposals. They will have to consider the extent to which moving towards such a model would secure continuous improvement in the way in which they function. They will have to meet that test. I thought noble Lords might be interested to hear what inspired Stockton-on-Tees to opt to consider this possibility. In its letter to the Secretary of State of December 2005 Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council stated: "““We believe that the Directly Elected Executive model potentially has the strengths of providing strong focused leadership, and giving greater legitimacy to borough-wide decision-making … [It] means that the leader and leading portfolio holders will be much more identifiable to local people … more clearly accountable for their decisions.""A Directly Elected Executive offers: direct accountability of decision makers to the electorate; a more generalisable model than the mayoral model; stronger local politicians; creation of a collective, joined-up approach in decision-making; [and] focused community advocates in (potentially) single member ward community councillors””."