Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I am delighted that the noble Lord is so supportive of our attempt to create unitaries. I am so sorry he was not here for the first day of our Committee debate, when I could have welcomed that support. Yet I am afraid that I cannot agree with him on this amendment, which would distort what we intend to do via the models that we are putting forward. Let us think about what it would mean in practice. For example, Birmingham City Council has 120 members today, so the city’s executive would swell to 30 members under these proposals. I suggest that that is not an executive but a leadership group of a fairly significant size—more of a big committee. It leads me to wonder whether the noble Lord is trying to reintroduce the committee system by the side door, as it were. We have already set out in evidence the benefits of a small leadership group. That is not new: a maximum of 10 for such a group was set out in the 2000 Act. I have not heard evidence as to why that should be changed. On the contrary, The New Council Constitutions on the outcomes and impact of the Local Government Act 2000, the independent evidence that I quoted earlier, also said that executives of up to 10 members are right for delivering visible and effective leadership. I take the noble Lord’s earlier point that we should perhaps be talking about better leadership rather than stronger leadership. However, this research looked at the functions and attributes of leadership and talked about better leadership, too. I am afraid that the amendments would put the clock back and unpick the 2000 Act, so I reluctantly conclude that I cannot accept them.