Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 129: 129: Clause 64, page 35, leave out lines 16 to 31 and insert— ““33C Alternative arrangements: move to executive arrangements A local authority in England which is operating alternative arrangements may— (a) cease to operate alternative arrangements, and (b) start to operate executive arrangements.”” The noble Baroness said: This is a large group of amendments, but they all relate to a specific situation. I shall speak to the opposition amendments at the same time as I speak to the government amendments. This relates to the situation where a local authority that is currently not operating executive arrangements will cease to be eligible to continue in this way once the Bill is enacted. In other words, it deals with a council that is currently operating alternative arrangements—that is, the enhanced committee system—and that, once the Bill is commenced, will be required to move to an executive model. In practice, there is today only one such council in this category: Brighton and Hove. Noble Lords may be aware that that is because that city’s 2001 mayoral referendum yielded a no vote and the fallback option was the enhanced committee system. It is worth saying that Brighton and Hove did not vote for an enhanced committee system but voted against a mayor. Amendments Nos. 129, 135, 136, 144 and 157 remove the provisions in Clause 64 that relate to councils that are no longer eligible for alternative arrangements. The Bill’s provisions on the implementation of executive arrangements are somewhat contradictory and perhaps I should clarify a little. Amendments Nos. 191 to 193 provide new provisions that make it clear that councils no longer eligible will need to start operating executive arrangements by their annual meeting in 2009. Specifically, Amendment No. 191 inserts a new clause providing that local authorities operating alternative arrangements that have a population of greater than 85,000 on 30 June 1999 will no longer be eligible to operate alternative arrangements. Such councils must operate the new leader and Cabinet model from their annual meeting in 2009. These councils’ proposals must set out their arrangements regarding the discharge of functions between the council and its executive, set out a timetable for the move and give appropriate publicity with regard to the implementation of executive arrangements. Amendment No. 192 inserts a new clause providing that, if it appears to the Secretary of State that councils no longer eligible for alternative arrangements will fail to operate the new leader and Cabinet model, the Secretary of State may by order require such councils to operate this model from their annual meeting in 2009. Amendment No. 193 inserts a new clause exempting councils no longer eligible to operate alternative arrangements from the general provisions in Section 33C and Section 33I(l) about changing governance arrangements. It also provides that the first resolution period for such councils is 1 October to 31 December 2010. I recognise that the leadership of Brighton and Hove has recently changed and I understand that the new leadership might prefer not to move to executive arrangements until 2011. That bears on noble Lords’ Amendments Nos. 130, 137 and 145, which would prevent councillors who are no longer eligible to operate alternative arrangements from having to move to executive arrangements by their annual meeting in 2009. The amendments would go further by enabling them permanently to retain alternative arrangements. Interestingly, I notice that noble Lords, for a change, support government Amendments Nos. 135 and 157. Whereas we will replace those sections with a new clause in Amendment No. 191, they are content simply to remove them. However, we cannot agree to Amendments Nos. 130, 137 and 145. We have made it clear to Brighton and Hove that it is important to move to new arrangements as soon as possible, not least to put in place the new local area agreements and to take advantage of all the new powers and opportunities that we plan to provide. I do not intend to repeat our discussions on the committee system, but it is important to make it clear that the Local Government Act 2000 protects populations of less than 85,000 in June 1999. The small councils concerned will be free to operate alternative arrangements and the Bill does not affect them. However, we do not believe that large authorities that are delivering strategic services such as adult care or children’s services should operate alternative arrangements which do not provide for clear leadership. That is the burden of our amendments. I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept them. I beg to move.