Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 138, Amendment No. 138A: 138A: Clause 64, line 2, leave out ““may”” and insert ““must”” The noble Baroness said: I think that, procedurally, we have probably dealt with this in the most efficient way but it has given rise to a slight oddity in that I now move my amendments after the Minister has spoken to them. However, in the interests of brevity, I shall not move formally the 11 amendments here, nor shall I oppose Clause 64 standing part of the Bill when we come to it because we have had a fairly full explanation from the noble Baroness about how these things will work. However, they have given rise to rather more questions than answers. The noble Baroness responded to some of the questions that I thought I had when I tabled the amendments, but others have now arisen. I am still not entirely clear why the Government took a view that referendums were necessary in the 2000 Act, whereas they are not now. I still do not feel that I entirely understand that. I am still trying to understand what the Minister just told us about terms of office. I thought that I understood her to say that for once only a mayor’s term of office could be extended by two years. That is a very long time on a four-year term. Even though it applies once only I should be cautious about that. I suspect that some of my colleagues may want to comment on that. This is not a huge issue but I am slightly concerned about the references in the Bill to local newspapers. I do not really understand why that reference is there at all if there are other places where the need for publicity is more comprehensively covered. It seems to me this is one of those cases where those clauses should either include all forms of publicity, including electronic ones, or should not specify any at all. Difficulties arise when clauses are included which cover part but not all of the matter. I beg to move.