Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 173: 173: Clause 72, page 46, line 7, leave out ““, on the day of a post-election annual meeting”” The noble Lord said: I have tabled a string of amendments, starting with Amendment No. 173, which deal with the proposal that the leader of the council should be elected for four years. I am trying to take out that proposal so that the leader of the council will still be elected at the annual meeting. I tabled the amendment so that we could discuss the proposal—in many ways, it is freestanding and does not rely on the rest of the Government’s proposals—consider the arguments in favour and against, and, in particular, consider different circumstances in which this may or may not be appropriate. My first argument is that if this is permitted by new legislation—at the moment, it is not—it should certainly be a permissive power. It should be something that councils could do but do not have to do. Once again, the Government are claiming to be devolutionary and to want to let go, but in practice are laying down yet more detailed rules and regulations about how councils should run themselves. In a sense, I am falling into the Government’s trap by moving the amendment, as we have done already by moving a number of other amendments. What many of us would like to do is simply to sweep away a whole swathe of existing regulations and these regulations and let councils organise themselves sensibly. However, we are not in that position; we have the proposal in the Bill. Different councils are controlled in different ways; so the election of the leader differs. First, there is the council in which one party has majority control. The reality then, as we all know, is that that party will decide whom it will nominate as leader by whatever internal processes it has, and that person will be voted through at the appropriate meeting. In those circumstances, if the control of the council is pretty stable and is likely to stay the same for some time, there is something to be said for this proposal. The one argument that I have read in favour of the proposal and which does seem to make some sense is that it prevents people in the majority party spending all their time engaging in unproductive political activity, such as trying to get rid of the leadership, change the leadership, or return it. If a local party is in that state, I wish it the best of luck because it will need all the luck that it can get. Nevertheless, there are circumstances like that, and the proposal may well be sensible, although it seems to be aimed mainly at certain Labour groups but may not be. Secondly, a council may have no overall control. If we are not careful, and if the structures and processes are too brittle, the council could be very unstable. It could certainly be more unstable than a council in which one party has overall control. The number of councils with no overall control has increased over the years. There are certainly many more such councils now than there were 20 or 30 years ago, except in areas in which independence used to rule the roost, and we must come to terms with that. I argue that imposing a leader for four years could create instability, which we need to avoid. On the other hand, there are two different types of election. The first are whole council elections. Councils that have whole council elections and have a good political majority will probably not change political control for four years. Again, there is a much stronger case to be made for councils that elect a leader immediately after their whole council elections and who then stays for four years. Of course majority parties can break up, and do so quite frequently around the country, and there may be a huge spate of by-elections. By and large, however, the proposal is not geared to that situation. The second are elections by thirds. Councils that hold elections by thirds have, by their very nature, a very much greater chance of changing overall political control in the next four years. The Government will set an arbitrary date on which the leader must be elected, but there will be two more rounds of annual elections in those four years. By the very nature of things, there is more chance of a council changing its political control and overall composition, or even the composition of the members of the controlling group, if they hold normal elections by thirds in two of the four years than if they rely simply on by-elections. If you combine these two groups of factors, the proposal might work very well for councils that have a clear majority and are elected for four years. However, it is likely to cause more trouble than it is worth for councils that have no overall control or are very marginal and are elected by thirds or by halves. What normally happens at the moment is that there is an annual meeting in which a change of political circumstances can be reflected in the normal way in which the council works and without a crisis or a vote of no confidence. That is more stable than having to have a vote of no confidence or a resolution to remove the leader. I believe that the Government are not necessarily wrong in allowing this in all cases, but councils should be able to make a choice. In particular, where there are annual elections and likely to be changes in control, the situation is dangerous. No overall control requires the council to come to an arrangement between the councillors and the groups on the council, including independents or whoever else, to provide a stable way to run the council. There is a lot of experience of this around the country. It is not a disaster: it can work very well and can produce good leadership. However, it depends on the situation in the council, and on people going to the annual meeting and putting up their hands in favour of what has been negotiated and agreed. Over the next one or two years, circumstances may change and some of those groups may decide to change their allegiance and to form a different kind of coalition—a different way of running the council. Under the present circumstances, that happens naturally, organically and evolutionally. The Government are proposing that a leader who might be obstructing and trying to hang on must have a vote of no confidence in him or her. That is potentially destabilising and will take up a great deal of time and energy in the council, which will not be productive. That might cause the breakdown of personal and political relationships in the council, which might do more harm than good. I would argue strongly that this should not be imposed on councils. They perhaps should be encouraged to do it in the right circumstances, but it should be up to local decision-making. I could repeat all the rhetoric that the noble Baroness uses when she has circumstances in which that is appropriate to her case. I beg to move.