Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendment. He has also stated his intention to oppose Clause 77. First, if I explain what subsections (4) and (5) of new Section 17A of the Local Government Act 1972 do, that should clarify why the noble Lord’s amendment is not needed. He feels that we do not need to go to such lengths to explain the change to an alternative style. I shall explain: this is the technical bit. Subsection (4) provides that where a reorganisation order contains provision for a parish to have an alternative style, that provision will no longer be effective if a resolution is later passed for the parish to have a different alternative style or to cease to have an alternative style. The effect of subsection (5) is that where a reorganisation order provides for a parish to have or to cease to have an alternative style, any prior resolution under new Section 12A will have effect subject to the provision made in the order. These subsections are technical provisions to clarify the circumstances in which a resolution concerned with alternative styles is to take precedence over an order which contains different provision about such matters and vice versa. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 195. I shall now address the reasons why the Government believe that this clause should stand part of the Bill. The Government recognise that in some areas the term ““parish”” may discourage communities setting up or becoming involved with parish councils in their area. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, feels that if we took away the term ““parish”” completely, it would lead to confusion. I hope that, if this change works, local people will be engaged quite closely with what was their parish council and will become very knowledgeable about it, what it does, what it enables them to do and how it is styled. The other reason for the possibility of changing the name from ““parish”” is that, for some people, the term could be confused with an ecclesiastical parish. Therefore, the new provisions make it possible for a parish or group of parishes to use one of a number of modern styles or names that local people may feel reflect more properly the area where they live so that there would be no confusion with an ecclesiastical parish. It is important to note that it will be for parish councils or parish meetings to decide what style best fits their area. It is part of the process of devolution that we have been talking about throughout the Bill; people’s choices become greater. One can sometimes see that as leading to more confusion, but the positive side is that people want more choice, will put up with a little confusion and will get to know what that choice means to them fairly quickly, I would imagine. The parish council or the parish meeting may resolve under new Section 12A for the parish to have an alternative style. The alternative styles are set out in new Section 17A of the 1972 Act; they are: a ““community””, a ““neighbourhood”” or a ““village””. Where a parish is given an alternative style, the clause also requires the parish trustees, the parish meeting, the parish council, its chairman, vice-chairman and councillors to be referred to by that style for consistency. For example, where a parish is given the style ““neighbourhood””, any council of that parish will become a neighbourhood council and any chairman of that council will become a chairman of the neighbourhood council. New Section 11A enables a principal council, where a group of parishes is being formed in its area, to provide by order for the group to be known as a ““group of communities””, a ““group of neighbourhoods”” or a ““group of villages”” and also makes other relevant provisions. To conclude, we find it hard to see a compelling reason why allowing local councils to decide to be called something other than a parish so as better to reflect their area could be perceived as a bad thing. I hope that I have met the concern about more choice meaning more confusion.