Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that full explanation but it still leaves some queries in my mind. I do not feel that I have heard anything today to help me understand what a co-opted councillor is unable to do at the moment and why someone has to be appointed. I cannot see why all the advantages applied to the new category of appointed councillors cannot apply to co-opted councillors. The situation could be a step backwards because, at the moment, a co-opted councillor representing, say, a community group is able to speak about that community group quite openly at the parish council. If councillors are appointed and have a vote, they may have to declare an interest in discussions, particularly financial discussions, and absent themselves or not vote on the one issue they are there to deal with; while, on the other hand, they will be able to vote on all manner of other issues about which they do not know anything. From that point of view, an appointed member might end up at a disadvantage compared with someone who had been co-opted from the same body. I hope the Government will take a look at these provisions and give that some thought. The question of declaration of interest and representation on outside bodies has exercised local councillors for as long as I have been involved in local government. My second concern echoes the point made by my noble friend Lord Greaves throughout these proceedings that bodies are not strong because we say they are strong, and they do not have democratic strength because we say they do; their strength comes from how they operate and the way in which they work. There is a danger that there will be councils where the power of appointment will be used to appoint people who are known to the appointer. It is just one of things; it will happen. That will reduce the credibility of the parish council. At the moment people do not feel that way because councillors are elected; if they are not elected there is a danger that, in some areas, the credibility of the council will be undermined because people in the community will feel it has been overtaken and become a kind of old boys’ network—or even an old girls’ network; I am not gender blind in these matters. However, we have to think carefully about this notion of popular mandate and popular support. I have a briefing from the National Association of Local Councils which says: "““Whilst we do not support the principle of appointments replacing local councillors, we will constructively engage with government””." If the National Association of Local Councils has reservations about appointing councillors, from where has the idea come? Does not the fact that the national association representing the whole tier not give the Government some pause for thought?