Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

This is the same repertory company that gathered for the Bill for the Mayor of London, when we had a great canter over the course of all the difficulties. I certainly came to those debates with a general inclination towards a metropolitan or London-wide authority, but the more I looked at the situation and the more I heard, the more I came to appreciate the enormity of bringing together authorities that did not like the idea. In London there are 32 authorities and a number of arrangements had not been made. I came to the conclusion that you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on getting as far he has, and I hope that he gets a bit further with this in practice. He asked the very question that I was going to put to my noble friend: if you have an area with 12 authorities and 10 of them think a common solution is a good idea but two do not, what do you do? Of course, the two will carry on as they did before—uneconomically and not in accordance with best practice. Eventually their council tax payers and common sense will drive them into joining the new arrangement. The fact is that, when it comes to a question of independence, we have to consider people with great pride in their locality where they have given good service and have been well rewarded in terms of public esteem. They are therefore entitled to take their own view. The Bill sets out a mechanism that shows people with common sense and good will that 2007-08 will be different from previous arrangements. I understand what the amendment is trying to do, but leaving the Bill unamended is the right way forward.