Written evidence to be reported to the House
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
2:16 pm
Phil Woolas: Thanks for that question—it is very important. We have tried to set out a timetable that meets the objective of opening the window of opportunity and then closing it, so that we do not get the uncertainties. The uncertainties can be very real—they can be about staff deciding to move jobs or contracts going unsigned. Although there are benefits from the process, there are disadvantages, of which I am very conscious. On the other hand, public support for change is the ultimate arbitrator. If there is no public support, the question of how it could be done arises.
We have allowed in the timetable a window of opportunity, which closed on 25 January. Only a council could propose change in that time. If a council has not proposed change, there can be no change, other than by the direct all-county solution that we have talked about. The second stage in the process is the assessment of a proposal against the criteria, which is subject to legal challenge should we stray—in other words, we have to consider whether there is a prima facie case against the criteria. The third stage is what is called, in the modern world, stakeholder consultation, which will include all interested parties, especially the public.
There are therefore two built-in safety mechanisms. First, there has to be a demonstration of public support. A feature of our permissive regime is that councils can go about doing that in different ways. Secondly, the third period coincides with local elections. I expect that local elections in those areas where a prima facie case has been accepted will provide significant guidance to the councils that are putting forward proposals.