Clause 2
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
10:30 am
Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 92, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, after ‘invite’, insert ‘on or before 31st March 2007’.
I am delighted to be opening the batting after the swift passing of clause 1. First, to respond briefly to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, let me say that most of the debate on clause 2 centres on three fundamental queries about the Government’s proposals. The first relates to the time—the Minister referred to “the window” when he gave evidence to the Committee. The second relates to geography and which councils can or cannot produce proposals and what limitations there should be; and the third relates to the power of direction to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Amendment No. 92 relates to the time; no doubt, there will be opportunities for discussions on geography and the powers of direction on a separate occasion.
We can see from the number of the amendment that it was tabled after several other amendments, which in some ways are more central to the concerns that have been expressed, had been tabled. However, the trick of parliamentary selection means that amendment No. 92 comes. It gives us the opportunity to look at the process that the Government are launching under clause 2, its limitations and what amendments might be necessary.
The Liberal Democrats do not seek to stop the process. It is right that there should be an opportunity for local government to take a look how it organises itself and, when there is clear consent, for it to be enabled to make changes to be more efficient, more effective and, most important, more representative of local communities and better able to deliver what they need. I must declare a personal historical interest in the sense that I do not have an axe to grind, having served on a lower-tier authority, an upper-tier authority and a unitary authority in my time. I have seen pluses and minuses to each of those types and I do not come with any baggage about what should happen next. We therefore welcome the intention behind clause 2. The purpose of the amendment is certainly not to derail the clause or thwart that intention.
As the Minister has said, it is absolutely right that there should be a window. There is no doubt that the actual process of considering such matters is a painful one for local authorities of all sorts and often takes their eye off the ball of providing services and representing their local communities. I would not mind betting that with, one or two exceptions—we heard from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on Second Reading—there is a pronounced lack of engagement in the process by the local communities concerned. It is very much an insider’s issue—I might even venture to say that it is an anorak’s issue. The time that an executive spends on a proposal cannot be spent on issues more fundamental to the communities that local government serves.
We think that the process should be permitted, and we agree with the Minister that there should be a limited window of opportunity but, bearing that in mind, we are surprised that that view is not incorporated the Bill. That brings us to amendment No. 92, which proposes that the Secretary of State only be able to extend an invitation on or before 31 March 2007. The Minister would be right to say that that is in the Bill; however, what is not stated on the face of the Bill is when the Secretary of State will lose that right to extend an invitation. The wording of the amendment is such that we will support the Opposition amendments in another group to remove the power of direction.
We believe that there should be a power of invitation and we are happy that clause 2 will permit the Secretary of State to exercise such a right, but the power should be limited in time. The purpose of amendment No. 92 is to limit the time in which the Secretary of State can extend an invitation to 31 March this year. In other words, the power of invitation would lapse at the end of this financial year and would not be available to him or his successor in primary legislation next year, or in five years, or 10. A Secretary of State would have to return to the House and explain that circumstances had changed such that there should be another opportunity for local councils to make proposals.
The limitation in time is necessary for the protection of local government and local communities, and in particular so that the disruption and confusion, and the diversion of resources and effort that the process of coming together to make a bid involves, can be avoided. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled, and to hear what the Minister meant when he said:
“We are working on parliamentary counsel instruction to have a power of direction that is defined in both geography and time to the satisfaction of the LGA.”——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2007; c. 87.]
The Minister is still waiting for parliamentary counsel, so we thought we would do him a favour and save him some hefty fees by tabling an amendment about time. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say to this simple and straightforward amendment, which has a clear purpose and which matches exactly his own intentions.