Clause 39
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
12:45 pm
Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)
When I first examined the clause, my approach was a permissive one—similar to that of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who said that he had had trouble with ruling things out of the Bill, because if people want a directly elected executive, we should let them have one. However, given the further remarks that have been made by both him and others, I feel that the Minister needs to do more if he is to satisfy the Committee that the proposal is a good one.
The Minister mentioned that the idea came from local authorities themselves, but we could do with a bit of evidence for that. Stockton was mentioned in the witness discussion, but I cannot see in the White Paper a long list of councils that have clamoured for the proposal, and it would help if the Minister said where the push actually came from. The illustrations of practical flaws that have been given by those who have commented have been quite significant, and one wonders which council has missed them.
Let me pick out one of those flaws. It comes from one of the Minister’s party colleagues, so I think that he ought to answer it. Jeremy Beecham told the witness sitting of the Committee that he was unhappy with the proposal. He said:
“There is...a question as to why it is necessary for the executive not to be drawn...from elected councillors? Why do you have to treat them, as it were, as a class apart within the council?”——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2007; c. 19.]
He made that point in answer to an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Bedford about the involvement of councillors, and to illustrate that one could have all sorts of initiatives to involve councillors with a strong leadership model, and yet, despite that, the directly elected executive leadership model would produce a further barrier to involvement. Given that a colleague of the Minister offered that concern, the Minister might wish to think about it.
My second point is one that has cropped up on a number of occasions and was made by Unlock Democracy—the “one-way street” argument. The White Paper and the Bill presume that if the model adopted is that of a directly elected mayor or a directly elected executive, then that will be fixed and there will not be an opportunity to reconsider. That seems contrary to the spirit of devolution in which the Minister has set out.
The Minister has a tough set of questions to answer on the practical difficulties that have been raised by so many people connected with local government.