Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I thank the Minister for responding to the debate in Committee which, as he said, was all-party and saw the need for a process that could work in either direction. I welcome the new clauses and amendments that he has tabled. Like the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), I am disappointed that the provisions are restricted in their application. I shall comment on that in a moment. First, however, I want to ask the Minister whether the difference in wording between the rules for halves and the rules for thirds is deliberate and, if so, why. New clause 39(1) states that a non-metropolitan district council in England can qualify, and new clause 41, which relates to election by thirds, allows a district council in England to qualify. In other words, election by halves is restricted to non-metropolitan districts, and the other case appears to apply to metropolitan districts. I would be interested to know whether that is a difference with a deliberate intention, or whether it will be subject to amendment in another place in due course. I favour the widest possible interpretation, so I prefer new clause 41 to new clause 39 in that respect. I look forward to hearing that that is the intention. I asked the Library for a note on how many local authorities would be eligible, and it provided me with a list of the councils that had elections by thirds in 1974, which is the qualifying date. According to the Library, there were 114 such shire district councils, but it did not tell me how many of those changed at one time or another away from election by thirds to all-out elections. I hope that the Minister will provide that information—if not now, perhaps separately after the debate. Although the concession is generous and the amendments to achieve it are lengthy, my concern is that it will apply to only a small number of local authorities. My disappointment is that the Government have not seen fit to make this a concession that any council could have—although in saying ““any council””, I accept that, as the Minister said in introducing his amendments, our original wording, which included county councils and other upper-tier bodies, would not have been appropriate. I fully accept that our drafting was deficient in that respect. I want to see the Minister nudge forward a little bit on the possibility of a larger number of district councils being eligible. If he were to tell us in plain terms that there are 100 such councils, maybe I would not feel so concerned, but if, as I suspect, there are only about a dozen, this concession is not as worth while as it seems. The Library list of 114 councils that had election by thirds in 1974 includes a number of councils that are now unitary authorities. For example, City of York council was a district council in those days, and it is now a unitary council. It was clearly set up as a unitary authority after 1974, and therefore although it appears to qualify under new clause 41(2)(a), it would apparently be disqualified under subsection (2)(b), which states:"““if later, the date on which the council was created.””" I want to hear from the Minister whether, if a geographical area once had election by thirds, it still retains the capacity to go through the reversing act, if it wishes, even if its status as a council has changed. I have no information to the effect that City of York council has any intention of doing that, and I am simply using it to illustrate a case that might arise. Although we welcome the direction of travel, as we say these days, that the Minister has undertaken, I want him to travel further. If, as I fear, he has hardly opened the front door and got on to the garden path, it will be a major disappointment.