Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

We will return to this matter at a latter stage, because I think that I am now more confused than the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If this clause is required only for implementation, why does it start by stating that the Secretary of State ““may invite””? This is not implementation; this is setting out the road along which the unitary authorities will be developed. If it can be done under general powers, Clause 2 is not needed in the way in which it is being proposed. The Bill does not state that Clause 2 is required for implementation; it states that it is required for the whole legislation, because it starts with the power of the Secretary of State to invite or direct. That is the gate through which they go. Whether the Secretary of State has opened that gate and bolted it after the horse has gone through it beforehand is a completely different matter. She may have thought that she was doing that under general powers, but that is not what the Bill says. The Minister has made an effort to satisfy us, but it will not do. I proposed ““a relevant authority”” because only a limited number of authorities were going to be interested. If there were never going to be a limited number of authorities, which would then be the ““relevant authorities””, the legislation should have been implemented on the basis of unitary proposals across the country and not just 16 local authorities. When we get down to the detail, we see that the criteria reduce the number even lower than 16. We are told that, for money reasons as much as anything else, they will be reduced yet again. This part of the Bill is not at all satisfactory. We will move on to discuss the power of the Secretary of State to direct and the consultation, which looks to us to be pretty paltry. We will get there, but, for today, I shall withdraw the amendment, although I assure the Minister that this is not the last that we will hear of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.