Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

My experience is such that I cannot believe that a council faced with some evidence to bring about changes would try by subterfuge to produce those changes without consulting the people affected. The councillors themselves have a vested interest, for the very good reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, such as historical attachment. A name that identifies an area is either posh or otherwise in the minds of the electorate, and they will not take kindly to suddenly discovering that the place where they reside is named differently. As I understand it, the council that has the power to do that would be ill advised to do so and cause a furore, because the political consequences could well be quickly visited upon it and its political complexion. The Minister can help the Committee by explaining the advantage of the amendments to the present situation. At present the council is allowed, in the light of empirical evidence, to decide that there is a need for a change and to propose and effect that change, but only by taking along with it the people who are affected. Although the Minister and others have used the term ““far too prescriptive””—that is, there are too many tiny details—there are some people who want everything in tiny detail. As an ex-councillor, I think councils ought to be given some credit for their political sense in appreciating that changes, which from the town clerk’s point of view may seem to be administratively sensible, need to be looked at in the light of the effect upon ordinary people. I do not have a view on the value of the amendments. I agree with what has been said. The present Local Government Act under which we are operating gives ample provision for the local council to make its decisions, with safeguards. People who control councils are not politically stupid. They know the consequences of what they are doing. If they behave unreasonably—or politically, with a large ““P””—they deserve all they get.