Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I thank the noble Baroness and wish to continue the debate with a few further points. First, I want to put on record that no one on these Benches is suggesting that leadership is not important. As someone who worked for some years undertaking assessments of councils for the Audit Commission, I was always absolutely clear that the highest performing councils were those with the most effective leadership. The point at issue is that the 2000 Act brought in some changes to the governance of councils. My own council at the time, Suffolk County Council, made an early move away from the committee system towards a cabinet style because we felt it a better system of governance. At that stage, it was our decision to make, based on our assessment of what was best for our area. That philosophical point underpins the fundamental problem that the Liberal Democrats have with the Government’s position. The Government say that the various challenges faced by local authorities are so dreadful that they absolutely must have strong leaders—super-people, who will appear to lead councils and sail through all the challenges—but that none of those people can be trusted to decide how their own areas should be governed; they can only have a range of options from central government. The Government seem to have a Janus-type attitude, saying on the one hand, ““We want strong, powerful councils”” and, on the other, ““You are not sensible enough to choose your own model of governance””. If some systems of governance have clearly better outcomes than others, councils will move to those themselves having seen the benefits. They should not have to be required by central government, through legislation, to adopt a particular style. It is difficult for the Government to say to local councils, on the one hand, ““We trust you and want you to be strong””, and on the other, ““We do not trust you enough to decide how you run your own affairs””.