moved Amendment No. 114:
114: Clause 62, page 33, line 19, leave out ““the executive leader”” and insert ““one of the following—
(i) the executive leader, or
(ii) the authority.””
The noble Lord said: This amendment appears on its own, because it deals with a specific issue: who appoints the executive of a council when there is a leader and executive model. Section 11(3)(b) of the Local Government Act 2000 is exactly as set out in my amendment. I am merely trying to maintain the status quo.
The Government are trying to suggest that the executive, in a leader and executive model, should simply be appointed by the leader of the council. When, or if, this provision goes through, and when it is reported to councils that this is what they have to do, there will be astonishment in the land. The idea is that the whole council will not be able to choose the members of its executive or cabinet body—I hesitate to use the word ““committee””, but I do not know what executives are, if not committees—and will only be able to appoint a leader, who will then appoint the members of the executive. Some councils may do that at the moment under the 2000 Act, or they can elect the executive, probably at their annual meeting.
I do not know of any council with the model that the Government suggest. I am sure there are plenty, but they are perhaps not councils that I know about, which would suggest that they are not ordinary district councils. Most of the councils that I know about around the country, where I have colleagues with whom I communicate quite frequently, tend to be district councils or metropolitan district councils. People will be astonished at the idea that a council’s constitution cannot provide for a system in which the executive—by far the most important body in the council now—is appointed or elected at the annual meeting.
When this was discussed in Committee in the House of Commons, there was some fascinating debate. The then local government Minister, Mr Woolas, a Nelsonian gone to other pastures, said—and I paraphrase him—““Well, it does not really matter, because councillors will get round it anyway, won’t they?”” That is, they will come to their own arrangements, and things will carry on much as before, which may be the case. In my council, if we had a model where the leader appoints the executive, the leader would be appointed only on the terms that the executive is agreed by a much wider group of people than himself or herself. That is how a lot of councils will work; many get round what they saw as restrictions in the 2000 Act arrangements in such a way. They are probably making themselves more efficient and approachable, and better councils with better leadership, as a result. This will be regarded as an absolutely astonishing provision. People will think that the Government and this Parliament have gone mad if it goes through. I beg to move.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Greaves
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 10 July 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c1343-4 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:26:23 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409735
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409735
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409735