This group of amendments makes amendments to Clauses 62 and 64 which deal with local authorities changing their governance arrangements by inserting new sections into the Local Government Act 2000. Amendment No. 128B would enable a council to vary its executive arrangements more than once. The effect of Amendment No. 128 would be to deny authorities the ability to change their executive models from one to another. The effect of Amendment No. 153 would be to enable changes between models of executive to occur during the term of office of a mayor or leader of a directly elected executive without their permission. I heard what the noble Baroness said, but the amendments seem to cut down on the scope and the democratic powers of local government.
Clause 64 enables local authorities operating executive arrangements to change their governance arrangements, including the adoption of a directly elected form of executive. It cannot and would not be our intention at all that a council could never change its mind about the model that it had chosen. It is obviously sensible for a council to be able to move from one model to another if it finds, after a period with one model, that it can now see the benefits of another. Surely, by removing Section 33A and preventing a council from changing that model, we would be doing a major disservice to that council. Clearly, we believe that councils should be able to change if they believe that it is appropriate. We want to keep that flexibility.
We believe that Amendment No. 128 is unnecessary. The Bill as it stands provides that councils can vary their executive arrangements any number of times that they choose. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. A council that after the enactment of the Bill adopts the leader and cabinet executive model can, if it so chooses, subsequently decide to adopt the elected executive model. Thereafter, at a later date, it could adopt the mayor and cabinet model or alternately it might revert to the leader and cabinet model. So it can go backwards and forwards between the three models if it so chooses—and there are processes and timetables for doing that which make it consistent with the council’s election. The Bill sets that out.
Amendments Nos. 128 and 153 are where the perversity comes in. If we passed Amendment No. 128, there would be no flexibility to move between models and, if we passed Amendment No. 153, there would be no flexibility to modify the executive arrangements. We believe that flexibility is essential. Obviously, local authorities may be able to identify improvements that make the model that they have chosen more effective in providing strategic leadership, but it is only right that the changes to the governance arrangements of mayors and Cabinet executives or elected executives must have the specific consent of the mayor or the elected executive leader, both of whom have a direct mandate from the electorate of the whole council area. To prevent this from happening would actually be undemocratic. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
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 c1379-80 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:39:08 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409807
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409807
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409807