§ Order for Consideration of Lords Amendment read.
2010§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Elliot.]
§ Lords Amendment considered accordingly.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 5, leave out Sub-section (9) and insert:
(9) Any order or agreement constituting under any enactment a joint board or joint committee to discharge the functions of two or more councils under this Section may provide for the co-option of such number of members of the board or committee as may be specified in the order or agreement:
Provided that the number so specified shall not exceed one-third of the total number of the members of the board or committee.
§ 10.46 p.m.
§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot)I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It carries out an undertaking which was given in this House on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and supported by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). It is not a party Amendment, but is brought forward on behalf of local authorities to deal with the question of co-option. The Amendment carries out the pledge which was given in this House that we would look into this matter and try and get an appropriate Amendment drafted to cover the point if hon. Members withdrew their Amendment. They did so, and these words have been inserted in another place.
§ 10.49 p.m.
§ Mr. Herbert MorrisonI propose to ask my hon. Friends to agree with the Lords in this Amendment. It does secure a greater control by local authorities over the principle of co-option. Before it was rather mandatory, but now it is permissive. If local authorities do not want it they need not have it; and in any case they can control its extent. The extent of co-option contemplated is perhaps a little excessive. That will be within the control of the local authorities making the agreement. I would only add one other point, and that is that I assume the Minister, in making an order requiring the establishment of a joint committee between the local authorities, will take the opportunity of ascertaining the views of the local authorities concerned as to any co-option or any degree of co-option 2011 before he actually makes the order so that he will observe the same principle as far as he can as if the local authorities themselves should voluntarily make an agreement. Subject to those points I think the Amendment that has been put in pursuance of the wishes of the House, including the hon. Member for Stone, who was speaking for the County Councils Association, is an Amendment of a democratic character and is in the right direction and should commend itself to the House.
§ Sir Joseph LambAs one who had the honour of moving the Amendment and who undertook to withdraw it on the undertaking given by the Minister, I should like to say that we appreciate the present Amendment.
§ Sir Francis FremantleI should like to point out that whereas the previous arrangement was that the board should not exceed one-half of the committee, it will now not exceed one-third of the members of the committee. It is an important constitutional proposal where it is always doubtful how far co-option is desirable in a representative assembly, and I think it is as well to point out that a definite limit is put on co-option in the future. We are very glad that this has been embodied in the proposed Amendment.