Proceeding contribution from Phil Woolas (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 22 May 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
If members of the press or the public were ever to doubt that Members of Parliament know what they are talking about, they should read the Hansard record of the debate on these new clauses. I am tempted to say that the reason why we did not consider the option of quarters was to give the poor electorate a year off—[Interruption.] And the canvassers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) says. The real reason is traditional and historical. Areas had two tiers; in our area of Greater Manchester, the fallow year was for the upper tier. To meet the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), we would have to reconsider the number of councillors per ward and move to four, or two or one. We could do that, but I do not think that he would want us to.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 460 c1173-4
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Councillors Administration Elections Electoral Commission Exemptions Local government Wales Trusts Local Government Ombudsman Local Government Boundary Commission for England Standards Board for England
- Legislation
- Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:18:06 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398847
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398847
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398847