Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hanningfield (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 5 July 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.


Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

We agree with the general thrust of these amendments: the electors of an area should be consulted. Therefore, one has much sympathy with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but the Minister made a valid point about the need for a two-thirds majority. I have already had discussions with several district councils which would like to change, but think that they are most unlikely to get the two-thirds majority. It has been suggested that people might want to switch backwards and forwards because of political necessity; this will not happen because of the two-thirds majority. Indeed, the two-thirds majority might be too restrictive in getting enough to change. Elections every four years are much the best way of enabling a mandate to get things done. We have three-year finance plans, et cetera. It is ridiculous when authorities change political control year by year. It is not good for the people in that area. I am a little concerned that the two-thirds majority will stop some of the district councils going to four-yearly elections, when the majority of people there would like to do so. Some of the fears expressed are unfounded, but we support consultation of the electorate.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c1213 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Constituencies Devolution Elections Greater London Local government Referendums Public participation Parish and town councils National parks Local Government Boundary Commission for England
Legislation
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk