Proceeding contribution from George Osborne (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 26 February 2008. It occurred during Legislative debate on Local Government.
Local Government
As I understand it, a Conservative group on Chester city council made different proposals from those that the previous leadership—[Hon. Members: ““No.””] Well, we could debate the issue at greater length if we had the time, but sadly we do not, because of the timetabling. I return to the point that the proposal was not originally supported by a large number of councils in Cheshire. On every attempt to test public opinion in Cheshire, it has not been supported by the public; that applies to the referendum held in Crewe and Nantwich and the opinion survey carried out in the county. The Government have refused to hold a referendum, even though when we discussed local government reorganisation just four years ago there was a proposal for a referendum, not just on regional government, but on the local government arrangements in Cheshire. The House is left to decide whether to impose on the people of Cheshire a form of local government that has not received any public support. We can make many arguments for and against the proposed changes, but striking warnings have been made by, among others, members of the education system in Cheshire—teachers, head teachers and governors. The concern of the fire authority is striking, and it is striking that the majority of Members of Parliament representing Cheshire oppose the local government reorganisation. We can make all these points, but the central point is surely this: in the end, democratic arrangements and local government structures should be based on identities that people have in their hearts, not in the minds of Whitehall Departments. The current system is broadly supported by local people. There is the identity of Cheshire. Although bits have been chopped off over the past 30 years, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) pointed out, the historic heart of the county remains and there is a county council based on that. Then there are local arrangements, which in my case mean that constituents can look to Macclesfield or Vale Royal borough council. We are about to throw away these arrangements in pursuit of a proposal that does not command public support. That is not the way to conduct our business in a democratic system. Of course we will try to make the arrangements work if they are voted through tomorrow, and we will do everything we can to ensure that disruption for local people is kept to a minimum, but in the deferred Division that will come later today, we have an opportunity to stop the proposal in its tracks and get on with delivering services such as education, social services and housing, which people want us to be talking about both in Cheshire and in the House of Commons.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 472 c1058-9
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Local government Reorganisation Unitary councils Cheshire
- Legislation
- Cheshire (Structural Changes) Order 2008
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:54:13 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_449198
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_449198
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_449198