We discussed the question of parish councils in London in some detail in Committee. Without repeating those arguments, I want to stress that the misgivings expressed by the representative body of the London boroughs, London Councils, still remain. We understand the devolutionary sentiment that, in principle, lies behind the measures, but it remains an issue that there does not appear to be any significant demand in London for parish councils. The proposal runs the risk of offending the tradition and turbulence tests set by the Minister for Local Government. If either of those tests were applied, we would not be going down this route in London.
I have also endeavoured to answer the Pratt’s Bottom question, and made a point of visiting that part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). The general consensus there was that the principal concerns about a parish council were whether it would cost any more, and whether Ken Livingstone would have anything to do with it. Such prospects did not elicit an enthusiastic response. I do not think that any evidence has been forthcoming apart from what we heard earlier in regard to a great upsurge in the demand for parish councils.
My colleagues and I were grateful for the Government’s acceptance of the need to ensure that community cohesion was an important consideration in the decision to set up parish councils, especially in the London context, for reasons that we all know and on which I do not need to elaborate. I hope that I can be assured that the petition provisions in the new clauses will not undermine that. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said about the need for safeguards against abuse of the right to petition—such as people keeping them going for a long time—and the need to ensure that petitions are genuinely up to date and representative.
There are those who might, in London, seek to establish parish councils for reasons that would not advance community cohesion. We think the Government were right to include safeguards for purposes of community cohesion, and some of the safeguards suggested by my hon. Friend in respect of the way in which petitions are conducted may be particularly relevant in that context.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Neill
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 22 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c1189-90 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:18:16 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398868
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398868
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398868