moved Amendment No. 3:
3: Clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (c)
The noble Lord said: Amendments No. 3 to 8 would delete this so-called type C category of proposal, which would enable unitaries to go across areas crossing county boundaries. My noble friend Baroness Hanham made a good case for resisting the general process in her previous amendment, but crossing county boundaries and forcing people to be counted as part of a different county from the one with which they identify is deeply controversial.
The central problem with type C proposals is that reorganisation across county boundaries risks totally undermining public consent for anything going ahead through those authorities. Incidentally, if the Minister were to accept our amendment on holding referendums, that might not be a problem, but we will come to that later. Whatever happens on this, the question of public consent is important; it is vital that people identify with the area where they live. We talked about communities in Amendment No. 1. Constituency boundaries, which affect and concern MPs, might change every few years, but I know of none that goes across counties. I am sure that the Minister will comment on this controversial issue. I beg to move.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
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 bills on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c1156 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:17:28 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_408874
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_408874
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_408874