I have to confess to being more confused now than I was to start with. I understand why, in its original form, the Bill contained a type C proposal. It would be rare that one would work across county boundaries, but across the country I can think of authorities that might conceivably have wanted to form unitary boundaries, so I see why the type C option was there to start with. My confusion comes from the fact that Mr Woolas, in the debate in another place, made it clear that the Bill would apply only to the current round of bids and that amendments would be brought forward. Therefore, if there are no type C bids in the current proposals, I cannot understand why there is still a need for these provisions in the Bill.
From what the Minister has just said, it seems that the Government want to keep the flexibility in the legislation for future type C proposals. In that case, I do not understand what the assurance by Mr Woolas that the Bill would relate only to the current tranche actually means. My confusion is over the point that he made about the Bill. Does it refer only to the current set of proposals, or is it intended that the Bill will be used as a framework for future unitary proposals?
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c1157-8 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_408877
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_408877
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_408877