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.
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 c1213 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:17:09 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409002
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409002
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409002