Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I am very grateful for a great deal of what the Minister has said, some of which is very useful clarification. I am grateful for her willingness to look again at Amendments Nos. 204CQ and 204CR, which are about the importance of having regard to the existing electoral boundaries. One can always say that people will do something because it is common sense or because one would expect them to do it, and although various criteria are set out in the Bill, the existing district electoral boundaries seem to me to be of at least equal importance to those in the Bill. That is the argument for putting them in. If they are not in the Bill and there is a debate about which should prevail—as there often is with electoral boundaries—they might be thought to be less important. I am grateful for that and I hope that the Electoral Commission might give some sensible advice. On the parish review, it is fairly clear that if the district council sets up such a review, or if one is set up in response to a parish petition, which is the circumstance in which there is more likely to be a conflict, then having carried it out, the district council could simply vote to ignore it and do nothing. Perhaps that matter should be resolved electorally and politically at a local level. However, as long as we are clear that that is possible and that in some circumstances it will probably happen—most things that are possible eventually happen somewhere or other at some time—it will cause problems. I do not suggest that the Secretary of State should, at this stage, gallop in and resolve the matter because it is probably one for local determination. I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 89 agreed to. Clause 90 [Existing parishes under review]: [Amendments Nos. 204CG and 204CH not moved.] Clause 90 agreed to. Clauses 91 to 94 agreed to. Clause 95 [Duties when undertaking a review]: