I am glad that the Minister is as excited as I am. Some fundamental principles are at stake here. At the moment, an electorate of more than 200 people has a parish council. In future, an electorate of between 150 and 1,000 people may or may not get a parish council, according to the whim of the district council or the outcome of the process of a parish review that has to take place. That is not greater certainty, but less. I do not know how many of the 10,000 parishes in this country have fewer than 1,000 electors. My guess is that it is about two-thirds of them; it might be more. A very large number of parishes have fewer than 1,000 electors. In future, there will be no guarantee that they can have a parish council. It can be taken away if there is a parish review. Existing parishes will continue as they are until they have a parish review. If there are changes and new parishes are set up as part of a review, the parish councillors can be taken away. Equally, parishes can be abolished under a parish review.
There is nothing revolutionary about this. There are existing institutions in parishes in England that consist of a parish meeting—usually an annual one, but clearly there could be a special parish meeting to discuss this. There is also the provision for a parish poll. Surely matters such as abolishing a parish in a controversial situation, or saying that a parish will exist and will have 650 electors as the village is quite sizeable but that it will not have a parish council, are matters in which existing institutions of the parish meeting and possibly the parish poll should be brought in. Those institutions exist already.
This could lead in some cases, in a few places, to people being engaged in plotting, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I know of some districts in which there have been only one or two parishes, which have been at loggerheads with the district. The view of the district was that if only it could get rid of the parishes, it would be like other districts—and that would be fine. I fear that in a few places that sort of attitude might prevail. There should be a safeguard—not a safeguard that involves the Government coming from above and saying that that cannot be done, but a democratic safeguard involving people using the existing institutions of parish meetings and polls to say what they think. They might agree with abolition or they might not.
I think that the Government are wrong on this and I hope that they will seriously think again, because I am not proposing a radical change. It is just a sensible one. This is something that we might have to come back to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 204CL and 204CM not moved.]
Clause 96 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 204CN and 204CP not moved.]
Clause 97 [Electoral recommendations: general considerations]:
[Amendments Nos. 204CQ and 204CR not moved.]
Clause 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Publicising outcome]:
[Amendment No. 204CS not moved.]
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Orders and regulations under this Chapter]:
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Greaves
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 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
694 c37-8 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:44:59 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_411194
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_411194
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_411194