May I briefly assist the Committee and perhaps my noble friend if I made it clear that Clause 47(6), whether we like the word ““vexatious”” or not, helps to guard against some of the fears of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Best? If there were a case where hundreds and thousands of people had been involved in indicative planning and the process of planning, clearly a referendum that then came along from a group would potentially be vexatious. A local authority could resist that. Maybe ““vexatious”” is not the right word, but what concerns me is the case that I cited of a regional body, London, interfering with a lower body where there has been no effective consultation, it was a choice between two visions of the future and there has not been adequate public involvement. It might in those cases not be vexatious to have a referendum. It might be illuminating and that is the difference. Perhaps in considering this, my noble friend might want to look at the application of Clause 47(6) and how that would bite on these potential powers.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord True
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 30 June 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
728 c1945 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-22 18:39:26 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_755637
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_755637
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_755637