Clause 6
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
4:45 pm
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
I was hoping to be able to say that it follows the Conservative precedent in 1972. I will attempt to explain why we think the amendment is not necessary. Where the boundary committee is asked for advice on an alternative proposal for a single tier of local government, the procedure already provides for significant opportunities for interested parties to make their representations. Where the committee is minded to make an alternative proposal, it must first publish a draft of its proposal and must also ensure that those who have an interest are informed of the proposaland the deadline for making representations to the committee on that matter. The boundary committee must take account of those representations.
Where the boundary committee subsequently, as a result of that consultation, makes a proposal to the Secretary of State, we provide for a further opportunity for interested parties to make representations. The committee must inform anybody who previously made representations on a particular proposal that it has made a subsequent proposal to the Secretary of State. It must also inform those people that they have a further four weeks to make representations to the Secretary of State. That will be four weeks from the date, unless revised, set by the Secretary of State for advice from the committee. In essence, that means that Parliament has its boundary committee to consult and look at the proposals and the four further weeks is then another opportunity to comment on the proposal coming from the boundary committee.
Given that deep and broad consultation by the independent boundary committee, we believe that four weeks is an adequate period to comment on the proposals that arise from the consultation. A further extension of the period—I think that the hon. Member for Poole’s amendment refers to three months—would have no other purpose than to replicate the role of the boundary committee, which is, of course, independent. That would, I argue, be an inappropriate period of time. The reference to the Secretary of State’s time period is a further one on which to comment on the boundary committee’s proposals, having already had the substantial consultation by the boundary committee itself.