Clause 8
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
5:15 pm
Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
My comments are addressed first to subsection (2)(b), which refers to
“the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.”
That seems to me to be the heart of the proposal. I hope that the Minister will assert that that factor must be given due weight when boundary changes are considered. Certainly in my local authority, Stockport, there have been such changes between us and the Tameside authority and between us and the Derbyshire authority. Those were common-sense changes to boundaries that were no longer relevant. They were not particularly difficult or contentious changes; they made common sense and were at quite a low level.
However, in the context of the Bill, it is only right that we hear from the Minister that he does not see clauses 8, 9 and 10 as changing existing practice to any substantial degree. That brings me back to some of the remarks that he made in responding to a debate on clause 2, when he referred to this provision as though it somehow absolved him from dealing with the point about clause 2. We are now dealing with a completely different set of propositions, which is not directly connected, as far as one can tell, with the proposals in clause 2. I seek the Minister’s confirmation of that point and that the extent of the provision is not being taken beyond what one might call the common law practice of present procedures in terms of tidying things up. Clause 8(4) contains a list of four things that cannot be done, which is on the whole very encouraging. Perhaps the Minister would like to underline again the fact that there is no intention to stretch current practice in the direction that the Opposition are concerned about.