Clause 8
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
5:15 pm
Bob Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)
My point follows on from those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I would like some reassurance about the position of London boroughs because, unlike in the previous portion of the Bill, the definition of local authority and local government area in this portion—by virtue of clause 11, I think—includes London boroughs. I appreciate that it was not intended that they should form part of the unitary changes and the associated tinkerings, but I am interested to know for what purpose London boroughs are included in this portion of the Bill, other than perhaps for the occasional sensible adjustment where it is found that the odd piece of housing development strays over the boundary between two boroughs, as I said.
I do not want to be unduly suspicious but, asthe Minister knows, some people in London government—I am sure that such people are a great minority, even in the Labour party—would favour and have occasionally advocated wholesale change to the boundaries of the London boroughs. As the Minister knows, the Commission on London Governance, which we referred to earlier in our proceedings, completely and on a cross-party basis rejected any significant change of that kind. None of the boroughs wants it.
Can I have some reassurance that the measure will not be misused by someone not a million miles away from here at City hall to set in train a reorganisation of the London boroughs, which will make all that we have discussed in earlier clauses on unitary authority bids look minuscule by comparison? It is clear that the boroughs do not want such changes. The measure should be used simply to tidy up the odd borough anomaly that we see from time to time.