Localism Bill

Debate between Lord True and Baroness Gould of Potternewton

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton)]

My Lords, the amendment proposed is:

“Page 42, line 10, leave out subsections (3) to (5)”.

[Lord True]

I apologise for that, my Lords. I was dazzled by the sun and by my noble friend’s arguments. I do not want to speak to all the amendments in the group, although I have quite a bit of sympathy for them. However, Clause 52(3) is far too restrictive, so again I want to be more permissive than my noble friend. I really do not see what business it is of the Government to come in and say that a local referendum is to be delayed until the date of an election or another referendum. If it is an urgent question relating to a matter of concern that might involve a small number of people in a borough, it need not be that expensive. Why cannot the local authority just get on with it and use its own discretion? Clause 52(1), (2) and (5) seems perfectly reasonable, but could my noble friend just leave the rest to the local authority to determine?