My Lords, I do not support this amendment as it implies that a huge amount of work in developing a neighbourhood plan could be lost if 39.9% of the electorate turned out to vote on it. We have in this country a history of assuming that those who do not vote are abstaining. It seems to me that the current system works perfectly well. If some people—perhaps a majority of the electorate—decide not to vote, that is their right. It would be very wrong if all the work of a lot of people over a substantial period of time could be lost because an arbitrary figure of 40% was imposed. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has not justified that figure. I would remind him that a large number of local councillors would not have been elected to local government if a 40% turnout figure had been imposed. Indeed, I remind him that he himself in 2014 was elected in the Benwell and Scotswood ward of Newcastle upon Tyne with a turnout figure of 32.1%. However, I do not think that anybody in your Lordships’ Chamber would wish to say that that result was not valid. I hope that the noble Lord will think very carefully about proposing a requirement that there should be a 40% turnout of the electorate on a referendum relating to a neighbourhood plan.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Shipley
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 January 2017.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Neighbourhood Planning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
778 c224GC 
Session
2016-17
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-10-12 15:11:57 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-01-31/17020111000271
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-01-31/17020111000271
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-01-31/17020111000271