| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Welfare of Racing Greyhounds
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the welfare of racing greyhounds at all tracks in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 70].
Orders of the Day
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
[2nd Allotted Day]
(Clauses 1 to 18 and 95 to 120, Schedules 1, 2 and 11 to 14, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Parts I and VII)
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset):
I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 60, line 37, leave out from "Ireland" to end of line 39.
The First Deputy Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 44, in page 60, line 39, at end insert--
Mr. Walter:
I do not intend to dwell long on the amendments, which are relatively simple. Conservative Members are conscious of the fact that the measure provides for referendums to be held not only nationally, but in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, and in any of the regions, as defined by the regional development agencies.
It may come as no surprise to the Committee that Conservative Members see nothing magical in the areas of the RDAs. Elsewhere and on other occasions, we have pointed out that we are not entirely happy with the concept of RDAs--not least because we are not entirely happy that government should be organised on such a basis, although regional boundaries must be drawn somewhere.
That does not mean, however, that there is always a community of interest in a particular region. For example, my constituency is in Dorset, which is linked to the south-west region, but my constituents have little in common with the electors of Tewkesbury or Truro--save the fact that we all catch the train from either Waterloo or Paddington to reach the area.
Through the amendments, we want to provide the Electoral Commission with the power to regulate referendums held in smaller areas in multiples of local government areas--not in individual local government areas, because those are covered elsewhere. It would thus be possible to hold a regional referendum in, for example, Devon and Cornwall on an issue that was pertinent to both counties, but not to only one of them, and certainly not to the whole south-west region.
One could envisage a referendum being held on an issue that affected both sides of the Severn estuary; that might include the local government units in the former county of Gwent, in Gloucestershire and in Somerset.
To give the Electoral Commission the flexibility to consider local referendums in areas that do not necessarily coincide with those covered by the RDAs or the home nations would be a worthwhile addition to the Bill.
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove):
The amendments are rather mismatched. The first would delete one category of referendum. That is a mistake, because we need the widest possible range of options to ensure that the area in which opinions are sought, whatever its boundaries, comes within the purview of the Electoral Commission. As we want to bring all such matters under the control of the commission, it seems perverse to remove one category of referendum.
The second amendment is sensible. As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) pointed out, it will sometimes be appropriate or expedient to hold referendums in more limited areas. He hinted at a Severn estuary referendum or at others that might cross current regional boundaries. I represent a constituency with the east midlands region on its southern boundary, but it is firmly placed in the north-west. It is less than 10 miles to the Yorkshire and Humberside region. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) is in the Chamber, and we share a constituency boundary even though our constituencies are in different regions. One can imagine that a referendum on the Peak district national park or related issues would necessarily cross regional boundaries. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is holding up several fingers, but I cannot interpret what they mean.
Amendment No. 44 would allow for something that is not constrained by the nations and states of the United Kingdom, or by the economic regions. It would thus be a useful addition to the Bill. Unfortunately, any vote would be on amendment No. 36. I hope that the Government will reject that, but that they will give serious consideration to amendment No. 44, which would build in a level of flexibility that would allow the Electoral Commission in reasonably foreseeable circumstances to exercise control and be the effective monitoring body, without the need to resort again to primary legislation.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
I shall be brief. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said about the two amendments.
Regional referendums can be important. The Committee may recall a referendum on the merits of the public ownership of water authorities that was held some years ago in the Strathclyde region. It attracted about 1 million respondents, 98 per cent. of whom said that they wanted water services to remain under local authority control. The potency of that response deterred the then Tory Government from privatising the water boards in Scotland.
I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question. It might be a little precipitate, but it was prompted by something that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said. Have there been any discussions with the Scottish Executive, the Northern Ireland Executive--we all know about the problems there--and the Welsh Executive about the conduct and commissioning of referendums? For example, if referendums are held in Northern Ireland once the Executive is reinstituted--
I hope that that will take place soon--or in Scotland and Wales, am I right in thinking that it will be the respective Executives rather than the Westminster Government who will have the authority to call the referendums?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien):
The distance between us is very small, even though I will not accept the amendments. I do not agree with amendment No. 36, but I shall give some consideration to amendment No. 44, albeit not on this Bill. As I shall explain, there is a way of dealing with the issue other than trying to amend the Bill.
Clause 95(1) specifies the referendums to which the provisions of part VII apply. It is not ultimately an exhaustive list, in the sense that future legislation providing for referendums to be held throughout areas or combinations of administrative units not specified in the clause could provide for the controls set in this part to be applied fully or in part to those referendums. That is not the only way in which we can manage the division of areas for referendums. We could decide in later legislation to do it differently. All that we are providing here, for the sake of convenience, is a template that we may or may not choose to use.
A case in point would be referendums on directly elected mayors under the Local Government Bill, which will make provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the conduct of such referendums. It is intended that those regulations should apply, with necessary modifications, to a number of the provisions in part VII, having regard to the particular circumstances of those local referendums.
Clause 95(1)(c), which amendment No. 36 would delete, allows the provisions of part VII to be applied to a referendum held throughout an English region. Such referendums are not by any means an immediate prospect, but the Government intend to introduce, possibly in the next Parliament, legislation to allow people, region by region, to decide in a referendum whether they want directly elected regional government. The Government's judgment is that the part VII provisions would apply fully to such referendums. We might as well put them in place, because this is convenient legislation in which to do so, and it will provide for simplicity later.
Those referendums would be held on matters of significance, and each would involve a substantial electorate. Given that regional referendums are a genuine prospect, it makes sense to take this opportunity to make it clear that these controls would apply to those referendums.
Amendment No. 44 would apply the part VII provisions to referendums held in two or more local government administrative units in England and Wales. I am not persuaded that we need to put that into the Bill. We have made no presumptions that the boundaries for any future regional government in England need necessarily follow those of the existing administrative regions; that is, the Government office boundaries.
We have said that in time we shall introduce legislation to allow people to choose whether they want regional government. How we would deal with referendums cutting across regional boundaries should be a matter for that legislation. It is no use trying to prejudge the boundaries that we would use, when it may be some time
before we will want to call those referendums. The Bill is convenient and simple and gives us a legitimate basis for proceeding with those referendums.
'or
(d) any two or more local government administrative units in England and Wales.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |