| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Dec 2002 : Column 878—continued
5.21 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North): I support the guillotine motion. I may not be eminent, but I assure the House that I consider myself reasonable.
I remember what happened with the Scotland Act 1978 when I was involved in Scottish politics in the 1970s. There was a huge demand in Scotland not necessarily for devolution, but for the devolution debate so that the different arguments could be put. People in Scotland got extremely frustrated that it took Parliament about three years to reach a decision by correctly following the procedures of the time and debating the matter on the Floor of the House. That caused much disillusionment afterwards. I am a bit surprised to hear what the Conservatives have to say because they were the worst losers eventually. The electorate were more cynical about them than they were about even the parliamentary process.People in the English regions want the issue debated and those in my region of the north-east support the proposal. The Government are offering people a choice. The Bill is enabling legislation that allows a referendum to be held. If people in Lincolnshire do not want to be part of a greater area, they will vote against it.
Mr. Hogg: It is all very well to say that if the people of Lincolnshire vote against the proposal they will not be part of it, but if other people in the area vote in favour of it, they will be.
Mr. Henderson: That is complete tautology. That is bound to be the case in any large area. It is like saying that if people in Westerhope in Newcastle are outvoted by people in the east side of the city—
Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham): They usually were.
Mr. Henderson: Yes, they used to be. However, I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Henderson: No, I want to finish and do not want to deny anyone the chance to speak.
People expect a decision. They want a choice. Given the way in which we have delayed and obfuscated before, we should support the motion.
5.24 pm
Mr. Raynsford: We have heard much synthetic indignation from Conservative Members. The arrangements have ensured full and proper scrutiny of the Bill, which has been the subject of detailed consideration over several days Upstairs. It is a matter of agreement between the usual channels that one day should be allocated—[Interruption.] It was agreed that one day should be allocated for a debate on the Floor on the House. We have six hours for that debate, which will allow thorough consideration. Obviously I will be keen to hear the comments and interventions from Opposition Members who have raised their concerns in this preliminary debate. The longer we spend debating the programme resolution, the less time we have to debate the substance of the clauses, so I commend the motion to the House.
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]
Clause 1
5.26 pm
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3)'.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 46, in page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (3) to (8) and insert—
'(3) No order under subsection 1 shall be made unless—
(a) a review of the boundaries of the regions in England has been conducted in accordance with section [regional boundaries]; and
(b) an Act setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies shall have received Royal Assent; and
(c) the Secretary of State has concluded on the basis of the evidence available to him that there is substantial support from the business community within the region for the holding of such a referendum; and
(d) the Secretary of State has commissioned and published a report by an independent auditor expressing his opinion that, on the basis of the information available to him at the time of his report, no additional public expenditure overall would be incurred as a result of the proposed implementation of elected regional assembles and the associate reorganisation of local government in the region'.'.
No. 35, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'unless' to end of line and insert
'the condition in subsection (4) below is satisfied in relation to the region.'.
No. 43, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'two'.
No. 44, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'satisfied' to end.
No. 36, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'first'.
No. 24, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'has' to end of line 12 and insert
'concluded on the basis of the evidence available that it is probable that at least twentyfive per cent.of the persons eligible to vote in a referendum held pursuant to section 1 would vote in favour of an elected regional assembly for the region if such a referendum were held.'.
No. 34, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (5).
No. 15, in page 1, line 14, at end add—
'(5A) The third condition is that an Act setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies shall have received Royal Assent.'.
No. 17, in page 1, line 14, at end add—
'(5A) The third condition is that the Secretary of State has concluded on the basis of the evidence available to him that there is substantial support from the business community within the region for the holding of such a referendum.'.
No. 18, in page 1, line 14, at end add—
'(5A) The third condition is that the Secretary of State has commissioned and published a report by an independent auditor expressing the opinion that, on the basis of the information available to him at the time of his report, no additional public expenditure overall would be incurred as a result of the proposed implementation of elected regional assemblies and the associated reorganisation of local government in the region.'.
No. 9, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
No. 10, in page 2, line 12, leave out
'if subsection (6) does not apply'.
No. 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 33, at end add—
'It is not proposed to proceed with the establishment of elected regional assemblies in any region where less than twentyfive per cent.of the persons eligible to vote in a referendum vote in favour of the establishment of an elected regional assembly for the region.'.
Mr. Hammond: In Committee our duty is to examine the detail of the Bill, and that is precisely what we shall do over the next few hours in respect of clause 1, which introduces the arrangements for referendums.
Briefly, and by way of putting some context around these debates, it may be useful if I outline the Conservatives' position on the Government's concept of regional assemblies, which we believe is fatally flawed. It introduces an extra tier of government that is more remote from the people. It will undermine local government. It is based on arbitrary and often meaningless boundaries, which mostly have no resonance whatever with the population. It will struggle, in most cases, to create any real sense of identity, and in practice it will be tightly constrained by central Government and watched over by strengthened Government offices for the regions. It will require a wholesale reorganisation of two-tier local government to boot, including the abolition of many, if not most, of our historic counties.
We would not choose to go down that route. However, we recognise the need to address the question of local government in its widest sense—by that I mean the tiers of government between Westminster and the individual citizen—in England, following the Scottish and Welsh devolution settlements. We recognise too the very real sense in some regions that decisions made in London are too remote and not always responsive enough to local mood.
Jim Knight (South Dorset): Where in the Bill does it say that counties will be abolished? It says that nowhere in the Bill, so is not that idea the misinformation that we normally hear from the Conservative party?
Mr. Hammond: I suspect that the matter will be debated at some length. The Government have made clear in the White Paper their requirement that if regional elected assemblies go ahead, we will have all-unitary local government in those areas. I suggested to the Minister yesterday that he might like to indicate whether a unitary Kent authority with a population of 2 million would be acceptable, and he declined to be drawn, saying that he had an open mind on all these
issues. However, I suspect that my right hon. and hon. Friends will have their own views about the likely outcome of local government reorganisation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |