| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Dec 2002 : Column 929—continued
Mr. Edward Davey: It is a wrecking amendment.
Mr. Hammond: It is not a wrecking amendment; it is a probing amendment. It proposes a clear statement in the preamble against a single-region settlement. The device that we have used is to write a Government intention into the preamble. The purpose is to get the Minister to address the issue of critical mass. Part of the argument for regional assemblies is, and has always been, that they would provide a counterweight to the centralised, London-focused system of national Government. We have no argument with the desire to devolve power downwards, so long as it is downwards, so long as it is devolved to coherent units, and so long as it is power, and not just responsibility without any real power, which would allow the Government to keep the power and lose the accountability. That is what we fear will happen here.
If we had a one-region solution, with one region opting for elected regional government and no other region following, we should not have a critical counterweight. There is a need for critical mass if this function is to be performed. I therefore invite the Government to consider setting some kind of threshold, so that, if we are to have elected regional assemblies as part of our constitutional settlement, there cannot just be one, or—I would suggest—two. Before the assemblies are established, a number of referendums need to be conducted and won.
Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he conceives of London as having a role in this
concept? Does he believe that the people of London should be involved in this process? Or does he believe that the fact that a quasi-regional body already exists in London means that one region already has an assembly, and that that should be taken into account when making the calculations set out in the amendment?
Mr. Hammond: The Minister would, I think, struggle to argue that a devolved assembly in London helps to provide a counterweight to London. That is the argument that has been advanced for elected regional government in other parts of the country.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that, when we were debating the Greater London Authority Bill, we challenged the Minister on many occasions by saying that he was creating regional government. He insisted at the time, however, that it was city-wide government, and local government. He would not allow it to be linked to the regional agenda, as we were trying to do.
Mr. Hammond: I shall not intervene in this lovers' tiff between the Liberals and the Government. No doubt they can sort it out afterwards.
I contend that it would be very odd if we ended up with a dramatic change in our constitutional arrangements, the end effect of which was simply that one region was the odd man out in an otherwise unitary England. These proposals highlight the inappropriateness of changing our constitutional arrangements for one, or perhaps two, regions.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hammond: I must make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his own contribution in due course, and I look forward to it.
Amendment No. 55 and the amendments tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrats deal with the possibility of separating the testing of opinion on local government reorganisation from the testing of opinion on regional elected assemblies, and propose that, in two-tier authorities only—where change to a unitary structure will be required—a separate question should be put to the electors, asking whether they are in favour of the unitarisation of their local government arrangements. That seems eminently sensible. It would allow the Secretary of State, when making his decision following the advisory referendum, to know whether there was support for the idea of an elected regional assembly, and to balance that support against the strength of opposition to the reorganisation of local government in the parts of the region that would be subject to it.
The Liberals have argued against compulsory unitarisation of local government, and we have a great deal of sympathy with their argument. Unfortunately, they have drawn the wrong conclusion. They would be happy to introduce yet another tier of government, more elected politicians, more expenses, more headquarters buildings, more tax, more spending and more bureaucracy. So the Liberals have identified the issue, but drawn the wrong conclusion. We draw the conclusion that the Government's proposals are
fundamentally flawed and do not present a stable, sustainable solution for government below the national level in England. This amendment would not directly address that issue, but it would allow the Secretary of State separately to measure opinion in those areas. I shall leave the Liberals to say more on that in due course. I commend this diverse group of amendments to the Committee.
Mr. Davey: Given that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was so kind about some of our amendments, even though he could not bring himself to support all of them, I shall start by saying that the Liberal Democrats support his amendment No. 39. The idea that the Electoral Commission should draw up the questions is eminently sensible. I have to say that, when his party was in government, it was not very keen on the idea of sub-contracting out decision making to an independent body. If it has had a conversion in favour of restricting the power of the Executive, however, we welcome that.
In approaching the clause and in considering the question and the preamble before us, we should reflect on the advice that the Electoral Commission has proffered to Parliament and to the Government. Although the Minister is aware of the advice that has been sent to him, I shall read it out. I think that he will use it as a defence, but I hope to show that it is weak. The commission
- Xtakes the view that, as the issue is complex and potentially unfamiliar to many voters, the intelligibility of the question is dependent on the inclusion of a preamble providing extra information. Given that a preamble is to be provided, the proposed question meets the Commission's assessment guidelines."
Mr. Jack: May I probe the hon. Gentleman's understanding of intelligibility? At what reading age should the question be set?
8.30 pm
Mr. Davey: That is a good question. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Electoral Commission's assessment guidelines on questions. There are 10, although I am afraid that they do not consider reading age, so that does not help him. However, they refer to the question being well structured and not too long. That might help him, and I am more than happy to show him the guidelines if he has not seen them.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the importance of the preamble and quoted the Electoral Commission's advice, which he says is important. In quoting that advice, he has shown why it believes that a preamble is necessary. Will he now tell us why he has tabled amendment No. 31, which would delete the preamble?
Mr. Davey: I do not know whether the Minister was listening properly, but I said that I would come to that. I do not think that the Electoral Commission will be given enough scope to analyse the issue properly. I shall return to that, as we need to refer to other primary legislation.
What is particularly interesting is the fact that the Electoral Commission advice goes on to suggest that the Government's proposed preamble is not that intelligible. The Minister ought to listen, as the commission is an independent body that was set up by his Government and it has criticised his preamble. The Electoral Commission has suggested an alternative, which we have set out in our amendment No. 49. He may want to intervene on this point: will he accept that amendment, which would put in the Bill, word for word, the advice proffered by the Electoral Commission?
Mr. Raynsford: No, because we believe that it is right to listen to the views expressed in the House as well as those expressed by the Electoral Commission before deciding on an appropriate amendment to table on Report, which will no doubt pay considerable heed to the commission's views. It would be wrong to pre-empt Members of the House, who have an opportunity in the debate to influence our thinking. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
Mr. Davey: That is a very odd argument. I thought that the House was giving the Minister its advice now. We already have the Electoral Commission's advice so, presumably, we ought to vote on this now rather than delay any further. I am surprised that he wants to wait until we consider the Bill on Report, but if he insists, we shall table our amendment then.
As to whether we should take the Electoral Commission as the final word on the matter, I am afraid that I do not think we should. We should consider what the Electoral Commission is allowed to do. It is allowed only to comment on the particular question in the Bill and any subsequent preamble. It is not able to take a view on how many questions ought to be included in a referendum to put across the point being made and the issue on which people are being asked to give their opinion. If the Electoral Commission had been asked to do that, my view is that, rather than go for a preamble and a question, it would probably have gone for two questions, as that is what is being asked.
The Government have not allowed that issue to be debated by the commissioners either in respect of the underlying legislation that set up the Electoral Commission or, as I understand it, in any other directions to the commission, so I must press the Minister. Are the Government prepared, before the Bill is considered on Report, specifically to ask the Electoral Commission whether two questions would be clearer, more intelligible and more sensible as a way forward to decide those matters than one question and the preamble?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |