| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Dec 2002 : Column 932—continued
Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a dangerous precedent will be set if that is not done? Are we to have general elections involving a preamble to explain why this or that Member might or might not be suitable for this or that constituency? If we are to have a referendum on, let us say, the euro, will there be a nice explanation of why it would be good or not so good for Britain so as to enable people to make up their minds? Is not that a serious constitutional concept?
Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman has a smidgen of a point, although he stretches his argument a little far
in relating it to the general election. I do not think that even this Government would go that far, but I take his general point that we in the House must be careful before accepting preambles linked to questions that we ask the electorate. We must think carefully about whether we could discard the preamble and just ask the electorate—the grown-up, mature electorate—the questions. Trying to hide a question in a preamble is not transparent or open.The debate is about the fact that the Government are trying to hide the issues from the electorate. Because the Electoral Commission did not have power to consider the issue more widely, I am not sure that the advice I read out can be the last word.
Mr. Streeter: Is there not another point to be made? In a sense, the last place where a preamble needs to appear is a ballot paper. One would hope that most of those voting in person would have made up their minds about the arguments before entering the booth. How many people arrive at a polling station not knowing how they will vote? Is it not more important to convey proper information to the electorate in advance about what is involved—the powers, the functions, the districts, the geography, the whole works—before they reach the stage of voting?
Mr. Davey: I agree to an extent, but let us remember the reason for the preamble. Something is being hidden from the electorate. If they were asked two clear questions, no preamble to either would be needed. Someone, somewhere, is trying to hide something from the voters, and what worries me most is that lack of transparency.
Mr. Hammond: Surely the reason for a preamble rather than a question is that voters are being given no choice on the second, hidden part of the question.
Mr. Davey: Indeed. In fact, I was going to invite the Minister, if he is not prepared to ask the Electoral Commission whether two questions would be preferable, to make a slightly different inquiry about whether a second question would obviate the need for a preamble. If we knew on Report that the Minister had made that inquiry and had received assurances—which, of course, he would publish, being such an open and transparent Minister—we would be much more likely to accept the clause. Is the Minister going to tell us that he will do that?
Mr. Raynsford: The Liberal Democrats continue to astonish me. The hon. Gentleman will know, because there is already advice from the Electoral Commission, that we have consulted the commission. It has made its recommendations, which we will heed carefully because we think them sensible. However, we will wait to hear all the opinions expressed in the debate before making a final decision on how the preamble should be framed and whether amendments will be necessary on Report.
Mr. Davey: The Minister is very able and is respected in all parties, but he knows that the original Act did not enable the commission to say that two questions would be better in this instance. It was only able to comment on the one question and the preamble, and the
intelligibility of those. I am challenging the Minister on whether he is prepared to return to the commission to clarify the point. If he is so worried about how the House feels, as he ought to be, he should reflect its concern by doing as I suggest.Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31 and 50 are linked in many respects. They are all intended to secure that second question. If the Minister is not prepared to go to the Electoral Commission, let us try to put that question on the ballot paper ourselves. Not only would it provide greater clarity, and avoid potential allegations that the Government are trying to hide something from the electorate; it would, in my view, bring about greater democracy.
We should give the electorate the chance to make their decision in separate questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said earlier, we want people to have power to make decisions about the government they want. We want them to have not just the power to vote for a regional assembly, but the power to decide what structure local government should have in their areas—to decide whether they want unitary authorities, and whether they want county and district councils to be restructured.
Matthew Green: Does my hon. Friend also accept that separating out the question would increase the number of people who are likely to vote yes to regional government, because they would not be diverted by the issue of whether they want a change to local government? The proposal would therefore assist the Minister in his aim of achieving regional government.
Mr. Davey: Absolutely. If the proposal were accepted, the Minister would for once be saying that the Government were going to trust people. They would not be imposing a restructuring of local government in the manner of the previous Conservative Government; they would actually be asking people in those areas what they think.
My personal opinion is that it would be better to see some reorganisation and to move to unitary government, but I see no reason why I, the Minister or anyone else in the House should foist that on people. If people do not want to pay more—the issue that seems to concern the Conservatives most—they will vote for unitarisation.
Mr. Beith: The problem is worse than that. First, the people concerned will be asked to vote for a specific scheme of unitary government that is not necessarily the one that they would choose; secondly, the decision will be made not by them but by the great majority of people who already live in unitary areas, such as those in the northern regions. Those people have no interest in the outcome, but because they are voting on the regional issue they will determine what kind of unitary system the minority, who currently live in two-tier areas, will get.
Mr. Davey: My right hon. Friend is of course exactly right, and he brings me to the final amendment that I wish to speak to.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the
simple solution is to force the conclusion that it is right to vote against the Bill; otherwise, one is simply exacerbating the problem that has been highlighted.
Mr. Davey: What we are trying to do is to amend the Bill so that it is in line with our views and our policy. We voted for it on Second Reading because unlike the Conservatives, we are in favour of regional devolution. We want to democratise existing regional government, but it was the Conservatives who set up a whole series of quangos that govern the lives of our constituents. Those quangos cannot be held to account, so we need regional democracy, which is why we support the Bill.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman was very generous to me, so I shall be generous to him.
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his aspiration, but if, as we must anticipate, he is unsuccessful in achieving it and the Government proceed with the Bill on the basis that the price for elected regional assemblies is the compulsory unitarisation of all local government in the regions, will the Liberal Democrats support that process, or will they join us in opposing it?
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) are anticipating not just tonight's voting, but voting in another place. I can assure the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we will urge our colleagues to amend the Bill to make it more democratic, and I hope that he will ask the same of his. My concern is that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the other place may be trying to wreck this Bill, and that they do not in fact want to democratise regional government. That is the issue before us.
Mr. Derek Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and it is a delight to let him in.
Mr. Foster: That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman. I invite him to speculate, were there to be a second question, on the size of the preamble that would seek to explain to the electorate the various alternatives that local government might imply for them and their families.
Mr. Davey: Well, we do not have to look very far to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the preamble becoming too long. We need look no further than amendment No. 51—I was about to discuss it—which would insert a second question for those affected by local government restructuring. To them, the county councils and district councils that would be mentioned in it are very real, because they have voted for them for several decades. If that question were provided for those people, a preamble would not be necessary because the question would be so clear.
Amendment No. 51 not only deals with the problem mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed: ensuring that the referendum result is fair, and that people from the majority part of the region are not imposing local government restructuring on the minority part; if amendment No. 51 were accepted, we would be more likely to get what the Government desire: a yes vote in the referendum on the regional assemblies. By decoupling the issues and creating greater democracy, we are more likely to gain the people's trust and then get the right result for the Government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |