| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Dec 2002 : Column 964—continued
Mr. Lansley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made clear, the reason is that what we are discussing is not a decision but an advisory referendum to the Government in relation to the exercise of a parliamentary responsibility. Lord Hanningfield, good man that he is, has an opportunity to comment on and decide on this matter in another place. He does not need to have a vote in the referendum to do that.
Mr. Leslie: I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. I had a feeling that he was slightly warmer towards our European friends and neighbours than some others on the Conservative Benches, and I am most disappointed with that particular argument. These are reciprocal arrangements for sub-national government arrangements, and I do not see why the advisory referendum for elected regional government should be any different.
In respect of amendment No. 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), the argument is familiar, and we have rehearsed it in discussions about
clause 2. The Government do not believe that we should have a separate question on local government restructuring, so the amendment would be redundant. In any case, we believe strongly that unitarisation is integral to the creation of elected regional assemblies. It is part of the package in relation to streamlining the system, and it is necessary if a new regional tier of elected government is to come into place. Two tiers of local government below regional assemblies would be one too many. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats are setting their face against that. No other local government reorganisations have been subject to a vote by people in the areas affected, so at least this referendum is adding the option for people to express their views on the total package proposed. Amendment No. 25 is unnecessary and redundant.A very strong case exists for using the local franchise register. I urge the House to reject amendment No. 48.
Mr. Hammond: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said, which was not difficult as he did not say very much. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made the point concisely that a parliamentary responsibility will be discharged by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice given in a referendum. It is not appropriate that persons who are excluded from voting in a parliamentary election should be entitled to vote in that referendum.
I now come to the great logical flaw in the Minister's position. An EU subject or a peer, for example, cannot vote for a national Government to exercise powers such as the power to appoint the chairman of a regional development agency. If those powers were, by any chance, devolved to an elected regional assembly, the use of the local government franchise would enable those people to participate in electing the body that would exercise the powers. That is completely illogical and gives the lie to the Government's assertion that the bodies are mainly about transferring powers down from central Government. It underscores what the Opposition have always suspected: the bodies will be more akin to overblown local authorities than to devolved centres of power coming down from Westminster and Whitehall.
In view of the timetable arrangements and the fact that a Division would leave us with virtually no time to debate the next group of amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, madam deputy speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 3, line 7, at end add—
'after taking account of the advice of the Electoral Commission as to the period required for the proper conduct of the referendum having regard to all relevant circumstances'.
The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendment: No. 27, in page 3, line 7, at end add—
'( ) Any order issued under subsection (1) above must set a referendum period lasting not less than 30 days, excluding weekends and bank holidays.'.
Mr. Hammond: Clause 4 deals with the referendum period for the purposes of part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It says that
- Xthe Secretary of State must by order determine the referendum period for a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1."
The referendum period is a significant time window that must be defined. It will have an impact on matters such as the recording of election expenses and the publication of election material, and will constrain the participants in the election, with one notable exception. The Government, masquerading inappropriately as a neutral party, will be allowed to continue publishing material and doing things that would not be permitted by other participants right up to the 29th day before the referendum is held. They will be able to use the power and the purse of the state to pursue a partisan position in the debate that the referendum will address.
Because of the Government exemption, it is doubly important that the referendum period be correctly set. The Electoral Commission has been appointed to become involved in such matters and in the conduct of a referendum in the attempt to inject impartiality and objectivity into the process, so it would be wholly appropriate for the commission to advise the Secretary of State—we do not suggest that the commission should take the decision—on the time that will be required for the proper conduct of the election. That is appropriate to ensure that the period is set in an impartial fashion that is not biased in favour of one side or the other.
We must bear in mind the fact that, whatever the referendum period, the Secretary of State and the Government will be in the unique position of being able to distribute their material unconstrained until 28 days before the referendum. It is not appropriate that the Secretary of State, who is partisan in such matters, should have the loudest voice in determining the referendum period. It is, however, entirely appropriate that the Electoral Commission should have a voice that is heard.
Mr. Edward Davey: Amendments Nos. 47 and 27 are two ways of doing a similar thing. We want to restrain the Government's power by ensuring either that someone other than the Government sets the period for the referendum—amendment No. 47 suggests the Electoral Commission—or that there is a minimum period for it. There is a danger that a Minister could push through a referendum quickly, which would stifle debate, the campaign and the very democracy that lies behind the Bill. As I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention, we tabled amendment No. 27.
Our amendment would ensure that there is a minimum period for the referendum of not less than
30 days, excluding weekends and bank holidays. That is effectively a six-week campaign. We could have gone for a four or five-week campaign, but referendum campaigns are unusual beasts. They are one-offs. Campaign organisations are not like normal political parties. They are set up purely for the purpose of fighting a particular referendum. Although those organisations might begin to get prepared before the referendum is called, they need a little longer than a normal general election or council campaign to uphold the democratic process established in the Bill.
Mr. Hammond: It has just occurred to me that the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. In practice, the yes campaign will not be a purely local campaign set up for each referendum; it will be a rolling campaign, based on the Campaign for the English Regions. It is the no campaign that will have a standing start and will be disadvantaged.
Mr. Davey: I am discouraged—or encouraged, perhaps—that the hon. Gentleman believes that the no campaign is so badly organised, primarily because I thought that the Conservative party was the no campaign. However, I do not want to be ruled out of order and shall return to the amendment.
I well remember the 1997 general election campaign when I was first returned to the House. That was a six-week campaign. The previous Prime Minister, John Major, must regret the fact that he let us have that campaign.
Mr. Kevan Jones: How does the six-week campaign fit with the clear and vehement opposition that the Liberal Democrats portrayed in Committee to all postal ballots?
Mr. Davey: The two things are completely different. The ballot relates to the actual vote on the ballot paper. I am talking about ensuring that there is a minimum period during which we can engage the electorate in the debate. We would be happy to discuss with the Minister whether it should be 20, 25 or 30 days. We are not theological about that. What we want to do is to ensure that the Bill stipulates a minimum period so that a referendum cannot be rushed through. The Minister keeps stressing the importance of the Bill, and we need a minimum period to allow the people of a region to engage in the debate.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |