| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Dec 2002 : Column 971—continued
Mr. Hammond: I am sure that that would have been helpful to the Committee. If the Minister wanted to intervene on me, I should be happy to take such an intervention.
To return to the point about the disruptive effect of the campaign, that will be the final straw in the long disruption created by the whole process: the Secretary of State's consultation, then—most disruptive of all—the boundary committee's work, the jockeying for position, and the political battles that will be fought between districts and counties over the various combinations of unitary authority solutions that might or might not be proposed. All that will be a huge distraction from the issue that really matters to the people of this country—the delivery of good quality public services. That is what they want their local authorities to focus on. That is what they want their county councils, unitary councils and metropolitan borough councils to focus on.
That is what people would like the Government to focus on, instead of diverting their attention time and again to the pet project of some Minister or other and leaving the public to look in dismay at the innumerable broken promises and missed targets that represent the Government's abysmal failure to improve the delivery of public services, especially in those parts of the country that have suffered a further squeeze as a result of the Minister's appalling recent local government settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West raised the important question of the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for the Minister to propose a period longer than 10 weeks or shorter than 10 weeks. The Minister could speculate endlessly on different scenarios that might or might not arise in relation to any particular referendum. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry to disappoint the Minister; I shall not speculate endlessly on those scenarios. I do not need to, because I have proposed the solution: that the Electoral Commission should advise the Secretary of State of the appropriate referendum period, taking into account all the relevant factors.
The Electoral Commission, working from the Minister's preferred period of 10 weeks, and the period of approximately 10 weeks implied in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, would be able to consider any particular circumstances in relation to the particular regional referendum in question, to decide whether there were any circumstances that called for a shorter period or, conversely, a longer period.
Mr. Swayne: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that his proposal is the best way of solving the problem. None the less, while it would not be possible for the Minister to speculate endlessly about the circumstances that might apply in respect of a shorter or longer period, he might at least give us the benefit of his speculation for five minutes.
11 pm
Mr. Hammond: I would be most willing to take a short intervention from the Minister, but he does not seem willing to confide to the Committee his innermost thoughts.
My proposal would ensure that, having taken into account any particular and pertinent circumstances in a region, the Electoral Commission would give its advice to the Secretary of State. I can inform the Committee that during the Standing Committee deliberations, we ascertained that the Electoral Commission has clearly stated that it will always be its intention to place in the public domain advice that it gives to the Secretary of State in connection with the Bill, principally by placing it on its website. That is significant because, as the Bill stands, the Secretary of State will take a decision on his own in accordance with criteria that will be invisible to the watching public and Members of the House. He will do so on the basis of information and advice provided to him by the Electoral Commission, which will be available to members of the public to analyse, so the decision that he takes will be capable of being scrutinised in the light of that advice. While I do not suggest that that is a likely outcome—indeed, I would not advocate such a scenario and I hope that it does not come to that, as I for one am anxious not to increase the litigious tendency of our society—it would, at least in theory, ensure that the Secretary of State's decision was practically capable of judicial review where he had not taken the advice of the Electoral Commission or where his decision was clearly at odds with the advice that it had given.
Mr. Hammond: I am delighted to see that the Minister at last wishes to intervene. Perhaps he will share with the Committee his thoughts about the circumstances in which a longer or shorter period might be appropriate.
Mr. Leslie: I can certainly share my view about having a longer or shorter period, as I believe in making all contributions as short as possible. The hon. Gentleman is clearly stringing out his contribution to make it as long as possible, so that we will go to the wire on the very last occasion when we will have to sit until this hour on a Wednesday. I think that it is important that we note that point.
Mr. Hammond: It is important that we note what the Minister has said. I am prepared to make a small bet with him that this will not be the last time when we are debating in the Chamber at 11 o'clock on a Wednesday, because I suspect that the Government will find that in their rush to get legislation through the House, they may occasionally have to ask some of their long-suffering Back Benchers to stay a little longer in future than they think they have been promised. However, time will tell.
The problem with this debate, as the Minister knows, is not only the overall timetable, but the intermediate guillotines, which have meant that although the rather small issue with which the amendments deal has perhaps
had adequate time for debate, discussion of some of the very significant issues that had to be dealt with earlier in the evening was curtailed and at least two major groups of amendments were not debated. That is a disgrace.Having listened to what the Minister said and having—I hope—made my views well known to the Committee, I shall not seek to press the amendment to a Division. I say to the Minister, however, that when we have studied the precise implications of a longer or shorter period, we will return to the issue on Report, possibly by tabling an amendment seeking directly to constrain the Secretary of State's flexibility, rather than simply to pass the issue over to the Electoral Commission for advice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Swayne: I have one question for the Minister on clause stand part. Will he explain the status of the order and tell us what opportunities will be afforded to us for its scrutiny?
Mr. Leslie: It is a statutory instrument. The clause is self-explanatory.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill (Clauses 1 to 4) reported, without amendment; to lie upon the Table.
PETITIONS
Natural Health Products
11.6 pm
Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover): I rise to present a petition on behalf of some 600 people in Dover, Deal and elsewhere, who are supporters of Consumers for Health Choice. I am pleased to give the petition my full support.
The petition reads as follows:
- To the House of Commons
The petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
And The Petitioners Remain, Etc.
11.7 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): I am delighted to present two petitions. The first is from Janis Larkun of Marple and contains 199 signatures of constituents of
mine. The second is from Debra Allan of Hazel Grove and contains 221 signatures of constituents of mine. Both are petitions from Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters. The petition declares that:
- Consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies, and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
The Petitioners therefore Request That the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
And The Petitioners Remain, Etc.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |