| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
23 Jan 2003 : Column 530—continued
Jim Knight: I have no desire to comment on a map that I have not seen. I enjoy viewing the Isle of Wight from my constituency when I am in Swanage, but I accept that, on the boundaries of regions, there are some who would like to be either side. I am sure that parts of Dorset would welcome the Isle of Wight coming home to us, along with its geology. I am content that we should proceed on the basis of the boundaries that we currently have for our regions, because that means that we can have regional government all the more quickly. In addition, the south-west has some common problems, such as our transport infrastructure and a lack of affordable housing, which, equally, a regional government could address.
Finally, we need to resolve what is called the West Lothian question. We have seen the start of devolution in London with the Greater London Authority. We need to continue the process by developing regional government for England. I support the Bill and the fact that it is not imposing regional government on any region, as the electorate will be able to vote for it. It is not an addition of Government in most cases, and certainly not in the south-west, where we can see the unification of local authorities and strong parish councils, as I have argued throughout this debate.
I want to allow other Members to speak, as many want to do so in the limited amount of time available. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill, and I look
forward to future legislation to finish off the job of the White Paper and resolve that important West Lothian question.5.49 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: There is a strong case for elected regional assemblies. The Liberal Democrats have advocated regional devolution for many decades, and it is a real pleasure to see that the Government are, at long last, beginning to take on that agenda.
One argument for regional assemblies is based on the democratisation of the regional government that already exists. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) has made some of the arguments for democratising the quango state that was bequeathed to Britain particularly by the previous Conservative Government. The value of democratising the regional government that exists is that we could, I hope, push for better value for money. Many of these bureaucracies have overlapping responsibilities, vast offices, many chief executives and so on. Much of that can be rationalised in the new regional assembly process. We look forward to that happening and we encourage the Government to go further than they have.
There are three major problems with the Bill. I touched on the first earlier today. The fact that the local government review is coupled with the regional referendums is a big mistake, and the Government will rue the day that they coupled the two. The second major problem relates to the fact that the Government have not allowed for a review of the regional boundaries. In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), the Minister said that there might be reviews of regional boundaries in due course. I hope that that will be sooner rather than later, and it will have to take place before there are referendums in regions outside the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humber.
The third major problem with the Bill is that it will allow referendums to go ahead without the electors knowing what powers the regional assemblies that they are being asked to vote for would have. That is a mistake. The Minister has cited the precedents in Scotland and Wales, but the Welsh vote was almost lost. One of the arguments used against the creation of the Welsh Assembly was that its powers were not set out clearly enough.
Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davey: I will not give way, because time is tight. It would have made much more sense if the Government had reassured us that they intended to introduce legislation, even in draft form, before the first referendum on a regional assembly took place.
On Third Reading, we have to ask whether the glass is half full or half empty. Our view is that it is important that the cause of regional devolution gets going and that we start a process that has been long awaited. Despite the many flaws in the Bill, we will view the glass as half full and we will vote for its Third Reading. Although the Minister was right to draw attention to the words of
Lord Strathclyde last night and to say they were not appropriate, I hope that he will admit that it is the duty of the other place to scrutinise legislation.
Mr. Raynsford: Not to stop it.
Mr. Davey: Not to stop it—the Minister makes a valid point. I hope that noble Lords on all sides will work to amend the Bill in the way that some of us tried to do in Committee.
Andrew George: I want to put on the record that, although I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, I am afraid that I have reached a different conclusion. I believe that the glass is half empty. I agree with his analysis and will not try to stop the Bill, but I will not vote for it. I will abstain and I am sorry about that, but much more work needs to be done before it is palatable to us.
Mr. Davey: I certainly understand why my hon. Friend has come to that conclusion. Many of us have had to think very hard about whether we would vote for the Bill because of the many problems in it. I understand why he wishes to take that action, but I urge my other hon. Friends to give the Bill its Third Reading, so that we can move on with regional devolution. The Bill will then move to another place where I hope it will be amended properly.
5.54 pm
Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East and Washington, West): I warmly welcome the Bill and I am glad that it is completing its proceedings in the Commons.
I wish to make two points. First, in parallel with the Bill and complementary to it, the Government are undertaking a soundings exercise to try to find out how keen people in the regions are on holding referendums.
I urge my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues across the Government to give publicity to that. Many other issues understandably dominate the news, but I am keen that people in the regions understand and appreciate what is on offer.
My second point is that devolution has been a success so far, although it has thrown up interesting variations in policy, including enlightened approaches to nursing care, concessions for elderly travel and the establishment of children's commissioners. Although I encourage the Government to devolve functions to the regions of England, I also encourage them to consider some of those enlightened policies for England as a whole because many of them would be of great benefit.
Having said that, I wish the Bill every success in its passage through the other place. I certainly hope that it does not attempt to block it. The Bill is a manifesto commitment and it would be constitutionally unacceptable for it to do so. I wish the Bill every success and hope that regional assemblies will be successfully established, especially in my region of the north-east.
5.55 pm
Mr. Streeter: The Bill is destined to join a growing list of half-baked and ill-thought-out new Labour legislation that has been put on the statute book since 1997. It introduces regional government on a piecemeal dyslexic basis, which will produce an asymmetric and unsustainable constitutional settlement for this great country. It introduces a system of taking soundings on the level of interest in a region which is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. The Deputy Prime Minister may as well open a window in Whitehall and stick his finger in the wind.
The Bill introduces referendums with no thresholds, so even a tiny number of anorak-clad voters can effect constitutional change with no recall and no recourse if mistakes are made. It does not define the functions, powers and responsibilities of the new elected assemblies, and will be a recipe for confusion. It fails to give sufficient information to enable electors to make an informed decision. The Bill locks itself into regions that make no sense whatsoever—
Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Streeter: No, there is no time. The hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber; I have been here all day.
The Bill locks itself into regions that do not attract local affinity or a sense of identity. How can it be right that Tewkesbury is in the south-west region when it is closer to Scotland than it is to Penzance?
The Bill ushers in a massive and unnecessary upheaval of local government and will almost certainly spell the death knell to historic county boroughs over vast swathes of the country. It will take decisions away from local people and give them to elected regional assemblies, which will be accountable to no one. It is a clumsy, inchoate and incoherent measure. It will not stand the test of time and we should oppose it.
5.57 pm
Mrs. Ellman: I warmly welcome the Bill. It is a vital further step on the road to regional devolution advanced by the Government. Its purpose is to bring more power to the people in the regions, to narrow economic disparities and to stop the increasing flow of populations from the poorer north to the overheated south and south-east. It gives the voice of legitimacy to elected people in the regions to influence Government and European policy to benefit their economic development. It brings accountability to those decisions that are taken on a regional level and brings more focus to them.
The Bill is of great importance to the country. It is of particular importance to the north-west and will be warmly welcomed in my constituency of Liverpool, Riverside. I look forward to it being put into practice and receiving support in the other place. It is a vital measure and I hope that it receives the full support of the House.
5.58 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |