| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford: As I said at the outset, we have tried to approach the issue in a wholly non-partisan spirit. We could not see the logic of the six-year period, and I pointed out in Committee that five years is the normal period for the duration of a Parliament, so there is good precedent for such a period. We could not understand the basis for having a six-year period.
As a result of further consideration—we listened to a point that was made in another place—there will be a period during which soundings have to be taken before a referendum can be initiated. That period could be up to two years, which is why we have agreed to the seven-year period, so there is good logic behind the proposal. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) will know from other instances in the Bill, we are always happy to engage in constructive debate and to make practical improvements to the Bill, and in no way do I wish to sound churlish about his contribution to improving the Bill. I urge the House to agree to these Lords amendments.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): The Minister very nearly got through the first group of Lords amendments with a straight face. As he said, Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were, in one case, introduced by my noble Friends in the other place and, in the other case, by the Government, as a tidying up exercise. They are good amendments, which represent
an attempt to make marginally more intelligible the very complex language of clause 1, and they are certainly an improvement.Sadly, all this is still slightly academic because clause 1(9) will still allow the Secretary of State to cancel a referendum at any time if he considers that it is not appropriate, having ordered it to take place. In other words, if the Secretary of State determines that the process is not going the way that he had hoped and it does not look as though he will win his referendum, he can pull stumps and cancel the whole show. That would be regarded, in everyday language, as somewhat loading the dice in the Deputy Prime Minister's favour. Up to the last minute, he can cancel the referendum if he feels that he is losing the argument.
I am waiting for the Government to introduce a Bill that would provide a similar facility for general elections. It would be very convenient for the Prime Minister if he were able to call a general election and, two and a half weeks later, decide to cancel it by order because it did not look as though things were going quite the right way.
Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 improve the language of the Bill because they slightly clarify the intention without fundamentally changing the meaning of clause 1. Lords amendment No. 10 is different. As the Minister has acknowledged, my hon. Friends and I argued for a 10-year gap between referendums. We deployed precisely the same logic as Lord Hanningfield deployed in arguing in the other place that the sword of Damocles hanging over the structure of local government is bound to be debilitating to local government and to impact negatively on its principal business, which is to get on with delivering good quality services to the people whom its tiers serve.
It is simply not desirable to have local government areas where a referendum has been held, perhaps the argument for an elected regional assembly has been lost by a modest margin, and it is clear to everyone that the Secretary of State will seek to go around the loop again at the earliest opportunity and put the question to a referendum again as soon as he is able to do so. In those circumstances, a short period will create a very high degree of uncertainly, possibly making it difficult for local authorities to recruit and retain good staff, when everyone can see on the horizon at least the possibility of reorganisation or abolition of those bodies, so we argued for a 10-year period.
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham): I wish to try to reinforce my hon. Friend's point. Northumberland county council and the local district councils already have a problem with recruitment and retention, and people are looking over their shoulders and wondering whether they will have a future in a few years' time. That is causing considerable problems to local authorities today.
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I have heard some of the anecdotal examples quoted from the north-east, and there is a very real problem. The problem is not theoretical; it is having an impact right now on the ability of local authorities to carry out what I assume is the Government's shared objective with local authorities and, indeed, the
Opposition—delivering good quality services to local people—and they are not being helped by the introduction of further uncertainty.1 pm
I remain of the view that 10 years would be a sensible period. Clearly, however, seven years is better than five. The Government vehemently defended their five-year proposition in this place, however, and as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has mentioned, they vigorously resisted his suggestion that a six-year period might be worth exploring. I am not sure why the Government, having vigorously rejected 10 years and six years, have concluded that seven years is acceptable. Five years was not selected by the Government as a random figure—it was not just plucked out of thin air—and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said in Committee:
- "A five-year period strikes the right balance . . . We want to strike the right balance and we believe that an interval of five years does that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 December 2002; c. 36.]
- "I think that the question of precedent was addressed in the debate, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to be given additional justification . . . he should be made aware that a five-year period is the provision within the Local Government Act 2000 for repeat referendums on mayoral constitutional arrangements . . . There is another obvious logical reason why we decided on five years; that is the maximum period for the life of a Parliament. Therefore, we believe that five years is appropriate. There is a precedent for it and, above all, it is the right period of time . . . I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is now satisfied that five years is better than six."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 December 2002; c. 38–9.]
- "The Government have not plucked that five-year figure from the air. As Members will know, five years is the maximum interval between general elections and is also the standard interval for European parliamentary elections. I believe that five years is the right interval."—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 491.]
On balance, therefore, seven is better than five but not as good as 10. What a display of synthetic self-righteous indignation we had to go through in Committee—I include the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton in that—to reach the compromise of seven years. In future, when Ministers say that they have not plucked a figure out of thin air, that they have considered the matter long and hard and that they genuinely believe that it is the right solution to the problem, we will know exactly what they mean.
Mr. Davey: We should welcome the Lords amendments. The hon. Member for Runnymede and
Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was right that we had a tough debate in Committee on this issue and that various propositions were put forward. The Government resisted them at the time, as they resisted every Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendment on all aspects of the Bill. They listened to the weight of our argument, however, and while they tried to stare it down at the time, they were forced to consider it.In the other place, those arguments were strengthened. In this case, an argument from a Conservative peer persuaded them, and I am glad that Ministers reflected on those arguments and changed their mind. It is a matter of judgment, as I said in Committee, as to whether the period should be four years, five years, six years or seven years. It is question of striking the balance. In the Minister's initial statement, he tried to suggest that there was logic behind seven years. I am not sure whether I am convinced that there is logic; I think that it is a matter of judgment. If the House decides on seven years, I think that that is probably better than five: it means that the problems of instability in local government, to which the noble Lord Hanningfield referred in the other place, will be dealt with properly. It would be interesting if the Minister were to explain a little more of the logic of seven years, for the record. Therefore, should the House ever have to return to the point, we will at least be able to review the argument that was put at this time.
Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased that there is broad agreement to the amendments. No Member objected to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, although the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) raised a question about clause 1(9), which, of course, is not being amended. I should therefore correct his unfortunate impression that the Government would use that subsection to postpone a referendum if they felt that the right outcome was not likely: that is neither the intention nor the scope of the power, which allows the Secretary of State to vary or revoke an order if he thinks that it is not appropriate for a referendum to be held on the date specified.
I explained in Committee, and perhaps I should explain again for the benefit of the House, that the date might have been fixed some time in advance because of the process involved, and that other circumstances might make it wise for the date to be varied and for postponement to take place—for example, a couple of years ago elections were postponed because of foot and mouth disease. The other obvious example would be a major state funeral, or an event of that nature, clashing with the date pre-arranged for a referendum.
The other crucial safeguard is that any amendment must be made by an order subject to affirmative resolution. The somewhat underhand approach suggested by the hon. Gentleman is therefore not possible, so I hope that he will accept that it is necessary to include the safeguard in the Bill for good reason. It is not the subject of the Lords amendments, so I hope that we can pass over the issue rapidly.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |