---

Mr. Raynsford: I listened to what the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said and recalled him saying exactly the same thing yesterday. It is nice to know that he is simply recycling old speeches. [Hon. Members: Consistency."] Before we get down to the substance, let me comment on the process.

I phoned the hon. Gentleman this morning to explain that if the other place approved the order before I made the statement, I would announce the publication of the Bill. That is why the draft statement that he had made provision for us not yet being in that position, but I alerted him to the fact, and I apologise if he got the statement only at the last minute. I hope he will
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 505
 
understand that that was for technical reasons—the other place approved the order very recently.

The Opposition have consistently opposed any regional devolution and have fought throughout the past two years to prevent referendums from being held in any region. They nod to confirm that. It is pretty rich for an Opposition who have consistently opposed that now to oppose the Government, who have decided that it is right to postpone the referendums in two regions. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.

We as a Government made it clear that we listened to the debate and to the views expressed, and we have amended our proposals. It is pretty rich of the Opposition to criticise us for doing something that they have been urging us to do for a long time. The hon. Gentleman's claim that we are withdrawing from our commitment to regional government is entirely wrong. We remain utterly committed to extending the option of regional government. That is why we are publishing the Bill today. That is a clear statement of our commitment to give the people of the English regions the opportunity to decide whether they wish to exercise those powers in the region through an elected regional assembly.

The Bill shows our commitment. We are not cancelling the referendums in the Yorkshire and Humber and north-west regions. We are simply postponing them, for the very good reason that concerns have been voiced in all parts of the House about all-postal ballots in those two regions. No concerns have been voiced about all-postal ballots in the north-east. On the contrary, we heard last night impressive evidence from speaker after speaker from the north-east about the benefits of all-postal, the extensive experience they have had of all-postal and the effect that that has had on increasing turnout. Listening to the evidence and responding to the views expressed by the House, the Government have changed their position—I accept that entirely, but that is good for democracy. We have listened to the views of hon. Members and acted logically and sensibly on that.

The people will ultimately decide. The test for the Opposition is this: when the people of the north-east come to exercise their decision on 4 November in the referendum that has been provided for by the orders, will the Opposition accept their decision? Will the Opposition confirm that if the people of the north-east vote yes, they will support an elected regional assembly in the north-east of England?

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): I thank the Minister for the statement, even though I fear this is a sad day for democracy. The real losers are the voters, not just because they have been denied a choice and denied a ballot, but because they have been denied the chance to take power from Whitehall—to elect a regional assembly instead of suffering regional quangos.

What is the Minister's message to the yes campaigners, who have worked so hard already to realise greater democracy in our regions? What hope for the future will he give to the people of the north-west and the Yorkshire region, who have argued for decades for devolution? Will he say how long the postponement will last? Will he give a date? Above all, will he tell the House that Ministers are learning some lessons?

We on the Liberal Benches told the Government that this could happen. From day one we told them it was a mistake to couple devolution with local government
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 506
 
reorganisation. From day one we told them that Ministers ought to be giving away more power to regions to win the public support that was needed. So does the Minister have any regrets about the way the Government have approached the matter? Is he proud of the way his Government have handled regional devolution?

Given the embarrassing U-turn by the Government, will the Minister tell the House more about why the Government were forced to come to this sorry decision today? Rather than hiding behind the Electoral Commission or a few Back Benchers, can the Minister confirm that the decision was taken at the insistence of No. 10 Downing street? Is it not true that it is the Prime Minister who has tried to stall regional devolution from the outset? It is welcome that the draft powers Bill has been published today, but when will the Government allow a debate on it?

This statement leaves the Deputy Prime Minister not only embarrassed, but severely wounded. By letting the Prime Minister get his way time and again, his own long-held ambitions have been thwarted. Today, the Chancellor has gained a new ally.

Mr. Raynsford: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, voters are not being denied the option of devolution. There will be a postponement—I entirely accept that—but I have made it clear that we are committed to giving the people of the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber that opportunity.

The hon. Gentleman asked when we will take the decision. As I made clear in the statement, we will look closely at the Electoral Commission's report, which we expect to be delivered in late August, and, with the Speaker's approval, we will make a statement to the House in September to set out the timetable. It is a postponement, not a cancellation.

The message to yes campaigners is that this issue is hugely important and must be handled in the most positive and constructive way. We have responded to voices on both sides of the House raising concern about all-postal ballots. In the light of those, we decided to wait until we can consider the Electoral Commission's report before reaching a final decision. However, we remain utterly committed to people having the option of regional devolution.

The hon. Gentleman asked about more powers. I hope that when he reads the Bill, he will realise that an extensive series of powers will be available to elected regional assemblies, and that progress has been made since the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman will make a judgment when he has had a chance to read the Bill.

On local government reorganisation, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We do not believe that it is right to have additional tiers of government. We believe that it is right to have unitary local government if there is regional government. In all regions, the experience of the process involving the boundary committee has shown how much more mature local government can be in considering reorganisation than it was during the period under the Conservative Government when the Banham review caused it considerable anxiety and discord.
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 507
 

The hon. Gentleman asked about the basis of the decision. I repeat that the change of timetable has been prompted by consideration of views expressed in this House. The decision was finally taken in Cabinet this morning.

Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): It is a pity that the Deputy Prime Minister, who this morning spent his time personally ringing round regional newspaper editors, was unable to make a statement to the House himself. He must feel powerfully let down by Labour MPs and by the Prime Minister. The sudden accession of virtue by which the Minister says that views expressed in this House led to the deferment defies all credibility given that the Government have consistently swept away all hon. Members' demands for them to wait until the Electoral Commission reports.

Will the Minister give the costs of the information campaign and meetings in the two regions where there has been a postponement, and confirm that they will be verified by the Audit Commission or the National Audit Office? Will he confirm that there will not be a referendum in either of those two regions this side of the general election? Will he further confirm that there will be no local government reorganisation in the absence of elected regional government?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is simply wrong to say that we have not previously shown any concern for views expressed in this House. As he knows very well from our discussion last night, we have listened to his views about the availability of dropping-off points for people in rural areas and have made changes to facilitate that. That is an indication of our genuine desire to listen to and respond to views expressed in the House, as we have in relation to this postponement.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about costs. Against the total budget of £5 million, we have already spent £2.2 million. We intend to spend a further £0.5 million on the "Your Say" campaign in the north-east. Of the £2 million that had been allocated for "Your Say" in the north-west and in Yorkshire and Humber, £1.4 million will not be spent, while £600,00 will be transferred to enhanced fire safety publicity to make use of pre-booked television times. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is a sensible use of resources. We are responding in the most sensible way.

On the timetable, we have made it clear that we will report back to the House in September after we have seen the Electoral Commission's report, and then set out our proposals for the new timetable.

---