---

Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): It is a disappointing day for those of us in the north-west who believe that devolution is an important way of regenerating the region. Will the Minister say a little more about the timetable? In responding to other hon. Members, he said that the money set aside for the devolution campaign in the north-west will be spent on something else. That strongly implies that the delay is not a matter of weeks or months but perhaps years. It is important for those of us in the north-west who support devolution and want the campaign to succeed to have a much clearer idea of the Government's commitment and time scale.

Mr. Raynsford: I hear the hon. Gentleman's comments, although I suspect that his colleague Lord
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 511
 
Greaves may not share his view of the north-west. As he will acknowledge, there is disagreement among all parties in the north-west region. One of the factors that we took into account was the different views about all-postal voting—Lord Greaves was diametrically opposed to it in all circumstances. We do not necessarily agree with him, but we have listened.

On the timetable, I have already made it clear that we will report back to the House in September. There was a programme, which included significant pre-booked advertising slots, for the summer. We have made arrangements to postpone all that could be postponed and to substitute fire safety advertisements for "Your Say" advertisements in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber to make the best use of pre-booked and pre-paid advertising slots. However, there is no question of our not resuming the "Your Say" campaign in Yorkshire and Humber and the north-west once we have clarified the timetable for the referendum.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): I welcome the statement but I am concerned about the fact that my right hon. Friend continues to talk about postponing the referendums instead of admitting the inevitable and saying that they will be dropped. Let me revert to the point that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made. There is huge uncertainty in local government, with people leaving their jobs and so on. Is not it important, when the Government revert to the timetable in September, to set out the next steps clearly and definitively.

Mr. Raynsford: I have already made it clear that that is exactly our intention.

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (Con): Does the Minister accept that there will be widespread delight in Cumbria generally and south lakeland in particular at any setback for the unpopular Labour and Liberal Democrat attempts to parachute unwanted extra bureaucracy into rural areas in the north-west? Will he also acknowledge at last that, behind all the flim-flam, the only reason that he has come to the Chamber today to admit that the Government have wasted millions of pounds on a campaign that they have called off at the last minute is that he knows that they would have lost the referendums in the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber? If he believes that he has a chance of winning referendums in those areas, why will not he guarantee to hold them before the next election?

Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman has heard me say repeatedly, although there is a postponement, we remain determined to proceed with referendums in all the regions. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have visited Cumbria and our experience has been different from the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. We encountered many people who perceive genuine advantages in devolution and in local government reorganisation in Cumbria, where several people have understood the logic of the boundary committee proposals. The statement is a sensible response to doubts about all-postal voting, which were expressed especially vehemently in the two regions that we are
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 512
 
considering. That is the reason for the postponement but we remain committed to giving people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the rest of the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber the opportunity to benefit from regional devolution.

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): It would, I am afraid, be hard to disguise my considerable disappointment at this announcement, but I have genuine sympathy for my right hon. Friend's predicament in coming to the House today. The arguments about taking the weight of this over-centralised country off the northern regions remain, as does the need to guarantee that the northern regions will never again be crushed by a south-east-dominated Tory Government, should there ever be another. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that referendums will go ahead, allowing the people of the north-west and of Yorkshire and Humber to exercise their right to decide?

Mr. Raynsford: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He will know from what I have said today and on previous occasions that there is no question of any change in our commitment to giving people in the northern regions—and, indeed, in other regions in England in due course—the opportunity to benefit from devolution. The people of London had that opportunity and they have taken it, against the view of the Conservative party, which opposed it. The people of London voted for it and have benefited from it, and we believe that it is right that people in other English regions should have that opportunity.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con): It will come as no surprise to my constituents in Eddisbury or to people in the rest of Cheshire that the breathtaking incompetence of the Government has led to this decision, and they will welcome the opportunity to retain the ability to belong to an area that they love. However, this decision does not remove the genuine blight on the excellent Cheshire county council. The word "excellent" was, of course, ascribed to the council by the Minister's own Department and by this Government. Given that this whole idea originated from this Government—but for whom we would not be wasting all this time discussing the issue—will the Minister now order a compensation scheme for all those private individuals and companies from whom money has been raised for the campaign to defeat this ridiculous proposal?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the illusion that we have abandoned the referendum. We have not; we are simply postponing it. People will be able to take a decision—yes or no—in due course.

Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con): When?

Mr. Raynsford: I have clarified the fact, in my original statement and in response to a number of questions, that we shall come back to the House in September, and that we shall then make a statement about the timetable.
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 513
 

On the question of local government reorganisation, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) will be aware that, in Cheshire, there has been a lot of intelligent interest in the benefits of the different options. Those include having either a single, unitary county or three unitary authorities, each representing areas currently covered by two separate districts. Those options obviously have partisan support on either side, but there has been an intelligent and sensible discussion on them. Most people feel that larger, more powerful unitary authorities can play an important role in improving the quality of local government.

Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley) (Lab): May I assure my right hon. Friend that many people will be glad to hear that this is a deferment and not a cancellation? Many people in the north-west believe that this is an important opportunity to seize control of certain pots of money and of quangos and other bodies that take important decisions in our region. I hope that, when he comes back to the House in September, my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that we shall have the referendum in the north-west before I retire at the next general election.

Mr. Raynsford: I certainly intend to bring clarity when we make a further statement in September. I also want my hon. Friend, who has had a distinguished career in the north-west, to be able to campaign actively for a yes vote in a referendum before the next general election, but he will have to wait for our statement in September, when I shall give him absolute clarity about the timetable.

Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): There will be joy in the county of Cheshire and the boroughs of Congleton and Macclesfield at this eleventh-hour conversion—this U-turn—on the part of the Government, which has been made for obvious political reasons. The Minister keeps insisting that this is merely a postponement. May I respectfully suggest that he should pull the rug from under this stupid proposal and, after a decent interval, come to the House and announce that the idea of regionalisation in the north-west is dead and buried?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Lady clearly wishes there to be rejoicing in the north-west. I am surprised that she is not hoping that that will be about her reselection as the Conservative candidate for her constituency. As I have said, we will report back to the House in September, and we will set out the timetable, but I want to make it clear that we believe that there is an overwhelming case for giving people in all the regions of England the opportunity to have democratic control—if they want it—over functions that are currently discharged by bureaucrats who are not democratically accountable, many of whose institutions were set up by the Conservatives. I am surprised that the hon. Lady advocates the defence of the quango state; I do not think that many other people in her constituency will share her views.

---