---

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry; there is a misunderstanding. I am trying to speed up, but I had to stick to the wording on this point so there was no deviation.

7 Apr 2003 : Column 108

There are two references to consulting the Electoral Commission at different times. The second reference about consulting the commission on supporting material would apply only before we laid the order. We would have more information at that point. We are not holding anything back from the House at present. The first contact with the commission—writing to it formally subject to the progress of the Bill—relates to the questions in the preamble. It is different from consulting the commission on the intelligibility of the options to be inserted. We cannot consult the commission on that until we are ready to lay the order, which is a considerable time away. The two references to talking to the Electoral Commission involve contact separated by around 12 months.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that clarifies the matter. It makes clear that there are two separate exercises. The noble Lord also said that people would be aware of the link between the two questions, but they are two separate referenda. They are not linked in that sense. There will not be two questions on a ballot paper or in a single exercise. In what way can people be expected to understand that their vote in the second referendum has a link with the vote in the first?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, through the information that they will receive. The exercises will be carried out at the same time. The confusion is probably my fault. The noble Baroness, when she asked the question originally, seemed to imply that the ballot paper would contain the two questions. She asked about voting "Yes" in the referendum and "No" to three options, say, as though that would be counted en bloc as being part of one ballot paper. If that happened, we would get a load of ballot papers containing one "Yes" and three "No" votes. That is not the issue. There would be separate counts for the first and second questions. The linkage breaks because the votes are counted separately. I thought that that was the obvious approach. Having listened to how the noble Baroness asked the question, it is conceivable that one could have a series of ballot papers containing the two issues en bloc. It will not be done in that way. The votes will be counted separately.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, without going into the merits of Amendment No. 17, surely the wording is plain wrong. The last paragraph of subsection (2B) states:

"There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established. Your part of the region currently has both county and district councils. You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region"—

The next words should not be

"will be reorganised into a single tier"

but

"should be reorganised into a single tier if there were to be an elected assembly".

Clearly, that must follow.

7 Apr 2003 : Column 109

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry, but from what paragraph is the noble Lord quoting?

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I quote from subsection (2B) of Amendment No. 17. We are talking about what should happen if there is a vote in favour of a regional assembly. It must be wrong to say in the last paragraph of subsection (2B):

"There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established. Your part of the region currently has both county and district councils",

if the amendment then continues:

"You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region will be reorganised into a single tier".

The provision reads as if the die is cast. The Government mean to say, "You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region should be reorganised into a single tier were there to be an elected assembly".

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take advice on that. Although the sentence,

"There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established",

would stand on its own at the top of page 2, as printed on the Marshalled List it is part of a paragraph.

Clearly, it is important that people know that if there is a "No" vote in the referendum—what I shall call question 1—there will be no local government reorganisation. I made that absolutely clear. This is not a Trojan horse to get local government reorganisation.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, in that case, it should read "should".

Lord Rooker: My Lords, irrespective of what it should read, I shall take advice on the matter. It may be that that sentence should be placed elsewhere. It would probably be better if that sentence were at the end of subsection (2B), standing on its own, rather than mixed up between the first paragraph and the second. It forms part of a paragraph.

The sentence stands on its own, and we make that clear. We must go to the Electoral Commission to consider the intelligibility of the wording and have it checked. That is the point that I make. The wording will not be rammed through. The commission has had no opportunity to be consulted.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am happy for the noble Lord to take the amendment away and examine the grammar.

Lord Rooker: Yes, of course.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 2, line 32, at end insert—

"(2A) The question to be asked in a referendum in pursuance of section (Local government referendums)(2) is:

7 Apr 2003 : Column 110

"Which of the following options for single tier local government do you prefer?
insert text of options set out in the order requiring the referendum to be held." "(2B) The following statement (in as nearly as may be the following form) must precede the question on the ballot paper used in any part of the region where a referendum is held in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2): "If an elected assembly is established for the (insert name of region) region, it is intended that local government will be reorganised into a single tier in those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils.
There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established. Your part of the region currently has both county and district councils. You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region will be reorganised into a single tier."
(2C) An order under section (Local government referendums)(2) must set out—
(a) the text of the options to be inserted in the question specified in subsection (2A);
(b) such explanatory material relating to the options as will be made available for voters at the time they vote.
(2D) Before an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) is laid before Parliament in pursuance of section 27(2) the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission—
(a) on the wording of the text required to be inserted in pursuance of subsection (2A);
(b) on the explanatory material.
(2E) At the time when the order is so laid the Secretary of State must lay before each House a report stating any views which the Commission have expressed in response to the consultation as to—
(a) the intelligibility of the text mentioned in subsection (2D);
(b) the explanatory material.
(2F) Explanatory material does not include instructions to voters as to the conduct of the referendum."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Entitlement to vote]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 2, line 36, at end insert—

"(1A) A person is entitled to vote in a referendum held in a county area of a region in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) if on the date of the referendum he is entitled to vote at the election of councillors for any electoral area in the county area."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. The amendments are essential to give full effect to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to which the House has already agreed. Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 define the voting franchise for the second question, the question about which option for unitary local government is preferred, should an assembly be established.

Amendment No. 18 provides that only those entitled to vote in local government elections in the county area concerned will be able to vote on the second question. So, those living in the existing unitary areas will not be able to vote on the second question.

7 Apr 2003 : Column 111

Amendment No. 20 provides that the phrase "county area", for the purpose of Clause 3 and the voting franchise, has the same meaning as set out in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In the main, a county area will be the existing area of a county council, which, of course, has both district councils and a county council. Subsection (4) recognises that some of the proposed options for single-tier authorities may mean reorganisation across county council boundaries. In such a case, for the purposes of this Bill, all county areas affected may be combined into a single county area. Voters in the combined area will vote in a common referendum on the local government structure of the combined county areas.

If the Government's proposals for local government reorganisation include an option that spans county boundaries, the county area is the combined area of each of those county areas. So, voters in the combined area will vote in a common referendum on the local government structure of the combined county areas.

Amendment No. 19 is consequential on Amendment No. 18, so that subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3 apply to regional referendums and local government referendums. Subsection (2) enables provision to be made by the Secretary of State in regulations for disregarding alterations made after a specified date in a register of electors.

I know from previous debates that many of your Lordships agree that only those living in the areas that should be affected by local government reorganisation should be able to vote on the matter. I hope that your Lordships will see the need for the amendments. I beg to move.

---