|
Mr. Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. I regret that so few hon. Members have had the opportunity to speak on the programme resolution. We were not aware that debate on it was limited to half an hour. I was just reflecting with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge on how it was customary—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should have been aware of that fact. It is in the Standing Orders of the House.
Mr. Swayne: I was reflecting on how, in the past, it would have been appropriate to spend the first three sittings discussing the programme resolution, and how regrettable it was that that has passed.
The Chairman: I am not responsible for the Standing Orders of the House.
Before we move on, I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with this Bill, copies of which are available in the Committee Room. I also remind Committee members that adequate notice of amendments must be given. My co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including those that we might reach during this afternoon's sitting.
Clause 5
Referendums: frequency
11 am
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in
Clause 5, page 3, line 9, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
The Chairman: With this we may consider the following:
Amendment No. 30, in
Column Number: 12
Amendment No. 40, in
Clause 5, in page 3, line 15, leave out from first 'the' to third 'the' and insert 'period of 20 years has elapsed from'.
Amendment No. 2, in
Clause 5, page 3, line 15, leave out 'five' and insert 'twenty'.
Amendment No. 24, in
Clause 5, page 3, line 15, leave out 'five' and insert 'six'.
Mr. Hammond: I listened with interest to the remarks about the amendments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). If I were the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I would be cautious about talking about mutually contradictory amendments: at least I have expressed the intention of tabling them, whereas I suspect that the Liberal Democrats might, in their usual way, table them inadvertently.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech on Second Reading. He warned the Government that he would table many amendments. So far, there have only been three of them. [Hon. Members: ''Four.''] We wait with bated breath for more of them.
Amendment No. 1 is the type of amendment that I referred to earlier: it is dependent upon other amendments that will not be substantively debated in this place. It seeks to excise subsections (1) and (2) from clause 5, which would mean that the clause dealt only with the jurisdiction and responsibility of the chief counting officer. It would not make any sense for that to stand on its own.
Amendment No. 1 is intended to be consequential on amendment No. 13: that is its number in the list of amendments that are to be considered on the Floor of the House. That list's order of numbering is different from the list of amendments that are to be considered by the Committee. One of the technical difficulties facing us is that those amendments are not available in the Committee Room today; I believe that that is the case.
Amendment No. 13 seeks to write a provision into clause 1, the result of which would be that once a referendum had been held in a region, the matter would be settled, and a further referendum could not be held. Other amendments that we have tabled to clause 1 propose that there should be a single England-wide referendum to establish the strength of favourable sentiment for elected regional assemblies in the entire country: I have explained that to put the matter in context. That does not imply that there must be a single decision about regional assemblies that applies to every region.
Jim Knight (South Dorset): I want the hon. Gentleman to explain how that would work. Is he suggesting that there would be a referendum on the principle of regional assemblies in the whole of England and that if that were successful, if individual regions wanted to go for a regional assembly, second referendums would be held region by region? Would that not be a waste of everyone's time?
Mr. Hammond: That would be a waste of everyone's time, but that is not what is being suggested. If the Government believe in elected regional assemblies but accept that there may be a
Column Number: 13
variable appetite for them across the country, they should have the courage of their convictions: they should hold a referendum across England on a single day, so that each region gives its verdict on the Government's proposition on the same day. That would have several practical attractions, and one practical drawback, which the Minister will probably tell us about. One of the attractions would be that if there were a nationwide campaign and referendum day, it would be much easier for people on both sides of the argument to mobilise public opinion and interest. There is a practical issue to be addressed. The Government have got themselves into a difficult position over local government reorganisation in the context of elected regional assemblies, and the boundary committee has its work cut out in putting before the electorate detailed information about the proposed local government boundary changes in each region before any referendums take place.
Mr. Jones: Does not the amendment demonstrate that the Conservatives do not understand that notion of regionalism? Under what is being proposed, would it not be possible for the large population in London and the south-east to outvote regions such as the north-east, where, as has already been said, there is a groundswell of opinion in favour of regional assemblies? Once again, London and the south-east would dominate the national agenda.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman would be right if I were proposing that the decision would be a national one. However, I am proposing that the regional referendums should be held on the same day. The results would not be binding: it would be entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State whether to proceed further. Nothing in the Bill prevents him from initiating the establishment of an elected regional assembly in a region that had voted against having one, just as nothing requires him to establish an assembly in a region that has voted for one.
Ministers are feeling the pulse of the nation, region by region. Although regional assemblies have a primarily regional dimension and constituency of interest, a wider issue concerns the settlement of the English constitution. The challenge for the Government—
The Chairman: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but if we continue down this route there is a danger that we will start debating clause 1, which will be debated on the Floor of the House. We are debating a fairly narrow issue relating to the frequency of referendums. I appreciate the difficulty for the hon. Gentleman in having to explain how his amendments to clause 5 may interact with clause 1, but I do not intend a debate on clause 1 to be conducted in this Committee.
Mr. Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. As you say, I am in some difficulty because, clearly, amendment No. 1 does not stand alone. I will try to focus narrowly on the change that amendment No. 13 would make to clause 1. The amendment would deal with the question of frequency of referendums by ruling out a further referendum under the Bill. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the Government
Column Number: 14
from introducing another Bill should they feel that the issue needs to be tested again. Amendment No. 1 would delete the provisions in clause 5 that deal with repetitive referendums.
Lawrie Quinn: I suspect that I will get into trouble by asking this question, and I will obviously be guided by the occupant of the Chair. The hon. Gentleman talked about the prospect of the whole of England having to have a referendum. However, the Greater London Assembly has already been established, so is there not a contradiction inherent within his argument? Surely, those who are resident in the London area would not be included.
The Chairman: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue. That point is not within the terms of clause 5. It may be appropriate when we debate clause 1 on the Floor of the House, but not at Committee stage.
Mr. Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. To put the matter finally to bed, the Government will, in time—but not now—have to show how they will deal with variable solutions in different parts of the country, and how that will be a stable settlement. Some of the amendments address that point, but we will discuss them when the House debates clause 1.
It is necessary for me to deal with amendment No. 13, and to touch on the other amendments that we will table to clause 1, in order to deal with a cascade of Opposition preferences. We would prefer a single referendum and a single jeopardy, but in order to make the Committee work we must assume that the Government will resist such proposals when we debate clause 1. Some of our noble Friends in the other place may take a different view and the Government have on several occasions, for reasons unfathomable to me, shown themselves to be more susceptible to the persuasive arguments of our unelected colleagues in the other place than those of elected colleagues in this place, but we must assume that the Government will reject those substantive changes to clause 1. We must address the issue with which clause 5 primarily deals, which is the frequency of repeat referendums where a referendum has been held in a region and a no result has been achieved.
I said earlier that we were confident of being able to win the substantive argument on a fair and level playing field. However, the Government are seeking to create a one-way only ratchet. They will effectively be able to propose and hold a referendum, lose it, and hold another five years later. They can go on doing that for ever. They need only get a 50.1 per cent. yes vote once, and the system can then be set in stone for ever. The Government are not proposing any means of reversing that decision. That seems, on a purely common-sense basis, to be a most unsatisfactory arrangement. It is inequitable in that it creates a one-way ratchet. Without wanting to stray to far, we address that issue in new clause 1, which will be considered later by the Committee. New clause 1 would create a mechanism for citizen-initiated recall of the yes decision if it became obvious that the regional assembly was not delivering the goods, and if there were a groundswell of opinion to reverse that decision.
Column Number: 15
There are some significant practical implications of hanging a sword of Damocles over local government. The Government have linked local government organisation with the question of elected regional assemblies. To allow the question of elected regional assemblies to remain effectively perpetually open—even in a region that has voted once, twice or perhaps three times against it—is to leave the sword of Damocles hanging over the structure of local government.
Yesterday, I attended a conference of the Local Government Association, eagerly expecting to hear the Minister opining on those matters. Unfortunately, the Minister was delayed, and in order to avoid having to walk out in the middle of his speech, I walked out before he started. If he had been there a little earlier, he would have heard, in a panel discussion that was supposed to reflect on his speech but instead had to anticipate it, elected councillors of all parties expressing concern about the uncertainty that this agenda presents to local government.
I am talking not about the regional assembly part of the agenda, because that does not impact directly on local government, but about the consequent reforms of local government. We have already heard anecdotal evidence that local authorities in the north-east would find it difficult to recruit and retain staff if reorganisation were in the offing. As the Minister knows, many people in local government are thoroughly fed up with reorganisation. The prospect of recurrent referendums on a five-year cycle would be hugely debilitating to the primary agenda of local government—the delivery of improved services to the people of this country.
11.15 am
|
