|
Mr. Leslie: I am genuinely surprised at the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. If we had not included
Column Number: 317
the paragraph but then proceeded to give informal guidance, he would have accused us of subverting the process by giving hidden and unclear advice. I believe that the appropriate way to pursue the matter is openly and honestly, by putting the provision in the Bill and indicating that we intend to give guidance, given that several considerations, such as particular physical factors, must be taken into account.
Mr. Hammond: It is very telling that the Under-Secretary thinks that the only alternatives are formal guidance as specified in the Bill or informal guidance. My preference would be that having created a competent, independent, objective body, the Government should not give it guidance.
The whole purpose of seeking advice from someone is to get advice from them. Let them do their work and then draw conclusions from the advice that they give. For example, what is the point of going to a lawyer's office, paying him a very large fee and then telling him what advice he should give before he starts?
Mr. Leslie: I can see that the hon. Gentleman is getting excited and is thinking that he has an overwhelmingly attractive line of argument. However, he argued earlier how dreadful it would be if the Government did not accept the Electoral Commission's advice as soon as it was given. Surely a way of avoiding such conflicts would be to ensure that the commission is well aware of guidance from the outset, when the process begins. That is the best way of approaching the matter.
Mr. Hammond: I do not accept that at all. We all thought that the Electoral Commission had been established to deliver an element of impartiality and objectivity. The proper procedure is that it should do its work and produce its advice. If in the cold light of day Ministers cannot accept some of it, they will not accept it. If they have not proceeded correctly, they will leave themselves open to judicial review of their decision.
The Minister wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to be able to constrain the consideration at the outset, then reject its conclusion if he does not like it. That will be the effect. I am astonished that both Ministers are so aggressive in defending what they are doing, because it seems to me quite indefensible. That is a significant matter, and I have not heard a satisfactory response on it.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is charged with ensuring that progress in the Committee is swift, would, I am sure, not urge me to press the amendment to a Division at this time, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Payments to Electoral Commission
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 318
Mr. Hammond: We had the beginning of a brief debate this morning on what is paid to the commission, which did not reach its natural conclusion—it will do so under clause 23. I should be grateful, however, if the Minister could tell us what discussions he has had with the commission about the amounts that will be required to carry out the reviews in the different regions. What is the range of sums?
Mr. Leslie: The clause enables the Secretary of State to pay the Electoral Commission the amount that he decides is requested by it to prepare and submit its advice under part 3, relating, for example, to electoral areas.
Mr. Hammond: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so soon but he said, unless my ears are going as well as my eyes, that the clause allows the Secretary of State to pay the Electoral Commission the amount that it requests to enable it to carry out the functions. That is not what it says in the Bill—that says that it will be the amount that the Secretary of State requires. Is he saying that, in effect, that will always be the amount that the commission requests?
Mr. Leslie: I cannot recall exactly what I said, but the amount will be that which the Secretary of States decides is required, not that which is requested. Certainly, that will be the Secretary of State's decision. The provision is similar to that made in the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. The estimate that the Electoral Commission has so far made of the cost of this exercise is set out in paragraph 71 of the explanatory notes. It is in the order of between £100,000 and £200,000 per region.
The Electoral Commission's advice is to be paid for from money provided by Parliament via the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) simply ensures that the commission's expenditure will not also have to be provided for under the mechanism in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Mr. Hammond: Does the Under-Secretary have a view on why the fixed proportion of the cost range here appears to be higher than the suggested fixed proportion of the cost range for dealing with the local government reviews? The Minister for Local Government and the Regions suggested that the range there was quite narrow, and the lower end a large proportion compared with the upper end, because of fixed costs. Why are the fixed costs here not the same proportion of the range?
Mr. Leslie: Local government reviews relate to functions as well as other matters; this regime is more focused on electoral area boundary issues than functional matters.
I want to repeat that subsection (2) details that the payment will be treated as income received by the Electoral Commission for the purposes of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The clause is fairly self-explanatory.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 319
Clause 23
Funding for regional chambers
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in
The Chairman: With this we may discuss amendment No. 86, in
Mr. Hammond: The amendments are intended to constrain the funding for regional chambers in a way that I shall now outline. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to
''make a grant to any person in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with the activities of a regional chamber.''
The language is slightly curious. Perhaps the Minister will explain who the lucky ''any person'' might be. The Government seem to be contemplating making payments to persons, as distinct from the chamber itself. Perhaps they envisage the Secretary of State paying the milkman direct, rather than a regional chamber paying its own milk bill. No doubt he will be able to clarify that.
Amendment No. 85 deals with the making of such grants in connection with the discharge of functions relating to spatial planning. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I take it that that is the principle area that is envisaged. The White Paper from which he has been liberally quoting is entitled ''Your Region, Your Choice'', but there is no choice for regions in relation to the transfer of administrative functions from county councils to the currently unelected regional authorities, as designated by the Government.
It is probably appropriate that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is making progress on the Floor of the House even as we speak. That Bill will transfer powers from existing county councils and other authorities to regional chambers. I assume that the Minister will confirm that the grant-making power has been primarily designed with that purpose in mind. If the Government get their way in relation to the that Bill, it will be necessary to fund the activity that it covers. The amendment is intended to ensure that any such grants are made by order, so that there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. They should not be made in any manner that means that they cannot be considered by Parliament in the proper way.
Amendment No. 86 addresses a separate point. It deals with the possibility—the Minister will doubtless describe this as paranoia—of grants being made to regional chambers for the purpose of, or in connection with, campaigning in a referendum campaign, a pre-campaign, or a campaign to persuade the Government to conduct a referendum campaign. We can assume that, by and large, regional chambers will be advocates of progress along the Government's chosen regional
Column Number: 320
route. It would be entirely wrong for public money given to the chambers to be used for campaigning. If there is to be a campaign, it must be conducted by private protagonists using their own funding. It is bad enough that central Government will clearly use our money to mount a partisan campaign in the run-up to a referendum; we must ensure that the regional chamber does not have a similar opportunity to use public funds.
In relation to amendment No. 86, I hope that the Minister can confirm that it is not the intention that the clause will grant public funds for campaigning purposes, and if so, I hope that he will let the Committee know what safeguards he intends to put in place to ensure that funds are not used to liberate other funds that could be diverted to mount such campaigns.
6.30 pm
Mr. Raynsford: Before I come to amendments Nos. 85 and 86, I shall pick up the issue raised by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who highlighted the fact that the clause starts with the words
''The Secretary of State may make a grant to any person''.
Lest the hon. Gentleman's paranoia extend enormously, and lest there be real anxiety about funds being channelled to consultants such as Streeter, Streeter and Streeter, and other potential beneficiaries, I should make something clear. The provision is designed to cover circumstances in which chambers may be constituted in their own right, as is the case with South East England Regional Assembly Ltd., or may have an accountable body—often one of the local authorities in the region—that acts as the recipient. The provision is an entirely appropriate framework that allows the transfer of funds to one such body, rather than requiring it to go to the local authority in all cases.
There is precedent for the provision. For example, section 126 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, which has already been referred to, opens with the words,
''The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, give financial assistance to any person in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with activities which contribute to the regeneration or development of an area.''
Amendment No. 85 would mean that any grant that the Secretary of State made to the regional chamber in connection with its role as a regional planning body could be made only by a statutory instrument, which would be subject to affirmative resolution. It is difficult to understand why that level of scrutiny is considered necessary for relatively small sums, although a great number of grant-making powers are not subject to such onerous conditions.
| 
