|
Mr. Davey: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us under what current legislation the Government have the power to review regional boundaries? On the basis of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 and
Column Number: 338
preceding Acts, my understanding is that the Government do not have that power. Is the Minister intending to introduce further legislation to confer the necessary power on the Secretary of State?
Mr. Raynsford: I have already explained that we have no desire to review the current boundaries. It would not be sensible because it would stand in the way of progress towards implementation of regional assemblies in regions where they are wanted. We recognise that the desire for such assemblies will not be universal: several regions will initially choose not to have them. The Government's approach is to allow people to decide. However, we have no intention of denying regions that clearly want to proceed—the north-east is often mentioned in that regard—on account of boundary reviews that will seriously delay the process.
The hon. Gentleman's question is interesting. We have powers related to the legislation on regional development agencies, but we do not intend to begin a boundary review at present. However, we have not ruled that out in the longer term, and if there is a need for legislation, substantive legislation would be the right way for such changes to be made, rather than a paving Bill such as this. We therefore urge both hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Mr. Hammond: Last night, one of my right hon. Friends observed that he could always tell when the Minister was defending the indefensible because his smile became broader and his expression more fixed as he was doing so. I also detect a law of inverse aggression: generally speaking, the more aggressive the Minister becomes, the shakier the grounds of his argument.
The Minister must know that this new clause goes to the heart of his problem with the Bill. He would be on much firmer ground if all the regions were like the north-east, where a significant number of people would probably accept that the boundary is about right, even if they do not like the idea of regional elected assemblies. He is, however, on very weak ground, because he knows that in most of the English regions, perhaps in seven out of the eight, the majority of the public regard the regional boundaries as arbitrary and irrelevant to their daily lives. We are suggesting that that issue must be addressed. The Minister's only defence is that it would be an awful fag for him and his officials to get off their backsides and undertake such a review.
There is nothing magical about the review process. A range of propositions would be put forward by local authorities and other interested bodies in England. Any local authority in a region faced with local government reorganisation would be likely to put forward a proposition, so the number of propositions in the review would be an aggregate of those put forward in each region in response to local government reviews.
The Electoral Commission will have to comment, but its comments will not be unguided, because there are criteria specified in the new clause to steer it. The decisions will not be easy to make, but nothing worth doing is easy. The Government should bear that in
Column Number: 339
mind when they focus on how quickly, rather than on how durably and effectively, they can get things done.
The Minister says that the proposal would be a recipe for an open-ended review, but there is no reason to make it open-ended. A timetable could be set for the expression of opinions and for the reporting of the Electoral Commission. If that is the Minister's only objection, we can easily write such a provision into a similar new clause for consideration on Report. The Minister, however, prefers to proceed in what he calls an ''orderly and pragmatic way'', a phrase that is worthy of Napoleon. The Minister should not plead order and pragmatism ahead of democratic accountability when discussing major changes to our constitutional arrangements.
We do not have the opportunity today to debate this important issue to the extent to which it deserves. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends regard it as the crux of the debate about elected regional assemblies. I hope that, by withdrawing the amendment, we shall be able to debate the matter further on Report, when many more hon. Members from both sides of the House will be present. I am aware that there are hon. Members on the Government side who feel equally strongly about the issue. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Orders and regulations
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in
clause 27, page 13, line 7, after 'order', insert 'or direction'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 81, in
clause 27, page 13, line 14, leave out from 'savings' to 'as' in line 15.
Amendment No. 82, in
clause 27, page 13, line 18, leave out paragraph (4).
Amendment No. 83, in
clause 27, page 13, line 25, leave out subsection (c).
Mr. Hammond: Clause 27 deals with orders and regulations. There are several issues that I want to touch on.
Amendment No. 80 would include directions as matters that would have to be exercised by statutory instrument. The Secretary of State is granted a liberal use of directions throughout the Bill. As I understand it, they are not subject to any kind of parliamentary scrutiny. The system we have for scrutinising statutory instruments is feeble enough, but at least it is something. The amendment suggests that directions should be made through statutory instruments so that there would be a small opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise them. There is a worrying tendency for more and more ministerial action to be taken in ways not accountable to Parliament and I hope that the Minister would be prepared to accept the inclusion
Column Number: 340
of directions within the powers that must be exercised by statutory instrument.
Amendment No. 81 would remove the words
''including provision amending, repealing or revoking enactments''
in subsection (3). It is customary to have a schedule of repeals, amendments and revocations attached to a Bill of this sort, and indeed there is a schedule of amendments in relation to clause 15 only. However, I am deeply unhappy with the principle that primary legislation can be amended by order. We seem to build into every Bill a provision that allows the Secretary of State to do that. If there is a need to repeal primary legislation related to the Bill, I hope that the Minister's Department has already identified that need, and can spell it out. If it can, it should include it in a schedule. If it cannot tell us if there is a conflict with any existing enactments, we must conclude that the Department has not thought through the consequences of the legislation.
I hope that the Minister can tell us that his Department has reviewed carefully any potential conflict with other enactments, and found that there are no such conflicts. That would explain why there is no schedule, and why the words deleted by the amendment are superfluous, redundant and unnecessary—as were at least two of those three words. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 81.
Amendment No. 82 is a probing amendment. Teasingly, it seeks to remove subsection (4), but it does so to probe the Minister on what all this guff—to use a word that found favour in yesterday's debate—exactly means. Does anyone, apart from officials who are not present, know what the Bill means by
''a draft of an instrument to which subsection (5) applies would apart from this section be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument it must proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.''
If a spade is a spade, the Bill requires it to be treated as not being a spade for the purpose of the enactment. I hope that the Minister will throw a little light into that rather murky corner. We were discussing yesterday the need for clarity in a referendum. Perhaps some clarity for Members of Parliament trying to decipher the meaning of the drafting would be helpful.
Amendment No. 83 is also probing and would remove subsection (5)(c). Paragraph (c) says that the subsection applies to an instrument made under section 129(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Bill refers to orders, regulations and directions and now mention is being made of an instrument. Section 129(1) of the 2000 Act makes no mention of an instrument. It refers to ''such provision''. The heading of the section is:
''Orders regulating conduct of referendums''.
So where has the term ''instrument'' come from? If the instrument is no different from an order, a direction, or a regulation, as set out earlier in the clause, why is it necessary to introduce yet more terminology?
9.30 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie):
Column Number: 341
Good morning, Mr. Butterfill. I am sure that as I comment on the amendments things will become clearer and it will set the day up wonderfully. Amendment No. 80 would mean that any direction-making powers introduced under the Bill, including those to amend or revoke directions, would have to be exercised by statutory instrument, hence the word ''instrument''. The basic direction-making powers of the Bill are the power to direct the boundary committee to carry out a local government review in a region and the power to direct the Electoral Commission to provide advice on electoral areas and the total number of elected assembly members for a region.
It is not normal practice for directions to be made by statutory instrument. The power under the Local Government Act 1992 for the Secretary of State to direct the Local Government Commission for England to carry out structural reviews was not required to be exercised by statutory instrument. Nor were the powers in the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998, which are analogous to those found in part 3 of the Bill.
The Government fully intend to publish any directions made under the Bill and to deposit copies in the House Libraries. That commitment was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. Of course, under clause 15, the Secretary of State can implement the recommendations of the boundary committee only by order. This order-making power would, under clause 27, be exercisable only by statutory instrument subject to affirmative procedure. The same applies to directions given to the Electoral Commission under part 3 of the Bill. We would not be able to act on its advice regarding electoral areas and numbers of elected assembly members until the Bill enabling elected regional assemblies to be established were enacted. That subsequent legislation would, of course, also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I will now move on to amendment No. 81. Subsection (3) enables an order or regulations made under the Bill to include provision amending, repealing or revoking enactments. However, that is only where such provision is a consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provision or saving—in other words, for relatively minor matters. Any such provision would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by virtue of subsection (2).
|
