Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Rooker: I give my colleagues in the department lots of advice as a result of the deliberations in this House. I have to spell out the facts of life we must deal with. It is good education for them to listen to things that are said. It is true that the soundings are about whether or not to have a referendum and not about being for or against regional assemblies. If people write in on that basis clearly it is outwith the soundings.

The soundings exercise is quite specific regarding whether there is a desire to have a referendum. It is an entirely different matter if people are already out there campaigning on the assembly issue. That cannot feature in a judgment of the soundings when the Secretary of State makes a Statement to Parliament,

20 Mar 2003 : Column 346

which presumably I would repeat in this House. The judgment must be based on the specific issues raised in the soundings about having a referendum, not about having a regional assembly.

11.30 a.m.

Baroness Blatch: I know the noble Lord understands this point because we have made it previously. He has always respected other arguments in debates. We thank him for that. The Bill gives us no detail. Therefore, we can deal only with hypothetical situations that may arise. We have absolutely nothing else to go on. We have a White Paper, much of it jargon and difficult to understand. We have asked in earlier debates about what this or that means; we have been told to wait and see. So we simply do not know.

It is not true to say that the soundings are not about a referendum. They are about a referendum. They are not for a referendum, which is the noble Lord's argument. This is not about whether this is a vote for or against a referendum, but, "Do you want a regional assembly?" We know that the question will be, "Is there any interest in this area for a regional assembly?" We also know that we shall not have some scientific understanding of what those soundings mean.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon, talked eloquently about the North East, an area for which I have enormous affection. I was sponsor Minister for the North East for a long time. I know many people there. I must say with some sadness that there is enormous pressure on this House to complete the Bill by 8th May.

We all know that the North East is the only area on which the Government are concentrating at the moment. We know that there is a preponderance of Ministers from the North East. Further, when the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, explained who responded to the soundings, we noted that Joe Public did not feature in any example he gave. A good number of organisations mentioned by the noble Lord were government-sponsored, and chief among them, actively campaigning and I believe illicitly spending taxpayers' money, is the North East Assembly.

I am sorry, but Joe Public does not know about this matter. Personally, as a Member of this House, if we did not happen to have a Bill before us that tells me these things I would not know about the soundings either. Of course the political parties in the North East know all about them, but the political parties in many other parts of the country have not been formally approached. It is simply not true to say that there has been proper public consultation consistent with the conventions on how one should consult. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, this is about the electors—the people in the streets up and down our country who will be exercising their votes.

The most important constitutional point I want to make is that we know nothing about this part of the Bill or that an exercise has taken place. I must say to the noble Lord that I would not have used the word "discreet" because this has been a nonentity for large parts of the country. People are unaware of the

20 Mar 2003 : Column 347

soundings; they do not know of meetings being held; they know very little; their opinions are not sought. I would not have known. The noble Lord has given a fulsome apology that Peers in this House were not part of the consultation. That was absolutely extraordinary. Until the situation changes by diktat, we are Members of Parliament. We should have been informed and our opinions sought.

I return to the constitutional point. This part of the Bill triggers some serious, expensive, extremely painstaking and lengthy reorganisation on paper of local government as to the level of interest in an area determined by the Secretary of State on the basis of his own opinion. Therefore, the level of interest, as set out in the Bill, is absolutely crucial. We want a more scientific measurement of that interest; we want to know whether—as stated on the face of the Bill—Section 12 can be triggered up to two years later. Up to two years later there may well be a different opinion.

The noble Lord says there is nothing to measure the interest against. That is a give-away. The soundings have taken place: there must be something to measure against. That becomes the basis against which either interest has flagged or interest has increased. Therefore, there must be something to measure against. It would be very helpful if we, as parliamentarians, had some understanding of what that level of interest was; how it was measured; and whether large tranches of the country were left out of the consultation.

I cannot over-emphasise the importance of this matter. We know that there is pressure on this House and on those who are working hard to finish the Committee stage by Monday so that the Bill can be on the statute book by 8th May. There is also a rumour that Mr Prescott is ready to go. Guess in which part of the country? The North East, where all his friends are and where there have been conversations with activists who are pro-regional assemblies and where the man in the street is not being given a chance. The only time Joe Public was asked for his opinion—my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth, who lives in and knows the North East very well, gave this away—occurred when a respected local newspaper ascertained that more people were against a regional assembly than for one.

The noble Lord will say, "That's all right. They will be able to express that view in a referendum". But what the referendum triggers is absolutely crucial. We want to know more about it. The amendment cannot be taken in isolation. It is part of a package of amendments. We want to know what the criteria are; we want to know how interest is measured; and we want to have before Parliament a scientific understanding of what those soundings told the Deputy Prime Minister and on what basis he will determine which part of the country, to start with, shall be given an opportunity to vote, not for a regional assembly but to vote about a regional assembly. This is so important that I seek the opinion of the Committee.

11.38 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?

20 Mar 2003 : Column 348

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No. 1


Aberdare, L.
Ackner, L.
Addington, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Astor, V.
Astor of Hever, L.
Blatch, B.
Bowness, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Bridges, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Buscombe, B.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Chorley, L.
Cobbold, L.
Coe, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Cox, B.
Crathorne, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dundee, E.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Emerton, B.
Falkland, V.
Ferrers, E.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Flather, B.
Fowler, L.
Freeman, L.
Geddes, L.
Glenarthur, L.
Gloucester, Bp.
Greaves, L.
Greenway, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Hanningfield, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Higgins, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Jellicoe, E.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jopling, L.
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Lane of Horsell, L.
Liverpool, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Luke, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marsh, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Noakes, B.
Northover, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Palmer, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Peel, E.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Rawlings, B.
Redesdale, L.
Rennard, L.
Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Roper, L.
Russell-Johnston, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selsdon, L.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Trumpington, B.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Wakeham, L.
Warnock, B.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.


Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Blackstone, B.
Boston of Faversham, L.
Bragg, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Carter, L.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crawley, B.
David, B.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Dixon, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Gladwin of Clee, L.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Jay of Paddington, B.
Judd, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Richard, L.
Rooker, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Skidelsky, L.
Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Weatherill, L.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

20 Mar 2003 : Column 349

11.47 a.m.

[Amendments Nos. 19 to 23 not moved.]

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page