Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Monday 19 July 2004
[Part I]
[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]
Draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (North West Region) Order 2004
4.30 pm
The Chairman: Is it for the convenience of the Committee that the instruments should be considered together?
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con): Object.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I beg to move, that the Committee has considered the Draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (North East Region) Order 2004. On a point of clarification, let me say that the order is that for the north-east, but I shall take guidance from the Chair as to the sequence in which I should take the orders.
The Chairman: Let me explain the rationale behind the objection to taking the three orders together. We propose to conduct three one and a half hour debates that follow on from each other. We will debate first the order for the north-west region, followed by that for the north-east region, followed by that for Yorkshire and the Humber. As we are taking each order individually, each debate will be restricted to the region to which it applies—we shall not be able to cross-reference to other regions. I shall strictly enforce the need to keep the debate to the terms of each order. The same goes for repetition throughout the debates on the subsequent orders.
Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. While I understand the point that you have made, can you confirm that we are having three separate debates? Where matters are germane to each region—for example, the setting of the date and the issues that that gives rise to—it would not be repetitious to cover those issues in each debate, so long as there were no repetition within a debate.
The Chairman: We are having three separate debates. That interpretation is correct, provided that there is no tedious repetition throughout the three debates.
Column Number: 4
Phil Hope: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. I shall need to repeat what I am about to say on the first order before each subsequent order. Is that in order, or can my points be taken as read on to the record?
The Chairman: It is entirely up to the Minister how he speaks to the subsequent orders. We shall begin with the north-west, followed by the north-east and then Yorkshire and the Humber.
Phil Hope: I thank you for your clarification, Mr. Illsley.
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (North West Region) Order 2004.
The order does four things. It sets the date for the regional assembly and local government referendum in the north-west region; it sets out the options for unitary local government that electors will be asked to choose between in that region; it also provides for the explanatory material that will be made available to electors when they vote and, finally, it makes changes to the period during which permitted participants at a regional assembly referendum can apply to be a designated organisation. I shall deal briefly with each of those.
First, on the referendum date, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 provides for referendums, to be held in regions, about the setting up of elected regional assemblies and, following local government reviews carried out by the boundary committee for England, for the associated restructuring of local government. In June 2003, following a soundings exercise to determine the level of interest in each of the eight English regions in holding a referendum on the establishment of elected assemblies, we directed the boundary committee to carry out reviews of local government in three regions: the north-east, the north-west—which is the subject of this order—and Yorkshire and the Humber. The committee submitted its final recommendations on 25 May.
As required under section 1(6) of the 2003 Act, we have considered whether there has been a material change to the level of interest in holding a referendum in the three regions. No evidence has been presented to us that causes us to think that fewer people are interested in having a referendum than when the soundings exercise was conducted a year ago.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): I read in today's edition of The Guardian—it is not my normal reading matter, I hasten to add—that a number of Labour MPs and Ministers have written to the Deputy Prime Minister asking that the referendums be scrapped. Will the Minister tell us how many Members did so?
Phil Hope: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman stops reading The Guardian. He does not usually read it and, if he is going to take account of its views, he should stop reading it.
Column Number: 5
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. I wonder whether you can help me and the Committee. Would you confirm that if the orders are defeated, the matter will be referred back to the House?
The Chairman: The House will make the decision in any event. The House will take note of the orders under a motion on the Floor of the House.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr. Illsley. Does that mean that what goes on the order paper on that occasion is capable of being voted upon? We are all aware that the House of Commons will take the ultimate decision, but it would be helpful to know whether, in your view, a vote by the Committee to defeat or accept the orders could be reproduced on the Floor of the House. If not, it could materially affect the quality of debate for some hon. Members.
The Chairman: The motion before the Committee is that the Committee has considered the order. Obviously, however the Committee votes, it will be up to the Government to decide what is laid before the House in due course.
Phil Hope: To fulfil the expectations—
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): In his remarks a moment ago, the Minister indicated that he was not aware of a material change in the number of people expressing a view for or against the concept of an elected regional assembly. Given the sparsity of the number that participated in the original determination of public opinion, what tools has the Minister used subsequently to come to that conclusion?
Phil Hope: The right hon. Gentleman did not listen closely enough. I shall repeat what I said for his benefit and for the benefit of the Committee. No evidence has been presented to us that causes us to think that fewer people are interested in having a referendum than when the soundings exercise was conducted a year ago. I think that that answers the point.
To fulfil the expectation in those regions that referendums would be held in the autumn, articles 3 and 4 of the order set a referendum date of 4 November.
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): Having attempted to clarify the point raised by my right hon. Friend, would the Minister reverse a bit and address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about The Guardian? Is he telling the Committee that the Deputy Prime Minister and his office have received no such letters, or that he is unaware of them?
Phil Hope: I said that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley should not believe everything that he reads in The Guardian—a comment that may apply to other national dailies. Representations of various kinds may or may not have been made to the Department, but there is no evidence to suggest that fewer people are interested in having a referendum than there were a year ago, when the soundings exercise was conducted.
Column Number: 6
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): The Minister still has not quite answered in detail the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley. He talks about the veracity or otherwise of The Guardian, but does he accept, or is he denying, the substance of the newspaper report of 19 July, which is that more than half of Labour MPs in the north-west have called for the postponement of the referendums? He has not answered that simple point. He is trying to cast doubt on the integrity of The Guardian, but was the report true?
Phil Hope: It is not for the Committee or for me to respond to tittle-tattle speculation in the national press. The Committee's task is to consider the orders on the date and the boundaries of local government relating to the referendums.
Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. Could you refresh my memory? Do not the instructions to Ministers in their code of guidance say that, when questions are put to Ministers in Parliament, they should always be as helpful as possible in providing answers?
The Chairman: That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.
Phil Hope: I am sorry that Opposition Members do not feel that I am being as helpful as I could be, but I am doing my best.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): My hon. Friend said that there was no evidence to suggest that fewer people are in favour of the referendums now than there were before, but does he not think that the fact that the Government still have not published the draft regional assemblies Bill, setting out the powers, might have affected public support for his proposals?
Phil Hope: My hon. Friend may or may not be right. He will know, of course, that we intend to publish the draft Bill. [Hon. Members: ''When?''] Hon. Members will have to be patient. The matter that my hon. Friend raises may have an influence on the attitudes of voters one way or the other.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Does my hon. Friend agree that it is appropriate for the Committee to consider the material point at hand irrespective of whatever is put to the House of Commons itself, rather than for him to be influenced by a filibuster by hon. Members who clearly oppose the Government's policy to give people a choice?
| 
