House of Commons

Session 2003 - 04 Publications on the internet Delegated Legislation Committee Debates

Draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (North West Region), (North East Region), (Yorkshire and the Humber Region) Order 2004

Column Number: 67 [Continued from column 66] 9.20 pm On resuming— Mr. Hammond: I am sure that we are all grateful for that opportunity to refresh ourselves. I was about to conclude my remarks before the break, because I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon wants to comment on the local government reorganisation proposals for Yorkshire and the Humber. He is a Yorkshire Member and very knowledgeable in these matters, so it is more appropriate for him to make the points that need to be made. I conclude by asking the Minister about the Yorkshire and the Humber referendum and the consultation process with the boundary committee. Will he confirm what guidance the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister gave to the boundary committee at each stage of the process, before both the initial and final recommendations were formulated? I ask that because, in this case, the Deputy Prime Minister has accepted the boundary committee's final recommendations and proposed that the options contained in them be put to the electorate. It is important for the Committee to have a sense of the engagement between the Department and the boundary committee during the process. I have some final questions for the Minister. He helpfully told the Committee earlier that there had been some serious testing of the proposals in the pack, including the maps to be issued to electors. He indicated that some survey work had been carried out in each of the three regions. I had not been aware of that, so am I missing something somewhere? Is the information available? Is it on the Electoral Commission or ODPM website? Can he make available any information about the extent and nature of the trialling or assessment of the proposed packs? It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could give us further guidance on that. 9.23 pm Mr. John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): Fortified by no fewer than two turkey burgers in that well-timed break, it is still with great regret that I rise to oppose the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (Yorkshire and the Humber Region) Order 2004. I do so simply because I believe that the date specified for the referendum—4 November—is inadvisable and inappropriate for reasons that I will outline. I have advanced this argument privately to Ministers for the past few weeks, and in one sense I was surprised to be invited to serve on the Committee given the views that I have expressed. The generosity of the Whips knows no bounds. The pager message inviting me to the Committee last week was different from the usual messages that one gets on such occasions. The usual messages are Column Number: 68 terse, saying something like, ''Please CONFIRM your attendance at the following Statutory Instrument Committee IMMEDIATELY''. The message last week was much more friendly, saying, ''You have been specially SELECTED by the Whip for an important Statutory Instrument on regional government. Would you mind terribly confirming your attendance, if at all possible?'' I made the last sentence up, but the Committee will get the point. I presume that the Whips put me on the Committee so that we could have in public the discussion that we have so far had privately. If that was not the intention, it is a little late now. I believe that we should delay the referendum on three grounds: political reasons; the Electoral Commission report in September; and, in my case, for constituency reasons because of the impact of the local government boundary changes in North Yorkshire. First is the politics. I remain an enthusiastic supporter of regional government. I have addressed many meetings on the subject in the past few months, but we must face facts: there is not the same level of support for regional government in Yorkshire and the Humber as in the north-east, where it has been built up over many years. During the original consultation on regional government, some of us argued that the north-east should hold the first referendum and that we should hold a referendum in God's own county only if that result was a yes. I think that we were correct, as all available recent polling evidence suggests that it will be a struggle to get a yes vote in Yorkshire and the Humber. If the vote is a no, the issue will be dead for a political generation, so it would be far better to wait until after the general election and continue to develop interest in the region. If we are honest, there is a real risk that a November referendum will get caught up in the party political debate in the run-up to the general election. The Government cannot afford the luxury of spending four months talking about regional spatial planning when Yorkshire people want to talk about crime, schools and hospitals. Jane Thomas of the YES campaign says, ''If not now, when?'' I say, after the general election, when we will, I hope, have an assembly up and running in the north-east to act as a spur and example. As many hon. Members have said, and as we all know, the Electoral Commission reports in September, or perhaps August. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), tells us that if the report is very critical of postal voting, the Government will have to reconsider the timing of the referendum. As various hon. Members have said, the problem with that argument is that it leaves us all with great uncertainty over the summer. Presumably, public money will be spent in July, August and, indeed, September, giving the good citizens of Yorkshire and the Humber information about the referendum, and the yes and no campaigns will increase their activities. There will naturally be some frustration and Column Number: 69 resentment, to put it mildly, if the whole thing is then called off following a critical Electoral Commission report. Now is the time to take the decision. Finally, my constituents are faced with two choices in the draft orders about local government, both of which have little local support. Basically, the Hobson's choice for Selby district is for local government to be based in Northallerton, which is more than 55 miles away from some parts of the district by road, or in Beverley, which is more than 45 miles away from some parts of the district according to the AA. The boundary committee said in its report that it had not had time to examine all the possible options for Selby. It would be better if it took the time to re-examine the matter and to consider further options, which it could do if the referendum were postponed. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has, to his credit, put regional government on the agenda. I had the pleasure of discussing these issues with him during a half-hour phone call the week before last. Mr. Hammond: Who paid for the call? Mr. Grogan: It was a phone call from the States, so it must have cost a little bit. When I managed to get a word in edgeways, I argued that, although regional government is a matter of policy, the timing of the referendum is— Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman talks about a phone call from the Deputy Prime Minister from the States. Was that when he was attending the conference in Chicago, at which he let slip that he is in favour of a regional supplement to income tax? Mr. Grogan: The Deputy Prime Minister had pressing matters on his mind; he did not say exactly where he was or what he was doing. As I was saying, I argued that, although regional government is a matter of policy, the timing of the referendum has to be a matter of political judgment. To paraphrase Harold Wilson, timing is everything in politics. If the Government insist on pressing ahead with all three referendums in November, the political tragedy is that the Deputy Prime Minister risks being remembered as the man who, by his haste, put back the cause of regional government for several Parliaments. I have a great deal of respect for my right hon. Friend; he has been a crucial, pivotal figure in our Government, but I hope that, on this occasion, he will pause for reflection. From the many conversations that I have had in recent days, I have no doubt that the views that I have expressed tonight are those of the majority of Labour Members for Yorkshire, local government leaders in that county, Labour party members, and business and trade union leaders who are sympathetic to the idea of regional assemblies. I am a mere Back Bencher, and am likely to remain so, but I am proud to be a supporter of the most successful ever Labour Government, at least in domestic matters. However, on this occasion, if on no other, I am as confident as I Column Number: 70 can be that I speak for Yorkshire, and I hope that my Government and the Deputy Prime Minister will listen. 9.29 pm Matthew Green: I shall be brief. Unlike the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, I understand the meaning of the word short. Much that has been said in the previous two debates is relevant, and hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go over that ground again. It is clear that the people of Yorkshire and the Humber should be given the option to decide whether they want a regional assembly. Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats trust the people to make a judgment for themselves. We are happy with how things have been carried out so far and with the independent boundary committee coming up with options, so I will not go over issues that have already been raised. I am content to conclude by saying that we will support the Government in this matter. 9.30 pm Mr. Curry: Before you suspended the sitting, Mr. Illsley, I was getting so hungry that I was wondering whether I would speak at all other than to bring matters to a rapid conclusion. However, reinforced by your thoughtful intervention, I have decided that I must express one or two thoughts. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) trusts the people in Yorkshire, but if trusting the people is so important, what has happened to the people in all the other regions of the United Kingdom who will not have this wonderful opportunity to influence what the Deputy Prime Minister keeps referring to, in his short poetic flights, as their destiny? I wish the Minister good luck for the next couple of days. This is one of those rare occasions, given his rather dull portfolio, on which he has something exciting to do. I hope that he moves on to greater things. It is a bad week for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Today, the poor old Minister for Local and Regional Government had to deal with capping. There is also this Committee. The issue that we are debating will be debated again on Wednesday, and there is also the non-review of local government finance tomorrow. It is a pretty grey week for the ODPM, so today is certainly the highlight for this Minister. We know what the order is about, and I am conscious of the wisdom of Mr. Illsley in controlling the debate. No one would try to filibuster, because by definition the Chairman of the Committee would not allow it. Mr. Illsley could not allow something of that nature, so it cannot take place. Therefore, while any hon. Member is on his feet, by definition a filibuster cannot be taking place. I will not argue about the date of the referendum except to say that it is quite close to Guy Fawkes night. I suppose that that is another example of the Deputy Prime Minister's sense of humour. However, with regard to the designation of the campaigns, what can the Minister tell us about the funding? He will know Column Number: 71 that the funding available to parties depends on their share of the vote in the lately lamented European elections. We all know what the shares of the vote were, and there were new players in that election, so he should be able to give us an indication. He is so meticulous in his attention to detail that he will want to ensure that we know every detail when we come to debate the substance of this matter, so it is only fair to give him notice of these questions. It would be interesting to know what funding we are talking about in the light of the scores made by the major parties or the potential campaigning units in the referendum. What will be the financial limit, based on that? My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and the hon. Member for Selby rightly mentioned that North Yorkshire is in a particular situation in Yorkshire and the Humber, and the hon. Gentleman's constituency is in an even more particular situation within that. Will the Minister help me with the costings for the available options? We need to know them. Obviously, they matter for the Government, and they matter to the electorate because of a precept on the council tax. In addition, some important academic research shows that, during the previous round of local government funding, costs might well have been underestimated. As I understand it, there are two models: the PricewaterhouseCoopers costing model, which is known as the narrow cost model, and the West Sussex costing model, which is the full cost model. It is crucial that we know which of the two is relevant to this debate. The Government's guidance to the boundary committee required it to ascertain the respective ''costs of being in business'' of different options. I always found that a slightly curious expression. Those costs covered only the unavoidable costs that must be met by an authority regardless of the volume of activity undertaken, and the following results were produced. In Yorkshire, a single unitary authority would be £9.7 million cheaper than the status quo and £5.7 million cheaper than three unitaries, whereas the second option, for three unitaries—three and a bit, really, because of the Selby factor—would be £4 million cheaper than the status quo and £5.7 million more expensive than a single unitary. The problem with that model is that it does not take account of any transitional costs; it covers a limited range of costs—only 1.5 to 2.5 per cent. of the local authority budget; and it leaves out most of the cost of managing the services and most support costs, such as personnel. There has been developed something called the West Sussex costing model or the full cost model. It was promoted by the county council network and taken over by the Local Government Association. I am sure that the Minister is intimately familiar with that work, as I understand that, rather late in the day, his Department has accepted that it would make sense to use a version of the West Sussex model. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance is working on the model with the aim of producing an outcome that the ODPM can use. It includes both running costs and transition costs. The early indication for North Yorkshire is that Column Number: 72 a single unitary authority would be £14 million cheaper than the status quo and £25.9 million cheaper than three unitary options—that is, a difference of £117 at band D council tax, or a lot more, I suspect, if the Government's proposed reform goes through—whereas option B, three unitaries, will be £11.9 million more expensive than the status quo and £25.9 million more expensive than a single unitary. Transitional costs on option A, a single unitary, will be £31.8 million and those on option B, the three unitaries, will be £43 million, £11.2 million more than a single unitary. Putting the two together, the logical conclusion seems to be that the only way that the costs of transition can be recouped is by establishing a single, county-wide unitary. Can the Minister confirm whether that arithmetic is correct? It is fundamental in coming to a conclusion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, Yorkshire people are fairly canny and they like to count their costs. When they go to the polls, they will have done their arithmetic in some detail in order to arrive at a sensible conclusion. When we come to the situation of Selby and the East Riding—

©Parliamentary copyright 2004	Prepared 19 July 2004