Clause 5 - Referendums: frequency
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
11:00 am
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. To put the matter finally to bed, the Government will, in time—but not now—have to show how they will deal with variable solutions in different parts of the country, and how that will be a stable settlement. Some of the amendments address that point, but we will discuss them when the House debates clause 1.
It is necessary for me to deal with amendment No. 13, and to touch on the other amendments that we will table to clause 1, in order to deal with a cascade of Opposition preferences. We would prefer a single referendum and a single jeopardy, but in order to make the Committee work we must assume that the Government will resist such proposals when we debate clause 1. Some of our noble Friends in the other place may take a different view and the Government have on several occasions, for reasons unfathomable to me, shown themselves to be more susceptible to the persuasive arguments of our unelected colleagues in the other place than those of elected colleagues in this place, but we must assume that the Government will reject those substantive changes to clause 1. We must address the issue with which clause 5 primarily deals, which is the frequency of repeat referendums where a referendum has been held in a region and a no result has been achieved.
I said earlier that we were confident of being able to win the substantive argument on a fair and level playing field. However, the Government are seeking to create a one-way only ratchet. They will effectively be able to propose and hold a referendum, lose it, and hold another five years later. They can go on doing that for ever. They need only get a 50.1 per cent. yes vote once, and the system can then be set in stone for ever. The Government are not proposing any means of reversing that decision. That seems, on a purely common-sense basis, to be a most unsatisfactory arrangement. It is inequitable in that it creates a one-way ratchet. Without wanting to stray to far, we address that issue in new clause 1, which will be considered later by the Committee. New clause 1 would create a mechanism for citizen-initiated recall of the yes decision if it became obvious that the regional assembly was not delivering the goods, and if there were a groundswell of opinion to reverse that decision.
There are some significant practical implications of hanging a sword of Damocles over local government. The Government have linked local government organisation with the question of elected regional assemblies. To allow the question of elected regional assemblies to remain effectively perpetually open—even in a region that has voted once, twice or perhaps three times against it—is to leave the sword of Damocles hanging over the structure of local government.
Yesterday, I attended a conference of the Local Government Association, eagerly expecting to hear the Minister opining on those matters. Unfortunately, the Minister was delayed, and in order to avoid having to walk out in the middle of his speech, I walked out before he started. If he had been there a little earlier, he would have heard, in a panel discussion that was supposed to reflect on his speech but instead had to anticipate it, elected councillors of all parties expressing concern about the uncertainty that this agenda presents to local government.
I am talking not about the regional assembly part of the agenda, because that does not impact directly on local government, but about the consequent reforms of local government. We have already heard anecdotal evidence that local authorities in the north-east would find it difficult to recruit and retain staff if reorganisation were in the offing. As the Minister knows, many people in local government are thoroughly fed up with reorganisation. The prospect of recurrent referendums on a five-year cycle would be hugely debilitating to the primary agenda of local government—the delivery of improved services to the people of this country.