Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 68, in

clause 19, page 10, line 28, leave out from 'if' to end of line 32 and insert 'the Secretary of State is considering whether to cause a referendum to be held in that region about the establishment of an elected assembly for the region.'.

The amendment would remove the Secretary of State's discretion on the Electoral Commission's recommendations about the appropriate electoral boundaries for a region that he has determined will elect a regional assembly. If local government boundaries are important, and the Government clearly think that they are—they have placed much emphasis on the need to conduct the local government boundary review ahead of the referendum—then so are the electoral boundaries in the regions.

The Minister argues that the regions he proposes are based on some community of identity. Although we will not have that substantive debate again, I suspect that Committee members would disagree with his proposition in relation to many of the proposed regions. Similarly, regional identities will not necessarily override more local senses of community and identity. It will be equally important to people in an area that has chosen to elect a regional government that the districting in the region—if I can use such a horrible word—reflects the communities and distinct identities of the sub-entities in the region. We think that it is important that the matter is handled properly in advance of a referendum. The same logic applies as the Government used in relation to the local government boundary review: the relevant action should be taken in advance of a referendum.

Electors must understand what they would get, in terms of local government structures and regional assembly constituencies, if they voted yes. That would be an important issue in many areas. In some regions, issues regarding urban-rural divisions would be raised—that has already been debated in this forum. Issues would also be raised about the representation of communities that might feel that they are distinct from other parts of a region. It is entirely legitimate for an elector to ask, prior to casting his vote, ''How will I be represented in the regional assembly? Will my representative be elected for a large neighbouring town and represent my village, or community, as an afterthought, or will I fall under a different arrangement of districts, where the community with which I identify is a predominant factor and force?''

Not everybody will be happy or satisfied with the outcome of these deliberations, but if the Minister's logic is that it is important that electors understand the local government structures that will apply post-

referendum, it is equally important for them to understand the regional electoral boundaries. Otherwise, the Government's sense of priorities is strange. The boundaries that apply to his region's elected assembly will be at least as important to an elector who is deciding whether he is in favour of elected regional assemblies as local government boundaries. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

I rise to support my hon. Friend. It is important for people participating in a referendum on regional government to make a choice based on every possible piece of information. District boundaries are important to people. In any review of constituencies, people's support depends on which communities are brought together, whether they identify with their district and whether they feel comfortable with the new arrangements. That is particularly relevant in this case.

There is a clue in clause 19(3) that the draftsman of the Bill recognises the importance of that point. It mentions the Electoral Commission advising the Secretary of State about a number of things, including the number of electoral areas and their names. What is the significance of that? It is that the name of a district or constituency partly reflects its character and identity. Should not people know that before they decide whether to vote for a regional government or to express interest in a referendum? It is not as though the Government were bashful about doing things in advance. They are already taking soundings—before the Bill has been debated in the House of Commons, let alone the other place—about whether people are interested in having a referendum. They have put out to consultation their draft policy and procedure guidance for the boundary committee on the local government review for England. What is to stop them drafting something about the boundaries of the new districts at the same time? That is important. The Government should give the electorate the maximum amount of information so that they can make an informed choice about whether to have regional government. It should be supplied at the right time, not after it is a done deal. I strongly support the amendment.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Perhaps it would help the Committee if I briefly explain the significance of clause 19 and its effect before considering amendment No. 68. Clause 19 enables the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to give advice on electoral areas and the total number of members to be elected to a regional assembly. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the Secretary of State can only seek advice for regions in which a referendum has been held, and for which it is proposed to establish an assembly. The amendment would, instead, enable the Secretary of State to give such a direction to the Electoral Commission when considering whether to cause a referendum to be held. Taken with amendment No. 69, it would oblige the Secretary of State to seek that advice before a referendum were held.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Perhaps the Minister could clear one thing up. This is an elaborate procedure to allow the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to give him advice. Is the Secretary of

State unable to ask for advice from the Electoral Commission in the absence of a statutory provision in primary legislation?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

We understand that we require this statutory cover to instruct the Electoral Commission to do the work necessary to prepare electoral arrangements in a region that votes for an elected regional assembly in a referendum. That could, of course, be contained in the primary legislation that gives effect to elected regional assemblies, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that there would be a time consequence, which is why we have included provisions in the Bill. Once a referendum has been held and a region has indicated that it wants an elected regional assembly, the Government will introduce substantive legislation to make that possible. At the same time, having programmed in its many other responsibilities, the Electoral Commission could begin considering the region's electoral boundaries. That would allow for the proper, sensible and expeditious handling of all the issues, without unreasonable delay.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

How long does the Minister expect such an exercise to take the Electoral Commission? It is extremely complicated to start again with a completely different map, particularly if people cannot even be guided by existing parliamentary boundaries. How long will that take?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. The Electoral Commission will clearly need to take account of the region's new local government framework, and it would be inappropriate to reach conclusions about electoral boundaries without regard to that structure. That is why the hon. Gentleman's earlier suggestion that the work be brought forward and carried out simultaneously with other parts of the process is clearly inappropriate. Under the proper timetable, the boundary committee will consider the relevant local government organisation for the region, the people of the region will then determine in a referendum whether they want an elected regional assembly and the consequent reorganisation of local government, and the Electoral Commission will then consider electoral arrangements in the region. I would not want to give an estimate of the time required, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it will be a reasonably time-consuming activity. That is why we are making provision in the Bill to allow the commission's work to be carried out after a referendum and before legislation is in place to enable the elected regional assembly to come into existence.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

I am following the Minister's arguments carefully. His answers are always helpful, and he has given us a clear time scale. He is saying that the first referendum will be in autumn 2004, and the commission could not possibly finish its work until spring 2005. Elections for the new regional assemblies would then take place at the beginning of 2006, at the earliest, and assemblies would be in place by 2007. Is that the kind of time scale that we are working on?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Yes, it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if we hold a referendum in autumn 2004, we

will need to pass substantive legislation to allow for the election of a regional assembly. That will take a substantial period of time after the referendum, although I would not want to be too precise about the dates. However, the hon. Gentleman is very much in the right ball park with the dates that he gave for the creation of an elected regional assembly. We do not want to delay matters even further by waiting until the substantive legislation is passed before giving the Electoral Commission the power to do its work. It is right to give it powers in the Bill, so that it can get on with its preparatory work on electoral boundaries while the substantive legislation is being considered. That all makes good sense.

The only possible argument against that approach, which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge deployed, is that the electorate should know the details before they vote in a referendum. I shall now tell him why that is not necessary. The local government review must be completed because it will involve a fundamental change to the structure of local government, and there is no way of knowing the outcome. It could involve a unitary structure that is based on a single county, or several unitary structures that are based on different districts. Until the boundary committee carries out the review, however, there is no way of knowing, despite the Opposition's scaremongering and their suggestion that our agenda is to abolish the counties. We have made it clear that we have no such agenda. It will be up to the boundary committee to determine the appropriate structure for local government in a region. That must be determined and made clear to the electorate before they vote in a referendum.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government have a view on the range of appropriate population sizes for unitary authorities?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework and looked at our draft guidance, in which we make it clear that the boundary committee's objectives would be to address the effectiveness of local government and its representative role covering appropriate communities. We do not specify any figures; we say only that they must be of a sufficient size to be effective. That is a steer, but there is no precise indication: we do not believe that it is right to tie down the boundary committee with arbitrary figures—unlike the Opposition, who love them, as we know from an earlier debate this morning.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

That is not true.

This is a very interesting matter. Is the Minister saying that he would be content to see a proposal for Kent, for example, to become a unitary authority in its own right and deliver all services at that level, given the size of that county?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

It is not, in the first instance, for me to take a view on this. The boundary committee must conclude on it, and then make recommendations to Ministers. I would want to look very closely at its recommendations. However, the hon. Gentleman will know from the way that we have set out this guidance

that there is no preconception that would prevent that particular outcome, if the boundary committee were to recommend it.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

How would the Minister respond to a recommendation that a county should be a unitary authority, given that the proposed north-east region is smaller than some counties?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

As I stressed in earlier debates, when I was talking about local government—this also applies to the regions—one of the key issues is that they must be of a sufficient size to be effective, but the other key point is that there must be a recognition of regional identity.

There is a strong sense of regional identity in the north-east. I do not think that any Committee members would deny that hon. Members from the north-east have a clear sense of the separate characteristics of their region and that they want that to be recognised. That is why it is appropriate for such areas to be regions, even though they are smaller than many others.

There are enormous variations in other countries. In Germany, the Länder range from huge areas such as North Rhine-Westphalia to individual cities such as Hamburg. In Spain, there are also huge differences in size between the large and the small regions. In all countries, a balance is struck between what is an appropriate area in terms of recognising local and regional identity and what is an appropriate size to ensure effectiveness and efficiency.

Mr. Hammond rose—

Matthew Green rose—

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The Minister's logic is inexorably taking him towards the position that he would have no objection in principle to a proposal from the boundary committee that the whole of the north-east region should be a single unitary authority, because that would be a smaller unitary authority than, for example, unitary Kent. Is not the Minister disappearing up his own logic, so to speak?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I am most certainly doing no such thing. I have stressed the importance of local and regional identity. It may well be the case that the county of Kent is considered to be suitable to be a unitary authority—although parts of it are already organised into unitary authorities, so it would not be possible to have a wholly unitary Kent, because those already in unitary Medway would not be amused by that prospect.

However, there are great differences in the north-east between, for example, rural Northumberland and Teesside. There are significant variations, and we would not regard it as appropriate for there to be a single unitary authority covering the whole of that area, especially as there is also a large number of unitary authorities in the north-east region. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing his hypothetical argument to the point at which he is also at risk of disappearing up the alleyway of false logic.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The Minister's best point was that there were already a large number of unitary authorities in the north-east—which the flawed structure of his Bill would prevent from being reviewed. However, he cannot argue that there is a significant sense of identity in the north-east region that makes it an appropriate unit, and then argue in the next breath that there are significant differences in terms of identity and so forth that require separate unitary authorities to be established.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Of course I can. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that people have both local and regional loyalties. I represent a London constituency. I feel myself to be a London Member of Parliament, but, within London, I represent the area of Greenwich and Woolwich, where people feel an acute sense of loyalty about their local community. Local and regional loyalties can exist side by side. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister has moved onto dangerous ground. He mentions regional identities and says that he represents Greenwich and London. I am proud to be an MP from Shropshire, but I am not especially proud to be an MP from the west midlands. There is not the same sense of regional identity. The logic of the Minister's argument is that we should review the regional boundaries so that we have regions that reflect regional identity. By chance, that may be the case in the north-east, where the administrative boundaries set up by the Conservatives may reflect the regional identity. In other parts of the country, they do not.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will get over his identity crisis soon and recognise that the west midlands is a region. It already exists. As we have said in previous debates, we do not intend to re-open the issue of regional boundaries because that would simply be a recipe for endless discussion and no progress.

To return to the key issue—

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

May I challenge the Minister? He says that there would be endless discussions and no progress. Why is that his assessment? Should there not be an examination of the facts before we take the matter forward? After all, the Conservative Government set up the regions for a quite different purpose.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Conservative Government were responsible for confirming the existing regions as the administrative units for regional governments. They did not accept the need for devolution or democratic accountability within the regions, but they certainly felt that the regions were appropriate for administrative purposes. Presumably, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was responsible for the policy, used some logic in pursuing his approach. I certainly think that he did, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for New Forest, West does not accept that.

We do not believe that it is essential for the precise electoral boundaries to be known in advance of a

referendum because they are subject to change, as hon. Members know well. We have all gone through the process of boundary changes, but nobody would suggest that our constituencies should be questioned because there happened to be a review of the ward boundaries or that the electoral map of the country—and therefore the constitution of the country—should be called into question because of parliamentary constituency boundary reviews.

Things happen that change the electoral boundaries. Therefore, it cannot be a pre-condition for a referendum for people to know precisely what the electoral boundaries will be. However, people will know a great deal from our White Paper and from the statement that we will make before we order any referendums to be held. We will set out—as the White Paper does—the electoral system including the balance between individual constituencies and top-up members to provide the additional member system that we are committed to implementing, and all such relevant issues. The electorate will be aware of the broad structure of representation that will apply within the region if they vote for an elected regional assembly.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

Will that information contain knowledge of how many elected members there will be per county?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The White Paper clearly shows our intention that there should be between 25 and 35 members of an elected regional assembly. Clearly, there will be a need to consider that in relation to each individual region, and I do not want to pre-empt that in any way. It is likely that numbers in the smaller north-eastern region would be at the bottom end of the spectrum, and in the larger regions, such as the north-west, they would be in the upper end of the spectrum. Therefore, it would be relatively easy for people to establish the kind of structure that would apply, including the representation for any county. As we said in the White Paper, our figures suggest that it will generally be possible to have at least one representative for each county within the overall framework for England.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

For the convenience of electors, will the Minister also spell out how many electors per elected representative there will be in each region?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

That again will be implicit in the overall approach, although I have no problem with that information becoming more explicitly available.

The Opposition take a different view to us and believe that there should be a rough equality in the number of electors in each area. Of course, that would perversely result in a very large elected regional assembly in larger regions. That would be completely counter to our policy—to which I thought the Opposition would be sympathetic—of keeping administration lean, avoiding a proliferation of over-large bureaucracies, and not having excess elected members rattling around like peas in a pod. That would not be compatible with good, efficient administration.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

As the Minister well knows, fairness—in the sense of having roughly equal numbers of electors per elected member—will give rise to the consequences that he suggests only if he sticks rigidly to the quite inappropriate regional boundaries that have been drawn up for the large regions in south-east and east England, for example.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The kind of electoral equality to which the hon. Gentleman seems to be committed could be achieved only by a complete recasting of the map of the country, with a series of arbitrary square kilometre grids with exactly equal electoral representation. That cannot work. We live in a hugely diverse country. We know that there are huge variations between densely crowded city areas and large rural areas.

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the constituencies must be exactly the same numerically, I should tell him that the area covered by north Scotland, as a constituency, would be completely disproportionate to the area covered by an inner-city area in London or west Yorkshire. It has always been part of the framework in our electoral arrangements that variations are permitted to enable those kinds of factors to be taken into account. I cannot imagine that the hon. Gentleman seriously believes in an almost Napoleonic approach, with precise measurements according to some numerical criterion. The hon. Gentleman cannot think that that should be the overriding factor, and that we should not take account of historic, geographic and cultural trends. I should have thought that the party that calls itself Conservative would regard those characteristics as important.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I would have thought that the Minister and his colleagues in government might be attracted by Napoleonic approaches. That is certainly the impression that we have on the Opposition Benches. I understand the Minister's technique now; when he does not like the line of argument of a Conservative Member, he restates it in its most extreme and rigid exposition. Not withstanding what the Minister has just said, does he think that there would be any fundamental difficulty in principle in subdividing the south-east region, for example, into four or five regions, each of which would be approximately similar in size to the north-east region?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I have already told the hon. Gentleman in similar debates in previous sittings that our view is that reopening the matter of regional boundaries will not be productive. We believe that it is right to proceed on the basis of the existing regional boundaries that were confirmed by the Conservative party when it was in government. Those boundaries provide a suitable building block for elected regional assemblies.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

The Minister is opening a can of worms in terms of the numbers of people that elected representatives will represent. Is he aware that the previous parliamentary boundary commission had a target of roughly 69,000 people to a constituency? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and I represent roughly the same number of people, but she has a close-knit urban

constituency, and I have a rather sprawling suburban and rural constituency? There is already rough equality between parliamentary boundaries. Why does the Minister want to do something completely different for the new regional assemblies?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening when I described the north-west of Scotland as an area that had significantly lower representation because of its characteristics. Does he suggest that the highlands and islands of Scotland should be subject to the same numerical criteria as other regions?

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

I remind my right hon. Friend that the Isle of Wight is the largest constituency in terms of population which it would be illogical to split in two. That is in England.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Such considerations, whether geographical or cultural, inevitably need to be taken into account.

We have continued at great length but are straying some way from the key issue, which is whether the amendment is helpful. It is not, because it would be inappropriate for the work to be undertaken at the same time as that of the boundary committee, for the reasons that I explained to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). It is not necessary for the work to be completed before a referendum. I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will therefore agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I have been singularly unconvinced by the Minister's arguments, as I suspect have other members of the Committee. He seemed to undermine his case.

Electors choosing whether to support the idea of an elected regional assembly for their region are unarguably as likely to be interested in the electoral boundaries in the region as they are in the local government arrangements for it, and the boundaries of those local government units. The Minister's position is illogical.

I suspect that a political calculation underlies the Minister's attempt to justify the bizarre juxtaposition of an absolute requirement to settle the local government boundaries ahead of a referendum, and an absolute refusal to consider the electoral boundaries ahead of a referendum. He calculates that uncertainty about the unitarisation of local government in an area would be exploited by no campaigners to sow doubt in the minds of electors about how that review might turn out. He concludes that although some people will be upset by the outcome, his side of the argument will benefit from having the matter settled before a referendum.

Similarly, the Minister concludes that on balance his side of the argument would do better if the electoral boundaries in the region remained shrouded in mystery and fog at the time of a referendum, fearing that people in different parts of the region would start to reflect on the relative strength of their voice in the region. They would start to realise that the regional assembly was not a panacea, but merely the beginning

of the next cycle of the problem that the regional agenda is intended to address.

Although there may be identities among the English people, the Minister rightly says that there are sub-identities in some of the regions. Of course, there will be sub-sub-identities in different communities in those regions. The whole process starts again. The Minister's solution of going hell for leather with retrospective powers and settling the local government review as quickly as possible before the referendum, but refusing to address the electoral boundaries decision until after a referendum, is based on pure perceived political expediency. We feel that that is unfair and unreasonable, and works contrary to the interests of transparency and maximum information being available to electors. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment in a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No.69, in

clause 19, page 10, line 33, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No.70, in

clause 19, page 10, line 35, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Amendment No.72, in

clause 19, page 11, line 6, leave out paragraph (5).

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would remove the word ''may'' and insert the word ''shall''. They would remove some of the Secretary of State's discretion. They were tabled in the context of amendment No. 68, and were intended to provide for a pre-referendum direction to be given to the Electoral Commission. However, we may equally consider the significance of a post-referendum direction.

Clearly, the matter of electoral boundaries within a region will need to be addressed if an elected regional assembly is to go ahead. It seems appropriate that the Secretary of State should give the task of advising on the appropriate boundaries in the terms set out in the Bill—the number of electoral areas, the name by which each area should be known, the total number of members to be elected to the assembly—to the Electoral Commission. The commission is an impartial body that can consider such matters afresh and without any hint of political taint or prejudice.

I hope that it is the Government's intention to go down that route. The Minister will doubtless tell me that it is absolutely the Government's intention, but

that does not answer the question of why the Bill is expressed in permissive rather than prescriptive terms. Notwithstanding the huge affection—I choose my words carefully—with which hon. Members hold the present Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, we cannot always be prepared to entrust ourselves to his discretion.

Sometimes, when Ministers tell us that they will definitely do a certain thing, we need to ask them to write that restriction on their freedom of action into legislation. This is just such an example, and I must ask the Minister why he is so reluctant—I assume that he is reluctant; I may be given a pleasant surprise, but the Minister's body language does not inspire me with confidence—to go down that route and to set out the procedure to be followed in the way that most ordinary people would expect it to be set out. If there were an election or referendum and the result were a certain result, people could expect certain things to lead in due course to the establishment of the elected regional assembly, with the names and boundaries of electoral districts, and the number of members as recommended by the Electoral Commission. That seems reasonable and I hope that, if the Minister is not minded to accept this amendment, he will give a very good reason.

Amendment No. 72 seeks to leave out subsection (5) of clause 19. The reasoning behind it follows a theme that we have discussed before. Subsection (5) says:

''A direction given under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction.''

The problem that I have is that things could go on behind closed doors. The Secretary of State could give a direction, realise that the outcome will not be as he wanted, and then revoke the direction, which would, I suspect, prevent the Electoral Commission from publishing any advice that it had drafted and was minded to give to the Secretary of State.

The removal of subsection (5) is consistent with using prescriptive language in subsections (2) and (3). We want the Secretary of State to be required to embark upon this course once he has directed that an elected assembly be established in a region. It logically follows that we do not want him to be able to vary or to revoke that direction in a discretionary way.

If the Secretary of State wants to require or not require, and to vary and revoke things that have been required, why not do so by means of an order? If it were done that way, Parliament would have an opportunity to scrutinise any proposals, including any subsequent proposals to undo those proposals. That would be reasonable. However, it will not be done by means of an order; it will be done by direction. As I understand it, any such direction will not be subject to any scrutiny whatsoever. That is unfortunate.

Reflecting on this issue a few moments ago, a question occurred to me. I will put it to the Minister. The question would not have occurred to me had we not had such extensive discussions earlier on exclusion

of access to the courts. Will a direction given, or not given, by the Secretary of State be subject to judicial review? If a member of the public, an elector, is dissatisfied by the way in which the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion to make, or not to make, a direction, will it be open to that person to challenge the process in the courts? I emphasise the word ''process''. I guess that the answer is yes but I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the point.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

As ever, we have been concise, brief and to the point. The only interpretation of the words in subsection (2),

''The Secretary of State may give the Electoral Commission a direction''

is that the Government are reserving the right not to give a direction. The Secretary of State may or may not give a direction.

Subsection (3) says:

''Such a direction may''—

or may not—

''require the Electoral Commission to give the Secretary of State advice''.

What implication should we draw from the fact that the Government are reserving the right not to instruct the Electoral Commission to undertake the work that this clause is all about—to come up with a new map of the new regional districts, complete with district names and the total number of members to be elected to the regional assembly? The Electoral Commission may not be charged with that work. That is the only implication that one can draw from this clause.

If the Government do not instruct the Electoral Commission to do the work, who else is going to do it? Do the Government want to deal with it in-house? They may take the view that the Electoral Commission's overview of the boundary review was so disadvantageous to the Government that they should take that work away from it and do it themselves. Perhaps they will feel nervous in the run-up to the regional voting and want to ensure that the districts—the mini-constituencies that are to be set up—will give them the maximum advantage. That is the only conclusion that we can draw.

Perhaps when the time comes, the Government will, as most of us fear, have run out of money. Perhaps it will be too expensive to allow the Electoral Commission to do the work and a junior Minister will work out the boundaries as cheaply as possible on the back of a fag packet, if we still have smoking in this country then. Perhaps—hon. Members can tell that I have thought deeply about this—the Government intend not to do the work themselves, but to take it away from the Electoral Commission and give it to someone else, possibly an organisation that had been particularly helpful to the Government—perhaps a firm of lawyers that offered wider services.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

More seriously, is not there a possibility that the Government might choose to give the task to the regional chambers, funding for which is proposed in a later clause of the Bill?

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. The Government reserve to themselves the right to ask any other organisation to draw up a new map in relation to regional assemblies. I assume that the people elected to the regional governments will be called regional assembly members, so that they will be known as RAMs for ever more. I do not know if that is the sort of thing that the Government are looking for.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I would not want to claim credit for the observation, because I think that it originated from the Labour Back Benches, but if the Government ran true to form, they would prefer sheep.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

And possibly the odd poodle.

If the Government do not accept the amendment, we shall want to know why they are reserving to themselves the right to undertake such sensitive and important work. Why are they reserving the right to ask any other organisation to do it?

The Minister must speak; the moment of destiny has come.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

Not quite.

No doubt the Minister will seek to allay our concerns by telling us precisely the Government's intentions. To pre-empt that, I remind hon. Members that in debating the previous group of amendments the Minister prayed in aid the fact that a Conservative Government confirmed the existing boundaries. I warn hon. Members that the Bill may endure for some time. It may be some time before a Secretary of State is persuaded that there is sufficient level of interest in a region such as the south-east to warrant a referendum.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

No.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Is my hon. Friend not astonished that the Minister has, from a sedentary position, said ''No,'' to his comment? Does not that show that all that we are considering is a sham, and that the Government have already made their decision?

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

I must disappoint my hon. Friend. Nothing that the Minister could say would astonish me—nor could anything about the conduct of the Bill, which, as my hon. Friend says, is a sham.

It will take some time before all the provisions of the Bill are implemented. My hon. Friend drew the attention of the Committee to the proper esteem and affection in which the Deputy Prime Minister is held, but he might not endure to take the relevant decisions.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Just for the record, I think that I used the word ''affection'', but not ''esteem''. I chose my words with care.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

I stand corrected. Still, it will take some time for decisions to be taken under the Bill, by which time a quite different Ministry may be responsible. Members of the Committee should be careful about specifying the way in which they think Ministers ought to act. That is the aim of the amendments.

Mr Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough & Whitby, Labour)

I cannot resist saying something about the line that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing. Many campaigners for regional government throughout the country have described the action to

which he refers as the domino effect, in that eventually all the regions will subscribe to regional government. Does he believe that the domino effect will win out?

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

I am not making such a prediction. It may take some time for a region to show sufficient interest to prompt the provisions of the Bill into action. We cannot foresee the outcome of the decision. Were there to be a domino effect, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would take some time for all the dominos to fall.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

We seem to be reaching a stage in our proceedings at which the Opposition are overwhelmed by paranoia and invective. That is curiously inappropriate. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that the amendments were tabled originally with amendment No. 68, which we have already discussed. He may be grateful for your discretion, Mr. Butterfill, given that you ruled that this group of amendments should be taken separately, not dismissed along with amendment No. 68, which we have relegated to the bin.

There is a time in most Committee proceedings when the Opposition may hope to enjoy modest success. I do not wish to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he has clearly misread my body language. He has made my life hard with his outrageous implications and references to Napoleonic instincts, which is how he described my approach. My generosity is tested in such circumstances. Such comments are offensive, given that I represent Greenwich, which has naval associations such as the Royal Naval college, where Nelson's body lay before its burial at St. Paul's cathedral, and I am a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the head of which the hon. Gentleman says is held with great affection. The hon. Member for New Forest, West rightly added that the Deputy Prime Minister was regarded with esteem. My right hon. Friend now presides over the building that used to be the Old Admiralty. We are surrounded in that building by statues and pictures of Nelson, so for us to be accused of Napoleonic tendencies is particularly offensive.

However, I intend to be generous. Amendment No. 69 would make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to give advice under clause 19. It is our policy to seek the advice of the Electoral Commission on such matters in all instances when an elected assembly is to be established. That is the reason for this part of the Bill. Without it, the Electoral Commission would not have the power to give us advice on the matters under clause 19(3).

We put the provision in this Bill, as opposed to the subsequent substantive Bill, to make it possible for the Electoral Commission to prepare its advice while the main substantive Bill is going through Parliament. The precise timing for the first assemblies is uncertain. It may not be necessary or even desirable for the commission to start work on that as soon as it is proposed to establish an assembly. The use of ''may'' will give us more flexibility over when to issue such a direction to the commission, as a duty would require the direction to be made as soon as possible. However,

given that we fully intend to seek the Electoral Commission's advice on electoral areas in all instances where we propose to hold a referendum on elected regional assemblies, we are willing to think about whether we could narrow the discretion and make it obligatory for the Secretary of State to seek the commission's advice on such matters, without there being a potential disadvantage in that, if there were a period of time, we might fall foul of the word ''shall'', which would imply that an immediate response be made when that may not be appropriate. We shall try to achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective, without the possible downside consequences that I have described.

We cannot be quite as friendly towards amendments Nos. 70 and 72. Amendment No. 70 would require the Electoral Commission to give advice on all issues listed in subsection (3). There might be circumstances in which advice on individual issues would be inappropriate. For example, we might instruct the Electoral Commission to adopt the maximum number of 35 members for a large region. It would be foolish to have to instruct the Electoral Commission to advise us on something on which we had already made a decision.

Amendment No. 72 would have a similar effect, for reasons that we discussed in a previous debate and that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge recognised. There might be occasions when it is necessary to give the Electoral Commission more time to make its recommendations. Putting an embargo on the ability to vary any direction would be unduly restrictive.

The hon. Gentleman rightly asked about judicial review. I confirm that the Secretary of State's powers would be constrained by the principles of administrative law and, therefore, would be subject to judicial review. With that assurance and the positive response to amendment No. 69, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I can only imagine that members of the Committee are reflecting on what a close shave our democracy had. My churlishness in likening the Government—not the Minister, I hasten to say—to that of Napoleon nearly changed the course of history and forced the Minister to withdraw his rather less than committed offer to look at the matter again. I am grateful for his offer to examine the degree of discretion that is provided by subsection (2).

I understand that the Minister does not want to be constrained to have a time period that is necessarily within a week or a month. That looks a little like a cover to me. I would have thought that, if we had taken that approach throughout our consideration of the Bill, we would probably find other gaps in the logic. However, if the Minister can find a way that allows the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to advise before the boundaries of the electoral areas are established, that is all that we would require.

The Minister's confirmation of the point on judicial review is very useful to the Committee because it means that the Secretary of State's behaviour will be constrained and his ability to ignore the Electoral Commission's advice, to behave arbitrarily or capriciously in relation to it, or to revoke or to vary in a way that is arbitrary or contrary to good administrative practice would also be constrained.

I am, however, a little curious about what the Minister said about subsection (3) and amendment No. 70. Why does he think that it is acceptable for Ministers to instruct the Electoral Commission about the number of elected members that will be in an assembly? Why does he not think that it would always be preferable for Ministers to hear the Electoral Commission's advice before issuing an instruction? The advice might not change their minds and, frankly, many of us in this Room think that very little would change their minds if they are made up, but it could do no harm to listen to advice. It would give a third party the opportunity to take the judicial review route with evidence of the Electoral Commission's advice.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

My hon. Friend has picked up on an important point. What is the stage of the process at which he anticipates that the Government will make the decisions? Surely they should always take advice. The Minister seems to anticipate a different and secret process.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

One would hope so, but clearly the Government may not always take advice.

In view of what the Minister said helpfully about amendment No. 69 and the confirmation of availability of the judicial review, I shall withdraw the amendment. I look forward to supporting the appropriate Government amendment on Report and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 73, in

clause 19, page 11, line 4, leave out from 'direction' to end of line 5 and insert 'shall specify that so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, the Electoral Commission shall ensure that the number of electors in each electoral district is approximately equal in all regions'.

Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No.71, in

clause 19, page 11, line 5, at end add 'and shall specify how many members of the assembly not directly elected by an electoral area are to be appointed'.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am sure that many members of the Committee will have been anxiously awaiting amendment No. 73, so that we may engage in an important consideration of the matters that it raises.

Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

Order. I am afraid that time has defeated us.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.