Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 76, in

clause 15, page 8, line 45, after '1', insert 'and at least twenty-five per cent. of persons eligible to vote at that referendum voted in favour of the establishment of an elected regional assembly for the region.'.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is urging me that we should make substantial and rapid progress through our remaining business, so I shall attempt to be relatively brief. I am sure that Ministers will seek to do likewise when replying.

The amendment effectively introduces our old friend the hurdle—a threshold test—for any implementation of recommendations following a referendum in a region. In the Bill, the simple fact that a referendum has been held on proposals for an elected assembly is adequate grounds for the Secretary of State to go ahead and implement the boundary committee changes or, as may be the case following subsequent amendments, some variation of them.

The amendment would introduce a requirement that half the people eligible to vote would need to vote in the referendum, and at least half of them would

need to vote yes, before the Secretary of State could proceed. For a significant constitutional change, that does not seem unreasonable. Before the Minister for Local Government and the Regions leaps to his feet and rakes over old coals, I shall say that the amendment takes a different approach to the threshold than that of earlier amendments in my name. That serves to emphasise to any fair-minded members of the Committee that the Opposition, unlike the Government, are prepared to listen to criticism of their reasoning and arguments and, where it has merit, to reconsider.

I have therefore taken on board what the Minister said, which was that the introduction of a threshold for participation only would have the perverse consequence of making an abstention effectively a no vote. After considerable reflection on that with my right hon. and hon. Friends, we have concluded that that is not the right way to proceed and it is not the message that we would like to send. However, we think a threshold important for a major constitutional change.

The amendment attempts to express that threshold as 25 per cent. of persons eligible to vote voting yes. That does not require there to be a 50 per cent. turnout, although one would hope that the turnout would be high. A 26 per cent. turnout would be sufficient if nearly everyone voted yes, which is highly unlikely but theoretically possible.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Why did the hon. Gentleman choose the figure of 25 per cent?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

That is a good question, and I expect it to arise in future debates as well. Some of my hon. Friends, if not those on the Committee, feel that 25 per cent. is too low a hurdle. Some Labour Members will argue that it is too high. When a simple plurality of the votes cast is normally regarded as sufficient to determine the question—

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I will in a moment. I hope that in delaying I will not give some ground that my hon. Friend was about to steer me away from, but I instinctively feel that 25 per cent.—half of one half of the electorate—is a fair and reasonable level at which to pitch the threshold.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

It seems to me a modest figure. It is not entirely dissimilar to the turnout at a run-of-the-mill local election. Under a Labour Government, a 40 per cent. threshold was imposed for a referendum in Scotland.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong in saying that a threshold of 25 per cent. of eligible voters voting yes would have qualified the results of the referendums for both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Many of my hon. Friends would think that we were generous in regarding the outcome of the Welsh referendum as legitimate, because it was by such a narrow majority. The only referendum that

would just have fallen foul of the threshold was the one for the Greater London Assembly, for which some 24.5 per cent. of eligible voters voted yes.

The amendment represents a stab at imposing a reasonable threshold and seeks to draw the Minister on the issue. If he were to say that the Government recognise the need for a threshold—so that there need not be a major constitutional change or a reorganisation of our institutions or system of government in England—but that they are uncomfortable with 25 per cent. and propose another figure, we would be disposed to consider his suggestion carefully. The amendment would not affect the Secretary of State's discretion to implement the elected assembly; it would leave him free to ignore the result of a referendum. However, it would introduce a test, which would be a prerequisite for the introduction of such an assembly.

The introduction of elected regional assemblies, and the referendums themselves, will be a major distraction from the most important single challenge facing local government—the delivery of effective and efficient public services. No part of our nation should embark lightly upon such a change, with all the disruption and cost that it would involve. The endorsement of fewer than a quarter of eligible voters of a radical change to our constitutional arrangements would indicate that it had insufficient support in the country or the region. I urge the Committee to support the introduction, here and elsewhere in the Bill, of a modest threshold to ensure that radical action is not taken without some indication that it enjoys a body of support.

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

As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is almost saying, the amendment would not prevent an elected regional assembly from being brought into existence, even if fewer than 25 per cent. of the electorate voted for it. However, it would prevent the Secretary of State from implementing the boundary committee's recommendations following a review of local government in the region. That is the kind of amendment that I would have expected from the Liberal Democrats, who are keen to have regional assemblies, but not so keen on local government reorganisation.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I cannot let that pass. I have been accused of lots of things in my time and I usually take them in good part. However, I have never been accused of being like a Liberal Democrat; I would go so far as to suggest to the Minister that that is almost unparliamentary language. I am sure that he will be happy to acknowledge that these and other Opposition amendments address not only the implementation of the boundary committee's recommendations, but the programme of elected regional assemblies.

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

The hon. Gentleman is clearly sensitive about the issue, and he will become more sensitive as we proceed. As I shall demonstrate on a subsequent amendment, there is rather disturbing evidence that the Conservative party is keen to get into the Liberal Democrat Valhalla. I do not know what its motivation is; I merely said that the

amendment would not prevent the elected regional assembly from coming into existence.

There is, however, a question about whether there is any justification for a threshold, or a hurdle, as the hon. Gentleman rather interestingly described it. I think that that gave the game away and that the Opposition are looking for obstacles that will prevent elected regional assemblies from coming into existence. The hon. Gentleman conceded that a 25 per cent. threshold would have had that effect in London, although only just. That would have replicated the problem that existed throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s in Scotland, where an artificial threshold prevented the people's desire for a degree of devolution from taking effect. Exactly the same would have happened with a threshold in London. That is the key argument against a threshold.

The other argument against thresholds is that there is no obvious way of deciding at what level to set them, and the Opposition's change of position on the issue illustrates the problem. On Second Reading, they argued that 50 per cent. of people would have to vote and that a majority would have to vote yes. Indeed, they originally tabled an amendment to that effect, although it has now been withdrawn. That may have been in the light of the experience in Serbia, where we have seen the chronic consequences of arbitrary thresholds in the past few days. In the elections for the Serbian presidency, Vojislav Kostunica has twice been frustrated. He won a majority in both elections, but in neither case did 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote do so. Just under half the people voted, but there is no question that they voted for Mr. Kostunica. Sadly, he is unable to take office because of the threshold. That is the consequence of arbitrary thresholds.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The Minister's example is a good one. Serbia is exactly the type of country where serious consequences might ensue if the turnout was, say, 30 per cent., and 15.5 per cent. of the electorate voted for one candidate, who then assumed office claiming a democratic mandate. Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that that might lead to serious problems if it happened in Serbia?

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

I shall resist going too far down that road because I might incur your wrath, Mr. Butterfill. I say only that the absence of leadership and the creation of a vacuum, which are the consequence of a threshold, are serious problems.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

Opposition Members should know.

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

As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Opposition are probably very familiar with that problem.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

Will the Minister concede that such a vacuum and such a lack of leadership would not arise in the United Kingdom, because existing local government structures would provide leadership?

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

I am tempted to respond, but I am mindful of the need to keep to the relevant issues.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is, like me, mindful of the

circumstances that followed the United States presidential election. Fifty per cent. of the population was registered to vote and less than 50 per cent. of the electorate voted for the current President. Does he think that the Opposition feel that the President is not the valid leader of that country?

Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

Order. I would prefer the Minister not to answer that question. We can be tempted into giving all sorts of examples from overseas, but they are not strictly relevant.

Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) rose—

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

I shall give way for the last time.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

The Minister is an expert on Serbia and other issues and he will no doubt be able to help those of us who were only 13 or 14 at the time of the Scottish referendum—unlike the Under-Secretary, who may or may not have started school in the late 1970s. Will he tell those of us who were not eligible to vote why the country chose a 40 per cent. threshold? That would give us some background as to why he is arguing against thresholds.

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

At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr. Butterfill, I will say only that that was a classic example of an ill-thought-out addition to a measure, resulting, as I recall, from Back-Bench amendments. The outcome was an arbitrary figure, the effect of which was to frustrate the wishes of the people of Scotland, despite the best efforts of the hon. Member for New Forest, West, who I gather was at that time stuffing ballot boxes in Scotland and had to make a brief appearance before a sheriff court.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

Stuffing ballot boxes was far from what I was accused of, and I was granted an absolute discharge.

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

I am delighted to learn that on that occasion the hon. Gentleman got away with it, but, in keeping with rehabilitation of offenders legislation, we do not intend to give him the opportunity to try to repeat those activities in England.

Thresholds do not help the process. They can provide a perverse incentive for people not to vote.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am sure that as the Minister was making that statement he realised that it was not applicable to the present case. I withdrew my previous amendment and am taking my present approach because of that issue. We are considering the percentage of the eligible electorate who vote; the number who vote no is irrelevant.

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

If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the matter, he will realise that the case that he is making is not correct. There is quite a lot of evidence that the turnout tends to be higher in elections that are closely contested. In an election that is seen as a foregone conclusion there is often a relatively low turnout. There would, therefore, be a perverse incentive for those opposed to the introduction of elected regional assemblies to make no effort to campaign, in the belief that that would discourage those in favour from turning out, since they would see the election as a foregone conclusion. Perverse consequences of that nature can happen.

The constitution and electoral arrangements in this country have always been based on the simple principle of the majority prevailing. Equally, the Government are committed to trying to increase turnout. We have taken several measures to try to encourage that. I have recently encouraged local authorities to apply to conduct pilots of different voting methods next May, following on from last May's successful pilots. That is all to do with attempts to encourage turnout.

Encouragements to participate, such as the Bill contains, are right; perverse incentives, such as thresholds, which might have the opposite effect, should not be used. I do not believe that a threshold is appropriate, and I certainly do not believe that a perverse threshold that would prevent local government reorganisation from being implemented, while not in any way preventing elected regional assemblies from being introduced, would add anything significant to the Bill. I urge the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the amendment; if he will not, I urge hon. Members to vote against it.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

It is fascinating that even before a Liberal Democrat Member has spoken, the Liberal Democrats have been mentioned half a dozen times. That is obviously a sign of the changing times.

There is something that worries me about the amendment, in view of the fact that the Conservatives seem to think that regional government will inspire such passionate dislike that they should use it as a major local campaigning platform—and as far as we can tell it is their main campaign platform in the run-up to the local elections in Shropshire, at least. If they expect people to recoil from regional assemblies, why are they worried about thresholds? In elections, people who oppose something are often more strongly motivated than people who are in favour. It is easier to motivate people to vote against something. If there is a groundswell of opposition, people will not just decide that they cannot be bothered to vote. People are more likely to stay at home if they think that the result is a foregone conclusion, as the Minister suggested. At the moment, they are likely to think that those elections that come first are more likely to be won. The amendment attempts to put another obstacle in the way of regional government.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Just to get the hon. Gentleman back to the point, if, on a 15 per cent. turnout, 8 per cent. of the electorate voted for a radical change to our constitutional arrangements, would he feel that that was sufficient mandate to carry out such change?

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Ultimately, Parliament would decide whether to go ahead with such a change. The referendum will not be the deciding factor. It will be an indicative referendum. If there were such worryingly low turnouts, I am sure that the matter would be raised in the House on any vote to set up a regional assembly, because the Bill does not set up regional assemblies.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this is a fudge. He is right, the matter would ultimately come back to Parliament—and, at least for the moment, he is a Member of that Parliament, so perhaps he would tell us how he would vote on the issue. If the turnout for a referendum were 15 per cent., and if just over half of those who voted supported the establishment of a regional assembly, would he feel constrained to vote against the proposal on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of a mandate?

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

Yes or no.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

We should not start discussing hypothetical votes.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

He got there in the end.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

No, I would be very worried if the turnout were as low as that. I shall not go blindly down the local government route because I have strong concerns about the form that it may take in my area, as we have discussed. However, I shall not test the Committee's patience over Shropshire matters. As it is debatable whether I would be able to play a big part, if any, in a yes campaign in the west midlands, it is dangerous to assume that I would vote one way or another in future as a result of the Bill.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Why is it debatable whether the hon. Gentleman could play a large part in a yes campaign? Is it because he thinks that it might damage his chances electorally to do so? If so, is that not just about the most cynical statement that the Committee has heard?

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

No. I do not know what effect it would have electorally, but I have grave concerns, which I have raised before, about Shropshire being part of the west midlands. I would prefer it to become part of a different sort of regional makeup. With those concerns, I may not be in a position to support a yes campaign. I would have thought that that was clear. It is as clear as I can make it, but perhaps it is not clear enough for the hon. Gentleman.

To return to the amendment, there are hurdles enough in the way of regional government without creating yet another one, as Conservative Members are trying to do. Let us debate the results of the referendums first, rather than setting some artificial level. Let us leave the provision as it is without introducing any fresh obstacles.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the campaign against regional assemblies will be the main plank of the Conservative party's campaign in next year's local elections, and if the Liberal Democrats are building their strategy on that basis, I suggest that he should scuttle around to Cowley street as soon as the Committee adjourns and warn them that it is not. The main plank of our campaign in my area and many others will be the imminent collapse of our public services, due to the Government's chronic underfunding.

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

Is that why, in the expectation of the consequences of that campaign, Conservative central office was yesterday briefing that it expected to make no gains at all—[Interruption.]

Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

Order. I would prefer it if we did not continue down that route.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The Minister is in mischievous mood, since he understands perfectly well what was said.

Let us turn to the Minister's speech in response to the amendment. You have chaired Committees on which I have served, Mr. Butterfill, and, as you know, I have always been delighted to while away many a happy hour of the evening discussing semantics. On thresholds and hurdles, I invite the Minister to consider the fact that a hurdle to a mouse may be a mere threshold to a lion. I would suggest that there is nothing particularly significant in my choice of words in that respect.

The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the obvious fact that an advisory referendum is not an election. The examples that he used of the perils—as he sees them—of thresholds or hurdles were all drawn from elections. The Secretary of State will use the referendum in deciding how to proceed, as will Parliament ultimately, as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said. One test that the Government themselves have introduced in clause 1 is the test of the level of interest, which is that there should not be referendums on the creation of regional assemblies where there is no significant, or a low level of, public interest. We have consistently invited the right hon. Gentleman to put some objectivity into those tests.

We should try to move away from the posturing that inevitably takes place in Committee proceedings. I would have been delighted if the right hon. Gentleman had said—as I think he very nearly said previously—that there would be a requirement for a significant measure of participation. We do not yet know whether that is 25, 35 or 45 per cent. However, I take it as read and understood on all sides that Ministers would not be minded to proceed to the creation of elected regional assemblies if total turnout was perhaps 25 per cent. and just over half voted yes.

During further proceedings on the Bill, in particular on the Floor of the House tomorrow, the Conservative party will address the issue again and get some clarity from the Minister as to what level of public support is required to undertake a major change in our constitutional arrangements. I submit that it is entirely reasonable and proper to require that there be significant public support. We can debate all day what significant means in this context; however, I would like to hear the Minister acknowledge that there must be significant support.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Are you not in danger of making an assumption about the view of people who do not vote? You are talking about significant levels of public support—

Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

Order. I am not in danger of anything—I hope.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I am sorry, Mr. Butterfill. I should have framed my intervention differently.

The spokesman for the Conservative party is in danger of making an assumption about whether people who do not vote support something. The assumption that runs throughout his comments is that if people do not vote yes, they do not support the proposals. The reasons why people do not vote are many and varied, though it is worrying to assume that it is because they do not support the proposals.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

On the contrary. The objection that the hon. Gentleman raised is the objection that the Minister raised in earlier debate on my previous approach, which was about the threshold for participation. Upon reflection, I agree with the Minister that such an approach will have an unfortunate perverse outcome that we want to avoid, so I disagree with what the hon. Member for Ludlow said. If we are to have a significant change to our constitutional arrangements, we would expect that a certain proportion of the population had expressed support for that change. It would be absurd radically to change our constitutional arrangements if only 1 per cent. of the electorate voted and just over half of those electors said yes. The answer must be no to such a change. Public concern about, and support for, the proposal must be tested.

However, I shall not detain the Committee with such an argument primarily because, as the Minister said, the threshold test—the implementation of the boundary committee review—will be introduced in a subsidiary part of the Bill. It is appropriate to have a more lengthy debate about substantive issues under clause 1 tomorrow on the Floor of the House. 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. 59, in

clause 15, page 9, line 3, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

With this we will take the following:

Amendment No. 60, in

clause 15, page 9, line 3, leave out 'all or any of'.

Amendment No. 62, in

clause 15, page 9, line 6, leave out paragraph (3).

Amendment No. 67, in

clause 15, page 9, line 7, at end insert—

'(3A) Under subsection 3 above the only modification which the Secretary of State may make is the retention of existing local authority structures.'.

Amendment No. 63, in

clause 15, page 9, line 20, leave out paragraph (6).

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The amendments bring us back to our old friends ''may'' and ''shall''. In some Committees on which I have served, I have suffered the ignominious fate of having all my proposals concerning ''may'' and ''shall'' grouped into only one group of amendments, so that we are forced to debate the issue only once at the beginning of our proceedings. However, I am glad that we can now debate each clause separately and discuss the importance or otherwise of giving the Secretary of State such discretion.

I am considering debating amendment No. 59 in light of the amendment that I have just withdrawn. It would delete ''may'' and introduce ''shall'', so that if there is a certain outcome of the referendum and the Secretary of State goes ahead with his elected regional assembly establishment, he ''shall'' give effect to the boundary committee plans. Amendment No. 60 would remove

''all or any of the recommendations''

from subsection (2). It is important to bear in mind that the boundary committee is making a recommendation to the Government, something of which they have made a great play. Such a recommendation will be in the public domain and will inform the electors before they put their cross on the referendum ballot paper.

It is absurd to go to all that effort and expense and—dare I say it to the Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman who would abhor it—delay in arriving at the referendum only to have boundary committee recommendations that the Secretary of State may or may not give effect to, with or without modifications, all or any of its recommendations. That says to the elector that money has been spent, a delay has been caused, the Government have received the boundary committee's recommendation, but that the electors can deduce nothing about what may follow from such action if there were a yes vote in the referendum.

Amendment No. 62 also attacks the words ''with or without modifications'' under subsection (3). I must not get ahead of myself, but I shall explain the position if the three amendments were accepted. If a referendum has been held and the Secretary of State has decided to establish an elected regional assembly, he shall give an order to put into effect all of the boundary committee's recommendations without modification. If we are to have objective, impartial bodies making such recommendations, it is essential that they are implemented in toto. If the boundary committee's recommendations have been explicitly placed before the electors as a guide to their behaviour in the referendum ballot, it would be inappropriate, verging on electorally fraudulent, to tamper with those recommendations thereafter.

Amendment No. 67 is in the name of the Liberal Democrats. I am in a charitable mood this morning. I have written that the amendment is a wonderful example of how the Liberal Democrats ''fudge'', but will use a different expression. The amendment is a wonderful example of how they seek to balance all sides of every argument. They agree that the Secretary of State should not have unlimited power to meddle with the boundary committee's recommendations, but they are prepared to allow him to interfere with them if his interference is in the direction that the Liberal Democrats favour—in that of the retention of existing local authority structures.

Matthew Green rose—

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to speak to his amendment, and no doubt he

will then explain the logic behind it. [Interruption.] Well, he may do.

Amendment No. 63 would leave out subsection (6). We have seen such subsections elsewhere in the Bill, but subsection (6) would allow a really bizarre arrangement. I am a relative newcomer to the House—I have been here only five and a half years—but I do not recall that legislation generally provides that if a Secretary of State believes that there has been a mistake in an order and cannot put it right in another order, he can do anything he likes to cover up the mistake. That is what subsection (6) comes down to. That does not seem appropriate.

If the issue is one of mistakes in directions, the solution is clear: make the directions by order. Then, they can be scrutinised by Parliament, and there would be a chance that members of the scrutiny Committee involved would spot the mistake, and that the Government would avoid getting a great plateful of egg on their face. If a mistake were made none the less, a further order under the procedures of the House could deal with the matter. I fail to see the necessity or desirability of subsection (6), and I wait with interest to hear how the Minister defends it.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I shall skirt around the Conservative amendments for the moment. Amendment No. 67, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), would do just one thing, and I shall explain that particularly for the benefit of the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State is, in effect, limited either to accepting or rejecting the boundary committee's recommendations. It prevents him from tinkering with and changing suggested boundaries or council organisations for political purposes, for example.

There is a bit of history of which I am sure that the Conservatives are not too proud. I shall remind them of it, because it is one reason why we tabled the amendment. During the previous local government review, the then boundary commission made a number of recommendations. In the case of Shropshire—the one that I know best—it recommended that the two-tier structure be kept, because the overwhelming public response to its consultation had been that the public wanted two-tier government. The matter went back to central Government and the Minister responsible said, ''I am not having this. Whatever happens, there must be a unitary authority for Telford. Go back and make sure that you return with a recommendation that includes a unitary authority for Telford.'' The result was that the boundary commission had no choice but to introduce what was the worst of all worlds—a unitary authority for Telford was established leaving an unsupportable two-tier government for the rest of Shropshire. We now seek a unitary authority for the rest of Shropshire. The process was meddled with.

The Conservatives should be broadly in agreement with what our amendment seeks to do, which is to limit the powers of the Secretary of State to say, ''Yes, we accept what the boundary committee has done'', or

''No, you need to start all over again with a clean sheet of paper.''

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

If that is what the hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks to achieve, it is redundant. As drafted, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power either to make an order that gives effect or not. That has the outcome that he recommends. The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the problem of voters being induced into a pattern of behaviour at the referendum by having already seen the boundary committee report. The Government are adamant that that must be in place before the referendum is held, which will cause delay and expense. It will be meaningless at best and misleading at worst if it is then not implemented following a yes vote.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I agree. I would prefer to see much more information, especially details of the powers involved, before we go ahead with a referendum. My amendment would not be redundant. The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill already allows for what my amendment seeks to do, but the Bill allows for modifications. My amendment would prevent the Minister from making modifications. Our view is broadly in line with other Conservative amendments on the issue, although amendment Nos. 62 and 67 would clash for obvious reasons. I do not wish to take up much more of the Committee's time. I have explained our point of view and why we seek limitations on the Minister's powers.

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

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge began by expressing pleasure that his various ''mays'' and ''shalls'' have not all been grouped together. I am pleased to tell him that we will have further opportunities later this morning to discuss those. Who knows what pleasure that may bring to the hon. Gentleman?

For the moment, let us concentrate on this group of amendments. Clause 15 provides for the implementation by the Government of the recommendations of the boundary committee and for the Government to use discretion in the implementation process. Subsection (2) allows for discretion in the making of an order. It provides that an order be made to give effect to recommendations.

Why do we want discretion in making the orders? The answer is simple. The Government may decide that the recommendations of the boundary committee are not appropriate. The Secretary of State may receive representations and need to give them full consideration. It is the Secretary of State's responsibility to implement proposals and his decision to make the order. He must have the ability to react to representations and give them full consideration. It may lead to making modifications to the recommendations or, if necessary, rejecting them. By seeking to remove that ability, hon. Members are denying the Government the opportunity fully to consider the recommendations in light of circumstances and to react to or reflect representations that may be received.

The hon. Gentleman made a fair point when he said that the amendment could result in the electorate being

misled if the Government held a referendum on the basis of the boundary committee's recommendations and then implemented different proposals. We have anticipated that. In paragraph 9.10 of the White Paper we made it clear that the Government would consider the committee's recommendations and, if necessary, ask it for further advice on specific points before the referendum is held.

The Government would then set the date of the referendum and subsequently publish a short definitive statement of its proposals. Should the Government decide to make amendments or modifications to the boundary committee's proposals, there is provision for the statement to be made available to the public so that people will be aware of it when they come to vote.

Similarly, in his amendments, the hon. Gentleman would remove the ability to implement ''all or any of'' the boundary committee's recommendations. That would remove the Government's discretion and would place a duty to implement all or none of the recommendations. The argument for the inclusion of the provision is the same as for the previous amendment. The Government may decide that, although some recommendations are appropriate, others are not and it is sensible to allow a degree of discretion. The amendment that would remove subsection (3) entirely would remove the Government's ability to make modifications to the recommendations of the boundary committee, if necessary. Although the boundary committee is responsible for undertaking reviews and making recommendations, the Secretary of State is responsible for implementing any recommendations. Given that responsibility, it is only right that there is a provision to exercise discretion over implementation and to make modifications, if that is appropriate.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

Given that there would have been consultation by the boundary committee, will the Minister give us an idea of the modification that might be required?

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

The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. The boundary committee will consult when developing its recommendations. It will publish its recommendations, and the Government may well receive representations on aspects of those. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that boundary issues are often controversial and there might well be an argument that a specific parish should move from one unitary authority to another and that it would be inappropriate for a parish to be part of a specific unitary authority. That would represent a relatively small change but the relevant group of people might overwhelmingly support it. If the Secretary of State were debarred from any opportunity to consider that, there would be a question about natural justice, even if the boundary committee had consulted at an earlier stage.

We believe that the provision is necessary. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt realise—I am sure that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has already sussed this—that it is well precedented because it is exactly in line with the provisions in the now familiar 1992 Act that the Conservative Government

introduced to set a framework for making such arrangements.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The situation is not comparable. My objection is about the potential to mislead electors. I accept that the Minister has addressed that and I shall return to it in a moment. However, it is slightly disingenuous for the right hon. Gentleman to cite the 1992 Act as a proof for his case.

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

I was responding to the intervention of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), who asked for examples of modifications that might be appropriate. I said that the provision for making modifications was precedented by the 1992 Act, so my comments were not inappropriate.

Subsection (6) allows for mistakes in an order to be rectified, if that is necessary. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to give effect by order to all or any recommendations of the boundary committee either with or without modifications. The Bill does not provide for general order-making powers that can be exercised at will. Subsection (6) sensibly provides for errors to be rectified. The inclusion of the provision closely follows the tried and tested provisions of the 1992 Act, which contains the same power to rectify by order if necessary. The provision was deemed suitable and appropriate then and it is suitable and appropriate now.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Is the Minister saying that it would not be possible for an order made under the clause to contain a provision that any mistake in it could be corrected by a subsequent order? In other words, could the process be self-contained in the originating order?

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

There is a technical issue. If I develop my speech, the hon. Gentleman will probably understand why the provision is necessary.

The power in subsection (2) can be used only to implement a recommendation of the boundary committee. Once implemented, with or without modifications, the power is exhausted. It could not be used again to correct mistakes because such an order, legally, would not be for the purpose of implementing the recommendations. If it were necessary to correct a mistake in an implementation order, we would need to use the separate power in subsection (6).

I shall give a few examples of such errors. There were small map reference errors in the Buckinghamshire order and there was a typographical error in the Bedfordshire order. I shall not tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge the Government under which the errors were made—I will keep him guessing—but he will understand that such minor errors should be easily corrected and that the provision in the Bill to allow that is sensible.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am grateful but I do not think that the Minister answered my question. Is there a general principle that would prevent the originating order from including a provision allowing mistakes to be rectified by a subsequent order? It would seem to be

logical to deal with the matter in that internally contained way, rather than have a provision for that in primary legislation.

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

I thought that I had already made the point that once the order has been made the power is exhausted, because that can be used only to implement recommendations.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Does the Minister say that an order cannot create a further order-making power?

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

This takes us into arcane areas of legislative provision on which I would certainly need more detailed guidance before giving the hon. Gentleman a full response. I will write to him about that matter. The provision is clearly sensible and I have explained that it allows for minor adjustments. I hope that he will, on reflection, agree that it is sensible.

I am told that a statutory instrument could not sub-delegate to make further provision, without that being sanctioned by Parliament. To make relatively minor adjustments, such as correcting a reference to maps or a typographical error in the Buckinghamshire order, would involve a complex parliamentary process. That would seem to be stretching Parliament's patience to the limit.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I do not want to pursue the matter too far, because I am sure that we can continue this fascinating discussion in correspondence. However, to say that there would need to be further parliamentary sanction to approve an order that would create the further order-making power seems to be a statement of the blindingly obvious. I do not suggest that an order should give the Secretary of State the power to alter or amend that without referring back to Parliament. I am not aware that the creation of a further order-making power in the order could be prevented. That would, of course, be subject to the usual scrutiny processes relating to the presentation of such a second statutory instrument. I look forward, in due course, to reading the full answer in correspondence.

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

I have already undertaken to write to the hon. Gentleman. On reflection, he might think that to go through the whole parliamentary procedure to amend one typographical error in one order would cause too much strain. The powers are clearly sensible and I hope, therefore, that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

It is easy for Ministers to present such catch-all clauses as terribly benign, saying, ''There's no need to worry, it's technical stuff. Don't trouble yourself.'' The Minister has, in his last sentence, made things worse. I was under the impression that typographical errors, such as those that are made when Bills are printed, are routinely corrected in legislation without the need for any further formal proceedings. [Interruption.] The Minister says that an order is different, but I would be astonished if I could go through all the orders that his Department has produced during the past few years without finding a single typographical error. I am prepared to make a small bet with him about that.

Let us return to the substance of the debate. The Minister has addressed my principal concern. He said that the White Paper makes it clear that if the Government were not going to implement the boundary committee report in full, they would ensure that, prior to the referendum, the electors were aware of that and of the details of proposed modifications. That is exactly what I am seeking. My problem is that I cannot see that anywhere in the Bill. I do, however, see a statement in the form of a preamble to the question on the ballot paper, which is to be presented to electors. That says, rather blandly:

''it is also intended that local government should be reorganised into a single tier.''

I would like to see some commitment in the Bill that a precise statement would be made available in a form that is accessible to electors. That would give proper effect to what the Minister has said.

My helpful amendment to clause 2 would ensure that a simple table were included, without the gobbledegook that is written here about single tiers and so on, which people do not understand, showing on the right the proposed new authorities and on the left the constituent parts of the existing districts that would be included within them. Every elector of reasonable competence would therefore be able to understand what was proposed for the place in which he lived. If the Minister were able to give that suggestion, or a similar one, a fair wind when we debate this issue tomorrow, he would neatly deal with all the issues that have been raised during this debate.

I am afraid that, when the Minister asserts that the White Paper says that something will or will not happen, that just does not cut it. Ministers have become rather fond—especially during debates on this issue—of quoting White Papers as if they were enactments. That probably underlines the fact that a large parliamentary majority induces arrogance and an assumption that any legislation can be driven through Parliament. The assumption that Government Lobby fodder will always oblige may be valid at present, but it will not always be so. As the splits within the Labour party open up and the two separate factions become increasingly embattled, with the Chancellor's faction becoming increasingly emboldened, it will become—

Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little wide of the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I will ask the Committee for leave to withdraw this amendment now, but I will address the Minister again on this specific point when we debate amendments to clause 2 tomorrow. I hope that the Minister will come to that debate with the generosity of spirit that I want to believe is in him but of which I have seen precious little evidence so far in his responses to my amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.