Clause 20 - Preparation and submission of evidence
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
5:45 pm

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 74, in

clause 20, page 11, line 11, at end add

'provided such timetable shall not require the submission of their advice by the Electoral Commission within less than twelve months from the date of the direction.'.

The clause deals with the Electoral Commission's response, having been given a direction under clause 19. The amendment, which need not detain us for long, would put a minimum time limit on the requirement for the commission to report back. I do not suggest that the timetable imposed by the Secretary of State would be designed to prevent the commission from doing the job that it has to do, and amendment No. 74 simply suggests that a one-year period should be specified to allow the commission to carry out its electoral district exercise within a region. If the Minister says that a year is far too long, I am prepared to accept that.

I selected a year because the Minister said in previous debates that that is how long it would take, give or take a few months, to carry out the local government review. We want to ensure that the Electoral Commission cannot be required to report within an unreasonably short period. The Bill should contain a requirement for a minimum timetable. If the Minister will not concede that, will he at least give the Committee a commitment on the minimum amount of time that he expects to give the Electoral Commission? Will he give a further commitment to consult it on the appropriate length of time that it will have to report after receiving its instructions?

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

The amendment would mean that the Electoral Commission could not be required under any circumstances to submit its advice given under a direction under clause 19 within less than a year of being given the direction. As I said in earlier debates, we will discuss with the Electoral Commission our proposal for the timetable for its preparation and submission of advice before finalising it. Twelve months is not an unreasonable period, but it would be rather arbitrary to say that it is the minimum requirement in all circumstances. If the Electoral Commission advised us that it could do the work satisfactorily within 10 months, it would be somewhat perverse, to say the least, to have to say, ''Sorry, you've got to twiddle your thumbs for two months before reporting because there is a minimum statutory requirement of 12 months.''

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that the Electoral Commission should not be rushed by an unreasonable timetable, but I hope that we have already given a pretty clear indication that we will consult it closely before determining a timetable. The earlier provisions in the Bill relating to the boundary committee's work on local government reorganisation indicate how we will go about that. In that connection, I said that a period of 12 months would be broadly correct as a timetable. We are now talking about different provisions on electoral arrangements, and I would not necessarily want our commitment on the local government review to be treated as a precedent in that respect. However, having given the undertaking that we will consult the Electoral Commission before finalising our direction, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that is a better and more expeditious arrangement and will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

In general, I am happy with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am a little confused, however, about the distinction between parts of the Bill where there is a requirement to consult the Electoral Commission and other parts where the Minister is effectively giving the same commitment from the Dispatch Box. It would have been better to draft the Bill with a single stipulation, towards the end, that before giving any direction to the Electoral Commission the Minister should consult it and review any advice received from it.

I have a couple more general points to raise with the Minister, but for the convenience of the Committee I shall do so in the clause stand part debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

Clause 20 is largely uncontentious. It deals with the procedures once the Secretary of State has done his work under clause 19.

I shall take the opportunity to raise two issues, one of which the Minister dealt with earlier today, relating to matters that occur throughout the Bill, but which are particularly raised by the clause. I am slightly

concerned about the liberal use of directions in the Bill. It reminds me of other Bills in which regulations or rules are laid down by Ministers and not made by order. Our main concerns obviously relate to accountability and transparency. A direction will clearly not be scrutinised by Parliament at any point, unless, in the most extraordinary circumstances, the Opposition devoted an Opposition Supply day to reviewing a direction that had been made by the Secretary of State, which is not likely to happen in most circumstances.

The Minister said this morning that a direction would be subject to judicial review to allow an interested body to resort to the courts in the case of a direction that had been made, but that is probably not a route that any of us would favour. I wonder why he is not willing to do those things by orders, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Perhaps Ministers are sensitive to the huge acceleration in the number of regulations that are made each year, and are anxious to do as much as possible by directions, which do not count towards the total, rather than by regulations or orders, which do.

Will the Minister at least confirm to the Committee that directions that are made will be published to allow the public, and more specifically Members of Parliament, to be aware that they have been made and that certain balls have been set rolling? Otherwise, it seems possible that the process will be closed and opaque to the outside world with directions being made and, as we have seen in some clauses of the Bill, unmade by ministerial direction. Neither of those processes can be scrutinised from the outside. Such a lack of transparency would be wrong and unhelpful, and I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that all such directions will be made public, perhaps, for example, by being placed in a convenient form in the Library or published on the departmental website. We must have an assurance that the process is not going to go unobserved as well as unchecked and unscrutinised.

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

I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. Although in his slightly paranoid phase the use of directions may appear undesirable, they are attributes of an efficient Government that will allow us to make progress on administrative matters with bodies such as the Electoral Commission. The commission is separate and independent but it works in a framework, which depends on directions from the Government if certain things are to happen. The directions are the necessary framework for achieving the evaluation by the commission of the suitable constituency boundaries for elected regional assemblies, which is why we have put the proposals in that form.

I can confirm that the directions will be made available and that we intend to place them in the House Library. I can confirm, as I did this morning, that the directions will be subject to judicial review to allow those who may be unhappy with them an opportunity to seek one. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the clause is a sensible and practical way of going about things while guaranteeing independent consideration. The

Electoral Commission is a highly respected, truly independent body, and it will want to give careful thought to all such matters. To get it going, a direction from Government is required, which is why we have adopted this approach.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.