Clause 26 - Regions
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
8:55 am
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
It is a pleasure to be back in these surroundings after the somewhat unfamiliar experience of debating the Bill on the Floor of the House yesterday. I am glad that we have reached clause 26 and amendment No. 89. It is a paving amendment for new clause 3, which goes to the heart of the question of the regional boundaries.
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions has made his position clear: he is not prepared to engage in any discussion about the wisdom or otherwise of the boundaries that have
been chosen for these purposes: the boundaries of the regional development agencies. He resorts, rather scurrilously, to the accusation that the previous Conservative Government put those boundaries in place and he then retreats behind his reinforced concrete wall as if that makes them unchallengeable. However, those boundaries were put in place for a completely different purpose.
One conclusion that we can draw from the debates on the Floor of the House last night is that many colleagues on both sides of the House are greatly interested in what the appropriate boundaries for regions should be for elected assembly purposes. The size of regions and the need to create an identity in a region that makes it a real entity for the people who live in it were discussed.
The Minister tried to make great play of the conflict between the two criteria laid down in new clause 3(1)(c)—the desirability of regions being of approximately equal size and the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities—as if that were a fatal flaw in the structure of the new clause. However, it is no different from the requirements in clause 13, on the local government review, to have regard to certain matters.
Under new clause 3, the Electoral Commission would be required to have regard to the desirability of approximate equivalence of size and the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. Clearly, it would not be possible to meet both requirements all the time, but in dealing with one of the two criteria, the commission would be constrained by the need to have regard to the other. I hope that out of that tension for an expert and independent body such as the Electoral Commission would come a sensible compromise.