Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

– in a Public Bill Committee at on 3 December 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

[Mr. John Butterfill in the Chair]

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government) 10:30, 3 December 2002

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill (except Clauses Nos. 1 to 4) the Standing Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at five minutes to Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock, except that the Committee shall not meet on Thursday 5th December 2002;

(2) 10 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(3) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely—

Clauses 5 to 15, the Schedule, Clauses 16 to 18, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 19 to 22, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 3, Clauses 23 to 29, and Remaining New Clauses and New Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill,

(4) the Committee shall report the Bill (except Clauses Nos. 1 to 4) to the House not later than Thursday 19th December 2002.

We propose to meet twice daily on Tuesdays and Thursdays, except for Thursday 5 December when, as members of the Committee know, the Government will be making a statement on the local government formula grant review. It is the view of all parties that they want to concentrate on that important, but extremely complex issue.

May I say what a pleasure it is to be in Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Butterfill? It is not something that I have enjoyed previously, but I have heard positive reports about you from my colleagues and others who have experienced your firm and fair chairmanship of other Committees. I am mindful that we owe you a debt, Mr. Butterfill, not only for your chairmanship of our proceedings, but for looking after our pensions. Those of us who may be approaching retirement age are particularly mindful of your assiduous care of such matters.

The Bill paves the way for referendums on whether elected regional assemblies should be established in the English regions outside London. Part 1 provides for the Government to cause referendums to be held on whether a region should have an elected assembly. It sets out the question to be asked and defines those who are eligible to vote. Part 2 provides for local government reviews to be conducted by the boundary committee for England before referendums are held. Part 3 provides for the Government to require the Electoral Commission to give them advice on the electoral areas for an elected regional assembly where the Government propose to establish one. Part 4 provides the power for the Government to pay grants to the voluntary regional chambers or assemblies, as they are often called.

The Bill will provide for the first time for regions to be given a distinct political voice and to have a real say over the decisions that matter to them. It is therefore an extremely important contribution towards the wider constitutional agenda of devolution and decentralisation to which the Government are committed. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have made clear that elected assemblies will take functions predominantly from Whitehall and its agencies, not from local authorities. In doing so, they will introduce a regional level of democracy as well as reduce bureaucracy. They can give regions the responsibility to take greater control over regional issues such as economic development and regeneration, planning, housing, transport, health, culture and the environment—important issues that are best tackled at a regional level. Such logic has lain behind our White Paper and the proposals that underpin the Bill.

I am sure that we will have energetic, detailed and, I hope, good-natured debates in Committee. The issues involved do not unite all parties. The official Opposition are opposed in principle to our devolution proposals. However, they were opposed to our proposals for devolution for Scotland, Wales and, indeed, London. Having initially opposed them and voted against them, Conservative Members then reflected on the matter, saw the good sense in what we were doing and changed their minds. I wager that a similar pattern will emerge under the proposals that we are about to discuss. We will hear much protest and opposition to the Bill in Committee, but after it is enacted, referendums are held and elected regional assemblies come into being—

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

For the elucidation of the Committee, is the Minister predicting that all regions will eventually choose to have elected regional assemblies?

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

I am happy to reply that that is a matter of choice. We do not predict; we only make available the option. Rightly, it will be for the people of each region to decide. The people for whom the Bill provides should decide the matter.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I reiterate that the matter is one of choice and people in the regions will determine the outcome. The Government are clearly committed to devolution. That is our position. We have set out the options and I am confident that many regions will choose to adopt regional assemblies.

I do not hide from the fact that there is not much enthusiasm for devolution in some regions, however, which is why we are providing a permissive framework that will allow the option. It is not the Government's job to tell individual regions what to do. We will give them the choice and I expect some to take that choice because it is an attractive proposition. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his party support the principle.

Photo of Desmond Swayne Desmond Swayne Opposition Whip (Commons)

Given that the referendums in the Bill are only advisory, the Minister's preference is important.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

As I have already said, we believe in choice and devolution: giving the people within a region the opportunity to have the potential, huge and advantageous freedom of being able to determine matters that are important to that region. It is ultimately for the regions to decide, which is what the Bill provides for.

Photo of Edward Davey Edward Davey Shadow Spokesperson (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), Shadow Minister (Olympics and London), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Olympics and London), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

Imagine that the referendum decision went 50:50—exactly the same numbers voted yes and no and the Minister had to decide the outcome one way or another. In that hypothetical situation, which way would the Minister vote?

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but it is only too typical of his party that he should devise such a fanciful scenario to test my commitment.

Photo of Mr Lawrie Quinn Mr Lawrie Quinn Labour, Scarborough and Whitby

Talking of hypothetical propositions, is the Minister aware that the Leader of the Opposition recently appeared in a northern television studio, in Newcastle, and said that when he was Prime Minister he would reverse legislation on devolution? Does that not stand in stark contrast to the idea of choice for the regions? Is the proposition that the Opposition leader will be Prime Minister indeed hypothetical?

Photo of John Butterfill John Butterfill Conservative, Bournemouth West

Order. I am prepared to allow a little latitude and something of a Second Reading debate at this early stage, but I remind hon. Members that we are supposed to be considering the programme resolution.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. After a brief reference to my hon. Friend's intervention, I will return, quite properly, to the programme resolution.

The official Opposition opposed our policy on devolution for Scotland, Wales and London and then reversed their position. Of course, it was the previous leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) who gave those pledges about reversing the Government's commitments on devolution for other areas. In my estimation, he will see his successor—whoever that may be—make a similar U-turn on devolution for the English regions.

As far as Liberal Democrat opposition is concerned, they support the principles of regional devolution, which we welcome. However, they will no doubt claim that we should go further and faster. We look forward to hearing their debates, but I suspect that they will reveal all too clearly the characteristics of a party that has not held national office for 80 years and is strong in ideas but not necessarily in experience.

In the course of our discussions, there will be scope for thorough scrutiny of the Bill. We have provided for 10 sittings, which will allow more than sufficient time to examine the detail of the important provisions. At the same time, there are arrangements for an expeditious report.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

Will the Minister concede that the really important provisions of the Bill are the ones to

be taken on the Floor of the House? This Committee is therefore something of an artificial entity. It will consider the detail of the Bill before the principles have been considered.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point: it is slightly odd for the Committee to start its scrutiny on clause 5. However, that reflects both the timetable of business in the Chamber and the importance of clauses 1 to 4. Those clauses set out the constitutional issues that should rightly be considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. Having said that, I do not agree that the items that we will consider in the next 10 sittings of this Committee are in any way unworthy. They are detailed provisions that will have a considerable impact on the way in which referendums are held and in which people can express their views in the regions. It is right that those provisions should be scrutinised thoroughly and fairly. I look forward to that process.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

I, too, am delighted to have the opportunity, once again, of serving on a Standing Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Butterfill, and that of Mr. Benton. I know that we will have a firm but fair guiding hand throughout our proceedings.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to face the Minister for Local Government and the Regions in a Standing Committee. The Minister will not remember this, but the first Standing Committee on which I sat was one in which the Minister was at the Dispatch Box. I am especially impressed by the Minister's innovation in the shape of the mobile Dispatch Box that he has brought with him to aid him in his deliberations.

For that Standing Committee, which took place about a month after I was first elected to the House, I consulted one of my senior colleagues on what was expected of a Back Bencher. The senior colleague, who shall remain nameless but who was fresh from 18 years in government, said that all a Back Bencher does is turn up and shut up. I duly arrived at the Committee, only to be told by the Opposition Whip that I was expected to provide 20 minutes' worth on the first group of amendments. The Minister will not remember this, but—rather cruelly, given my naivety—he scored quite a put-down on me. I have never had the opportunity to meet him in Committee again. Five and a half years later, I await my chance.

That occasion was a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Standing Committee and the Minister has remained a remarkably fixed star in what might be described as a shifting firmament. I am delighted that he is able to contribute to this Committee today.

We voted against the sittings motion at the end of the Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House but I concede that the Government—unusually, in my experience—has provided enough time for consideration of what is quite a short Bill. Our objection to the sittings motion was the split of time between those items to be considered on the Floor of the House and those to be considered in Standing

Committee. The Government's original proposal, through the usual channels, was that clauses 1 to 8 should be considered on the Floor of the House. There is a strong argument for considering all of part 1 on the Floor of the House, as it deals with constitutional issues. The Minister rightly acknowledged the importance of considering matters of first-order constitutional significance on the Floor of the House. However, the Government made it clear that they were prepared to allow only one day for consideration on the Floor of the House. In the Opposition's view, one day was inadequate properly to consider clauses 1 to 8 and certainly inadequate to consider the whole of part 1. A rather sub-optimal agreement has been reached, allowing us to consider only clauses 1 to 4 on the Floor of the House. That undermines the principle of considering constitutional issues on the Floor of the House and less important issues in Standing Committee.

I am disappointed that we were not able to have two full days in the House during which we might have considered all the issues of constitutional significance. We will have to do our best in Committee to consider such issues in the latter part of part 1 of the Bill. We are suffering from a handicap, because the Committee will discuss matters that flow from clauses 1 to 4. While we may predict that the Government will carry the day on those clauses and that they will resist all amendments, we will, of course, be working somewhat in the dark. It is unusual to have to deal with clauses that give the pith to the Bill after we have dealt with the rest.

That also presents a practical challenge in terms of the Committee's deliberations, Mr. Butterfill, on which you ruled informally during the relevant sittings of the Programming Sub-Committee. Some of the amendments that will be tabled will effectively be consequential on substantive amendments that will not be considered until the Bill is discussed in the House on 18 December. I suspect that we will have to digress from the strict remit of the Committee into some of the areas that will be covered by amendments tabled in the House. No doubt, Mr. Butterfill, you will rule on the matter as it arises.

Photo of John Butterfill John Butterfill Conservative, Bournemouth West 10:45, 3 December 2002

Order. I shall, of course, consider each case on its merit at the time.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. It is an innovation for a Committee to have to work in such a way. Finance Bill Committees are, of course, familiar with that way of working, but the crossover is less evident here. It will be a testing challenge for the Chairman and Committee members to have proper, constructive debates, in which the substantive issues are considered, without straying from the rules of order.

I shall, if I may, Mr. Butterfill, step back for just a moment to consider the principle of the establishment of elected regional assemblies, which the Minister mentioned. As he said, the Opposition are opposed to the Government's proposal for the establishment of

elected regional assemblies. We do not think that that addresses what I might call the English question and it does not provide a solution for all the English regions. The Government's proposal masquerades as an all-England solution. There is, however, a widespread consensus that it meets the concerns of some regions, but not the issues that need to be addressed in others in the wake of the national devolution settlements and the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

The Opposition recognise the genuine aspirations, particularly of those regions that are furthest away from London, for some counterweight to what is regarded as a London-centred system of government. I would not, however, like the Minister to paint us as people who sit in the Westminster village with no sense of the concerns that are felt in the north-east, in particular, about the distance of the existing Governmental structure. No doubt, I will also be told about such concerns in the south-west. We have doubts about what is being proposed, about its effectiveness and about many of the specific claims that are made by the Government.

Photo of Kevan Jones Kevan Jones Labour, North Durham

If the hon. Gentleman says that the Bill meets the requirements of certain regions, will he name them? Is the north-east one of those regions? If it is, does he disagree fundamentally with the position that was taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is vehemently opposed to a regional assembly for the north-east?

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

It appears that there is a body of opinion in the north-east region that is in favour of regional assemblies—it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I am not at this stage going to predict the outcome of a referendum. During our preparations for dealing with the Bill we have had input from people from the north-east that suggests that the level of support for an elected regional assembly in accordance with the model that is proposed by the Government has been exaggerated.

Several hon. Members rose—

Photo of John Butterfill John Butterfill Conservative, Bournemouth West

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will not be tempted into detailing a catalogue of which regions may or may not be enthusiastic. That is not in accordance with what we are debating.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

That is absolutely right. If the Bill is passed in its current form, we will ultimately see the mood in different regions.

Photo of Edward Davey Edward Davey Shadow Spokesperson (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), Shadow Minister (Olympics and London), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Olympics and London), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

The hon. Gentleman said that his party recognises that there are various aspirations in several regions. Will he tell the Committee how his party intends to respond to those aspirations? Does he intend to give the Committee an alternative approach to the approach that lies behind the Bill?

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

I suspect that you, Mr. Butterfill, would not encourage me to set out an Opposition policy for the substantive reorganisation of local government to provide genuine community government throughout England following the devolution settlement with Scotland and Wales.

One of the Government's principle claims on the proposed regional assembly system is that it would encourage economic development of the regions and create a better balanced economy in England. We think that that case is unproven. The Government have not produced evidence that the creation of an additional tier of elected government, with the additional bureaucracy that would go with it, would drive economic growth in the regions. My intuition is that more government and more bureaucracy seldom demonstrate the ability to fuel economic growth. I am not alone in holding that view. The Deputy Prime Minister

Photo of John Butterfill John Butterfill Conservative, Bournemouth West

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that consideration of this motion must finish by 11 o'clock? Other hon. Members might wish to speak so we do not have a great deal of time. I hope that he will not be tempted to go too far down the road on which he has embarked.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. I had not realised that the debate was time limited.

On 20 November, the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that one of my hon. Friends

''must have been asleep for months, during which time the CBI and other representatives of industry have made it clear that they are supportive of the proposals.''—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 630.]

I hope that the Minister will clarify that because it was a gross misrepresentation of the Confederation of British Industry's position. The CBI's director general set out its position more appropriately when he spoke at the Labour party conference. He said:

''we don't think that elected Regional Assemblies are going to offer the solution to this problem. We don't believe''—

Photo of John Butterfill John Butterfill Conservative, Bournemouth West

Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are going very wide of the motion. I have been tolerant so far, but my patience is becoming exhausted rapidly. The hon. Gentleman should return to the subject for debate.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

I regret that I was misled by the tone of the interventions.

We will not debate—other than briefly in this forum—the substantive issue of whether elected regional assemblies are good or bad. We will examine the provisions for referendums that are in the Bill. We are worried about the principle of pre-legislative referendums because people will be voting for a pig in a poke. We are concerned about the discretionary nature of the proposals in the Bill. There are no thresholds and the Government are not committed to act one way or another after a referendum. We are worried about the level of ministerial discretion in the interpretation of legislation such as the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We are worried about the proposed perpetual jeopardy in which local authorities will be placed if a referendum is held and there is a no vote. We are concerned about the impact on local government.

We will seek to engage in a constructive debate on those issues and we will, hopefully, persuade the Government by the force of several arguments that are put forward not only by the Opposition in Parliament

but by significant stakeholders outside Parliament, especially those in local government.

We will table—we have tabled—a significant number of amendments, many of which will be probing amendments. Sometimes, we will table mutually incompatible amendments—[Laughter.] I see nothing wrong with doing that to explore with the Minister different solutions to what are seen as imperfections in the Bill. As I know that Governments are always loth to accept Opposition amendments, ours will sometimes be framed in terms that will allow the Government to reject the amendment but accept the principle behind it. Perhaps, the Government will correct the defect that has been identified later in the passage of the Bill.

We shall seek to be constructive at all times. We are confident that we can win the substantive arguments if the referendums that are to be held are set up on a fair and equitable basis. That will be our objective during the consideration of the Bill. The substantive argument can then be held in the country, not in this Committee.

Photo of Edward Davey Edward Davey Shadow Spokesperson (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), Shadow Minister (Olympics and London), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Olympics and London), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

It is a real privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Butterfill. I have had the good fortune to do so on more than one Finance Bill Standing Committee and I have learned an awful lot from you. In those days—I think it was the Finance Bills in 1997 and 1998—I had a lot to learn. I probably still have a lot to learn, as I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree. I look forward to learning a few more lessons from you, Mr. Butterfill, and I hope that I will not stray out of order too often. We also look forward to the chairmanship of your colleague, Mr. Cran.

Photo of Edward Davey Edward Davey Shadow Spokesperson (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), Shadow Minister (Olympics and London), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Olympics and London), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

The name must have been changed.

It is also a privilege to sit on the Committee with the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. I debated with him at length in the Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, which went on for three months. I hope that this Committee will not last for three months; from the programme motion, it does not look as though it will. We had some lively and, at times, heated debates. Liberal Democrat Members made various predictions about what would happen, particularly with regard to London Underground. I will not go down that road; suffice it to say that the Minister's predictions were not proved correct and ours were.

On the programme resolution, I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that it would have been better to have had two days for discussion on the Floor of the House, not least because many hon. Members on both sides of the House have valuable contributions to make to the Bill. That includes some of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) comes to mind in particular. There are Cornish dimensions to the issue, of which I know that you are aware, Mr. Butterfill. However, the programme resolution is before us and I am short of time, so I shall not elaborate on that point.

I should like to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It seems as though the Conservative party is already running up the white flag. We hear that the Conservatives now recognise regional aspirations and that are going to table mutually incompatible amendments and amendments designed to be rejected. If that is not a white flag, I do not know what is. However, it is welcome because we Liberal Democrat Members disagree with Conservative Members in their opposition to the principle behind the Bill.

The Minister was right. The Liberal Democrats support the concept of regional democracy and are against the Conservatives' idea of leaving regional government in place but not making it properly accountable to the people in the region that it serves. We will support the principle behind the Bill, but we have many concerns about it and will be tabling amendments. I refer hon. Members to my speech on Second Reading, but I shall not rehearse those arguments now. I hope that you will be able to call one other hon. Member, Mr. Butterfill.

Question put and agreed to.

Photo of Desmond Swayne Desmond Swayne Opposition Whip (Commons)

On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. I regret that so few hon. Members have had the opportunity to speak on the programme resolution. We were not aware that debate on it was limited to half an hour. I was just reflecting with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge on how it was customary—

Photo of John Butterfill John Butterfill Conservative, Bournemouth West

Order. The hon. Gentleman should have been aware of that fact. It is in the Standing Orders of the House.

Photo of Desmond Swayne Desmond Swayne Opposition Whip (Commons)

I was reflecting on how, in the past, it would have been appropriate to spend the first three sittings discussing the programme resolution, and how regrettable it was that that has passed.

Photo of John Butterfill John Butterfill Conservative, Bournemouth West

I am not responsible for the Standing Orders of the House.

Before we move on, I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with this Bill, copies of which are available in the Committee Room. I also remind Committee members that adequate notice of amendments must be given. My co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including those that we might reach during this afternoon's sitting.