In Parliament
Index
Choose what you would like to read from the selection below
Questions (Government publicity) - 25 March 2004
Questions (Referendum in the North East) - 10 March 2004
Debate: Regional Assemblies (Extract) - 11 February 2004
Questions - 4 February 2004
Questions - 3 February 2004
Questions in Parliament
25th March 2004Government Publicity
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of whether the leaflets (a) A new opportunity for Yorkshire and the Humber, (b) A new opportunity for the North West and (c) A new opportunity for the North East meet the criteria of the guidance on Government publicity and advertising; and if he will make a statement. [163657]
The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The information campaign to inform the public of the Government's intention to hold referendums in the three regions is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is satisfied that both the text and the design of all three leaflets meet the criteria of this guidance.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Department sought the opinion of the Electoral Commission before publishing the leaflets (a) A new opportunity for the North, (b) A new opportunity for the North West and (c) A new opportunity for Yorkshire and the Humber. [163658]
Mr. Raynsford: No. We are however in regular contact with the Electoral Commission on all matters relating to referendums on elected regional assemblies that are within their remit.
Questions in Parliament
10th March 2004Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab): If he will make a further statement on his Department's work on preparing for the referendum on regional government in the north-east. [159905]
The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We are very conscious of the importance of providing information to the public on the implications of our regional government proposals. To that end, we are holding hearings throughout the three northern regions, including the north-east, to explain the role and responsibilities of elected regional assemblies and to listen to views from the public about the powers of the assemblies. We are committed to providing further information, including an explanatory leaflet that will be sent to every household before the referendums in the autumn.
Our current plans, which are dependent on receipt of reports from the boundary committee, are to lay orders before Parliament before the summer recess to enable referendums to be held this autumn. We also aim to publish a draft regional assemblies Bill this July.
Joyce Quin : I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about the public hearings that are taking place. He will have seen surveys by the BBC and others that show increased public awareness of regional government, and, indeed, increased support for it. Following my right hon. Friend's meetings with representatives of the business community, can he tell us which of the issues they raised most need to be addressed in order to reassure them that regional government will be good for business and for regional economies?
Mr. Raynsford: I am conscious that, as my right hon. Friend says, there is growing awareness of the issue. In particular, I have noticed the considerable coverage in The Journal in her region. That rightly highlights the importance of this historic decision, which will be vital to the future of the north-east. Last week, I attended a successful hearing in Berwick-upon-Tweed, which was attended by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith); my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister held a similar hearing in Blackburn on the same evening.
For business, it is essential that regional assemblies provide an effective means of enhancing economic development by improving the joining up of services to link economic development with housing and transport planning, and that they do so in the most cost-effective way without creating new bureaucracy. That is exactly what the Government's plans provide for.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): In the draft Bill that the Minister just mentioned, will he consider including the functions of the Highways Agency among those to be devolved to a future north-east regional assembly? Does he realise that that would massively increase the chance of a strong turnout and a yes vote in a referendum in the north-east?
Mr. Raynsford: The issues that will influence turnout are more important than just the role of the Highways Agency. However, the way in which the work of the Highways Agency would relate to the work of elected regional assemblies was debated in the hearing that I held in Berwick, where there is particular interest in the dualling of the A1. That is one relevant issue, but there are many others. People will come out to vote and decide on the basis of whether they believe that decisions are better taken in their region or in London.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Are there any circumstances in which the referendums would not take place in October?
Mr. Raynsford: I have already made it clear that the referendums are dependent on receipt of the reports from the boundary committee for England, which has been invited to come forward with proposals for the best form of unitary local government. We will consider those reports when we receive them and, providing that we receive them in time, orders will be laid before Parliament to allow referendums to be held in October. That, however, is conditional on those earlier steps being taken in that time scale.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) (Con): May I make it clear to the Minister that we have no objection in principle to the use of all-postal ballots for the referendums, although we would have no objection to conventional ballot-box voting if it seemed that postal voting would not be a sound election system? Why the rush to postal voting, unless it is to avoid the embarrassment—the result of apathy towards the Government's proposals—of what the Minister has called a derisory turnout? He has admitted that such a turnout would invalidate the results. What can have provoked the extraordinary letter from the Electoral Commission of 4 March except, possibly, the wholly improper pressure that Government Ministers are putting on it to rush in postal balloting, because they think that that is in their political interests?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every single count. There has been no rush to all-postal voting. We have conducted pilots during the past four years that have led the Electoral Commission to conclude and recommend that all-postal voting should in future be the norm for all local authority elections. That is the background, and we have taken into account the commission's advice, which is clearly that all-postal voting hugely increases turnout. If the hon. Gentleman were more concerned about turnout than scoring party political points, he would welcome the move. There is no substance whatever to his entirely unworthy allegation of pressure being exercised on the Electoral Commission.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Is the Minister aware that my party has grave reservations about the wisdom of all-postal ballots in a referendum or in any other election? Bearing in mind that there is to be an all-postal ballot, will the Minister tell the House what he regards as a satisfactory turnout?
Mr. Raynsford: Turnout at the local authority elections that had all-postal ballots last May was almost 50 per cent., compared with an average turnout of just over 30 per cent. in local authority elections that use conventional voting, which is a huge difference. If it is possible in practice to achieve a huge increase in turnout and voter participation with no evidence—the Electoral Commission has made this point—of any increase in fraud or personation problems, there is a convincing case for making greater use of all-postal voting.
Debate on Regional Assemblies
Extract - 11 February 2004
Mr. Osborne: I was a little surprised by the argument advanced by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Wigan (Mr. Turner). In essence, the hon. Member for Wigan conceded that very few powers are currently being given to regional assemblies, but he said that we could build on them and thereby get a foot in the door. If he seriously thinks that Whitehall is going to concede more powers to regional assemblies over time, I am afraid that he is mistaken. That is not the way Whitehall works. What will happen, of course, is that the powers will be sucked up from local government as regional government establishes itself. I offer the hon. Gentleman some candid advice. If he wants to argue the case for more powers for his regional government, he should do so now—before the referendum and before the Bill—so that he can establish them now. There is no sign that Whitehall departments are going to concede those powers.
The leaflet says that housing, planning and fire and rescue services would also be the responsibility of regional government. Local government currently holds most of those powers, so this is not devolution but sucking power up. Fire services in Cheshire are currently organised by the Cheshire fire authority. Under these proposals, the powers will be sucked up into a regional assembly. There are also powers over public health, culture, tourism and sport, and the environment.
Anyone reading the leaflet would assume that the implication is that the regional assembly will have lots of money to spend on sports facilities, cleaning up the environment, health services and so on. Of course, that is not the case. There will be no more than a power to sit on consortiums and forums, to issue consultation papers and strategies and to be consulted and consult. This will not be about spending real money on real things, which is what people would expect and what, if they read this leaflet, they would be led to believe.
Lord Rooker gave the game away last year in the other place. On 28 April, he said there would be no new powers and no new money for regional government. That is the truth. What there will be, of course, are extra costs.
Mr. Jenkin: Is my hon. Friend telling me that Lord Rooker's comments about no new powers and no new money have not gone into the leaflet given to the general public? Is that not an extraordinary omission from what is supposed to be a piece of Government information that dispassionately explains the facts?
Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I have read the leaflet from cover to cover and back again, and, for some reason, nowhere in it are Lord Rooker's comments to be found. Then again, nor do certain comments made by the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire appear in it. There is nothing on the turnout issue, on which I pressed the Deputy Prime Minister. The leaflet asks how the referendums will be decided, and says that it will be by a simple majority. I can see the local government Minister nodding at that. Last year, though, when he was asked what would happen if the turnout was derisory, he said that the result would be set aside.
The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I never said that the result would be set aside. I pointed out that the referendums were advisory and that the Government would not be bound to implement proposals if the turnout was derisory. I stand by that.
Mr. Osborne: I am delighted that I gave way. It is interesting to have that remark on the record once again. I suggest that the Minister should inform the Deputy Prime Minister of that. Maybe he has, but the Deputy Prime Minister did not seem to know it. Perhaps the Minister will tell us later what he would consider to be a derisory turnout. Indeed, will he support the private Member's Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)? Perhaps the Minister thinks that 50 per cent. is too high a figure, and that that would not be a derisory turnout.
Mr. Raynsford: It is a threshold.
Mr. Osborne: In that case, perhaps the Minister will tell us in his wind-up speech what a derisory figure would be. It would be interesting to know whether the Government would not proceed with regional assemblies if the turnout was too low, which is certainly what the Minister has just said. The leaflet was produced at considerable public expense, costing £500,000. The chairman of the very successful yes campaign for the Scottish Parliament, Nigel Smith, told me that the entire literature budget of that campaign was, to his recollection, not as much as that. Yet the Government have already spent that, long before the referendum has arisen. Luckily, there is an organisation—North-West Says No—that brings together Members of Parliament from the Labour party and the Conservative party and local government people from the Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour parties. It also has the heavyweight support of Sir Cyril Smith, who is well known in the region. I am convinced that, as we point out that the assembly will be an expensive talking shop that does nothing to bring new jobs and investment to the region and nothing to improve transport links, but merely undermines local democracy and accountability, we will carry the day.Click here to read the full debate
Questions in Parliament
4 February 2004Fire Service
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Essex county council on his plans to regionalise the fire service. [152491]
Mr. Raynsford: The Government have no plan to regionalise the Fire & Rescue Service other than in regions, which vote in a referendum for an elected regional assembly. No such referendum is proposed in the Eastern region.Regional Government
Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will set a date for the referendum on regional government in the north-west. [152492]
Mr. Prescott: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to hold the referendums in the three northern regions in autumn 2004. But before a date can be set: The Boundary Committee must make its recommendations on restructuring local government in two-tier areas; and Parliament must approve the Orders calling the referendums. We expect to lay these in Summer.
Mr. Luff: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will meet a delegation from Worcestershire to discuss the report by Professor David Blanchflower and Professor Andrew Oswald on the calculation of an appropriate regional funding adjustment for the county. [152493]
Mr. Raynsford: No. During the formula review, which was completed in 2002 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister looked in some detail at the different geographies, data and methods that could be used to calculate the ACA. Several of the options advocated by Professors Oswald and Blanchflower in their report were examined and rejected during the formula review 4 Feb 2004 : Column 921W The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister considered the Oswold and Blanchflower report as part of the written representations received on the local government settlement for 2004–05. However, as we made clear following the recent review it is our intention that the funding formulae will be frozen for at least 2004–05 and 2005–06. There would therefore be little purpose in the suggested meeting.
Questions in Parliament
3 February 2004Regional Assemblies
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of his powers will be transferred to elected regional assemblies where they are introduced; and which body holds each of those powers. [152104]
Mr. McNulty: The transport powers of elected regional assemblies were set out in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions" (Cm5511).
Elected regional assemblies will be given powers to make Rail Passenger Partnership grants, which is currently the responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority. They will also be responsible for advising government on funding allocations for local transport, taking over functions currently exercised by regional government offices. In addition, elected regional assemblies will be responsible for a regional transport strategy, which is currently prepared by regional planning bodies and issued by the Secretary of State for planning as part of regional planning guidance.
