LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 19 February 1998)

§ Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A. This referendum is about giving the people of London a say in their future and giving them the ability to signal—or to withhold—their consent to proposals for new city-wide government for their capital.

Debate on this Bill has shown that, despite sometimes differing views about the proposals on offer, all sides of the House are united in wanting to ensure that as many Londoners as possible have the opportunity to cast their vote on referendum day. It is for that very reason that the Government have chosen to hold the referendum on 7th May, the same day as local elections. Combining the two will help increase voter turnout for both polls and avoid the possibility of voter fatigue setting in and reducing participation at a later poll.

Combining the polls will also save a not insignificant sum of public money although I accept that effective democratic participation must always weigh more heavily than cost in making a decision of this sort. As I explained in Committee, a requirement to publish a Bill before the referendum would in effect delay the poll by very many months. It could not be held by 7th May. We are working very hard to bring forward the White Paper publication date towards the end of March so that there is time for people to see the proposals in detail and to make up their minds on them. It would not be possible to turn the White Paper's proposals into a Bill in time for the joint poll. That means that we would lose the benefits of a combined poll.

Such a requirement could only be justified if the value of the additional information that would be available to the public as a result of publication of a Bill outweighed the negative impact of delaying the referendum. I do not believe this to be the case. As I have said to the House before we will publish a White Paper well in advance of the referendum. It will set out our proposals in clear and comprehensible terms. In addition, a summary version of the White Paper will be sent free to every London household. The Government's proposals will be fully explained to Londoners. Publication of what will be a complex and lengthy piece of proposed legislation would not add to that process.

This is not an argument about differing principles. We all agree that Londoners should be fully informed of the issues on which they will vote. The amendment is about how we go about ensuring that. There can be no doubt about the Government's commitment to ensuring that 317 people are well informed of the issues to be put to them in the referendum. But to expect and to continue with the amendment that insists on the publication of a Bill before a referendum would wreck the whole timetable for that referendum. I suggest that the disadvantages far outweigh any minimal advantages of having a draft Bill rather than the clearly enunciated proposals set out in the White Paper. Therefore, I urge your Lordships' House not to insist on the amendment.

Lord Bowness

My Lords, the Minister's response is disappointing even if predictable. It is unfortunate that in another place the Minister should have described the amendment as a wrecking amendment. Had they been so minded, the Government could have arranged their timetable and business to have allowed sufficient time to have published a Bill. In moving this amendment, we did not ask for there to be an Act. We were promised a White Paper on 23rd March. I am troubled. I hope that the Minister can make clear during the debate on this amendment whether that date has slipped since there was a reference this afternoon to a White Paper by the end of March.

But what is perhaps more to the point is this. Had many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish as regards referenda been heeded, some of these problems would not have arisen. There would have been a clear set of rules and principles about both the procedures and the stage at which proposals were put to the electorate.

I am also concerned that in another place the Minister seemed to he more worried about the nature of the vote in your Lordships' House than answering the real issues which were raised. The more I read the debate and listened to the response to the suggested amendment, the more I was forced to the conclusion that criticisms and suggestions that something should be reconsidered are met with blank refusal. One is led to believe that whoever made the criticism or suggestion, quite irrespective of the make-up of the body or the people making it, it would still have been rejected.

Rejection seems to have been based on what the Minister said in another place; namely, The Government have already given clear undertakings that the White Paper will set out in detail and in plain English all the key issues about structures, powers, the method of election and the operation of the Greater London authority that the people of London will need to know about to reach a judgment. Is that not a sensible way to proceed?".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/98; col. 434.] No, it is not. I believe that it is a presumptuous way to proceed. How can any Government claim that all the detail of a White Paper's proposals will pass through the parliamentary process unscathed? Only a Government who start the process determined to listen to no argument at all can make that statement. How can a Government claiming to want to listen say in advance that their paper will contain everything that people need to know? What about what they want to know as regards 318 these proposals? I believe that the Government's approach is unfortunate, but it is not my intention to press the point.