The overwhelming rejection of AV last week, coupled with a low turnout, raises a question over the viability of more referendums outlined in the Localism Bill, says Nick Raynsford

What prospects for referenda after the recent vote on AV?

Given a less-than-enthusiastic turnout and no strong tide of public opinion pressing for a change in the voting system, the AV referendum may well be the last national referendum for some time.

It is, after all, 35 years since the previous nationwide referendum, on Britain’s membership of the European community. Without clear signs of public enthusiasm for more, government ministers are likely to be wary of repeating the process. But, from the local government perspective, an entirely different scenario lies ahead. A large chunk of the Localism Bill is given over to some highly-prescriptive provisions requiring local authorities to hold a referendum if 5% of the local electorate submit a petition calling for this.

When we were debating the relevant clauses in committee, scrutinising the Localism Bill, concerns were expressed on both sides of the House about the inherent problems with these provisions.

In the first place, there was alarm, voiced almost as strongly by Liberal-Democrat members as by the Labour Opposition, at the centralist character of the rules prescribing when and on what topics referendums must be held. Under the Bill’s provisions, most of these are to be determined by the secretary of state.

This is bad enough in a Bill supposedly devolving powers and discretion to local authorities. Even worse is the absence of any clear guidelines as to how the secretary of state intends to use these powers.

Lots of pertinent questions were raised – for example, could a petition trigger a referendum on an issue on which the council has a quasi-judicial decision-making role, such as determining a planning or licensing application, and if so, how would this fit with the normal decision-making process?

Ministers were unable to give firm answers, and simply undertook to reflect on the issue. Of course, by the time they come to reach decisions, the opportunity for detailed scrutiny in the House of Commons will have passed. As the provisions allow for referendums to be held in specific wards or local neighbourhoods, as well as across the whole council area, there will inevitably be concerns that specific groups of residents may seek to pursue an outcome for their locality which is at variance with the policy for the authority as a whole.

How will such conflicts be managed? The problem is compounded by the nature of the referendum, which will be non-binding. Authorities will be free to decide, if they wish, not to implement the policy receiving majority support, but in doing so, would obviously be exposed to huge public and media criticisms.

Then there is the question of cost. Deputy mayor of London, Sir Simon Milton, whose recent, premature death has been widely mourned across the local government community, gave the committee serious pause for thought in evidence, pointing out that a pan-London referendum held by the Greater London Authority would cost £5m, if combined with a GLA poll, but £11m if held on its own.

It is surprising, to say the least, for a government whose overriding priority is supposedly deficit reduction, to be envisaging such substantial additional expenditure. Knowing that the local council will have to incur the costs of holding the referendum if 5% of local electors call for it, but will not be bound to act on its outcome, merely adds to the sense of the surreal which hangs over this whole subject.

So, why is the Government making such a meal over local referendums? Its rhetoric claims that this is about extending opportunities for democratic participation.

However, since the same Bill repeals provisions passed by the last government to facilitate petitions to local councils – a simpler and cheaper option for residents to highlight local concerns – the rhetoric is, frankly, unconvincing.

The truth is revealed by the provisions of Clause 56 and Schedule 5 of the Bill.

These require local authorities to hold a referendum if the council is proposing an increase in council tax above the level agreed as acceptable by the secretary of state.

This is the Government’s supposedly-localist replacement of the capping regime. Of course, there isn’t very much that gets determined locally under this new system. Whether a council tax increase is acceptable or excessive is decided by principles set by the secretary of state.

The council is obliged to put the issue to a referendum, under rules including the question to be asked, all of which are determined by the secretary of state. And unlike all the other referendums, the outcome of a council tax referendum is binding..

Nick Raynsford MP is a former local government minister