Standing Committee A
Tuesday 10 December 2002
(Morning)
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]
Clause 7
Encouraging Voting
10.30 am
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): I beg to move amendment No. 7, in
clause 7, page 3, line 38, at end add
''provided that the Electoral Commission shall certify that anything done under this section is not likely, in the Commission's judgment, disproportionately to benefit one of the possible outcomes of the referendum.''.
The clause will impose on the Electoral Commission a duty to encourage voting. There are obviously good reasons why one would want the commission to do that. Committee members will have received a briefing from the Royal National Institute of the Blind and I shall revert to that in a moment with a couple of specific questions. I am sure that the Minister has had the brief, so he will have specific answers to the RNIB's questions.
The thoughts that lay behind amendment No. 7 were formulated on reading the brief. The RNIB talks about the need for simple messages in short sentences and ordinary words to convey information about a referendum, for example, to people with learning difficulties. That is fine, but it is important that in promoting or encouraging voting, the Electoral Commission is extremely careful that what it does is impartial in relation to the outcome of a referendum. Having met the chief commissioner, I am in no doubt that the commission would intend to ensure that what it did was entirely impartial and did not have any impact on the outcome that disproportionately benefited either side. However, that could be difficult to achieve.
Let us discuss the north-east. It has been used as an example and I think it is a commonly held view in the Committee that the north-east is likely to be one of the first areas that the Minister wishes to test. We have talked about the urban-rural split and the fact that the large proportion of the population lives in urban areas. I suspect that many people would not regard it as highly contentious that there is likely to be a larger level of support for an elected regional assembly in the metropolitan areas of the north-east, than there would be in the rural areas, where the changes to local government arrangements will come into play. Therefore, it would be important that anything that the Electoral Commission did to encourage voting was not targeted in urban areas, but across the whole of the region equally, and in a way that did not discriminate.
If the commission were minded to use electronic means to communicate with potential voters, it would be important to establish that those who were electronically enabled were not disproportionately
Column Number: 86
likely to be of one persuasion or the other. Hon. Members could think of many examples of groups of people who might be more likely to be inclined to vote yes or no—polling evidence might demonstrate that. It is important that the commission takes that into account. I hope that it is not contentious that encouraging voting should be an entirely neutral exercise, and it is becoming more difficult to ensure that such exercises are neutral. Electronic media are a good example of a medium where access is clearly not evenly distributed among the population. Younger people have more access than older people, wealthier people more access than poorer people.
Jim Knight (South Dorset): I agree that encouraging voting should be a neutral exercise, but I question whether it would be neutral if the hon. Gentleman had his way with thresholds. I thought that we had already discussed that in that case, encouraging voting might not be neutral. Is this one of those matters over which the hon. Gentleman is being contradictory?
Mr. Hammond: No. I listened carefully to the views on thresholds expressed in Committee and, as the hon. Gentleman will see in due course, we have tabled new amendments, and are about to table more, that would incorporate the concept of thresholds but in a way that would not create a perverse incentive for the no campaign to encourage people not to vote. We shall hear more on that in due course, but I suspect that you do not want me to digress into that now, Mr. Benton.
Amendment No. 7 would place on the Electoral Commission a duty to ensure that, in encouraging voting, it does not disproportionately encourage voting among no voters or yes voters in the referendum. I shall deal with the RNIB's points in the stand part debate, if I may, and now I wait to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say on this uncontroversial proposal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): While the amendment may be uncontroversial in the view of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), I fear that it is also flawed in various ways. I shall detail those, hoping that the Committee will resist the amendment.
I shall briefly touch on some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, in particular the briefing from the RNIB. It rightly expects and hopes that simple messages in any encouraging material for voters will be clear and presented in a manner that is easily accessed by people with learning disabilities or visual impairments. I understand that the commission has said that it will produce materials for those who may be hard to reach through traditional dissemination methods. The director of media and public affairs at the commission has confirmed that. That point was well made, has been heard and will be responded to.
However, amendment No. 7 is unnecessary and potentially undesirable. The Electoral Commission is an independent body, established under an Act of Parliament that ensures that the commission takes a fair and reasonable approach in all its statutory duties. It should not be seen to favour one outcome of a
Column Number: 87
referendum over another. We consider that, even without this amendment, the commission will normally have a public law duty to act in a reasonable and balanced way when carrying out its duties under clause 7. It could be challenged and subject to a judicial review if it acted in a biased way.
The amendment would open the door to a number of undesirable factors. I shall pick out a few words from it. It asks that information is not likely ''disproportionately to benefit'' one possible outcome of the referendum. One interpretation of that could be that if the commission had information that one result of a referendum was more likely than another, the amendment might force or encourage it actively to persuade people to vote the other way to balance that out. To encourage a proportionate outcome, the amendment would oblige the commission to aid the perceived underdog. That is one interpretation of its drafting that reveals a significant hole. Clause 7 is about influencing and encouraging people to vote. It is not about the decision that they make.
Mr. Hammond: I agree, but it is a question of which people we encourage. There may be no discernible pattern to the yes/no inclination in the population. However, polling evidence may suggest that older people are strongly against and younger people are strongly in favour. I want to tackle that sort of situation.
Mr. Leslie: It would worry me if the hon. Gentleman were, by way of the amendment, deliberately trying to encourage the Electoral Commission to balance what it perceives to be the view of the population by encouraging either those who were or those who were not in favour of a question to vote. I am concerned that the phrase ''disproportionately to benefit'' would create a duty on the commission to balance an outcome.
Matthew Green (Ludlow): May I add to that? The Conservative spokesman used the example of voters in rural areas being less keen on regional assemblies than urban voters. In elections, voter turnout in rural areas tends to be far in excess of that in urban areas. Is it not the Conservatives' fear that encouraging voting will mean that those in urban areas will turn out to vote yes in a referendum?
Mr. Leslie: Who can say what is in the minds of Conservative Members? I am obviously disposed to think of them in a favourable way.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Is the Minister's resistance to the amendment based on his concern about its drafting, or on its principle, which is that the Electoral Commission should be required to act in all cases dispassionately?
Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman's early morning swim in the Serpentine may have clogged his ears, because he obviously did not hear my earlier comment that I do not believe that the amendment would have the necessary effect of making an otherwise biased commission act properly. The Electoral Commission is already under a duty to be impartial so the amendment
Column Number: 88
is not necessary. I am also detailing why the amendment is flawed in a number of other respects.
Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Leslie: I should like to comment on the word ''certify'', but shall give way before I do so.
Mr. Streeter: I shall make two brief points. The Under-Secretary will not be aware that during the period when I was first elected, between 1992 and 1997, on many Standing Committee many of his colleagues—then sitting in opposition—were constantly urging the Government to accept amendments that they thought clarified wording. Suddenly, his party seems to have changed its mind. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions will, however, remember because he was part of that process. I shall wait to make my second point on another intervention.
Mr. Leslie: I can barely wait for the next intervention.
Mr. Streeter: I thought that I was taking up too much time.
Let me give an example of exactly what the Electoral Commission might do that could be impartial but would reveal a lack of political experience. In a region, it might ask a county council to include, when it sends out council tax bills, a leaflet from the commission explaining what will happen and urging people to vote. As several councils will be being—shall we say—reshaped, the commission might not be aware that those councils could in the same envelope include their own material about why the referendum should be resisted at all costs. If I wanted a referendum to be successful in that region, I would be unhappy if the Electoral Commission were to make its information available in that way. Might not the amendment prevent that from happening?
10.45 am
| 
