Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Hammond: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that the Minister will consider that because it is a sad fact—this brings us back to this morning's discussion of all-postal ballots and the importance of doorstep contact—that television is probably the single most significant influence on current political behaviour, whether we like it or not. Therefore, I look forward with great expectation to the Minister's comments.

Mr. Raynsford: As the Committee is aware, the Electoral Commission has the function under section 108 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to designate one permitted participant, such as a political party or campaign group, as an effective campaign representative for each possible outcome of referendums. That includes referendums held under the Bill. Designation means financial and other assistance for a designated organisation. However, in some circumstances, the Electoral Commission does not designate either a ''yes'' or ''no'' campaign, either because there has been no application from one or the other, or no suitable body is in place to be designated. Choosing to go down this route means having to designate both a yes and a no campaign.

In practice, not designating a yes and no campaign is an unlikely scenario, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, we are confident that yes and no campaigns will be duly designated, so the clause will not apply. However, in the rare circumstances where yes and no campaigns are not designated, the clause provides for the Electoral Commission to undertake the necessary publicity. It is right for it to do so. Whatever our disagreements about specific provisions, the whole Committee agrees that in certain rare circumstances it is appropriate for the Electoral Commission to step in to provide impartial information to individuals.

4.45 pm

The Electoral Commission will want to give considerable thought to how that can best be done. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) highlighted problems surrounding broadcasting, which often arise because the footprints of broadcasters do not coincide with the regions. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Jim Knight) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) spoke about the extent to which their constituents can hear broadcasts from different regions.

I can imagine no better person to decide how best to deal with the problem than Sam Younger, a distinguished ex-broadcaster who chairs the Electoral Commission. I am sure that he will present appropriate and practical responses to make the most of opportunities to use the broadcast media. Recalling our earlier debate on one of the hon. Gentleman's amendments, if the Electoral Commission concluded that it could not use the broadcast media to reach all persons entitled to vote, it would have to explore alternatives rather than be satisfied that they are reaching a majority of the people entitled to vote. I hope that the hon. Gentleman concedes that the Bill's wording is more appropriate to ensure that the Electoral Commission is obliged to consider how best to reach all those who are entitled to vote.

Mr. Hammond: The Minister has correctly pointed out that the clause operates only if there are no designated organisations. In those circumstances, the Electoral Commission is responsible for public information dissemination. However, would the Minister humour me by examining the wider issue—if you rule it out of order, Mr. Butterfill, I shall table a new clause to deal with it—of whether the use of television media might introduce unfortunate disparities in the amount of information reaching different parts of the region because of the different footprints of television coverage. That is unlike a national, or even a Scottish, campaign in which television coverage is provided to almost the whole nation.

Mr. Raynsford: In our increasingly globalised world, a friend rang me from the far east the other day to say that he had just seen me on television talking about the fire dispute. It was broadcast on global media. Cross-overs are inevitable: some people living far from their own region will be watching broadcasts aimed at a particular region and people will receive information from a range of different media. It is right and proper for the Electoral Commission to examine all those issues and to decide on the right basket of media to use to meet the objective of securing that the information comes to the notice of all persons who are entitled to vote in the referendum in the most cost-effective way. It is well placed to do that, and I should not be in the least bit troubled about the ability of Sam Younger and his colleagues to reach balanced and well-informed decisions.

Mr. Hammond: Given the requirement for balance in broadcasting, has the Minister thought about what would happen if the referendum coincided with a local election campaign, so that issues were cross-cutting, with a party political debate on one issue and a different alignment on the other? Does he foresee problems in those circumstances?

Mr. Raynsford: It is always likely that a situation will arise in which there are cross-currents. Several media with very strong views one way and another will campaign stridently in favour of their interpretation of what is right, in the form of a yes or a no vote. Different media will push particular causes in different regions. That is the written media. The broadcast media, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, are required to be impartial, and will be bound by their obligations to ensure an appropriate degree of impartiality. The Electoral Commission can form a judgment as to how it can make best use of the broadcast, as well as other, media to get the message across.

In a previous sitting, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) asked about the wording of subsection (3). I see no great problem or mystery about that. The key concept is the appropriate day. That is because the provision comes into force only if, by the appropriate day, a yes and no designation will not take place, either because the Electoral Commission has not, by the 29th day, received an application from a yes or a no campaign—or both—or, if by the 43rd day, it has not yet designated a yes and a no campaign. The appropriate day will be one of those two, because in either circumstance there could not be a designated yes and no campaign. From that point, the provisions of clause 8 apply and the Electoral Commission will start to take steps.

That is why the appropriate days are mentioned. In each case, they are the day following the defined period of time for those stages. The submissions by groups seeking designation must be in by the 28th day, unless the Secretary of State has changed that for reasons that we discussed earlier, and the Electoral Commission must reach a decision by the 42nd day. So in each case, the appropriate day is the day after that particular stage has been reached, and if there is not an appropriate designation of a yes and no campaign by that date, the provisions apply. I hope that that explains the wording.

This is an important provision. I should hope that it will not be used often, because in most cases there will be designated yes and no campaigns, but it is an important safeguard that ensures that, if not, the public can be properly informed. I am sure that they will be, because I have great confidence in the Electoral Commission's ability to do its job and to meet its responsibilities fairly, impartially and professionally. I urge members of the Committee to approve the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Expenditure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hammond: Clause 9 is fairly uncontroversial, although I always say that with trepidation lest I should be contradicted by a colleague who has spotted something that I have not.

I wonder whether the Minister could tell us about the quantum of money that is expected to be involved in running the referendums. We talked on Second Reading about the costs and burdens that will be imposed on any transition in the local government system and the likely costs of buildings for any new regional assemblies, but the referendum is a further cost. No doubt the Government have carefully quantified the cost and conducted the most rigorous cost benefit analysis of the proposed expenditure. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I urge hon. Members to support clause 9, which simply enables a Minister to make an order regarding certain expenditure relating to the conduct of referendums under the Bill. The order can be made only with the consent of both Houses.

The clause allows provision to be made for the Electoral Commission to pay counting officers' charges in connection with a referendum on elected regional assemblies. It also enables provision to be made for the Electoral Commission to pay any increase in the superannuation contributions required by a local authority as a consequence of fees paid as part of a counting officer's charges.

As the clause makes clear, the order may set out the type of services and expenses for which payment can be made by the commission and the maximum amount that can be paid in respect of such services and expenses. It may also make provision on payments in advance and accounts to be submitted. The commission must be consulted and the consent of the Treasury obtained before any such order is made.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about the quantum of money involved. I am afraid that we cannot say for certain what that will be, as it will depend on the population of the region concerned, whether there is a traditional ballot or an all-postal ballot and whether the poll is combined with a local authority or other election. Those variables also relate to the financial support of the designated yes and no campaigns. It is difficult to give a precise figure.

However, if there were an all-postal ballot, which is one option, we can imagine what one of the larger expenditure factors might be. Based on a cost of about 80p per registered elector, which was the cost in local authority mayoral elections that used all-postal ballots, we estimate that total costs could range from about £2 million in the north-east, which has the smallest number of electors, to about £6 million in the south-east. I hope that those figures for all-postal ballots are helpful, but there are other imponderables and variables, so we cannot be more specific at this stage.

 

---

Prepared 10 December 2002