|
Mr. Hammond: Are those figures inclusive of grants and all other expected expenditure such as the Electoral Commission's costs in promoting voting, as required under clause 7, or simply the cost of running the postal ballot?
Mr. Leslie: My understanding is that they represent the cost of the all-postal ballot itself. I am afraid that we have no more precise figures at this stage. My view is that the all-postal ballot aspect is likely to be one of the more expensive elements of a referendum, so those figures give an idea of the likely envelope of expenses that might be incurred in those regions. Certainly, normal costs and expenses for counting officers and electoral officials will be incurred. I do not anticipate any significant departure there from normal electoral arrangements.
Mr. Hammond: Can the Minister confirm whether the moneys required under the clause will come from the Deputy Prime Minister's departmental budget, or are a special vote?
Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. I suspect that the costs will be met from the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Electoral Commission's costs have already been highlighted? A House of Commons research paper states that there will be a limit of £5 million for organisations that take part and that if any participants incur expenses of more than £250,000, an audit report will have to be submitted to the Electoral Commission.
Mr. Leslie: That is a helpful point and provides a context.
I assure the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that the money will come from the Consolidated Fund and not from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. If further clarification is needed, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
5 pm
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Given that, after Second Reading, Parliament was asked to approve a money resolution for the spending of money from the Consolidated Fund, I was slightly alarmed to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he does not really know how much money is involved. He knows part of the cost, but he does not have an idea of the quantum.
The former prudence with which the Chancellor approached the Government's monetary affairs serves only to emphasise how standards have slipped in the past year or so. We are now routinely asked—at 10.30 at night, on a rubber-stamp vote—to approve the spending of unquantified sums, which is alarming. The hon. Gentleman kindly offered to write to me. I will pre-empt that by writing to him with some questions. I would be grateful if he would be good enough to reply before the Bill is on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Legal Proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hammond: Essentially, we have already debated the clause, so I will be brief. An amendment that was discussed last Tuesday would have effectively neutered the clause. Conservative Members felt that, whatever the precedent, the issues surrounding the clause give cause for concern. It should be noted that the exclusion of access to the courts over queries about the electoral process has only ever occurred under Labour Governments.
There does not seem to be any reasonable logic in excluding access to the courts in matters of dispute over votes cast or the number of ballot papers; it does not feel right. I hope that the Liberal Democrat—I deliberately use the singular—will join Conservative Members in resisting what is essentially an extension of the Government's power. The clause would mean that officers appointed by the commission would be responsible for such matters and it would deny citizens recourse to the courts.
Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon): I build on what I said last week about the exclusion of access to the courts. The clause leaves a nasty taste in the mouth and discomforts Opposition Members. The Minister was keen to point out last week that there are precedents. They were the Referendum Act 1975, the Scotland Act 1978, the Wales Act 1978, the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997 and the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. All those Acts were introduced under Labour Governments and that brings Conservative Members no comfort. We are concerned that the rights of someone who wants to query the result of such a referendum, which could be close in parts of the country, are being curtailed by the clause.
Unusually, I struggled to follow what the Minister said in his response last week. I normally find him extremely clear, and his arguments cogent. He said that the presence of clause 10
''hardly affects all the statute law of the United Kingdom. It is nonsense to suggest that the wider rights relating to judicial review are in any way being affected or curtailed.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 December 2002; c. 47.]
The clause states that ''No court'', which I understand to mean no court, ''shall entertain any proceedings'', which I understand to mean any proceedings,
''for questioning the number of ballot papers or votes cast in a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1''.
The way in which most people would proceed were they unhappy with a result would be to go to court for a judicial review. The clause appears to expressly exclude that possibility. I therefore do not understand the Minister's response last week. I should like maximum clarity, given that what Ministers say on the Floor of the House and in Committee stands for all time and people take notice of it. I hope that the Minister can be clearer. Does clause 10 preclude people from seeking to go to court for a judicial review on the outcome of a referendum or not? If it does not, what is the clause's primary purpose?
We do not expect corruption, vote rigging or technical deficiencies in any ballot that we hold in this country. In our political systems, we are broadly a very incorrupt country, and we should be thankful for and ever vigilant of that. However, things can creep up on us by surprise. The presidential elections in the United States of America are an obvious example. Who would have thought that in the most sophisticated nation on the face of the earth there would be technical difficulties in recording people's votes? If it had not been for the ability to go to court to obtain clarity, we would still have a President with a question mark over his democratic legitimacy. We do not want that to happen in this country, or for the outcome of elections to be hanging in the air so that people do not know whether a regional government has been voted for. Clause 10 stands in the way of achieving clarity.
When the Minister responded last time, he said that clause 10 existed to prevent people clogging up the system by going to court with vexatious or frivolous claims because they did not like the outcome of a referendum. As a lawyer, I do not always have confidence in the judicial processes in this country, but it is perfectly within the capacity of the judicial system to deal with such matters quickly. Applications for judicial review can take place in a matter of two or three days—even within 24 hours if it is urgent. A time delay is therefore not appropriate. Courts are well used to throwing out vexatious and frivolous claims; it happens week in week out throughout this great country.
I cannot see a reason for the clause or its impact. Unless the Minister can clarify whether it prevents someone in this country from going to court for a judicial review on the outcome of a referendum, the matter will remain shrouded in mystery and I will be inclined to vote against it.
Mr. Leslie: Opposition Members raise the question of precedent, and query whether the Government should cite examples of precedent in defence of the clause when all of them were legislated for under a Labour Government. It is true that many of the examples of precedent that exist for this clause, which is a simple repetition of what is contained in other legislation, were made under a Labour Administration. As far as I am aware, it is only under Labour Administrations that we have had referendums. I do not remember a Conservative Administration testing the views of the public. Even on larger constitutional questions, they did not test people's views on a specific question, but turned their face against the whole concept of referendums. That is a political debate, but it is an interesting one that has been highlighted by Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that we detailed many of the issues when we discussed amendments to clause 5. I would not want to repeat that debate in full, but I must say that the purpose of clause 10 is to prevent any challenges other than serious challenges—I emphasise that they must be serious—to certification of the number of votes or ballots made by a chief counting officer or counting officer. The aim is to ensure that the Government can respond quickly to the result of a referendum without {**?11**}being caught up in legal challenges that are not serious. If there were such challenges, it would be difficult to move on with legislation to establish assemblies until they were concluded. The purpose of the clause is to ensure finality and certainty for the advisory referendum. It follows the precedent set in other referendum legislation.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister said that the purpose is to exclude any challenges that are not serious. Can he tell me, as a potential litigant, how I would go about mounting a challenge on a serious issue? As I understand it, I am denied all access to the court.
Mr. Leslie: I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman on such legal matters, save to say that it would be for the court to decide how to interpret any application in the legislative climate in which that application is made. It is important to emphasise that the wide body of case law needs to be taken into account. As hon. Members know, the presumption is always that Parliament legislates in the full knowledge of the existing state of the law built up by the courts. There is a significant body of case law on the interpretation of statutory provisions. In those cases, they have rightly been protective of their jurisdiction. The wording of the clause would not necessarily be the end of the matter. The meaning of the clause would be construed by the court in the light of case law and the circumstances of any challenge.
| 
