| Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
|
|
Mr. Davey: I accept that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that political parties and other legitimate organisations have fixed costs. I do not want to quibble about the point too much because I accept his basic thrust. I should like to hear what the Minister says, however, and perhaps engage in further debate. Mr. Leslie: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made some questionable points about new clause 2. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge explained that it would limit the amount of assistance to each designated organisation in a yes or no campaign to a proportion, which would depend on the population of the region concerned, of £600,000. The Government do not think that a separate statutory limit is needed for grants to designated yes or no campaigns for regional referendums because the Column Number: 349 Commission's proposed expenditure on grants would be scrutinised by Parliament. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says that he does not want unspecific legislation on the matter, but Parliament is capable of scrutinising the expenditure of the Electoral Commission. The Speaker's Committee is tasked with that particular job by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, schedule 1(14)(3) of which charges the Speaker's Committee with satisfying itself that the Commission's estimated level of expenditure for each financial year is consistent with the economical, efficient and effective discharge of its functions. We can rely on the commission to make the right judgment on the amount of grant that might go to a designated yes or no campaign.While grants may vary from region to region, they should not only be proportional to population, which is a point that we explained in a slightly different context when we were discussing amendments to clause 11. The Committee accepted the argument that although relative population levels could be a factor in setting such limits, only having regard to them would be too narrow a focus. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned, there may well be other factors to which the commission might properly have regard, such as a region's rural and urban populations, the different types of media available to designated yes or no campaigns and economies or diseconomies of scale. One of the main issues is the fixed costs associated with campaigns. Mr. Hammond: I am anxious to draw out from the Under-Secretary whether he would take into account when fixing a grant level in a region the likely level of private funding available, which is the key issue. Mr. Leslie: Whether I would take private funding into account is secondary to the judgments of the Speaker's Committee, Parliament and the Electoral Commission, which may consider that particular factor. That is one reason why a designated amount per head is too crude a system. Mr. Hammond: I asked the hon. Gentleman the question in his capacity as a spokesman for the Government because the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is a member of the Speaker's Committee—for all I know, other Ministers may also be members of it. Will the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee what the Minister thinks about private funding? Mr. Leslie: Would it be so simple that I could always advise on what people may or may not think should they at some point in the future be determining some question while sitting on the Speaker's Committee scrutinising Electoral Commission expenditure. We cannot know that because we have not seen the proposals from any putative yes or no campaign, and it would not be right to prejudge such proposals. All I am saying is that many different factors could come into play in the amount of grant assistance that might be designated by the Electoral Commission to a yes or no campaign. Column Number: 350 Matthew Green: I accept what the Under-Secretary is saying, but does not he believe that there should still be a maximum, beyond which it does not go? We have a maximum for a national campaign, so even if we set up half the amount given to a national campaign, or something similarly generous, we should at least issue guidance so that there is a limit on the potential public expenditure.
10.15 amMr. Leslie: I do not honestly believe that that would be necessary. There is a limit of £600,000 on any referendum arrangement. It is not a blank cheque, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton says. It is also slightly insulting to the Electoral Commission, as it is to the Committee, to suggest that it would always run right up to that limit. We can rely on the commission to judge the matter prudently. Mr. Davey: Last night, on the Floor of the House, the Minister objected to a proposal made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that the Electoral Commission should write the question. In Committee, the Minister is saying that the commission can decide how much money to spend. Surely, the Government are getting the issues the wrong way round. Independence on electoral issues is perhaps the job of the Electoral Commission. Considering how to spend taxpayers' money is a job for this place. Mr. Leslie: Indeed, it is the job of Parliament to scrutinise the expenditure of the Electoral Commission, which it can do in the usual way. If Ministers interfered in that role, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton would be the first to complain. The 2000 Act clearly sets out the context and expenditure that the Electoral Commission can incur. Those limits are there and it would not be right, as in new clause 2, to designate expenditure simply per head of population. I explained other factors that might be relevant. I believe that we can rely on and trust the Electoral Commission to make its judgment fairly, efficiently and economically. I urge the Committee to reject new clause 2. Mr. Hammond: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton expressed the hope that the short debate would flush out from the Under-Secretary which level he believed to be the right one, although the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the amendment might not have got it absolutely right. However, the Under-Secretary did not reply that it should be a certain fixed amount and an additional proportional amount, or some other formula. Instead, he said nothing at all other than that we should trust the arrangements as they are set out in the Bill, which limit the expenditure to £600,000; that is, £600,000 per designated organisation, which could mean £1.2 million of public money in each of eight regions. The Under-Secretary's response is inadequate, and I urge my hon. Friends to support the new clause in the absence of any satisfactory response from him. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:— The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7. Column Number: 351
Division No. 9]
AYES
NOES
Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House. Mr. Raynsford: Before we come to an appropriate ending to our proceedings, I want to say how productive and enjoyable the debate, although short, has been. We have covered issues that are fundamental to the future of our country and our constitutional settlement, such as how we continue the devolution process, which has been a key theme of the Government's programme in the past five and a half years. We have also covered issues of less far-reaching importance but of great interest, notably the appropriate word with which to start a sentence. >During our deliberations, the opinion poll ratings of the two Opposition parties have been getting closer and closer together and, perhaps more worrying, the two parties have been in danger of swapping positions. This morning, we heard a profoundly conservative proposition from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and the Conservatives moved towards ever greater consultation, in line with Liberal Democrat leanings. Perhaps that reflects the curious boundary that puts the capital of true-blue Surrey county council in the London borough represented by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. I hope that that is not a portent of a blue and yellow merger—perhaps not. If there are doubts about the current electoral trajectories of the two Opposition parties, I have no doubt about the upward personal trajectories of the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for Kingston and Surbiton, who led for their parties and impressed all members of the Committee. The work rate of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has been remarkable. He has shouldered the whole burden for the Conservative Opposition, with support from the hon. Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and for Taunton (Mr. Flook). The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge pressed his case and his amendments with great skill and fortitude, and demonstrated not only mastery of the often complex material, but considerable mental agility in reconciling often mutually contradictory propositions, which is always a great asset in this place. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton demonstrated once again his enthusiastic commitment to the policy of regional devolution and trod a reasonably judicious course between the Liberal Democrat enthusiasm for constant consultation, and the realistic approach that, to make things happen, one must stop consulting at some stage and reach decisions. I hope that his strong rightward shift this Column Number: 352 morning is not a portent that the prospect of replacing the official Opposition is changing his principles. I leave the hon. Gentleman to consider that further. He has obviously been supported by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green).I greatly appreciate the hugely skilful and valuable support that I have had from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has demonstrated clearly why he is a rising star on the Government side of the House. I appreciate the support of our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), and of my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). I value the contributions that we have had from my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset, for Scarborough and Whitby and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). My hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and for Manchester, Blackley are not here at present, but they, too, contributed to the debate. May I express my thanks to the Hansard note takers? They have recorded our proceedings with their usual consummate accuracy and skill, even if I have not yet found a sentence in the record that starts with the word ''but''. I also thank the officials, who as always have presided over our proceedings efficiently and ensured that our votes were managed effectively. Above all, I thank you, Mr. Butterfill, for presiding over our affairs with wise oversight. I had not served under your chairmanship before this Committee, but I was told that you were always firm and fair, and you have completely confirmed that judgment. You allowed us a degree of discretion to range over subjects that were not strictly in line with a tight definition of what was in order, but you always stepped in firmly as soon as the borderline was crossed and brought us back to the straight and narrow. You also demonstrated a considerable commitment to duty, presiding over our affairs this morning after what was quite an arduous night for you on the Floor of the House. We thank you very much for that. We also thank Mr. Benton for his oversight of other sittings. I hope that you and he will enjoy a period of well deserved rest and relaxation over Christmas.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2002 | Prepared 19 December 2002 |
