Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in

Clause 7, page 3, line 37, leave out 'voting' and insert 'participating'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment No. 33, in

Clause 7, page 3, line 38, at end add 'provided that any such thing that the Electoral Commission do shall treat abstention as an act of participation and shall draw attention to the effect of abstention in such a referendum'.

Amendment No. 28, in

Clause 8, page 4, line 13, at end add 'and the significance to the outcome of the referendum of abstention'.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I think that we would all generally support encouraging voting. However, I am afraid that we are to be taken to some familiar ground on which we have already touched. Mindful of the time and the commitments that we made during the Programming Sub-Committee to keep things moving, I do not want to spend too much time on the matter.

Amendment No. 32 changes the word ''voting'' to ''participating''. It is a consequential amendment that would be needed if the Committee or indeed the House were to agree to insert the principle of thresholds into the process.

Amendment No. 33 requires abstention to be treated as an action rather than an inaction, and

amendment No. 28 does something similar in relation to clause 8. I hope, although it may be a forlorn hope, that it will not be necessary for us to debate the benefits of thresholds in order to debate the logical necessity for these provisions if a threshold is introduced. They are two separate things.

If a threshold test is introduced—of course, Parliament may not agree to it—it will be important to make certain changes. It will be necessary to require the Electoral Commission to encourage participation in the referendum, because if a threshold is introduced, abstention will be an act rather than the lack of an act. Abstention will be an effective way of influencing the outcome of the ballot, as hon. Members emphasised earlier. If Parliament had introduced a requirement for a threshold, it would be iniquitous to oblige the Electoral Commission to encourage voting without acknowledging that abstention can also be active. As has already been said, electors may enter a polling booth and consciously not cast a vote. That is an act of abstention, although it is just as carefully thought through as voting for one or other of the candidates on the ballot paper. If a threshold is introduced, it will be necessary, in all the provisions relating to encouraging voting and allowing the Electoral Commission to disseminate information, to recognise the significance of abstention in determining the outcome of a ballot.

I am sure that we could engage in a lengthy argument about the benefits of introducing a threshold, but I would prefer to leave that debate for another day and discuss whether the amendments flow, logically and necessarily, from a decision to introduce a threshold. Bearing in mind the guidance given to the Committee by Mr. Butterfill this morning, it would probably be appropriate to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that if Parliament introduced the concept of thresholds during consideration of the Bill in the House, the amendments would be reintroduced at a later stage, hopefully by the Government, technically to perfect a gap in the Bill's architecture.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Is he seeking to withdraw amendments Nos. 32 and 33? I am curious because even assuming that the amendments are not freestanding and are consequential—amendment No. 32 would leave out ''voting'' and insert ''participating'' and amendment No. 33 would provide that abstention should be treated as an act of participation—the hon. Gentleman would be asking the Electoral Commission to encourage abstention. Is that right?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The Minister has taken the argument a step too far. In requiring the Electoral Commission to encourage participation in the election, the amendment simply recognises the logic of the fact that, if there is a threshold, abstaining will not be a neutral act, but could have an impact on the outcome. If the purpose of clauses 7 and 8 is to ensure that electors are well informed, and if there is a threshold requirement, it is essential that electors understand how the act of abstaining, as well as the act of voting

either way, will contribute to determining the outcome. It is an education process. I do not think that anybody in this Room would deny that if a threshold requirement is introduced, abstaining could have an effect on the outcome of the referendum. If it did not, the idea of a threshold would not have generated the heat that it has. If the purpose of these two clauses is the education of the electorate, it must be an education about all the effects and consequences of any course of action. If Parliament is minded to introduce a threshold, such consequences would flow from that.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

I find it intriguing that the Electoral Commission was set up to encourage people to vote, but we are arguing that we should be encouraging it to encourage abstention. Does the hon. Gentleman define abstention in two different ways? For example, someone might go to the poll and ruin the ballot paper and someone else might sit at home and not turn up. How do we judge whether the act of abstention is positive or not?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

It is an interesting question, but it cannot be answered—[Interruption.] It cannot be answered because we do not know how the Government intend to conduct the referendum. Although the Liberal Democrat amendment appears to suggest that the Electoral Commission will make that decision, I understand very clearly from talking to the Electoral Commission that it will not. The Government will decide how the referendum is to be conducted. Will it be by electronic voting, postal ballot or by means of conventional polling booths? The hon. Gentleman's question is valid and legitimate, but it is impossible to answer it until we know how the Government will conduct the referendum. If it were to be conducted by universal postal ballot, with no option of going to the polling station, or by text message, I imagine that my answer to his question would be very different from if it were to be conducted by conventional means. [Interruption.] I have a touch of the MacShanes, Mr. Benton, I hope that you will excuse me. I have explained the purpose of tabling the amendments and I would be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments are rather bizarre. Take the example of inserting ''participating'' and leaving out ''voting''. ''Participating'' has a very wide definition. Leading the Electoral Commission to aid campaigns that would encourage abstention and not taking part in the democratic process seems strange and convoluted, not to say perhaps a misuse of public money. I am surprised that the Conservatives wish to encourage such a misuse of public funds.

In amendment No. 28 in particular, ''abstention'' is used in a way that suggests that the majority of those who abstain do not wish to have a referendum. All those people who abstain and those who vote no would be added up as an argument against the referendum. In a sense, the amendment does not take into account that people might abstain because they are happy with a decision that might be taken anyway, whether they vote or not. The amendment bears no relation to the fact that some people do not

vote because they are ill. Some people do not vote because they are dead but still on the electoral register. There are a variety of reasons why someone might have ''abstained''. I realise that there might have been occasions when someone who was dead might have voted, but that is an abuse of the electoral system and should not be encouraged.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I accept that the hon. Gentleman is making an argument against the introduction of thresholds, which is a substantive issue that we will debate later. However, does he accept that if thresholds are set—we do not know at what level they would be set—campaigning for abstention is a legitimate political activity?

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

No, I do not accept that campaigning for abstention, or providing information that aids people to abstain is a legitimate use of public funds, which is exactly what we are debating. The Electoral Commission is funded by public money.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

Is it not bizarre that the amendment would alter a section entitled ''Encouraging voting''? Line 37 includes the phrase

''for the purpose of encouraging voting at referendums''.

The Opposition's amendment would amend a section with the heading ''encouraging voting'', which includes the phrase ''encouraging voting'', but they then talk about not being able to encourage voting because it may affect the outcome of the referendum. The argument is entirely contradictory.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. I seek guidance more than anything. I did ponder that issue, but I had always been under the impression that the headings in Bills were for convenience only and did not have any force or effect. I would appreciate guidance as to whether that is the case.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

That is right. The hon. Gentleman is correct on that point of order.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments are designed to change the very basis on which the Electoral Commission was set up in the first place. As such they should not be accepted into a Bill that is not, in the main, concerned with the Electoral Commission. If the Conservatives wanted to make changes to the Electoral Commission, they should have done so when it was set up. This is not the time to start making changes to the way in which the Electoral Commission works.

The amendments are some of the strangest that we have seen today, in that they ask a publicly funded body to aid and abet an action—[Hon. Members: ''Inaction.'']—Yes, inaction. Most of us would regard that as being against the democratic process. The amendment is very strange indeed and we will not support it.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

I am absolutely in awe of the ability of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to make his arguments with a straight face. He nearly cracked at the end. He nearly let his visage slip. I was absolutely astonished at his skill and ability in making that very difficult point, not least because of the consequential effects of the amendments. I am duty

bound in the short time that I have to try to dissect what remains left on the floor of the amendments.

As I understand it, amendment No. 32 would allow encouragement by the Electoral Commission of participation rather than voting. I would urge the Committee to resist that because ''voting'' is a clear and unambiguous act, whereas participation is rather more vague and ill defined. The Opposition have linked that with amendment No. 28, to allow abstention to be as encouraged as well as voting. Amendment No. 33 defines abstention as an act of participation. Therefore, if the amendments were agreed, there would be a rather bizarre situation. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge visited the poor old Electoral Commission, but I bet that he did not tell it at the time that he would be trying to persuade it to encourage abstention. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman said, as I thought, that the commission was looking to him to draw these matters out, I would be interested to hear—

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

That is not what I said. I said that the Electoral Commission is more switched on than the Minister gives it credit for. It had a fully marked-up copy of the Bill and all the amendments sitting on the table.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

I am sure that the Electoral Commission treated the hon. Gentleman's amendments with the mirth that they deserve. Thank goodness there is little prospect of Conservative Members being in a position to enact some of those provisions.

Amendment No. 28, to clause 8, would give information about the significance of abstention to the referendum's outcome. However, the Government believe that the best way for people to participate in a referendum is to cast a vote. That is not exactly rocket science; it is a fairly straightforward principle in our democracy. Voting is the only way in which people can clearly and unambiguously express their view on the referendum question, so the Electoral Commission should encourage voting, not abstention. The fairest and simplest approach is to decide solely on the basis of the votes cast.

The concept of formalised abstention is unworkable, because it is impossible to determine whether someone deliberately abstained or was apathetic. Opposition Members know the concept of being decidedly undecided or actively apathetic. Although it might be instinctive for them to dither, equivocate and fudge in that way, most people are capable of deciding and cherish their right to vote. It would be equally silly to suggest that if non-voters were considered in this regard, they should also be considered in general or local elections, for which turnout might also be questioned.

I believe that the Electoral Commission will encourage as many people to vote as possible, so that a referendum shows the real views of the people in the region. We want to consider all ways of encouraging voting and boosting voter turnout. We want to engage the public, whom we all represent. I therefore hope that the Committee will resist the amendments.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

It would not have been my choice to argue for the consequential amendments before having had the debate on the substantive amendment. That is simply the rather bizarre—to use a popular word—structure of our debates. We shall return to the substantive issue. Many people strongly feel that we must not go down the route of having a series of initiatives that provoke little public interest and generate little participation, but that are then imposed on us as a result of small levels of assent—possibly a 51 per cent. yes vote on a 22 per cent. turnout. That is simply not enough to make a significant change to our constitutional arrangements.

Many of my hon. Friends raised the need for a threshold on Second Reading. If the Minister had been a little more forthcoming this morning about what he would regard as an appropriate level—

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

It is his fault.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Of course it is his fault; he is the Minister responsible. If he had been more forthcoming this morning, perhaps we could have had this debate in a different atmosphere. He could have said to me,

''Don't be absurd. Of course we aren't going to set up a regional assembly on the back of 11 per cent. of the electorate in a region voting yes.'' However, in the absence of any ministerial confirmation, we have to assume the worst. We must assume that, if 20 per cent. turn out and 51 per cent. of them vote yes, the Government may go ahead and set up a regional assembly.

We want to consider thresholds. We hope that, in the course of that debate, we may elicit from Ministers some guidance as to the internal flexible and non-statutory thresholds that they will impose on themselves. That would be extremely helpful to us all in our consideration of these matters. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas]

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Seven o'clock till Tuesday 10 December at half-past Ten o'clock.