Clause 7 - Encouraging Voting
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
10:30 am
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
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
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.
Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)
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 Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
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.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
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
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 Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
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 Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
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.
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
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 Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
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, Conservative)
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 Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
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
is not necessary. I am also detailing why the amendment is flawed in a number of other respects.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I should like to comment on the word ''certify'', but shall give way before I do so.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
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 Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I can barely wait for the next intervention.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
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?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I am not sure that it would. The amendment would impose on the Electoral Commission a duty that I believe already exists under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I think that the hon. Gentleman's point is that that duty needs to be extended to councils and others who are involved. The amendment mentions ''anything'' done under the section. One interpretation of that could be that the commission has to certify not only its own materials, but all materials that have the potential to influence people to vote. That may be a flaw in the amendment. It would not be practical for the commission to certify all encouraging materials.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
That is the second rather strange interpretation that the Under-Secretary has put on the amendment. Will he tell us how he arrived at the conclusion that the amendment, which requires the Electoral Commission to certify something done under a section that starts:
''The Electoral Commission may do anything they think necessary'',
could possibly be interpreted as referring to material provided or put out by other parties?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I received advice that there is an ambiguity in the drafting of the amendment. Indeed, that is not the only ambiguity. There is the matter of certification. It is difficult to see how the commission could produce such a certificate without knowing approximately how many people might vote one way or the other if they were to read encouraging materials.
There are a number of flaws in the amendment, but my principal objection is that it is unnecessary. The Electoral Commission is establishing a strong and justified reputation for being impartial, fair and independent. The amendment is superfluous, given the clauses in the Bill. I ask the Committee to resist the amendment.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I am perfectly prepared to address the Under-Secretary's contention that the amendment is superfluous, but to claim that the amendment is flawed and then to shelter behind the claim that he is acting on advice that he received, rather than explaining why it is flawed, is unsatisfactory. The amendment merely requires the Electoral Commission to certify that ''in the Commission's judgment'' its actions do not disproportionately benefit one of the possible outcomes. That is not impossible. I hope that the commission exercises careful judgment in relation to anything that it does; if so, it will be in a position to certify what the amendment requires.
Without referring the Committee to any particular provision in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Under-Secretary said that the duty ''already exists''. I would like to know precisely what the Under-Secretary had in mind so that I can judge whether that is so.
Nobody in the Room doubts that the Electoral Commission will go about its business without any intention of bias. The amendment does not address intentional bias; it addresses the unintended consequences of addressing a group or groups—perhaps groups with particular disabilities, for example—that may be more or less inclined to vote one way or the other. I have no reason to suppose that the majority of partially sighted people in any region will be more or less disposed to one side of the argument. However, if there were a group among whom it was obvious, from the available evidence, that there was a strong feeling one way or the other, the Electoral Commission would have to approach with care the way in which it presented or reinterpreted the issues to members of that group.
The Under-Secretary did not touch at all on communications media. As Members of Parliament, we all have to wrestle with the uneven distribution of access to electronic communications media. When a constituent sends one of us an e-mail, he often expects to get an answer pretty much straight away because he has communicated in that way. Equally, given that he has access to electronic mail, he is unlikely to be among the most needy and disadvantaged of our constituents.
I do not know what other hon. Members do, but I always print out my e-mails from constituents, put them in the pile with the faxes and letters and treat them in exact rotation. To do otherwise would be to
discriminate unfairly and unreasonably against constituents who do not have access to electronic communications media. That is an important point when we consider how to encourage voting, as we shall see when we reach clause 8, which deals with the dissemination of information. I should have liked to hear Government support for sending a clear signal to the Electoral Commission that it must, in going about the duty that the clause imposes on it, exercise extreme caution to ensure that the commission does so in a way that is clearly balanced, does not introduce any unintended bias and is beyond reproach, thus reinforcing the credibility and reputation of the commission, not inadvertently undermining it.
I take on board the Under-Secretary's interpretation of the impact of amendment No. 7, although I do not agree with everything that he said. It seems that he has no objection to the principle of the amendment—that actions taken by the Electoral Commission should not bias the outcome, or be seen to bias the outcome, in any way—but he does not think that the amendment would achieve that and that it is therefore unnecessary. We shall go back to the drawing board to try to draft an amendment that attempts to achieve the same objective, but without introducing what, to my surprise, the Under-Secretary seems to believe is controversial content. I hope that the underlying principle of the amendment is in no way controversial and that we will receive a welcome from the Government if we table an alternative at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 27, in
clause 7, page 3, line 38, at end add
'subject to voters being given the option of voting at polling stations'.
The amendment has one explicit purpose; to prevent all-postal ballots for referendums. Various experiments have taken place with all-postal ballots, but it remains unclear how effective they are at stopping fraud and vote rigging. Even under the old, slightly amended, postal vote scheme, which did not use all-postal ballots, there have been in recent years serious allegations of vote rigging regarding local government elections in Pendle and in Birmingham. All-postal ballots are a relatively new idea that is still being trailed, and it would be inappropriate to use them in what it is hoped will be a large-scale election in a regional referendum. Their purpose clearly is to increase voter turnout, which is why Ministers have used that argument to support all-postal ballots. It is questionable, however, whether all-postal ballots will increase voter turnout.
Ways of making voting easier are window-dressing in terms of the overall problem of whether the public feel that they want actively to be involved in the political process. Supermarket voting and electronic voting are simply devices that do not address the public's disconnection from politics. Postal ballots discourage active participation by the public in the political process outside of voting because people can
vote over a period rather than on one day, acting against conventional political campaigns in which people on the ground knock on doors and talk to voters.
Many people believe that the disconnection between people and the political process is largely because the amount of personal contact in politics is declining. Politicians are only seen on television or in the newspapers, and they are not seen on the doorsteps talking to voters. All-postal ballots will further discourage politicians and their supporters from getting out and doing the hard work on the doorstep.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)
I am trying to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Can he explain how postal balloting discourages politicians from knocking on doors to get the vote out? What is the difference?
Matthew Green: Certainly. People can vote over a period of time in postal ballots because they have a window of opportunity, which is greater than a day, in which to post their ballots. As the final date approaches, politicians who knock on doors may find that lots of people say, ''I have already voted.''
Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is speaking for the Liberal Democrats or whether that is his personal view? Closing down the window in the way he has described will stop the Liberals from putting out their scurrilous, last-moment leaflets.
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
In the 1980s, the Conservative party had the reputation for being the most competent campaigning party. That reputation has deserted the party, and it would probably come bottom of the table in its ability to campaign on a local level. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I am speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We are concerned about all-postal ballots for a variety of reasons. [Interruption.] Well, I would not want to be a Conservative given the state of the polls at the moment; it does not matter to the Conservatives what kind of ballot is used, particularly in by-elections.
We are looking at whether widespread vote rigging, which would clearly be easier in a postal ballot, could take place, and whether the evidence from all-postal ballots has been looked at in sufficient detail to make a decision. All-postal ballots militate against active participation in the political process because they lead to more armchair politics.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
Of course, we are all in favour of encouraging political participation and bringing politicians closer to the people. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the regional list system employed in the last European election has achieved that aim?
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
The regional list system has not achieved that aim because it was a closed list. It did not give people the opportunity to vote for the person whom they wanted as well as the party. There are other means, such as an open-list system or the single transferable vote. I shall not bore the Committee with
an explanation of the different voting systems, but there are ways of allowing people to vote for the candidate, as well as the party, they want in a list system. It just happens that when the list was chosen, the Minister then responsible for the matter—the current Foreign Secretary—chose the system that was most likely to frustrate voters' choice of which candidate they wanted.
Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)
Order. We are moving slightly away from the amendment; perhaps the hon. Gentleman would return to it.
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
I am sorry, Mr. Benton. I shall do so. I had just about concluded my comments and I look forward to the Under-Secretary's response.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman managed to introduce a reference to single transferable voting early in our deliberations. I usually look for that as a milestone in the Liberal Democrats' progress in a Committee. If they are true to form and with the hon. Gentleman having got that in, we are coming close to the time when neither Liberal Democrat Member will bother to turn up.
I did not follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments. The only advantage for political activists in the Liberal Democrat party of not having all-postal ballots and insisting on the ability to go to a polling station is that it provides a means of more contact with voters and the opportunity to influence or intimidate people as they approach the polling station. I am sure that no hon. Member of this House would ever condone such behaviour.
We agree that there must be a polling station option and that there must be a postal option. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will confirm that the Government intend to allow voting in person and by post, but Conservative Members would have reservations about going beyond those two options.
I presume that when tabling the amendment the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) interpreted the powers being given to the Electoral Commission widely; at least, I hope he did. I did not interpret the words ''may do anything they think necessary'' literally, because that could include determining the process of the ballot. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that doing anything it thinks necessary or expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting could include offering Marks and Spencer vouchers to anyone turning up at a polling station, or introducing the death penalty for those who do not turn up and vote? Clearly, the intention of the clause is not to give the Electoral Commission total, unfettered power to ensure the maximum turnout. At least, I hope that that is not the intention because it would be very worrying.
Given the Under-Secretary's precise attention to possible misinterpretation in relation to the previous amendment, the hon. Gentleman highlighted the need to tighten the clause to make it absolutely clear that in the run-up to a referendum the Electoral Commission may do anything it thinks necessary for the purpose of encouraging voting; in other words, to encourage
awareness of the referendum and its surrounding processes. Having considered the Liberal Democrat amendment and the wording of the clause, there seems to be a need to tighten it up to make it clear that it does not give the Electoral Commission carte blanche to dictate the details of how the election will be conducted on the day. I look forward to hearing from the Under-Secretary that that is not the intention in the clause and that questions about postal ballots and the conduct of the referendum will be determined by Ministers, hopefully on the advice of the Electoral Commission.
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)
On a point of order, Mr. Benton. The debate on the second amendment seems to be opening up to cover the purpose of the clause. I seek your guidance on whether you are minded to allow a separate stand part debate or whether those of us who have reservations about the nature of the clause should get in now.
Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)
That depends on which way the debate goes. If I consider that the subject has had sufficient discussion in the normal process of the debate, I will put the stand part question when we come to it. If I consider that clause stand part has been insufficiently discussed, I will act accordingly. It is entirely up to members of the Committee.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)
I should like to argue against the amendment. It is ironic that the Liberal Democrats are against postal voting. I accept that the experiments so far have been limited but, according to the Electoral Commission's evaluation, it is clear that the experiments have been successful in increasing turnout. I understand that the average has increased from 32 per cent. to more than 47 per cent.
A pilot was conducted in 2002 in Gateshead, in the north-east of England. The average turnout rate rose from less than 30 per cent. to 57.4 per cent. Of those who voted, 96.1 per cent. did so by post. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow about giving people options. In those elections, 21 delivery points were provided for those who wished to deliver their ballot papers; fewer than 4 per cent. chose to do that. We still need to give people such options. However, the Liberal Democrats are coming at this from a party political point of view, because when large numbers of people participate in local elections or referendums, it is clear that they do not favour the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
What was the turnout in the hon. Gentleman's election, bearing in mind that it was just under 70 per cent. in Ludlow?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)
The good burghers of North Durham returned me on a nearly 58 per cent. turnout, and Chester-le-Street and Derwentside councils are trying for all-postal balloting pilots on the basis that they will increase participation. I expected that the Liberal Democrats, like all of us, would support moves to increase the number of people who participate in the democratic process.
On fraud, I refer again to the Electoral Commission's evaluation report, which stated:
''The commission found no evidence of fraud, although there were some significant public anxieties about the potential for fraud.''
I resist the amendment. Anything that increases turnout at referendums should be supported, including postal balloting. However, I also support giving people the option, as was provided in some of the pilots, to hand in their ballot, although it is clear from the evidence that most people want to vote by post.
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)
I was going to spare no vitriol on what I regard as a monstrous clause and had much lined up to say about it. I am afraid to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has spoiled a good story with facts. I planned to go on at some length about whether any self-respecting legislature would grant anyone the power to do ''anything'', as the Bill does. Unfortunately, the more measured comments of my hon. Friend have spoiled that.
I question the legitimacy of the clause. Previously, we established an agreement across the Chamber that given that referendums—
Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)
Order. I am reluctant to intervene but, referring to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, am I to assume that he will now speak about the clause? I ask him to confine his remarks to the amendment.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
This has been a very illuminating debate. I was briefed to discuss deficiencies in the amendment, as is my style, but the hon. Member for Ludlow helped us all out by saying that it was not just that he wanted to encourage the option of having polling stations open if there were an all-postal ballot, but that he was actually opposed to all-postal ballots. That is the policy of the Liberal Democrats, and was an extremely helpful statement on behalf of its official spokesman.
I am still reeling with incredulity that that is official policy. Surely if the Liberal Democrats stand for anything—I am not sure that they do—it is precisely what it says on the tin, namely for democracy to be as widespread as possible, with as much participation as possible. I thought that the whole purpose of the Liberal Democrat party was to ensure that more people had involvement in the democratic process. The hon. Member for Ludlow has negated the whole purpose of his political activity and said he is against all-postal voting. I find that extremely disappointing given that, surely, all reasonable people want as many people as possible to turn out and vote, whether by post, in person or through any other way of engaging in the democratic process. That is the ideal that should be pursued, so I am very disappointed with the amendment.
Mr Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby, Labour)
Perhaps the moment has gone, but does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary think that this is now the definition of what is meant by liberal democracy?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
That is precisely the point, and I think that the hon. Member for Ludlow has some explaining to do, not least to the leader of his own party. I am sure that he will haul him into the Liberal Democrat
shadow Cabinet room—[Hon. Members: ''The bar!''] I shall not respond to that.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
Does not the Under-Secretary agree that if we moved to all-postal ballots, it would be a sad loss to politics not to have those eve-of-poll leaflets with the graph on the back saying that it is a two-horse race and only the Liberals can win this seat?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I should not want to rule out the option of the hon. Member for Ludlow producing such a leaflet in future, should he so require. I do not want to close the door to that.
I believe that encouraging high turnouts in referendums and elections is an important principle, and that is what the clause seeks to do. I can confirm that, of course, there will be the option for people to hand in their ballot papers at town halls, but that should not require the mass provision of the existing range of polling stations.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The Under-Secretary just confirmed that there will be the option to hand in ballot papers at town halls. Will he clarify whether he is now saying that it is the Government's clear intention to have all-postal ballots, with the option of handing in a ballot paper, or whether that was just a slip of the tongue?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping to clarify the point. If all-postal ballots were an option, there obviously would still be the choice, as in the pilot exercises, to hand in ballot papers at town halls. My worry is that if polling stations had to be kept open as well as having an all-postal ballot—should that circumstance arise—it would not only be extremely costly and bureaucratic but would lead to much confusion for voters, who might feel that, having posted their ballot, they also had the right to turn up in person and vote at the polling station. We must ensure that we keep the electoral system as simple and clear as possible and avoid confusion at all times.
Mr Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby, Labour)
Now that we have established this Liberal Democrat policy of not wanting postal voting at all, can my hon. Friend advise the Committee what the situation would be for someone who had to work or was ill? We might see a long trail of invalids being taken from their beds; obviously Liberal Democrat voters, which might be why they took to their beds in the first place. What would be the consequences for democracy if people were not allowed to vote because of their life circumstances? Would that not be an illiberal form of democracy?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
Quite. My hon. Friend has highlighted a very worrying point. Thank goodness that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has turned up in Committee to take charge and help out the hon. Member for Ludlow, who is about to explain his policy statement on behalf of his party.
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
The record will make it clear that we are opposed to all-postal ballots, but not postal voting in the normal sense. We are against everyone being given a postal ballot paper. Can the Under-Secretary bring himself to deal with that point? The
all-postal ballot has been introduced to increase voter turnout by making it easier for the voter to vote. Does he think that it is a panacea, which will result in high turnouts for ever, or is it a one-off after which we shall see declining turnouts again?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that he is opposed to all-postal ballots, which is an important clarification. One option for encouraging voting is all-postal balloting arrangements for referendums or other forms of election. It is an option, but it should not be introduced in all cases. Incidentally, I can confirm that the decision is not the Electoral Commission's to take; it would take the form of an order, which would be subject to parliamentary approval.
It is important to consider the issues surrounding ease of access to the democratic system, such as making it easier and more convenient to vote for not only those who are perhaps inhibited from physically attending a polling station but those who have to work or who have other obstacles to their attending a polling station at a particular time. Convenience is an important issue in the democratic process and I am astonished that the Liberal Democrats should set their faces against it.
The evidence is far from conclusive on whether all-postal ballots are more likely to lead to fraud. The Liberal Democrat party has jumped to a conclusion when perfectly decent safeguards, which have worked in both those all-postal ballots that have taken place and other elections, are in place to protect the veracity and validity of the democratic process.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I appreciate that the Under-Secretary did not want to pass up the chance to analyse the hon. Member for Ludlow's remarks in detail. In addressing them, however, he has, perhaps inadvertently, given credence to the idea that clause 7 is about the arrangements for a ballot. If my interpretation is correct, can he place on the record that clause 7 is intended to cover the period running up to a referendum and not the arrangements for a ballot?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I can confirm that clause 7 is about the Electoral Commission's role in encouraging voting. The amendment seeks to make that contingent on the option of voting at polling stations being widespread, which explains the nature of the debate.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way, particularly because I was not here at the start of the debate, which means that he is being generous. He believes that all-postal ballots will not be subject to greater fraud. In my constituency, however, there are many multiple-occupancy houses in which there is one post box for all residents. The possibility of fraud in those sorts of communities is inevitably greater if people do not go to their local polling stations. Does that not concern him? Does he have no worries whatsoever? If he had no such worries, it would concern me.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I thought that the Liberals were not opposed to postal ballot arrangements in some circumstances. The hon. Gentleman says that if postal votes go to multiple-occupancy houses that
could lead to fraudulent situations, but that is covered by an Act, and a criminal offence is committed if people tamper with ballots. The criminal law is available for enforcement purposes to protect against fraud taking place.
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
There is a considerable distinction between a situation in which a person requests a postal ballot, and therefore knows that it will arrive, and that in which a house in multiple occupancy receives a whole set of postal ballots on the same day. Some of the occupants may be out of the country for months, so other people in the same household could use their ballot papers. It was very much along those lines that accusations of fraud were made in the two places that I mentioned.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
This is a difficult argument for Liberal Democrat Members to continue. They have sought to undermine not only the principle of all-postal ballots, but of particular postal ballots, by suggesting that they would make it easier for people fraudulently to affect the outcome of an election. I cannot see why such fraud would not also be possible following receipt of notice of poll cards through the doors of houses in multiple occupation, whereby, on his logic, people could impersonate recipients of those cards. We have to highlight that through provisions that make such impersonation a criminal offence.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
It is not my job to feed the Under-Secretary with ammunition, but I should point out that when an elector completes a postal ballot he also completes a declaration—which is presumably kept on file and will be a written record of his misdeeds if fraud is committed—whereas when he goes into a polling station and personates another voter, he leaves no trail of evidence. That thoroughly undermines the Liberal Democrat argument.
If, as the Under-Secretary suggests, the clause is about the period running up to the election and is not intended to give the Electoral Commission total carte blanche to do anything—including to interfere with arrangements on polling day—does he agree that its language needs tightening? Will he give Committee members an undertaking that if we vote for the clause to stand part, the Government will reconsider its wording to ensure that it is completely clear and that there is no scope for misinterpretation? I believe that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Ludlow, genuinely misunderstood its application.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
Although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's underlining the deficiencies of the arguments against postal balloting, it is important to move the argument on. The key words in clause 7 are ''encouraging voting''. Most interpretations of that would suggest that it gives a great deal of clarity to the activities in which the Electoral Commission would be involved in pursuance of the powers involved.
In sum, the amendment would prevent all-postal voting, which would be detrimental to the purposes of good democratic activity because it could militate against involvement by larger numbers of people. Although decisions have not been taken on whether to have all-postal ballots in such referendums, we need to keep our options open. It would be wholly improper to
rule that out through the Liberal amendment, and I resist it.
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
The purpose of the amendment was to flush out the Government's thinking on all-postal ballots.
Mr Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby, Labour)
May I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing members of the Committee to flush out the Liberal Democrats on the subject of postal voting? I am sure that people in my area and around the country will be interested to hear about that official Liberal Democrat policy.
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
We have certainly flushed out the fact that we are not at all happy with the situation in which everybody is sent a ballot paper for an election. The Liberal Democrats do not find an all-out postal ballot acceptable and we are more than happy for people to know that. We have flushed out some of the Under-Secretary's thinking and we will return to this subject later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
First, I would like to give the Under-Secretary the opportunity—I am sure that he will take it, whether I give it to him or not—to answer the questions that the RNIB posed in its briefing. The RNIB asks for clear assurances about large-print information, pictures, illustrations of texts and video and audio tapes, which would help to make the process more accessible. The briefing continues:
''What provision does the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intend to make in the orders regulating the conduct of referendums to enable visually impaired people to vote independently and in secret and who will they be consulting over this?''
I have no idea what answers the RNIB would like to hear, but no doubt the Under-Secretary will be able to make something up.
I return to the broader issue of the scope of the clause. I know that Ministers come into Committee Rooms programmed to defend the impeccable drafting of Bills, without ever conceding the possibility that there might be a need to consider any tightening or changes. Usually such a defence precedes the tabling of 300 Government amendments when the Bill is on Report. I would be more comfortable if the Under-Secretary would accept that the clause is open to interpretations that are much wider than the Government intended. The clause states:
''The Electoral Commission may do anything they think necessary''.
Empowering a body to do anything it thinks necessary to achieve a certain end is very unusual. The clause is open to the interpretation that the Liberal Democrat spokesman placed on it: it might encompass making arrangements for the ballot itself. It might also encompass offering incentives to vote or imposing penalties for not voting. If the Government do not intend such things to be included within the scope of the clause, what possible harm can there be in stating that explicitly?
I am being terribly reasonable. I am not saying that I will vote against the clause; I am asking the Under-Secretary to give the Committee some comfort by at least acknowledging that there is an issue to be addressed. Will he reassure us by saying that the Government will consider the issue? If, after further consultation, with a cold towel round the head, the Government agree that a little more definition would improve the clause, will they draw up an appropriate amendment? The Government cannot bear to accept Opposition amendments, so I am trying to be constructive by offering them the opportunity of proposing an amendment later. Otherwise, the Conservatives would certainly want to introduce an amendment of their own.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he agree that the wording that one might expect in a clause such as this would be along the lines of: ''The Electoral Commission may take all reasonable steps necessary or expedient''? Could he flush out why that language was not used?
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
My hon. Friend, who has legal training, suggests one possible solution. The Government will have an army of legal draftsmen. I have no idea why that wording was not included. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can enlighten us as to why the wording of the clause was chosen. I should also like to see a clear reference to the period during which the Electoral Commission is empowered or encouraged to carry out the actions to which the clause refers. I assume that it will be from the beginning of the referendum period, but the important question is, until when? Will it be until the cut-off day for publication by a Minister under the 2000 Act, or until the day before the poll? Is there any defined period during which the action is to take place? Clearly, the action is not that which relates to the conduct of the ballot.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us a reassurance, by way of a clear ministerial undertaking to reconsider the matter, that will allow us to accept the clause without challenge. Otherwise, I shall encourage my hon. Friends to vote against it.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is unusual for a clause to be phrased in this way. It contains almost a hint of desperation. It seems to suggest that we are so keen for people to turn out that the commission can do anything it likes; it will be given the maximum powers.
This House exists to constrain power and to ensure that it is used in exactly the way that was intended. The Under-Secretary seems surprised at that, but Parliament is there to ensure that when we give away power it is clearly defined, not open-ended or catch-all. The clause seems to be very broad so I urge the Under-Secretary—in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—to think about it a little more. If an assurance to do that were given, the Committee would not have to be divided.
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)
I have a fundamental objection to the clause. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to persuade me that the clause amended in the way that he would like will be acceptable. My concern is that the proper role of the Electoral Commission is to make sure that proceedings—whatever they are—are transparent, proper and fair. The purpose of the clause seems to be to load on to the commission a different requirement; namely, that it should maximise turnout.
I thought that the Committee had established a measure of agreement at its last sitting over the fact that, given that the referendums are advisory in nature, a crucial—indeed, critical—element of the evidence when judging support for regional assemblies will be turnout. The Deputy Prime Minister was originally charged with making an assessment of support before calling the referendums. Turnout at the referendums will therefore, in many respects, be a measure of his effectiveness and performance in judging that correctly. To place on the commission a duty to maximise turnout will undermine it as a measure of the support for the proposition.
If there were to be a campaign in my region, I would be out there vigorously urging people to vote—against the proposition. However, I would not like to find the Electoral Commission also out there charged with doing anything that might maximise turnout. I do not think that turnout should be a proper concern of the commission. Its concern should be proper conduct, fairness and transparency.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I am trying to scribble down the quote from the hon. Gentleman that turnout should not be a proper consideration for the Electoral Commission, which is slightly stretching the arguments that the official Conservative spokesman would normally make.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge for putting on record the representation of the RNIB in respect of ensuring that activities to encourage voting should be as accessible as possible, particularly for those who are visually impaired and have difficulty accessing voting through the normal processes. I can confirm that the commission has so far shown that it is looking hard at how to improve material for voters. As I said, the director of media and public affairs at the commission has confirmed that it intends to produce material designed to encourage partially sighted, blind and disabled voters to participate in any referendum. It is natural to assume and expect the commission to discuss how those practicalities might be taken into account with bodies such as the RNIB.
The substance of the points raised by Conservative Members are about the scope of clause 7 and the notion that it somehow gives away an unwieldy power without constraint to the Electoral Commission.
Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)
The Minister mentioned in his example that the RNIB would have discussions with the Electoral Commission as to what would be expedient or necessary to encourage voting. Would he consider
the Government getting involved in the discussions about how that might be put into practice?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman helpfully brings me to one of the points concerning the role of the Electoral Commission, the role of Government and that of Parliament in its definition of the rules governing referendums. While the clause sets out that the commission may do anything that it thinks necessary or expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting, the emphasis is on the word ''encouraging'' voting. It is not for the Electoral Commission to decide the format of voting, whether there should be compulsory voting, or any of the other speculative issues that were raised earlier. It would be for Ministers to decide on those issues and then make an order that would be placed before Parliament. In that respect, I can envisage Ministers wanting to consult bodies such as the RNIB about matters concerning the conduct of a referendum.
The second point raised by Conservative Members was that somehow the Electoral Commission must be constrained by the insertion of the words ''reasonable steps'' or whatever. That is not necessary. First, the commission's functions are defined under the 2000 Act, so it is not a free-standing body outwith existing law. Its roles and functions are set, and its vires are governed, by the provisions in that Act. It also has a public law duty—as does any public body—to comply with the norms and expected assumptions of administrative law. That is why it is not necessary to amend the clause in such a way.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I am not a lawyer, and I accept that the commission is constrained by general public law. However, my interpretation of the clause is that it might extend the role of the commission as defined by the 2000 Act to include doing anything that it thinks expedient for the purposes of encouraging voting in referendums. I believe that the campaign for clear English, or whatever it is called, would advocate that a non-lawyer of average intelligence—I shall not flatter myself—ought to be able to make head or tail of the legislation. It is not clear that the Electoral Commission is constrained by the role defined for it in the 2000 Act or that the clause does not extend the scope of its remit.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I know that earlier he sought to be as persuasive and constructive as possible in encouraging the Government to review and amend clause 7. In constantly considering the matter, it occurs to me that the sort of irrational activities he envisages the Electoral Commission potentially becoming involved with would not be permitted, because it is obliged to act in a reasonable fashion not only under the 2000 Act but under its wider duties as a public body. It would be subject to judicial review, intervention and so on should it act in an irrational way.
Let us not forget that we are discussing activities to encourage voting. That is the extent of the commission's role that the clause seeks. If the hon. Gentleman's contention is that it somehow provides unconstrained power for the Electoral Commission in a wider sense, I assure him that it does not, given the
requirements for the commission to act reasonably and rationally in the conduct of its duties.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I shall give the Under-Secretary an example and ask him a question. He spoke about the requirement for the Electoral Commission to act reasonably and rationally—we all understand that. However, if one gives the Electoral Commission the right to do anything that it thinks necessary or expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting, whether it is behaving reasonably or rationally will essentially be tested by whether what it is doing is expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting.
Let me give a specific example of a very low-cost way to achieve a higher turnout at referendums. The Under-Secretary might not like it, but it would achieve the purpose. Suppose the Electoral Commission said that a £5,000 prize would be offered in each polling district. One electoral number would be drawn out of a hat containing the electoral numbers of everyone who voted, and one person would get £5,000, £10,000 or whatever. The Under-Secretary might think that that is a terrible, shocking thing, but it would increase the turnout without influencing the outcome.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
It might.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The Minister says from a sedentary position that it might. I can tell him that there are definitely people who will take the trouble to fill in a ballot paper if they think that it might—
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
The point of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seems to be that the Electoral Commission would be required to act reasonably only in respect of the provisions to encourage voting. That is not what is expected under the normal rules and constraints on its activity. First, it is subject to requirements to act reasonably and rationally under the 2000 Act and in wider public law, and there is also the added safeguard of the commission's accountability to Parliament. Let us not forget that it is responsible via the Speaker's Committee to Parliament itself, not to Ministers. Parliament would be able to hold the commission to account for its activities. It is already constrained in several ways; it is not necessary to specify such constraints in the clause.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to be rational and flexible in reviewing the provision. However, in thinking again about the points that he raised, I genuinely believe that the clause achieves its purpose and that the Electoral Commission is limited by the norms of requirements to act reasonably and rationally.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
May I phrase it another way? Let us imagine that we are talking not about the Electoral Commission but about the Secretary of State. Would the Under-Secretary be as happy with the words, ''The Secretary of State may do anything he thinks necessary or expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting'' as he is with those in the clause?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
That is entirely speculative. It is not the purpose of the clause, the wording in the clause, or what we want to achieve. I have already said that other issues concerning the conduct of referendums are a matter for Ministers via Parliament and orders approved by it. The clause simply gives the Electoral Commission a role to encourage voting, which, surely, we all believe is a virtuous activity.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I listened carefully to the Under-Secretary, but he did not deal with my specific example. Is he saying that the Electoral Commission would be constrained by its constitution, by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and by clause 7 from doing what I suggested was a possible way of encouraging voting at referendums?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
It is impossible for me to give too many specific examples of the sort of activities that we want to encourage, subject to the constraints that have been set out on the Electoral Commission. The hon. Gentleman has met officials from the Electoral Commission and knows them to be reasonable, independent and fair minded. Of course, we must ensure that we protect against some of the wilder opportunities that may exist in aberrational situations, but the existing Act and existing public law duties on public bodies provide precisely that level of protection. I accept that the hon. Gentleman made an argument, but he should be assured that protection exists in those provisions.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Let me put it another way. Clearly, the Under-Secretary does not know whether the Electoral Commission would be able to do what I suggested. If it were able to do that and did so, would the Under-Secretary be happy?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I am always a happy individual, regardless of what the Electoral Commission might do. I would not want my happiness to be contingent on its activities. My understanding is that the Speaker's Committee scrutinises the estimates of the Electoral Commission and its proposed expenditure in advance of its activities being undertaken, so there is a measure of protection and accountability via Parliament in relation to the commission's putative activities. It would serve Opposition Members poorly if they undermined the protection that parliamentary accountability might bring to the commission's role.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
The Under-Secretary is doing an impressive job in defending the indefensible. He referred to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. Is he aware that powers that shape what the commission may or may not do are contained in section 13(4) of that Act? It states that
''The Commission shall perform their functions under subsection (1) in such manner as they think fit but may, in particular, do so by'',
and goes on to give specific examples. There is nothing there about reasonable activities, only a reference to
''in such manner as they think fit''.
What is the reasonable, rational framework to which the Under-Secretary keeps referring? It is certainly not in the 2000 Act. He referred vaguely to public law duties, but the commission is a new institution, set up
under a specific Act of Parliament which defines its powers. It is not under an obligation to act reasonably or rationally and clause 7 gives it even wider powers.
Important points have been made and I invite the Under-Secretary to take the matter away and to consider it further.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I would not wish to challenge the hon. Gentleman's abilities and legal training, but other provisions in the 2000 Act cover the establishment of the Electoral Commission, ensure that it is held to account and place a number of constraints upon it. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that public bodies such as the commission are entirely free to do whatever they wish, including undertaking unreasonable and irrational activities, I would, at the very least, challenge his understanding of the normal constraints, which exist through public law duties, on those public bodies. Those constraints prevent them from acting in that manner, and they would be challenged were they to engage in irrational or unreasonable activities.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I do not want to continue the debate for much longer, but I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
The Under-Secretary said that Parliament could hold the Electoral Commission to account through the estimates. That is the last resort of a Minister—I almost said ''scoundrel''. The House last rejected the estimates in 1919. The rulebook gives us three days in which to debate them, but we do not do so. When I have asked Ministers questions about them, they never come to the House with the answers because they do not expect to debate them. It is not satisfactory to suggest that we can hold the Electoral Commission to account through the estimates.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
Although I have yet to experience sitting on the Speaker's Committee, I understand from those who have sat on it that it scrutinises the estimates in great—some might say excruciating—detail.
Mr. Hammond rose—
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
It is not right for the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to undermine the potential role of parliamentary accountability. The Electoral Commission is accountable in that way, it is independent, fair and reasonable, and it is constrained by the norms of public law.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Since the Under-Secretary would not give way, he may have forgotten that the technique of sitting down abruptly does not necessarily work in Committee. Bearing in mind that many members of the Committee are not lawyers, can he confirm that his essential point is that the Electoral Commission's behaviour is subject to judicial review? Can he also confirm that the court would only be able to review the way in which the Electoral Commission took its decisions—whether it had been rational and reasonable—and not their substance?
I have still not received a satisfactory answer to the question of whether the Electoral Commission would or would not be able to do something, which could be entirely rational and reasonable, outwith what the
Under-Secretary had in mind when he drafted clause 7 one Thursday evening.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
As I said ad nauseam earlier, the Electoral Commission is subject to challenges to judicial review of its conduct and whether its activities are reasonable in a normal sense. The hon. Gentleman has posited a number of hypothetical scenarios. His expectations and imagined suppositions of what the Electoral Commission would devise stretch credulity. I believe that the Electoral Commission is reasonable, and I hope that he will accept that.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Although I have an elastic credulity, it, and that of my hon. Friends, is being stretched to the limit by the Under-Secretary. It would have been much better if he had stood up and said, ''We think it is okay but we are open-minded people who are prepared to look again. We will read the report of the Committee's proceedings to see what has been said and have a think about whether we can tighten up the language.''
No one is asking the Under-Secretary to change what he intends clause 7 to do. All we are asking him to do is to make his intention absolutely clear in order to avoid any misunderstanding. Other hon. Members may want briefly to contribute to the debate, and I shall listen to what they say before I ask my hon. Friends whether we should seek to divide the Committee.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
I was not going to speak again, but I am becoming increasingly concerned about the issue. Judicial review entails a court looking at the statutory powers of any public body, which includes local authorities and the new Electoral Commission. The court looks at the decisions made by such a body to see whether it has made its decisions in accordance with its powers. The defining element in the long and complex 2000 Act is in section 13(4), which empowers the commission to
''perform their functions . . . in such manner as they think fit''.
It goes on to define that with some particular examples.
Clause 7 says that the commission may do anything it thinks necessary or expedient. I cannot see how almost any activity could be excluded by those words. Committee members may be seeking to hide behind a future judicial review—the courts keeping the commission in line with its statutory powers and framework—but its statutory powers and framework are wide, and a judicial review is unlikely to help.
The situation is made worse by the fact that that body is untested and untried in relation to the operation a referendum. We have no idea what view it may take when it exercises its proper function of ensuring that people are aware of the issues and are encouraged to vote. I strongly support a high turnout and the dissemination of information to every potential voter by the commission. However, we have no idea how it might go about doing that.
Therefore, it is important that the clause gives maximum guidance to the commission. It should set a clear framework. It should certainly include the word
''reasonable''. I do not know if my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will decide that we should vote against clause 7. Based on what I have heard this morning, I feel that the clause cannot be allowed to proceed into law. It is a recipe for confusion and potential disaster.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Having listened to the wise words of my hon. Friend, and taking into account everything that has been said—and much that could have been said—by the Under-Secretary, I must press the matter to a Division.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 6
Division number 3 - 8 yes, 6 no
Voting yes: Linda Gilroy, Kevan Jones, Jim Knight, Christopher Leslie, Lawrie Quinn, Nick Raynsford, Graham Stringer, Phil Woolas
Voting no: Edward Davey, Adrian Flook, Matthew Green, Philip Hammond, Gary Streeter, Desmond Swayne