Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 29, in

clause 8, page 4, line 20, leave out subsection (4) and insert

'No Minister of the Crown may make any order under section 109(6) of the 2000 Act in respect of a referendum held pursuant to section 1 above'.

We now turn to the issue of information disseminated to voters, and the specification of the various days in relation to the referendum period under the 2000 Act. Subsection (3) of clause 8 defines the term ''appropriate day'' in relation to the referendum period as being the 43rd day of that period, if applications had been made under section 109 of the 2000 Act, and the 29th day of that period if no such applications had been made. That is fine; I have no problem with it. However, subsection (4) gives a Minister carte blanche to define any other day as the appropriate day—next Tuesday fortnight, the day after the Deputy Prime Minister's wife's birthday, or any other day.

That seems to be wrong in principle. It provides too much ministerial discretion. No doubt hon. Members who served on the Committee that considered the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill spent many hours, days and perhaps nights—that was in the good old days—discussing the Bill's details. Its purpose was, among other things, to set down procedures for the conduct of referendums, which are clearly going to become a more important and regular feature of our democracy, so that there was an objective set of rules and a framework for that.

If referendums are to be a regular feature, each should not be subject to manipulation by the Government of the day, seeking to get the result that they want. That is why legislation must contain provisions on, for example, the appropriate day. This is a small example of a wider tendency in this Bill and in many others to set out a scenario but then insert a clause that gives a Minister power to override the legislation that Parliament has considered in depth, and substitute any other provision that he might feel like. That will be done by order, and so be subject to debate, but that debate will be a short one in a Standing Committee on a statutory instrument. That will not be adequate—it will certainly not give the comprehensive opportunity for debate afforded by the principal consideration of a Bill's details in Standing Committee. This Committee must make a stand now and reject parts of the Bill that give Ministers power to override other provisions in the Bill and make different arrangements.

We are discussing a referendum in which, as we all understand, the Government will not be a neutral party. The Government are a protagonist in this debate. They will already have a huge advantage over those campaigning on the opposite side because, although there will be restrictions throughout the referendum period on what the campaigns can do, the Government will be unrestricted until 28 days before the referendum. That is a huge imbalance in the arrangements, which I understand is likely to be tested in the courts in due course in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. As the law appears to stand at the moment, however, the Government will already have a huge advantage. They must not be allowed to enshrine that advantage further by manipulating the definition of the appropriate date to the disadvantage of one side of the argument.

That could work to the disadvantage of one side of the argument because the no campaign will not have the benefit of the Government's information dissemination capability, which continues until the 28th day before the referendum, whereas the yes campaign, although also constrained by a change in the appropriate day, will effectively be underwritten by the Government's information campaign.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

I hope to make a brief contribution, consistent with a point that I made in Committee last week. One of the important things about any Act of Parliament is that it gives clarity and certainty. At the beginning, clause 8 appears to give clarity and certainty about the time scales in which the Electoral Commission can designate an organisation under the 2000 Act to be funded to take forward the yes or no campaign. Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said so powerfully, one reads subsection (4), which refers to section 109(6) of the 2000 Act. The time scales in clause 8(2) and particularly (3) appear to be clear, but subsection (4) refers us to another Act of Parliament. One might assume that section 109(6) of the 2000 Act sets out a

limited range of circumstances in which a Minister may make an order, and that they will probably be clearly defined and closely controlled. However, this is the sort of smoke-and-mirrors operation that we have come to associate with this Government.

Section 109(6) of the 2000 Act states:

''The Secretary of State may, in the case of any referendum to which this Part applies, by order provide for this section to have effect as if each, or either, of the periods of 28 and 14 days referred to in subsections (2) and (3) was instead such shorter or longer period as is specified in the order.''

That is enough to make anyone give up. It is saying that the Secretary of State can by order change the dates that are set out in the Bill and substitute any other date that he chooses; that might create a shorter or longer period.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the effect of that could be to delay the designation of bodies for campaigning purposes in a way that would wholly disadvantage the campaign for the opposite side of the argument from the Government, who would have their own campaign?

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must make absolutely sure that we build sufficient safeguards against that.

Why is this matter important? As my hon. Friend has already made clear, the Government will not be neutral if a referendum is held in any region of this country—we are expecting at least one referendum during this Parliament. The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear on the Floor of the House a week or two ago that he will be campaigning vigorously and ferociously in favour of a yes vote in a referendum. He will be the Secretary of State who may by order provide for the dates to be changed at short notice, overnight and very suddenly. No explanation, or justification will be necessary because the Secretary of State has that power under section 109(6) of the 2000 Act.

I do not doubt for a second the integrity of the Deputy Prime Minister, but it is human nature to do all one can to advance a cause to achieve the result that one wants. I do not think that we should allow the Government to be judge and jury. Clause 8(4) is utterly unnecessary. I want the Minister to explain why it is in the Bill, and under what circumstances a change of timetable would be necessary.

My final point on clause 8 relates to subsection (3). I do not know whether it was drafted deliberately to make it almost incomprehensible. When one drills down, it is fine; it is talking about a 14-day gap. However, can the Minister explain why it is drafted in that way? What is the significance of the 43rd day and the 29th day? I know that they are 14 days apart, but why such phrasing? I am sure that it is my failing, but I simply do not understand.

I repeat that clause 8(4) is not appropriate to go on the statute book. I strongly support the amendment.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) that they have no reason to be as alarmed by the provision as they appear to be. They know that the clause relates to the

provision of information for voters and is a safeguard against circumstances in which there may not be a designated yes and no campaign. In such situations, the Electoral Commission will be able to provide neutral and informative information to electors. I think that we would broadly agree that that is a desirable outcome.

Section 109(2) of the 2000 Act sets a standard period of 28 days from the start of the referendum period in which permitted participants must apply to the Electoral Commission to be designated as organisations to which assistance such as grants will be available. Permitted participants could include a campaign group that has notified the Electoral Commission, under section 106 of the 2000 Act, of what it is and what result in a referendum it stands for.

Section 109 sets a standard period of 14 days after the end of that 28 days within which the Electoral Commission must determine applications for assistance as a designated organisation. However, section 109(6), to which the hon. Member for South-West Devon alluded, also allows for an order to be made to vary those periods—they can be shorter or longer. There are several circumstances in which that might apply. For example, were a referendum to be held over a period in which there were one or more bank holidays—for example, one that occurred early in the new year, so that the referendum period covered the Christmas and new year holidays—the Electoral Commission might feel that it did not have sufficient time within the 14-day period adequately to consider whether there were two organisations that should be registered. That is one possible eventuality. I shall leave it at that, unless the hon. Gentleman would like me to give more examples.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

What if the first referendum takes place in the north-east and the yes campaign, a few days before the end of the period in which it should apply to be a designated organisation, has an internal falling-out or other difficulty and cannot quite get its act together in time? Would that be sufficient reason for the Secretary of State to agree to a delay?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Let us consider that particular eventuality. If there were uncertainty as to whether there was a body that could be designated as a yes campaign, the Electoral Commission would consult the provisions in clause 8 to decide whether it should provide information since it was unable to register a yes and a no campaign. It has to register both, not just one. If there was an element of doubt about whether the organisation could get its act together, I can envisage that the commission might want to explore that with it. As the hon. Gentleman implied earlier, it might be subject to a threat of legal action by a putative campaigning body that, for reasons of internal disagreement, found itself unable to get its act together in time, suddenly discovered that it was ineligible for registration, and sought to overturn the 28-day provisions that arbitrarily debar it. Would the hon. Gentleman really argue that it should never be possible to vary those periods of time in such circumstances?

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

Does the Minister agree, though, that the clause cannot apply until after the appropriate day

has been and gone? If the appropriate day is delayed and there is no designated party for the no campaign, there will still be a Government who are actively campaigning for the yes campaign. The Government therefore have a clear incentive to delay the appropriate day so that the Electoral Commission is unable to disseminate information promoting awareness of both sides of the argument.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

That is a pretty fanciful interpretation. We are considering circumstances in which the Secretary of State might believe, probably on the basis of representations from the Electoral Commission, that there is a case for varying the timetable to allow the proper operation of the legislation as prepared by Parliament. It is pretty fanciful to suggest that the Secretary of State might try to manipulate that process to give himself more time to campaign without a registered alternative campaign group, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have absolutely no intention of behaving in that way.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

The Minister is making some good points, but why was the power to vary dates given to the Government, not to the Electoral Commission?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he will discover that the Government have the power to set the entire referendum period, so there must be an interface. I do not intend to push the technical arguments, but the amendment is defective because it would still leave the Government free to set the referendum period, while taking away the power to vary it to allow for the registration of particular campaigning groups, which appears to me to be an undesirable outcome.

Amendment No. 29 would require that in the case of referendums, applications to be a designated organisation always have to be made in the 28-day period, and the Electoral Commission always has to determine applications during the next 14 days. It is based on the premise, which the Opposition may have difficulty in justifying in the light of my examples, that there could never be circumstances in which different periods were appropriate, even though Parliament recently passed legislation on the assumption that there might be—the PPER Act. As I have already said, the amendment would not remove the ability of the Secretary of State to set the length of the referendum period, which is determined in clause 4. It would fix only the period for applications from permitted participants to be the organisations designated to receive assistance, and the time taken by the Electoral Commission to determine those applications.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The Minister could tackle the substance of our concerns if he gave an undertaking that in circumstances where the appropriate day was delayed, the Government would not start disseminating information in support of the yes campaign until after the appropriate day. That would have the desired effect.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I have already given the hon. Gentleman a pretty clear indication that the Government will act properly at all times in that

area. I really do not accept his somewhat paranoid view about the potential behaviour of the Government as a basis for amending legislation.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I have not understood the Minister's reply—was it yes or no? Is the Minister saying that the Government would not disseminate information until the designated bodies were also able to get started, or is he saying that they would, and it is perfectly proper for them to do so?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, certain factual information should be set out for the benefit of the public, some of which may well come from the Government. That information cannot be set out in the 28 days prior to the referendum. That is another timetable factor. That information has to be put out before the last 28-day period bites. Therefore, it is perfectly proper for the Government to put out factual information, but the hon. Gentleman's suggestion—if I am wrong, he will correct me—was that the Government might malevolently use the provision to delay the process so that they could continue to put out biased information with no opportunity for a registered no campaign to put out alternative information. That struck me as fanciful and rather unworthy as an allegation.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I certainly was not suggesting that the Government would act malevolently, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon pointed out, the Deputy Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that he intends that the Government should campaign actively for a yes vote in such referendums. That is Government policy and it was in the Labour party's manifesto. We have no qualms about the Government actively campaigning for a yes vote, but we have to ensure that the playing field is level. The Minister could soothe our concerns if he would state that the Government do not intend to use Government machinery to issue information until after the appropriate day.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The problem is that after the appropriate day—if it is the second of the appropriate days—we are straight into the 28-day period leading up to the referendum, so the Government would be debarred by the existing legislation from issuing information during that period.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Not necessarily.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

It would, because from the appropriate day, if it is the 43rd day, there are just 27 days to go until the referendum, if the timetable set out in the legislation is pursued. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would put the Government in the impossible position of having to give an undertaking that we would not put out any information until a date after which we are debarred from putting out information. That is a preposterous suggestion.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I may have misheard the Minister, but I thought that he said that it was for the Government to determine the referendum period.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Yes.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

If it is for the Government to determine the referendum period, it cannot possibly be right a priori to say that the appropriate day will always coincide with the 28th day before the referendum.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully. I did not say that it would always be the case; I said that it would be the case if the Government pursued the standard period, which they would in most cases. In that situation, if we were debarred from saying anything or gave an undertaking that we would not say anything until the appropriate date, we would be caught by the double whammy that there would then be a statutory bar against us saying anything after that date.

If the amendment were accepted, the Secretary of State could, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, decide that a long referendum period was appropriate in particular circumstances. However, he would not be able to give permitted participants more than 28 days in which to make their applications, nor would he be able to give the Electoral Commission longer than 14 days in which to make its determinations, even if the commission was pressing him to do so. That would be unsatisfactory. The commission might have good reasons for believing that it needed longer than 14 days to reach a decision, but the Government would be denied the opportunity to amend that.

The proposals in the amendment are not coherent and they do not add good sense to the Bill. I hope that I have assured the hon. Gentleman that the existing provisions are there for good, common-sense reasons and that the Government do not intend to abuse the provisions for campaigning purposes—indeed, I have demonstrated that it would be difficult for them to do so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for effectively undertaking, on behalf of the Government, not to abuse the provisions for campaigning purposes. Ministers typically accuse the Opposition of paranoia. If they look at the Government's Bills, they will understand why we are worried. These days, all Government Bills are littered with such vast numbers of discretionary powers for Ministers that Opposition Members have to be extremely wary and have to probe Ministers in Committee.

Being realistic, Opposition Members know that the Government will not accept the removal of such wide powers. The best that we can hope to achieve is that we will get a Minister at the Dispatch Box to give some binding undertakings about how the powers will and will not be used. Although I accept the spirit of the Minister's assurance, it might be difficult to tie down its precise meaning. I think that he has recognised that there is an underlying concern, although he would regard it as part of the Opposition's paranoia.

The interaction of this legislation and section 109 is complicated. I am not entirely sure that the issue that the Minister raised of there being a zero window for Government information dissemination is a real concern or one that could not be avoided if

Ministers were so minded. I will consider what the Minister has said and will look again at the Bill and the 2000 Act. If I am not satisfied, I will return to the issue later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in

clause 8, page 4, line 24, leave out from 'secure' to end of line 26 and insert

'a dissemination of such information to the maximum number of persons entitled to vote in the referendum that can be cost effectively achieved'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 34 in

clause 8, page 4, line 26, at end add—

'(6) The cost incurred by the Electoral Commission pursuant to this section may not exceed the aggregate of the maximum permitted grants that the Electoral Commission would be empowered to make under subsection 110(2) of the 2000 Act if it had designated a participant in respect of each of the possible outcomes of the proposed referendum'.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Amendment No. 8 deals with subsection (5), which is written in terms of an absolute obligation:

''Information provided in pursuance of this section must be provided by the means the Commission think is most likely to secure (in the most cost effective way) that the information comes to the notice of all persons entitled to vote in the referendum.''

The commission has a choice about methodology, but it must use the most cost effective way of doing what is most likely to mean that information comes to the notice of all persons. On a moment's reflection, that is not a sensible ambition to set for the Electoral Commission. Bringing something to the notice of all persons, or using the means most likely to do that, is very ambitious.

I hesitate to say that the Government are usually reluctant to spend public money unnecessarily, because they no longer speak with one voice on that, but the Chancellor certainly used to be reluctant to spend public money unnecessarily, and the reference here to cost-effectiveness does not bite. As I read the subsection, all it does is require that the Electoral Commission, in judging the different methods that are most likely to ensure that information comes to the notice of all persons, chooses the most cost-effective of those. In my humble interpretation, the commission will not have the option of choosing a method that is significantly less costly, but less likely to ensure that information comes to the notice of all persons entitled to vote.

Amendment No. 8 would remove the words from ''secure'' to the end of the subsection and insert words so that the subsection would require the use of the means most likely to secure

''a dissemination of such information to the maximum number of persons entitled to vote in the referendum that can be cost effectively achieved''.

I imagine that that is what the Government intend; I do not imagine that they intend to steer the Electoral Commission to the last marginal voter at a cost of some tens of millions of pounds, if that is what it takes. That needs to be said in the Bill.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

Does not the amendment potentially discriminate against people in rural areas, whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier today? If the commission disseminated information only to the maximum number of people, it might focus on places where the maximum number of people lived. The original wording makes sure that all persons entitled to vote will get the information, including those who live in a remote part of the region, to whom it might be difficult to get information.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. The Bill introduces an absolute requirement to get the information to all persons. I will not suggest that the amendment is perfectly drafted—the Government might accept the principle but suggest better wording—so I stand to be corrected, but I understand that the phrase

''that can be cost effectively achieved''

could involve moving quite a long way up the cost curve. Clearly, however, some voters at the margin will be just too expensive to reach and it would not be sensible to try to reach that last small percentage of electors. For example, they might be people with such profound disabilities that it would not be practical, in a cost-effective way, to get the information to them; or they might be people who had sailed off to a remote and hitherto uninhabited island off the north-west coast of Scotland. An element of common sense is required.

The amendment is trying to make the point that the clause as written places an absolute obligation without modifying that in any way to deal with the ability to access such marginal electors in a cost-effective way.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

The original wording says not that the means used should be those that are certain to secure that end in the most cost-effective way, but that they should be those the commission thinks are ''most likely'' to do so. That allows the commission to go some way up the cost curve, but clarifies the aspiration that all persons should be notified far more clearly than the amendment does.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I do not think that that is right. The other Minister spoke earlier about the Electoral Commission's general duties—

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

The other Minister?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The ''mere'' Minister spoke earlier about the Electoral Commission's general duties in public law. As I understand it, the commission is obliged to do what it thinks is most likely to ensure that the information comes to the notice of all persons. I interpret that to mean that if two options were available to the commission, and one of them, which is most likely to secure that the information comes to the notice of all persons, costs £10 million and the other, which its promoters happily say will reach only 99 per cent. of voters, costs £1 million, clause 8 will not provide the Electoral Commission with the ability to opt for the £1 million solution; it will have to go for the £10 million solution.

That is my interpretation, but I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon, who has the benefit of legal training,

thinks. I shall be interested to see how the Under-Secretary argues against the amendment—I deduce from his body language that he is against it.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

May I tease out the hon. Gentleman's argument on that point? We have heard that the Government may consider all-out postal voting in which a ballot paper would be sent to every home. Is he suggesting that in those circumstances they should not send information about voting to every home? In that case, a ballot paper would be sent but information about the referendum would not.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Clearly, the Electoral Commission will send information to every postal address on the electoral register, but that is not adequate. It would not be taking the steps that it thinks are most likely to ensure that the information comes to the notice of all persons entitled to vote by simply putting a letter in the post; it is required to go much further than that.

We have already heard the RNIB's concerns about ensuring that information reaches blind and partially sighted persons, which is fine, but other people who are entitled to vote may require the Electoral Commission to take more extreme measures. All I am suggesting—I should have thought that this was uncontroversial—is that there is a cut-off point beyond which it is not financially sensible to require the Electoral Commission to go. It should at least be given some discretion to use common sense in interpreting its duty to reach the greatest number of people without being required to reach all people.

Amendment No. 34 would introduce a new subsection to clause 8. It deals with a situation in which the Electoral Commission is disseminating information by virtue of clause 8. If the Electoral Commission designates organisations under section 108 of the 2000 Act, a financial limit on their spending in support of their campaigns for the yes or no outcomes will be imposed upon them. In his halcyon days as an iron Chancellor, the Chancellor would have supported me in those arguments, but not any more. He seems to enjoy spending public money and believes that there is a bottomless pit of taxation potential. In the old days, the Chancellor would have agreed with me that it would be perverse if there were so little public interest in a referendum that the Electoral Commission was unable to designate organisations under section 108 of the 2000 Act, and therefore had to take on the role of disseminating information itself. It would be perverse if the effect of such minimal public enthusiasm were more money being spent on the campaign.

Amendment No. 34 would limit the spending of the Electoral Commission when it takes on the role of information disseminator in the absence of designated yes and no campaigns to the aggregate of the maximum spending that would have been allowed by the yes and the no campaigns had such organisations been designated. It seems fairly obvious that that is something that the Electoral Commission would do

anyway. However, the role of information dissemination can become rather more expensive when taken on by public bodies rather than voluntary organisations. There is no argument for spending more public money to do a job than would have been allowed if there had been enough interest to designate yes and no campaign bodies, which would have spent private money.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

I remind the Minister that he did not answer my question about the wording of subsection (3). Why is it phrased as it is and not in the usual way, referring to 14 or 28 days?

As I understand clause 8, given that I have not spent weeks studying it, the Electoral Commission is charged to receive applications from organisations that want to conduct a yes campaign or a no campaign and decides who will make up the campaigning groups. We are considering a situation in which no such groups come forward—that could happen. As the deadlines approach, the Electoral Commission suddenly realises, probably to its horror, that no campaign groups have come forward: ''Oh, my goodness, we have to do it ourselves.'' The commission may not have spent months preparing for such a situation. If it spent months preparing campaigns, it would have wasted time and money if groups came forward to campaign for the yes or no sides, as they probably will. However, we are considering what would happen if they do not.

What will the commission do? It will instantly call in management consultants and ask how on earth it is to get the message across to everyone in the region about the forthcoming referendum on regional government. We know that no one is the least bit interested in it, but the commission must call in management consultants to advise on how to get the message across.

The consultants will guarantee that 100 per cent. of the people will hear about the referendum if the commission spends a certain amount—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made clear, 99 per cent. will hear about it—that 95 per cent. will hear about it if a lower amount is spent, or that only 90 per cent. are likely to hear about it if still less is spent. The package will consist of television, radio, post and posters—a mixture of activity.

The commission will be given a descending list of the numbers of people likely to be reached by any package that it may choose to promote the message. As my hon. Friend has clearly set out, subsection (5) does not give it discretion to choose other than the highest-ranking package on the list:

''Information provided in pursuance of this section must be provided by the means the Commission think is most likely to secure . . . that the information comes to the notice of all persons entitled to vote''.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

And the words in brackets—

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

The Minister of State says, ''in brackets'', but I still do not know the legal interpretation of brackets in a statute. How does one deal with words in brackets?

Three parts of the clause compel the commission to choose the most expensive package, which is most likely to secure

''the notice of all persons''.

It will have no discretion but will have to accept the most expensive package to reach 100 per cent. of the people. Bear in mind that the situation will be upon it in a hurry—at the last minute—and it will not have had time to prepare beforehand. My hon. Friend has made some very powerful points and I much prefer his wording to the wording in the clause.

What is the importance of the omission in subsection (5) of the word ''Electoral'' before the word ''Commission''? I am not aware of a separate definition of ''Commission''. As far as I can work it out, the rest of the Bill refers to the Electoral Commission—perhaps I am missing something. Subsection (5) refers to ''the Commission.'' Is that a simple drafting error or is it profoundly important? I do not want to be offensive to anyone who may be listening to our discussion, but I have the impression that the clause was drafted in a hurry. It might have been drafted during the World cup when England was playing Brazil; the television might have been on in the room in which the clause was being drafted and Michael Owen might have just scored the opening goal with all that followed.

I am not convinced that the drafting of subsections (3) and (5) has been thought through. In the circumstances that I described and when the Electoral Commission is acting at the last moment to get its message across, it will have no discretion but to go for the highest package that the management consultants put forward and I do not believe that that is what the Government intend. I hope that the Minister, whose replies are always impressive, will be able to persuade us that the Bill has been properly drafted, carefully thought through and will have the Government's intended outcome.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I hope that I can give exactly the assurance that the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for South-West Devon seek.

Subsection (5) requires the commission to act in the most cost-effective way. That is a clear requirement of the words in brackets and the fact that they are in brackets in no way invalidates them. I shall not enter a lengthy constitutional debate about the significance of brackets in legislation. We might learn a lot from parliamentary counsel, but I am clear that the reference to ''the Commission'' envisages the Electoral Commission. I am more than happy to take further advice on whether omission of the word ''Electoral'' is a defect, but I do not believe that there is any doubt that we are discussing the obligation on the Electoral Commission. However, I have undertaken to consider the matter again and will write to the hon. Member for South-West Devon when I have taken soundings.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The Minister has come to the key point at the very beginning. He said that the drafting requires the Electoral Commission to act in the most cost-effective way under subsection (5). That is not correct. It requires the Electoral Commission to reach

all persons and to do so in the most cost-effective way. Is it correct that that can mean only the most cost-effective way of the various options for reaching all persons?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The obligation is to act in the most cost-effective way in pursuit of the obligation to reach all voters. We do not believe that it would be right to allow the commission to pick and choose the categories of electors at whom to target information. Indeed, had we done so, the Opposition would have criticised us with scare stories suggesting that references to only those persons who can be cost-effectively reached would open the door to all sorts of shenanigans with the Government providing information via the Electoral Commission to certain categories of people. We heard many such comments earlier today. When moving amendment No. 7, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge expressed concern about the Electoral Commission doing anything that might disproportionately benefit the possible outcome of the referendum. Had we chosen the wording that he suggests in the amendment, we would be openly criticised by the Opposition for opening the door to exactly such partiality.

When discussing amendment No. 7, the hon. Gentleman said that electronic communication tends to favour disproportionately one section of the population. I do not know the figures and I am speaking from the top of my head, so they may not be correct, but I could foresee a situation in which the management consultants that the hon. Member for South-West Devon presumed would be brought in to advise the Electoral Commission might advise that using electronic communication would make it possible to reach people at a substantially lower cost per person than mailing through the traditional post. If that were so, the amendment could be used to justify limiting communication to that more cost-effective way of reaching people.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Perhaps the Minister has lowered the tone a bit—we are having not a political debate, but a debate about syntax. If the Minister's interpretation of

''in the most cost effective way''

is correct, in that it qualifies the requirement to reach all persons because there is an obligation on the Electoral Commission to use the most cost-effective way, a route that offers £1 per 1,000 electors contacted must be pursued instead of a route that costs £2 per 2,000 electors contacted, yet the former may achieve only 75 per cent. penetration, while the latter may achieve 95 per cent. That cannot be what the Minister wants.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was making it clear that the objective of the Electoral Commission under the subsection is to ensure that information is provided in a manner that is most likely to secure that it

''comes to the notice of all persons'',

but in the most cost-effective way. That is the most sensible approach. The commission has an all-embracing obligation to try to get information to everyone, if possible, and it must do so in the most cost-effective way. When the management consultants we have heard about advise the Electoral Commission, they may, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon suggests, give several different options.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge cited two options, one of which cost £10 million and would reach 100 per cent. of electors, the other of which cost only £1 million and would reach 99 per cent. Were I in the position of the Electoral Commission, I should want to know why so little extra benefit was achieved from the £9 million, and I should ask obvious questions—such as whether it might be possible to reach 99.7 per cent. with £1.5 million—to judge whether, in the words of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, the maximum number of people were being reached in the most cost-effective way. The provision is based on the premise that the objective is to ensure that information gets to everyone, and it certainly does not open up the option of it going only to people who can be reached cost effectively. That is the real danger of the amendment.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

I agree with the main thrust of the Minister's argument, but I have a question about the drafting of subsection (5). Why did the Government use the word ''secure'', as in what

''the Commission think is most likely to secure . . . that the information''?

Would it not be more normal to use the word ''ensure''? That again suggests that the drafting has not been properly thought through.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has far more legal expertise than I have, but several other words could have been used instead of ''ensure''—''achieved'', for example. We employ parliamentary draftsmen as professionals to advise us on the best way of expressing matters. I have no reason to doubt the intelligibility or effectiveness of the wording of the subsection, which essentially says that the commission has to act in a way that is

''most likely to secure . . . that the information comes to the notice of all persons entitled to vote''.

Whether that would be better expressed by using the words ''ensure'' or ''achieve'' is a second-order issue. As long as the subsection's purpose is comprehensible and clear, I am satisfied with its wording.

If I may, I shall return to the other question that the hon. Member for South-West Devon asked about wording when we reach the clause stand part debate, because otherwise I should stray beyond the ambit of this group of amendments.

For my final remarks, I take a little inspiration from our surroundings. We are debating beneath a large picture of King Alfred inciting the Saxons to prevent the landing of the Danes. I am sure that Alfred had to husband his limited resources and operate in a cost-effective way to achieve the best effect. However, I

very much doubt whether his advice to the Saxons was, ''Now then, chaps, you've got to get as many of those Danes acquainted with your swords as is cost-effectively possible.'' I would wager that he actually said, ''We're going to get them all, and we'll do it in the most cost-effective way.'' That is my analogy. We want to achieve the maximum effect and to do so by using language that everyone understands.

Amendment No. 34 would, in the absence of designated yes and no campaigns, put an upper limit on what the commission could spend on providing information to voters on the arguments for and against the referendum question. As a limit it uses the figure level of grants that the commission would pay to the yes and no campaigns if they had been designated. By doing so, the amendment ignores other forms of assistance, additional to the grants, that will be available to designated organisations: for example, and most importantly, the commission will meet the cost of a free mailing to all referendum addresses. In the absence of designated campaigns, the commission might well decide that a mailing was the most cost-effective way of informing voters of the arguments. Designated organisations will, of course, be able spend more than the grant that they receive from the commission.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I accept the Minister's point about freepost, and that that makes the amendment defective, but I do not accept that the designated campaigns would raise money privately. The point of the amendment is to ensure that the public purse is not hit because there is too little public interest for an organisation to be designated. Will the Minister say whether he would favour the amendment's intentions if it were correctly drafted and took into account the non-cash benefits that will go to a designated campaign?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I am entirely sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's objective, but the amendment, even it were redrafted, would not necessarily help. The overall limit is a national one. In the case of regional referendums, it is likely that we shall be talking about lesser figures because of the smaller areas involved.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I shall give way in a moment. I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman's earlier question.

I am not sure that referring to the overall limit set in the PPER Act, as the amendment does, achieves the objective that the hon. Gentleman's wants. It complicates things unduly to speculate on the amount that might be appropriate in the case of any individual regional referendum.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The Minister's point is taken but, as he knows, the Opposition have tabled amendments, which are not grouped with this one, that seek to address precisely that issue by prorating the limits in the PPER Act to deal with the regional question. His point is therefore recognised elsewhere.

I am concerned that the Minister recognises the principle that the public purse should not spend more

because organisations have not been designated than it would do if they had been.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

We entirely accept the principle that the public purse should not take a hit as a result of the non-designation of yes and no campaigns. We think that it is likely that those campaigns will raise money privately, but we believe that it is right that the Electoral Commission has a degree of discretion over reaching a decision on what is appropriate, and in particular over supporting non-grant items such as freepost, which the hon. Gentleman conceded could be appropriate. For all those reasons, a statutory limit is not necessary.

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has made clear, the Electoral Commission is subject to the Speaker's Committee, on which I sit. From my experience of its meetings, the accounts and estimates that are submitted by the commission are scrutinised thoroughly and rigorously by the Committee, which, in turn, reports to the House. Proper safeguards are in place, and it is right that the commission should have a degree of discretion over how it uses its powers. I remind Members that those are only fall-back powers to be used in the not-altogether-likely event of there not being designated yes and no campaigns. I think that we have been making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill and I urge the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I do not think that we have been making a mountain out of a molehill: there are real issues to address. The Minister ought to take our concerns seriously. I watched the Minister gazing at the picture behind your head, Mr. Benton, during our last sitting. I wondered what inspiration he was drawing from it, and now I know. I suspect that in terms of adhering to the strict letter of the statute, King Alfred might have had a little more flexibility in his interpretation of the rule of law than I would hope even the Government expect to have. He certainly would have been highly resistant to the concept of judicial review of any such interpretation.

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

Or the euro.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

My hon. Friend raises a completely different point.

In response to what the Minister said about the proposed amendments to subsection (5), I simply do not agree. There is not a millimetre of difference between us about the intended outcome. The debate concerns whether the Bill actually says what the Minister thinks it does. We could continue in this way ad nauseam, but to put it to bed concisely it seems to me that the phrase

''the means the Commission think is most likely to secure (in the most cost-effective way) that the information comes to the notice of all persons''

is not the same as the means that the commission thinks is most likely to secure that the information comes in a cost-effective way to the notice of all persons. It is the latter that the Minister is describing when he sets out what he thinks will happen in practice. The Bill simply does not say that. I am clearly not going to be able to persuade him of that in this forum.

Call me paranoid, but I suspect that that might be in no small part due to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not come into the Room with an open mind, wishing to consider the arguments. However, I live in hope, bolstered by experience of other Standing Committees, that having raised a point that is robustly rejected by Ministers, they go away—perhaps gaze at a particularly inspiring painting—and come up with a different thought on the issue. I suspect that he may not find the picture on the other wall inspiring enough for his purposes.

I am not going to press the matter to a Division, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think about it, and consider whether he agrees that there is a problem with the clause. I have taken no outside advice, but I will ask counsel for an opinion as to whether the wording does what the Minister thinks, or what I think. Perhaps we can have an informal discussion about that before the Bill reaches Report.

Concerning amendment No. 34 and public spending, I am glad that the Minister does not envisage larger-scale public spending by the Electoral Commission when acting in its default capacity when no organisations have been designated. Without wanting to sound paranoid, however, I would say to the Minister that there would be a considerable incentive for the Government to ensure the maximum possible turnout in a referendum. The Government will have a huge amount of egg all over their face if the turnout is very low. As the Minister conceded, if there is an extremely low turnout in a referendum delivering a yes vote, the Secretary of State will be in very difficult position. The Government will want to do everything in their power to maximise the vote. I would prefer to see some limitation in the Bill on the money that could be spent by the commission if it is put into that default situation. It may not be in the first referendums that are called, but if the Government proceed unwisely beyond the first one or two, they may find that there is less interest.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.