Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill - Clause 8 - Provision of information to voters
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following 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 and Weybridge, Conservative)

I am not sure that I can remember the precise word that I had reached in my sentence.

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

And.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

I do not think it was ''and'', because I would have remembered if it was.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

It probably bears repetition anyway.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

As my hon. Friend says, it probably bears repetition.

We were considering the impact of amendment No. 8 and I was telling the Minister that we do not have a difference on the intention of the clause. The question is whether it will do what the Minister wants it to do and what we want it to do. That is, to ensure that some sort of commonsense rule is applied, and encourage the Electoral Commission to disseminate information as widely as is reasonably practical having regard to the need to be cost-effective. The Minister thinks that the clause provides for that, but I do not think it does. Perhaps the Minister will have a think about that. I shall certainly talk to people who understand such matters better than I do.

On amendment No. 34, there is no disagreement of principle between us. The Minister accepts that it would not be right for the Electoral Commission to spend more as a consequence of a failure to designate organisations than it would if it were to designate them. As the Minister put it, the public purse should not take the hit. I was glad to hear him reiterate that. However, he did not show any inclination to add that restriction to the Bill, and suggested that it relied on the fact that the Electoral Commission was subject to scrutiny by the Speaker's Committee.

I thought that that might be all right, until the Minister confided the information that he is a member of that Committee. That makes it less impartial and distant from the machinations of the Government than one would have hoped from a body with such a title. While one would never suggest that the Minister would act in any way other than absolutely properly and impartially, a future Minister could see an opportunity to manipulate the process to advantage—let us be generous—one side or another of the argument in a referendum campaign.

The Minister will agree that if referendums subsequent to the first wave are ever to be held under the Bill, especially if they are held across the country, it is likely to be a very long time before the Deputy Prime Minister feels brave enough to take such a risk, especially in the east and south-east of England. We have to bear those things in mind. We cannot rely entirely on the unimpeachable integrity of this Minister when we consider legislation that will be effective for a long time.

I will make appropriate consultations and return to the matter at a future stage of the Bill's consideration. Although the Minister may be reluctant to say so publicly, I hope that he will do the same privately and look carefully at subsection (5). 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)

One other issue that requires some comment from the Minister—broadcasting in relation to referendums held in a single region—is probably best dealt with under the clause. I discussed the matter with the Electoral Commission a week or 10 days ago, and I understand that it intends to hold meetings with the broadcasters to discuss the problem.

I am concerned that the footprints of the regional broadcasting media will not coincide. That would be irritating for any Government, who would probably like to think that they could make them do so precisely. Let us take the north-east region as an example. I may be told differently by hon. Members who know the region intimately, but I suspect that the regional broadcasters will be based in the conurbations. I do not know whether they have a reach over the whole region, but there will be overlaps with other regions. In some regions, some broadcasters will not cover the whole of the regional territory.

My fear, to be partisan, is that the broadcast media may fail to reach the rural fringes of a region despite delivering 100 per cent. coverage in more urbanised areas. Call me paranoid, as the Minister did earlier—once something has been said, it is tempting to repeat it, as with the phrase, ''mere Minister''—but I fear that a pattern may emerge of very high levels of broadcasting penetration in the urban population, as it might be considered less hostile to the regional agenda, but less good coverage for those in rural areas.

Mr Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby, Labour)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall my reference to a programme known as ''North of Westminster'', which the BBC produces. In the northern end of my constituency, the service is delivered from Newcastle. In the southern end, it is delivered from Leeds. The BBC goes to great lengths, even within its own organisation, to fight for an audience share, so I do not think that he need worry about the broadcasting footprint so far as the BBC is concerned. With ITV and ITN, the same applies. They are fighting for an audience share, so they duplicate coverage of issues.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman qualified that, because I was about to tell him that I worry whenever I hear about the BBC in relation to the broadcasting of news and current affairs these days. He points out that regional media fight for audience share, but a broadcaster focused in, say, Leeds might have a footprint that included a small part of another region. Would that broadcaster want to dedicate significant time to a referendum in that other region? That would risk boring the pants off 90 per cent. of the audience, who would not be in a region that was subject to the referendum at that time. A peripheral part of a region might therefore be excluded from adequate media coverage.

I do not want to set too many hares running. I merely wanted to invite the Minister to tell the Committee how the Government think that things will pan out. The situation is almost unique. Although we have had referendums in Wales and Scotland, there is a better defined broadcast footprint for those countries.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has an interesting point. You will know, Mr. Butterfill, that where you live in Bournemouth, you receive the Southampton media. My constituency in South Dorset straddles the Southampton and Plymouth media. I am concerned that in any debate, the eastern end would be informed more by a south-east perspective than a south-west perspective. I do not, however, believe that it is a matter of an urban-rural divide. That is possibly mischievous. The conurbation of Bournemouth and Poole is a large urban area that could be excluded from the south-west debate, as could Salisbury, as far as the broadcast footprint in the south-west is concerned.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

The point is that every member of the Committee will think about the specific problems for their constituency. I have been thinking about the problems of the area around London. In Surrey, people consume the London broadcast media. However, a referendum campaign—perhaps a series of them—would be wholly uninteresting to the great bulk of viewers in Greater London, who would not participate.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

May I help the hon. Gentleman? If one has satellite television—quite a large proportion of the population do now—one can access BBC regional news throughout the country. I can sit in Durham and watch the south-west or London news. That is one mechanism whereby people can follow the debate in the south-west or north-west, if they wish.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

If I may say so, that is an incredibly elitist and socially exclusive view. I intend to report the hon. Gentleman to the Minister for Social Exclusion, who will be horrified at the suggestion that the use of a very expensive commodity such as satellite television should be the route by which people—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is now attempting to plug some satellite television channel. I would be concerned to think that we had to ask people to use premium pay channels to access their broadcast media.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

I will not. I was not raising a partisan point; it is a genuine issue of concern on which the Electoral Commission has not come to a clear conclusion. I seek the Minister's views on that.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

My constituency borders Wales, and we received coverage of the Welsh referendum. Parts of Wales receive English television, and parts of my constituency receive Welsh television because of the angles of the valleys. The part of Wales adjoining my constituency—Powys—had one of the lowest levels of support for the referendum in Wales, which I found particularly worrying because I supported that. That is one of the more serious points that the Conservatives have raised. If the Minister wants the referendums to have strong support, he ought to ensure that people get good information. Certain parts of Powys received no information during the Welsh Assembly referendum. That could well be the case in parts of England in future referendums.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that the Minister will consider that because it is a sad fact—this brings us back to this morning's discussion of all-postal ballots and the importance of doorstep contact—that television is probably the single most significant influence on current political behaviour, whether we like it or not. Therefore, I look forward with great expectation to the Minister's comments.

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

As the Committee is aware, the Electoral Commission has the function under section 108 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to designate one permitted participant, such as a political party or campaign group, as an effective campaign representative for each possible outcome of referendums. That includes referendums held under the Bill. Designation means financial and other assistance for a designated organisation. However, in some circumstances, the Electoral Commission does not designate either a ''yes'' or ''no'' campaign, either because there has been no application from one or the other, or no suitable body is in place to be designated. Choosing to go down this route means having to designate both a yes and a no campaign.

In practice, not designating a yes and no campaign is an unlikely scenario, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, we are confident that yes and no campaigns will be duly designated, so the clause will not apply. However, in the rare circumstances where yes and no campaigns are not designated, the clause provides for the Electoral Commission to undertake the necessary publicity. It is right for it to do so. Whatever our disagreements about specific provisions, the whole Committee agrees that in certain rare circumstances it is appropriate for the Electoral Commission to step in to provide impartial information to individuals.

The Electoral Commission will want to give considerable thought to how that can best be done. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) highlighted problems surrounding broadcasting, which often arise because the footprints of broadcasters do not coincide with the regions. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Jim Knight) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) spoke about the extent to which their constituents can hear broadcasts from different regions.

I can imagine no better person to decide how best to deal with the problem than Sam Younger, a distinguished ex-broadcaster who chairs the Electoral Commission. I am sure that he will present appropriate and practical responses to make the most of opportunities to use the broadcast media. Recalling our earlier debate on one of the hon. Gentleman's amendments, if the Electoral Commission concluded that it could not use the broadcast media to reach all persons entitled to vote, it would have to explore alternatives rather than be satisfied that they are reaching a majority of the people entitled to vote. I hope that the hon. Gentleman concedes that the Bill's wording is more appropriate to ensure that the Electoral Commission is obliged to consider how best to reach all those who are entitled to vote.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

The Minister has correctly pointed out that the clause operates only if there are no designated organisations. In those circumstances, the Electoral Commission is responsible for public information dissemination. However, would the Minister humour me by examining the wider issue—if you rule it out of order, Mr. Butterfill, I shall table a new clause to deal with it—of whether the use of television media might introduce unfortunate disparities in the amount of information reaching different parts of the region because of the different footprints of television coverage. That is unlike a national, or even a Scottish, campaign in which television coverage is provided to almost the whole nation.

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

In our increasingly globalised world, a friend rang me from the far east the other day to say that he had just seen me on television talking about the fire dispute. It was broadcast on global media. Cross-overs are inevitable: some people living far from their own region will be watching broadcasts aimed at a particular region and people will receive information from a range of different media. It is right and proper for the Electoral Commission to examine all those issues and to decide on the right basket of media to use to meet the objective of securing that the information comes to the notice of all persons who are entitled to vote in the referendum in the most cost-effective way. It is well placed to do that, 6and I should not be in the least bit troubled about the ability of Sam Younger and his colleagues to reach balanced and well-informed decisions.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

Given the requirement for balance in broadcasting, has the Minister thought about what would happen if the referendum coincided with a local election campaign, so that issues were cross-cutting, with a party political debate on one issue and a different alignment on the other? Does he foresee problems in those circumstances?

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

It is always likely that a situation will arise in which there are cross-currents. Several media with very strong views one way and another will campaign stridently in favour of their interpretation of what is right, in the form of a yes or a no vote. Different media will push particular causes in different regions. That is the written media. The broadcast media, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, are required to be impartial, and will be bound by their obligations to ensure an appropriate degree of impartiality. The Electoral Commission can form a judgment as to how it can make best use of the broadcast, as well as other, media to get the message across.

In a previous sitting, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) asked about the wording of subsection (3). I see no great problem or mystery about that. The key concept is the appropriate day. That is because the provision comes into force only if, by the appropriate day, a yes and no designation will not take place, either because the Electoral Commission has not, by the 29th day, received an application from a yes or a no campaign—or both—or, if by the 43rd day, it has not yet designated a yes and a no campaign. The appropriate day will be one of those two, because in either circumstance there could not be a designated yes and no campaign. From that point, the provisions of clause 8 apply and the Electoral Commission will start to take steps.

That is why the appropriate days are mentioned. In each case, they are the day following the defined period of time for those stages. The submissions by groups seeking designation must be in by the 28th day, unless the Secretary of State has changed that for reasons that we discussed earlier, and the Electoral Commission must reach a decision by the 42nd day. So in each case, the appropriate day is the day after that particular stage has been reached, and if there is not an appropriate designation of a yes and no campaign by that date, the provisions apply. I hope that that explains the wording.

This is an important provision. I should hope that it will not be used often, because in most cases there will be designated yes and no campaigns, but it is an important safeguard that ensures that, if not, the public can be properly informed. I am sure that they will be, because I have great confidence in the Electoral Commission's ability to do its job and to meet its responsibilities fairly, impartially and professionally. I urge members of the Committee to approve the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.