Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Clause 9 is fairly uncontroversial, although I always say that with trepidation lest I should be contradicted by a colleague who has spotted something that I have not.

I wonder whether the Minister could tell us about the quantum of money that is expected to be involved in running the referendums. We talked on Second Reading about the costs and burdens that will be imposed on any transition in the local government system and the likely costs of buildings for any new regional assemblies, but the referendum is a further cost. No doubt the Government have carefully quantified the cost and conducted the most rigorous cost benefit analysis of the proposed expenditure. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.

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

I urge hon. Members to support clause 9, which simply enables a Minister to make an order regarding certain expenditure relating to the conduct of referendums under the Bill. The order can be made only with the consent of both Houses.

The clause allows provision to be made for the Electoral Commission to pay counting officers' charges in connection with a referendum on elected regional assemblies. It also enables provision to be made for the Electoral Commission to pay any increase in the superannuation contributions required by a local authority as a consequence of fees paid as part of a counting officer's charges.

As the clause makes clear, the order may set out the type of services and expenses for which payment can be made by the commission and the maximum amount that can be paid in respect of such services and expenses. It may also make provision on payments in advance and accounts to be submitted. The commission must be consulted and the consent of the Treasury obtained before any such order is made.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about the quantum of money involved. I am afraid that we cannot say for certain what that will be, as it will depend on the population of the region concerned, whether there is a traditional ballot or an all-postal ballot and whether the poll is combined with a local authority or other election. Those variables also relate to the financial support of the designated yes and no campaigns. It is difficult to give a precise figure.

However, if there were an all-postal ballot, which is one option, we can imagine what one of the larger expenditure factors might be. Based on a cost of about 80p per registered elector, which was the cost in local authority mayoral elections that used all-postal ballots, we estimate that total costs could range from about £2 million in the north-east, which has the smallest number of electors, to about £6 million in the south-east. I hope that those figures for all-postal ballots are helpful, but there are other imponderables and variables, so we cannot be more specific at this stage.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Are those figures inclusive of grants and all other expected expenditure such as the Electoral Commission's costs in promoting voting, as required under clause 7, or simply the cost of running the postal ballot?

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

My understanding is that they represent the cost of the all-postal ballot itself. I am afraid that we have no more precise figures at this stage. My view is that the all-postal ballot aspect is likely to be one of the more expensive elements of a referendum, so those figures give an idea of the likely envelope of expenses that might be incurred in those regions. Certainly, normal costs and expenses for counting officers and electoral officials will be incurred. I do not anticipate any significant departure there from normal electoral arrangements.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Can the Minister confirm whether the moneys required under the clause will come from the Deputy Prime Minister's departmental budget, or are a special vote?

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. I suspect that the costs will be met from the Consolidated Fund.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Electoral Commission's costs have already been highlighted? A House of Commons research paper states that there will be a limit of £5 million for organisations that take part and that if any participants incur expenses of more than £250,000, an audit report will have to be submitted to the Electoral Commission.

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

That is a helpful point and provides a context.

I assure the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that the money will come from the Consolidated Fund and not from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. If further clarification is needed, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Given that, after Second Reading, Parliament was asked to approve a money resolution for the spending of money from the Consolidated Fund, I was slightly alarmed to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he does not really know how much money is involved. He knows part of the cost, but he does not have an idea of the quantum.

The former prudence with which the Chancellor approached the Government's monetary affairs serves only to emphasise how standards have slipped in the past year or so. We are now routinely asked—at 10.30 at night, on a rubber-stamp vote—to approve the spending of unquantified sums, which is alarming. The hon. Gentleman kindly offered to write to me. I will pre-empt that by writing to him with some questions. I would be grateful if he would be good enough to reply before the Bill is on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.