Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 2 deals with grants made under the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to designated organisations. The Act states that the maximum grant is £600,000, but in previous exchanges the Minister acknowledged that that is intended to be the maximum grant in relation to a nationwide referendum. Clearly, it is not appropriate that such a grant should be paid in relation to a regional referendum. The new clause proposes that the £600,000 maximum limit should be divided by the population of the United Kingdom and multiplied by the population of the region in question to arrive at a maximum figure of grant. That seems to be a fair and appropriate way in which to proceed.

The Minister may have an alternative suggestion, but I am keen that there should be an objective way of

setting the limit for a regional campaign and not simply a fudge under which the Government say that they will think about the matter and do something that seems okay at the time. There will be concern about how the limits are set, especially if the first campaigns are held in relatively small regions, and I urge the Minister to think about the advantages, even from his point of view, of having clear and objective definitions of the spending limits. The new clause refers to public money and limits on the amount of public grant, not just to setting limits for the expenditure of private money.

In the closing moments of the Committee, I reiterate the arguments about the spending of public money that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) raised in Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) raised on the Floor of the House last night in relation to the north-west regional assembly. I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that he will investigate the issues raised by both hon. Members. Perhaps he would go so far as to write to all Committee members with his conclusions so that we are aware, before Report, of what has been going on in the north-west region.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I support the new clause, at least in its purpose. It is right that there should be a limit on the amount of public money that is paid to designated organisations in referendum campaigns. I hope that this debate will clarify whether the figure is the right amount. In his response, the Minister must explain the Government's current intentions or what other proposals are likely be put before the House before a referendum is held.

It is important that election expenditure, whether for a referendum or any other election, is controlled and we have overall sympathy with the direction of the new clause of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. My only concern is whether there are any fixed costs that should be recognised for smaller regions.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I accept that there may be fixed costs, but we are not setting a total limit to expenditure; we are setting a limit to public grant to bodies that one would expect primarily to be privately financed.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I accept that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that political parties and other legitimate organisations have fixed costs. I do not want to quibble about the point too much because I accept his basic thrust. I should like to hear what the Minister says, however, and perhaps engage in further debate.

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

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made some questionable points about new clause 2. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge explained that it would limit the amount of assistance to each designated organisation in a yes or no campaign to a proportion, which would depend on the population of the region concerned, of £600,000.

The Government do not think that a separate statutory limit is needed for grants to designated yes or no campaigns for regional referendums because the

Commission's proposed expenditure on grants would be scrutinised by Parliament. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says that he does not want unspecific legislation on the matter, but Parliament is capable of scrutinising the expenditure of the Electoral Commission. The Speaker's Committee is tasked with that particular job by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, schedule 1(14)(3) of which charges the Speaker's Committee with satisfying itself that the Commission's estimated level of expenditure for each financial year is consistent with the economical, efficient and effective discharge of its functions. We can rely on the commission to make the right judgment on the amount of grant that might go to a designated yes or no campaign.

While grants may vary from region to region, they should not only be proportional to population, which is a point that we explained in a slightly different context when we were discussing amendments to clause 11. The Committee accepted the argument that although relative population levels could be a factor in setting such limits, only having regard to them would be too narrow a focus. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned, there may well be other factors to which the commission might properly have regard, such as a region's rural and urban populations, the different types of media available to designated yes or no campaigns and economies or diseconomies of scale. One of the main issues is the fixed costs associated with campaigns.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am anxious to draw out from the Under-Secretary whether he would take into account when fixing a grant level in a region the likely level of private funding available, which is the key issue.

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

Whether I would take private funding into account is secondary to the judgments of the Speaker's Committee, Parliament and the Electoral Commission, which may consider that particular factor. That is one reason why a designated amount per head is too crude a system.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I asked the hon. Gentleman the question in his capacity as a spokesman for the Government because the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is a member of the Speaker's Committee—for all I know, other Ministers may also be members of it. Will the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee what the Minister thinks about private funding?

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

Would it be so simple that I could always advise on what people may or may not think should they at some point in the future be determining some question while sitting on the Speaker's Committee scrutinising Electoral Commission expenditure. We cannot know that because we have not seen the proposals from any putative yes or no campaign, and it would not be right to prejudge such proposals. All I am saying is that many different factors could come into play in the amount of grant assistance that might be designated by the Electoral Commission to a yes or no campaign.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I accept what the Under-Secretary is saying, but does not he believe that there should still be a maximum, beyond which it does not go? We have a maximum for a national campaign, so even if we set up half the amount given to a national campaign, or something similarly generous, we should at least issue guidance so that there is a limit on the potential public expenditure.

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

I do not honestly believe that that would be necessary. There is a limit of £600,000 on any referendum arrangement. It is not a blank cheque, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton says. It is also slightly insulting to the Electoral Commission, as it is to the Committee, to suggest that it would always run right up to that limit. We can rely on the commission to judge the matter prudently.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

Last night, on the Floor of the House, the Minister objected to a proposal made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that the Electoral Commission should write the question. In Committee, the Minister is saying that the commission can decide how much money to spend. Surely, the Government are getting the issues the wrong way round. Independence on electoral issues is perhaps the job of the Electoral Commission. Considering how to spend taxpayers' money is a job for this place.

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

Indeed, it is the job of Parliament to scrutinise the expenditure of the Electoral Commission, which it can do in the usual way. If Ministers interfered in that role, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton would be the first to complain. The 2000 Act clearly sets out the context and expenditure that the Electoral Commission can incur. Those limits are there and it would not be right, as in new clause 2, to designate expenditure simply per head of population.

I explained other factors that might be relevant. I believe that we can rely on and trust the Electoral Commission to make its judgment fairly, efficiently and economically. I urge the Committee to reject new clause 2.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton expressed the hope that the short debate would flush out from the Under-Secretary which level he believed to be the right one, although the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the amendment might not have got it absolutely right. However, the Under-Secretary did not reply that it should be a certain fixed amount and an additional proportional amount, or some other formula. Instead, he said nothing at all other than that we should trust the arrangements as they are set out in the Bill, which limit the expenditure to £600,000; that is, £600,000 per designated organisation, which could mean £1.2 million of public money in each of eight regions. The Under-Secretary's response is inadequate, and I urge my hon. Friends to support the new clause in the absence of any satisfactory response from him.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

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

Before we come to an appropriate ending to our proceedings, I want to say how productive and enjoyable the debate, although short, has been. We have covered issues that are fundamental to the future of our country and our constitutional settlement, such as how we continue the devolution process, which has been a key theme of the Government's programme in the past five and a half years. We have also covered issues of less far-reaching importance but of great interest, notably the appropriate word with which to start a sentence.

During our deliberations, the opinion poll ratings of the two Opposition parties have been getting closer and closer together and, perhaps more worrying, the two parties have been in danger of swapping positions. This morning, we heard a profoundly conservative proposition from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and the Conservatives moved towards ever greater consultation, in line with Liberal Democrat leanings. Perhaps that reflects the curious boundary that puts the capital of true-blue Surrey county council in the London borough represented by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. I hope that that is not a portent of a blue and yellow merger—perhaps not.

If there are doubts about the current electoral trajectories of the two Opposition parties, I have no doubt about the upward personal trajectories of the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for Kingston and Surbiton, who led for their parties and impressed all members of the Committee. The work rate of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has been remarkable. He has shouldered the whole burden for the Conservative Opposition, with support from the hon. Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and for Taunton (Mr. Flook). The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge pressed his case and his amendments with great skill and fortitude, and demonstrated not only mastery of the often complex material, but considerable mental agility in reconciling often mutually contradictory propositions, which is always a great asset in this place.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton demonstrated once again his enthusiastic commitment to the policy of regional devolution and trod a reasonably judicious course between the Liberal Democrat enthusiasm for constant consultation, and the realistic approach that, to make things happen, one must stop consulting at some stage and reach decisions. I hope that his strong rightward shift this

morning is not a portent that the prospect of replacing the official Opposition is changing his principles. I leave the hon. Gentleman to consider that further. He has obviously been supported by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green).

I greatly appreciate the hugely skilful and valuable support that I have had from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has demonstrated clearly why he is a rising star on the Government side of the House. I appreciate the support of our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), and of my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). I value the contributions that we have had from my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset, for Scarborough and Whitby and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). My hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and for Manchester, Blackley are not here at present, but they, too, contributed to the debate.

May I express my thanks to the Hansard note takers? They have recorded our proceedings with their usual consummate accuracy and skill, even if I have not yet found a sentence in the record that starts with the word ''but''. I also thank the officials, who as always have presided over our proceedings efficiently and ensured that our votes were managed effectively.

Above all, I thank you, Mr. Butterfill, for presiding over our affairs with wise oversight. I had not served under your chairmanship before this Committee, but I was told that you were always firm and fair, and you have completely confirmed that judgment. You allowed us a degree of discretion to range over subjects that were not strictly in line with a tight definition of what was in order, but you always stepped in firmly as soon as the borderline was crossed and brought us back to the straight and narrow. You also demonstrated a considerable commitment to duty, presiding over our affairs this morning after what was quite an arduous night for you on the Floor of the House. We thank you very much for that. We also thank Mr. Benton for his oversight of other sittings. I hope that you and he will enjoy a period of well deserved rest and relaxation over Christmas.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I noted with interest the Minister's comments about the appropriate word with which to start a sentence and I can assure him that we have not finished with that matter. I noted carefully what he said as reported in Hansard. I have written to the Minister for School Standards and I will be interested to see whether it will be Government policy that the English language should be used flexibly in a document as important as a piece of legislation.

The Minister commented on the various positions taken by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats. We have our differences in the two Opposition parties, but the Napoleonic tendencies of the Minister and his Government are in danger of uniting against him the freedom lovers in the Opposition. Those tendencies are sometimes unworthy of him.

I should like to say a word about Surrey county council and its commendable parsimony in deciding to

retain its existing headquarters, even though it is now outside Surrey, rather than do what a northern Labour metropolitan authority would no doubt have done and build a grandiose new establishment in a new location. I commend Surrey county council's attitude to the Committee.

The Opposition are enormously grateful to you, Mr. Butterfill and to Mr. Benton for your wise chairmanship of the Committee. You have been firm but fair. We are grateful to the Clerks who have served the Committee for their guidance and advice, which is particularly valued by Opposition Members who sometimes struggle to get amendments tabled in time and in an orderly form without the life support systems that Ministers enjoy. I record our thanks to both Ministers for the way that they have handled the issues that have been raised in this Committee, scoring points, or attempting to score points, when they needed to, but dealing with our questions courteously and with good humour. That has been greatly appreciated because it makes the Committee a much more enjoyable experience for everyone.

I thank my hon. Friends for their support, particularly, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, without whose constant support beside me I would not have been able to move our many amendments. I also thank Government Back Benchers for their participation in our proceedings. One or two of them have been very helpful to the Opposition's arguments, sometimes intentionally and sometimes inadvertently. I have served on Standing Committees where the primary purpose of Government Back Benchers seems to have been the scoring of rather small debating points against the Opposition. By contrast, Opposition Members have engaged in a constructive way with the debate. That has made it a much more interesting Committee. Finally, I add my thanks to those of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to the Hansard reporters, the police, the staff of the House and everyone else who has made the Committee function smoothly and effectively.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I start by thanking you, Mr. Butterfill and your colleague Mr. Benton for the way you have chaired our proceedings. My only concern is that the way that you steered our debate and gave it flexibility may have suggested to the Minister that you could be a future member of the boundary committee for England or some other boundary commission. Your dexterity and skill in quelling the different disputes between us recommends you for that difficult task.

Both the Minister and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned that Surrey county council has its headquarters in my constituency. It has been welcomed there for a long time. We are pleased to keep it for a little longer. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that although Surrey county council may have tried to save money in the past, a private finance initiative deal is under consideration that would enable the headquarters to leave my constituency. We would welcome that, not because we have any bad feelings towards Surrey county council, but because Kingston

university, which is a university of international esteem and achievement, wants to expand. The premises that Surrey county council occupies could usefully be occupied by the university. I could go on—

Hon. Members:

No!

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

With respect to the Minister's comments on our suggestions I assure him that they do not indicate a rightward shift by me, or my party. The worrying thing for my colleagues may be that we are moving towards the Government's position of being over centralist in the way that we give too much power to the Secretary of State. However, the amendment was moved in the spirit of Christmas, not of Liberal Democrat beliefs.

Both Ministers have been generous to the Committee in their answers and have approached the issue with unusual open mindedness. We hope that they will continue to do so on Report, and Third Reading and in their treatment of amendments that we hope will be made in the other place, as we have been unsuccessful in amending the Bill in Committee. I hope that the Ministers will think again about the arguments for the amendments and consider them when the measure returns to this House next year.

The Committee owes the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge thanks as he has shouldered the burden of the work for his party and for the Opposition parties in general. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and I have been diligent in our work, but it is clear from the record that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has spoken for longer than any other member of the Committee. I do not know whether there is a new phrase ''Tory buts'' and how many there are, but according to the opinion polls, we are kicking a few. The hon. Gentleman is a rising star of the Conservatives, but he is aware that his party's star is on the way down.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. This is his first Standing Committee although hon. Members would not have known that from the way that he undertook his responsibilities. I join with others in thanking the Hansard reporters, the police and all the staff who have helped us on our way and I wish everybody a very merry Christmas.

Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

It has been a great pleasure for me to chair the Committee, which has been conducted in an admirable way. The penetrating and thorough examination of the Bill was carried out in a professional and courteous manner and the Committee was very good natured, which made it much easier to chair. Congratulations to all of you.

I was born in Kingston-upon-Thames nearly 62 years ago and I shall always regard it as part of Surrey. I wish all of you a very happy and merry Christmas and a prosperous new year.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.