---

Ms Hewitt: I do not have the detailed figures that the hon. Gentleman requests but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend writes to him on that point. I stress that the process of contracting out some or all of the functions referred to by my right hon. Friend will offer better value for money than wasting public money on an inadequate service. As education is the largest local authority service, we expect it to be possible to have efficiency within the LEA budget. That will be considered in further detail by my right hon. Friend and by the consultants when we come to draw up the specification for the contracts. Of course the tender for the contracts will comply with all the necessary procedures.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West): I hope that my hon. Friend will give me some reassurance by saying that she will not have any truck with any of the

19 Mar 1999 : Column 1413

sanctimonious claptrap that we have heard from Opposition spokespersons about why she is at the Government Dispatch Box today.

My hon. Friend is entirely right to focus on the quality of the advice offered by the LEA. I ask her to contrast the record in Hackney with that in Harrow, where a new Labour administration is delivering high-quality, effective support and advice to schools. I invite her to praise Pinner Wood middle school in my constituency, which has just received an excellent report, partly because of the quality of advice that has been given to it by the LEA.

Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point. I am happy to congratulate not only the school in his constituency, which has received an excellent report, but all the schools in the country that have been making dramatic progress in raising standards, with the help of their LEAs and the Department for Education and Employment under the Government's leadership.

19 Mar 1999 : Column 1414

Referendums Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

11.28 am

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) continues, will you give your view on the scope of the Bill and, therefore, the limits of our discussion? As I read it, it is tightly worded on the mechanics of holding a referendum when the Government of the day have proposed that a specific issue should be dealt with in that way, and therefore would exclude discussions of matters such as referendums among parents should a school decide to consider becoming grant maintained, and other diversions which have been introduced by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), who seems to be more interested in filibustering this Bill than in dealing with the important issues that it raises.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The Second Reading of a Bill gives quite wide scope for discussion and debate on the principles of the Bill, and so far this morning that is precisely what we have had.

Mr. Dismore: I think that, before the private notice question I had just taken an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in the context of grammar school ballots. My hon. Friend's forensic skills are excellent because I think that she has highlighted a contradiction within the Bill. She drew my attention to clause 2(1), which refers to the holding of a referendum campaign and the designation of that campaign

"soon . . . after the introduction to Parliament"

of a Bill. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 4(1), to which I referred in the context of grammar school ballots. It states:

"The Commission shall make a report to the Secretary of State on the conduct of any referendum conducted under any enactment."

The grammar school ballots are being conducted under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Grammar School (Ballots) Regulations 1998. The Bill would inevitably cover grammar school ballots and the importance of that will become apparent as I proceed with my remarks.

Local referendums are being used increasingly throughout local government. The Government are encouraging that through the White Paper "Modern Local Government, In Touch With the People". Paragraph 3.30 on page 32, which has the heading

"support for a directly elected mayor",

refers, first, to the Greater London authority ballot. It states that

"before a council could adopt arrangements which include a directly elected mayor, it should be required to conduct a referendum on its proposals giving local people the opportunity to have their say."

I assume from the Bill's wording that it would apply to a referendum on the election of a mayor for a local authority.

19 Mar 1999 : Column 1415

In paragraph 4.8 on page 39 of the White Paper, the Government again stress the importance of referendums in the local government context:

"The Government believes that councils should see and use referendums as an important tool to give local people a bigger say. The Government will therefore introduce legislation to confirm the power of councils to hold referendums."

The White Paper says that referendums may or may not be binding

"except in the particular circumstances described"

and adds:

"Councils might wish to use referendums to consult their local people on such issues as major local developments or matters of particular local controversy."

I assume, therefore, that the Bill would apply to such ballots as well. Page 45 of the House of Commons Library briefing helpfully refers to recent precedent. It says that Milton Keynes council conducted a referendum, in February 1999, seeking

"the views of the electorate on three options for increasing council tax levels for 1999/2000."

Returning to a point that I have already made during an intervention, let me point out that that referendum gave three options for increasing council tax levels. Bearing in mind the point that I made about clause 2(2), there could be at least three different outcomes and three different campaigns on that proposition. There could have been a fourth and a fifth option.

My local authority in Barnet has taken the Government's point of view to heart and has started to consult widely. There was wide consultation with the population on the council's draft budget. I am not sure whether that would count as a referendum, but my local authority is also experimenting with the use of electronic voting machines, citizens' juries and citizens' panels as part of that consultation process. I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman), who gave me a full briefing on those issues last night, that similar proposals are being discussed in Hammersmith.

My principal point is that the Bill lacks a definition of a referendum, and that is a problem. As things stand, clause 4(1) provides such a broad interpretation that all the possibilities to which I have referred could be taken into account by the Bill and local referendums could come under the influence of the proposed referendum commission, but is that a development that we should welcome?

Although we may want guidelines on the conduct of referendums in general to be laid down, I am concerned about the wide powers proposed by the Bill for the referendums commission to interfere in the conduct of referendums. I question whether it would be appropriate for a national body to get involved in the decision-making processes of a local referendum--for example, the setting of a question. I do not know how a national body could take on board all the relevant local factors; there may need to be sub-divisions or local referendum commissions if the national body is to have such wide scope.

In the context of grammar school ballots and local mayoral referendums, that issue also raises the question of fairness in the trigger arrangements, such as the petitions that could set off a grammar school ballot. I know from discussions with parents in my constituency that they are extremely concerned about the fairness of

19 Mar 1999 : Column 1416

the arrangements for the trigger mechanism in respect of a ballot on grammar schools in Barnet. They think that those mechanisms are, to some extent, rigged against people who want grammar schools to be abolished, bearing in mind that substantial thresholds must be achieved to trigger a ballot. I question the Bill's current drafting. If it is to proceed, it should be redrafted to make it absolutely clear that it deals only with national referendums and that local referendums should not come into its scope.

My next concern relates to the powers proposed for the referendum commission under clause 1(5)(a), which refers to

"the wording of any question to be put".

The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) raised his concerns about the fairness of the questions for the London referendum. I shall return to that point in detail, and I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that. The right hon. Gentleman questioned whether the commission should have the power to be involved in the setting of the question.

Hon. Members will remember that there was extensive debate in the House on what the questions for the London referendum should be. The House came to a conclusion and voted on it. That conclusion formed part of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. The House decided what the question should be, so I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the referendum commission should be in a position to overrule the Act of Parliament that set the question and impose a different question of its own, a series of questions or variations on the questions.

That serious point is not properly addressed by clause 1(5)(a) and comes into even sharper focus when we consider the possibility of a referendum of electoral reform. The Government have said that the referendum will have the first-past-the-post system as one option and a proportional representation system as the other. I remain an avid supporter of the first-past-the-post system and have yet to hear anything that would convince me otherwise. We know from the extensive public debate on PR and the full report produced by the Jenkins commission that there are a plethora of different solutions for electoral reform.

Let us suppose that the Government decided to propose a particular option for electoral reform as part of the process relating to the wording of the question and that the referendum commission decided that it preferred a different option. Would it be open to the referendum commission to interfere with the Government's suggested option and to suggest a different option?

Indeed, could the referendum commission second-guess the Government's position and allow the referendum to have not only the first-past-the-post system and one other option, but a series of options? In respect of clause 2(2), that opens the question of how many different campaigns could be undertaken. There could be a whole series of different campaigns and different outcomes. Presumably, all would qualify for public funds--an issue that the Bill fails to address.

I have another concern about clause 2(1). My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley was concerned

19 Mar 1999 : Column 1417

about the timing of the referendum. I question the wording, which says that it would come into operation

"As soon as possible after the introduction to Parliament of any bill".

Opposition Members have made their position clear: they wold like to see the referendum campaign conducted fairly, above board and with no one feeling left out. The wording of clause 2(1) could lead to a premature decision about which campaign would be the favoured campaign. It very much favours the establishment.

We know that in the European campaign the sides are already lining up. Page 34 of the Library brief says:

"The pro and anti organisations have begun to mobilise. The Britain in Europe campaign, led by prominent business people, looks likely to be the main umbrella organisation for a Yes vote, while David Owen has agreed to lead the organisations likely to oppose a single currency, known as New Europe. This may not encompass all the views of those opposed to a single currency."

That is precisely my point. We have two relatively established campaigns on the European issue, but, as the public debate develops, and should a referendum Bill be introduced, other campaigns may be created. Those would have an equal right to be considered as the official campaign. Under the Bill, they would become disfranchised and the two establishment campaigns--not the Government campaign--would be left to slug it out among themselves. That would disfranchise people who are interested in single issues and who, to a large extent, feel excluded from the parliamentary process. I should be extremely concerned, therefore, if the wording of clause 2 were to stay as it is, as it suggests that the referendum campaign process should start as soon as possible after the enactment of the Bill, before the public debate on those issues had begun.

I am also concerned about clause 2(2), which lists as the criteria that should be taken into account

"the ability to conduct an effective campaign; the views of political parties; the degree of public support; and such other matters as the Commission considers relevant"--

which is an open question. However, the clause gives no indication of the weighting to be given to each of those criteria. That is an important factor to take into account when deciding which body should be certified to run the campaign.

We heard earlier this morning about the problems that can arise when different parties within a campaign are dealing with other issues. The Europe campaign is a prime example. May I pray in aid the comments of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is in the Chamber, during the debate on political parties funding on 9 November 1998? I find myself in a difficult position because, for the second time in three weeks, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The previous occasion was on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. That is a strange position for me to be in and he may find it strange to have me on his side on this issue. He said:

"It is unnecessary and undesirable to require opponents to operate under one political umbrella, even if they support the same side on a political question. There are quite different ideological routes that might lead to the same case. That is obviously clear with the campaign that would emerge against the single European currency. It comprises a host of very different groups reflecting different ideological backgrounds. I believe that it would be a restraint on free speech to impose any sort of financial limit on those groups collectively."

Those groups would be handicapped if one side or the other within that debate were made the official campaign. In the same debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a similar point:

19 Mar 1999 : Column 1418

"I expect different people to have different points of view. In case the Whips are listening I point out that I declared in my general election manifesto: 'I shall vote against a single currency.'"--[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 104-07.]

My hon. Friend came to that conclusion by a different route from some Conservative Members on the Euro- sceptic wing of their party. If we have the referendum campaign that has been promised if the Government decide that it would be wise to join the single currency, my hon. Friend may join the no campaign, but he will do so for different reasons and will put forward his views in different ways. If there is only one official campaign, it will be extremely difficult for both sides to express their views fully and fairly.

In a helpful intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley raised the issue of Northern Ireland. That is well highlighted in the Library brief that we have been given for this debate, which says:

"By contrast, in the referendum campaign the reasons for voting Yes or No may be exceedingly large in number, extremely disparate and possibly even contradictory. The Yes campaign in Northern Ireland, with the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP and Sinn Fein all on one side, and Republican splinter groups and the DUP on the other, provides a vivid illustration. Future referendum campaigns on electoral reform or on joining the European Economic Monetary Union could easily take the same form . . . Given this possibility, we believe that speaking to impose spending limits in referendums would not only be administratively impracticable but would, or at least might, impose an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech."

Thus, the point is made in a number of different ways that various groups could be disfranchised under the Bill.

Similarly, the problem could arise if there are a number of different options. Earlier, I mentioned the London debate. Had the Opposition parties had their way, we would have had a complicated ballot paper and a series of different possible outcomes: there could have been one campaign against everything; one for a mayor only and no tax-raising powers; one for a mayor and tax-raising powers; one for an assembly only and no tax-raising powers; one for an assembly and tax-raising powers; one for an assembly, a mayor and tax-raising powers; and one for an assembly, a mayor and no tax-raising powers. That is seven possible outcomes and, under clause 2(2), seven possible campaigns. I question whether that would lead to a fair outcome. It would mean six parties working within the referendum supporting London government and only one campaign opposing all those options.

Therefore, the Bill would achieve exactly the opposite of what it is trying to achieve--equity and balance between the different sides in a referendum--because six different campaigns would be competing in favour of London government of some sort and only one would be opposed. The hon. Member for Blaby would say that that could not possibly happen. Looking at the Bill as a lawyer, I believe that, if I were representing one of those six options and found that my campaign would not be certified under clause 2(2), I would rush off to the law courts for a judicial review demanding my share of the action. We may find people with different viewpoints wishing to challenge the referendum commission by way of judicial review. People who get involved in referendums can be quite litigious and forceful in their views. They may wish to challenge the decision about which campaign should be supported.

19 Mar 1999 : Column 1419

Clause 3(1) brings into play the issue of funding and clause 3(2) that of broadcasting. My remarks on London very much bring that home.

---