| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does he agree that one useful test of the fairness of a referendum question is whether the wording is acceptable to a professionally commissioned opinion pollster?
Dr. Godman: I am being too agreeable this afternoon. I agree that setting the question--whether in a social science research questionnaire, of which I have some experience, or, more importantly, in a referendum--is very important. It is essential therefore that, whichever party is in power, the electorate perceive referendum questions to be fair and above board. In 10 or 15 years' time, we may have a referendum in Scotland on whether to be independent or to maintain the United Kingdom, if I can call it that. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, there is nothing worse than a loaded question. We are dealing with a smart electorate, who are much more intelligent than some hon. Members--none of whom are present today, of course--believe.
Irrespective of political differences, we all owe it to the electorate to ensure that, when we conduct referendums at regional level, or in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, we can say, "Yes, a fair set of questions is being asked." I agree with the Opposition that the commission could vet the questions that are to be asked in a referendum by a party in power.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
The debate, including the Freudian speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), 4.15 pm
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) feels under-consulted on the Bill. If he wants to meet to discuss its terms and how it might be better framed, I should be more than happy to do so. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made a well-argued case for the question in any referendum to which part VII applies to be set after consultation with the Electoral Commission. Let me say up front that the Government want to reflect on that proposition. I agree that the commission must be seen as impartial and above the fray, and that it is possible to frame questions to achieve a certain result.
I welcome the fact that amendment No. 45 requires that a referendum question should be determined after consultation with, rather than on the recommendation of, the commission. It must be right that it is ultimately for Parliament to decide the wording of a referendum question. Part VII does not replace the need for separate legislation to authorise the holding of a particular referendum. That legislation will need to determine in particular the wording of the question and the date of the poll. Those are important issues for Parliament to consider.
Mr. Bercow:
I note that the Minister said that, ultimately, it should be for Parliament to decide the question. Does he accept that if the commission recommended a particular question and the Government of the day sought to persuade Parliament to accept an alternative form of words, the least that the Government would owe Parliament and the British public would be an explanation of their reasons for rejecting the recommendation?
Mr. O'Brien:
The Government listen carefully to Parliament and the Home Office has shown repeatedly that it listens to debates in the House with care and notes the strength of the arguments. We reflect on those arguments and are prepared to change our view if they are good, but sometimes they are not so good and we tell people where to get off.
If the wording of the question were left entirely to the Electoral Commission to determine, the House would be denied its proper role, which it should retain. The Government, therefore, would not agree to the question in a referendum being set or approved by the commission. However, consultation is an entirely different matter. Given the commission's wider role in ensuring fair play in the conduct of a referendum, I can see merit in the argument made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire. However, it is worth noting that the Neill committee made no proposals on the commission's involvement in setting a referendum question. That matter was considered in the November 1996 report of the Commission on Conduct of Referendums, chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne, but even it recognised that the wording of the question had to be for Parliament to
decide. I have listened carefully to the points made in the debate and we want to reflect on the matter. The hon. Gentleman made some sound arguments in favour of the proposition and we shall consider them. In the meantime, I ask him not to press amendment No. 45.
The proposal in amendment No. 46 would not fit properly into our constitutional arrangements or the scheme set up by the Bill. Other countries have systems in which the Government or a certain number of citizens can require a referendum to be held. Alternatively, the constitution of the country concerned may require a referendum to be held to approve any constitutional change. In such a system it would be natural, and probably inescapable, for all the arrangements for holding the referendum to be put in the hands of a body equivalent to the Electoral Commission, which we are establishing in the Bill.
However, our system is not of that variety. It has almost invariably been the practice in the past, and seems likely to remain so in the future, that Parliament legislates for a particular referendum on a case-by-case basis. The proposed date on which the referendum would be held is an integral part of the proposition that is presented to Parliament, which Parliament adopts, alters or rejects.
There is no denying that the date on which a referendum is to be held is itself a political matter. Having it on one date may have consequences that having it on another date would not. Passing that matter over to the Electoral Commission would not transform it from a political to an apolitical question; it would simply mean that a decision of a political character, or at least with heavy political overtones, was being taken by the Electoral Commission rather than by Parliament. That would open it to criticism from political parties, which may feel themselves advantaged or disadvantaged in some way. We do not think that that would be a sensible arrangement or would benefit anyone.
This issue would be all the more difficult for the Electoral Commission because the amendment provides no criteria to guide it. The only guideline is the one already in the Bill, which provides for a minimum 28-day interval following the determination of applications for designation. The amendment does not, for example, say that the poll is to be held as soon as is practicable thereafter.
What are the Opposition after? Are they seeking a device to delay a referendum taking place? Well, we shall see. They say that the amendment is to prevent the Government of the day from putting into a Bill a date for a referendum that will best suit their own purposes. However, with no criteria to guide the commission, the obvious implication is that it is expected to ensure that the date of the poll does not unduly favour the Government side, which means that, relatively speaking, it favours the other side. That is asking too much of the commission, and is wrong in principle under our system. Trying to take what is, in many ways, a political decision out of the realm of political debate is not a sensible approach.
Mr. Bercow:
So the Government are motivated by charity.
Mr. O'Brien:
The Government are motivated by the highest standards of national interest and concern.
Clause 101(3), to which amendment No. 48 relates, is concerned with the possibility that a referendum question may admit more than two possible outcomes. In such circumstances, it may be open to question whether a permitted participant should be designated in respect of each of the possible outcomes. It is conceivable, for example, that one or more of the possible outcomes would be nonsensical.
An example of that was the 1997 poll on Scottish devolution, in which voters were presented with a two-part ballot paper and asked, first, to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed that there should be a Scottish Parliament, and, secondly, whether they agreed or disagreed that such a Parliament should have tax-varying powers. There were four possible outcomes, at least one of which--no to a Parliament but yes to giving it tax-varying powers--was meaningless in terms of the referendum campaign. Subsection (3) sets out a mechanism whereby it could be directed that no permitted participant be designated in respect of such an outcome.
The question is how such a decision is arrived at. Subsection (3) requires that the commission be consulted. As amended by amendment 48, such an order could be made only on the recommendation of the commission. In practice, it seems very unlikely that there would be much difference either way. It is difficult to envisage the circumstances in which there could be any real dispute as to whether a particular outcome merited the designation of a permitted participant.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |