---

Mr. Raynsford: I should make it clear that the hon. Gentleman is quoting my remarks in the previous debate out of context. When I talked about possible changes to regulations, I was asked about the impact on the timetable of any recommendations that the Electoral Commission might make. I tried to draw a distinction between recommendations that would involve legislation, which clearly would involve a long delay; recommendations that might involve a change in regulations, which would involve a delay; and recommendations that might involve administrative changes, which might not involve a delay if those could be done expeditiously. I was simply trying to illustrate the fact that we had to take account of a range of possible circumstances. The hon. Gentleman should not imply that a suggestion that there might be a modest change to administrative procedures is a justification for not taking action. That was certainly not what I implied.

Mr. Jenkin: I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but it does not alter the substance of the point I am making, which concerns what the real test of "unsafe" is. In the end, it that will be a decision for Ministers; we cannot expect the Electoral Commission to make the decision about whether the referendums
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 393
 
should go ahead, any more than we could expect Hans Blix to decide whether we should invade Iraq. It is a question for Ministers, and not something that the Minister will be able to define today. It leaves him all the room for manoeuvre that he wants.

The real test of the word "unsafe" will be a political judgment, not a legal or technical one. If it looks likely that Labour will lose one or more of the referendums, that may well be what the Government conclude to be "unsafe". It will be the Prime Minister who makes the ultimate decision, not his hapless deputy.

The Minister refuses to define "unsafe" and "derisory". This kind of confusion, chaos and deceit has characterised the Government's proposals for elected regional assembles from the start. I ask for one simple reassurance that the right hon. Gentleman failed to give the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Either all the referendums go ahead, or not. Does the Minister agree that there can be no conceivable excuse for cancelling one or two of the referendums? Either he will consider postal voting to be an unsafe system, or a safe one.

How can the system be safe in some places and not in others? That is the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). Do we think people behave differently in Bradford than in York? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] That is an interesting comment. All citizens in this country should be treated as equals. To cast aspersions on one part of the population but not another is a very nasty thing to do; yet that is the implication of the Government's position. Either the system is sound or it is not, and if not, none of the referendums should proceed on this basis.

Mr. Raynsford: I should make it clear that there is no question of casting aspersions on any section of the community or individual area. However, the fact is that the complaints made about the problems associated with all-postal voting—or, indeed, with postal voting—tended to be concentrated in certain areas. That factor clearly has to be taken into account, and it would be quite wrong to draw general conclusions from what might be localised problems associated with particular candidates in individual elections. I drew a clear distinction between circumstances that might prove an incentive to commit fraud—in which a candidate has an incentive to get elected—and the very different circumstances that apply in a referendum. The hon. Gentleman should accept that in that regard it is possible to draw distinctions between different areas of the country without implying the kind of slur that he suggested might lie behind our position.

Mr. Jenkin: I do not accept that that should be the determining factor. I repeat: if the system is unsound, it is unsound anywhere. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is that because we do not have competing candidates, no vested interests are involved in this process, but of course that is not true. Huge vested interests are involved. The reputation of the Deputy Prime Minister is on the line; the careers of the "jobs for
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 394
 
the boys" Labour councillors who want to be members of the regional assemblies are on the line; the career of the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West is on the line. Lots of people have a vested interest in the outcome of the regional assemblies referendum.

In any case, what about some of the organisations that might be involved in the yes campaign or the no campaign? I certainly do not want to have anything to do with the British National party. However, it is on the record as saying that it will apply for designation as a permitted participant. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the BNP to behave as well as any other political party behaves? I certainly do not.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend has asked a question of the Minister and in order to avoid ambiguity, I want to explain to my hon. Friend my understanding of the Minister's reply to my earlier intervention. I do not understand why we are being so squeamish about saying what we believe, which is that there appear to have been problems with the conduct of the ballot in certain ethnic minority areas. That is what we are talking about; we are simply trying to avoid using that expression. As I understood it, the Minister said that it is not impossible that there could be three ballots, two ballots or one ballot, and that they could all take place through postal voting or through a combination of postal and manual voting. In the latter case, manual voting would take place at a later date than postal voting because it would not be possible to make the necessary arrangements in time, given the need first to pass the relevant legislation through this House. That is my understanding of what the Minister said.

Mr. Jenkin: If the Minister will confirm that that is so—[Interruption.] He nods, but I have to say that that was not my understanding of his response to the intervention of my right hon. Friend. The point is that, as my right hon. Friend will agree, we are faced with an extraordinary mess. There is a very high likelihood that what we are debating—and possibly approving—is what will not happen. This is a mess of the Government's own making, and one made over a remarkably short period.

Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman has said several times that the all-postal ballot is an unsound system. On what does he base that judgment, given that all-postal ballots have operated in the north-east for some three to four years without the problems that he describes?

Mr. Jenkin: My point is that if a system is unsound in one place it is unsound, full stop. If it can be defrauded in one part of the country, it can be defrauded anywhere.

Mr. Kevan Jones rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I note from what the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West says that she has absolute confidence that the BNP, for example, will not try to interfere with the system. Her faith is very touching.

We have had an outbreak of honesty in other quarters, from the chairman of the yes for Yorkshire campaign, Lord Haskins. Just over two weeks ago, he
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 395
 
labelled Ministers in the Departments for Education and Skills and for Transport "Stalinists" because they did not want to let go of some of their powers. Perhaps the Minister will tell us who some of these Stalinists are. Lord Haskins was also reported to have said that he thinks the referendum is unwinnable. Helpfully, he later clarified his remarks, saying that he is merely concerned about the tight timetable being laid down by the Government. In other words, he thinks the Government are in a horrible mess and he thinks he is going to lose.

That reminds us that the Labour party is hopelessly split. On Monday, it was reported that 27 north-west Labour Members, including three Ministers, have written to the Deputy Prime Minister asking for the regional referendum to be scrapped. The truth is that Labour Members are queueing up to tell him to ditch the project. Just two days ago, the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) called for the Yorkshire referendum to be scrapped, and added:

"I have no doubt that the views I have expressed are the views of the majority of Yorkshire Labour MPs."

Mr. Clelland: We may as well be honest about these things, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, and it is also true that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) expressed reservations about the referendum. Of course there is a division of opinion in some areas of the north-west, and in Yorkshire, as we have heard today. However, let me make it crystal clear that no such divisions are apparent in the north-east, where we are only too keen to pass the orders and get on with authorising the yes and no campaigns, setting them in motion and holding the referendum.

---