Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us where his Bill provides for free mailings and deals with the issue that he identified in the previous reference to the Neill report about the involvement of the Government in referendum campaigns.

Mr. Robathan: If the hon. Gentleman will be a little less enthusiastic, he will discover that I am about to come to that. My Bill will only enact the key recommendations of Lord Neill and his committee. Many of the details would be left to a referendums commission. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that in clause 1.

I will now deal with the details of the Bill. It is a simple Bill of a mere six clauses.

Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire): Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he say why he thinks that the Government have been so longwinded and tardy in responding to the Neill report, which came out in October, as he said? Is not one of the most important aspects of this excellent debate, which he has initiated, the fact that we must get the Minister to tell us when they will respond to the report?

Mr. Robathan: Of course I will let the Government answer for themselves. I am sure that the Minister will do so. If the inquiries that Governments set up to produce reports are genuinely independent, Governments sometimes get replies that they do not like--that applies to all Governments. I fear that the Government did not like the report as much as they had hoped to when they set up the inquiry into political funds. The Minister will have the opportunity to respond and I look forward to hearing his reply.

The first clause sets up the referendums commission, which would enact Neill's central conclusion that there must be an election commission. Since the Bill is

19 Mar 1999 : Column 1387

The commission must be independent. In my view, the most suitable committee already exists--the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The numbers would have to be somewhat smaller, but it or a similar committee are what is envisaged in the Bill. It would be an independent, non-partisan committee headed by a High Court judge. The Bill would give the commission great powers to advise the Secretary of State and produce reports on referendums, which would have to be laid before the House and published.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham): I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend wants an independent commission, but a commission is only as independent as the people who appoint the commissioners. Does he have any suggestions as to who should do the appointing?

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend may be surprised to hear that I have some faith in this Government to observe some impartiality and the democratic process. Just in case anyone does not entirely trust the Government, not only will the Secretary of State make the appointments but the Speaker will have to approve them. We have greater faith in the Speaker, perhaps, than we have--occasionally--in one or two Ministers and possibly others in the Government.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West): The hon. Gentleman referred to recommendation 93 of the Neill committee report, which says that the election commission should have as part of its remit reviewing referendums and referendum campaigns. Why does he think that a referendums commission is needed when that committee suggested an elections commission?

Mr. Robathan: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen--I have been talking for only 10 minutes. The point is that the Neill committee suggested setting up an elections commission, but the Bill is more narrow and concerns referendums, so in the Bill it is called the referendums commission. However, it would play the same part as that envisaged for the elections commission and if the latter were ever set up, it would take over from the referendums commission. That will be made clear later in my speech.

The Bill mentions that the commission could make recommendations on the wording of any question. In February 1975, NOP ran a poll asking a series of questions about a referendum on the Common Market. I do not always believe in opinion polls--sadly, as May 1997 showed, they tend to be right--but the 1975 poll was illustrative in that it managed to get a majority, on one factually incorrect question, for leaving the Common Market. It also managed to get an 18 per cent. majority in favour of staying in the Common Market on a different question. The result of the referendum was approximately two to one in favour of staying in. That illustrates what we all know: that the wording of the question can dictate the result of the referendum in favour of the person who has set the question.

Significant recommendations could be made by the commission on other issues. The threshold of votes is important. Hon. Members will remember that that notion

19 Mar 1999 : Column 1388

The aim of the commission is to take political expediency out of the calculation of a referendum. The Welsh referendum was held exactly a week after the Scottish one--a case in point. The Government alleged that they were held on different days to avoid confusion. Most people in all parties would agree that the idea was that the Scottish vote, which was, rightly, expected to be heavily in favour, would influence the Welsh vote. The House might note that there does not seem to be any confusion about having separate elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and local authorities on the same day

Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West): The hon. Gentleman does not represent Wales or have the benefit of parliamentary colleagues who could advise him on the situation that prevailed in Wales before the election. If he had, he would realise that there is a media deficit in Wales, which does not have a national printed press such as the Scots enjoy. There was therefore a need for objective information sponsored by the Government on the implications of Welsh devolution. Does he accept that there are distinctions to be drawn between the Welsh and Scottish experiences of devolution?

Mr. Robathan: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that was an unwise intervention. It is kind of him to make my case. The point about the Neill recommendations is that the Government should not determine what people think. The Government are bound to take a line, but, with all the paraphernalia of the civil service, they should not tell people which way to vote. The hon. Gentleman should read the Neill report with particular reference to its comments on the Welsh referendum.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I am sorry further to trouble my hon. Friend on the composition of the referendums commission, a point that was ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), but does he agree that it is crucial that its composition should be scrupulously politically impartial? It is therefore essential to ensure either that it contains people of different political faiths or people of no known political convictions. Does he agree that it would be supremely inappropriate for someone such as Lord Jenkins to serve on it unless he were counterbalanced by someone of known contrary opinions on the matters in hand?

Mr. Robathan: I accept that, but I think that the Home Secretary, who would appoint the commission, would be impartial. It is difficult to lay down too much in a private Member's Bill, though there may be scope for amendment. The Speaker's Office takes a pretty independent line. Madam Speaker would not allow a commission of such weight to be rigged.

19 Mar 1999 : Column 1389

Clause 2 deals with the designation of referendum campaigns and requires a brief explanation. It relates to comments in the Neill report. It is intended that the referendums commission hear from all those who wish to be the designated campaign for a particular outcome. I hope that that would allow--indeed, encourage--groups pursuing the same end to come together in an umbrella group. The Neill committee's comments seem to have been influenced by the fact that both groups in the 1975 Common Market referendum were described as

"entirely self-appointed federations of activists".

Clause 3(1) enacts recommendation 84, which states:

"each side should be given equal access to an amount of core funding sufficient to enable it to mount at least a minimal campaign and to make its views widely known."

Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley): I sympathise with the principles of the Bill, but, like others, I find its mechanics difficult to work out. Has the hon. Gentleman considered how designating referendum campaigns would work in extreme situations, such as the referendum on the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland? Groups from opposite extremes supported the agreement while equally extremely opposed groups campaigned against it. Perhaps no proposal could cover that. Similarly, in the Scottish referendum, different political parties supported devolution but were not prepared to work together. I realise that the point is general and does not relate only to the Bill. It is a difficult issue affecting a general principle that I largely support.