| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Walter: I hear what the Minister says. He suggests that we should be content with the existing wording. He referred to the subsection relating to the European elections in clause 6, but clause 7 also contains a subsection relating to the European elections, with regard to the limitation of expenses.
I am not entirely convinced by the Minister's arguments about the difference between clauses 6 and 7 in terms of the powers of the commission, but, mindful of the fact that we need to make progress, and that there may be more pressing amendments ahead of us this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Tipping:
I beg to move amendment No. 7, in clause 8, page 5, line 35, leave out 'on request'.
The words "on request" are appropriate in the context of subsection (1), but do not fit the intention behind this provision. As well as enabling the Electoral Commission to provide general advice and assistance--for example on points of law or procedure--to electoral administrators, political parties and others, subsection (3) is the mechanism whereby the commission can promote best practice. To do that, it must be able to give advice on its own initiative, and not be restricted to providing advice only on request. We expect the commission to use the provision to disseminate best practice guidance to the registration and returning officers and to assist them in raising the standards for discharging their functions to the best.
The commission might be expected to use its powers under the clause to ensure that accounting and political parties' other practices meet the minimum standard that the Bill and subordinate instruments require. The amendment would allow the commission to advocate best practice on its own initiative rather than at the request of others.
Mr. Walter:
I shall not delay our proceedings for long. We are anxious that if the phrase "on request" is removed, and the provision reads:
Mr. Tipping:
The amendment is designed to raise everyone's standards to the best. It is in the interests of political parties to do that. However, if one political party chooses not to take the advice, and my colleagues in the Labour party take it, I say hurrah to that. The amendment is not prescriptive.
Mr. Walter:
As the Minister knows, throughout the Committee proceedings, we have tried to provide for improving standards and reaching a point at which everyone is cognisant of best practice. We are a little anxious about interference. I hope that the Minister will take note of that when he advises the Electoral Commission.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Martin Linton (Battersea):
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 42, leave out from 'broadcasts' to end of line 2 on page 7.
The Second Deputy Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 4, at end insert--
Mr. Linton:
Amendment No. 11 would leave out four lines of the clause for reasons that might appeal to Opposition Members: we should not include in law matters that best remain unwritten. However, I am moving the amendment at such a late hour--
Mr. Linton:
It is much later than I expected, and I doubt whether the hour appeals to my hon. Friend the Minister.
We are often told that the best thing about our constitution is that it is unwritten. Hon. Members know that that is not entirely true. The party political broadcast is a good example of the way in which our election law has grown organically and remains partly informal and voluntary. Although the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority have a legal obligation to carry party political broadcasts, the BBC broadcasts them by convention, not by law. That also applies to Sianel Pedwar Cymru.
That convention was not even imposed on the BBC, but volunteered by Lord Reith who was offered £100 by Churchill to make a broadcast and told him, "You can't pay, but you can have it for free." Ever since, the political parties have made election and party political broadcasts. For 25 years they were run by a shadowy organisation called the Committee on Party Political Broadcasting, which consisted of the broadcasters, the Whips and the usual channels. I refer to it as shadowy because it was known to have met only once in those 25 years, at the prompting of the Alliance in 1983. Matters are now on a much sounder footing, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, and the broadcasters and the political parties meet regularly to discuss the issues.
Amendment No. 11 has been tabled essentially to protect the broadcasters against the possibility of judicial review. They are not worried about the parties represented in Parliament, and the arguments almost always concern parties not represented in the House and detailed questions such as the threshold for a party political broadcast, how long it should be, when it should be broadcast and at what time. Were we to go into detail, we should rapidly get out of our depth; my point is that the electoral commissioners and the judges would do the same. These issues are best left as far as possible to the broadcasters and the parties. The broadcasters clearly must "have regard to" the views of the commission, but should be left to make the detailed decisions.
Amendment No. 10 represents an assurance to broadcasters--it makes it clear that ultimate responsibility would still lie with them--and would provide protection against litigiousness, which might otherwise arise. There could be endless argument about whether a party political broadcast offended the Race Relations Act 1976, which affected a case involving a British National party broadcast, or whether it is defamatory, around which an argument about a Sinn Fein party political revolved. There might also be argument about whether a broadcast was decent and in good taste. A famous ProLife Alliance party political was turned down on that basis.
The broadcasters and the parties can decide those issues with the minimum legal guidelines. If the length of a broadcast were subject to the law as the Bill proposes, it would be easy for the parties to push for the 30-second killer broadcasts that became notorious in the Bush- Dukakis contest. Party political broadcasts used to be seen as a turn-off--the time when people went into the kitchen to make the coffee--but that view is increasingly out of date. More and more money is spent on slick production, but the main reason why we should protect them is that they are a million times better than the alternative, which is paid television advertising.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Linton:
I shall make progress, if I may.
One has only to cross the Atlantic to see the effect of such advertising. The party political broadcast is a delicate flower that we must protect. It can be killed by too much legislation as well as too little. The amendments defend the traditional, informal approach and I urge the Minister to accept them or to at least reconsider the wording of the Bill.
Mr. Grieve:
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) knows from the many hours that we have spent in the Standing Committee that we do not always see eye to eye on these matters, although I pay tribute to his assiduity in identifying key issues for us to consider. In this case, he has a good point.
There is a certain tentativeness in Lord Neill's consideration of broadcasting. Having reviewed it, he said in paragraph 13.22 of his report:
Party political broadcasts and election broadcasts are highly sensitive, and someone must carry the can if they go wrong. Given that judicial review proceedings have previously been brought against the broadcasters for their failure to meet the requirements of various political parties, is there not a real danger, given the way in which the clause has been formulated, that if it is left as it is the focus of attention will shift from the broadcasters to the Electoral Commission?
If that is the result of the Bill as it stands, the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea may have some force. Although they clearly require the broadcasters to pay some attention to the Electoral Commission, they would, on the face of it, remove the taint in the clause suggesting that it is the Electoral Commission that should be judicially reviewed.
Amendment No. 11 would delete the reference to consulting the Electoral Commission on
I should be grateful to the Minister if he would tell the Committee how he views this matter.
9.45 pm
"The Commission may also provide advice and assistance to registration officers, returning officers . . . registered parties, recognised third parties",
that implies that the commission may intervene. It contains a suggestion of rights of entry and of the commission being a little bossy about the way in which registered parties and recognised third parties conduct their affairs. I should like the Minister to reassure us that the commission's provision of advice and assistance will be limited to best practice.
'(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the ultimate responsibility of the ITC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Radio Authorities or Sianel Pedwar Cymru for their respective services.'.
"In connection with both the future of party election broadcasts and party political broadcasts . . . and also their allocation among the parties, we believe there may be a role for our proposed Election Commission. The Commission could express non-binding views on such matters as those raised by the broadcasting authorities' consultative document; and the political parties and the broadcasters might find it mutually advantageous if the Election Commission played an 'honest broker' role in connection with the allocation of the available free air-time."
That sounds wonderfully bland and high-minded, but I rather fancy that it does not exactly deal with the reality of the situation.
"the political parties on whose behalf such broadcasts may be made"--
14 Feb 2000 : Column 697
a subject that is likely to raise sensitive issues--
It may be better to let the broadcasting companies and the BBC face the music from the disenchanted political party, rather than allow the Electoral Commission to be exposed to legal proceedings because it has strayed into an area where it should not have been.
"and . . . the length and frequency of the broadcasts".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |