| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), which have considerable practical merit. Party political broadcasts have evolved like Topsy in an informal but constructive way over a long period. I do not believe that an Electoral Commission has the qualifications to determine how to get the balance right. We would do the commission a favour if we did not get it drawn into this area.
The hon. Member for Battersea raised the alarming spectacle of judicial review, which we have managed to avoid in this context. In Committee, the Minister detailed the proliferation of small political parties that are growing almost by the day in this country, so I do not have to remind him that they would see this as a great opportunity to paralyse the whole process, which could lead who knows where. That is the point.
The system is not broke, so we should not fix it. There is an established convention, but that does not mean that there are no rows or disagreements. Heaven knows, my party has had many complaints about balance and share, as have other parties in the House and outside. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the existing mechanism does not manage to resolve those problems. The broadcasters recognise that they have a wide audience. Political parties also have influence over the broadcasters, which can be brought to bear in different ways.
Will the Minister address that point? Does he accept that placing an obligation on the Electoral Commission to be responsible to the political parties for securing balance is to open up the possibility of legal difficulties, which we could all do without?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
I find myself in considerable sympathy with the amendments.
It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report progress.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
Again considered in Committee.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr. Winterton:
Mr. Lord, I have very little to repeat of what I said before 10 o'clock, except to say that I find myself in very considerable sympathy with amendments Nos. 10 and 11--which were positively and articulately moved by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)
I do not wish to bring a note of political controversy into the debate, but I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will give us his definition of a party political broadcast. I should like to pose a simple question. If a countryside soap--let us call it "The Archers"--were being broadcast during a general election period, and if that programme were similar to an episode of "The Archers" which was broadcast not very long ago and related to the Government's agricultural policies--many of us believe that that episode could certainly have been described as a party political broadcast--might the Electoral Commission have something to say about it? Conversely--as the hon. Member for Battersea rightly said--should we leave it to the Independent Television Commission and to the BBC and the other broadcasters to keep their own house in order?
As I said, I do not ask that question to be politically controversial or provocative, as the whole tenor and temperature of our debates has been enjoyable and admirable. We simply seek to get Ministers to understand some of the problems in the legislation. It would be most helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the very agreeable hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), could direct at least some of his reply to dealing with that point.
Mr. Tipping:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) for tabling amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which, as hon. Members have said, raise important issues. The Committee has had a chance to debate those issues.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) asked me to define a party political broadcast. My definition is not the same as that used by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea in moving the amendments. He called party political broadcasts "delicate flowers" that must be protected. I am a regular watcher of party political broadcasts, and I would never call them delicate flowers.
I also had the opportunity to hear the episode of "The Archers" to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield referred. As someone who has a great deal to do with the countryside, I must confess that I raised my eyebrows at the account in the programme of the Prime Minister's speech to the National Farmers Union. The account did not seem to bear much relationship to the content of my right hon. Friend's speech. Of course, that was not a party political broadcast in the sense in which that term is understood.
The Neill committee's comments on the role of the Electoral Commission on party political broadcasts are set out in paragraph 13.22. The report says:
Mr. Grieve:
If that is the case, why go into such detail in the clause?
Mr. Tipping:
I shall offer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea some succour on the matter.
It might help the Committee if I explained the purpose of subsection (3)(b), which amendment No. 11 would remove. The wording is derived from sections 36 and 107 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which provide that the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority may determine which political parties qualify for party political broadcasts, and the length and frequency of such broadcasts. By inserting the same formulation in subsection (3) we ensure that there is consistency as between the BBC and the ITC and that there is a focus for the Electoral Commission in offering its views.
The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea have expressed doubts. On reflection, the words may not be quite right. I am prepared to look at them again, but in this or some other guise they perform an important function. We shall return to the issue.
I am a little unsure about the aim of amendment No. 10. The commission's role is confined to offering non-binding views. The ultimate responsibility for the content of broadcasts clearly rests with the broadcasters. Any amendment asserting that principle is therefore unnecessary.
Given the concerns that have been expressed tonight and directly by the BBC about the wording of the clause, we are prepared to take a fresh look. Subject to any necessary drafting changes, the clause reflects the Neill committee's proposals. It is right that the Electoral Commission should have a role, but not one that could bring it before the courts facing judicial review. With those assurances, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Linton:
Following that explanation of the intention behind the clause and the promise to examine the wording again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Linton:
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 16, leave out from 'party' to end of line 20.
Having achieved almost embarrassing consensus on the previous amendment, with the agreement of all three parties--and, indeed, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)--I now intend to throw it all away with an amendment that is essentially about Sinn Fein. The amendment would allow any party with at least two Members in the House of Commons to qualify for policy development grants.
The Bill stipulates that the two Members should have taken the Oath and should not be disqualified from voting or sitting. Of the nine parties with more than two sitting Members, that excludes only Sinn Fein, and I do not think that we have any right to do that. It is one thing to deny House of Commons facilities to a party whose representatives do not attend the House, but quite another to maintain that a party whose members do not take the Oath does not need policy development.
I speak not from any sympathy with Sinn Fein, but first because Sinn Fein is in great need of policy development, and secondly because we have no right to deny it the grants that will go to the rest of us. We are talking about state funding, even if at a very low level. In Germany, state funding was started in 1959 by Konrad Adenauer, a Christian Democrat. It is a great shame that the Christian Democrats' sister party in this country has taken so long to see the benefits of that courageous decision.
Political education was funded in Germany in 1959, and research institute funding began in 1962. Soon after, the constitutional court in Karlsruhe found that state funding cannot be restricted to parties in Parliament, as that would be like a conspiracy between those parties to keep the others out, behaving classically like the first pigs at the trough.
It is widely believed that the Neill report came out against state funding, but it did not, not only because there is state funding in kind in the Neill report--and already extant--and not only because policy development grants were promised, but because the committee said:
That, at this day's sitting, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Question agreed to.
"In connection with both the future of party election broadcasts and party political broadcasts . . . and also their allocation among the parties, we believe that 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".
I stress the words "non-binding views". The Electoral Commission has a wide remit and it would not be inappropriate for it to have a role in the formulation of
the broadcasters' policy on party political broadcasts, but that role should be purely advisory. Clause 9 merely requires the BBC, the Independent Television Commission, S4C and the Radio Authority to have regard to any views expressed by the Electoral Commission, but the ultimate responsibility for party political broadcasts rests entirely with the broadcasters.
"We can envisage circumstances in which substantially increased state funding of the political parties--including the funding of their general activities--might become imperative. But we do not believe that that time has come yet."
The committee was saying that policy development grants should be the first step and that it would be for another Parliament to decide whether we should go further.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |