| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Walter: I am rather concerned about amendment No. 13, which I call the chaos amendment. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) described the third way and where it leads. I suspect that I am beginning to find out where it leads. This delightful amendment sums up my understanding of the Liberal Democrats, especially when they campaign in elections. For them, the desired outcome is clear--that Liberal Democrats should get elected. However, they believe it reasonable to use different--even conflicting--arguments to get to the same point.
Mr. Miller: The same thing happened in my constituency.
Mr. Walter: I am pleased that it does not happen only in Dorset.
The amendment is worrying because, instead of allowing for the designation of one umbrella organisation on each side of the argument, it would allow several such umbrellas to exist. People would then run around looking for cover under the umbrella that most suited them. Under clause 103 and schedule 3, designated organisations will get £600,000. The precedent for that was set in the 1975 referendum, and the amount has been uprated to allow for inflation.
However, designated organisations are also allowed to send an address to every household or elector, so if there were more than one designated organisation, which organisation would send the address? Would those messages be sent to only a third of the available households or electors, or to every other one?
Under the amendment, would the designated organisations get the use of public rooms free of charge? If there were several such umbrella organisations on each side of the argument, that would come to an awful lot of rooms.
How would the broadcasting authorities cope with referendum campaign broadcasts? For instance, umbrella organisations that support a single currency from capitalist and socialist points of view, respectively, might both seek time for referendum broadcasts. However, one organisation may fear that the broadcast made by the other might kill off the case for the single currency for all time.
The Bill's provision that only one umbrella organisation should receive the grant from Government is the correct approach. The Electoral Commission may wish to knock heads together to determine which body should receive the money, or it may leave it for the relevant groups to work out for themselves. However, such an approach would not preclude other points of view being expressed, as the Bill allows political parties and other bodies to participate in the referendum process. The Bill means that the commission will have to deal with only one body on each side of the argument, and we are content with that.
Mr. Tipping:
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) struggled with the language when he spoke to his amendment. The matter is difficult, but he made it clear that his intention was to find a third way when it comes to funding. The amendment departs from the Bill's provision that the Electoral Commission will designate money to one umbrella organisation on each side of the referendum campaign, and would instead provide that there might be more than one such organisation on each side. The Government would strongly oppose taking that line. The essence of the Neill committee's proposal is that there should be one organisation on each side of the campaign. The committee's work in Wales persuaded it that a grant of £600,000 and facilities should be available to enable a minimum campaign to be run.
As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said, the real advantage of an umbrella organisation is the mailshot--I had better be careful what I say about mailshots in view of last night's debate on election expenses for the mayor of London and the assembly--the free use of rooms and the right to broadcast. It is difficult to see how those resources could be shared among competing claims. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove said that the Electoral Commission would face a difficult task in identifying the umbrella organisation when there were competing demands.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment states:
The Government have always recognised that it will not always be possible for everybody to work together under an umbrella group, and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove gave us some examples. However, the Bill does
not prevent that from happening. It will be possible to have an umbrella organisation and groups working alongside it, which are not part of it, and have a slightly different view. That is the plurality of the situation.
It must be right to have only one umbrella group on either side. It is also right that others who want to participate will still be able to do so. There are rules in the Bill governing that. However, they will not have a right, unless they are part of the umbrella campaign, to a share of the public resources--the £600,000, the right to broadcast and the free mailshot. The hon. Member for North Dorset said that the financial pot will lead people to bang their heads together. I am not sure whether the Electoral Commission will be banging heads together. The prospect of substantial sums of money will, after a lot of discussion and some heartache, force bodies to work together as part of an umbrella organisation.
To have an umbrella organisation on each side of the argument must be the way forward. It is what the Neill committee recommended, and it is the approach that the Government would like to adopt to avoid a chaotic situation. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to reflect on his amendments.
Mr. Stunell:
I shall not talk about the intricacies of street lights in Dorset. However, I once made an issue out of two Conservative leaflets in my constituency--one was strongly in favour of a road, and one was strongly against it. They seemed to be distributed in adjacent areas, depending on what it was thought people in each area would like to hear. No one has a monopoly on distributing leaflets or talking to electors with what is sometimes called a forked tongue.
I apologise to the House and the Hansard reporters if I got my "permitted participants" and "designated organisations" mixed up at various points in my speech. I hope that my intention was clear; in any event, the Minister has clarified what I was trying to say, and I thank him for that.
I freely concede that there are some difficulties. My amendment may not be comprehensive enough in its scope and precise enough in its detail to achieve its objective. I understand the point that is being made. I am less happy, however, with the view that the scenario that I have described is unlikely or that if it does occur, it is not greatly to be feared. We are setting in place framework designation that is designed to last for a long time. The intention of my amendment is to provide a seldom-used but available alternative in a particular set of circumstances. However, I understand the Minister's reluctance to proceed, and recognise that there is no support for the proposal elsewhere in the House. Having aired my case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Grieve:
I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 64, line 32, leave out "shorter or".
This is a small amendment that can be considered without having to consider some of the wider issues that were before us earlier. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely divorced from those issues, because it
concerns the power that clause 102 gives the Secretary of State to vary the periods that are provided for in that clause. It may be worth setting out briefly what this part of the Bill aims to do.
Certain organisations may become designated organisations and receive funding, so there will be competition among various organisations to become so designated. All permitted participants will be eligible for designation, and will doubtless be rooting to be the designated group and receive the funding. Clause 102 provides:
"Where the Commission makes any designation under subsection (5C) above, they shall make such an apportionment of eligibility for assistance between the designated permitted participants as they think fit."
It is unclear how the Electoral Commission could be unable to identify an umbrella organisation and then do a more sophisticated analysis, in what the hon. Member for North Dorset called a chaotic situation, to identify the share-out within the umbrella group.
"A permitted participant seeking to be designated under section 101 must make an application for the purpose to the Commission."
He must provide statements saying that he adequately represents those campaigning for the outcome of the referendum. He must make his application within 28 days, beginning with the first day of the referendum period. Thereafter, the commission will have to get to work and, with considerable rapidity--given that dozens of organisations may be vying for designation--decide within 14 days which of the applications should be determined favourably or otherwise.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |