| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tipping: The Committee has had an opportunity to discuss this matter. I draw hon. Members' attention to clause 9, which says that broadcasters shall have regard to the commission's views. The commission is in a position to express views about broadcasting. I have already given the Committee an undertaking to consider
introducing a new form of words. It is clearly important that the commission should be involved, but that does not remove responsibility from broadcasters.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That this schedule be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Mr. Walter:
The schedule, which deals with qualifying expenses in a referendum, seems reasonable, but as I read through it I become a little confused. We are given a list of expenses, including those incurred in referendum campaign broadcasts, advertising of any nature, and
I am not sure of the distinction between the two types of unsolicited material. Those fighting a referendum campaign usually start from the presumption that everybody is a supporter of their cause. So perhaps they do not have to count against their expenditure limits the expense of sending material to those whom they perceive to be their supporters.
Also among the exclusions are
Another exclusion is:
Paragraph 2 is another example of dilution of what we thought were ground rules on campaign expenditure. Indeed, two sub-paragraphs--on unsolicited material addressed to electors and on unsolicited material sent to supporters--appear to be contradictory. Electors and supporters can be one and the same thing.
Mr. Tipping:
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that schedule 12 almost exactly mirrors schedule 7, which we have had the opportunity to discuss. I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to paragraph 2 and, incidentally, to similar provisions in schedule 7. During our debate upstairs, I said on a number of occasions that I would like to reflect on the matter. The hon. Gentleman has made important points. There may have been some drafting errors. I am grateful for his points; I will write to him and, if necessary, correct matters later.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Mr. Grieve:
I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 66, line 2, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 51, in clause 107, page 67, line 10, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".
Mr. Grieve:
These amendments follow a pattern reflected elsewhere concerning de minimis amounts. In the light of some earlier comments, considerations in the context of referendum expenditure may be slightly different from those that apply to elections.
Under clause 105, any individual or body that is provided with certain services must declare them, and they are treated as incurred if they exceed £100. Similarly, clause 107 states:
There seems to be a difference between the two clauses. Clause 105 refers to any "individual or body", whereas clause 107 refers to "a permitted participant". Will the Minister clarify whether it is intended that clause 105 should cover a wider group of people? One way of interpreting matters is that, unlike clause 105, clause 107 does not apply to others who might wish to get involved in a campaign--individuals whom I described earlier as the loose cannon of the procedure. If that is so, why the distinction between the two clauses?
Have we got the limits right? We have had some debate about whether the £100 limit--or the £200 limit, as we propose in our probing amendment--is appropriate. I shall not take up the Committee's time on that; the arguments were rehearsed almost ad infinitum when debating election expenses. However, the Minister will have to ponder the following issue.
We have discussed--we shall return to it--what those who are not permitted participants but foreign nationals, individuals or organisations can do in referendum campaigns. The Minister has conceded that they can spend up to £10,000. I find it difficult to identify mechanisms of scrutiny by which one may ascertain how much such individuals spend. It might be a criminal offence for them to spend more than £10,000, but there is nothing to indicate how they are supposed to make a return to the commission, how the commission might investigate them, or how such individuals might be kept under control. In addition, we must accept that because such individuals can spend up to £10,000, all they need do is club together as a group of, say, 10 and they can spend £100,000.
Are we being reasonable in specifying that if permitted participants spend a penny over £100 they must have an invoice and every conceivable detail, but all other people milling around on the sidelines, dabbling in a referendum campaign, can spend up to £10,000 without having to do so? I am prepared to accept the Minister's guidance. Clause 105 might just cover people who spend money as if there were no tomorrow.
It seems to me that the issue may be different from that which we discussed when we considered election expenses upstairs. We are imposing all these burdens on the poor old permitted participants, whereas there is a huge loophole allowing others to campaign without turning into third parties, as in the case of elections. They will be able to campaign, put forward their view and argue that a vote should go a particular way, yet they will not be subject to the same controls.
I should be grateful to hear from the Minister about the precise scope of clauses 105 and 107, and whether the limits that are being imposed are reasonable, in view of the fact that many other people will be able to participate without being subject to such stringent conditions.
Mr. Tipping:
Clause 105 is concerned with goods or services provided to a permitted participant by a third party. Clause 107 is concerned with direct expenditure by a permitted participant. That is the difference between the two clauses.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the loose cannons that may get involved, and there may be some. He is always interested in hypothetical situations, in which such loose cannons appear larger than in reality.
Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury):
Loose cannon.
Mr. Tipping:
Loose cannon. I am corrected by a voice that rarely speaks, but when it does, it does so with force.
The hypothetical situations described by the hon. Gentleman may not develop in reality to the extent that he is tempted to think.
"unsolicited material addressed to electors (whether addressed to them by name or intended for delivery to households within any particular area or areas)."
The list of exclusions in paragraph 2, however, says:
"Nothing in paragraph 1 shall be taken as extending to . . .
(b) any expenses in respects of unsolicited material sent to supporters of the referendum campaign".
7.30 pm
"any expenses in respect of newsletters or similar publications issued by or on behalf of the campaign organiser with a view to giving electors in a particular electoral area information about the opinions or activities of, or other personal information relating to, their elected representatives or existing or prospective candidates".
At first I thought that the sub-paragraph had strayed from another part of the Bill. In fact, it means that as long as newsletters tell one something about the views of one's local elected representative, expense incurred in sending them does not count as the campaign expenditure of an organisation campaigning in a referendum. One can therefore imagine an awful lot of newsletters going out in a referendum. Will the Minister give me some guidance, particularly on the exclusions?
"any expenses incurred in respect of the remuneration or allowances payable to any member of the permanent staff of the campaign organiser".
That means that such staff are no longer an expense in the referendum. I can understand the exclusions covering
"any reasonable expenses incurred in respect of an individual by way of travelling expenses . . . or in providing for his accommodation or other personal needs",
but fail to see why expenditure on publications and newsletters, on unsolicited material and in respect of remuneration of staff should be excluded.
"No payment (of whatever nature) may be made in respect of any referendum expenses incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of a permitted participant unless it is . . . less than £100."
If payment is over £100, it must be properly recorded and submitted to the commission.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |