| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Grieve: I counted 68 criminal offences created by the Bill. Some of them are draconian, and some appear absolute--I shall shortly deal with one--and may need amendment. I know that the Minister will do that.
However, an offence is draconian only if someone can be convicted of it. If I spend £100,000 and am investigated for it, I produce 10 friends and say that we spent £10,000 each.
Mr. Tipping:
Of course that is a possibility. We discussed the matter on Second Reading and on various occasions since. It takes us back to the argument about hypothesis versus reality. I expect that the reality will not be as exciting as the hon. Gentleman tempts me to believe.
Let me be more helpful to the hon. Gentleman and say that he makes a fair point in amendment No. 50. We discussed the figure in the context of part V. I am happy to accept amendment No. 50--another example of the Bill being improved.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire):
Can the Minister tell us how often the Bill has had to be improved so far? On how many amendments has he said that he will come back to the Committee? Does not that show how ill prepared the Bill was, rather than how much it has been improved?
Mr. Tipping:
The hon. Gentleman makes a point, and I shall make another. Under previous Governments, there was a regime where it was seen as inappropriate to make concessions. I remember that he was a Minister in that regime.
Mr. McLoughlin:
It was a Government, not a regime.
Mr. Tipping:
It may have been a Government, but the regime introduced by the Government led to their losing office. One of the things that I have been keen to do during the course of the Bill--perhaps the hon. Gentleman will speak to some of his hon. Friends about this--is to listen to the arguments and make concessions where that will improve--
Mr. Tipping:
I do not have a score chart. I will write to the hon. Gentleman. There have been a good number of occasions when appropriate suggestion were made. We are coming to one from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) in a moment.
It has been appropriate to make changes because the Bill will affect us all fundamentally. What marks the Bill is the fact that we all know something about the political system, and we all have a contribution to make. I do not accept that the Bill was ill prepared. I remind the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that it was published in draft form in July. His party had an opportunity to comment on it. If there are failings in it, it
reflects badly on those who work for his party that they were not picked up. I shall not be tempted further down that route. He hits a nerve, and I shall return to the matter.
I am not persuaded to accept amendment No. 51, which deals with receipts and suggests that the value of the receipts should be increased from £100 to £200. There is a case, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove may make, in relation to smaller organisations. The de minimis provision is £100, which applies in this case, so only organisations that spend more than that will be affected.
The figure in the Bill is drawn from the Representation of the People Act 1983, where it was set at £20. It has been increased to £100, so that affords referendum campaigns more leeway. However, it is not unreasonable to ask well run, well resourced campaigns to present receipts and invoices.
These are ultimately matters of judgment. There is not a great deal between £100 and £200. What is important is that a milestone is set down. In my judgment, £100, rather than £200, is the right figure.
Mr. Grieve:
I have reason to be grateful to the Minister, who has given me 50 per cent. more than I expected. I am happy that he has accepted amendment No. 50.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Grieve:
I mentioned to the Minister earlier that I would return to a topic that has excited me during the passage of the Bill--the creation of absolute offences. Under clause 107(4), an absolute offence is committed if a person makes a payment in contravention of subsection (1), even if he did so by mistake or with an excuse that he believed to be reasonable. Is that what the Minister intends?
With regard to the contravention of subsection (3), the reasonable excuse defence exists. Perhaps the Minister will look into that, in the spirit in which he has undertaken to look at other points in the Bill.
Mr. Tipping:
I have already given the hon. Gentleman and the Committee an undertaking that all the defence arguments will be brought in line during the period when we reflect on the Bill. I have heard what he said, and I will of course consider it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Tipping:
I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 67, line 30, leave out '30' and insert '42'.
The amendment constitutes plagiarism. Similar amendments, originally tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), were made to parallel clauses 70 and 85. We accepted his amendments then, and I am happy to move amendment No. 8 now.
Mr. Stunell:
I wish to put on record that the Minister has been helpful and constructive throughout our proceedings. He has not always given us what we wanted--perhaps not even most of what we wanted--but he has always listened carefully. I appreciate his adoption of our amendment, which we tabled early in our proceedings. It provides an opportunity for organisations that make returns to get their paperwork done. Those organisations are often small and inevitably involve human frailty. I am pleased that the Minister has accepted the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Walter:
I want to consider again, perhaps in a slightly different way, financial limits and circumstances in which someone who is not a permitted participant can spend up to £10,000. If that person spends more than £10,000,
However, there is a loophole, if I dare call it that, which suggests that those who are not permitted participants can spend up to £10,000. Let us consider a specific scenario in which an organisation that, for whatever reason, is not a permitted participant in a referendum campaign and operates in London has several supporters dotted around the country. On a word processor or a laptop in London, the organisation draws up a sample newspaper advertisement to persuade people to vote in a particular way in a referendum campaign. The only missing item from the advertisement is an imprint. The organisation distributes the advertisement to its supporters throughout the country and suggests to them, "Why don't you insert this advertisement in your local newspapers and pay for it out of your own pocket? You won't be a permitted participant, but the advertisement will have a massive impact on the campaign because we'll have newspaper
advertisements all over the country. You won't have made any donations to us directly. We're not registered; you're not registered. There's nothing anyone can do about it."
If we are to exercise rigorous control, more time and consideration should have been given to that obvious loophole. I do not want to trespass on the ground of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who will speak shortly, but the alternative is to set no financial limits in referendum campaigns.
Mr. Hayes:
That point is directly related to a matter that the Minister raised earlier. He claimed that the electorate would see through any attempt to disguise support for a specific side in a referendum campaign, and to fund such support. He said that such an attempt would backfire. As my hon. Friend suggests, the attempt could be heavily disguised and thus not transparent. I invite my hon. Friend to challenge the Minister to explain how the electorate can arbitrate when support or funding is heavily veiled.
Mr. Walter:
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The tenor of the Bill and the Neill report suggests that we are seeking transparency. Exceptions of as much as £10,000 to limits--that figure can be multiplied by people who are not permitted participants acting in concert--can make a significant impact on a referendum campaign.
7.45 pm
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
"he is guilty of an offence if he knew, or ought reasonably to have known that the expenses were being incurred in excess of that limit."
When we consider clause 111, we shall discuss the matter in more detail. There is a complex set of formulae for deciding how much various categories of participants--permitted participants, political parties or designated organisations--can spend in a referendum campaign.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |