| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Walter: I had not intended to intervene again on the clause, but my right hon. and hon. Friends have raised some interesting points. They brought me back to our discussion on whether the clause in its entirety complies with the European convention on human rights.
My hon. Friends who have been here for the whole of the debate will have heard the Minister use the convention as a reason for not permitting certain of our amendments to go forward, but article 10 states:
Mr. Tipping:
I am conscious that I have spoken before and that the Committee wants to make progress. I hesitate to say it in view of the contributions that we have had over the past half hour or so, but there are one or two points to which I want to respond.
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) asked whether the Bill complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. That is why the Secretary of State's name is on the front of it. It is straightforward. We put the Bill on the Table in front of the hon. Gentleman so that he knows. It may be challengeable, but that is the fact as we see it.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) was saying, I think, that anyone should be able to spend what they want.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
What are you afraid of?
Mr. Tipping:
I am not afraid of anything. People can spend what they want. There is no prescription of what an individual can spend, up to £500,000. If someone wants to spend more than £10,000, they will have to become a permitted party in the terms of the Bill. People can spend far more. I am not afraid of these issues.
There will be consequences if people spend large sums. One of the themes that has run in Committee is whether both sides of the argument will be balanced. Clearly, that can never be the case--a point that Neill recognised and the Government recognise. To try to contain spending, caps at various levels have been imposed.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) tried to tempt me down the European Union road yet again. We had a prolonged discussion on clause 98 around those issues. I say for the record--it is merely for the record; I do not criticise it--that amendments on restricting EU contributions, amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16, were not moved by Conservative Members. Having seen the reaction and excitement of Members during the debate, I have no doubt that there will be many other occasions when we will have the opportunity to discuss referendums, the euro and the EU's involvement. Many of us will welcome that.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made one significant point, and throughout its discussions, the Committee has been aware of it. The Bill places some fairly onerous responsibilities on treasurers and responsible persons. There is anxiety--I put it no higher--that it may be difficult to persuade people to become involved as fully as they might in the political process. At various points in the Bill, de minimis provisions are worked in. During our discussions, it was acknowledged across the Committee that the de minimis provisions as they affect constituencies and branches are acceptable and should not cause the problems that they might appear to on first sight of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the £10,000 limit and the criminal sanctions. I do not think that he heard my earlier remarks to the hon. Member for North Dorset, who was pressing hard--I am sure that he will continue to press--on what provisions are made to stop avoidance and evasion, and asking what in reality would stop a person from spending more than £10,000. Currently, the only provision in the Bill to achieve that objective is the hefty criminal sanctions.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk rightly mentioned--the Committee has discussed the issue at length--the number of criminal offences listed in schedule 19. I agree with his major point that we must be careful not to make the Bill's provisions so strong, firm and frightening that it will put people off engaging in political activity. We should realise that, although political activity may have earned itself a bad name, the Bill will help to rectify the situation.
Despite what has been said, I believe that most people who work in political parties are the type of people who are involved in charitable work, who want to make a difference and who want to change their communities for the better.
Mr. MacGregor:
I was making that point, but I was also making a point on clause 110 that was rather different from the first one. By lowering the limit from £25,000 to £10,000, one increases the risk of people inadvertently spending modest sums in making their case and yet incurring those heavy criminal sanctions. The two points are slightly different from each other. If the limit were £25,000 as the Neill committee recommended, the provision would not be quite so serious.
Mr. Tipping:
The right hon. Gentleman has hit on a theme that has occupied members of this Committee, and particularly Conservative Members--the Bill's provision of defence clauses. Surely, the type of person whom I described--those who act in good faith and who want to make change and to be part of the process--provided that they act in good faith and properly, should not be penalised for mistakes.
In our debates, I have given the Committee an assurance that the Government have written in more comprehensive defence arguments. I have also, more than once, given the Committee an undertaking that, before Report, we shall work our way through the Bill, to ensure that the defence arguments and reasons are comprehensive and in good shape.
With that, I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 110 should stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 13 stand part and new clause 4--Spending limits in referendums--
Sir George Young:
This debate complements the debate that we have just had, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and focused on the lower expenditure limit of £10,000. This debate will examine the much higher expenditure limits that are provided for, particularly in schedule 13, and address one of the major contentious issues in the Bill.
In the earlier debate, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office said that it was a sign of strength each time he made a concession to the Opposition. We seek a display of yet more strength in this debate, although it may test his virility to the extreme as we consider clause 111 stand part.
In a nutshell, we believe that the Government have got the matter wrong. We believe that they have it wrong in principle and in practice. We therefore propose to delete the spending limits provided for in the Bill and revert to the position adopted by the Neill committee. If I can use a computer analogy, the Government have turned the parliamentary screen blue. We now need to press a number of buttons, including delete, to try to get back to a workable position.
There were no spending limits in the 1975 referendum, when the Labour Government of the day concluded that such measures would be impractical. The Welsh and Scottish devolution referendums in 1979 had no limits. The Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997, the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Negotiations (Referendum) Order 1998 and the Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998 contained no limits. The Local Government Bill, which provides for local referendums on mayoral appointments and other issues, also contains no spending limits.
The Neill committee looked at the issue in depth and reported in October 1998. In paragraph 12.45, it conceded:
"This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
The Minister has cited clause 110 as the reason it is not possible to exclude foreigners from being third parties, or permitted participants. Surely, article 10 brings into question whether the clause complies with the convention. I would be interested to hear his view because it seems that, if the convention says that one can impart information without interference, a £10,000 limit with criminal penalties of up to a year's imprisonment may contravene the convention.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
'.--(1) The Commission shall review from time to time the question of spending limits in referendums.
(2) The Commission shall present a report on any review under subsection (1) above to each House of Parliament.'.
"The case, in principle, for imposing spending limits in referendum campaigns is a strong one."
However, the next paragraph concludes:
"We believe, however, that it would be futile and possibly also wrong to attempt to impose such limits in connection with referendums."
The report goes on to describe the circumstances of a referendum, which include strange bedfellows, participants not confined to the political parties and unknown timing. Explaining its conclusion, the committee says:
"It appears to us that under these circumstances it would be impracticable to try to control campaign spending. The number of individuals and organisations involved would often be too large. The time-scale would often be too short. Adequate accounting procedures would often be impossible to put in place. The administrative apparatus required would resemble one of Heath Robinson's most outlandish contraptions--and would almost certainly not work."
The commission on the conduct of referendums reached the same conclusion in 1996, saying:
"On balance, it is not considered practical to exercise Government control over the total expenditure by those campaigning on either side in a referendum."
Notwithstanding those conclusions, the Government rejected the Neill committee's advice, although anyone reading the White Paper might be forgiven for not realising that. Chapter 8, on referendums, says:
"The Committee's report contains a set of recommendations on these matters which the Government accepts."
That is Government speak for "The committee's report contains one major recommendation, which the Government reject." That semblance of acceptance of Neill, with the Government in denial mode, was repeated by the Home Secretary on Second Reading. He said:
"I have sought to ensure that the spirit, as well as the letter, of the Neill committee's recommendations on referendums is introduced into the Bill."--[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 36.]
That was a surprising assertion, as Neill considered and specifically rejected the Home Secretary's solution. The Government not only rejected the committee's principal conclusions, but went on to adopt a solution that the committee had explicitly rejected--an expenditure limit based on votes at the most recent general election. That formula is set out in schedule 13.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |