| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Michael Spicer: The amendments and short debate are significant because the Government are not neutral in any referendum. That is crucial. A referendum on the single currency would never take place if the Government did not decide that they wanted to join it and therefore wished to put their view to the test. The Government are perhaps the major participant in such circumstances. It is therefore of paramount importance that they are on one side in a campaign.
Many of us have constantly stressed that the Bill is inadequate because it gives the Secretary of State too many powers and the commission too few. We have therefore been especially pleased to hear Ministers' constant assurances, especially those of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who was described as the man who gives away the cigarettes. He has been especially good at saying that he will consider several of our suggestions to place the Government at one remove from managing the campaigns or the events that lead up to them.
The amendment is crucial, because if the Secretary of State is to be responsible for ensuring neutrality, setting the questions and all matters that significantly affect the campaign--even some funding matters--it is appalling that the Government should simultaneously be allowed to campaign until 28 days before the referendum. The amendment is a bit generous and 10 weeks is an extremely brief period in which to limit the Government's campaigning abilities, although it is certainly better than 28 days.
I am concerned even about a 10-week period, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, this Government above all have been shameless in the way that they use propaganda to further their particular cause. A recent example is the changeover plan, which they are already using as an instrument for anticipating the referendum on the single currency. They are pumping money into blatant propaganda that often appears in schools and places where they hope to influence people who will vote in a referendum in a few years' time.
We have only to read the pure party political propaganda that appears throughout the intergovernmental conference White Paper, which was published this week, to emphasise our concern that this Government above all cannot be allowed to manage the conduct of the referendum campaign in a so-called neutral way through the Secretary of State when they are also allowed to campaign right up to the last minute.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the propaganda in our schools to which he referred comes not only from Government circles, but direct from the European Union, albeit that it is paid for in part by our contribution to the EU? It comes from two different sources.
Sir Michael Spicer:
I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why it would be nice to prevent the European
The amendment is related to the Government's involvement and I fully support my Front Benchers, although I would prefer an even wider restriction, as 10 weeks is a bit close to the event. However, it is better than 28 days, which is scandalously close given that the Government will manage large chunks of the referendum.
Mr. Stunell:
It is a pity that a comparatively good case has been spoiled by some of the arguments. There are good reasons for challenging part of the clause and I want to do that, but we should not get too precious about the European referendum. I understand how important it is to Conservative Members, but whatever limits we introduce, those who want to promote a particular view will still do so in government or in opposition. If there are complaints that the European Union is sending literature to schools, there might equally be complaints that the Democracy Movement is sending literature to schools as well.
Mr. Stunell:
If the Democracy Movement is not sending literature to schools, it should start doing so and stop sending post cards to me. We cannot make Britain a politics-free zone in which one is not allowed to debate issues or attempt to influence views.
Dr. Lewis:
The only snag is that a provision in the Education Acts prohibits the indoctrination of children in schools with partisan politics on politically controversial issues. If such literature is being sent to schools, it is breaking the existing law.
Mr. Stunell:
I rest my case. There is scope for educational material for and against a particular point of view being sent to schools. What use they make of it is another matter.
Given some of the comments that have been made, some hon. Members would obviously not like the subject of Europe to be discussed in any pub, school or workplace in the land, and believe that anyone who tries to do so should be stopped. They may want that, but this is not the Bill to achieve it.
I want to focus more precisely on what the clause does and does not do. I can make common cause with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in some respects. When considering the impact of amendment No. 56 and its deletion of press notices from exempt materials that public bodies can distribute, what does the Minister believe a court would consider to be a press notice? Is it
any piece of literature with the words "press notice" at the top? Is it a self-defining document? If so, is he happy with that? If there is some other definition of a press notice, will he put it on the record so that we know what it is? It is unsatisfactory to leave that loophole, especially in its present form. I am not a lawyer, but I do not think that there is a legal definition of a press notice. If there is one that does not arise from case law, it should be clearly stated on the record.
The general issue of when the moratorium on public bodies' advocacy of a particular course of action should start is complex. I would not be averse to an extension of the 28 days. The amendment does not do that with enough accuracy and certainty. There needs to be a date beyond which it is not proper for public bodies to disseminate such material. Four weeks is a short time, but it may not be too short. It could be from the date at which the umbrella organisations were approved by the Electoral Commission or some other prior date that was clear and gave certainty. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what could be achieved.
I come part way with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield on bringing forward the 28-day deadline. I am sympathetic to that view, but I do not think that his amendment quite achieves it. However, I am not with him on the political restrictions on civil servants. It is wrong for us to impose political restrictions on civil servants during referendums additional to those that are already in force. For better or for worse, Parliament has provided for the role of political advisers and their ability to operate under substantially more relaxed guidelines than those for civil servants in general in relation to political activity.
Mr. Grieve:
I accept that the guidelines are more relaxed, but how are they to be exercised? Does the hon. Gentleman contemplate that special advisers should be allowed to make use of the civil service machinery for the dissemination of their views--which is what they are currently able to do--during a referendum?
Mr. Stunell:
I am not entirely sure that the case has been made that that is different from civil servants exercising their views prior to a vote in the House on, say, a reduction in disability benefits, when quite clearly they are operating on behalf of the Government to develop public opinion and opinion in the House. I am not clear that there is a sufficient distinction that would necessitate those guidelines being varied, in particular for referendum campaigns.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
Does the hon. Gentleman not differentiate between a vote in the House by Members of Parliament who have been elected to decide issues, and an election--a referendum--outside? Surely it is wrong for taxpayers' money to be used to influence people in the country. I understand its being used for that purpose in the House, but surely it should not be used for that purpose in the country, in a referendum.
Mr. Stunell:
Some interesting points are emerging. Perhaps they should feature in a slightly different debate about what range of relaxations should be available to political advisers. There is nothing to stop a political adviser in any Department making comments in the four, or eight, weeks leading up to a local election campaign, 11 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |