| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hayes: The evidence is clear. Neill examined the matter quite carefully, particularly the conduct of the referendum on the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. Regardless of what one thinks of the Good Friday agreement--I think that most hon. Members support it wholeheartedly--Neill specifically criticises the Government for sending out copies of the agreement to every household, but not providing
- "comparable provision--by way of core funding or anything else--for the opposition side."
Mr. Paterson: That was my next point. Since May 1997, the Northern Ireland Office has spent £4.8 million on publicity. Of that, £966,000 was on direct mail publicity. Every house in Northern Ireland was mailed with the Government's point of view during the Good Friday agreement referendum campaign. Whatever the merits of that campaign--most of us endorsed the agreement--we are making no provision for the opposite point of view to be put. Direct mail publicity would be Government propaganda, but it would come under the heading of press releases. It must be possible for the opposite point of view to be put.
I strongly endorse the amendment and I should like a clear definition from the Minister of what counts as a press release.
Mr. Tipping:
I shall do my best to be emollient and reassuring, but, having heard the comments of the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), I fear that it will be an uphill task.
As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out in his well-balanced and well-judged contribution, the clause implements the Neill committee's recommendation that, at a certain point before a referendum is held, the Government of the day should stand back and leave campaigning to political parties and other campaign organisations. So far there is no argument. The Neill committee was particularly sceptical about material that has been circulated to the electorate very close to the date of previous referendums, and questioned the distinction between factual and persuasive material.
The clause implements the committee's recommendations by providing for a 28-day embargo on the issuing to the public of Government publications. The
hon. Member for Beaconsfield will not mind my saying that he built the foundation of his speech on the Neill report and quoted extensively from it. In its comments on the draft Bill, the Neill committee welcomed these provisions. For the sake of completeness, let me tell the Committee what Neill said. Rather than criticising our proposals, he supported them:
Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 would affect the period during which the restrictions apply. They are based on the proposition that if it is right for political parties and other campaign organisations to be subject to controls on expenditure from a date earlier than 28 days before the date of the poll, any controls on the Government should also apply from that earlier date.
My advice to the Committee is to reject the amendments. I fear that not all right hon. and hon. Members will take that advice, so I have the task of trying to explain my case. First, as well as relying on the support of Neill and the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, I should point out that the prohibition in clause 118 is absolute. No material of the kind mentioned in the clause is allowed to be published. Controls on political parties and other organisations, on the other hand, are not of that kind. For 28 days, the Government can issue nothing, but political parties can continue to put out material, so long as their expenditure remains within certain limits during the referendum period. The accounting responsibility runs from the start of the referendum period, but there is nothing to prevent parties and other organisations from beginning to spend their money from the start of that period if they so wish.
Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect the Government to be unable to put out material for the entire referendum period. As has been acknowledged during our discussions this evening, the referendum period could start while the Bill for the referendum was going through the House. It would be a remarkable situation if the Government could not put out material and information while the Bill was passing through the House.
Mr. Grieve:
In moving the amendment, I pointed out to the Minister that, although it applied to the entire referendum period, there were alternative options, one of which was the 14-day period that preceded the 28-day
Mr. Tipping:
Of course I am willing to consider the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I have a firmer and stronger argument. It could often be the case that the referendum period started while the Bill was before the House. Even extending the limits as he proposes would create real difficulties.
In respect of amendments Nos. 54 and 55, first, reliance on Neill is unfair and unfounded. Indeed, the Neill committee supports the Government. Secondly, the 28-day period is similar to the purdah period during a general election campaign--another point acknowledged by Neill. Thirdly, during the 28-day period the Government can put out no material at all, unlike the other campaign groups. Fourthly, and perhaps most important, it would be a strange state of affairs if the Government were passing legislation around the referendum, but were not in a position to put out information or promote their views.
Dr. Julian Lewis:
I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way yet again. Will he refer to the point about press notices? When he says that the Government can put out no material during the 28-day period, what is there to stop them putting out material that would normally be caught by the prohibition, but getting round it by putting the words "press notice" at the top of it?
Mr. Tipping:
I shall come to that point when I address amendments Nos. 56 and 57. I have tried to reassure the Committee, to be emollient and to say that amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are unnecessary.
Amendment No. 56 deals with press notices. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) asked me to define a press notice--and the hon. Member for New Forest, East repeated that request. A press notice is a notice issued to the press. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is keen to pin those issues down and, since he spoke, we have been trying to identify a statutory definition of a press notice, but I am afraid that none exists. Under clause 118(3)(d), the Government of the day would continue to be able to issue press notices, but that does not represent an attempt to circumvent the basic principle behind the clause.
"We welcome your proposals on the part which should be played by the Government in referendum campaigns and your recognition of the importance of ensuring that there is a period immediately prior to a referendum in which, as you say, the Government of the day stands aside and the campaigning is left to the political parties and other organisations."
We have had an opportunity this evening to hear the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who is a touchstone for fairness in the House. On Second Reading he said:
"I am glad that the Bill includes the 28-day moratorium, which meets our point".--[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 67.]
Far from being critical of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman, who is the Opposition representative on the committee, has endorsed our proposals. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield based his argument on Neill, saying that what was right for a general election should be right for a referendum campaign. I have had some research done on the subject and the purdah period for a general election campaign is almost identical to the 28-day period that we are advocating.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |