| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is being emollient and is seeking to answer the genuine concerns felt by Opposition Members, but can he say whether the press notices--which, as he has stressed, are for the press--will be put on the website? If so, they will be available to everyone, and that could create much unfairness.
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman leads me into a difficult area, because one of the issues that the Committee has considered--to which there is no easy solution--is that, prior to the referendum, the Government and other parties will have put material on websites. When the referendum starts, everyone involved will have a backlog of material on their websites that cannot be withdrawn. That is a real problem which the Committee has discussed and the Government are considering.
Amendment No. 57 concerns the role of civil servants.
Dr. Julian Lewis:
Let us suppose the Government were to issue a substantial publication and call it a press notice. As it had been issued as a press notice, what would stop the Government supplying a copy to anybody who wanted one or supplying many copies to organisations that wished to distribute them to others?
Mr. Tipping:
The hon. Gentleman has the habit of shining a light into dark corners and discovering what is not really there. It would be faintly ludicrous deliberately to do what is outside the rules of a campaign that is being scrutinised by the press. Moreover, publishing the press notice in the way he described would be against the rules for civil servants.
Mr. Paterson:
The Minister is trying to be emollient and has been generous in giving way, but he is being naive. The figures that I quoted show that press releases represent only a small portion of the budget. For example, the Foreign Office spent £44,000 on press releases, but £4.8 million is provided for what is called extra publicity. If the press were to pick up that extra publicity, that would be an enormous weapon in the Government's hands.
Mr. Tipping:
The hon. Gentleman made a similar point earlier about special advisers. It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to criticise such advisers, when the Government--at Opposition Members' request--has increased by 270 per cent. the help available to Opposition parties. I have been called emollient, so I can tell the Committee that the Government will respond to another Neill report on special advisers in due course.
Amendment No. 57 has to do with the role of civil servants. The position is clear: if people ring the Government during a referendum campaign and ask
questions, it would be appropriate for civil servants to send them material. That is the purpose of this part of the Bill. A strong code of practice exists for the civil service, and it has been sharpened over time.
The Government have done their best to balance this issue. They studied the Neill report for a long time and responded to it. Neill has praised the Government and has acted to ensure that the Government do not put out material. He has also acted to ensure that civil servants are not involved in the debate.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
The Minister is trying hard to answer the concerns raised by Conservative Members. He mentioned the historical impartiality of the civil service, which is much appreciated. However, if a person asked questions about the single currency, would the civil service send both sides of the argument in answer to those questions? Or if the Government supported a single currency, would they send out only the Government's side of the argument?
Mr. Tipping:
The civil servants would send the factual material produced by the Government. They would not take a partisan view, as that is proscribed by the sharpened code of practice. The Government are trying to do their best in what is a very difficult area, and I consider that the Bill already meets the questions raised by the amendments. I therefore hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.
Mr. Grieve:
The Minister will appreciate the strong views among Opposition Members on this issue. If they want to continue in the spirit of consensus that obtained in Standing Committee, the Government would be well advised to examine the clause very carefully once more.
The Minister indicated that he was prepared to consider whether another period might be included within the period of purdah. I draw some slight comfort from that. He made the valid point that the extension from when debate starts in this House, for instance, might be excessive. However, we are worried that the 28-day period on its own will be insufficient. The particular mischief is that there will be a preliminary period, in which the campaign that will be set up in opposition to the view that the Government want to put forward, but which they will subsume into their own campaign organisation, is not up and running because it has not received validation from the commission. That is a particularly sensitive period and the Minister should consider it carefully. I hope that he will; if he does not, I think that the issue will be revisited, because we feel extremely strongly about it.
The Minister has provided some reassurance on civil service impartiality and the role of special advisers, but I have anxieties about the press notices. The hon. Gentleman admitted that they would be to the press, giving what can only be described as the Government view. I simply do not see how, once that has been done, the purdah period applies. The press will be reporting that the Government have said this, that or the other on the subject of the referendum, and will give their views on it. That is a dangerous area, and I urge the Minister to reconsider it as well, if only to qualify what the press notice should consist of.
The Minister quoted Lord Neill as saying approvingly, when he had seen the Bill, that he believed that it implemented what he had been hoping for. I appreciate
that these things are always difficult, but comparing the report with the clause, I see many deficiencies in the clause as drafted. However, Lord Neill may have been pleasantly surprised that the Government were prepared to implement even one iota of his recommendations, because he proposed some revolutionary changes in the way in which Governments approach referendums. The Bill will certainly do away with some of the worst excesses of what happened in the Wales referendum and, I regret, the referendum in Northern Ireland, even if I supported the Government on their aim in that matter.
Mr. Hayes:
My hon. Friend is right that the Neill report seems to be at variance with what the Minister said, particularly on the issue of civil servants, although the hon. Gentleman was the personification of emollience. The report says that civil servants, official cars, the Government information service and so forth should not be used to promote the interests of the Government's side of the argument. The Minister talks about civil servants answering telephone calls and reacting to inquiries. Surely that is at variance with what the Neill report expressly recommended.
Mr. Grieve:
I agree with my hon. Friend that it would undoubtedly be at variance if civil servants put over anything other than objective factual material on the progress of the referendum. I think that the Minister can cure the problem if he defines press notices properly. On its own, the provision is extremely ambiguous; it is open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. I ask the Minister to look at that issue particularly carefully. He could provide considerable reassurance, while still allowing the Government to perform a neutral information role which it is certainly not our intention to prevent.
We are very concerned about the provision. We will not press the matter to a Division this evening--I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. However, I assure the Minister that the issue will not go away. He has had an opportunity to hear something about the strength of view on this side of the Committee. Although we will continue to listen to his submissions in a spirit of co-operation and will try to understand the thrust of what he is saying, we are not yet satisfied nor, I think, are we likely to be satisfied as the matter stands. Subject to that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Stunell:
I shall say only three sentences--perhaps two if hon. Members are lucky. I remind the Minister that subsection (4) includes a phrase relating to the last page of the document and its imprint that is similar to one that
Mr. Tipping:
I gave an undertaking to consider a similar provision; we shall do so. If we make amendments to an earlier clause, there will be consequential changes to clause 119.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
I am sorry to rise on what is, in essence, a technical point, but such matters should be addressed in Committee.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |