| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'(b) any relevant donation received by a permitted participant from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the permitted participant--
(i) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the permitted participant, is a permissible donor falling within section 48(2), or
(ii) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3),
shall be regarded as a relevant donation received by the permitted participant from a person who is not such a permissible donor.'.
No. 112, in page 152, line 17, at end insert "permitted participant and any".
No. 113, in page 152, line 18, at end insert "registered party and any".--[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
I beg to move amendment No. 154, in page 72, line 41, leave out "relevant" and insert "referendum".
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 150, in page 73, line 10, leave out from "poll" to end of line 11.
No. 155, in page 73, leave out lines 19 and 20.
No. 149, in page 73, line 20, at end insert--
Mr. Evans:
The amendments relate to the conduct of the Government during referendums. Under the Labour Government, referendums are a growing industry: we have had referendums in Scotland, Wales, London and Northern Ireland, and we are promised three more on Europe, proportional representation and the establishment of English regional assemblies. As we know, there was concern about the conduct of the referendum in Wales, which was held on 18 September 1997. Some of the changes proposed under the Bill, such as those relating to core funding, are welcome, but we remain concerned--in particular about the ludicrous and unworkable limits set on expenditure in referendum campaigns.
Page 163 of the Neill committee report states:
On page 169 of the report, Neill puts the case for the defence very clearly. He says:
As Wales has learned to its cost, once the decision is made, even with 50.3 per cent. voting yes and 49.7 per cent. voting no, a determined Government will say "Right, that's it", and they will press ahead. I am unclear about exactly what powers the Electoral Commission will have during the period of a referendum. If the Government want to send out a publication, will the Electoral Commission be able to say that they cannot do so? Will it have the power to examine the literature before it goes out, and be able to edit it? Judging by the Bill, the answer is no.
The Government have responded to the Neill committee report. Let us say that a Bill is introduced to have a referendum on the euro. As soon as the Government introduce that Bill in Parliament, all the other rules, regulations and restrictions would kick in and apply to every other organisation taking part in the referendum, except for the Government. They could issue a document promoting their policy, funded by the taxpayer and delivered to every household. Page 48 of the Government's response to Neill states:
The Government are now officially the second biggest spender on advertisements. They spend more than BT, McDonald's or Coca Cola. Only Procter & Gamble spends more than the Government on advertisements. Procter & Gamble, of course, spends the money on items
associated with spin tumblers, whereas the Government spend it purely on spin. Half a million pounds are currently being spent on the Government's London mayoral election publications.
We are concerned about the role that the Government will play up to and during the 28-day period. I believe Lord Neill to be correct in asserting that no Government money should be spent on promoting, or otherwise, the issue of the referendum. For goodness' sake, the umbrella groups and the political parties will be doing that. I do not think that any additional money need be spent by a Government during the period of the referendum--and I am not talking about the 28-day period.
The question of what the Government and civil servants do during and before "D-day 28" is vital. For instance, the number of special advisers has exploded. In 1997, £1.8 million was spent on them; now it is £4 million. In 1997, there were 38 special advisers; now there are 77. What will all those special advisers be doing at the time of the referendum? What role will, for example, the Treasury advisers play during a referendum on the euro? What role will Home Office advisers play in a referendum on proportional representation? What role will advisers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions play in a referendum on regional assemblies? The Government are even allowing press notices to continue to be issued by them during the 28-day period--with, no doubt, the usual spin put on them by the special advisers. No doubt the Government will consider it legitimate to continue to use such advisers to brief on their policies.
The integrity of civil servants must be beyond doubt, and one way in which they can be protected is through the Government agreeing that their advisers will not issue press notices relating to the issue of a referendum, and the briefing that goes with them. I understand from earlier debates that no statutory definition has been given of a press notice: what the Government can do is open ended.
Amendment made: No. 69, in page 71, line 24, after "if", insert ", without reasonable excuse,".--[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Amendment made: No. 70, in page 72, line 21, at end insert--
'(1A) If the return contains a statement of relevant donations in accordance with section 113(2)(d), the Commission shall secure that the copy of the statement made available for public inspection does not include, in the case of any donation by an individual, the donor's address.'.--[Mr. Mike Hall.]
'(5) (a) No civil servant shall advocate any argument for or against any particular answer to any question in a referendum, notwithstanding the fact that this would be incidental to the issue of a press notice under subsection 3(d).
(b) In this subsection the term "civil servant" includes any person employed as a special adviser'.
8.45 pm
We were disturbed, in particular, by the evidence we heard in Cardiff to the effect that the referendum campaign in Wales in 1997 was very one-sided, with the last-minute No organisation seriously under-funded and having to rely for financial support essentially on a single wealthy donor. The outcome of the Welsh referendum was extremely close, and a fairer campaign might well have resulted in a different outcome.
A Labour member of the no campaign, Carys Pugh, stated:
Without Robert Hodge, I do not know what we would have done. We could not have carried on and that would have been gravely unjust."
Robert Hodge himself said:
I do not know what the other side spent . . . but you can rest assured that we spent just short of £100,000. I am led to believe that the other side, with the booklets and everything else, possibly spent a seven figure sum. That puts it in proportion.
14 Mar 2000 : Column 249
Recommendation 83 in the Neill report says:
In any referendum campaign there must be a fair opportunity for each side of the argument to be properly put to the voters.
Neill observed the disquiet about the publications issued and distributed to every household during the 1975 European referendum, the 1997 Assembly election in Wales, the parliamentary referendum in Scotland and the 1998 Greater London Authority referendum. In Wales, a small booklet that was distributed to every household had a big tick on the front, which sent a positive message as the devolution process was explained.
We believe that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for the government of the day to offer purely objective and factual information in the course of a referendum campaign, especially when, as will usually be the case, it itself is a party to the campaign. We believe governments should not participate in referendum campaigns in this manner, just as it would be thought to be wholly inappropriate during a general election campaign for the government to print and distribute, at the taxpayers' expense, literature setting out government policy.
Recommendation 89 states that no literature, "even purportedly 'factual'" should be sent.
In most of the cases in which referendums have been held so far, the purpose of the referendum has been to obtain the endorsement of the electorate for a policy which the government of the day has developed and adopted, and the view has traditionally been that a government has not only a right but a duty to explain and promote its policies.
The Government have resorted to a 28-day breather when the campaign is not too skewed by the expenditure of large sums of taxpayers' money, as Neill states. So it is all right to spend millions of pounds before D-day--before the 28 days--but then it stops. Before that 28-day breather, the Government can spend millions of pounds on promotions. We know that the Government are good at that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |