| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Evans: The Minister has a point.
Some of the pages deal with national health service waiting lists. On a day on which we learned that the number of heart bypass operations actually fell last year, is there any mention of that? Of course not; we are merely told that extra patients have been treated, and told of the desire for waiting lists to be reduced. That, arguably, is propaganda from the Government.
Student maintenance grants are also dealt with. We are told:
The manifesto commitments state:
I wonder what the website would be doing during the period of a referendum. It even includes the Prime Minister's speeches--for instance, one that he delivered at Ghent city hall in Belgium, which I am sure will interest many of us.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
Read it out.
Mr. Evans:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows it by heart, but one section says:
If the Government are to start to promote a referendum on the euro during the referendum period, we are talking about millions of pounds of taxpayers' money being spent on propaganda using the internet, which, as we know, is a growing medium for dissemination of information; it is growing at a tremendous rate. I should like the Minister to consider carefully the sort of approach that the Government will take on the use of special advisers and websites during referendum periods.
There is another alarming point. In a written question, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), asked how many press officers there were in the Home Office. The Home Secretary said that there are 14 press officers, but that the press office was being restructured, which could involve the appointment of up to 10 further press officers. Fourteen are already there, yet the Home Office will take on an extra 10. We wonder what they will all do. Will they play a proactive role? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. I know that there have been several shambles in the Home Department in the past three years. No doubt it needs some extra press officers to help to protect it from media inspection and scrutiny, but will those press officers relieve some of the special advisers during the period of referendum, so that they can carry on spinning?
Our amendments will clean up the stench that surrounds the Government's motives behind the legislative changes. Amendment No. 154 will stop the publication of material during the referendum period by the Government.
Mr. O'Brien:
I think that the hon. Gentleman should be a little careful about using words such as "stench", given the history of the previous Government and the reason why the Neill committee was set up. Does he not think so?
Mr. Evans:
We have accepted the Neill committee proposals. It is a great shame that the Government
Amendment No. 155 is consequential on amendment No. 154. Amendment No. 150 will stop press releases from being churned out about the referendum during the period of the referendum, including the 28 days.
Mr. O'Brien:
I have a letter from Lord Neill dated 15 October. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that it says:
Mr. Evans:
I know that; I have the letter and have read the Committee proceedings on the Bill. Although the Neill committee welcomed the proposals on the part to be played by the Government in a referendum and believed that the Government would stand aside, I have explained our grave cause for concern about what the Government are able to do during that 28-day period. The expenditure of vast sums of money before the 28-day period begins is something that we take seriously, too.
Amendment No. 149 will remove the ever-burgeoning army of spin doctors under the chief commander of spin--Alastair Campbell. If Ministers want to get involved in referendums--we would expect them to do so--that is fine, but let them play by the same rules that they are creating for everyone else. Let them stop saying one thing to others, but doing something different themselves. Let them throw away the loaded dice and the marked deck of cards, and let the people decide the issues in a referendum that is free and fair for all.
Mr. Stunell:
The issue of press notices, which is the subject of amendment No. 150, was brought to the fore and debated in Committee. The Government owe some duty to the House to say precisely how they intend to define press releases and press notices, and what action they will take to lower Conservative Members' adrenaline levels on the issue. In the previous debate, the Minister more or less conceded that the drafting of the relevant provisions is sloppy and meaningless and requires some attention.
The 28-day non-aggression period is desirable. The issue is not whether there should be such a period, but whether the period should be longer. Unfortunately, the impact of this group of amendments would be to remove it, leaving the situation somewhat worse than it was to begin with. In Committee, I made the point that although the 28-day period may not be perfect, it is the best one on offer. I suggested that an alternative approach might be
for the Government's period of peace to commence on registration of the first body supporting one side or other of the argument. Although that argument did not find favour in Committee, there are other alternatives to the 28-day period. Deleting that period from the Bill is not the right option.
Amendment No. 149 deals with civil servants, including special advisers. We also debated that issue in Committee. From the way in which the debate developed, I had rather thought that Conservative Members had accepted that it was very unreasonable to introduce such a restriction only on referendums, but not on other United Kingdom elections. A referendum is a pretty rare event in the United Kingdom. In this Parliament, we shall not have even one countrywide referendum.
Conversely, we often have local government elections and a variety of other considerably significant elections--for example, to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament. There is no suggestion--I do not think that there has ever been a suggestion--that special advisers should be struck dumb for a part of those elections. The turnout of electors and the issues are certainly as important in those elections as they are in a referendum.
The chances of the Government having a partisan view in those elections are also higher. In this Parliament, Labour candidates have stood, or will stand, in each of those elections. However, the opportunities for special advisers to be spinning and doing all the other evils that have been so eloquently described by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) are not, and have never been, restricted in those elections.
The old system left universities short of funds and students short of money. Our reforms which were based on the Dearing review of higher education will provide more money for higher education.
There is no mention of the fact that Dearing did not say that tuition fees should not be introduced at the time when grants disappeared. That is another example of propaganda from the Government.
Education is the Government's number one priority
and speak of,
Delivering economic prosperity for the many not the few.
They speak of being
Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
We are used to all these inane soundbites from the mouth of the Prime Minister, but I think we have every cause for concern when taxpayers' money is being spent on a Government website that is spewing out Government propaganda.
A few miles from here, in Bruges, another British Prime Minister made a speech. From it stemmed the isolationist and hostile view of the European Union.
The Prime Minister was referring to Margaret Thatcher. Arguably, that is more propaganda on a website.
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."
Indeed, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), a Conservative Member who was on the committee, welcomed the 28-day period when he spoke in a recent debate in the House.
9 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |