Examination of Witnesses (Questions 197-199)
SAM YOUNGER
AND PETER
WARDLE
16 MAY 2006
Q197 Chairman: Mr Younger, Mr Wardle,
welcome back, we have spoken to you on many other occasions on
other matters, but today we are concentrating on the party funding
issue, but again we have a statement of yours, which is embargoed
until six o'clock today, which we have not had the opportunity
to read and will not therefore be asking you about. I am not sure,
from a quick glance, that it adds much to what we understand to
be your perception of these issues, but if it does and you want
to indicate very quickly, perhaps you could.
Sam Younger: If I may say, Chairman,
I welcome the opportunity. The statement of principles that we
have got, which we are putting out along with one or two other
things today which I hope we will be able to mention to the Committee,
is really a pull together of some of the underlying themes that
have been in the work we have done up to now on party funding,
so I was not, I have to say, particularly expecting that this
would be something you would skim read and question me about today,
it is part of the background of the way that we will come at these
issues. There are one or two other things I would like just to
mention as well, one or two of which I know I have mentioned to
you, Chairman, before, in terms of the contribution the Commission
would be hoping to make in this debate going forward. That is
also focusing particularly on the framework of the Political Parties,
Elections and Referendums Act because as the regulator we think
one of the things we should look at is how we can make sure that
whatever we come up with at the end is practicable, can be implemented
and can be policed. That is one area we would look at including,
just to pick up something that was said in the previous session,
some of the international comparisons in this area. We will also
be doing some quantitative but particularly qualitative public
opinion work, in other words going out and talking to groups of
people in discussion. I would, in mentioning that today, say that
I would very much welcome and be open to any association the Committee,
in whatever form, would like to have with that process which we
are in the process of designing, right through from at one end
of the spectrum suggesting some of the questions that might need
to be asked to the other end of the spectrum and actually in some
form participating in that process. We would welcome any further
discussion on that going forward and we will be taking a particular
look, knowing that Sir Hayden Phillips was looking particularly
at parties represented at Westminster, the devolved legislatures
and the European Parliament, in the context of the debate some
of the opinions from the plethora of other parties that are registered,
as well as some perspectives from independents.
Q198 James Brokenshire: One of the
interesting aspects of the party funding issue is the benefits
of being an incumbent. One part of that is central government
and the support that the Government gets through its communication
system. How do you think that needs to be addressed in terms of
rebalancing any issues on that?
Sam Younger: The issue of incumbency
is there in all sorts of forms, but my own feeling is that the
system—whatever it is—of funding from public sources
of political parties should be as it were even-handed and start
from the assumption that the rules need to be robust that prevent
public money that is not supposed to be being used for party purposes
not being used for party purposes. If you went down the track
of saying because Government has access to Government information
systems, therefore you compensate for that somehow in a party
funding system, then you are effectively acknowledging that part
of the normal course of events might be abuse of that incumbency
advantage that you point to, so I would not think that is probably
the right way to go, I think there ought to be something that
is even-handed across the piece.
Q199 James Brokenshire: Would you
accept though that if you are in Government, if you are making
a policy statement, that may be a statement of Government but
it is also a statement of the party and that that puts you in
an advantageous position as compared to Opposition parties who
do not have the benefit of that level of funding. Do you think
there is any merit in examining ways of redressing it through
transferring monies that might be spent on an advertising budget
into state funding that then could be applied more even-handedly?
Sam Younger: There are issues
that, to be honest, go beyond our remit as to what the priorities
should be for the spending of public money, and that is a separate
debate.
|
