|
Clause 8
Provision of information to voters
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in
We now turn to the issue of information disseminated to voters, and the specification of the various days in relation to the referendum period under the 2000 Act. Subsection (3) of clause 8 defines the term ''appropriate day'' in relation to the referendum period as being the 43rd day of that period, if applications had been made under section 109 of the 2000 Act, and the 29th day of that period if no such applications had been made. That is fine; I have no problem with it. However, subsection (4) gives a Minister carte blanche to define any other day as the appropriate day—next Tuesday fortnight, the day after the Deputy Prime Minister's wife's birthday, or any other day.
That seems to be wrong in principle. It provides too much ministerial discretion. No doubt hon. Members who served on the Committee that considered the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill spent many hours, days and perhaps nights—that was in the good old days—discussing the Bill's details. Its purpose was, among other things, to set down procedures for the conduct of referendums, which are clearly going to become a more important and regular feature of our democracy, so that there was an objective set of rules and a framework for that.
Column Number: 107
12 noon
If referendums are to be a regular feature, each should not be subject to manipulation by the Government of the day, seeking to get the result that they want. That is why legislation must contain provisions on, for example, the appropriate day. This is a small example of a wider tendency in this Bill and in many others to set out a scenario but then insert a clause that gives a Minister power to override the legislation that Parliament has considered in depth, and substitute any other provision that he might feel like. That will be done by order, and so be subject to debate, but that debate will be a short one in a Standing Committee on a statutory instrument. That will not be adequate—it will certainly not give the comprehensive opportunity for debate afforded by the principal consideration of a Bill's details in Standing Committee. This Committee must make a stand now and reject parts of the Bill that give Ministers power to override other provisions in the Bill and make different arrangements.
We are discussing a referendum in which, as we all understand, the Government will not be a neutral party. The Government are a protagonist in this debate. They will already have a huge advantage over those campaigning on the opposite side because, although there will be restrictions throughout the referendum period on what the campaigns can do, the Government will be unrestricted until 28 days before the referendum. That is a huge imbalance in the arrangements, which I understand is likely to be tested in the courts in due course in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. As the law appears to stand at the moment, however, the Government will already have a huge advantage. They must not be allowed to enshrine that advantage further by manipulating the definition of the appropriate date to the disadvantage of one side of the argument.
That could work to the disadvantage of one side of the argument because the no campaign will not have the benefit of the Government's information dissemination capability, which continues until the 28th day before the referendum, whereas the yes campaign, although also constrained by a change in the appropriate day, will effectively be underwritten by the Government's information campaign.
Mr. Streeter: I hope to make a brief contribution, consistent with a point that I made in Committee last week. One of the important things about any Act of Parliament is that it gives clarity and certainty. At the beginning, clause 8 appears to give clarity and certainty about the time scales in which the Electoral Commission can designate an organisation under the 2000 Act to be funded to take forward the yes or no campaign. Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said so powerfully, one reads subsection (4), which refers to section 109(6) of the 2000 Act. The time scales in clause 8(2) and particularly (3) appear to be clear, but subsection (4) refers us to another Act of Parliament. One might assume that section 109(6) of the 2000 Act sets out a
Column Number: 108
limited range of circumstances in which a Minister may make an order, and that they will probably be clearly defined and closely controlled. However, this is the sort of smoke-and-mirrors operation that we have come to associate with this Government.
Section 109(6) of the 2000 Act states:
''The Secretary of State may, in the case of any referendum to which this Part applies, by order provide for this section to have effect as if each, or either, of the periods of 28 and 14 days referred to in subsections (2) and (3) was instead such shorter or longer period as is specified in the order.''
That is enough to make anyone give up. It is saying that the Secretary of State can by order change the dates that are set out in the Bill and substitute any other date that he chooses; that might create a shorter or longer period.
Mr. Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the effect of that could be to delay the designation of bodies for campaigning purposes in a way that would wholly disadvantage the campaign for the opposite side of the argument from the Government, who would have their own campaign?
Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must make absolutely sure that we build sufficient safeguards against that.
Why is this matter important? As my hon. Friend has already made clear, the Government will not be neutral if a referendum is held in any region of this country—we are expecting at least one referendum during this Parliament. The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear on the Floor of the House a week or two ago that he will be campaigning vigorously and ferociously in favour of a yes vote in a referendum. He will be the Secretary of State who may by order provide for the dates to be changed at short notice, overnight and very suddenly. No explanation, or justification will be necessary because the Secretary of State has that power under section 109(6) of the 2000 Act.
I do not doubt for a second the integrity of the Deputy Prime Minister, but it is human nature to do all one can to advance a cause to achieve the result that one wants. I do not think that we should allow the Government to be judge and jury. Clause 8(4) is utterly unnecessary. I want the Minister to explain why it is in the Bill, and under what circumstances a change of timetable would be necessary.
My final point on clause 8 relates to subsection (3). I do not know whether it was drafted deliberately to make it almost incomprehensible. When one drills down, it is fine; it is talking about a 14-day gap. However, can the Minister explain why it is drafted in that way? What is the significance of the 43rd day and the 29th day? I know that they are 14 days apart, but why such phrasing? I am sure that it is my failing, but I simply do not understand.
I repeat that clause 8(4) is not appropriate to go on the statute book. I strongly support the amendment.
Mr. Raynsford: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) that they have no reason to be as alarmed by the provision as they appear to be. They know that the clause relates to the
Column Number: 109
provision of information for voters and is a safeguard against circumstances in which there may not be a designated yes and no campaign. In such situations, the Electoral Commission will be able to provide neutral and informative information to electors. I think that we would broadly agree that that is a desirable outcome.
Section 109(2) of the 2000 Act sets a standard period of 28 days from the start of the referendum period in which permitted participants must apply to the Electoral Commission to be designated as organisations to which assistance such as grants will be available. Permitted participants could include a campaign group that has notified the Electoral Commission, under section 106 of the 2000 Act, of what it is and what result in a referendum it stands for.
Section 109 sets a standard period of 14 days after the end of that 28 days within which the Electoral Commission must determine applications for assistance as a designated organisation. However, section 109(6), to which the hon. Member for South-West Devon alluded, also allows for an order to be made to vary those periods—they can be shorter or longer. There are several circumstances in which that might apply. For example, were a referendum to be held over a period in which there were one or more bank holidays—for example, one that occurred early in the new year, so that the referendum period covered the Christmas and new year holidays—the Electoral Commission might feel that it did not have sufficient time within the 14-day period adequately to consider whether there were two organisations that should be registered. That is one possible eventuality. I shall leave it at that, unless the hon. Gentleman would like me to give more examples.
Mr. Streeter: What if the first referendum takes place in the north-east and the yes campaign, a few days before the end of the period in which it should apply to be a designated organisation, has an internal falling-out or other difficulty and cannot quite get its act together in time? Would that be sufficient reason for the Secretary of State to agree to a delay?
Mr. Raynsford: Let us consider that particular eventuality. If there were uncertainty as to whether there was a body that could be designated as a yes campaign, the Electoral Commission would consult the provisions in clause 8 to decide whether it should provide information since it was unable to register a yes and a no campaign. It has to register both, not just one. If there was an element of doubt about whether the organisation could get its act together, I can envisage that the commission might want to explore that with it. As the hon. Gentleman implied earlier, it might be subject to a threat of legal action by a putative campaigning body that, for reasons of internal disagreement, found itself unable to get its act together in time, suddenly discovered that it was ineligible for registration, and sought to overturn the 28-day provisions that arbitrarily debar it. Would the hon. Gentleman really argue that it should never be possible to vary those periods of time in such circumstances?
|
