Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have tabled the new clause. Broadly speaking, the Minister is absolutely right that it was never anybody’s intention that ordinary newspapers, magazines, television broadcasts and so on should be included in the referendum expenses regime. However, there are some complications because of some of the terms used in the new clause.

I note that the Minister said en passant that the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) managed to come up with a report despite the time available, but of course the lack of availability of time was entirely down to the Minister, not down to anybody else. As the Minister noted, the Committee produced its own version of what a new clause might look like, and a lot of us have been lobbied by different parts of the media in favour of some version or other of an amendment such as this one. The Minister said that the Government’s version was slightly different, and I hope that he will be able to take us through why.

The new clause mentions, first:

“Expenses incurred in respect of the publication of any matter relating to the referendum, other than an advertisement, in…a newspaper or periodical”.

As I understand it, it is remarkably difficult to specify in law what is a newspaper or periodical. So far as I can see, there is no one clear definition of newspaper or periodical. I assume that the Government understand “newspaper or periodical” to be the same, not two separate concepts.

I can find two instances of a definition in statute. The first is the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881, which states:

“The word ‘newspaper’ shall mean any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations therein printed for sale, and published in England or Ireland periodically, or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days between the publication of any two such papers, parts, or numbers.

Also any paper printed in order to be dispersed, and made public weekly or oftener,”—

“oftener” is slightly strange language—

“or at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days, containing only or principally advertisements.”

I presume that the Government are not relying on that definition, because it applies only to England and Ireland, which is in a Bill that tried to ensure that all newspapers and periodicals were registered. That registration process no longer exists—now anyone is free to publish a newspaper or a periodical.

The second instance is in section 7(5) of the Defamation Act 1952, which states that

“the expression ‘newspaper’ means any paper containing public news or observations thereon, or consisting wholly or mainly of advertisements, which is printed for sale and is published in the United Kingdom either periodically or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding thirty-six days.”

I am sure that keen-eared Members noted that between 1881 and 1952, there was a difference of 10 days in the frequency with which a printed item might be described as a newspaper or a periodical.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

That may have had something to do with Christmas and a monthly publication potentially covering five weeks at that time of year. However, the shadow Minister may have stronger ideas about the reason for that difference—or mistake.

[Chris Bryant]

It seems slightly odd to go to 36 days because there is no specific definition of the date of publication. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that if the Christmas edition of a monthly publication is published around 15 November—after doubtless being written around 15 July—there might be more than 26 days between it and the next edition. However, large elements of the Defamation Act have been repealed, although the precise definition of newspaper seems still to exist. The territorial extent of that Act is not only England and Ireland, but Wales and Scotland.

Election law has for some considerable time made allowance for newspapers and periodicals so that, for example, an edition of The Times that advocates people voting Conservative or The Guardian bizarrely supporting the Liberal Democrats in a general election are not suddenly caught for election expenditure. I understand that, but the new clause needs greater clarity, not least because many more people now engage in publication. Under the 1881 Act, people had to be licensed to do that. Today, anybody can publish, and there is no specification in law of the number of copies that must be published, only of the frequency. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary’s Conservative association produces a regular newsletter. Whether it is counted as a newspaper or periodical is of material significance to election expenditure.

I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can first explain his understanding of newspaper or periodical and from where he derives the definition, not least because the new clause does not refer to the derivation of the interpretation.

Secondly, subsection (b) of new clause 19 refers to

“a broadcast made by the British Broadcasting Corporation”

or Channel 4, but Channel 4 is going to be part of the BBC in the near future—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Field]

I agree with what the Government are trying to do in new clause 19; they have taken on board some of the concerns expressed by the Select Committee. However, I want to ask the Minister a question about the increasingly important influence of the new media. Does he not feel—I appreciate it will not apply to this particular referendum—that much of our legislation, particularly that dealing with media comment, is now ripe for a much more radical overhaul? This could be the first referendum in which we see a significant amount of money being spent by online providers trying to put their message across—in both the English and the Welsh language, I suspect—on this issue. Much of the legislation already in place looks more towards 20th-century and perhaps even, in some cases, 19th-century media. Much of the new media will have a greater impact—not just through blogs, but through a whole range of forums coming under the auspices of existing magazines and periodicals—so I would like to know what indications the Government have had about the likely costs and whether they will count towards the amount of election expenditure.

It strikes me that we are now living in a much-changed world. Younger voters in particular are less likely to look at newspapers, periodicals or even the television as the most important mechanism for getting comment on political and other related matters. There is concern that a great deal of our legislation requires a much more radical overhaul than people appear to have in mind. Given the context of where we are today, however, the new clause provides a sensible way forward, taking into account many of the concerns expressed by the all-party group.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) for raising a number of questions. Let me step back a little and explain why we tabled the new clause.

The problem arises from the definition of the word “material” in schedule 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The reason for the concern —some media organisations were worried—is that there was some ambiguity about the meaning. We think “material” means leaflets and other campaigning items, but we decided to fix any ambiguity.

The hon. Member for Rhondda asked me why we prefer our new clause to the amendment that the Committee had tabled. That amendment changed section 117 of the 2000 Act, with the effect that media costs were still categorised as referendum expenses within the regulatory regime. The amendment further specified that although these were referendum expenses, there was no need for individual bodies to be permitted participants if they wanted to spend more than that. That might not have been the Committee’s intention, but that is how we thought it would work. By comparison, our amendment simply says that those media costs are not referendum expenses at all, so they are not subject to the regulatory regime set down by the Act. We think that that provides a more direct and less confusing approach than the Committee set out in its amendment. Our new clause has the same spirit and purpose, but we prefer it, as I have explained.

The hon. Member for Rhondda asked a number of questions. As to the definition and use of language, our approach is to use the equivalent provisions in the PPRA that regulate third-party activity in elections, which have been in place since 2000. The commission responsible for regulating the provisions is happy with how it has been defined and will issue some guidance setting out the case in a little more detail. As I have learned, it is not terribly helpful—to use a ghastly phrase—to have undue specificity on the face of the Bill, whereby every single possible definition of a media outlet is set out. If that is done, but one possible meaning is not captured by the definitions, it makes it easy for a person to argue that they are not covered. Having a broader definition, about which the commission can issue guidance, is much more likely to hold up legally, particularly when it comes to some of the new media to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has rightly drawn our attention.

I shall come to my hon. Friend’s point about the future in a moment, but we have followed the approach in the PPRA and made it explicit that, in the case of this particular referendum, the regulations will be the same as those applying to third-party activity in elections. I think that, because the referendum and the elections are to take place on the same day, it is important for us to apply the same regime to both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In the previous Government we were not always as alive as we might have been to the fact that this House does its job best when it is most free to be able to do so. However, the difference that he has to face is that unless he intends to agree with the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, he is supporting a Bill that wants to cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600. That will, in effect, cut the number of Back Benchers, because it does not cut the number of Ministers. My argument is that if we are going to cut one group, we should cut the other. That is entirely in line with the new clause.

[Mr Mark Field]

Everybody accepts that collective responsibility is an important function, particularly in this media-savvy world in which we live, where it is important to ensure that any Government do not look like a shambles. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there is a distinction between collective responsibility for much of the legislation that goes through this House and this sort of Bill—a constitutional Bill that should not be subject to quite the same shackles to which he has referred?

[Chris Bryant]

I agree. That is why I have been trying to argue that Members such as the hon. Gentleman who have taken a long-standing interest in constitutional issues should feel free not necessarily to vote with their Front Benchers. I know that he has already exercised that right on several occasions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am not suggesting that that would be the case. I am picking up on points made during the debate, which I think is part of the job of a Minister responding to a debate. The hon. Member for Foyle expressed the hope that a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons would not result in an increase in the number of Ministers in the House of Lords. I suggested that I agreed with his view. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex does not agree with it. So be it. That is the nature of debate.

[Mr Mark Field]

The Deputy Leader of the House has made it clear that he wishes to respond to the contributions made in the debate. I think that one of the most important contributions, with which I entirely concur, came from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). She considered it highly regrettable that a Bill of such constitutional importance was being rushed through so quickly and so early in the Parliament, in a way that gave the public—certainly those who are interested in these matters—the impression that it was being introduced simply to keep in place the current arrangements introduced by the current coalition. She suggested that it was solely a result of the electoral arithmetic that obtained in May 2010, rather than having been introduced in the long-term interests of Parliament for decades and, indeed, centuries ahead.

[Mr Heath]

That is a Second Reading point, but it is not a point that I agree with or accept in any way. We have already had extensive debate on the timing of the Bill; I believe we have given that subject a substantial amount of debating time. The most important point is that it is necessary to make rapid progress on the Bill if we are to have in good order both the referendum and the boundary changes suggested in the Bill.