HC Deb 10 December 1968 vol 775 cc221-31

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Bolton, West)

Although we have much work in front of us for the next two days, I do not think that we should pass the Clause without seeking some explanation and clarification of its effects from my right hon. and learned Member the Attorney-General. Section 97 (1) of the 1949 Act prohibited payment as an election expense for bands of music, among other things. This was presumably to preserve the dignity of an election and not merely to kill its liveliness. I assume that this Section was aimed not at the average candidate, but at the black sheep among candidates who wanted to use flamboyant and strident music along with torchlight processions and banners as a sort of rabble rouser which could lead to violence.

Mr. Speaker's Conference, in paragraphs 17 and 18 of its Report, considered the matter of the rather harmless use and application of music during an election and said: 17. Music at elections The law should be amended so as to make it clear that the prohibition on payment for bands of music does not include a prohibition on payments for recorded music. 18. Torches, flags and banners at elections The words 'torches', 'flags', and 'banners' should be denned so as to exclude payment only for those forms which are open to objection. The Clause attempts to make the necessary amendment to the law, but I am not sure that what we are trying to do is logical. If we are attempting to improve the law, which is the 1949 Act, our motto should be to do even better this time to ensure that the law makes sense and to define what is and what is not permitted. My interpretation of the Clause is that it is now lawful to use recorded music during an election either indoors or out of doors and to pay the appropriate fee to Phonographic Productions Limited. What we must not do is to pay for live musicians.

My first question to my right hon. and learned Friend is: what is so terrible about employing live musicians and paying them? It seems that a candidate may employ live musicians so long as he does not pay them. It is not the music which causes offence. It is giving money to the poor musician for his services. Is that what Parliament intends to do by the Clause? It is not only a ludicrous anomaly. I suggest that it is intrinsically dangerous, in that it could put one candidate at an advantage over the others in an election.

My hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip, who I am glad to see in his place, is a very prominent and well-respected member of the Musicians' Union. I have no doubt that his colleagues in that Union would do their best to secure his reelection to the House of Commons. If Ted Heath and the members of his band are members of that union, they might well go to Rotherham to ensure my hon. Friend's election. This would put my hon. Friend at an advantage over the other candidates in the election, because his opponents could not even counter this by paying a band or musicians and putting it in as an election expense. The Clause would prohibit them from doing so.

I seem to remember that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1964, and I think also in 1966, had an opponent called "Screaming Lord Sutch", who lost his deposit in both elections. "Screaming Lord Sutch" would be able to use music and bring fellow musicians to the constituency to assist him, but my right hon. Friend would not be able to pay a band to counter the music coming from the other side.

Not long ago, when there was the great controversy about pirate radio stations, a number of candidates stood in local elections, and one or two at by-elections, I think, part of whose platform was the support of pirate radio.

At the moment, this may appear to be a minor matter, but we must take into account what, rightly or wrongly, we have already done in the Bill. We have extended the franchise to people between 18 and 21 years of age. It is no good burying our heads in the sand as to the effect of that change. This will be a new electorate, and all parties will be working hard to win the votes of young people between 18 and 21. We shall. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite will, and so will the Liberal Party. So will people who are not represented in the House today.

People of that age are keenly interested in music, and particularly interested in "pop" and folk music. I can envisage a time when parties on both sides of the House may not conduct elections in the way that Americans conduct them, but they will adopt ways of approaching an electorate with which we do not at present deal at all. I cannot see that to approach such an electorate through folk music, for example, would be a bad thing to do. There is nothing improper in it.

Many political messages today are conveyed by folk music, and the more imaginative appeal of folk singers would probably be far better than the dreary speeches which all of us, on both sides, are inclined to deliver at election time. But let us remember that we now live in a world of discotheques, folk groups and "pop" groups, a very different world from that of the 1949 Act.

Now, another question. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether the Clause will forbid payment of musicians and the use of banners only outdoors, as the word "procession" would imply, or will the prohibition apply to indoor gatherings as well? Do we consider that it is wrong to employ a group of musicians to liven up an election meeting and to pay them, or would that constitute a "demonstration" in the terms of Clause 10? If we do consider it wrong, why is it right to do the same thing and not pay them? And why is it right if we pre-record the music and play the tape or play a commercial record made by an artist who does not know that his record is being used in this way at an election and who might bitterly object to its being used for that purpose?

The Clause introduces anomalies. I do not believe that the intention is to prevent live musicians from being paid for their services, but that seems to be the effect of it. It allows recorded music. It allows music which is not paid for. It does not allow music which is paid for.

I ask the Committee to consider not the bands, flag waving and processions which may have been a feature of the 1930s but, rather, the elections of the future at which there may well be folk groups, "pop" groups or discotheques, for example, used to inaugurate election meetings. In my view, that would not be an improper thing to do at an election, but, on the other hand, it would seem most improper if one could do it only on a free basis and not pay the musicians who are providing a useful service to the candidates.

4.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones)

In dealing with the interesting points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) it may be helpful if I begin by saying a little about the Section of the 1949 Act which is amended by Clause 10. Section 97 (1) provides that No payment … shall, for the purpose of promoting … the election of a candidate at an election, be made on account of bands of music, torches, flags or banners". That prohibition was of greater practical importance about 100 years ago than it is today. I suppose that it was directed against rabble-rousing hired bands in the streets accompanied by the whole paraphernalia of flags, banners and torches liable to cause disorder and, perhaps, even intimidation.

The prohibition directed against that kind of mischief has undoubtedly given rise to one or two practical difficulties, and these, as my hon. Friend pointed out, were the subject of two recommendations by the Electoral Advisory Conference. Recommendation 17 was: The law should be amended so as to make clear that the prohibition on payments for bands of music does not include a prohibition on payments for recorded music". Recommendation 18 was: The words 'torches', 'flags' and 'banners' should be defined so as to exclude payment only for those forms which are open to objection. It may not be immediately apparent to the Committee what Section 97 (1) has to do with recorded music. The explanation is that the playing in public of recorded music normally involves—or, as my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip might say, ought to involve—payment to the holders of the copyright. Those payments are made through the Performing Rights Society or the Phonographic Society. It is arguable that such a payment is made on account of bands of music even though it is not made directly to the band, and even though the band takes no personal part in the election meeting or proceed ings.

However, whatever the effect of the existing provision, the amendment which Clause 10 makes takes payments for the use of recorded music outside Section 97, and it does that by limiting the Section to payments made with reference or with a view to the employment of the band … in a procession or demon stration". It would be hard to argue that the playing of a gramophone record involved the employment in a procession or demonstration of a band which in some remote studio had made the record. So far, I hope that my hon. Friend is happy with the Clause.

The amendment made by the Clause also meets the point raised in the second recommendation of the Electoral Advisory Conference, which I cited a few moments ago, that expenditure on torches, flags or banners is prohibited only if they are to be used in a procession or demonstration. Used on other occa sions at an indoor election meeting they are unobjectionable.

The occasions to which the prohibition applies are those at which the use of these things might amount to a show intended to intimidate voters. Occasions of that kind would still come within the prohibition, but at an ordinary election meeting held in a hall there is no reason why music should not be played or why it should not be played by a band of live musicians. I take it that those who play in bands normally enjoy active life. There is no objection, therefore, under the terms of the Clause to the hiring of a band of live musicians to provide music at an election meeting in a hall, and, similarly, there will hereafter be no offence if the hall is decorated with flags or banners.

The Clause will allow money to be spent at election meetings indoors, but any expenditure on a band will form part of the candidate's election expenses, and it will be a matter of judgment for him whether he can afford to spend any part of his limited allowance on bands. It may well be that he has enough natural eloquence and appeal not to require such extraneous attractions as "Alexander's Ragtime Band", or whatever the equivalent may be. But hereafter that will be a matter for his judgment as to how he spends his money.

At any rate, the Clause will enable those who think fit to add a little colour and music to their election campaign by paying for a band to provide entertainment at ordinary election meetings to do so. What will be forbidden is payment for a band to take part in an outdoor procession or demonstration which might run into the mischief that Section 97 of the 1949 Act was initially directed against.

I hope that those assurances will satisfy both my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West and my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip who, I see, is listen ing to me with a most careful ear.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I should be grateful if the Attorney-General would carry his exposition a little further. If I understood him aright, it will be lawful, under the Clause, to arrange for and pay for both music and banners at an indoor meeting. I take it by implication that he is reading with the word "demonstration" a preceding adjective, "outdoor". A meeting in a very big hall is sometimes described colloquially as a demonstration. Have I the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance that, however large and splendid a meeting, as long as there is a roof over it it is not a demonstration under the Clause?

If that interpretation is right, why would an outdoor meeting not enjoy the same benefits? After all, it is a matter of climate, and perhaps of the time of year when an election takes place, whether major meetings are held indoors or outdoors. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts emphasis on "indoors", I take it that at a perfectly static meeting arranged outdoors simply because there was no appropriate hall for it, or because the weather was good, or for some other reason, one would not be able to use the same banners and music as one could use indoors. If that interpretation is right, why is that so? What justification is there for penalising an outdoor meet ing?

I do not accept the Attorney-General's argument about music being likely to intimidate voters, though some "pop" music sometimes frightens me. That argument is not very convincing, and it can make no difference whether the music is at an outdoor or indoor meeting.

I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer those two questions, and, if my interpretation in the first is right, to give me the justification for the state of affairs outlined in my second.

The Attorney-General

The mischief the Clause and Section 97 are directed against was bands gathering together large crowds and marching through areas where their presence might arouse public disorder. I do not think that the problem is that the band itself might be intimidating, but that it might be the focal point of a crowd and then a procession through a disputed area, where there might be a considerable concentration of opposing political forces.

That is the kind of mischief that I think Section 97 was directed against, the idea that one could hire large bands and use them as a means of creating trouble of that kind in a procession.

I think that the emphasis is on the moving body. A body of the populous following a band in procession is what it is feared might be an occasion for creating public disorder. A static outdoor meeting might well be outside the contemplated prohibition, but I shall have another look at that point between now and Report. I do not at present see why a static outdoor meeting, on a sunny day, in a park, should create the kind of mischief the legislation is directed against. The intention is that the protection should extend to the use of hired bands. The emphasis is on the payment. The band of enthusiastic amateurs willing to play for nothing—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

That is even more frightening.

The Attorney-General

—has never been within section 97 anyway, so if enthusiastic amateurs who can be en listed to play for nothing that is all right. If the candidate has the good or bad fortune to have a number of such volun teers, he does not have to declare the item in his election expenses because they are not paid.

But I shall consider whether the Clause excludes bands from static outdoor meet ings. I do not think that special protec tion is needed there, because I do not think that it gives rise to any special mischief.

Mr. Oakes

I am mollified by my right hon. and learned Friend's explanation that the Clause does not apply indoors, and even more by his assurance to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that he will look again at the very important question whether it should apply to outdoor meetings. The right hon. Gentleman's points were very apposite.

While considering the question, will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the position that the Clause could put us in even when dealing with static meetings? Would it permit loudspeaker vans and cars to blast out Wagnerian music, marches and similar music, at full pitch perfectly legitimately whereas a small procession led by a girl with a guitar would be entirely illegal if she was paid?

I was a little disturbed when my right hon. and learned Friend said that we were concerned with the payment. Like the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, I am more afraid of unpaid bands rabble-rousing than of paid bands doing it.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

Is not there some illogicality in the reply of the Attorney-General? A paid band, which, presumably, would play reasonably in tune, and therefore, would not make the population in the streets through which a procession passed absolutely furious, would break the law because it was paid. But an unpaid band, perhaps making a fiendish row, which upset people ar.d created a riot, would be all right. As the whole purpose of an election is to try to get as many people as possible to listen to the arguments of the contestants, is it not illogical to prohibit paid bands?

If the Attorney-General thinks that bands going through a district will create a riot, should not the unpaid bands also be prohibited? One cannot have it both ways. The unpaid band is much more likely to create a riot than the paid band which is probably playing good music.

The Attorney-General

There may be some illogicality about this, but the thinking behind it is that if a candidate has the resources to hire paid bands for public processions this would be capable of creating disorder. If he has enthusiastic volunteers to play the trumpet for him, I agree that that might also create a certain amount of disorder. But the element of paying for it to be done is thought to introduce some additional objectionable factor and this has been part of our laws since the 19th century. It probably derived from a general practice of hiring bands at the time and which did cause massive disorders.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

4.30 p.m.

Sir D. Glover

There is a slight difference. During the 19th century there was no limit on the amount of money a candidate could spend. Now, every candidate is severely limited in expenditure, so the evil is more apparent than real.

The Attorney-General

This is directed to the issue of election expenditure and what should be charged. I am sorry to take up so much time with this rather small matter, for there are very much more important matters for consideration. The Clause gives some reassurance at any rate to the bands of musicians who are eager to render service on payment, and it clarifies the position by enabling payment to be made in the circumstances indicated. I will look at the points raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames before Re port.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)

The Attorney-General's law is excellent, but I doubt whether his history is quite so good. Surely the objective originally was not to prevent disorder, but to prevent bribery. Historically, the way one bribed people was by paying them to carry banners and torches and even to play musical instruments and cymbals. If it were allowed, this would be a simple way to bribe people even today although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has pointed out, the total amount of expense is limited and, in addition, the modern electorate has many tens of thousands as against the few hundreds or thousands when this provision was originally brought in. The effect, therefore, would be very little damaging

As I have said, this was originally a provision to prevent not disorder but corruption, which was actively engaged in at the time.

The Attorney-General

I accept that addition to my knowledge, but I would not regard it as an extension.

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

Why cannot the Government simply take this Clause out of the Bill? I agree with the historical version of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). We have had this sort of thing in the House only recently. We were told the other day that people could eat apples here for no other reason than that they did it in the 18th century. They also brought moles into the Chamber at that time, but we do not pray that in aid any more.

What good will the Clause do? As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has pointed out, all this is incorporated in the general expenses allowed to a candidate. If the Labour Party wanted to hold a great demonstration in Bellevue, Manchester, it might want to hire Black Dyke Mills Band—which is an excellent band—while the Conservative Party might want to hire a band at Wembley Stadium and both would have to account for it all. There is no reason at all for this Clause, except the Home Office's antediluvian attitude. Let us get rid of it and get on with the Bill.

The Attorney-General

I will look at this matter again. I must say that it seems to me a rather attractive Clause, bringing a little light and colour into the election scene. Anything that would diminish light and colour in this drab life I would certainly oppose. However, I will look again at the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to