BANDS OF MUSIC, TORCHES, FLAGS AND BANNERS (Hansard, 18 December 1968)

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your intimation that the House may consider Amendments Nos. 6 and 49 with the Clause.
The Clause repeals Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which prohibits expenditure for election purposes on account of bands of music, torches, flags and banners. Clause 10 already makes an amendment to that Section, and so it is to be omitted by Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 49 adds Section 97 of the 1949 Act to the list of enactments in the repeal Schedule.
Clause 10 was discussed at some length in Committee, when I explained how it was intended to implement recommendations made by the Electoral Advisory Conference. The conference recommended that the prohibition in Section 97 should be relaxed to allow payments to be made for recorded music and torches, flags and banners which were to be used for purposes that were not objectionable. Clause 10 meets both these points.
I ventured to commend Clause 10 in Committee as bringing a little more light and colour to the election scene, but it 1399 became clear in our discussions that the Committee was inclined to be more adventurous and to extend even further the scope for entertainment at election times.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) questioned whether it was wrong to pay a group of musicians to enliven the election scene, asked whether the Clause allowed banners at outdoor election meetings and suggested that it was anomalous—and he had force in his argument—to allow recorded music and music provided by unpaid musicians, but to prevent live musicians from being paid for their services at processions and demonstrations. The Musicians' Union has not been slow to make representations about the same matter; nor has my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip.
During discussion in Committee, a number of references were made to the illogicalities which would flow from merely tinkering with Section 97. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) submitted that there would be far more danger to the public from amateur musicians than from paid bands and suggested that the limit on election expenditure was sufficient safeguard against musical excesses. I am inclined to agree with him. Finaly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) came up with the root and branch solution that all our difficulties could be solved by repealing Section 97 altogether.
I promised that the Government would look at these points and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, approaching the matter with the reasonableness and care which we take with all proposals emanating from right hon. and hon. Members, are now satisfied that Section 97 may safely be repealed and that it can be left to the limit placed on election expenses to regulate expenditure in this direction.
If new Clause 2 is added to the Bill, we can, therefore, look forward to a new freedom in election campaigns and to the time when a candidate if he has the money to spare may safely pay someone to blow his trumpet for him.

§ Mr. Speaker
Perhaps I should declare an interest in music Mr. Sharples.

§ Mr. Richard Sharples (Sutton and Cheam)
We are grateful for the new Clause. It reflects the spirit of the debate in Committee that there should be a little more light in elections generally. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has fairly pointed out, the views expressed in Committee by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) carried a great deal of weight with right hon. and hon. Members.
It is fair to say, also, that the views expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) carried weight when he pointed out that the original reason for the prohibition on bands was to prevent corruption, since one of the best methods of bribery was to pay supporters for carrying banners or blowing trumpets. As the Attorney-General has agreed, these matters are now quite rightly taken care of by the limit on election expenses. We are grateful to the Government for the new Clause and welcome it.

§ Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)
Perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us whether "bands and music" can by definition be held to include one man with bagpipes?

§ The Attorney-General
There are various views on whether that constitutes music, but I think that it would probably constitute a band.

§ Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)
This matter shows how ancient Acts tend to get incorporated in modern Acts of Parliament, but the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has decided to remove Section 97 altogether from our legislation indicates that ideas do get through to Parliamentary draftsmen, although somewhat belatedly.
The fact that the Government have taken this course augurs well for the rest of our progress and gets us off to a good start with the Report stage of the Bill.

§ Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)
I, too, thank the Attorney-General. We did a useful job of work in convincing him in Committee. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and all of us brought a shade of light to the proceedings. This change means that the right hon. and learned Gentleman 1401 will be able to play "Hail the conquering hero comes" at the next election. He will be one of the few right hon. or hon. Members opposite to be able to claim a victory.