GRANTS TOWARDS COST OF CAMPAIGN (Hansard, 23 April 1975)

§ Mr. Buchan
I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 3, line 6, leave out £125.000' and insert £500,000'.

The Temporary Chairman
With this amendment we are taking the following:

§ Mr. Buchan
I am pleased that we have reached this stage in our deliberations. We have moved fairly rapidly, and there are a number of important points about the money available to both sides in this campaign.
I think that all hon. Members are coming to the view that we must accept the result of this referendum though we may wish to express opinions about it afterwards, but they are taking that view with the proviso that the referendum must be fought with equal advantage to both sides. The great anxiety of those who have been active in the campaign and know what has been going on on over the past few weeks is that the referendum is not being fought fairly, and I want to discuss some of the problems which the Government must face and partially solve by accepting the amendment.
The first piece of evidence is one which I have sought through the Chancellor. This is the declaration by the European Movement. It is a distinguished body, and its chief sponsors are the leaders of the three main political parties—the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who no doubt will be replaced by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). The chairman is given as Lord Harlech and the vice-chairman as Lord Gladwyn.
It is a highly distinguished and respectable, and therefore responsible, body. In its name a document called "Guidelines for raising money for the campaign" was issued. Having advised people not to 1595 spend time holding bazaars and fetes or giving lavish dinner parties, it continued: The obvious and most likely section of the local community who would be in a position to donate money to our cause are the local businessmen involved in trade and commerce". That has written off 90 per cent, of the British people. The pro-Marketeers do not want to approach the people; they want the support of the business men involved in trade and commerce. The document continued: The reasons behind our assumptions are: (a) that they are more likely to be aware of the advantages of our staving in the EEC and they are usually prepared to support a cause"— here is a nice moral touch— which is in the interests of their own business; (b) their ability to donate money"— I will accept that— which being in support of their business interests, can be written off as a genuine expense. In other words, the document is saying that the costs of the pro-Market campaign can be subscribed by the business and industrial interests of this country and paid for by the ordinary workers, who are the taxpayers. This is very near to corruption. Every pro-Market poster should bear a Government health warning saying, "Seventy per cent. of the cost of this poster is being paid by you, the taxpayer". Either it means that the ordinary people are paying for 70 per cent. of the pro-Market campaign, or it is not true. I doubted whether it was true and therefore I investigated the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He replied: The law is that in computing profits for tax purposes, no deduction is allowed for expenditure which is not wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business. The treatment of donations or subscriptions to organisations campaigning for or against the EEC depends on the facts of each individual case in the light of this rule.… I can say, however, that the European Movement are not justified in assuming that businesses will he able to set donations to them against tax ". This becomes a serious matter. The Chancellor is saying that as a general rule such expenses cannot be set against tax, and the European Movement, with its distinguished patrons, including the 1596 Prime Minister, is telling business and industry that they will receive tax relief.

§ Mr. Hurd
I understand that in the past contributions to the European Movement have been allowed for tax and that whether this precedent continues to apply in present circumstances is a matter between the firm concerned and the Inland Revenue.

§ Mr. Buchan
The hon. Gentleman is not as naive as that. I shall deal with the first point later, because he is right about it. His deduction is completely wrong.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer continued: …the European Movement are not justified in assuming that businesses will be able to set donations to them against tax. Contrary to some assertions", including those of hon. Members, the Board of Inland Revenue have given no ruling on the deductibility of contributions to any particular organisation concerned with the EEC or referendum issue. In practice I would not normally expect contributions paid to either pro or anti EEC organisations to qualify as deductions". The hon. Gentleman has had his complete answer.

§ Mr. Hurd
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Buchan
Just a oment. I shall deal with everybody in due time. The hon. Gentleman has had his answer. He is correct in asserting that since 1955 businesses have been contributing to the European Movement, although I hope that they will note that the Chancellor says: the European Movement are not justified in assuming that businesses will be able to set donations to them against tax. Contrary to some assertions, the Board of Inland Revenue have given no ruling on the deductibility of contributions to any particular organisation concerned with the EEC or referendum issue. [Interruption.] When their pockets are hit, hon. Members opposite get so impatient. They should take their time. This is an extremely serious point for the country.

§ Mr. Hurd
The point which I was trying to make to the hon. Gentleman, and which he does not seem to have grasped was that in the past firms contributing to the European Movement have been able 1597 to satisfy the Inland Revenue. What happens in the future is a matter of law. No one can say in advance what the position will be. It will be a question whether the firm concerned is able to satisfy the Inland Revenue that in accordance with the law this particular contribution falls into the tax deductible category.

§ Mr. Buchan
I absolutely accept that. That is the final darning comment on the statement which is made that money given in support of their business interests can be written off as a genuine expense. In other words, they are judging the issue. It is they who are saying that money given to the referendum campaign can be written off as a genuine expense. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is a legal question. If they are in the wrong, it may be that it is a very serious legal question. There are still courts waiting on the question of conspiracy. This comes close to conspiracy, if I read it in the context of the Chancellor's answer. That is why the amendment is so serious.
I shall give some proof. I have done my homework. I have in front of me Business Bulletin No. 6 of the National Federation of Building Trade Employers. This is what the trade journals are now saying to their members. The bulletin says: Members who feel it important"— this is not the European Movement's cultural office, but the campaign on the referendum— to support the campaign are asked to consider making a contribution towards its funds. Payments should be made in favour of the European Movement, 1A Whitehall Place, London, S.W.I, and addressed personally to … the Finance Officer, with a note stating that the money is to be credited to the Britain in Europe Fund. It is not the European Movement as such, not the cultural activities of the European Movement, but the Britain in Europe Fund, the precise political fund. All payments so far made to the European Movement since its foundation in 1955 have been treated as an allowable business expense and have not had to be declared as a political contribution. So it is now being recognised that the recipient's activities have changed from its past cultural activities to being a political campaign and it is telling its members that contributions have not had to be declared as political contributions. The names of contributors and the scale of contribution will not be made public. 1598 That is the situation that the country is facing. Against that background, the giving of £125,000 to each side is almost an insult. We are facing an organisation which tells its local members—this is the European Movement alone; this is only one of the bosses' movements in the pro-Market campaign— Do not approach the companies listed in appendix 2. Appendix 2 lists the 1,500 major companies of Britain which the organisation is approaching nationally. Those are the kind of funds available to these people.
We have all seen, in our areas, how the funds are used. It is not only the gigantic funds coming from business and not to be disclosed to the British people, unlike in election campaigns. They have another ally—the commission itself. My own area is beginning to look like Saigon, with, every weekend, a continual airlift to Brussels of people to be feted and dined. It is beginning to look like corruption. What is the name of the Act—the Corruption of the People Act?
9.15 p.m.
There are other examples of this sort of thing. There is a movement called. I believe, the Young Left, which is able to run a weekend conference of two days and one night with travelling expenses paid, and the cost is £1. I think this comes very close to corruption of young people. I give another example. I read in the Daily Telegraph today that the EEC information office—not a British institution—has invited the editors of immigrant newspapers to Brussels. This is becoming very serious, and the Government must face this situation.
In the light of these facts and of the Chancellor's statement, the Government should introduce an emergency motion on Report insisting that all donations should be made public, that the European Movement should withdraw this circular, warning it of the consequences if it does not, and insisting that 1,500 major companies should be told that these donations may not necessarily be free of tax.
We have reached a scandalous situation. I remember arguing on the Representation of the People Act 1969, with Lord Hailsham, about the restriction of money in constituency election campaigns. I argued that the restriction was established in order to have equality between. 1599 parties, so that a poor party would not suffer from an exaggerated superior force, or a wealthy party. The noble Lord said that that was not the purpose—that the purpose was to avoid an ostentatious or scandalous display of extravagance. If that is the case, we are certainly seeing it now.

§ Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)
I understand that some of my constituents have been invited to Brussels, to fly there and be entertained and then fly back for £5, which bears no relation whatsoever to the cost. Surely this is very near to buying votes in the referendum, and if this were in a General Election it would be construed as a corrupt practice.

§ Mr. Buchan
I have no doubt that the treating that is going on now is scandalous and that in a General Election it would undoubtedly come within the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act.
There is a third factor. The Government will be issuing their own propaganda. I have written to the European Movement. It received my letter yesterday. I have so far had no reply. I make no complaint about that, because the European Movement, no doubt has a lot to think about in the letter which I sent. I pointed out that it might be in danger of misleading many hundreds of business men and industrialists. The ball is now at the feet of the European Movement, and I hope it will come clean.
The purpose of the amendment is to show that we are not dealing with a fair and just situation. We are dealing with a situation in which one side has access to unlimited wealth and unlimited power to use that wealth for the organisations of the EEC, and that power and wealth is being used directly and ruthlessly, careless of the consequences for the political life of this country, in order to carry a "Yes" vote.
This amendment must be carried. I cannot remember the precise amount of money spent in my election campaign, but I think it was something like £1,400 or £1,500. A sum of £125,000 does not represent the expenses involved in the average constituency.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) to our ranks in trying to establish equality in 1600 this matter. His amendment proposes to increase the sum to £500,000. Even this is insufficient. If my hon. Friend would like to increase the figure up, I would support him, if that were the only amount spent.
I shall be pushing the amendment to a vote. I hope that all Labour Members who are dedicated to the principles of justice and equality will support my hon. Friend and myself in the vote.

§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)
On a point of order, Sir Stephen. Is it possible to have separate Divisions on Amendments Nos. 56 and 57?

The Temporary Chairman
I propose to allow Divisions on the amendment which I have called and on Amendment No. 57.

§ Mr. Emery
I have listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I rise to urge the Committee strongly to reject the amendment, and I shall later be urging it to reject the whole clause.
We are embarking—and the amendment carries the process further—on directly applying taxpayers' money to political objectives of organisations and parties. I believe that this is wholly wrong. It is the thin end of the wedge. The amendment is proof-positive of that. Many people have suggested that it was over-generous that £250,000 should be provided out of taxpayers' money. Many old-age pensioners would much prefer that that money should be spent on them rather than on political propaganda.
When the figure of £250,000 was included in the Bill, it was said that as sure as eggs were eggs somebody would suggest that it should be much more. Inflation has gone mad. Since the publication of the Bill the figure has risen by four times. It is now suggested that £1 million of taxpayers' money should be made available, half and half, to the two organisations.
The whole essence of the amendment is wrong. It says that organisations concerned with political objectives have the right to enough money to do what they want, irrespective of the funds that may be made available to a much larger number of organisations that oppose them.
1601 The hon. Gentleman's arguments were false, because he tried to suggest that what had been legally acceptable in the past was wrong.

§ Mr. Buchan
No. I was referring to the present situation.

§ Mr. Emery
I am delighted to hear that that is not what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, but certainly that was the impression that I gained from his speech. That is supported by some of my hon. Friends who have indicated so since I made the statement.

§ Mr. Buchan
I read out the quotation from 1955. This is no longer going just to the European Movement. It was going to the "Britain in Europe" Campaign. It was in the guidelines sent out for a political campaign. That was the difference.

§ Mr. Emery
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has defined his view, but it goes a stage further than he implies. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that if it were legally possible for contributions to be made by a firm or organisation, contributions allowed by the tax authorities, those contributions should now be stopped. I believe his suggestion was that if they were high amounts it was grossly unfair to those who opposed the view supported by those organisations.
I have always believed that companies and individuals should be able to apply their money in whatever way they wanted as long as it came within the law. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the money would be tax-free. It is not tax-free if it comes within the law, because it is not taxable. Let us get the definitions right. The hon. Gentleman is trying to presume things, and is falling below his usual high standard. A number of Labour Members have a way of presuming much more from a factual statement than the statement warrants.
I believe that if there were a referendum on whether tax money should be used for the conduct of the referendum the British people would say strongly "Not a penny of taxpayers' money should be given to either of the organisations for their campaign."
I have information that the trade unions will make donations, as they may decide, in support of the campaign to 1602 take Britain out of the Common Market. I do not condemn the trade unions for using their money in that way if that is what their regulations allow. However, I do not believe that it was what most workers paid their contributions for.
We now come to the interesting counter-arguments, with one side saying that the intention was that business money should not be used in a certain direction, and the other arguing that workers would not have expected contributions to be made from trade union funds in the other direction. I do not mind the trade unions making contributions that they are legally allowed to make, nor that business should do so. But we need to achieve a proper balance, and I believe that the two sides of the argument cancel each other out.

§ Mr. Marten
As Chairman of the National Referendum Campaign, I have no information that the trades unions will give us any money. If my hon. Friend has, perhaps he will let me know.

§ Mr. Emery
I have no intention of trying to improve communications between my hon. Friend and his friends. That is up to him.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Sowerby)
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of any private companies contributing to the pro-Market campaign which have sought the agreement of their shareholders to their making those donations?

§ Mr. Emery
The hon. Gentleman must be unaware of the way in which a British company operates. The shareholders elect their directors annually, just as every five years or so the hon. Gentleman's constituents elect him or one of his opponents. If the shareholders do not like the policy pursued by their directors, they have the right to get rid of them at any general meeting, special or annual. The directors decide what they think is the best policy for the company. The decisions are made for the benefit of the company and of those who work in it. The hon. Member should take into account that decisions of management are for the benefit of the company and its workers. Management wishes to see the greatest expansion and profitability of its concern, and it can do so to the direct benefit of its employees only by spending money.

§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)
Does the hon. Member agree that perhaps one of the few arguments for remaining in Europe would be that the whole system of electing directors in the manner he described would have to cease under the Community's so-called Ninth Directive? We can adopt that policy unilaterally and therefore, when we leave the Common Market I hope that the hon. Member will support some of my hon. Friends and me in our Industrial Democracy Bill and in its and the Brussels Commission's aim of having half of a company's directors as workers' instead of shareholders' representatives.

§ Mr. Emery
I think that if I went even one centimeter down that road, Sir Stephen—

The Temporary Chairman
I hope that the hon. Member will not follow that line of argument because if he did he would be out of order.

§ Mr. Emery
Perhaps I can pursue that point privately with the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in the Smoking Room over a drink.
Therefore, it seems to me that the situation goes very much deeper than just the figures that have been suggested. There is this major principle behind the amendment and the clause. I and, I believe, a large number of other people are strongly against the principle and, therefore, would be even more opposed to increasing the amounts to those which have been suggested in the amendment.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
I apologise for being absent from the Committee when the amendments were called, Sir Stephen. I had not had a bite to eat since lunch-time and I thought that I had time to nip out for a quick snack.
I am very glad that I caught my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) on his feet. I was just in time to hear him use the kind of arguments we shall hear increasingly over the course of the next four or five weeks. I think that the gist of his argument was that one side had access to unlimited wealth—presumably he meant the pro-Market side. He said he would, therefore, support the amendment, but I notice that he did not bother to put his name 1604 down to it, and the amendment has been tabled for some weeks. That shows how much support he gives the amendment. He is an opportunist, if nothing else. However, he intends to support it, and I am glad for that.
Perhaps I may explain to my hon. Friend why I put the amendment down. I thought of a number—just as the Government thought of a number—and I put it down to emphasise the absurdity of the whole exercise. I could well have made the sum £1 million. I might have got support from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry if I had made it £5 million and asked whether, if we can give Triumph motor bikes £5 million, there is any reason why we should not have that sum for this unique constitutional precedent of the twentieth century. I did not choose to do that. I thought instead of the public purse and I decided to be reasonable and stick at £500,000. I thought that the £125,000 worked out at about £200 per constituency and that was not very much. Perhaps the penurious anti-Common Market people are in desperate need. Let us be generous to them. Let us make sure that we are being absolutely fair. Perhaps we should introduce a form of national supplementary benefit for them. Perhaps we might increase the sum four times.
I also tabled the amendment as a peg on which to hang a few questions. How did the Government arrive at the figure of £125,000? Why was it not £100,000 or £150,000? Whom did they consult? Did they consult the National Front?

§ Mr. Buchan
Oh!

§ Mr. Hamilton
I shall make my speech in my own way. I shall not be intimidated.

The Temporary Chairman
I am sure that it will be a great help if the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) addresses his remarks to the Chair. If he does so he will not become involved in any arguments.

§ Mr. Hamilton
It will be much pleasanter to address my remarks to the Chair, Sir Stephen. I shall not be intimidated by any hostile noises that come from my right.
1605 I want to know how the Government arrived at this figure and what organisations they consulted. Did they consult Clive Jenkins' union or the National Front? They are both on the same side.

§ Mr. Buchan
That is not right.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I hope that my hon. Friends will make their specehes in their own way. My hon. Friends are further emphasising the dangers of this whole exercise. The longer it continues the more bitter these exchanges will become. I can give as good as is given. As the "anti" campaign loses the argument so will the hysteria and the irresponsibility of these charges increase.

§ Mr. Marten
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the charges he has made always seem to come from the pro-Marketeers, They always seem to drag up the National Front and the Communists. The anti-Marketeers do not refer to the Maoists and Sir Oswald Mosley in support of their argument. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rise above that sort of charge in this debate.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I shall rise when my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West rises. In his original speech he sought to associate those of us who happen to support our continued membership of the European Community with big business and the rest.

§ Mr. Buchan
I did not.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I hope that my hon. Friend will not continue to intervene from a sedentary Position. I hope that he will get up from his seat.

Mr. James Thin (Redcar)
On a point of order, Sir Stephen. I do not question your ruling, but it was the first occasion in my time in the House when I recall the Chair protecting the hon. Member on his feet by suggesting that he should not attract interruptions. My hon. Friend is maintaining his speech against a constant barrage of sedentary interruptions.

The Temporary Chairman
That is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman is casting some reflection upon my intervention, let me say that I was merely reminding the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) of the duty of all hon. Members to address their remarks to the Chair. I personally deplore the 1606 continued interruptions which are taking place during the hon. Gentleman's speech. I deplore sedentary interruptions and I deplore phoney points of order.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I was trying to emphasise that charges of guilt by association can be played both ways. I was about to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West made a speech on precisely those lines. He referred to big business, but that was not the only line that he adopted.

§ Mr. Buchan
Now that my hon. Friend has given way and I am no longer speaking sedentarily, may I say that no one who was present at the beginning of my speech would believe that that was the case. [Interruption.] I spoke about the European Movement, its methods of fund-raising and its patrons. I quoted the Chancellor as disproving certain assertions. I did not associate any of my hon. Friends with what I was saying. I have nothing but contempt for some of the people involved, and I am sure that my hon. Friends feel the same way, too.

§ Mr. Hamilton
That is the second speech my hon. Friend has made. I heard him with my own ears say that there was one side that had unlimited access to funds—

§ Mr. Buchan
That is right.

§ Mr. Hamilton
The implication was clear. He also said that it came very near to corruption.

§ Mr. Buchan
Right.

§ Mr. Hamilton
My hon. Friend used both expressions, and the inference, the only inference, was that those of us who take a contrary view were associated with corruption and big business. I have no association with either and will not be so associated.
I want to keep this argument on the merits of the case. The purpose of my amendment was to show the pure arbitrariness of the figure of £125,000 and the complete lack of any control over its use.
That brings me to Amendment No. 58 about the organisations affiliated to these umbrella organisations. What exactly does that mean? I have suggested substituting for that phrase the words "associated with". I do not know what that 1607 means either. Both with the figure of £500,000 and with the phrase "associated with", my suggestions are as meaningful, or as meaningless, as the Government's proposals.
There is a piece in this evening's Evening Standard about the organisations which I presume are affiliated to or associated with these umbrella organisations. It says: A gallimaufry of different fringe organisations are now actively affiliated"— I do not know whether the Government decide that these organisations should be affiliated to the pro-European movement or the anti-European movement. The article goes on: to the pro- and anti-Common Market forces for the June 5 referendum. A quick survey this morning shows that Britain In Europe shelters such assorted bed-fellows as: The European Association of Teachers, the European Luncheon Club, the European Union of Women, the Scottish Lawyers' European Group, the Solicitors European Group, and the Young European Left. There is even a Christians for Europe organisation. Another 200 or so nationwide "spread-the-gospel" groups are co-ordinated from the campaign's Hyde Park Corner HQ.
The Get Britain Out people have mustered:"—

§ Mr. Marten
rose—

§ Mr. Hamilton
No! The hon. Gentleman must not spoil the fun.

§ Mr. English
rose—

§ Mr. Hamilton
The hon. Member is a damned sight worse!
The article continues: the Conservatives Against the Treaty of Rome, the Labour Committee for Safeguards on the Common Market, the Liberal No to the Common Market, Welsh, Scottish, Ulster and Cornish Nationalists and the Boot and Shoe Manufacturers against Europe. They also boast grass-roots organisations in all constituencies except Ulster, but they declined the Housewives Against the Common Market and the National Front. 9.45 p.m.
We saw the exhibition on television last weekend at which all must have been appalled, whatever party they may belong to. However, that is the kind of thing we shall get during the next five or six weeks.
The article continues: For the country's fence-sitters"— 1608 and there are plenty of those here— a new organisation has just been formed: the Don't Know Campaign (slogan: Pass the buck back where it belongs). Will that organisation get any public money? Presumably not, because it would be neither affiliated to nor associated with either of the two umbrella organisations. Therefore, it will have to spend its own money. That is grossly unfair, because a large proportion of our population genuinely do not know and want to pass the buck here, where it belongs. Why should they not have access to public money to put that point of view?
I mean no criticism of this section of amendments, but it is rather sad that there has not been a selection to enable us to pose the question whether it would or would not be desirable to table an amendment proposing to give the people a choice to say whether they want this decision to be made by the House of Commons rather than by this ridiculous exercise we are now undertaking.

§ Mr. Marten
I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great tradition for accuracy in the House of Commons. He has based his case and his subsequent argument on the facts of that article.

§ Mr. Hamilton
No.

§ Mr. Marten
Yes, he did, because he said so. That article is grossly inaccurate. It does not even have the name of the umbrella organisation right. It has merely picked on one of the 10 affiliated organisations. If it gets the name of the organisation wrong, we can say that quite a lot of the other so-called affiliated organisations in the list are also wrong, which they are.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I am simply quoting the article in the Evening Standard. I was not saying whether it was true or not. The argument was adduced that there was some guilt by association. I want to dissociate myself from that kind of campaign and will try to do so during the next five or six weeks. I shall not hurl at the anti-Europeans the suggestion that the Communist Party is on their side. It is as divided as other organisations on this matter. We want it to be treated on the merits of the case.
The purpose of these two amendments is to show the foolishness of the exercise, 1609 and these are just two examples of it. The £125,000 is arbitrary. The words "affiliated to" mean nothing at all. The umbrella organisations are accountable to no one. They have been elected by no one. I do not know any members of them, and I certainly have never attended any of their meetings. I do not belong to them, nor do I intend to belong to them. I shall conduct my campaign in the way I think proper. I hope that it will be reasonably dignified and that it will be reasonably brutal, because I want to ensure that we do not have a repetition of this nonsense.

§ Mr. Hurd
In approaching this amendment we must have regard to the situation described in the rather intemperate speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). Although he believes that he made a soft and cooing speech, those of us who listened to it drew, at the time, a rather contrary conclusion. I do not complain about that, as long as the hon. Gentleman bears in mind a clear recollection of the words he used.
It is necessary to make a clear distinction between the raising of funds and the spending of them. I should declare an interest, because I am the research director of one of the constituent organisations which joined to form "Britain in Europe", although I have had no concern with the activities of which the hon. Gentleman complains. However, as regards the raising of funds, both sides in this argument are busily concerned with doing that. I have here a letter from the "Get Britain Out" campaign addressed to a considerable number of companies, which says, Finally, there is the question of finance, without which any campaign, however justified or deserving, stands little chance of success. I would therefore ask you to consider whether you would make a donation. I make no complaint about that. It is a perfectly respectable and honourable way of appealing for funds to businesses in order to get funds for the "Get Britain Out" campaign.

§ Mr. Buchan
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks. He was right. I made a tough speech. No one has ever said that I have made a 1610 cooing speech. That I was not making a guilt-by-association speech was the point on which I insisted. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the letter from which he has quoted says, "You will get tax relief if you contribute"?

§ Mr. Hurd
I thought that that might be the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I was coming to that point.
In response to my intervention the hon. Gentleman agreed that, as a matter of history, in the past contributions to the European Movement have been allowed by the Inland Revenue in general terms —I do not know whether they have been universally allowed—as deductible. The hon. Gentleman sought to distinguish between previous contributions and those now made—

§ Mr. Buchan
The Chancellor.

§ Mr. Hurd
—which would go to the specific campaign. It may be that the Inland Revenue will draw the same conclusion. It may be that it will not. The Chancellor's letter from which the hon. Gentleman quoted was properly cautious on this point. But the essence of the matter is that it is between the firm concerned and the Inland Revenue, and it may be that the decision arrived at will be different in different cases
Some firms may be able to show that their contributions for this purpose are so directly relevant to their existence and prosperity as businesses that they are properly deductible. Other firms may not be able to show that. This is a matter between the firm and the Inland Revenue—the Inland Revenue operating under normal rules. There is nothing particularly significant or disreputable that warrants the hon. Gentleman using the kind of terms that he did use.
We do not know yet how the appeals for funds from the two organisations will work out. It may be that businesses in this country will feel that they are more likely to prosper if the answer is "Yes" and will contribute accordingly. It may be—my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has no knowledge of this—that trade unions will feel the opposite, and would rather contribute money out of their political funds to the "No" cause than the "Yes" cause. We do not know yet.
1611 It is not yet a crime in Britain to be more successful in raising support for one's views than the other chap. It would be a pity if, as regards the raising of funds, that became a crime.

§ Mrs. Winifred Ewing
Is there not something basically abhorrent in the idea that the Inland Revenue should be considering tax allowances for people who are making a subjective decision? Whether or not their argument is that their businesses will be helped or otherwise, it is subjective. This is at a time when whole sectors of our society, such as teachers, do not get adequate tax allowances for various necessary purposes and when all manner of other sectors of society do not get allowances for the things which are necessary to carry on their businesses? Is there not something basically abhorrent about the Revenue's position in this matter?

§ Mr. Hurd
The hon. Lady is drawing me a little wide, Mr. Thomas, and I do not think that you would approve if I made another speech on that subject. We are dealing here with the decisions of business men as to the future prosperity of their companies. It is for the Inland Revenue, under rules eventually subject to the authority of Parliament, to decide whether particular contributions fall within the rules concerned. That is a normal procedure.

§ Mr. Hoyle
The hon. Gentleman said that he was not against the law permitting firms and individuals to make contributions. Does he agree that during election campaigns there is a limit on expenditure?

§ Mr. Hurd
I said that we should try to draw a firm distinction between the raising and spending of funds.
I now turn to the matter of spending funds. The Lord President proposes under the Bill to take sweeping powers concerning the spending of money. That is right. He should take those powers, and enforce them with all the power at his command when applying the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts. The Lord President's power to control spending will be sweeping. Anybody contravening those controls will face the full rigour of the law.

§ Mr. Ron Thomas
Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where the sweeping powers of the Lord President are to be found in the Referendum Bill?

§ Mr. Hurd
I shall come to that later.
The Lord President will have power to examine accounts and to look into the spending of money. He will also make an order applying to the referendum a provision contained in the Representation of the People Acts.
It is not a crime to raise money. It is not sensible for people to complain that one section, whether that of business or trade unions, is more successful than its rivals in attracting support. However, the spending of money is a different matter. The Bill gives the Government power to control the spending of money.

§ Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Bill gives power to control the spending of any money other than public money received in grants?

§ Mr. Hurd
The Bill gives that power. It covers the grant of £125,000 and the sums received or spent for the purpose of the referendum since 26th March 1975. That applies to us all.

§ Mr. Jay
Surely Clause 3(2)(a) refers to "the sums received", meaning public grants.

§ Mr. Hurd
On this occasion my quotation was accurate. The proposal refers to moneys received and to the publication of accounts, not simply the expenditure of £125,000. Against that background we must consider the amendment and the proposal that Government money should be given to umbrella organisations.
I have some sympathy with the philosophical point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), since I voted against the proposal that political Opposition parties should receive extra funds and attach themselves to the Welfare State. That is not good for the health of parliamentary democracy. I should have liked it to apply to this position as well. I think the reason lies in the speech made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. 1613 No one on this side of the Committee likes—