ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO DESIGNATED ORGANISATIONS (Hansard, 16 February 2000)

§ Sir George Young
Schedule 11 deals with the right to send a referendum address post free, which is of topical interest.
1004 Paragraph 280 on page 64 of the explanatory notes, which the Department kindly circulated with the Bill, says: A mailing by the two sides in a United Kingdom-wide referendum to every elector would cost some £13.2 million. One to every household would cost some £7.2 million. I am entirely in favour of free mailshots during a referendum campaign.
In the previous debate, the Minister pulled something out of a hat, and I wonder whether he can do the same on this occasion. I was following last night's debate, and at 11.16 pm, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), said: The GLA is a small streamlined authority with a budget of £35 million, and expenditure of £15 million to £20 million on mailshots would be quite disproportionate."—[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 893.] I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is asking himself the same question as I am asking myself, which is why the Greater London Authority would spend £15 million to £20 million if it paid for mailshots, but a mailshot to every elector by the two sides in a UK-wide referendum would cost £13.2 million. I appreciate that there can be more than two candidates in a mayoral election, although presumably if there were more than two, the mailshots could be delivered at the same time. Last night, however, the Government used a rather high figure when they were trying to discourage the House from pushing for a free mailshot, and that figure was much higher than that on page 64 of the explanatory notes. Can the Minister shed any light on the apparent incompatibility of the two figures?

§ Mr. Tipping
Having pulled something out of the hat earlier, I am afraid that it is empty on this occasion. All I can do is consider the figures and the extracts that the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted, and write to him. I would add that the GLA provisions are seen as local government provisions, whereas we are discussing national campaigns in this Bill. Referendum mailshots would typically be for two sides, but I understand that there may be up to 20 candidates for the mayor of London, which will clearly increase costs. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman, without the sense of magic and flourish that goes with pulling something out of a hat.

§ Sir Michael Spicer
Schedule 11 also deals with the commission's role in ensuring fairness in broadcasting. Do the Government envisage the commission having not only the powers to set policies on fairness but the resources to monitor and ensure that those policies are implemented? We all know that broadcasters can set out with good intentions, but they do not always fulfil them. The BBC is ruled by statute but does not always comply with it in practice. Will the commission be responsible for ensuring that its policies on fairness are implemented day to day?

§ Mr. Tipping
The Committee has had an opportunity to discuss this matter. I draw hon. Members' attention to clause 9, which says that broadcasters shall have regard to the commission's views. The commission is in a position to express views about broadcasting. I have already given the Committee an undertaking to consider 1005 introducing a new form of words. It is clearly important that the commission should be involved, but that does not remove responsibility from broadcasters.