EU Referendum


EU Referendum: a spectacular victory


08/09/2015



000a HoC-008 Purdah.jpg

If one is to rely on press reports – such as the Telegraph and the Guardian - it is actually quite difficult to work out what happened in the Commons last night, in what Owen Paterson called a "spectacular" victory over "purdah".

The headline defeat came when a Government amendment, numbered 53, was thrown out on a vote of 312 against, to 285 for – a majority of 27 against the Government. This was the largest Commons rebellion of the session, with 37 Tories voting against their own government – some of them for the first time in their Parliamentary careers.

However, the actual amendment was a Government attempt to reinstate Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, after the original complaint from Owen Paterson that removal of this section, abolishing the so-called "purdah" period from the referendum, would damage the legitimacy of the entire referendum process.

But the Government's amendment was, to say the very least, half-hearted. It re-applied section 125 of the 2000 Act "with modifications which: clarify that the prohibition relates to material which is directly relevant to the referendum … and add an express reference to the Electoral Commission as a body to which the section does not apply".

This was not enough to convince Labour that the Government was playing fair and, with the help of Conservative rebels, they defeated the amendment. Alone, though, that would not have been enough. Thus Labour introduced amendment 4, which reinstated Section 125 in its entirety, thus restoring the original working of the Act. This went through, "on the nod", without a division, the Government avoiding a vote it knew it would lose.

Even then, the drama was not over, as Labour has agreed to the Government's "new clause 10" which enables the Minister, by regulations, to exempt certain (unspecified) materials from the purdah provisions – thus giving the Government something of a bolt-hole.

Yet, for all that, this was by no means a ringing victory for the Government, as the regulations have to passed by means of the "affirmative resolution" procedure, meaning that there must be a majority vote in both Houses to approve them.

And, in another concession, a manuscript amendment was accepted which required any regulations to be made not less than four months before the date of the referendum.

Effectively, it is that combination which constitutes the Government defeat – a shot across Mr Cameron's bows from his own side, giving the Prime Minister due warning that he can't take his own party for granted on this issue.

Nevertheless, Paterson says that the event should not be seen as a party split. This was Parliament opposing a badly-thought-out measure by a Government, which had failed to consult and had not understood the importance of that which it was trying to abolish.

It is a measure of how much the Government had misjudged the House that its removal of purdah was opposed by MPs who supported membership of the EU and wanted to see the UK remain. But they were insistent that the referendum should be fair, and seen to be fair, otherwise it would lack legitimacy.

Sadly, this victory can't ensure that the referendum will be fair, but at least after the joint efforts on many MPs, we can say that, after last night's "spectacular victory", it will be a little less unfair.