European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Lamont of Lerwick and Lord Collins of Highbury

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has a lot of logic. I was amused, however, when he referred to how difficult it is to understand legislation that refers back to previous legislation. Exactly—and that is what a lot of us complain about with the European Union. The noble Lord may remember that, when the constitutional treaty had to be ratified by national parliaments, no comprehensive single version was available. Everybody had to refer back to previous legislation. In the case of the Czech Republic, the relevant documents had not even been translated into the national language.

That said, I very much agree with the points the noble Lord made, and I support his amendment. I would, however, very much like to support my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I am somewhat bemused by the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who does not seem to take on board that we are talking about funding: about limits laid down by Parliament on the funding of both sides of the referendum. What surprises me—this is the issue I would like my noble friend to address—is that the Government simply decided to consolidate the PPERA into this legislation and did not introduce their own. They have, after all, amended various parts of the PPERA; they do not have to accept what is written into it as if it were tablets of stone.

I followed the debate in the House of Commons, which touched on this issue. The Minister in the Commons said that it is a good thing—that this is the first time we have had such comprehensive and far-reaching limits. Okay, but if you have limits they ought to be fair to the two sides of the referendum. Otherwise, why have limits at all? Would it not be better to let both sides raise what money they can and spend it? It seems to me there is a fundamental flaw in the proposal. The whole point of referenda is to deal with issues that cut across political parties; that is partly why we have them. I very much doubt we would have referenda if there were not constitutional issues that cut across different political parties. It seems perverse to say, just because a political party in a general election some time ago got 30% of the vote, it is entitled to X amount of money; and another party, which came third the time before and second last time, is allowed Y proportion of money. Why?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I will give way in a minute. If you are going to impose limits on spending, let them be fair between the two sides. After all, the government grant is equal for each side, and the limit on what the designated organisations can do is equal, one with the other, so why bring in political parties? Why say that because the Conservative Party won 30-plus% of the vote it is allowed to spend £7 million, because the Labour Party scored about 30%, it is allowed to spend £7 million, because UKIP got above 10% of the vote it is allowed to spend £4 million and because the Liberals, scored somewhere around 10%, they are allowed to spend £3 million? Of course, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, when you add them all up—let us exclude the Conservative Party, because it has said it is not going to fund either side in the organisation—there is a huge inequity between the limit on one side and the limit on the other. I find it very difficult to understand how this can be justified. I do not see the necessity of it. It would have been extremely simple, if the Government insist on having a cap on spending in the campaign, to have it the same for both sides. The noble Lord wanted to intervene.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

No, no.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am glad that I have his agreement—or perhaps I have not, but we shall hear in a minute. The provision seems fundamentally flawed. I do not see why the Government just picked up that legislation and incorporated it into this. It seems not to make any sense whatever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Political parties are treated differently, as the Minister indicated at the outset. The fact is, they are different. They are covered, as she said, by separate elements of PPERA. If political parties do not register as participants in the referendum, they will be limited to spending £10,000. I do not have to answer for the Conservative Party but, in effect, by advocating this amendment noble Lords are saying to local Conservative associations, “You cannot use your office, your staff or your resources in this referendum campaign because if you exceed £10,000, the Conservative Party will be acting illegally”.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I have tried very hard to follow the noble Lord’s speech. I still do not understand the £10,000 figure, but going back a bit in his speech, he expressed himself as being strongly in favour of caps in general elections—fair enough. If we are to have caps in general elections, should they not be the same for all political parties?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I do not know that I strongly expressed my support for caps. I said I thought they had a function and a role. Actually, what the public demand of our political parties is greater transparency. The noble Lords opposite constantly refer to the trade union movement supporting the Labour Party. Every single penny of that money is properly accounted for under a range of legislation, including the trade union Acts that cover the establishment of political funds, but I am not so sure that is clear in the case of some company donations, the origins of which can be obscure and unclear. For me, the most important thing in funding is transparency.

I am a strong advocate of capping donations, which is far more effective than having a cap on spending. Caps on spending have not been particularly effective. As we have seen in every general election since PPERA was enacted, no political party has got anywhere near the spending cap. But capping donations—limiting how people might influence policy—is much more effective. When the Committee on Standards in Public Life held an inquiry into the funding of political parties, I argued that we should have a cap of £500 on political donations because members of the public would understand that amount. Most members of the public would find it incredibly difficult to raise £50,000, which was the amount suggested by the Conservative Party. Not many members of the public would be able to donate that amount. But if you had a cap of £500, most members of the public would say, “Yes, that is a reasonable amount”. But that is the debate: it is more effective to have caps on donations than on spending. No doubt we will return to that debate some other time.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Lord Lamont of Lerwick and Lord Collins of Highbury

Friday 27th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Lawson has said, these are two amendments aimed at the same target. This issue of accountability and evaluation of the aid programme is very important for several reasons: first, because of the big increase in the amount of aid; and secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said, echoing what was said in the House of Commons, in order to reassure the public that value for money is being preserved.

As the Bill stands, there seems to be a lack of accountability. This is in essence a public relations Bill. It is gesture politics. We all know that the target of 0.7% can be met anyway. The Government have met it. They do not need the Bill. The Bill does not add anything. What the Bill does is send a signal, which some noble Lords have supported; others are more sceptical about the value of the signal. But the Bill by itself does not authorise the expenditure. We still have to have estimates from the House of Commons. They still have to be voted on. The Bill has no sanction. It is an expression of good will, but that is not what Acts of Parliament are for. Of course, the Bill is not legally enforceable either.

We have two ways in which we move on to address the issue of accountability. My noble friend Lord Lawson has resurrected the independent international development office, which was in the original Bill and then removed. It is a bit of a mystery why it was removed but, in consequence, the Government are in a position where they can mark their own homework. They can write a report saying how marvellously they have done.

What I do not understand is why the ICAI is not mentioned in the Bill under the clause on evaluation. When Mr Desmond Swayne was speaking in the House of Commons on 5 December, he referred to the ICAI as,

“this independent mechanism that measures our aid, scrutinises it and ensures that it is of the highest standard. That will also be the body that will establish the independently verified figures”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/14; col. 590.]

He seemed to be implying that the ICAI would do the job of evaluation. If so, why is it not mentioned in the Bill? Of course, it is a very small body. I think it has four commissioners and a small secretariat, so I do not know whether it really is up to the job, although it has a high reputation.

When addressing these sorts of questions in Committee, my noble friend the Minister—slightly in conflict, I think, with what Mr Swayne said—said that she did not feel that,

“tying that function to one particular agency is the answer”,—[Official Report, 6/2/15; col. 995.]

the function being accountability. But surely if you are looking for accountability and whether a programme is effective, it is much better to have one body to have a clear line of demarcation, and it is one body that should be responsible for saying whether there has been any distortion of or alteration in the effectiveness of aid by the great increase in the target. This is a very important amendment indeed.

I hope we might hear from the Labour Front Bench. I know that the Opposition support the Bill, but I am sure that they also support principles of accountability and transparency. It would be very useful to know the view of the Opposition on this amendment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am sorely tempted now, after all this time. Let me reassure my noble friend Lord Hollick that, absolutely, accountability is vital to the Bill. We can be very satisfied that, as we have heard in every debate on every group of amendments, transparency on aid financing and the level of accountability is unique. ICAI has been doing a very good job. The fact that it has produced critical reports in recent times highlights its important role. I want to ensure that we develop its role and defend its responsibilities. I certainly want to ensure that we have a system of accountability that is robust and sustainable. I have every faith in the parliamentary accountability of ICAI through the development committee. That is why I am satisfied, and the party is satisfied, with the level of accountability on value for money and the impact that the spending has. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, if that independence or capability was ever brought into doubt, I assure my noble friend that we would not hesitate to legislate further to ensure that it is sustainable and robust.