Constitutional Convention Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Friday 11th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

On the point about the scope of Clause 2, will the noble Lord tell the House how many hours and how many meetings he anticipates would be required to cover this ground within a year?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I cannot set that. Legislation cannot set that. Legislation can set what is a reasonable time for these areas to be considered, the political imperative about why they should be considered within 12 months and that the Government should report on them. Fundamentally, we should be going into the next UK general election with more consensus about the constitutional future of our union rather than with it fractured into a piecemeal approach. My noble friend Lord Steel called it a guddle; we will be having five years of guddle. A convention can consider these aspects within 12 months, and it is reasonable that a Government should have a timeframe in which to respond.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

We can follow two models. It can be very short, like the Smith commission, which perhaps on reflection has been too short and has not considered the wider view of the people, or it can be like the Airports Commission. I would not use the Airports Commission as the model for the constitutional convention. We can do better, and I hope the Government agree on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, tabled an amendment to the Scotland Bill for a convention to review the Bill, but it was late in the day, so he did not move it. I am pleased to see that the wind is back in his sails today at an earlier hour. If we are to have a convention, and it is to be citizen-led, it is not in any way an impertinence, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, for the people of this country to consider what this second House does in Parliament. It is not an impertinence to involve the people of our country in considering a revising Chamber’s role and how its functions should be set.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I did not plan to interrupt again, but as the noble Lord referred to me, what I said would be an impertinence was for an outside body to tell us how our rules and procedures should operate. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made the correct point. The constitutional convention should look at the high level—at the role and function of the House. Procedures are a matter for this House.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

There is nothing in Clause 2 that would prevent that. On that point of broad consensus—

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Friday 27th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, I do not think that any new arguments have been put forward on Report on these amendments, which are identical to those we debated in Committee. I do not think that the case has been prosecuted, but let me respond to some of the points that have been raised. I believe that far from improving financial management or making the delivery of ODA more effective, these amendments would actually create a worse situation. In addition, they do not acknowledge that we would have to continue to report annually in accordance with the OECD Development Assistance Committee requirements along with what has not been mentioned, which is the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006. These would carry on, quite rightly, because the annual target, which is based on the UN annual target for the number of annual transfers that are direct from government, and the OECD DAC annual reporting mechanisms are both there.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Will my noble friend give way?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

Of course I will because I know that my noble friend enjoys intervening on me. It would be churlish to refuse him another opportunity to do so.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I have to tell him that I can think of better things to do on a Friday morning. He keeps referring to an annual target, and it is true that the Bill provides for one. The target that was adopted by the UN is that:

“Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7% of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the Decade”.

That, by the way, was in 1975. It makes no mention whatever of having to do that each and every year.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My noble friend is repeating a point he put to me in Committee and says from a sedentary position that I was not listening. I did listen, and not only did I listen, but I responded. The whole UN resolution is the context. The 0.7% is one part of it and it was based on the Pearson Commission report which analysed what the annual transfers were going to be with regard to direct aid from countries that adopted the target. It is perfectly clear. My noble friend says that he has better things to do than intervene on me, and I have better things to do than to respond to that type of intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I do not think that there is any question that we owe our liberties and freedoms to defence spending, and that is why it is required. Not only that, I understand absolutely the Wales Declaration on the Transatlantic Bond that we signed up to, which states that we will aim to move towards the existing NATO guideline of spending 2% of GDP on defence within a decade. I know that we have a leading role in this and know the strength of the argument made by my noble friends and noble Lords to ensure that the UK continues in this leading role.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I am a very humble sort of chap. I have sat here this morning, participated in the debate and have listened to former Cabinet Secretaries, former Permanent Secretaries, former chiefs of staff with great experience in defence, former Secretaries of State and former Treasury Ministers. There is an almost unanimous voice saying, “Look, we support the principle but, actually, the way in which this is being implemented is mistaken”. No doubt the Bill will make its way towards the statute book and people will be able to change it in the future. However, on this matter of the defence of our country, we are in territory that is of fundamental importance.

Having listened to the speeches of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord West, and, speaking from the opposition Benches, a former Secretary of State for Defence, who has held quite a number of other positions—a vast experience of government—I am very surprised that my noble friend the Minister has not said, “You know what? We need to go back and think about this”. I did not grasp whether she was saying that the Government remain committed to a target of 2% or that they would meet their 2% target this year. I shall happily give way to her if she can clarify what she was saying, because there is a degree of confusion about that.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

There are two aspects to that. The first is the desire of young people themselves. For many years a consistent theme in campaigns to give people the vote at 16 is that participating in the democratic process does not automatically assume that exactly the same process should apply to those who are elected to Parliament to make these decisions. That comes from young people themselves. Secondly, the age of majority is not necessarily applied consistently as regards young people’s rights and responsibilities. For example, different approaches are taken as regards the minimum age at which one can drink alcohol, drive, join the military or buy knives. Today, we are discussing the specific issue of the enfranchisement of 16 and 17 year-olds. The age of majority and whether young people of 15, 16 and upwards should be granted other rights and responsibilities is quite rightly an area which we continue to debate—and which young people themselves continue to debate. I see that my noble friend is itching to intervene and I am delighted to give way.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend, but is he really arguing that 16 year-olds in Scotland should not be trusted to buy a packet of cigarettes but should be trusted to decide the future Government of the country?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I am saying that there are differences in the rights and responsibilities of young people, and for those aged under 21, in these islands. In many instances the decisions made on why those rights and responsibilities differ for different ages are taken on their own merits. For example, decisions on the age at which one has the legal right to drive, join the Armed Forces or, indeed, buy articles that could potentially be used as weapons are taken on their own merits. Likewise, the proposal that 16 and 17 year-olds should also have the vote should be taken on its own merits.

I agree that there has not always been consensus on this issue among the political parties. When I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, the Liberal Democrats worked hard with our Labour coalition partners to persuade them of the merits of this proposal, and we have done the same with our partners in this coalition. However, as my noble and learned friend indicated, there is now a settled consensus among the parties in the Scottish Parliament representing the whole spectrum of political view that this is the way forward.

I need not rehearse the arguments further about the merits of 16 and 17 year-olds voting, because to some extent the best evidence that I can provide was presented by the young people themselves in the referendum in Scotland. Those of us who took part in debates on the referendum will know that some of the best and most profound points in terms of perspective, responsibility and maturity were made by 16 and 17 year-olds who participated in them. Of course, that was a binary decision about the future of the country but there is no doubt in my mind that it demonstrated absolutely that not only can 16 and 17 year-olds be trusted to decide how they elect their representatives but it is important that we should now enshrine that in law.

My noble friend Lord Lang referred to turnout. He is quite right: the Electoral Commission’s assessment of the referendum in Scotland showed that the turnout of 16 and 17 year-olds was 75%. The rate dropped for those aged between 18 and 24 before it started to pick up for those aged 25 to 34 and those above 35. If I follow his rationale that democratic participation should start early and then develop, the best way of enhancing 18 to 24 year-olds’ participation in democratic elections is to enfranchise 16 and 17 year-olds, as the evidence on turnout suggests that that will indeed be the case. Therefore, this delivers an agreement. The agreement is unanimous and I am delighted to support it.

My noble friend raised two final points on the committee report in which I was quite interested. First, I do not accept that a possible concern that other parts of the UK may have a desire to follow Scotland should be used as a negative to delay this. That other parts of the UK will learn from Scotland’s experiences should be seen as positive. I have no doubt that the Welsh experience that he cited was a result of people seeing the way in which 16 and 17 year-olds participated within Scotland in the referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I was referring, in my answer to the noble Lord’s previous intervention, to the heads of agreement of the Smith commission, in paragraphs 25 and 27, and, in annexe A, to draft Clause 4 on page 93, which brings into effect the recommendations of the Smith commission. This clause also brings into effect a recommendation of the Smith commission, which is to move, on the basis of unanimity in the Smith commission, to the delivery of this power for 16 and 17-year olds, so that the Parliament will have that authority in advance of the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. There is no difference in that position on the Government’s part, apparent or otherwise, as far as I see it.

Finally, I joined my party at the age of 16. One of my reasons for doing so was because of the position that my party had to empower 16 year-olds to take part in parliamentary elections. I am delighted that this Government have acted on the unanimity of political views in the Scottish Parliament to deliver this, and that is why I will be delighted if this goes through Parliament today.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is that he must have been quite an extraordinary 16-year old if at that age he was thinking of joining the Liberal Democrats because it was going to reduce the franchise age to 16. I have to say that when I was 16, I thought that I was a socialist, but I grew out of that after a while.

I am participating in this debate not to argue the merits or otherwise of whether people should have the vote at 16, but because I think that the process by which this is being achieved is absolutely lamentable. We began our proceedings this morning by discussing whether former Members and MEPs should have access to the facilities—the restaurants and bars—of this place. I sat here thinking that this place is presenting itself to the outside world as if it was some kind of club, rather than a House of Parliament. This debate, and the way that the Government have dealt with the matter, shows that we are being treated as a kind of club and not as a second House of Parliament with particular responsibilities for constitutional matters.

We have here an excellent report from the Constitution Committee. My noble friend Lord Lang has explained the reservations which have been drawn to the attention of the House by the committee, but the Government propose to charge on regardless. I have the highest regard for my noble and learned friend the Minister, but even he was struggling to make bricks out of this particular straw. He suggested that there was not really a commitment that contradicted the terms. Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement was published in January 2015 as Command Paper 8990. It has a foreword signed by the right honourable Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the right honourable David Cameron, the Prime Minister, which states that it is their response to the Smith commission proposals. On page 17, it states:

“To provide an adequate check on Scottish Parliament legislation changing the franchise”,

which is what we are discussing,

“the electoral system or the number of constituency and regional members for the Scottish Parliament, UK legislation will require such legislation to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the Scottish Parliament”.

Is this not UK legislation? Are we not discussing the franchise? What do those words mean if they do not mean what I say they mean? My noble and learned friend is being Humpty Dumpty. Words, it appears, for this Government mean whatever they believe them to mean and not what they say. This was a document presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister only a few weeks ago. We are entitled to ask why this change has been made.

As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, pointed out, my noble and learned friend made a contradictory statement. He said that we are not having a supermajority because there is consensus that it should happen. As the noble Lord pointed out, if there is consensus, what is the problem with having a supermajority? My noble and learned friend did not make clear whether that supermajority is still required. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that there was consensus. Suppose that there was a majority in the Scottish Parliament that, having had a bad experience with the franchise set at 16, wanted to change it from 16 to 18. Would that require a supermajority, or has that provision simply been dropped? If the answer to my question is, yes, it would require a supermajority, is it not going to look a bit ridiculous to tell the Scottish Parliament that it can change the age to 16 but it needs a supermajority to change it back to where it was?

I am really dismayed that matters of this kind should be being dealt with by orders and regulations, which effectively prevents this House or, indeed, the other place, from making any amendments or changes and having any debate.

That brings me to my next point, which my noble and learned friend acknowledged. Included in the order is a proposal that the franchise should be extended to local government. There was nothing in Smith about that. There is nothing in this document that I can see—I stand to be corrected about that. It has come from nowhere for the sake of convenience. Therefore, the idea that we extend the franchise for local government, which may or may not be a good idea, has not been subject to proper scrutiny. No one in Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom has had an opportunity to discuss the merits of it: there has been no consultation. As my noble friend Lord Lang pointed out—and has pointed out in the excellent report from the Constitution Committee of this House, which has had to be rushed out in order to meet this timetable, ahead of discussing the draft clauses to which this apparently relates—it is an extraordinary way of doing business.

In the early 1960s, as has already been mentioned, when we changed the franchise from 21 to 18, we did it after having two commissions. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, may take credit for it, as a Labour Government did this. The Labour Government in those days were very concerned about consultation and constitutional propriety and there were two separate commissions created to look at this before the change was made. One was on the age of majority, which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was struggling with. How can it be right to have an age of majority that is different to the age of the franchise? We end up with the absurd position that 16 year-olds are not allowed to go and buy a pint of beer, to buy a packet of cigarettes, or to drive a car; but they are allowed to decide the future Government of their country. They are almost certainly not paying income tax or other taxes apart from indirect taxes; they will not even have a national insurance number when they are required to go on the register, because they will be 15. The national insurance number system, as the Constitution Committee report points out, is the means by which we check the identity of voters for the voters’ roll, so how is that going to work? There is nothing that I can see in the explanatory material provided by the Minister to explain any of this or to deal with the issue of whether 16 year-olds should be able to stand as candidates.

I happen to believe that, if you have the right to vote, you should have the right to stand. It is true that there has been a difference in the past. When I was at St Andrews University with the late Robert Jones—who was in the other place as the Member for West Hertfordshire and died rather prematurely—he stood as a student in St Andrews. He promptly got himself made chairman of the planning committee and started to block the principle of the plans of St Andrews for the expansion of the university, which caused a degree of consternation. It was argued then that a student should not be able to be on the council deciding these matters, but at the time people accepted that if you had the right to vote and participate in the election you should be able to stand as a candidate. This is illustrated by this House: the reason why Members of this House do not have a vote at the forthcoming general election is that we are our own representatives in Parliament. That is the constitutional theory. Therefore, if you are able to vote in the election, it seems to me that you should be able to stand and put forward your views. This is completely muddled.

What on earth are this Government doing? They seem to be making up constitutional change as they go along. They seem to be doing it under electoral pressure from the Scottish Nationalists, and—do you know what?—it does not seem to be working. Ladbrokes will give you very good odds on the SNP winning more than 39 seats in the forthcoming general election. You would not have got these odds before we made this foolish vow in the last minutes of the referendum campaign. This process of appeasement and making it up as you go along is creating instability in our country and feeding those who wish to break our United Kingdom. These are facts.

I have bored the Minister to death on this subject; I have spoken on it before and I warned him that if we introduced the opportunity for 16 year-olds to vote, then it would be argued that other parts of the United Kingdom should get the same. What do we have from this Government on the position in respect of Wales? Do we have a similar provision for the Welsh Assembly? Apparently not: we have a provision that 16 year-olds in Wales might get the vote in order to vote in a referendum on tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly. Where is the logic of that? You would get to vote on tax-raising powers as a 16 year-old when you may not have to pay them but not get to vote for the Members of the Welsh Assembly. However, if you move north of the border you would get the opportunity to vote for the Scottish Parliament because there is consensus among the political parties about this. Why is there a consensus in Scotland? What about England?

What are this Government doing in bringing forward measures based on the Smith commission, which had a narrow remit? Its remit was to consider what was right for Scotland. It did not look at the rest of the United Kingdom or the implications for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

In which case, why on earth are we still retaining the Barnett formula and allowing Scotland to raise its own tax, if the principle was that there was “no detriment” to the rest of the United Kingdom? There was no representation from anyone from the rest of the United Kingdom; it was the political parties in Scotland looking at the position in Scotland.

My noble and learned friend, who is a very clever lawyer, is making a quite separate point. You can look at what is in the interests of Scotland in such a way that it creates no detriment to the rest of the United Kingdom, but that is not the same thing as looking at the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and considering the knock-on implications. That is a matter for this House and, more particularly, the other place but they are being given no opportunity to debate and consider it. In the case of the changes to local government there has been no opportunity for anyone in Scotland, in the Scottish Parliament or anywhere else to consider that.

I return to my point. We had the Smith commission looking at Scotland. Then we had this ludicrous vow made in the last few days of the campaign—after I and many other people had voted, because many people voted by post. It was done without consultation with the party leaders in Scotland, hence the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland resigned and described her party as being treated like a branch office. Our leader Ruth Davidson, who did such an excellent job in the referendum campaign, was not consulted. This was three privy counsellors on the phone, cooking up a scheme. We have not had that style of government, where privy counsellors could consult each other and create legislative change of this kind, since the days of Wolf Hall. We should be very concerned indeed by the way in which this matter has been done and brought forward.

Then we had the childish timetable where the Government were required to respond from September by St Andrew’s Night, and then from St Andrew’s Night we had to have draft clauses by Burns Night. This is pantomime politics. Not only did we have these draft clauses by Burns Night but, a week later, we had the architect—the hero—of saving the union, Gordon Brown, telling us all that what he had produced and agreed by Burns Night was no longer satisfactory and that we needed to do something else. This is riding for trouble. We should consider constitutional matters carefully and they should carry consensus. We should consider the implications for the United Kingdom as a whole. It should never be driven by political expediency or short-term political consideration.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I am enjoying my noble friend’s contribution but, with regard to symbolism, I wonder which has the richer symbolism in what he is referring to. Is it David Cameron not consulting Ruth Davidson in advance of making that joint statement with the other leaders of the UK parties or, in some form of symbolic suggestion, moving the Stone of Scone up to Scotland in 1996 to cross the River Tweed with great fanfare?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am very proud of having taken—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

It is not symbolic at all, is it?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sure the House will get cross with me if I go on much longer but, as the noble Lord has raised the Stone of Scone, the reason that I persuaded the Prime Minister, who in turn persuaded Her Majesty the Queen, that the stone should be returned to Scotland—and the reason it came up as an issue—had nothing whatever to do with any symbolism.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Friday 6th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I support my noble friend in respect of this amendment. Our GDP is forecast to increase by more than 3%, which will mean that more than £400 million extra will have to be spent on overseas aid next year to meet the target. That is at the same time as the Chancellor saying that we are in an age of austerity. Given what the Chancellor said in his Autumn Statement and given the OBR’s projections, government spending as a proportion of GDP—or gross national income, if you prefer that terminology—will have to come down. So, as the OBR has highlighted, even health spending will come down as a proportion of GDP. If the Bill goes through unamended, the percentage of government spending that goes on overseas aid will have to keep rising rather than remain constant. Is that the intention—that the spending on overseas development aid not only should be ring-fenced and given special status but should always rise as a proportion of overall government spending? I believe that my noble friend’s amendment addresses that particular anomaly, and I look forward to hearing from the sponsor of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, as to whether that is indeed his intention.

I do not want to detain the House. I just say to the Front Benches that I think that it is absolutely outrageous that the business was changed and that we are dealing with these very important matters at 4 pm on a Friday afternoon, particularly since this is apparently a Private Member’s Bill. I look forward to citing these precedents in future regarding other Private Members’ Bills. If the Government think that this will in some way prevent the House from having an opportunity for all Members to be here to debate these matters, they have another thing coming. There is another stage, Report, when I hope we will be able to discuss these matters more fully. On that basis, I leave it at that in respect of this amendment.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, the whole concept of seeking to add legislative exceptions to the UK meeting its international obligations, in comparison with other levels of expenditure choices that any Government of the day may make, is not consistent either with our undertaking to meet the 0.7% target or with the Bill. That alone would be sufficient reason for me not to accept the amendment, but there are two others.

The first is that the amendment does not make clear what “health spending” means. Is it health spending in England? Is it United Kingdom health spending? Is it health and social protection? Is it health and social care? Is it current health expenditure or health capital expenditure? The second proposed new paragraph of the amendment refers to education: is it education across all nations of the United Kingdom? I need not go on, other than to highlight the deficiency of the amendment.

The second reason is that the amendment is slightly confusing. I suspect that if I had accepted previous amendments for only one report over a five-year period, this amendment could not have been moved because it calls for annual reporting, which the mover of the amendment said was not an appropriate way to go forward because there should be a single five-year report.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My noble friend will have an opportunity to sum up this short debate. I am sure that, in his argument, he will do the best he can to defend what is an indefensible amendment.

Our legislation needs to be robust. Therefore, I think that the amendment is deficient in comparison with the 2006 Act and its reporting mechanisms—to which no one putting forward amendments has yet referred—and with the OECD DAC’s clear areas of reporting.

Finally, I addressed the points that my noble friend Lord Forsyth made before the break in proceedings today. Just because noble friends do not agree with my propositions, it does not necessarily mean that I have not answered the questions. Nevertheless, with what I hope is clarification regarding the deficiencies of the amendment and why I cannot accept it, in that spirit, I hope the mover will withdraw it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord has been asked two specific questions. One was asked by my noble friend, which was whether the Bill is a paper tiger and there is no sanction on any Secretary of State if they do not meet the target, other than that they must produce a report explaining why. With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think he answered it. All he has to say is, “Yes, that’s right”.

The second question I put to him was: is he really content to have the effect of this Bill in an era where public expenditure is being restrained? We hope that the economy will start to grow; the effect of the Bill will be that spending on development aid will rise as a proportion of overall government expenditure, unlike any other programme.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

In maintaining our target of 0.7% of GNI, it is perfectly clear what profile GNI will have with the profile of expenditure. That is part of our undertaking. That is not being introduced by the Bill. This is where my difficulty is with my noble friend. The Bill is not introducing that concept; the United Kingdom has adopted that concept over many years and Governments, including the Government of which he was a member. As referred to earlier, it is regrettably the case that while my noble friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer the United Kingdom was meeting only 0.26%, as my noble friend Lady Chalker indicated at Second Reading. Indeed, in the Government that my noble friends were part of, the United Kingdom was the sixth largest contributor to aid. We are now the second largest. I consider that something that the United Kingdom should be proud of, but maybe the noble Lords are in sincere disagreement on that.

I turn to the second aspect of the legislative basis. I said to my noble friend that the legislative basis is clear on the duties on Ministers in the Bill and the duty of accountability that Ministers have to Parliament. That is perfectly consistent with, for example, the legislation that my noble friend supported—the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. That established the Charter for Budget Responsibility and placed duties on Ministers to report to Parliament, with Parliament holding them to account and the electorate deciding whether Parliament was doing its job. The Bill does not deviate from that approach; it is consistent with parliamentary accountability and ministerial duties.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Again, can the noble Lord answer the question that I asked him? Is he content to have a situation as a consequence of the Bill where the proportion of government expenditure that goes on overseas aid rises while it does not rise for other programmes? That would be the effect of what he is proposing.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I referred to the very useful Library paper which shows that the UK’s contribution to development aid since the 1980s has gone up in absolute terms and, of course, as a proportion of overall expenditure. That is clear and it is something of which I, as a Liberal Democrat, am proud. It means that we have met our international obligations that were set many years ago, and we can now see a more reliable and predictable trend for that expenditure going forward. I take delight in answering my noble friend’s question because it is something that I am proud of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, as I hope that the House will appreciate, the sponsors of the Bill are responsible for drafting. I know that my noble friends will have read the report of both Committee and Report in another place, where those points were raised and responded to. My right honourable friend Michael Moore was perfectly clear in another place when he said that when he first proposed the Bill and consulted on it, it was an open, public consultation. At that time, he said in another place:

“I said on Second Reading that I thought the independent international development office proposed to fulfil the important function set out in the Bill was a good model, but that I was open to suggestions as to how it might be improved”.—[Official Report, Commons, International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill Committee, 11/11/14; col. 35.]

Far from it being either mysteriously changed or rushed, there was proper parliamentary scrutiny in another place at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, where the Government did not accept the amendments proposed by Mr Nuttall, et cetera, because it was felt that there was a more effective way to answer the valid points that my noble friend Lord MacGregor has cited. Let me turn to them.

What is the fundamental question that the Bill is asking? In addition to the 2006 legislation, is there for the first time independent evaluation of the value for money of United Kingdom ODA? The Bill will afford that. It goes further. It states that there is a duty on the Government to come to Parliament to explain annually how that independent evaluation is being carried out. That answers the second question raised: not only is there provision for independent evaluation but Parliament will be receiving from government, on an annual basis, how that independent evaluation is carried out. Subsection (2) is a considerable safeguard to Parliament for effective scrutiny of the independent evaluation.

This means that we come to whether a new body is created or ICAI is put on a statutory footing. When we look at all the consideration of how this independent evaluation can be carried out, not necessarily but potentially by one body and informed by the National Audit Office or other bodies, I think it is right that the Bill simply states that the principle for that evaluation will be carried out with flexibility as to what body or bodies will carry out that function. It is important that Parliament should have the ability to scrutinise properly that independent evaluation and how it is carried out. As the sponsor in this place, I cannot accept the amendment but I understand why my noble friend spoke to it. I believe that the elements in the Bill afford that protection.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

It has been a pleasure to allow my noble friend to intervene on me today, so I would be churlish to prevent that pleasure.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for answering the question which the Minister did not answer in respect of Clause 5(2). He is saying that the Secretary of State will produce an annual report on how he or she is being evaluated. That is not independent scrutiny and reporting. What is needed is an independent body which looks at the department and reports to Parliament, not to the Secretary of State. It is very helpful that the noble Lord should have answered this point because he is saying that Clause 5 effectively says, “The Secretary of State will decide who is going to hold him or her accountable for the programme of overseas development aid, then the Secretary of State will on an annual basis report to Parliament on how well the people reporting on him are doing”. That is a nonsense.

[Baroness Northover]

Do noble Lords have the Bill here? Perhaps my noble friend might bear in mind that the Secretary of State already has to make an annual report to Parliament, under previous legislation. Clause 5(1) says that:

“The Secretary of State must make arrangements for … independent evaluation”,

which is what we have been talking about and is indeed extremely important. Clause 5(2) says that:

“The Secretary of State must include in each annual report”—

the annual report that the Secretary of State is giving to Parliament—

“a statement as to how he or she has complied with the duty under subsection (1)”;

in other words, that the independent scrutiny of ODA has been carried out and that it is 0.7%. I think that the noble Lord is missing the point about the annual report, which is already in legislation and which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, I will of course allow my noble friend to intervene on my noble friend who intervened on my noble friend intervening on me.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the Minister. She says that the Secretary of State has to make an annual report, which is correct, and that the annual report will enable people to look at how well they are complying with the 0.7% and the rest.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Friday 6th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

In which case my noble friend got it right and that is what we will discuss. If we are to talk about the target, that is what I want to address. My understanding of the Bill and its genesis—the idea was included in our manifesto as something that we would do in the first Session of this Parliament; the timetable has slipped a little—was that we wanted to enshrine in statute the UN target of 0.7%. That is what I thought we were trying to do. The UN resolution made in 1970 in respect of the target that we are apparently signing up to said:

“In recognition of the special importance of the role which can be fulfilled only by official development assistance, a major part of financial resource transfers to the developing countries should be provided in the form of official development assistance. Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 per cent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the Decade”.

That would have been in 1975, so we are some 40 years behind that deadline. I point out that the target was 0.7% of “gross national product”, but the Bill before us sets a target for a percentage of gross national income. That is not the same thing.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I apologise to the noble Lord. With that point, is he now addressing Amendment 2, which is in a separate group?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

No, but I will do so at length—I keep being interrupted—when we get to Amendment 2. I am simply making the point that the target set in the Bill is not the target set by the UN. On a later amendment, we can discuss the implications of that.

My second point is that if we are to put “a” duty on the Secretary of State or whether the Secretary of State has “the” duty in respect of “a” target or “the” target—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord referred to me but he has misrepresented what I said. I did not say that the UN target was ridiculous. I said that the target in the Bill is not the UN target because the UN target is related to GDP and not to gross national income. If that sounds like a ridiculous point—which we can deal with later in our consideration of the Bill—I would offer an example. Luxembourg might be held to have met the target on the basis of GNI, but on the basis of GDP it would have met 50% of the target.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

Yes; and indeed that seems a very tempting preview of the debate on the next amendment. My noble friend Lord Forsyth will no doubt make that point then.

The United Kingdom has given an undertaking to meet the 0.7% target. In 1970, that related to gross national product; now, it relates to gross national income. The target has been further developed by the OECD Development Assistance Committee, which recognises that this is indeed the international standard to meet. It is therefore a mature, settled and respected target in an undertaking which the United Kingdom has given over many decades to meet. It is with considerable pride that we have met it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

What are we doing here? Are we passing law that affects what the United Kingdom will do in terms of its contribution to overseas aid, making that as stable a target as possible, or are we using legislation to make some declaratory statement about what we are doing internationally? It is very important to recognise the difference between the two. As the mover of this Bill, is my noble friend really saying that he prefers a measure that enables countries such as Luxembourg to appear to meet the target, whereas if they were subject to GDP they would have to contribute almost twice as much? Is he really saying that he is happy with that situation?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

We are making law and debating an amendment that proposes a change to the Bill. I have explained why that would not be appropriate and why we operate under our system of national accounts, which we adopted 20 years ago when my noble friend was a Cabinet Minister. On that basis, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I have obviously not satisfied my noble friend, but with the clarification provided on the first element, I will give way to him.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am rather alarmed by that, because I thought that I must be misreading the Bill, because I asked: am I right that all the Bill does is require the Secretary of State to reach a particular target, and if he does not reach the target, to come to Parliament to say, “I have not reached it because actually, the economy is in a bad way”, but then there is no redress for those outside? If you had a Government who did not wish to meet the 0.7% target, all that the Minister has to do is to come along and say, “I am not going to meet the target, because I think that the economy is in great difficulty”. If that is what the Bill says, I do not think that that is what the noble Lord has put on the tin.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

It is not just what is on the tin but what is in the Bill. I am a proud parliamentarian. I take very seriously my role of scrutinising and holding government to account. It is the duty of Ministers and DfID to bring information to Parliament and for Parliament to do its job. Parliament is perfectly capable of calling Ministers to account; it has in the past, and I am proud to be part of the process to do that in future. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate, particularly that last confirmation from the proposer of the Bill. Many people outside—indeed, many people in both Houses—believed that the Bill guaranteed that 0.7% of GDP would be spent on overseas development aid. Many of those who spoke on Second Reading appeared to believe that that was the case. This is a public relations exercise to tell us that that is what the Bill does. If, as many of us do, we want considerable resources to be made available for development aid, it seems to me perverse as part of that exercise to put in place a system of targets which need to be met in one year rather than five years which, as we have argued at great length this morning, would result in damage to ensuring value for money and proper accountability.

In his response the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out that much of the development aid goes into multilateral programmes. That is true; a minority of the aid goes on emergency relief and disaster—less than 10%, I believe. It is a small proportion. Many people believe that that is what we are discussing when we talk about £11 billion being spent, when only just more than £1 billion is actually going on that purpose. We are talking about development aid here, and a large part of that goes to other agencies such as the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not know whether the noble Baroness shares my concern, but she is quite right that it was a government decision—and I think it is a foolish government decision to say that we are going to hugely increase the money and the programmes being provided while greatly reducing the people who are going to be responsible for seeing that the money is well spent. Perhaps we might come on to that at a later stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, made an impassioned plea and told the House that he was very concerned that the discussions which we are having about accountability and value for money would be misrepresented outside this House. I have to say that for him to have tweeted that,

“Lord Forsyth clearly enjoys fillibustering and denying with weasel words the needs of the poorest”,

is really unworthy of him. I think that I have raised nearly £100,000 for women in India. The noble Lord should not question our motives. It should be obvious from the speeches made and the amendments which are being considered that the intention here is to provide flexibility for the department to use scarce resources wisely.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

In a second. Indeed, the promoter of the Bill at Second Reading in the other place, Michael Moore, said that it was a duty to all constituents, who he pointed out were struggling in the current economic climate, to advocate what is in the best interests of our country—and I agree with that.

I remind people, when they are talking about spending 0.7% of GDP, that this is not money that we have—it is money that we are borrowing. The proposition here is that we borrow money in order to make a commitment. If you are borrowing money in order to spend it, at the very least you should be absolutely certain that you are getting a sensible return on it, and recognise that you are passing on the burden to the next generation—because borrowing is simply taxation deferred. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.