Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the latest issue of Private Eye reported that, in the tax year 2013-14, there were 11,000 property purchases in the UK using tax-haven companies. Confirming that this issue was discussed, the Minister said that we need to open up beneficial ownership so that criminal assets can be seized before they are moved out of the reach and jurisdiction of the UK Government. This morning, the Minister spoke only of an agreement to create central registries, and did not mention the words in the final communiqué about “similarly effective systems”. Has there been agreement from all overseas territories with financial centres to create central registries, or have some agreed only to “similarly effective systems”? If so, which ones?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, this is clearly a work in progress, and progress has been made. I have seen the flow chart showing where red and orange have gone to green, and progress has been achieved. The noble Lord asked about similarly effective systems. It may be that in some of the jurisdictions a centrally-held register is not seen as the best way forward. However, we have made clear that, in working in partnership with the overseas territories, it is important to have good governance and transparency. As my honourable friend said this morning, the discussions that have taken place over the past two days have been set out in the communiqué, and all the territories with financial services sectors agreed to hold beneficial-ownership information in their respective jurisdictions via central registers or similarly effective systems. We then said that we would give the highest priority to discussing how to take that forward, and I hope that we will then be in a better position to give the exact details that the noble Lord requests.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, who, with her great experience in the European Parliament, knows all about gaming the system. I am coming on to the point about gaming the system because we have already had examples. My friend and former colleague from the other place, Sir Eric Pickles, has already written to the Electoral Commission saying that the leave campaign should not be designated because it had upset the CBI at its conference and sought to expose that it was one-sided.

If we have those sorts of games being played, where people try to knock out one campaign in order to allow another campaign an advantage, that is gaming the system. This amendment makes it effective because it means that if people were able to persuade the Electoral Commission not to designate a campaign on one side, the other side would have considerable advantage, including even more expenses to spend on the campaign than are already provided in the Bill.

I am disappointed that my noble friend is not seeking to press his amendment. It is of course a matter for the House but I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister how she believes it will be possible to deal with complaints if those who wish to stay win by a very narrow margin and people argue that it was an unfair campaign because one side was allowed to spend far more than the other.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the government amendment. It addresses the specific issue of gaming in the unlikely event that a group of people tried to disadvantage one side or the other, by addressing the facilities that are given to designated lead campaigns. Under PPERA, those lead campaigns are given certain opportunities to communicate to the electorate. What the amendment does not do, quite rightly, is stop other voices.

I get the impression from the debates we have had on the Bill that somehow we are all going to be corralled into one campaign or the other. I think it very unlikely that the leave campaign will stop UKIP—or any other political, campaign or community group—expressing its opinions. I hope the referendum will result in a multiplicity of voices that cannot be legislated for or corralled. I welcome the amendment and the way in which the Government have addressed this particular risk, which is now minimised.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

I will make one very brief point in support of my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s point that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, have been on a roll over the past several occasions. We had the example where it was said that something called objective data could be put out about the whole thing, and that of course is the deception enabling one side to put across its point of view. That amendment was not accepted. Now we have this, which again is done in the guise of fairness, but as my noble friend has pointed out, could have the effect of being very unfair. So it is the case that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has been on a roll with his amendments and we should bear that in mind when we come to further amendments.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I, too, would like to say some words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Green. He says that we have to level with the public on this and I think that is absolutely right. Net migration into this country last year was 330,000 people. That is a very large number of people. I totally accept that perhaps only half of them came from the EU but this is certainly something that we have to address.

I am particularly interested, as was the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in Amendment 27. I would like to know from my noble friend the Minister exactly what the mechanics are with regard to people who have come from outside as part of this refugee crisis into somewhere such as France, who then apply for a French passport, which then enables them to come to the United Kingdom under the free movement of labour. Can she fill us in about how this process takes place? This is obviously an extremely worrying aspect of these migration flows. At the moment we are in a position to say that we are not members of Schengen and we can probably do something not to have to accept any of these people. But of course, if they are given European passports, that is rather a different story. Can she give us an insight into her understanding of this process?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Green, mainly because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, they are highly speculative, impossible to calculate, unpredictable, and not based on factual information that the Government have. Confusing the free movement of labour with migration and simply putting everyone in together will not lead to a rational debate.

The free movement of labour has been an important component of the EU. Certainly, people have come here to work. Where they have not come here to work, the Government have been addressing those issues in terms of the benefits system, as the Labour Party has also committed to do.

I have no doubt that in the course of this referendum campaign, the noble Lords, Lord Green and Lord Willoughby de Broke, will repeat what they have said. They will make this issue part of the referendum campaign and I will take great pleasure in making sure that other voices are heard in that debate which challenge some of the assumptions about migration. But for the purposes of the EU referendum campaign, it is wrong to confuse the free movement of labour with migration, and it certainly is not capable of being subject to a rational report.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, Amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, would create a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to publish two very specific reports no later than 12 weeks before the date of the referendum, and to lay these reports before each House of Parliament.

The first of the reports, in Amendment 26, would focus on the effect that remaining in the European Union would have on net migration to the United Kingdom. The second would include information on access to citizenship for non-EU citizens within member states. As I have set out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, just alluded to, the Government have come forward with amendments designed to provide information that is as useful as possible to the public, ensuring that they are able to make an informed choice. In addition, these reports should be appropriate for the Government rather than the kinds of reports that campaigning groups or other groups not related to the campaign might commonly issue in any event. We have said throughout that whatever the Government produce in the way of reports must be objective and grounded in fact.

The Government already publish information on migration issues in this country. The Home Office issues a quarterly release of immigration statistics from administrative sources. These statistics are complemented by the Migration Statistics Quarterly Report of the Office for National Statistics. Indeed, I understand that the next set of figures is due to be published this Thursday. In addition, the Office for National Statistics periodically publishes quantitative projections, looking at future figures and trends. That is it—they look at the likely future figures and trends. The Government should publish only reports that are grounded in fact and objective.

The wording of Amendment 26 is clearly speculative, because it asks the Government to publish,

“a report on the impact of continued membership of the European Union on the scale of net migration to the United Kingdom and its consequential effect on the future population of the United Kingdom”.

One can speculate on that, but one cannot provide statistical information grounded in fact that would guide the public in a non-directional way about how to vote in a referendum. I understand the noble Lord’s concern, but there are ways in which information is already provided, and it is better provided by others rather than by a statutory requirement on the Government.

On Amendment 27, my noble friend Lord Hamilton raised the issue of free movement. The amendment asks the Government to lay a report giving information,

“on the current length of time taken for people who are not European Union citizens to acquire citizenship in each member state”.

That in itself is not information to which the Government would have right of access, so I am not sure how a statutory requirement could be placed upon us. The amendment also asks us to report on,

“the extent of free movement within the European Union that accompanies such citizenships and accrues to family members of those citizens”.

Again, this is a matter of reporting on the law of other countries rather than conditions in this country. My noble friend Lord Hamilton raised a serious point about migration, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that in his negotiations with our European colleagues—the other 27 states—one of his four requirements is that there should be reform of the impact of migration, particularly as it relates to welfare law.

I am afraid that my noble friend will have to wait a little while before we have a debate on exactly what the impact of the law on free movement is. But I am sure that the usual channels will arrange good opportunities for debate, because if they do not, the Government will not be able to set out our case—which we need to do. I feel confident that the usual channels will be there first, before I can even ask. I understand the concerns underlying the amendments. I hope that I have been able to explain why it would be inappropriate for them to go into the Bill—but also why their content will, indeed, be the focus of much debate, not just by Government and by Parliament but by all the campaigning groups. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Green, to withdraw his amendment.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I do not disagree with him, but it reinforces the point of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that we need equality of financing, however that may be achieved. That is up to the Government, I hope, in spite of the Electoral Commission’s worst efforts. We do not seem to be getting anywhere with the Electoral Commission so the Government ought to take this amendment seriously and look at how they can reallocate the financing arrangements so that both the ins and the outs have the same amount of money to spend. It is not, as they say, rocket science. It is actually quite simple to do. That will eliminate the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, expressed, that either side may have cause for complaint at the end of the referendum. There has to be equality of financing so I very much support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am going to repeat some of the arguments I made in Committee because I think that this amendment is basically doing the same thing.

There is an assumption behind the contributions we have heard so far that we are dealing with a pot of money. We are not. We are dealing with a spending limit. We are not dealing with an allocation of funds that should be distributed fairly. Perhaps we could do that. I have not heard many noble Lords opposite support state funding of political parties, but that is the only way to guarantee fairness.

I am really surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. Let us say the leave campaign got all the money in, spent the upper limit and then it was discovered that UKIP spent more than the limit. UKIP would then have to give all its money back. That is the reality. You are trying to set a limit when you do not even know who is going to be participating in the campaign.

First, it is not a pot of money to be spent. Secondly, this referendum is not going to be fought by just two sides. Political parties, civil society, trade unions, churches and other groups that have an opinion will not keep their mouths shut simply because the Conservative Party is unsure of what position it will take as a whole. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is correct that this whole thing about registration and the Conservative Party not registering is more to do with the state of the Conservative Party than the rights and wrongs of how the referendum campaign should be conducted.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not know whether the noble Lord has had a chance to read my amendment, which is completely different from that which he made a speech about in Committee. But I am following his argument so would I be right in deducing that he would be quite happy to have no limits at all?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

No, I would not because the Electoral Commission is trying to address quite a complex situation. A referendum is not a usual situation. Political activity in this country is predominantly, although not wholly, through political parties, and PPERA sets out all kinds of constraints and limitations on donations. It has created an environment of transparency, and spending limits.

My view is that spending limits are not particularly effective in establishing a level playing field, particularly when they are set so high and no one can ever reach them. That is why we have quite big imbalances in general elections. That is why the Conservative Party regularly outspends the Labour Party: it has at least 300 people who can give more than £50,000 a year to the party, which I suspect is why the party has in the past supported a cap of £50,000 on donations. Personally, I think the smaller the cap the fairer it becomes. You would then have to look at how to replace that money and what mechanisms to use to ensure that there is an allocation of public funds on a fair basis—hence, I suspect, why the Electoral Commission is using that methodology.

The fact is that spending limits are not the whole picture. What the Electoral Commission is trying to say to us is that the “remain” and “leave” campaigns are not the only participants. We are not going to silence everyone else in this referendum. We are not going to say to civil society, “You have no right to speak”, and we are certainly not going to say to UKIP, “By the way, you will have no right to spend money in this campaign unless it is through the official ‘leave’ campaign”. I do not think that it would tolerate that or accept it—I would not—but that would be the effect of the noble Lord’s amendment. We cannot be certain of what other people will be spending and we do not know the number of participants.

The rules should not be used to reduce the number of participants. That would be unfair and not democratic. I do not want to bang on too much about this, as I have given sufficient reasons why we will not be supporting this amendment, but it is clear that the amount of money available will not be determined by rules set out in the Bill. It will be determined by people donating and raising money. I do not think that even the Conservative Party, if it said that it would register, could put its hands on £20 million that easily. I certainly know that the Labour Party cannot put its hands on £9 million that easily. We have to understand that these are mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability but they will not necessarily deliver fairness because the campaign is not designed that way.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

The noble Lord says that the Labour Party cannot lay its hands on £9 million to fight the referendum. Why does he take this depressing view? Are there not a very large number of business people out there who are passionate to stay in the EU? They would be more than happy to finance the Labour Party, even if they are not Labour supporters. As long as the money goes into the “stay in” campaign, they would not care what label it comes under. Why is the noble Lord taking this despondent view that the Labour Party will not be able to raise the money?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I am not taking a despondent view. The Labour Party will no doubt raise a lot of money through a lot of individuals, as it does at every general election, and it will account for that. For me, the most important element of this referendum campaign is about who is donating—to have transparency on how much—not the idea that we should limit the campaign. This amendment would in effect limit the number of participants. I repeat the point about UKIP: if the “leave” campaign spends the limit laid out in this amendment, what is left for UKIP to spend? What if it has already spent it? Does it then have to hand all the money back?

The fact of the matter is that this campaign will be about a range of voices. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, talked about the 1975 campaign. I was a participant in that campaign and there were a lot of different voices in it. There were certainly voices that did not share the same platform; I think that will be true of this referendum campaign. The policy of the Labour Party and its views about the future of the European Union are not necessarily those of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party. There will be different views and expressions of what they hope for the future, and we have to make sure that this referendum campaign is able to hear those different views. We should not have rules that limit it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

But my noble friend is the Government. It is not necessary to rely on the provisions in the PPERA legislation. It would be perfectly possible to put in place arrangements with regard to expenditure that ensured fairness. Once this legislation is in place, if it remains as it is, throughout the whole campaign I certainly will be arguing that it has been rigged in a way that gives an advantage to people who wish to stay in the European Union. I can understand why the Labour Party may feel at the moment that it may not be able to get lots of funding from people, but there will be people who will see this as an opportunity to provide more resource for what they believe to be an appropriate decision for the country. If we end up with limits that have the perverse effect of giving one side more funds than the other, it will be a source of grievance throughout the campaign—and if we end up with a close result, as has already been pointed out, people will argue that the result was bought and that it was unfair.

I understand the difficulties from the Government’s point of view, but to argue that legislation that was passed in 2000, which was thinking of referenda where, by their very nature, political parties would be divided, as opposed to this European issue where the first referendum was about sorting out the problems in a divided Labour Party—

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Now it is your turn.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not think the noble Lord is in a very good position to talk about divided political parties at the moment. If I were him, I would keep my head down on that subject.

It is very disappointing that my noble friend is not able to respond, and I hope that she may give further thought to this and that the vastly expensive Electoral Commission with its vast resources may be able to be a little more constructive than saying that it is all a political problem for which it has no responsibility. I will reluctantly withdraw the amendment because I do not think that if I divided the House at present it would be much appreciated by my noble friends or anyone else, but the response is very unsatisfactory and I think it will be a source of grievance unless it is addressed before this Bill reaches the statute book. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I regret that some Members of this House appear to regard the European Commission as a malign force that is out to do down the United Kingdom. Jonathan Faull is head of the task force sent by the Commission to negotiate the renegotiation with the United Kingdom, which is an entirely legitimate and useful thing to do. I have no doubt that our free press will be very watchful if the Commission does anything in the referendum that is seen by the Telegraph or the Mail as overstepping the mark.

I want to say something that links this amendment with the one we will be coming to next, which is about impermissible external funds. I am very conscious that the Russian Government are supporting a number of right-wing parties in other countries in western Europe, and that Russia is the only major state which is thoroughly in favour of Britain’s leaving the European Union. I am not in any sense suggesting that funds have begun to pass in any direction to anyone. However, when I was in government and involved in the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, we were much concerned about funds from other countries—from right-wing sources in the United States, for example—coming to various campaigning bodies in this country. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, touches on that issue.

Of course, we have to be concerned that this is a British debate and a British campaign, and that applies to all external actors. I think all of us agree that the Commission needs act extremely carefully. On the other hand, other Governments within the European Union will have their say, because they have national interests which they will wish to express. Therefore, the question of how we play this game—whether we would regard an intervention by the German Chancellor or the Dutch Prime Minister as untoward—is the sort of issue we will no doubt discuss. On the finances, we will wish to police this very carefully, but let us not go over the top. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, sometimes gives the impression that the enemy lies in Brussels and threatens to subvert our national sovereignty.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, hit the nail on the head when he said that transparency is key here. Obviously, the European Commission is acutely aware that any perception of interference in this referendum will have the opposite effect to what it intends.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

The EU intervened on the Lisbon treaty referendum in Ireland, and the Irish passed it. The EU intervened for three years on trying to get Croatia into the EU, and Croatia came into the EU. It intervened in those two cases very successfully. Why should it change its spots and not intervene in this one?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Precisely because of the point that I make: I suspect that such intervention will have completely the opposite effect, whereas in Ireland perhaps it even encouraged people. I do not think that that will be the case here. If there is seen to be interference, people will see it that way and will not be very happy.

I am grateful to the Minister for circulating the correspondence on this, including the commitment by the Commission. Obviously, it states that it will carry out its treaty obligations, but in no way will it be involved in anything that could be perceived as interference in a matter that is strictly for the British people and the British Government—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on that.

Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I think that there is a legitimate point here that needs to be properly addressed—he should not look so surprised that I agree with him; I suspect that we agree on a lot of things. The point is that we have an offence where the sanction is in a way paid by the victim, which does not make sense. The Electoral Commission does not agree with the formulation because it does not want to accept such a responsibility. In Committee, I referred to sanctions other than judicial review that could be considered in relation to individuals. In all walks of life, people are subject to such sanctions. In the case of public office and civil servants, there is the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code. I would be keen to hear from the noble Baroness whether she has given any thought since Committee to how we can have a regime where, if an offence is committed, the perpetrator pays the cost and not the victim.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, Amendment 13, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hamilton, relates to the role of the EU institutions during the referendum. It follows the wording of a similar amendment that my noble friend tabled in Committee. The concern that he and other noble friends have expressed is that EU institutions may have an undue influence on the outcome of the referendum.

Although there are differing views on that, it is no doubt a legitimate concern and certainly one which the Government share. This is a referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the European Union. It is therefore clear that the impression of outside interference or direct campaigning by overseas bodies with a vested interest would undermine public trust in the outcome. It would also be completely counterproductive; I think that people would see through it.

That is why the Government have ensured that sensible controls will apply on who can spend money to influence the referendum and how they can be funded. Some 44 of the Bill’s 62 pages relate to exactly these issues.

Campaigners at the referendum can accept money only from individuals or bodies who have a sufficient connection to the UK or to Gibraltar. In Committee, I went through in detail issues relating to permitted donors and permitted participants—I think that it would be wrong if I tried to go through that again on Report.

As the EU institutions are not eligible donors, a permitted participant would be committing an offence if they accepted money from the EU institutions to campaign. I should re-emphasise that permitted participants cannot accept donations of more than £500 from EU institutions. In part, therefore, my noble friend’s amendment is unnecessary.

The amendment has another arm to it, which applies directly to the EU institutions and would prevent them actively engaging in campaigning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Because it seems to me that if it did not include the European Union and the European Commission, it would make something of a nonsense of the argument that he put forward. Perhaps my noble friend could indicate what the position is.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I have one brief question relating to Gibraltar. Political parties currently are not permitted to accept donations from Gibraltar, but when the Bill becomes enforceable they will be if it is for the purposes of the referendum. I want to understand how the amendment will impact in particular on the changes relating to Gibraltar.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, relates to the controls that apply to donations received by campaigners. I was asked about the European Commission. As I explained in Committee, one of the technical issues is that permitted participants in these matters are individuals and bodies that intend to spend more than £10,000 on campaigning during the referendum period and so register with the Electoral Commission. The European Commission cannot be a permitted participant. If it were to spend money outside the campaign and in Europe, there are controls over where it can give that money and how it can give it. For example, there is a prohibition on accepting donations of more than £500 from an ineligible source, so people cannot accept money from it.

I was going to try to reduce the amount that I would read out at this late hour, but it looks as though I am being sucked back into doing exactly that. Perhaps I ought to try to address more closely Amendment 14 itself.

In considering the amendment, two questions have to be asked: is there a problem, and, if yes, does the amendment provide the solution? To the first question the answer is not straightforward, which is why the noble Lord tabled the amendment. He has done so after discussion with the Electoral Commission. It may come as a bit of a surprise to see this briefing from the Electoral Commission at such a late stage, particularly because I notice that my noble friend Lord Forsyth has been trying to get other information and has not been given the opportunity to obtain that. All I can say is that this briefing from the Electoral Commission that we have all seen arrived at about quarter to 12 in noble Lords’ in-boxes yesterday. The Electoral Commission has suggested that the rules are unclear. As I remarked earlier, it is 15 years since PPERA became an Act. Over that period, all the conditions which the Electoral Commission now calls into doubt have been operating. Therefore, it is rather a surprise that these matters have been raised at this stage, but there you go.

The conditions in PPERA applied for the AV referendum and were replicated, through an Act of the Scottish Parliament, for the Scottish independence referendum, and nobody called them into question then. Indeed, at that stage, guidance from the Electoral Commission itself clearly and accurately explained the rules to campaigners in Scotland. Furthermore, the commission’s own report on the Scottish independence referendum noted that it provided,

“a model that can be built on for any future referendums”.

Despite that, as noble Lords will note, the Electoral Commission’s briefing supports this amendment because the commission now has concerns about the rules. We have to take those concerns seriously because that is the whole point of trying to have rules upon which a fair referendum is to be based. The concerns relate to the fact that PPERA does not prevent campaigners accepting donations before they register as permitted participants, if the donation would have been impermissible after registration. If noble Lords consider that this is a problem, it must then be asked: is Amendment 14 the solution? Here the answer is clearly no for three reasons. First, it goes too far. The amendment would apply to donations received by any individual or organisation, regardless of whether or not they are, or later become, a permitted participant. At any point prior to the referendum, anyone, regardless of the size of the donation or the amount they will spend, could commit this new criminal offence. This really would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Secondly, the amendment is unworkable. It would create an offence of allowing the use of money received from an impermissible source to meet referendum expenses. Currently, the rules do not require campaigners to track what each pound received is spent on. This is for a good reason, as attempting to do so would be a herculean task in administrative time. It would only ever create an arbitrary link between money in and money out. I find it difficult to imagine how that might be accurately assessed. How would anyone be able to prove that the £1,000 a campaigner received from a particular source was the exact same £1,000 spent on referendum expenses several months later? How could it work for charities and other organisations that receive donations from all over the world for different reasons? Clearly, that matter would have to be looked at if the amendment is to be put right but, as the amendment stands, it does not work.

The fundamental changes that Amendment 14 would introduce would begin to unstitch the fundamental principles that apply in PPERA, in particular the purposes of having a referendum period and permitted participants. These are all concepts which, to date, have been accepted by Parliament and endorsed by the Electoral Commission, and have provided the framework for well-controlled referendums in the UK.

The Government had questioned the whole issue of the potential for concern over donations received prior to registration. That is the kind of questioning one has to do. That is why we have required reporting ahead of the poll in the Bill, following the approach taken at the Scottish independence referendum. Where PPERA provides only for permitted participants to report on donations after the poll, the Bill also requires them to report publicly before the poll on donations received. That has two benefits. First, registered campaigners must be transparent about the sources of their funding before the vote takes place. More significantly in this context, the reports must detail reportable donations received during a set reporting period, even if received prior to that campaigner becoming a permitted participant—because you can change from being a campaigner to being a permitted participant—provided the donation was for the purposes of meeting referendum expenses during the referendum period.

This gives a flavour of how complicated this issue is. This approach works within the existing framework and maintains a proportionate approach to controlling campaign funding. Given the concern over the influence of overseas funding, we believe that having to report all these matters immediately prior to the referendum would act as a deterrent in most cases, even though the rules do not seek to regulate everybody at all times. It does mean that if you become a permitted participant, money received prior to that point from a source that would be impermissible once you had registered would have to be publicly declared before the referendum took place.

I come back to the underlying principle that it is important to ensure that there is transparency and that the transparency requirements imposed by pre-poll reporting are as effective as they can be. In the light of the noble Lord’s concerns, I give an undertaking that the Government will look again at how the controls on pre-poll reporting work to deliver the appropriate level of transparency, balanced with a sensible compliance burden. We will consider these matters but they are complicated and technical. I cannot promise to come back with something that actually works but we will do our best.

In coming up with its proposals, the Electoral Commission has diagnosed what it now sees to be a problem but has not found the solution in its amendment. I therefore hope that at this stage, with the commitment I have given to look at this very closely, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will withdraw his amendment. Of course, I undertake to work with him between now and Third Reading to see what can be achieved on these matters.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am fascinated by these two amendments and by the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, being on both of them. They seem to call for completely different courses of action. I am reminded of the story of a crash between two Concordes in mid-Atlantic, with Henry Kissinger being found in both. The noble Lord should make up his mind. Is he in favour of an impartiality authority and a criminal offence, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra? I am particularly against that one: the creation of a new criminal offence requires a fair amount of thought. Or does he prefer, as I do, his own amendment? Actually, I am not really in favour of either of them. This is all a bit over the top.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments are not so much probing as having a go. Their purpose is clear: this is a warning shot. I was stunned by the telling possibility that, instead of the campaigns themselves determining the issues, we should leave it to the BBC to decide which campaigns were admitted. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord once again rated the Electoral Commission highly. However, the commission has looked at the amendments and said they are unnecessary. Ofcom believes they are overkill and the BBC has also set out how it will develop its own specific guidelines. I have no doubt that the issue of bias will draw attention from both sides during the campaign. Listening to the “Today” programme may annoy me on some occasions and make the noble Lord just as annoyed on others, but we may have heard completely different arguments. It is in the nature of things that we do not approach these issues without bias ourselves. Clearly, we are all committed. The important thing is that provisions to ensure fair reporting of the campaign do exist. The BBC will also set up specific guidelines for the referendum and will constantly run impartiality reviews during the campaign so that it can ensure delivery against its editorial standards. That all happened during the Scottish referendum. These amendments are having a go rather than probing. I hope the Minister will support that view.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, Amendments 60 and 61BA deal with the crucial question of bias. Both noble Lords have made it clear that that is the basis of the views they put forward. How should one and how can one ensure fair and impartial broadcast media coverage? Noble Lords have approached the matter in slightly different ways. However, it is absolutely right that the public will expect and demand of its broadcasters that news and current affairs coverage of the EU referendum and of all other issues should be balanced and impartial, and must enhance the democratic process through informing the public. This will of course be pivotal to the public debate ahead of the referendum. Therefore, it is the right thing to demand.

Given the unique reach and impact that the broadcast media have on our lives, members of the public can and do complain that broadcasters sometimes miss the mark in terms of the impartiality of their coverage and the balance of their output. Certainly, from time to time, there have been errors of judgment. Considering the importance of the media to forming opinions, it is right that we should consider modes of redress where mistakes are adjudged to have been made. These issues are too important to leave such errors to hang unchallenged or uncorrected. However, I do not believe that these amendments are the right way to address the issue.

It is the Government’s position that the existing regulatory framework is robust and well understood, and that the establishment of a new authority in this specific circumstance would not be workable or proportionate. But I do appreciate that noble Lords were trying to draw attention to bias rather than creating new bureaucratic structures.

My noble friend’s Amendment 60 puts a duty on the Electoral Commission to take on the role of establishing a new authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has alluded to, the Electoral Commission does not currently have the power to set up such an authority; nor does it have any expertise in policing the impartiality of broadcasting. That expertise is in the BBC Trust and Ofcom. The Electoral Commission has made it clear that it would not welcome such a role even if it were possible to legislate for it.

Even so, both amendments contain important points which demand serious attention on the matter of bias. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wrote to Ofcom and the BBC Trust on 15 June asking them to explain how, as the responsible regulators, they will look to deliver prompt, proportionate redress where lapses in editorial judgment are adjudged to have been made. Ensuring that redress is made, and made promptly, is, I think, the overriding intent behind the new clauses.

Both the BBC Trust and Ofcom have responded, underlining the strict enforcement of the rules on impartiality and the additional steps that the BBC and Ofcom take to expedite the handling of serious complaints during an election or referendum period. Ofcom also confirmed that it will be reminding broadcasters of their responsibilities ahead of the referendum. If it would be helpful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, I would be happy to supply them with copies of those letters.

Issues, both recent and historic, have been raised over the impartiality of our broadcasters’ coverage of important issues and events. The review of the BBC’s coverage in 2005 by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, highlighted several issues; for example, that the BBC’s coverage needed to be more demonstrably impartial and that while there may have been no deliberate bias in BBC coverage of EU matters, there were perceptions that the BBC suffered from certain forms of cultural and unintentional bias.

Although the BBC implemented several changes following the noble Lord’s report, more recent complaints about the media’s coverage of the election and the Scottish independence referendum, and accusations of bias, have come to light. The speed at which today’s news media move and the potential for content that is not duly impartial to gain, by the very speed of it, an unwelcome, detrimental foothold in the minds of the public, means that we should all recognise the need for prompt, effective redress where mistakes are made.

It is vital to the high regard in which the UK’s broadcasters are held that their independence, impartiality and even-handedness are beyond question. In a world of increasing dominance of state broadcasters in other nations, where blatantly partial voices are gaining increased power and reach, it is critical that the integrity and impartiality of our broadcasters in the UK cannot be called into doubt or undermined. The quality and independence of our news coverage in the UK is a calling card for democracy, and carries huge weight in terms of our soft power abroad. We have debated that in relation to Foreign and Commonwealth Office policy issues over the past year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the Committee for long. I am aware that the last two evenings I have said I would be brief but then was not; this evening, I really do want to be brief. As for Amendment 61, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, the assumption is that we will hear the results by region and possibly by constituency. Therefore, including in the Bill the idea of counting by nation, rather than state or region, is unnecessary—although we will all be delighted to know what the result is in Gibraltar, given that we have spent so much time talking about it. So many of the amendments and briefings seem to talk about Gibraltar.

Amendment 61C is the more substantive. Although it is clearly important that we listen to the views of all four nations—I suspect the Cornish, if they were standing here, would be saying that they wanted to be heard too—and that all parts of the United Kingdom are heard, in practice, as we have heard from most parts of the Chamber, if not from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, this is a vote by the United Kingdom. Amendment 61C seems, in that sense, inappropriate.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, I begin by saying just how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. The question is about the United Kingdom’s membership—there is no other question being asked and therefore the answer will be that we remain or that we leave. There is no doubt about that, but I will pick up just one point.

No matter how tempting it would be for me to enter into a long discussion about the history and politics of Scotland, I will resist that. However, I think the first amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Liddle, is unnecessary. I cannot be certain about the exact process, but what we all want is a very clear, transparent declaration of a result. I can assure all noble Lords that nobody would be satisfied with a computer output saying, “In the United Kingdom, X million voted this way”. We must have transparency: every voting area must declare and we must be able to see how that result is made up. That is how we have always done things and I cannot see any reason for changing that. I therefore think my noble friend Lord Liddle’s amendment is a bit unnecessary. However, this still does not avoid the point that whatever the result, it must be the result for the United Kingdom. One possible scenario is that England will vote, potentially by a small minority, to leave, while the rest of the United Kingdom will vote by large majorities to stay. That could happen, but it would not change the result. The result would be very clear: if we vote that way, even by a majority of one, we leave the European Union.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, indeed I can. The amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, refers is a matter of access to the register. I can give an assurance that we have taken full account of the advice provided by the Electoral Commission.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The Minister was relatively explicit about this, but I have a question in relation to Amendment 49 and the operation of the requirement to check registers in Gibraltar. I hear what she said about this being passed through the appropriate parliamentary procedures in Gibraltar, but it is a bit unique that we have another Government doing something. Of course, compliance with donations will require political parties to check properly. I wanted to be absolutely certain that we will be properly advised as to when that approval is given.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, that is a very reasonable point to make. As I mentioned earlier, with regard to Amendment 49, it is a matter on which the Gibraltar Government will bring forward legislation —not only in respect of this but on the wider issues of Gibraltar being part of the referendum franchise. I will happily undertake to inform the noble Lord by letter when that legislation goes through, and I shall pop it to other noble Lords who have taken an interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 37 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and also to say how much I support the amendment just proposed by the noble Lord. I think that this might be a first in consideration of this Bill, but I think that it is a very sensible proposal.

Amendment 37 is following the same theme, which is ensuring that there is fairness in the conduct of the campaign. I was rather shocked this morning to read Hansard from the other place, where Mr Chope asked the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons to,

“confirm that the real reason why three independently minded former Ministers are being purged”,

from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,

“is because we voted in favour of a free and fair EU referendum with a strict 28-day purdah period, as recommended by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission and our Electoral Commission?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/15; col. 887.]

I do not want to get involved in that particular row, except to say that Christopher Chope, Sir Edward Leigh and Cheryl Gillan are three very distinguished former Ministers, and I am very shocked that they should be removed from the Council of Europe, and even more shocked that it should be suggested that that is the reason for their removal.

I emphasise this point because, whatever the outcome of the referendum, it is important that at the end of it people feel that the Government did not abuse their position—whatever their position turns out to be—and that the campaign was conducted in a fair and balanced way. This, presumably, is why we have the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

My amendment seeks to remove from political parties their ability, which arises from the 2000 Act, to spend money on the campaign itself. I thought that the whole point of having an Electoral Commission—which, incidentally, costs half the cost of the entire Royal Family—was to ensure that we had fair and balanced conduct of elections and referenda. That is what I thought it was about. I thought the whole purpose in having a designated campaign on each side with limitations on their expenses was to ensure fairness. But what do I find? I find that the Government have brought into the Bill the ability of the political parties to spend money in addition to the designated campaigns. In the case of the designated “in” campaign, it can spend £7 million; in the case of the “out” campaign, it can spend £7 million. That is fair enough; but then on the inside, the Labour Party can spend £7 million; the Liberal Democrats can spend £3 million; the Greens can spend £700,000 and the CBI and other organisations can spend £700,000.

The Conservatives have said that they will remain neutral—and it is very considerably to the credit of the Conservative board that it took that decision.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Did I not hear the noble Lord say that he thinks the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is fair and reasonable because it is not right that people game certain situations? Political parties have a right to campaign on issues that they feel united about and on which they have had support from the electorate. If there is a problem with the Conservative Party, I do not see why the noble Lord should take that view and extend it to other political parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

The noble Lord should not assert something that is not true.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

What is not true: that Jeremy Corbyn is not leader of the Labour Party or that Jeremy Corbyn was not in favour of leaving the European Union? I will give way to the noble Lord if he tells me which statement is not true.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

The Labour Party’s policy is perfectly clear. The problem we have in this debate is that the Conservative Party does not have a clear policy. I do not see why the noble Lord should impose, through his amendment, his problems on to other political parties, including the Scottish nationalists and other major parties.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord is suffering from the disadvantage of not having listened to what I am going to say. Perhaps when I have said it, he might want to come back on that point. I am simply pointing out that all these political parties have the ability to spend money in addition to the designated campaigns. If you add that up as it is set out in the Bill, those who wish us to remain inside the European Union will be able to spend £25.5 million and those who wish us to leave, together with the political parties—because UKIP will be able to spend £4 million—will be able to spend £11 million. That seems to me to be a tad unbalanced.

As the noble Lord knows, all political parties have people with different views on this matter. That is why we need to have a designated campaign, so that people of all political parties and persuasions can join together and make their case, whatever it is. This Bill, which raises the limits, makes the position even more unfair. Before the Bill, under the rules set out under the 2000 Act, the “in” campaign could have spent £20 million and the “out” campaign £10 million: twice as much for those who wish to maintain the status quo. As a result of this Bill, the figures are £25.4 million and £11 million —2.3 times as much. That simply is not fair. At the end of the day, as we know from American elections and elsewhere, the ability to spend money can have a marked effect on the result. If the campaign to stay in is successful, the last thing we want is people arguing that the referendum result was bought, that it was unfair and that it was led by big business and big money. I am surprised that the Labour Party, of all parties, is seeking to defend this position.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

It is tempting to come back by asking what happened in the 2015 general election. Who had the most money? Do we call that into question? Who paid for it? I know exactly how much the unions gave the Labour Party, and I know how that money was collected. The corporate hedge funds gave money to the Conservative Party and enabled it to outspend every other party. Does the noble Lord not feel that that was unfair?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I know the noble Lord has never stood for election, so perhaps he is unfamiliar with this, but we have strict rules governing how much the parties can spend in general election campaigns. They are designed to ensure that we have fairness. What I am complaining about is that the rules in the Bill give an unfair and disproportionate advantage, and that the amendment to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act makes that even worse. That seems completely unfair, which is why I suggest that we reduce the figures that can be spent by the various political parties. In the 2000 Act, that is done as a percentage of the vote. Originally, it was £5 million if a party exceeded 30% of the vote, £4 million if it exceeded 20% but not 30%, £3 million if it got 10%, £2 million if it got 5% but not more than 10%, and £500,000 if it got not more than 5%. If we reduce all these numbers to zero, we will have a fair and balanced campaign, which is what my amendment seeks to do. I would have thought that everyone in this House would be in favour of that.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

The point is that the Conservative Party, under the PPERA, is able to spend up to £7 million on the referendum if it chooses to, as a registered participant. If it decides not to register, why should its decision impact on other parties which have policies and desires to campaign for in this referendum? That sounds undemocratic.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I agree with the noble Lord, which is why I want to make sure that all parties cannot spend any money at all, and that the people who can spend the money are the designated campaigners, so that there is a fair basis. I beg to move.

[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 Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, as we are in Committee, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, can prevent me from saying what I wanted to say at the end of the first part of his recent peroration. I would just like to confirm that I was not complaining about UKIP’s possible position, and I would like to correct the record. Of the votes cast at the last general election, the Conservatives got 36.9%, the Labour Party got 30.4%, UKIP got 12.6%—not a mere 10%, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, suggested—and the Liberal Democrats got all of 7.9%. Those are the correct figures.

Turning to the present amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I have to disagree with him in his suggestion that there should be a statement from the Government, not only for the reasons just put forward by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, but also, more generally, because I do not think that the British people are going to be able to trust the Government’s statement on this referendum any more than they could on the last one. I will add another example to the deception that my noble friend Lord Stoddart mentioned as regards the last referendum. In 1975, the Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, made a promise that if we voted to stay in the then Common Market,

“there would be no loss of essential national sovereignty”.

Of course, we all thought that he meant that there would be no loss of sovereignty whatever, because we all thought that all sovereignty was essential. However, in a somewhat subtle—to put it politely—way, he did not mean that at all. What he meant was that there would be no loss of any sovereignty that he thought was essential. Since then, the British people have discovered that we have lost most of the sovereignty that he promised we would retain. So I really do not think that we want a statement from the Government, as in this amendment, but it would be perfectly in order to have a statement from each side.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I just want to correct a figure. It has been mentioned several times that the Labour Party will have the ability to spend £7 million, but, of course, the figures on the popular vote are slightly adjusted because of the Labour and Co-op Members, where there are joint parties standing. Therefore, the figure for Labour, according to the Electoral Commission, is 29.3%, which would give it £5.5 million. According to this, UKIP would have the ability to spend £4 million. Am I to understand that the noble Lord is in favour of his party, UKIP, being limited to spending £10,000?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, my party would like to spend as much money on this campaign as it can. I was looking at the suggestion that we should have 12.6%’s worth, that being our share of the votes cast in the last election. Personally, I am in favour of that, of course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tebbit]

The noble Lord is terribly attached to this precedent. It is only one precedent from one occasion ever. To suggest that we cannot change anything that was done then because that set the precedent is totally absurd. I am a Conservative, but even I would not suggest that what had been done once would always have to be done again and again in vaguely similar circumstances. It is quite improper.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Is the noble Lord suggesting that the Prime Minister, when he goes to negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom, will say to the other Governments, “By the way, I’m only representing half my Government; the other half may have a different view”? How does he expect the Government to conclude negotiations?

[Lord Tebbit]

I am terribly sorry, but I am afraid that the noble Lord misunderstands it. When the Prime Minister negotiates he speaks for the Government as a whole, but his evaluation of whether the negotiation is sufficiently good for us to remain in the European Union is another matter.

There will be views and views within the Cabinet—we are pretty sure about that. It is highly likely, is it not? We would have to have a leaflet that said, “The position of the majority of the Cabinet”—or the majority of Ministers, perhaps. I do not know whether it would include PPSs and all sorts of other people. Perhaps we could add in the spads, I do not know. However, it would have to say that there are others who take a different view. It is total nonsense. It is the product of a mindset that wants to set the thing up to be biased in one direction time and time again. Lord knows that the Bill as drafted is bad enough, but it would be a darned sight worse if we were to accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have some familiarity with the previous negotiations on political funding and whether there should be a state contribution. The discussions on whether there should be public support for political parties had indeed taken on board the issue of how many votes each party got in the previous election, so the principle might well be taken, but the issue of caps on expenditure is not really one for a referendum which, I think, the out camp fears it may lose. It is a wider issue.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. One of the problems with referenda is that they assume there are simply two sides to an argument, when actually there are often lots of different opinions and reasons why people may wish, in the case of the European Union, to stay in or to leave. The interesting thing in this debate is that we have heard that UKIP will wish to argue its case strongly as a political party. We have heard the Conservative Party saying no, we are not going to do that. In effect, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will limit UKIP to £10,000—it will not be able to spend more than that—while if, for example, Unite registered as a participant, it could spend £700,000, as could any other organisation or individual if they registered properly as a participant.

The real issue here is how we have a fair political debate: how we ensure that all the different views in favour of remaining or leaving are properly expressed. It is clear, as we have heard, that there is a problem among those who want to leave. They do not appear able to reconcile their differences and come together as one—perhaps because they have absolutely different views about why Britain should leave. The Conservative Party has clearly not been very keen to sit on platforms with UKIP to argue its case, and certainly individuals within the party have not been keen to join in. The idea that political parties should absent themselves from this campaign is purely ridiculous.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord keeps repeating this. Nobody is suggesting that political parties absent themselves. I am listening carefully to his argument. If you decide to have a cap on expenditure, it has to be fair to both sides. If the noble Lord is arguing that there should be no cap, that is an entirely different position. The Government’s position—arising from the 2000 Act—is that there should be a cap. Therefore, it is not that the political parties cannot participate, but that the vehicle through which they participate consists of the two campaigns. If the noble Lord is arguing that there should be no cap, I can see where he is coming from, but he seems to be arguing that there should be a cap and that the available expenditure should be unbalanced. That is ridiculous.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Actually, I am arguing that all participants in the referendum should properly account for what they raise and what they spend, and that that be recorded and sent to the Electoral Commission. That is what I am arguing for. We have heard in the debate that somehow you can create a level playing field by setting a cap on the total amount spent. What, then, is the noble Lord saying: that the “remain” campaign and the “leave” campaign agree beforehand exactly what they are going to spend and then say that is what they are going to do?

I know what caps do. I, too, have had a debate about political funding, and some dialogue with the Conservative Party about funding election campaigns. The caps on spending were important in trying to stop this continual outbidding of each other, but no political party has ever reached the cap that has been set in general elections. The Conservative Party has consistently outspent the Labour Party in general elections. There certainly has not been a level playing field. There is only one way to achieve a level playing field: by saying that £20 million from the government purse will be provided for this campaign and that it should be divided equally and then spent.

I do not, however, think that that is what noble Lords want. What noble Lords want is a fair and open debate. Political parties have an important role in that and the idea that you can cap the Labour Party’s spending to £10,000 on arguing its policy—and it does and will have a policy—is absolutely ridiculous. It is not right or fair to the democratic process. My opinion is not simply that of my party; it is also that of the Electoral Commission. The commission says, first, that, irrespective of the cap, there can be no certainty that there will be equal resources. This is a bit like a general election, where we have had caps on spending but there has been no level playing field in respect of the money that can be spent.

The other aspect of this is that everybody’s talking as if £7 million, and £5 million, is going to be available. Political parties, however, will have to raise the money. They will have to account for it. This is what all the amendments in the first group were about: transparency. The public will be more interested in transparency than the notional caps that the noble Lords opposite are talking about. People will certainly want to know who is funding the yes campaign, but they will also want to know who is funding the no campaign—who is behind it: perhaps the hedge funds or the businesses that simply see an interest in being outside.

All these things are important, but, as the Electoral Commission has said, the number of participants on each side should not be artificially limited by rules. We have seen that UKIP will want to play its part in the referendum campaign and to put its case, irrespective of whether it participates in a joint campaign. I know that the Labour Party will want to put its case strongly in respect of the social dimension to Europe and how Europe has defended workers’ rights. I do not think that the Prime Minister will necessarily wish to be part of that campaign. We will put our case, and the idea that you simply limit the Labour Party’s spending to £10,000 is not acceptable.

I strongly support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, not least because—this is the strongest case for it—when this was considered previously it was thought appropriate to put it in the Scottish referendum. If it was appropriate for Scotland, why is it unnecessary for this referendum? Clearly, it is.

Regarding my noble friend’s amendment—we raised this issue in Committee on Monday—the Government will come to a decision. They will need to report that decision to the people of this country. It is important that the Government’s decision is not mediated solely through these campaigns, which noble Lords opposite seem to think will have a clear view about the reasons for leaving or staying. It is really important that the Government communicate with the electorate, so they understand what the Government have negotiated and can come to a conclusion. The argument that it can be mediated only through a yes campaign or a no campaign is not acceptable. The Minister may not accept my noble friend’s amendment but I hope the Government will think seriously about how the conclusions of the negotiations are communicated properly to the electorate without being mediated through a third party.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Can the noble Lord explain where he gets this £10,000 figure from?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

If you are not a permitted participant in the referendum, under PPERA you are limited to £10,000. That amount is also recorded in the Electoral Commission’s briefing, and I know that the noble Lord is very keen to support the role of the Electoral Commission.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I would have thought that,

“£500,000 in the case of a person or body falling within section 105(1)(b) but not designated under section 108”,

might apply.

[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.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I think I heard the noble Lord say that he assumed UKIP would want to take part in the referendum campaign, and of course it will, but I should just confirm what my great leader Nigel Farage has said: he sees UKIP as an important but cohesive part of the eventual campaign to leave the European Union. That is where UKIP is on that one.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I am glad to hear that but at the moment it does not look as though there is a single campaign. If the Conservative Party and UKIP unite as one, so be it. The public will no doubt take account of that. But the business currently before this House is an amendment that says to UKIP, “If you register as a political party, you will limited to £10,000”. I am not sure that would cover Nigel Farage’s flights around the country, so I think he will be concerned about that.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

On the question of the designated organisation for leaving, does the noble Lord not accept that there are members of the Labour Party who are members of this? It is not a Conservative organisation; it is completely cross-party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I have no doubt that individuals within political parties will wish to campaign one way or the other. I have absolutely no problem with that but I do have a problem with the idea that the Labour Party—like UKIP—is not entitled to have a policy or to be able to campaign on that policy and articulate its own message. I admire the Prime Minister. I admire his ability and I hope very much that he will use his extensive negotiating skills to achieve a settlement that will be in the best interests of this country. But that will not stop the Labour Party arguing its own view about Britain’s national interests, which will not be related solely to the reasons that the Prime Minister has. That is why it is really important that political parties have the right to campaign properly.

PPERA sets limits on what political parties can spend on a specific campaign. I am familiar with the requirements of PPERA. I am familiar with the quite onerous responsibilities of political parties, not least that they have to make sure that every single donation received is from a permitted donor; they have to double- check and cross-reference. Errors have been made in the past, I know. But we have to understand that this debate is about a cap on the ability of parties to campaign and that is why it is so important that we resist it.

As for all the questions about who has what, I am sure the Minister will clarify all the positions that I have set out. It is not for me to argue—this is a government Bill—but I am sure she will do so well.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, would allow the Electoral Commission to designate a lead campaigner for one side of the argument at this referendum without having to appoint one for the other. This would override the current rules that apply for designated lead organisations. These provide that the commission must designate a lead campaigner on each side, or not at all. The reason for this is clearly, as noble Lords have argued tonight, that in such matters there should be as fair a playing field as possible.

In the case of multiple applications for designation as a lead campaigner, the Electoral Commission must appoint for each side the applicant which represents “to the greatest extent” those campaigning for a particular outcome. This is intended to ensure the designation of organisations which represent the broad spread of opinion on each side. The benefits then available to the designated lead organisations ensure that each side of the argument has a fair opportunity to put its case to the wider voting public. Taken together, these provisions aim to ensure informed voting after a vibrant debate.

However, the rules for this referendum must also ensure that the referendum is run fairly and that we do not create any perception of bias. The principle that the Electoral Commission cannot designate on just one side is intended to support that objective. The benefits available to the designated lead organisations are significant. I am talking not about political parties per se—they may not end up being designated as lead organisations—but organisations designated by the Electoral Commission as lead organisations.

Allowing public funds to be used to create a distorted campaign with only one designated lead organisation would naturally raise public concern. This would clearly be the case where the commission receives applications from both sides but does not consider that those on one side meet the statutory tests. Under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in this circumstance the arguments of the side that does not get appointed would not get a fair hearing. The administrative failings of those who failed to meet the statutory test should not invalidate the right of both sides to an equal opportunity to make their respective cases.

There is, of course, the view that this amendment may help avoid a circumstance where one side deliberately refuses to apply for designation to prevent the other side receiving its benefits. This could occur, for example, if one side lacks the funding to take advantage of the benefits, particularly the higher spending limits, or wishes to avoid debate on an issue of low public interest. I do not think any noble Lord is going to suggest that this case will be a matter be of low public interest. That is not going to be a feature of this referendum. Given the public interest in the referendum, a more cynical attempt to deprive the other side of the benefits of designation surely would be widely reported and deeply harmful to a campaigner’s own cause—it would be seen as being a cheat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I think there is some confusion between the issue of a political party carrying out a campaign and a designated lead campaigner. If my noble friend is saying that there should be a level playing field with regard to the sums of money to be spent on each campaign, that would be saying that the designated lead campaigners, if they were not a political party, would have to have a total sum of not only what they spent but what every single other person in the country who agreed with them spent. I really do not think that that is what he is trying to achieve. I accept that my noble friend is trying to introduce a discussion about apparent unfairness in the funds available to political parties. I think that that is a debate for a wider issue as to what political party funding may comprise.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I am seeking explanation only because the Minister referred to the designated campaigns earlier. This debate seems to be solely about the ability to spend money, but other things come with being a designated campaigning group, not least the right to free mail and other access. Can the Minister explain that, so we understand the importance of it?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I will jump to a little later in my speech and just say that the designated lead campaigners are entitled not only to the spending limit which has been the subject of this debate but to a grant from public funds of up to £600,000, free delivery of mailings to every household or every elector, eligibility to make referendum broadcasts and the use of public rooms. I hope that is helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I do not think that the Committee would wish to contemplate even further legislation, but I can certainly contemplate further consideration on the basis of what the noble Lord has said. I have to say that I thought we had considered properly before today, but of course I always listen to the points made by the noble Lord and am prepared to do so before Report.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I have a question for the noble Lord about the potential risk. My understanding is that the risk is not simply gaming on the part of one side to deprive the other of funding. We constantly talk about funding when, actually, it is access to broadcast, access to free mail and all the other things that go with being a designated organisation. In evaluating the risk, does the noble Lord recognise a difficulty? Say, for example, there is no consensus among the leave campaign, so we end up with three, two or four organisations. Is the Electoral Commission, in those circumstances, permitted to decide on the merits of two or three, or does it have to say there is no lead designation?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am not knowledgeable enough to answer the noble Lord’s question. I shall come to the Minister’s last intervention, which was helpful, in a minute, but I think she underestimates the range of possibilities.

Of course, our own Constitution Committee has raised the issue of gaming and that must be one risk, but I think there are other risks. One concerns whatever attempt the Electoral Commission makes to come to a conclusion about the designated organisation on the leave side. I do not think there will be any problem on the remain side—I cannot be certain about that, but I do not think there will be; it does not look as though there will be—but on the other side there is obviously the potential for a really serious problem. There are already two organisations, a third is said to be going to enter the fray, and if these organisations go on slugging it out and the Electoral Commission tries to adjudicate, the matter could then go to judicial review. The decision of the Electoral Commission could be appealed on judicial review. That would mean, as the present law is drafted, that the remain campaign would be deprived of all the advantages that exist for a designated organisation. That is pretty serious, frankly. What I feel is unreasonable about this is that, were this amendment accepted, none of that would happen.

I accept the noble Baroness’s offer to take this away and reflect further; she is always extremely fair in her dealings with the House. She has said she will go away and consider this further and that there will be further contacts with various noble Lords who have tabled amendments. We have a little time before Report, but I honestly think that the risk, even if it is a 1% risk, should be dealt with here and now. The case for that is pretty strong. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I accept that; but if they knew they were going to lose the money if they spent it, they might be less inclined to spend it.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Of course, in the other place the Opposition resisted strongly the disapplication of purdah provisions and the other place agreed with that. Therefore, our position is quite clear. Obviously, however, Clause 6 was agreed to in the other place. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is saying, but I am not sure that I quite understood his interpretation of the noble Baroness’s remarks. There is clear indication that there is no intention to lay regulations. There may be a risk, but we do not know: there are unforeseen circumstances. I am assuming that Clause 6 will be retained, and we would support that if it enables the Government to respond to something unforeseen. I assume that is what the noble Baroness is saying, and that is why we would support that. I am certainly sympathetic to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Before the noble Lord leaves that point, could he give one example of something that might justify making the regulations?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I fear I might sound like Donald Rumsfeld if I did—talking about the unknown unknowns and the known unknowns—and I will resist the temptation. I will leave it in the capable hands of the Minister to give those examples.

However, this group of amendments gives rise to some issues, including how we define the actions of Ministers and special advisers, and the question of acting in a personal capacity. I fear that all these things are incredibly difficult to prescribe, not least: when is a Minister not a Minister; when is a spad not a spad? What about when they are working at home at weekends? The situation is clear with matters such as having no government transport, or no paid facilities when campaigning.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

The noble Lord asks, when is a spad not a spad? A special adviser is paid as a civil servant, so surely he should never get involved in matters such as a referendum.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

The difficulty is in the name itself. A special political adviser is not like a civil servant, though they are governed by certain Civil Service rules. Let us talk about Ministers—when is a Minister not a Minister? Such things are very difficult to legislate on, so there are problems. When special advisers are members of political parties, they are often engaged in political discussions. It seems very difficult to legislate in this Bill about how we govern them.

A good point is being made about the question of EU institutions. The Electoral Commission, which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has quoted, has said that although we cannot necessarily legislate about these things, we can ensure that there is clear guidance agreed between the parties. That is a good idea.

On Amendment 55, we would appreciate the Minister repeating her assurances that normal business can be conducted and that the requirements of Section 125 will not impinge on that. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has quoted the Electoral Commission, which is satisfied that the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive are covered by the requirements of Section 125. However, the noble Lord made a very good point about regulations and sanctions. In fact, the perpetrators do not get fined—it is the victims who get fined and the taxpayers who pay for the offence. That is something we need to look into, but I am pretty certain that clauses in a Bill are not the appropriate way to do so. We have had debates recently about the Ministerial Code. Perhaps we could table another quick amendment to ensure that what is required of Ministers is clear. That could also apply to Civil Service codes. It is within the powers of the Government to act on what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is seeking, without necessarily supporting his amendment.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, in my opening speech to this group of amendments I set out the Government’s position on Section 125 of PPERA and Clause 6 of the EU Referendum Bill. This is a complicated group of amendments, so I suggest that I take them sequentially as much as possible. I will further elucidate the position on Clause 6. In particular, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has assisted the debate today and I am grateful to him—I know that it was his intention to facilitate a debate in the House in a constructive way.

Amendment 38, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton, relates to the involvement of Ministers, departments and local authorities in activities for referendum purposes in the 28 days before the referendum. I can assure my noble friend that his proposed amendment duplicates to a certain extent provisions already included in the Bill.

Section 125 of PPERA places restrictions on publicly funded bodies and persons from publishing certain material in relation to the referendum in the final 28 days of the campaign. The restrictions of this section will apply, in full, following an amendment made on Report in the other place, which was referred to by noble Lords. These restrictions will apply not only to Ministers, government departments and local authorities, but also to other publicly funded persons and bodies. The Government have consistently been clear that we will not undertake any campaigning activity during the 28-day restricted period.

In addition, Ministers and civil servants, including special advisers, are subject to purdah guidance which will be issued in advance of the restricted period. This guidance will reflect the statutory provisions. Special advisers are covered. In line with long-standing precedent and convention, this guidance will make it clear that Ministers and civil servants, including special advisers, will not undertake campaign-related activity during the 28-day period. I hope my noble friend will understand that we do not support his amendment as it specifically relates to special advisers. It is already there—it is dealt with by Section 125.

Ministers acting in their official capacity, advised by special advisers and other civil servants, will be prohibited from publishing certain material in relation to the referendum in the final 28 days of the campaign. A publication by a special adviser on behalf of a Minister would also be covered by the prohibition. The role of special advisers is set out in the special advisers’ code of conduct. This code includes clear provisions in respect of special advisers’ involvement in national political activity. They will be subject to the purdah guidance that will be issued to departments ahead of the 28-day restricted period. Any campaign activity that might be undertaken by special advisers must be in their own time, outside office hours and without the use of government resources. They cannot think they can do it while on annual leave; that does not work. If a special adviser wanted to campaign full time or publicly, they would first have to resign from their government post. It is right that special advisers are able to undertake other activity in their own time and without the use of official resources. My noble friend’s Amendment 38 would inhibit their ability to do so and we believe it would place unfair restrictions on this particular group. I hope my noble friend will understand that I do not support his Amendment 38.

My noble friend’s Amendment 39 relates to the role of the EU institutions. It seeks to prevent the EU institution donating to permitted participants or directly campaigning at the EU referendum. Turning first to the issue of donations, I understand my noble friend’s concerns. This is a debate about the UK’s membership of the EU, and we need sensible controls on who can spend money to influence the outcome. As we have already discussed on previous groups, PPERA provides controls on spending and on foreign funding of permitted participants. Broadly speaking, the list of those eligible to donate to permitted participants is the same as the list of permissible donors to political parties as set out in PPERA. However, we have extended the list to take account of the inclusion of Gibraltar in this referendum and to include the bodies that since the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act have been eligible to become third-party campaigners at elections. Significantly, this means that permitted participants cannot accept donations of more than £500 from anyone who is not a permissible donor. The list of permissible donors does not include the European institutions. My noble friend referred to the European Communities Act 1972, but the provisions of that Act have no bearing on this. I can assure my noble friend that it does not provide the European institutions with a get-out. Permitted participants cannot accept donations of more than £500 from the EU institutions. It is banned.

My noble friend’s amendment aims further to prevent the EU institutions, including the European Commission, campaigning at the referendum. I am sure my noble friend is aware that under the European Union Referendum Bill the EU institutions are not on the list of those eligible to register as a permitted participant. In relation to campaigning, the Bill does not place controls on the activities of the EU institutions directly, which I know is my noble friend’s concern. That is because our national legislation does not regulate behaviour outside our jurisdiction, but also because if the institutions are operating within our jurisdiction, they are afforded immunities and privileges under EU law. We recognise my noble friend’s concern, which is shared by others, but we believe that the best way to prevent the EU institutions influencing the outcome of the referendum is through a process of constructive dialogue. I can assure the Committee that Ministers are already deeply involved in just that.

I now turn to the amendments which relate to Clause 6. I shall again go sequentially for the moment and then deal with Clause 6 as a whole. I have already explained the history of what happened to Clause 6, so I shall not weary the Committee by doing it again. My noble friend Lord Hamilton has expressed further concern about the clause. He explained that Amendment 52 provides that the Government must obtain the consent of the Electoral Commission before making regulations under Clause 6. The clause as it stands requires Ministers to consult the Electoral Commission prior to making regulations. This is consistent with other provisions in electoral law that require the Electoral Commission to be consulted on proposed legislative changes. However, Ministers are not obliged to obtain the Electoral Commission’s agreement, and we do not think it is necessary to take a different approach for the EU referendum.

My noble friend Lord Hamilton tabled Amendment 54, which removes subsection (8), to ensure that we do not go back on our word that we will not reintroduce the exemption from purdah. As I understand it, he thinks that subsection (8) would give the Government the opportunity to reinstate the original exemption from purdah. I assure him that the way Clause 6 is drafted means that the subsection he is worried about would give powers to act only in matters not related to Section 125 or to matters of purdah. We do not intend to abolish purdah. Subsection (8) simply does not give the Government the power to do that.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth kindly indicated that he would not proceed with Amendment 53, so I hope he will allow me not to cover that now. He asked me for clarification on my statement at the beginning with regard to the proposals about Clause 6. I repeat that we do not plan to bring forward any regulations under the provisions of Clause 6. At the moment, we do not see the eventuality where we would wish to do so. We have considered this very carefully, and I will refer to that again when I refer to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I shall subsume the two amendments.

Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, seeks to ensure that normal government business, including business between the Government and the EU institutions, is not covered by the restrictions that will apply to the Government in the final 28 days. The noble Lord has given the Government the opportunity again to look very carefully at the estimate of the level of risk to government business. I can assure the Committee that the Government have been considering these matters very carefully since the consideration in the House of Commons at Third Reading earlier this autumn. We have considered this in great detail from that moment, we continue to do so and we listened to this House at Second Reading. The Government agree that there is a risk that Section 125 may give rise to legal challenge because it is so widely drawn. That is still our position. We tabled an amendment in the other place, which was not accepted, and we live with that decision by another place.

EU Migration: Valletta Summit

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the European Council. The Question refers to the meeting in Valetta, which was called following discussion in the European Council. However, this matter concerns relationships between Africa and the EU. I am sure that the European Union is looking at a wide range of issues. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise safe zones. The UK is open to considering any feasible options to protect civilians—for example, in Syria. There has been talk of safe or protected zones but history tells us that implementing genuinely safe zones is difficult. However, the fact that it is difficult does not mean that we should avoid trying to achieve it.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, as winter approaches conditions in refugee camps, particularly in the Lebanon, are becoming deplorable. In last week’s debate on Syria in this House, the noble Baroness the Minister for DfID said that the Government intended to take 1,000 refugees before the end of this year out of the 20,000 that they promised to take. Does the Minister really think that this is an adequate response to this crisis?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, although this issue is not related to the Question on the Order Paper, which concerns the Valetta summit, I appreciate the real concern around the House on these matters, so, with the leave of the House, I will respond to the noble Lord. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that over this Parliament we would take an extra 20,000 people from Syria who are in desperate need—so it is not a quota but a judgment regarding those in desperate need—and gave a commitment that 1,000 of those would be in this country by Christmas. All departments across Government are working to make sure that they have safe accommodation and care when they are here. Overall, we have led the way in providing aid to ensure that those in unsafe zones can have a life there. At the moment, £1.15 billion has been invested in the Syria and Iraq area.

Universal Declaration on Human Rights: Article 18

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this timely, albeit brief, debate. Sadly, many cases mentioned today and highlighted in the FCO’s Human Rights and Democracy Report 2014 show the harsh reality of the world today. I have heard speculation that the annual report may stop. I hope the Minister will be able to refute that by committing today to continue to publish it every year for the rest of this Parliament. Countries that do not respect religious freedom invariably do not respect other basic human rights. That is why, as a humanist and a gay man, I share all of the concerns expressed today. The Minister has said she wants the Government to focus more strongly on making freedom of religion or belief part of the answer to extremism across government. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned the Home Office counterextremism strategy. How will this link up with FCO activities? Will it involve further engagement with Saudi Arabia, whose record on human rights and religious freedom, as we have heard in the debate, is absolutely appalling? I do not understand how it will counter extremism.

I am also grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement in the Chamber today. The Chinese state visit this week gives us an opportunity to evaluate the impact that our relationship has had on human rights in China. The Prime Minister’s spokeswoman said that developing a strong and engaged relationship,

“means we are able to talk to them ... frankly and with mutual respect”.

Yet the campaign group Human Rights Watch has documented, over the last three years, a rapid deterioration in human rights in China, as we also heard during the debate on the Statement. George Osborne said during his visit to China that he addressed the issue of human rights privately,

“in the context of also talking about issues like economic development”.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us precisely what steps he took while in western China to raise the treatment of the area’s minority Muslim community, which faces restrictions on religious observance under the guise of anti-terrorism measures. Despite the importance of the relationship with China, we must not shirk from raising human rights issues if it fails to adhere to domestic and international law.

Zhang Kai

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. In July, the Minister expressed deep concern over the detention of Chinese Christian lawyers arrested that month as part of a major crackdown. She fully supported the subsequent EU statement calling for the release of those detained, who had sought to protect rights under the Chinese constitution. Now, we have the case of Zhang Kai, who was taken into custody by the police on 25 August. On 31 August, China Aid reported that he had been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for gathering a crowd to disturb public order and charges relating to stealing, spying, and buying and illegally providing state secrets and intelligence to entities outside China. The Minister referred to some information that she had. Could she go into more detail about what is available to the British Government in terms of this case, and in particular whether further charges have been made and whether there will be a further hearing?

I understand what the Minister said about raising this and other cases. However, will she confirm that she or other Ministers have had the opportunity to raise this further case with their Chinese counterparts, either before the current state visit or during it?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making reference to the fact that the Government are being consistent in their relationship with China and to the fact that we have pressed the importance of human rights upon our interlocutors there, because human rights underpin a stable and prosperous society.

On the noble Lord’s first question, with regard to the case, I am not in a position to give further information at the moment. What I can say is that it is the usual occurrence for diplomats in post in Beijing to keep a very close watch on any cases that are under way, to make attempts to visit people in detention and, when they are brought to trial, to ensure that they make every attempt to attend those trials. I am advised that, if denied access, they will remain in place in the court during the day to make the point that we are trying to see that there is proper judicial process. We have assistance in that from our EU colleagues.

In his second question, the noble Lord asked about the matter of imprisonment and the details of whether or not this issue has been raised, either before or during the course of the state visit. I cannot say further than I have at present because, as I mentioned very briefly in the Statement, there are continuing discussions this afternoon at Chequers and I would not wish to try to pre-empt what they may cover.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by associating myself and these Benches with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in relation to Lord Howe and Lord Healey. I feel that their contributions have been sorely missed today. They would have made this debate very interesting and their experience will be sorely missed in this House. Of course, our condolences go to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, too.

We support the Bill and its passage through Parliament. We also support Britain remaining a member of the EU. We agree that the European Union needs to change. Like many in this debate we want reform in Europe on benefits, transitional controls, the way the EU works and how it relates to national parliaments. We also want the completion of the single market in services to boost jobs and economic growth here in the United Kingdom. We need to co-operate to achieve these things but the EU needs to recognise that there is a growing demand across societies in Europe for greater devolution of power at the same time. We need to co-operate and devolve, and the EU’s task in the years ahead is to reconcile these two forces.

While the Prime Minister has set out a strategy for the renegotiation of our relationship with the European Union, he has not set out in full what he is asking for. We have heard the Minister say before that it would be unwise for the Government to show their full negotiating hand. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I hope tonight she will be prepared to throw a little more light on the subject. The problem for the Prime Minister is that there is nothing he can negotiate that will satisfy a significant proportion of his parliamentary party. The danger is that our position in Europe will be dictated by the politics of the Conservative Party rather than the national interest. Whatever the divisions within the Conservative Party, the Government have a collective responsibility to ensure that the British people know what the consequences will be if they vote to leave the EU—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and your Lordships’ committee. We shall therefore be making the case strongly in Committee that the Bill should include the requirement for the Government to set out to Parliament the consequences of leaving the European Union and what that means compared with our remaining a member. Those who want to take us out of the EU in the name of sovereignty will have to explain why leaving collective institutions where many of the rules of our economy are decided, and where we are currently represented, would enhance our power and influence. They will have to show why the major markets in the world outside the European Union would view us as a more attractive proposition if we left.

As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, lots of people have changed their minds on Europe. In the 1975 referendum I was secretary of my local Get Britain Out campaign. It was not a successful campaign but it is clear from today’s debate that many of the changes in Europe which persuaded me of the benefits of membership, such as the development and protection of workers’ rights, have had the opposite effect on many noble Lords. We have been travelling, in a way, crossing paths. To me, the development of the European Economic Community without the social dimension was very one-sided, but the development of that social dimension has changed the nature of the European Union for me and for my party for the good. As my noble friend Lord Radice highlighted, it is interesting that 40 years on it is the Conservative Party that has agreed to a referendum to try to deal with internal divisions. However, as he and my noble friend Lord Liddle said, reform is not just about what Britain asks for now; it is about the building of alliances—an approach that can bring considerable change over time. As my noble friend Lady Royall said, the proportion of the EU budget spent on the common agricultural policy demonstrates that change is possible by building alliances and arguing the case, not walking away. The EU will need to continue to reform in the years ahead not least, as we have heard in this debate, because the world is changing dramatically and the institutions of the European Union will need to do likewise.

On the franchise, I hear what the Government are saying: that it is right to use the same basic approach as 40 years ago in the last European referendum and as five months ago in the general election—in other words, to stick to the parliamentary voting register. On EU citizens, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Balfe—I do not see him in his place—who mentioned that he would be quite happy to give assistance to citizens of other European Union states to become citizens of the UK. My husband, who has been my partner for 20 years and has been living in this country, is a Spanish citizen. I think that he would be quite keen to take up that offer of assistance, but I also assume that the noble Lord would be prepared to pay the £1,000 fee, which of course is what most European citizens would have to do if they were to take up dual citizenship.

As we have heard in this debate, referendums are rare; they are not part of the usual business of politics in this country. They have been used in matters of constitutional importance and, as in the case of Scotland, they have been described as once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. I do not think that our young generation should miss the opportunity to shape their future and it is really important that we address this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned the contribution in the other place from the Conservative MP Dr Sarah Wollaston. I should like to quote her. She said that,

“since nearly one in four 16-year-olds can expect to live to 100 years of age and will be living with the consequences of this decision for far longer than Members of this or the other House, and given that they have the mental capacity to weigh up these decisions and the enthusiasm to take part, we should extend the franchise”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/15; col. 1062].

I could not agree more.

Contrary to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, failure to extend the franchise is completely at odds with the other rights that we already give to 16 and 17 year-olds, as we have heard in this debate, including the right to work, pay tax, join the Armed Forces, be company directors and consent to medical treatment. It is a long, long list. It is odd that the Government’s position in the Wales Act 2014 is to devolve to the Welsh Government the power to decide whether 16 and 17 year-olds can be given the vote. The Government are giving that power to Wales and it has been exercised in Scotland, yet they are blocking it in this instance. Why should English and Welsh 16 and 17 year-olds and Scottish 16 and 17 year-olds be treated differently in this referendum? What better way to get more young people involved in our democratic life than to give 16 and 17 year-olds the opportunity to take part in this momentous decision, which will affect their lives and their futures just as much as it will affect ours?

The Minister will no doubt say that we should not use this referendum to change electoral law, although of course we are doing that with a few exceptions, such as the small but overwhelmingly older generations in this House and the citizens of Gibraltar. My case is that this referendum is exceptional and we need to make an exception now for young people to vote on their future. As my noble friend Lord Anderson said, the world is constantly changing. The challenges that we face as a nation of creating jobs for future generations, of growing the economy so that we can continue to support the NHS and an ageing population, and of combating climate change, terrorism and insecurity cannot be solved on our own. Our future lies in co-operation in the European Union.