European Union Referendum Bill

House of Lords, 18 November 2015.

Report (1st Day)

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

My Lords, the two amendments in my name in this group were put down in the five working days we have had since Committee and I tabled them just to ensure that they were on the Marshalled List. Since then, my noble friend the Minister has very much met the concerns of these amendments, particularly in terms of the 10-week period for the regulations to come out leading up to the referendum day itself.

I also accept that the period of six weeks previous to that for the other regulations that have to be approved has proved to be rather too complicated, so I am basically happy with what my noble friend has done and I thank her for the amendment that she has brought forward, which meets the concerns. They were, of course, that until we had this provision in the Bill, the Government had the ability to call a referendum with 28 days’ notice, but now this will not be possible since we will have the 10-week period enshrined in the Bill itself. That is an important modification as far as we are concerned, and again I thank my noble friend for what she has done. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is in his place, but I am sure that he will be grateful to know that I am not going to speak any longer. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak now. I have amendments in this group and I have spoken to noble Lords who have amendments in this group—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I apologise for not being able to mention the fact that I might intervene early to explain the Government’s position. It does not, of course, prevent me from answering questions later if noble Lords so wish.

In this group there are three areas on which the Government have carefully considered the views of Peers, as expressed in Committee, and have brought forward amendments in response. As my noble friend Lord Hamilton has kindly set out, we have sought where possible to respond entirely positively.

The Government’s position is that in order to ensure public confidence in the outcome of the referendum and an informed vote, it is essential that there is a referendum period of sufficient length to allow a full and thorough debate with appropriate controls on spending donations. It was never the Government’s intention to set a referendum period of less than 10 weeks. However, we listened very carefully to my noble friend Lord Hamilton, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and others around the House on this matter and we agree with noble Lords that a 10-week minimum referendum period should be set out on the face of the Bill. That is the effect of government Amendment 9. I stress that it is a minimum period of 10 weeks.

I hope that all noble Lords will appreciate that this should deliver the intent of Amendments 8 and 7B. It also, I hope, provides a little extra clarity over the referendum period itself by making it absolutely clear that the referendum period ends with the date of the poll itself. The amendments tabled by noble Lords did not make that clear.

Perhaps it is not right for me to rehearse the background to my noble friend Lord Hamilton’s amendment. He has been commendably brief, so perhaps I will follow his example in that regard. He has already made it clear that he accepts that Amendment 1 is unnecessary if the House were to accept the government amendment, which puts a minimum of a 10-week referendum period on the face of the Bill. My noble friend also said that he is content not to press ahead with the second part of his amendment, which would require regulations setting the date to be laid at least 16 weeks before the referendum can be held. Noble Lords will be aware that we have an established procedure for laying and making affirmative secondary legislation, and that will be followed in this regard. That takes some time in itself.

I very much thank my noble friend Lord Hamilton and others for their constructive engagement on these issues, and I hope that noble Lords will support government Amendment 9 and not press the other amendments related to these matters.

Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, relates to the time that the process of designating lead campaigners should begin. Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which provides the framework for national and regional referendums, the start date of the designation process is the first day of the referendum period. At the alternative vote referendum, where there was an 11-week referendum period, this caused some concern because it meant that lead campaigners were not designated until about five weeks before the referendum took place. Legislation for the Scottish independence referendum provided for a different approach whereby the lead campaigners were designated shortly before the referendum period.

While this does have the advantage of ensuring that the lead campaigners have sufficient time to use their benefits for any given date, it could restrict the time available for the referendum period, which is when the full controls on campaigning apply, or indeed could limit the choice of referendum dates. I know that that was not the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment—he is not seeking that technical route.

As the House is aware, until now the Government have not made a statement about the referendum period. We have not set the date of the referendum. We cannot say when the referendum period will start. Until we have completed negotiations and can indicate when a statutory instrument will be brought forward to invite both Houses to consider the date of the referendum, we are unable to get to that position. Setting the actual start date of the referendum period is therefore not something one can do now; we do not know when the referendum will be.

Accordingly, the Bill provides a degree of flexibility. As part of this, it decouples the start of the designation process from the first day of the referendum period. Instead, it is to be set by regulations. I hope that this is an advantage from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby. While the date and referendum period remain uncertain and we do not have to commit at this stage to a particular time period for the designation process to take place, it means that the process provides for the referendum period plus designation. Designation does not come out of that referendum period, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, is trying to protect. Under his Amendment 10, the designation process could not start any later than six weeks before the start of the referendum period, which we think risks introducing unnecessary inflexibility, ruling out otherwise suitable dates. I do not think that is his intention; rather, I think he is trying to ensure that there is sufficient time, and I can assure him that that is exactly what is being achieved.

The Government’s approach ensures that the timing of the designation process can be responsive to the circumstances prevailing once those negotiations are complete, but there is still the parliamentary process, designation and then the referendum period. That will allow an appropriate balance to be found between regulating campaigners, providing sufficient time for campaigners to make their case and inform the debate, and, importantly, not unnecessarily delaying the time of the vote.

I turn to the next issue on which we have listened to noble Lords. Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, would allow the Electoral Commission to designate a lead campaigner on just one side. I wish immediately to signal the Government’s movement on this issue. I have spoken to the noble Lord, and the Government agree that this is an area where we need to consider amendments on Third Reading. The amendment addresses the concern, highlighted by the Constitution Committee, that under the current rules a campaigner on one side could deliberately not apply for designation in order to deprive the other side of the benefits of that status. This risk emerges because the current rules require the Electoral Commission to designate on both sides or neither side. The noble Lord tabled a similar amendment in Committee, which received support across the House. At that stage I committed that the Government would look into the proposals further.

The principle of the noble Lord’s amendment would certainly prevent gaming of the system. The difficulty is that, as drafted, it would introduce a new risk: one side may not be designated not by deliberate action, but because it fails to meet the statutory requirements the Electoral Commission must assess it against. The Government have looked carefully at these matters. Had everything been fine with the drafting of the amendment and the part of the Bill in which the noble Lord wants to place it, I would have liked to put my name to it and accept it. That would have been my first choice. Sadly, as I have explained to him, I am unable to do that because it has to be moved to a different part of the Bill and it has to take account of the extended risk. I have undertaken to return to this matter on Third Reading, and I will bring forward a government amendment. I very much welcome the opportunity to work with the noble Lord further on the shape of that amendment between now and Third Reading.

I now turn to government Amendments 23 and 24, which relate to the parliamentary process that will apply to the regulations that will set the start date of the process of designating lead campaigners. Again, this is a matter of the Government listening and responding, and bringing forward amendments to meet the points the House has made.

The Bill currently provides that the regulations setting the start of the designation process are subject to the negative procedure. Taken together, government Amendments 23 and 24 will mean that those regulations will now be subject to the affirmative procedure. These amendments give effect to the views of the House and to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Government are grateful to the committee for its careful consideration of the Bill and are happy to accept its recommendation. The committee also suggested that the House ask for a fuller explanation of the need to delegate this power to secondary legislation in any event. I hope I have dealt with that in responding to Amendment 10.

Naturally, I am ready to answer questions but I hope that noble Lords feel able to support the government amendments and will not press theirs.

Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply to my amendment, which would ensure that bodies need to be designated before the 10-week period. If the noble Baroness will repeat her assurance, I will be very happy to withdraw the amendment. I do not want to waste the House’s time. Everybody is well aware why designated bodies need as long a period as possible during which they are designated in order to campaign effectively, because of financial and other reasons. In the light of the noble Baroness’s remarks, I shall not press my amendment.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11 and will respond to the Minister’s very full explanation of how the Government now intend to proceed. I express my gratitude to the Minister for listening carefully to our debate in Committee, when this amendment received support from all sides of the House, and for the courtesy with which she has consulted on the matter in advance of this debate. I am entirely happy to leave it in her hands, to be dealt with by a government amendment introduced at Third Reading. I hope that that amendment will cover not just gaming but pretty well any other happenstance that might occur. Heaven knows, it is probably an “unknown unknown” but the best way to ensure that it does not damage the referendum process is to make an amendment of this sort to the Bill.

I leave this issue in the hands of the Minister and the Government, confident that they will find a way to deal with it, in which case, of course, I doubt that the provision will ever need to be used. That would be very satisfactory, as it would be much better if there were two designated institutions slugging it out in what will be a vigorous national debate. However, we do need to make sure that this issue is addressed. With that, I state my intention not to press the amendment, and again thank the Minister for the efforts she has made so far and encourage her to go further down that road.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend for the way in which she listened to the arguments put in Committee. I hate to rain on this parade at this stage but after reflecting on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I have one or two worries which I hope that my noble friend will consider before she brings forward an amendment at a later stage in the Bill. As I understand it, this amendment would mean that if there was only one designated campaign, it would still get access to broadcasting time and taxpayers’ money to carry out the campaign in circumstances where the Electoral Commission had designated only one campaign. I entirely understand the concern the noble Lord had, which was reflected in the legislation for the Scottish referendum. Suppose two competing organisations wished to be the leave campaign, and there was disillusion with the decision that had been taken by the Electoral Commission and that was subject to judicial review, and that we got into a position where there was no clarity about the position of an opposition and therefore no alternative campaign. It would then clearly be absurd to put a quango—an unelected, unaccountable body such as the Electoral Commission—in a position where it could effectively ensure that only one side was supported with taxpayers’ resources and the ability to go to the broadcasters. It is highly unlikely that this situation would arise but, as the noble Lord has pointed out, his own worries, which the amendment is designed to deal with, are also highly unlikely. Has my noble friend thought about that, and what is the answer to my concern?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

My Lords, I will refer first to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. He asked for further confirmation, just to be absolutely sure about the fact that the referendum period will be a minimum of 10 weeks and in advance of that is the designation period. The two cannot be conflated. I think that gives him the satisfaction he sought that there is no way of concertinaing it, if I can put it that way.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his comments, but I recognise what he said about the importance of looking not just at gaming, although that will be at the basis of this. This leads neatly to the concerns rightly raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. As soon as one enables single-sided designation, one has to consider very carefully the inequity that may follow. That is why I was not able to put my name to the text of the amendment, even if it had been in the right place in the Bill. That is what I commit to look at between now and Third Reading.

My noble friend is absolutely right to point out that only the designated lead campaigners are entitled to a referendum broadcast. Where there is only one designated campaigner, it would indeed raise questions of partiality rather than impartiality if only one person had access to that. These are matters on which the Government have already been reflecting since Committee, and need to reflect on further. Designated lead campaigners are entitled to an equal grant of up to £600,000. It is not immediately clear how that would operate with just one lead campaigner. The Government have been reflecting and will reflect further and consider the views of noble Lords, but we need to consider how to incorporate or otherwise these benefits into a system where it will end up being possible for only one lead campaigner to be designated.

My noble friend has raised an important matter. In the light of my response to that and my commitment to work further with noble Lords before Third Reading, I hope that when the government amendments are called the House will feel able to support them, and that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

I think I have made it quite clear already that I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Clause 2: Entitlement to vote in the referendum

Amendment 2

Moved by Lord Green of Deddington

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) if the day appointed under section 1(2) is before 1 January 2017, the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency, or

(aa) if the day appointed under section 1(2) is 1 January 2017 or later, the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency by virtue of being a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or, under the British Nationality Acts 1981 and 1983 or the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas), a British Overseas citizen or a British subject,”

Lord Green of Deddington (Crossbench)

My Lords, Amendment 2 concerns just over 1 million potential voters. Its purpose is to establish a clear principle for the franchise at what most people agree is a historic turning point. At the same time, it would bring us into line with all our EU partners and all Commonwealth countries except New Zealand. I will speak very briefly, first to comment on the Government’s response in Committee; then to explain the changes that I have made since then; and, finally, to summarise the case for the amendment.

In response to my amendments in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that,

“the purpose of these two amendments is to restrict the franchise for the EU referendum so as to prevent Commonwealth citizens … and Irish citizens who are resident in the UK, from voting”.—[ Official Report , 28/10/15; col. 1269.]

That is not quite the case. Let me stress again that these amendments apply only to Commonwealth citizens who have not become British citizens, roughly 1 million people of voting age. Those who are British citizens—roughly 2 million—would be entitled to vote, which is a vital distinction. I have since added in the Irish citizens, which I will explain in a moment.

The Minister also prayed in aid historical connections with the Commonwealth, which might indeed have relevance to a general election although only a handful of Commonwealth countries reciprocate. But this is not a bog-standard election, if I may call if that, whose results can be reversed five years later. It may be, as the

Prime Minister put it last week, the most important decision that we will make in our lifetimes. The public may therefore be forgiven for questioning why more than 1 million people who have decided not to become British citizens, or who have not yet qualified to do so, should be able to vote in this historic decision.

Secondly, on the changes that I have made, I listened carefully to your Lordships in Committee and have revised my amendments in two important respects. In Amendment 2, I have included the Irish in the electorate lest there be any conflict with the Belfast agreement, a matter raised by the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Stamford, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay. The other change stems from an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. He pointed out, correctly, that the present electoral register flags up EU citizens but does not indicate which voters are Commonwealth citizens nor which of those have become British citizens. That practical difficulty could be dealt with quite easily in the coming year in the annual revision of the register that takes place between August and November. My revised amendment to Clause 2 therefore proposes that that change be brought into effect on 1 January 2017 —a sunrise clause, so to speak. Of course, if the referendum is held before that date it would have to be conducted on the basis of the present register.

This second change, the postponement until 1 January 2017, has the added advantage of being consistent with the spirit of the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in 2008. He suggested that the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in general elections should be phased out. Clearly, we cannot phase out a vote for the referendum but this timing would give the opportunity to Commonwealth citizens who have not yet become British citizens to do so, if they so decided. As I mentioned in Committee, the noble and learned Lord kindly authorised me to say that he supported these amendments. These amendments would not affect Gibraltar, as my Amendment 5 makes clear, but they have two specific advantages. One is that they would remove the anomaly whereby Malta and Cyprus would be able to vote, whereas other EU nationals would not. Secondly, they would remove the absurdity whereby Commonwealth citizens could vote in this referendum within weeks of arrival.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)

Could the noble Lord explain the position of citizens of the Falkland Islands and other dependent territories?

Lord Green of Deddington (Crossbench)

They would have to be resident in the UK, of course, in which case they would have the right to vote. That is buried in the reference to the British Nationality Act.

Finally, on the case for change, the effect of these amendments would be to establish a clear principle for the franchise, namely that only British and Irish citizens who have become British citizens would continue to be able to vote in the referendum, as would 340,000 Irish citizens. What is clear, as I mentioned in Committee—where I think there was no disagreement about it—is that whatever the result of this referendum, there will be deep unhappiness on the part of those who consider that they have lost it. A period of reconciliation will be needed so it is absolutely vital that the arrangements for the referendum, especially the franchise, should be above reproach, as the Minister himself made clear.

This matter seems to have slipped through the cracks in the other place. Very few Members of Parliament will have realised that the adoption of the franchise for the general election would include something like a million potential voters who are not British citizens, nearly all of them from countries that do not allow our citizens to vote in their general elections, let alone in their referenda—this when our referendum is so critical for our future. Indeed, the matter was barely mentioned, let alone discussed.

It is surely the duty of this House as a revising Chamber to adopt these amendments and invite the other place to give this important question the consideration that it deserves but has not yet received.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)

I am sorry to interrupt again, but the noble Lord needs to make clear which countries he is referring to. Could he spell out the number from each country and the countries in which we do not have a reciprocal right? Unless we have that information from him, we may not understand why he is moving the amendment.

Lord Green of Deddington (Crossbench)

Yes. The number is of the order of a million—it is actually 1.2 million—who are Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK but are not British citizens. Their nationalities vary—I do not think there is any information on which nationalities they are—but they are the ones who have not become British citizens.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)

The noble Lord has a lot of experience in these matters. Surely he could give us an indication of the number, in rough terms, from each country—from India, from Pakistan, from Australia and from Canada. It would be helpful if he could.

Lord Green of Deddington (Crossbench)

That would be possible—you can take that information from the Labour Force Survey—but it is not relevant to the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is that only British citizens shall be entitled to vote in a British referendum. It does not matter to me what their citizenship happens to be, nor does that affect the principle.

Lord Brougham and Vaux (Conservative)

My Lords, I must advise the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 3 or 4 due to pre-emption.

Lord Goldsmith (Labour)

My Lords, first, I apologise to the House that I was not here in Committee. I was overseas and therefore unable to speak to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Green, is quite right: I indicated to him that I was sympathetic in principle to his amendment, and I will explain why. I preface that by making clear that my personal position about the EU is that I very much hope that everyone will vote to stay in, but that is for another day.

After I had left office, I was asked to produce a report on citizenship by the then Prime Minister, the right honourable Gordon Brown. It became clear to me as I did that, with the assistance of people in government, that the concept of citizenship today is very blurred. That is because rights that once upon a time belonged to citizens only now belong to others, and because we have few ways to distinguish citizens in the way that some other countries do. In a report that dealt with a number of recommendations, I looked at whether there were reasons to be clearer as to what being a UK citizen meant.

In saying that, I want to make clear that one thing that came across to me was that, despite that lack of clarity, many people were enormously proud of the fact that they were UK citizens, particularly those who had become UK citizens. I attended a number of citizenship ceremonies, and it was very moving to see how proud people were of the fact that they had become British. I tried to hold a ceremony at Wembley Stadium, which was a great success but for the fact that, apparently, rights to pictures of the stadium itself had been sold to commercial enterprises, so we had to keep the curtains closed during the ceremony.

It is for that reason—it is a matter of considerable importance in principle—that we should be clear about what are the rights and responsibilities of our citizens, and that I recommended we should phase out some of the anomalies that enabled people who are not UK citizens to vote in general elections.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Green, has dealt with the question of Irish citizens, because that was one qualification that I made in my report, and that his amendment, as it now stands, also has a form of phasing out, because that was also a recommendation that I made. But the principle remains right, and I am sorry that no Government have yet taken it up; this may turn out not to be the occasion for it to happen. But it is right that we should look at our citizenship regime and look at what being a citizen means so that people can feel not just proud but inclusive, not just because they have a closeness to this country but because they belong and are a part of it. At the time of the tragedies that took place in Paris—and we have seen similar things—nothing could be more important than that people feel a very strong affinity to their country.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

Would the noble and learned Lord agree that, if the next amendment were to be passed, it would change the franchise so that 16 and 17 year-olds, probably permanently, were entitled to vote in general elections as well as this referendum? Are we not saying that this is as good a moment as any to change the franchise on this one as well?

Lord Goldsmith (Labour)

The noble Lord and other noble Lords will have their own views on the next amendment, which I support, but I do not think it affects the principle of what I have been saying.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)

Could the noble and learned Lord confirm my own impression from reading the report he wrote and to which he referred, that the phasing-out approach that he took bears no relation at all to the phasing out in the amendment before the House now, which is not a phasing out but a guillotine at the beginning of 2017? If I remember rightly—he will correct me if I am wrong—he proposed that those Commonwealth citizens who currently have the vote from this country should not have it removed from them. That is a very different proposition indeed.

Lord Goldsmith (Labour)

The noble Lord is right about that. Mind you, if the recommendation had been taken up in 2008 when I wrote the report, who knows where we would be today?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, mentioned our conversation, perhaps I may say one or two things. We all recognise that our current franchise and our concept of citizenship are a mess and need attention. We are about to debate under some of the following amendments how much attention we should give to tidying up our franchise now, or whether it should be addressed more broadly later. On citizenship, I am very struck by the extent to which dual citizenship extends across Britain and elsewhere. I asked several times when in government how many dual citizens there were scattered around the world, and the answer was always that we do not know. I recall a visit to northern Cyprus in which my driver told me that he was a British citizen, a Turkish citizen, a Greek-Cypriot citizen and a Turkish-Cypriot citizen, and he enjoyed choosing between them as he travelled as to which passport he might take. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said, the question of citizenship is extremely fuzzy.

The question of when we would have the referendum is addressed in the amendment. I hope we have it before 1 January 2017. I have some doubts as to how far we should address this broader issue now, in this specific case, although we will address it again under further amendments.

Finally, I congratulate the noble Lord on his argument that we should use this as an example of where we might harmonise with other member states. I assume that that comes from his commitment to ever-closer union.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Conservative)

My Lords, it was my privilege to participate in presenting to your Lordships’ House the citizenship Bill in 1982, so I am sorry to think that it is all in a mess—but these things happen sometimes. I was inclined to think that, in principle, this was a sound amendment, as it would be right that only British citizens should have a vote in this referendum. That is my position in principle, and I am glad to hear that there is some way in which that can be met. However, my difficulty now is that, in a sense, the franchise will depend on the date on which the referendum is called, which is an unfortunate consequence of the practical need for the changes. Therefore, I am very willing to listen to my noble friend when he explains why I should not support this amendment.

Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith on raising his excellent report. It will help us in future debates because not only did he touch on this subject, but he went through all the definitions of citizenship. The issue has arisen over a number of years because there was a separation between being a British passport holder and having the right to reside in Britain. That complication grew historically from our imperial past. The issue here is that we have a report that recommends something in principle that most of us would agree with but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, that is not what this amendment is attempting to do. In his report, my noble and learned friend made it clear that there should be transitional arrangements. Simply put, people residing here should not have the vote taken away. This amendment will, in effect, say to people who reside here and have the right to vote here that they will no longer have the right to vote in a referendum because of the date of the referendum. We cannot accept this amendment, even though there may be principles in it that are worth consideration, because it would be wrong. Someone mentioned extending the franchise. This is about not extending the franchise but taking it away from people who already have it. That is why we cannot possibly support it.

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

My Lords, this has been a short but informative debate. This is the first of a number of amendments concerned with the franchise, the majority of which are concerned with extending it. This amendment is concerned with restricting the franchise. It was considered in a different form, but it is in principle the same and is about whether Commonwealth citizens should be excluded from the franchise. I take the qualification of the noble Lord, Lord Green, that it would be if those Commonwealth citizens are not British citizens. In this amendment he has specified that should the referendum be held on or after 1 January 2017, Commonwealth citizens who are resident should not be eligible to vote, so if the referendum takes place before then, the existing Westminster franchise should pertain. The amendment would have the same effect for Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar.

Noble Lords will be aware that the franchise for this referendum is based on that used for parliamentary elections, but I reiterate that it includes Commonwealth citizens who are citizens of a country mentioned in Schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981—there is quite a number of countries—so long as they are resident in the United Kingdom. It is worth emphasising those words. As I have emphasised in previous debates, the Government think this is fair and consistent with the precedents taken from previous referendums. This franchise was used in the alternative vote referendum in 2011, and it is the franchise that was set out in the European Union Act of that year. Noble Lords will remember that a referendum would have been triggered in the event of the transfer of powers or competence to the European Union.

As I have said to the House before, “Commonwealth citizen” is a broad term. It is set out in Section 37 of the British Nationality Act. It includes British citizens as well as those who hold other types of British nationality, including British overseas territories citizens, British subjects and citizens of those countries listed in Schedule 3 to the Act. In order to be entitled to be registered in the register of parliamentary electors, Commonwealth citizens must have leave to enter the UK or to remain under the Immigration Act 1971 or must not require such leave. While in many democratic countries eligibility to vote is based on citizenship, I set out in Committee that it is our historical ties with Commonwealth countries that justify this approach.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, addressed your Lordships’ House with reference to his report, which was indeed cited in Committee. He assisted the House by explaining that he was asked to review the difficult question of British citizenship, and that the quotation perfectly reasonably relied upon by the noble Lord, Lord Green, had to be seen in the context of a general review of what it meant to be a citizen and what, if anything, we should do to clarify the nature of citizenship or to record it. It is correct, as was elucidated during his remarks to the House, that he suggested that if the franchise were to be restricted to British citizens then those with an existing right to vote should have that phased out. I respectfully adopt the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that what is contained in the amendment is really not a phasing out; it is effectively a guillotine, albeit a somewhat delayed one—a sword of Damocles, as it were.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

Does the Minister intend to do anything about the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, or is it just going to gather dust?

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

I would like to be able to assist my noble friend and say that there are specific plans—I am sure that at this time the question of citizenship above all else will be a matter well in the mind of the Government—but I cannot pretend that there are any immediate plans that I am aware of to implement the suggestions made by the noble and learned Lord.

I should add that on occasions when Parliament has considered the issue of Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights, it has taken the view that the situation should remain as it is at present. We consider that this referendum is not the place to address the franchise issue again. While the amendment rightly acknowledges that it would take time to implement a change to the franchise by stating that this would apply only if the referendum were to be held on or after 1 January 2017, I am sure noble Lords will agree that Commonwealth voting rights ought to be considered as a matter of principle, not merely as a happenstance of date, to answer the point made by my noble and learned friend.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

On the point about the happenstance of date, does the Minister think it reasonable that someone could just have arrived in this country and after as long as it took them to get on the register, which would be a matter of days, they would then be entitled to vote in a referendum that is of such crucial importance to our country?

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

If they are resident in this country then they are entitled to vote. Of course in an extreme example, which I think is probably unlikely to happen, someone could arrive and then immediately attempt to register, however long that might take. However, I respectfully suggest that we cannot require those who are entitled to vote to remain in this country for a specific time before they become entitled to vote in the way that Parliament has hitherto always decided that they should be allowed to. I respectfully suggest that this is not the moment to change that franchise. Whatever may or may not be considered appropriate to do by changing the nature of citizenship or endorsing the importance of it, this amendment is not an appropriate vehicle to bring that about, nor to change the franchise. In those circumstances, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Green of Deddington (Crossbench)

My Lords, this matter has now had an airing and a response. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to that, especially to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Goldsmith and Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The only point that I would challenge in what has been said is the question of the guillotine, or of taking away something that people have. That would be the eventual effect but let us be clear that they would have a year in which to become British citizens, so it would be their decision not to become British citizens that would mean they could not vote. However, I think we have had the debate. It is now clear that all three parties are opposed to these amendments, and there are other matters to be pursued. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 3

Moved by Baroness Morgan of Ely

3: Clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert “and persons who would be so entitled except for the fact that they will be aged 16 or 17 on the date on which the referendum is to be held,”

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

My Lords, Amendment 3 stands in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Tyler, Lord Hannay and Lord Tugendhat.

The Labour Party agrees with the principle of allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the EU referendum and in elections more generally. Who can forget the enthusiasm and intelligence with which the 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland engaged with that referendum debate? More 16 and 17 year-olds voted in that referendum than 18 to 24 year-olds, and evidence from Austria and Norway, which also have votes for 16 to 18 year-olds, suggests that they are more likely to continue to vote if they start at a younger age.

At 16 and 17, many young people still live at home. They are a part of the community, have their family around them and have a sense of belonging to that society. We know that now civic education has been introduced into every school in the United Kingdom. Any noble Lords who have children or grandchildren will know that at that age they are constantly looking at some kind of screen and have access to information in a way that no previous generation has had.

It is important for us to understand that young people are and can be enthusiastic citizens who take that responsibility seriously. At 16, they are taking life-changing decisions on the future direction of their lives, deciding which A-levels to take or which vocational courses to follow, and if they find someone they want to marry, they can even do that. If they are responsible enough to deal with that, why should they not have a say in the future of their nation? I therefore hope that it is clear that we agree with the principle of allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to vote. However, the question is then: is this the right place to introduce it?

We have already discussed the issue of franchise, and it is clear that this needs and merits a much broader discussion. We therefore propose an amendment just to this referendum. This is a very exceptional situation, because it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for them to vote on this significant issue. It is different from other elections, because within two years’ time they will be able to take a position on who they want to run their country; in this instance, they will possibly never again get a say on their country’s future relationship with the EU. However, they will have to live with the consequences of that decision for longer than any of us. With the current system there is also a danger that we are sending mixed messages to young voters in different part of the country, which is of course particularly true for Scotland, where they have had this opportunity to vote before.

There have been suggestions that introducing this amendment would force a postponement of the EU referendum vote. I will refute that and will address some of the technical issues relating to this amendment. Many have deliberately misinterpreted the fact that the Electoral Commission pointed out that this exercise took a year in Scotland. However, at no point did it suggest that it would need to take that long. It has confirmed that this is a matter for Parliament. We accept that there would be a need for some lead time to register these young people, who are not currently on the register. However, the Electoral Commission has stated that other options are available to help get as many voters on the register in the available timeframe. John Turner, the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, has said that while it would be difficult to do this within a shorter timeframe, it would be possible, given adequate resources, to undertake this registration by September. Let us be clear: it would not be the struggle—

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

Is the noble Baroness aware that, in Scotland, the reason it took so long was because it was necessary to have a separate register, which included 14 and 15 year-olds and which had to be kept separate from the main register for reasons of confidentiality and child protection? Is she suggesting that it would be a quick job to register every 14, 15 and 16 year-old on a new, separate register for this purpose?

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

I was coming on to that, but I absolutely accept that it is imperative that data protection measures are put in place to ensure that people under the age of 18 are protected.

I think that we would need to introduce a separate register. I have spoken to electoral registration officers, who suggest that this would not be a problem. They say that in fact that kind of system is already in place to an extent for what they call “attainers”—those who are likely to reach voting age in the next few years. It would mean expanding the current registration system with the creation of a separate system. It is also important to recognise that it would not be the struggle that many people have made it out to be. Once Royal Assent had been granted, electoral registration officers could simply get on with the job.

I shall outline the current situation regarding the registration of 16 and 17 year-olds. Electoral registration officers in every county have been given additional grants this year to drive the move towards individual voter registration. Sixteen and 17 year-olds are already sent an inquiry form in recognition of the fact that they will come of age in the next few years, so most of them are already on a system. The task would therefore be to follow that up with a registration form and then to focus on getting 14 and 15 year-olds to register—those who may reach the age of 16 in the next year, known as attainers. We would need a separate registration initiative—which Scotland more or less already has—and a more comprehensive strategy in England, Northern Ireland and Wales.

We have a huge advantage here, which is that we know exactly where these young people are—they are in school. Most schools have their own data controls, and the Government could easily request that electoral registration officers should be given access to this information. Of course, data protection measures would need to be in place. We would need a separate electoral registration form for 16 to 18 year-olds, which would not be made public. It is true that we may have missed the annual canvass—

Viscount Ridley (Conservative)

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. This is a question that may reveal great ignorance—if so, I apologise—but is there an issue with individual registration requiring social security numbers? I believe that they are required. I have just reregistered myself and had to produce my social security number. I do not believe that most 14 and 15 year-olds have a social security number. Would they need a number to be issued in advance of registration?

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

It is correct that they would need to be provided with national insurance numbers, but I understand that that is also possible. None of this is rocket science or difficult, and we have a period of time within which to do it. My understanding from the Association of Electoral Administrators is that it is possible to do so within the timeframe that we foresee.

Lord Green of Deddington (Crossbench)

Is the noble Baroness aware that 16 and 17 year-olds amount to 1.5 million people? If you add in the attainers, you are probably talking about another 1.5 million people. That amounts to 3 million. Is she perhaps making light of what is involved in this registration process?

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

I am absolutely not making light of it. In fact, I have spoken directly to electoral registration officers within some of the counties where this would have to be done. They recognise that an increase in resource would be needed, but it is not impossible to do. We know where these people are and we would have their names, so the process of identifying them would not be difficult. It would be different from, for example, trying to find British citizens in the EU who are over the age of 15. That would be a difficult process. This is not a difficult process—we know exactly where these people are.

Baroness O'Cathain (Conservative)

Will the noble Baroness please tell me how many people this affected at the time of the Scottish referendum? How many millions, thousands or hundreds were there? How does that compare with the 1.5 million who would have to be included this time?

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

It was not millions in Scotland —there is no question about that—it was thousands, and they were able to do it in the timeframe that they were given. It is important for us to understand that it is possible to do this. We know where these people are. The electoral registration officials have said that this is a possibility, and we should accept their say.

Baroness O'Cathain (Conservative)

With the leave of the House, may I pursue this question? The noble Baroness said it was probably thousands. But how many thousands? Was it 99,000, 3,000 or 5,000? I just want to get this straight in my mind.

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

It was proportionately exactly the same as it would be in Britain. There are about 5 million Scottish voters and in the UK there are 60 million voters. The noble Baroness is probably better at maths than I am, but if we know that it is 1.5 million for the UK then we can work out what that would be as a percentage of the 5 million voters in Scotland.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

I can tell the noble Baroness that the number in Scotland was 121,497.

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

What a great relief—no need for me to use my maths.

We have to understand that this is not a static process but a rolling register. Let us not forget also that the timetable for the referendum was not one of our making. During the discussion on the Private Member’s Bill, we warned the Government of the difficulties of holding a referendum in 2017 due to French and German elections and the UK presidency. It is the Government who have backed themselves into a corner and are trapped in a very narrow window for when they can realistically hold a referendum. That is a situation that we did not create.

We believe that the Prime Minister would like to go for an early referendum vote, but he cannot put the referendum wheels in motion until he has finished the negotiation on UK membership, and that has only just started. It is clear that member states will be distracted by the rather more urgent task of keeping their citizens safe. So the probability of us coming to any agreement in December is, I suggest, extremely thin.

We know that the Government have agreed to a four-month minimum period from setting the date in regulations to the vote. Therefore, if the electoral registration officials could get started as soon as Royal Assent were granted, that would allow them plenty of time to get ready for September.

It is also worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that noble Lords have previously supported a similar amendment on reducing the voting age to 16 in the context of the local government Bill before the summer. The principle of changing the franchise for the European referendum from the Westminster franchise has already been breached. The Government have allowed Peers, residents of Gibraltar and Commonwealth citizens of Gibraltar to have the right to vote.

I urge the Minister to take note of the strength of feeling on this issue, not just in this House but in the country more generally. I respectfully suggest that it is time to allow these young people—

Lord Spicer (Conservative)

I do not quite see why the noble Baroness stops at age 16. What is wrong with including those who are 14 and 13? There is a very real question as to why she defines the limit at that point.

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

I will tell the noble Lord why we should start at 16: civic education finishes at the age of 16. By the age of 16, young people have been equipped to deal with these measures; that education has not finished by the time that they are 14 or 15. There are also several examples of them taking responsible decisions at that age, such as being able to get married, choosing their vocation and choosing their A-levels. Those are responsibilities that they take seriously, and that is why we would introduce it at 16 and not at a younger age.

Lord Cormack (Conservative)

Does the noble Baroness believe that 16 year-olds should be allowed to drink, drive and smoke?

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

I am not getting into this debate now. There is a much broader discussion. I think that what 16 to 18 year-olds are allowed to do is a dog’s breakfast, frankly—the fact that you can have sex but not watch sex is completely ridiculous. Obviously, we need a broader debate on these issues. I do not think this is the place to have that. Let us take note of what the people in this House are thinking, take note of what the people in the country are thinking and take note of the fact that young people in this country, if given the responsibility, will take it seriously. It is time to give them their opportunity to have a say in the future of their country and the future of this country’s relationship with the European Union.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said that we should not get involved in wider issues. I think that is one thing we should be getting involved in because this is clearly going to move effortlessly and seamlessly into a general election. We are talking about changing the franchise in general elections as well. This, I believe, needs a much wider debate than just latching it on to a European referendum Bill. I do not think we should allow this through like this because it will change our franchise altogether on a permanent basis, and that is something which should be discussed at some length.

My noble friend Lord Cormack makes the point that people are not allowed to smoke and drink and so forth at the age of 16 but they can vote. There are a lot of complicated issues here. I also have a slight suspicion, seeing the names of the people who tabled this amendment, that it is designed to improve the position of those people who want to stay in the EU.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

I hear people saying no. Let us suppose that an opinion poll came out on 16 and 17 year-olds that was 70:30 in favour of pulling out of the EU. Would we be looking at this amendment now? I can tell you we would not. Let us not fool ourselves. This is all part of trying to tilt the playing field even more in the direction of those who want to stay in the EU. It is already tilted because the Government have the option of choosing the day the referendum will be held, and this is clearly an effort to tilt it even further.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)

Is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will have to tell me what amendment I put my name to which tries to tilt the playing field the other way. All we have ever tried to do is keep it level. My God, that is an effort in a House like this, I can tell you.

Earl of Listowel (Crossbench)

My Lords, the noble Lord is not alone in his opinion about finding a coherent solution to this age of responsibility. He kindly provided me with the Hansard Society’s submission of evidence to the report conducted by the Youth Select Committee last year, in which it said that,

“a wider debate about the age of maturity”

with a view to addressing the largely ad hoc nature of the decisions that have been taken in this area in the past,

“ to reach a coherent settlement rooted in principle”

is necessary. That is very much along the lines of what the noble Lord has said.

I spoke on this in Committee and when this issue has been raised in the past. I feel it is a very important debate, with strong merit on both sides. I thought the noble Baroness put the case very well. It is really important that young people are encouraged to vote and that they get engaged in voting because there is the hope, at least, that politicians will pay more attention to issues important to young people if young people are voting. There is a lot of merit to what the noble Baroness and others are arguing for. However, I also have serious concerns which have not yet been answered. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the paper that he sent me, but the concerns that I have raised on a number of occasions have still not been answered, and I really would like those to be addressed. I will put them quickly as we are on Report.

My questions are principally about increasing the vulnerability of young people and the risk that legislation that is intended to protect young people may be eroded if we lower the age of voting to 16. On vulnerability, we know from what we have learned about the sexual exploitation of children and young people that the internet can be adeptly used by adults to persuade them to do certain things. The noble Baroness referred to young people being at their screens much of the time nowadays, so that unscrupulous people who wish to influence the way they might vote can access them fairly easily. I am told that, during the last election, there was a caricature of the leader of the Opposition with a pair of donkey’s ears behind his head which was very popular. That sort of approach by an unscrupulous politician might have more influence on a 16 or 17 year-old than on an 18 or 19 year-old.

We are talking about these matters in a context in which nationalism is on the rise across Europe. There was a meeting with the ambassador from Hungary a couple of weeks ago. He spoke about events last summer, when there was such concern in his country about the rate of immigration that there was a risk of the right wing coming to power. We know that there are serious worries at present about immigration pressures and about terrorism. We have found in the past that these sorts of things have opened doors to extremist politicians. For instance, in the 1930s, Hitler came to power in a much more extreme economic climate. We are in difficult times and one can see the rise of unscrupulous politicians who can reach towards young people—one thinks of the Hitler Youth in Hitler’s time and, in China, of the way in which young people were targeted during the Cultural Revolution by those who were able to influence them easily. We now have this wonderful tool, the internet, for such people, so we have to be really careful to think about those issues.

Your Lordships have worked long and hard to increase protections for vulnerable young people over many years, during the Labour Government and the previous Government. The most recent example is the protection of 17 year-olds in police custody. To prevent them being held in police cells over the weekend, they now have to be put in children’s homes. So a lot of work has been done to protect young people. In his evidence to the report that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, gave me, Professor Russell said that if young people of 16 or 17 become homeless there are certain duties on local authorities to protect them. Should those protections continue if we lowered the voting age to 16?

We need to think very carefully about these concerns. Neither of them has been addressed so far and I would appreciate it if those who are advocating this measure would do so. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment before us today. I worry that there is a project here to lower the franchise—it is not just about the specifics of this referendum; there is a project to expand the franchise and it needs more thought.

Lord Taverne (Liberal Democrat)

The noble Earl referred to previous considerations of this matter. Three commissions have looked at it. They disagreed about whether the age should be lowered, but they all agreed that there was a great gap in the evidence as to whether young people would be sufficiently responsible in weighing up their vote to take care to be informed about the issues. But is not the evidence now clear, because we have had the Scottish referendum where all those questions were answered?

Lord Allen of Kensington (Labour)

My Lords, I support the amendment. As a Scot involved in the Better Together campaign last year, I saw first-hand 16 and 17 year-olds taking this responsibility very seriously. I had robust debates probably more with 16 and 17 year- olds than with their parents. They were not necessarily on our side, so this is not about manipulating the position. They were one of the most knowledgeable groups because they had literally done their homework. As your Lordships have heard, more of them voted. The facts are that 75% of them turned out and voted compared to 54% of 18 to 24 year-olds.

We often criticise young people for not getting involved in the political process but I think, having spent many years in television, that we, too, were part of that problem. We could not get young people to engage in the political process but now we have a great opportunity. However, surely we are putting out mixed messages. We want them to engage but we do not want to give them the vote.

The Scottish referendum showed that young people are knowledgeable and can be trusted with the vote. They take this new responsibility seriously. This House has already decided to lower the voting age for local government elections to 16; 16 and 17 year-olds will be given the vote in the Scottish Parliament and I believe that Wales will follow suit. Do we really want to say to 16 and 17 year-olds that they are old enough to be involved in the debate but not old enough to be involved in the election. These elections will have more impact on them than they will on any of us.

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

My Lords, perhaps I may step into the lion’s den and say that I strenuously oppose these amendments and believe that we should stick with the current age of majority of 18.

Two arguments have been advanced by the proponents of 16. The first is that this decision may last for another 40 years and will affect a whole generation of young people. That is true. However, in that case, should we not push the age down so that people younger than 16 and 17 can vote, because it will also greatly affect 15 year-olds, 14 year-olds, 13 year-olds and 12 year-olds? There is an argument that it could go down to as low as 10. I am not suggesting that it should, but if one adopts the logic that this decision affects young people disproportionately and that young people should have a say, at 10 years old they have reached the age of criminal responsibility and, if we can assume that from that age onwards they have that reasoning ability, there may be no reason why they should not be able to vote. Logic dictates that there is nothing magical about lowering the age to 16 and sticking at 16.

The second argument is that young people are much more mature these days: they are more sophisticated; they understand politics and the world; and they would be enthusiastic voters. I do not deny their enthusiasm but that is not a good enough ground per se for extending the franchise. If we change the voting age based on maturity, I suspect all the behavioural experts would give the vote to girls at age 10 and to boys at age 25. Making a judgment on who is mature enough to vote is more subjective than picking an arbitrary age.

However, my main objection is that everything we have done in Parliament over recent years has involved raising the age at which young people can do things because we, in this House and in the other place, have concluded that under 18 year-olds cannot be trusted to do things on their own and do not have the maturity to make decisions. With the assistance of our wonderful Library, I have looked at the minimum ages we have set for young people to do certain things. This is in accordance with English law, I stress. Those who favourably quote Scotland should be aware that Scots law has traditionally permitted young people to do some things at an earlier age, such as marry without parental consent. That is perhaps one reason why lowering the voting age in Scotland was not such a big issue.

We know that young people under 18 can marry in England only with parental consent.

Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one simple question: what arguments and rationale is he going to use when explaining to the young people of Scotland aged between 16 and 17 that they are not going to be able to vote in this referendum, when they have voted previously? I would like to hear the persuasive arguments he is going to use with these young people.

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

They did not have the right to vote in a referendum previously. They may have the right to vote in Scottish elections but this is a United Kingdom referendum. I would be quite happy to explain to young Scots that while they may have the right to vote in Scotland, it does not automatically follow that they have the right to vote in a United Kingdom election.

No one under the age of 18 can gamble: we passed that law in 1934. No one under 18 can get a tattoo: we passed that law in 1969. No one under 18 can serve on a jury—a 1974 Act. No one under 18 can watch a violent or pornographic film—a 1984 Act. In 1985 we banned anyone under 18 from buying solvents. No one under 18 can buy alcohol. Interestingly, the Scottish NHS and Government have been trying to push the age up to 21. They tried that in 2008 and are keen to do so again.

Under a 1987 law, no one under the age of 18 can sign a property agreement. In 1996 my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and I increased the age at which one can buy a knife from 16 to 18. In 2003 we banned anyone aged under 18 from buying paint stripper, and in 2005 we banned anyone aged under 18 from possessing fireworks in a public place. In 2007 we raised the age at which someone can buy tobacco to 18, while in 2010 we banned anyone under the age of 18 from using a sunbed.

Lord Blair of Boughton (Crossbench)

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Everything he has mentioned concerns banning people from doing something. This amendment is about permitting people to do something. I do not think that the analogy works.

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

I beg to differ with the noble Lord. I have almost concluded my remarks on the timescale on which we ban things and I am trying to show that, over the years, this House and the other place have been raising the age at which young people are permitted to do things. It is quite incongruous to suggest that, as we raise the age bar every year because we do not trust the ability of young people to make certain decisions, we should suddenly say that we will lower to 16 the age at which people have the right to vote in this referendum.

On 21 July this year we banned anyone under the age of 18 from buying fireworks. Without listing all the other legislation through which we have prohibited under 18 year-olds from doing things like opening a bank account, making a will or appearing in an adult court, the trend is pretty obvious. Rather than Parliament acknowledging that young people are growing up faster and can be trusted with decisions, rightly or wrongly, we have been going in the opposite direction. Almost every year we have been raising from 16 to 18 the age at which young people can do things. I simply say that we cannot have it both ways, as the proponents of this amendment are arguing. We cannot say that young people should be permitted to vote at the age of 16 because they are more aware and mature—and then push the age up to 18 for almost everything else.

I conclude by saying that if under 18 year-olds are not fit to serve on a jury and judge the fate of an individual human being, I submit that they are not fit to decide the fate of a nation.

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

My Lords, I tabled a detailed amendment in Committee to make this provision, but I am very happy indeed to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.

Against the background of the constitutional referendum in Scotland last year, it strikes me that a principle has been established that we as a House and the Westminster Parliament are willing to consider, at the very least, that in constitutional matters, this may be appropriate. The rationale as I understand it in Scotland was that the decision was so far-reaching with regard to the future of Scotland that everyone who could make a reasonable contribution to that decision should be encouraged to do so, and that 16 and 17 year-olds were seen in that context. Surely the decision we are about to take with regard to the future of the United Kingdom, inside or outside the European Union, is equally far-reaching. It is going to affect those young people and people of all ages for the rest of their lives.

Of course we have to draw a line somewhere, but saying that it is all right for people aged 16 and 17 to vote does not mean that we must then necessarily say,

“What about 15, 14 and 13 year-olds?”. That reduces the argument ad absurdum. The principle has been acknowledged, not only in Scotland but also in Wales with regard to some of the changes to the powers of the Assembly that we may make. How on earth can we say that it is all right for young people in Scotland and Wales to vote, but not for young people in the context of the United Kingdom? Is the relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union going to be seen as something that looks to the past and to a type of Britain that some people might identify with, but I suspect that the majority, both in this Chamber and certainly in these islands, might not? If we are looking forward, if we are outward-looking and positive and if we want our young people to play a role in that sort of community, surely we should trust them with regard to this vote. I hope very much that this Chamber will give them that opportunity.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

My Lords, I do not know what I think about this issue any more. I was trying to think of the phrase and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, helped me out as always. What is it about consistency? Consistency is the hallmark of small minds. I should like to say that I have been completely consistent on this matter. When the Government decided in their wisdom to allow the Scottish Parliament to introduce votes for 16 year-olds, I argued against it on the grounds that it would set a precedent and we would end up having to have votes for 16 year-olds in general elections and every other thing and that we should not go about these matters in a piecemeal manner.

When the Government decided to allow 16 year-olds to have the vote, not in Welsh elections but in a referendum in Wales to decide if the Assembly should have tax-raising powers, I argued that there was no consistency in this matter and asked why they were making a distinction. I have consistently argued that these matters—the matters of the age of majority—should be looked at as a whole and not on the basis of piecemeal changes. Here we are again with the amendment of the noble Baroness seeking to make another piecemeal change.

I do not want to repeat the brilliant arguments that were put by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

Well, I will repeat them if you like.

The best argument I have seen in support of not changing the law for 16 year-olds can be found in the article that was written by the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the papers this morning, in which he argues that it is hypocrisy to argue against votes for 16-year-olds. He says that you are able to fight in the Army when you are 16—not true. He says you can marry when you are 16—not true. He says that anyone who pays tax should be able to vote. Noble Lords opposite all laughed when my noble friend said, “Why not 13 and 14 year-olds?” Every seven year-old pays tax when they buy a bag of sweets or an ice cream. It is VAT.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

Well, it is an argument. I am not surprised that the Liberal Democrat Benches are wincing because that argument was put forward by their leader this very day.

Then we have had the argument about Scotland. We are told that Scotland has led the way in this revolution, recognising the rights and responsibilities of 16 year-olds. Well, in April Scotland will introduce legislation that requires every child in Scotland from ages nought to 18 to have a state guardian to check up on whether their parents are looking after them. So, the state guardian will need to make sure that 16 year- olds, presumably in exercising their votes, are being properly dealt with. How can we have a state guardian to protect you from your parents and at the same time argue that you are able to vote? We all know why the SNP wanted 16 year-olds to have the vote. It is true that they came out very enthusiastically and voted for independence.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

They did indeed. Those noble Lords who are saying they did not did not spend much time campaigning in Scotland.

The turnout was certainly higher: 75% of 16 and 17 year-olds voted in the referendum of Scotland; only 54% of 18 to 24 year-olds voted. The funny thing about 16 year-olds is that they turn into 18 year-olds. Is it not extraordinary that the turnout fell to 54% as against 92% of people who are over 55, and 85% of 35 to 54 year-olds?

Viscount Ridley (Conservative)

In the spirit of bipartisan compromise, a suggestion in the previous amendment was that perhaps one should delay voting. Perhaps we should say that 16 year-olds can indeed have the vote but delay it for two years?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

I like my noble friend’s idea of what constitutes a compromise. The Scottish position arose out of sheer opportunism by the SNP. We can argue whether or not it worked for that party, but that is why it wanted to give votes to 16 year-olds.

Having said that, the Government are all over the place on this. The Prime Minister gave an undertaking to the First Minister that he will do all he can to ensure that 16 and 17 year-olds can vote in the next Holyrood elections. Indeed, he has been as good as his word: 16 year-olds will be able to vote in the Holyrood elections in May, just as they voted in the referendum. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, who is in her place, is right that this is a rather embarrassing thing to deal with in Scotland—to explain why they could vote in the referendum on independence and will in the Scottish elections, but they will not in the referendum on our membership of the European Union. I agree that it is embarrassing, but it was the party opposite who decided to grant devolution and to devolve these powers. We are discussing a United Kingdom issue. It is very embarrassing that every 16, 17 and 18 year-old in Scotland will have a state guardian, unlike people in England. That is the consequence of devolution, which the parties opposite supported with so much enthusiasm.

My answer to the 16 year-old who says, “Why do I not have a vote in Scotland on this matter?”, would be, “Because we have gone through an idiotic period of piecemeal constitutional reform”. The proper thing to do is to consider all the issues that have been mentioned. Why can you not—

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Labour)

Will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

I will give way in a moment. Why can you not buy a packet of cigarettes and do all the things that my noble friend mentioned? We need to look at the age of majority and make it as consistent as possible throughout the United Kingdom in respect of every area of activity, and not to say, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea to add to the confusion by making a change in a Bill of this nature?”.

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Labour)

My Lords, I am very happy to have waited that moment—more than one moment—to ask about the noble Lord’s use of the word “piecemeal”. I find it very ironic, coming from the Benches opposite and from a Government who have consistently refused attempts to get a constitutional convention together to look at a non-piecemeal way of effecting constitutional change, that in this instance and on this matter “piecemeal” is what he is afraid of, when his Government have consistently—that word again; a small mind—been throwing piecemeal constitutional change at us, expecting us to toe his line.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

If the noble Lord were a more frequent attender at this House he would know that I harry the Government almost every day on the issue of not having piecemeal reform and that I support the idea of a constitutional convention. I certainly am speaking not for the Government, but for those of us who believe that we should not make constitutional changes. Indeed, the noble Lord makes his own point. The Labour Party’s position is that we should have a constitutional convention to sort all these matters out, but here it is doing the opposite of what it says that it wants and making a piecemeal change. If I may say so, the noble Lord has made a point that has come back to hit him like a boomerang.

Interestingly, in moving her amendment the noble Baroness said in her defence that it would apply only to these elections and that she was not making a general change to the franchise. I did not really understand that. She also said that we need a broader debate. Presumably she was trying to cover this point about the constitutional convention and the need to look at these things as a whole. I am sure the noble Baroness will forgive me for pointing out that she elided the issue of 16 to 18 year-olds. Only four countries in the world allow 16 year-olds a vote in general elections. They are Austria, Nicaragua, Brazil—where it is voluntary for 16 year-olds and compulsory for older voters—and Cuba. I do not think that Castro is a great symbol of democracy—although with the current leadership of the Labour Party I can see the attraction.

I have a serious point to make. In an article, the leader of the Liberal Democrats had a real go at my colleague in the other place David Nuttall. He said in a mocking way that people who are against votes for 16 year-olds even suggest that somehow it could result in sexual exploitation. To be fair to the noble Baroness, she accepted the point that a register of young people which will allow 16 year-olds to vote has to be a carefully drawn-up, separate and confidential register. I listened to all the arguments about how all this could be done very quickly and wondered whether these were the same people who, not a matter of weeks ago, were telling us that individual registration could not be done in a year because it was too difficult and there was not enough time to get people on the register. Can these be the same people? Suddenly, we are told that it is all very different. When my noble friend Lord Ridley made his point about national insurance, they said, “We will just give everybody a national insurance number”. That is the most extraordinary statement. How much will all this cost, and for what purpose?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

Someone is saying “democracy”. Democracy involves having a consistent and well-thought-through attitude towards the franchise. It does not consist of giving young people the vote and dressing it up as some kind of liberty for them, when actually the reason some want to give 16 year-olds the vote is because they are hoping they will vote for them. That is what is behind all this and it is no way in which to determine our franchise. Therefore, I have to say, I am not in favour of this amendment.

Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)

Will the noble Lord let me try again on this? I recognise that he finds it very embarrassing to have to explain his stance to the 16 year-olds of Scotland, but will he give it a go and tell us how he will do so? I am not sure that they will be taken with the arguments that he has given us at length over the last 10 minutes, because they have voted willingly and in numbers. I think that they will take a pretty dim view of those arguments. Will the noble Lord tell us the argument he will use with the 16 year-olds—not the ones we have heard because I do not think they will cut a lot of ice with them?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

Do you know what? I have often had difficulty getting people in Scotland to accept some of my arguments, and that is not just limited to 16 year-olds.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

I am very concerned about the public image of the Conservative Party in Scotland after the tartan obscurantism of two or three noble Lords sitting close to me. It is important to remember the official position of the Conservative Party in Scotland. Ms Ruth Davidson, the leader of that Conservative Party, is strongly in favour of this amendment. She argues:

“We deem 16 year olds adult enough to join the army … get married, leave home and work full-time. The evidence of the referendum suggests that, clearly, they are old enough to vote too”.

That was the deduction I drew from the Scottish referendum. It had lots of very unpleasant aspects but the one really good thing was the engagement of so many young people in politics. They got interested and involved. That is a strong argument for this amendment. There is a small Scottish argument for it as well. The question that flummoxed the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which I thought also sort of flummoxed the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is: how do you explain to the Scots young people that Holyrood was prepared to give them a vote but Westminster is not? I think we all know what deduction Scots young people would draw from that, and it is unhelpful to those of us like me who favour the union.

Lord Morgan (Labour)

My Lords, I had not intended to participate in this debate but the arguments I have heard are interesting and in some cases bizarre. I have just come back from Paris and the reaction of people, including young people, to the terrible atrocities there has in my view a bearing on what I want to say. The arguments we have heard are quite interesting to a historian—namely, that some people in our society need protection, perhaps because of their immaturity or lack of public awareness. To my mind, many of them had a strong ring of the arguments presented strongly in this House against giving the franchise to women a long time ago, and many of the same patronising and ill-informed observations about categories of our society have re-emerged.

I was fascinated by the speech of a noble Lord who I greatly respect for his expertise, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who spoke against this amendment. His line was that young people needed protection, and that this is recognised in a variety of ways, because they were vulnerable to particular kinds of ideas, including racial and cultural extremism. My own view is that in key areas young people need rather less protection than their seniors—rather less protection, I venture to observe, than some noble Lords who have participated in this debate. There is every indication in countries across Europe that young people, while necessarily having a brief experience of life, are less prey to religious and racial extremism, and that they have a more outward-looking view towards the cultural admixture of society, the aspects of society concerned with immigration, and so on. It could be argued that, far from being in need of protection, they might serve as an example to others.

The various racialist movements that have emerged in continental Europe are broadly groups or bodies of opinion which appeal most strongly to older people. It is older people who supply the bulk of support for the Front National and a variety of national and extremist groups. My conclusion, therefore, is that young people would be more likely to look at these matters rationally and dispassionately.

Finally, the terrible events in France of course have provoked an enormous public debate. What seems to be emerging is that younger people are more inclined to take a broad view of these atrocities—not simply to indulge in an instant response of a punitive kind but to see the broader relationship between these terrible events and the social and other inequalities that have inured in France in this period. Comparatively, we have every basis for having faith in young people, not dismissing them—not using the fact that, as many noble Lords have rightly said, the law is inconsistent and perverse and treats categories of our society in different ways; as my noble friend behind me observed, so does our constitution, which is similarly fragmented. It would be in every way an educative and civilised thing if we supported this amendment.

Lord Cormack (Conservative)

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, but I cannot agree with him. I am one of those who hope that we will have a referendum with an emphatic result in favour of remaining within the European Union. Unless there are some extraordinary events between now and holding the referendum, I believe that I shall be campaigning—I hope vigorously—on that front.

Last year, my 16 year-old grand-daughter, who will be 18 tomorrow, voted—with my encouragement—for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom. I was delighted that she did. She and her classmates took an intelligent and very sensible approach to the whole issue. But the fact that they considered it carefully does not, I believe, give your Lordships’ House the freedom to indulge in what my noble friend Lord Forsyth very persuasively called piecemeal change. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out, this House recently decided—on his initiative, and I gave him my strong support—decided that 17 year-olds should not be detained in police custody overnight. He made a quietly passionate speech in that sense and I was delighted to make a brief speech supporting him.

We are all over the shop on this one. It is not coherent or sensible to argue that on the one hand you cannot smoke or drink, or do all those things that my noble friend Lord Blencathra set out in his very amusing speech, but on the other that you can vote. We need to look at two issues and this Bill is not the occasion for so doing. We need to look at the age of maturity—what one can and should be able to do at the age of 16 or 18. Have we got it right? Have we been sensible in creating more and more impediments, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out, or have we been wrong? We also have to look very sensibly and coherently at the franchise.

Lord Kinnock (Labour)

My Lords—

Lord Cormack (Conservative)

Perhaps I may just finish, then of course I will give way. The Bill takes the UK franchise as it is, which seems to be an entirely logical and sensible thing to do. I give way to my old friend.

Lord Kinnock (Labour)

I am grateful to my old friend, the noble Lord, for giving way; I would expect nothing less. I also applaud him for introducing to the debate a specific instance in the case of his grand-daughter to illustrate that fact that youngsters in Scotland voted with great responsibility and not a little insight in casting their vote in the referendum there. His grand-daughter may not be as grateful as I am to him for introducing her into this debate. Nevertheless, I am sure that she is a very grown-up young woman. Can he tell us what arguments he would deploy in convincing an 18 year-old who voted when she was 16 in the Scottish referendum, in good conscience and with good judgment, that she should not now be able to exercise the same right to vote in this referendum—presuming, of course, that she had not reached the age of majority at that time? What argument would he have used, say, on the day before her 16th birthday when she would have been entitled to vote? Can he impart those arguments to us now?

Lord Cormack (Conservative)

As I have already said, my grand-daughter is 18 tomorrow and she will be entirely free to vote, as I hope she will, in this referendum and every other election, and at every other opportunity when she can vote.

There was nothing inconsistent—the saying of course refers to foolish consistency as the hobgoblin of small minds, not the hallmark—in saying as I did at the time of the referendum, “You have been given this responsibility; I hope that you will exercise it responsibly; but I do not believe in general that what is being done is right”. I argued that in this House when we discussed the matter. No one who was present when I argued on these things before would be at all surprised by what I am saying. My noble friend Lord Tyler—I still call him that—and I clashed several times on this issue when we were talking about the Scottish referendum and other things. The fact is that it is perfectly possible to say, “If you have been given this responsibility, exercise it, but I do not believe that we are wise”. I certainly did not believe that the Prime Minister was wise to concede this in the case of the Scottish referendum, any more than I think that he was wise recently to say what he did about 16 and 17 year-olds voting in the Scottish general election. One wonders whether they will have to be accompanied by guardians—but that is another matter entirely.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am getting bids for alternatives, and the latest is that consistency is the bugbear of a mediocre mind. Perhaps I can help my noble friend with his granddaughter. Surely the point is that his granddaughter would have been able to vote in the Scottish referendum but not in the general election that we have just had.

Lord Cormack (Conservative)

Yes, indeed: she thought that was inconsistent, and I agreed with her; of course it was. I do not think that one needs to prolong this argument. We should be getting the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I hope that we will have a referendum in which I will be able to campaign for membership of the European Union by the middle of next year. This thing is dragging on far too long. We should look separately at the question of the franchise and the question of maturity and decide whether we have got it right.

Lord Tyler (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 3, in common with not only the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, but Members on the Conservative Benches and Cross-Benchers. It is genuinely across the House that we now feel that this moment has arrived. Having deployed the argument for this extension of the franchise so often in the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, so kindly said, I can be very brief. I certainly do not need to repeat the noble Baroness’s excellent exposition of the advice we have now had from the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators about the practicalities.

In Committee, I thought that the most persuasive contribution of many was from the Conservative Benches, from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who said:

“So the question I am struggling with is: how can it be right to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in a referendum on Scotland but not in a referendum on Europe? There has to be some sort of consistency”.

We are back there again, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has so admirably emphasised. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, went on to rubbish the official explanation that somehow the extension of the franchise in the Scottish independence referendum did not originate with Conservative Ministers. He said,

“although the coalition Government and the Prime Minister did not specifically approve votes for 16 year-olds, they did acquiesce in votes for 16 year-olds”.—[ Official Report , 28/10/15; cols.1227-8.]

He and others, notably now an increasing number of Conservative MPs, have warned that we simply cannot pretend that Scottish young people are somehow more mature, well-informed, responsible or capable of exercising common sense than their English, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts. Several colleagues from this side of the House have challenged anybody from the other side to produce that argument, without any success.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to the United Kingdom. He is right: in the long term, we have to address the consistency of the franchise, the bedrock of our representative democracy across the United Kingdom, but we have a particular issue at the moment. We have a Bill. We have a referendum coming. It is on that issue that we need specific consistency. That was very much the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and he had no problem whatever with my quoting his contribution in Committee. As an avid fan of both versions of his “House of Cards”, I am very disappointed that he is not able to be here today. I do not know whether I am being as cynical or conspiratorial as some of the characters in those great productions, but I wonder whether there has been some encouragement for him not to be here today. I wonder whether the Government Whips may have encouraged him to stay away, reassuring him that nothing controversial was to be discussed or decided.

One of the key lessons of the Scottish referendum was that the 16 and 17 year-old age group registered—well over 100,000 of them—and voted in larger numbers than those aged 18 to 24. Why? It is very interesting. The reason why that has been identified is that the younger cohort were often still at school and in their local, family environment, where they had much more encouragement to take the issues seriously. When they got away from home to their first job or further or higher education, they lost touch with some of the issues and concerns that might otherwise been part of their consideration.

There is hard evidence—looked at very carefully by Bite the Ballot and others—that there is a good case for a direct link between citizenship courses and electoral registration. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, there has been a successful pilot in Northern Ireland in that regard.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

On the numbers, it is certainly true that 75% of 16 year-olds voted—of course, it was a novelty—but that is not very different from the figure for 25 to 34 year-olds, which was 72%. It is true that there was a fall-off for voters aged between 18 and 24, but then a lot of those people had gone off to university and were not able to vote. So there is no evidence whatever that somehow or other, this increases participation in elections.

Lord Tyler (Liberal Democrat)

That is simply not true. I have worked with the Electoral Commission over the years and there is good evidence that, once you start voting, you tend to continue to vote. The cohort that is missing out at the moment is very much the 18 to 24 year-olds. The turnout for them was down to 54%—it dropped dramatically. Therefore, the noble Lord is simply wrong on that point.

I wonder whether the Minister has come armed with the same wholly inadequate response that was employed in Committee, when I moved a similar amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, then extracted a very short quote from the advice given by the Electoral Commission:

“The Commission’s view is that any changes to the franchise for the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union should be clear in sufficient time to enable all those who are eligible, to register and participate in the referendum”.

Today we have some additional advice from the Electoral Commission:

“Recent media reports have indicated that the Commission believes there must be 12 months between legislation passing through Parliament to change the franchise and the first electoral event to which this applies. This is not the case”.

It then says, in heavy type:

“The Commission has been consistently clear that a change to the franchise is a matter for Parliament, and that we will advise on the practical implications of any such change”.

I hope that the Minister will not now pray in aid the commission.

I have worked with the Electoral Commission for some years, and it is very careful in the words that it uses in advising Parliament. It is responsible to us—to Parliament, not to government—and its advice is to Parliament. It is a statutory commission, with very considerable responsibility. Noble Lords should note that clarity of intention is what it is worrying about, not whether Royal Assent has actually been granted. It can start preparing for this change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned earlier. In other words, this is an argument not for doing nothing with this change to the franchise, but for getting on with it as soon as possible.

On the evening before the day in Committee to which I referred, the Minister’s ministerial colleague systematically rubbished the Electoral Commission and all the advice given to us, in the context of the Government’s acceleration of the electoral registration change. We should be absolutely clear now that there is no practical objection to this extension of the franchise, assuming that the referendum is not held before June 2016. For all the other reasons that have already been explained in Committee and today, it is very unlikely that the Government would contemplate a referendum before that date. Six months is acknowledged to be an adequate minimum period for the preparatory work, based on the Scottish experience. So for Ministers to drag their feet while so many in both Houses are urging them to recognise the strength of the case would be irresponsible, frankly. Indeed, trying to postpone it for as long as possible in the hope that that will make the change more problematic would be a failure of good governance.

Lord Lawson of Blaby (Conservative)

What the noble Lord is saying, as others have said, is that the decision to reduce the voting age for the Scottish referendum is a precedent that has to be followed for all elections of all kinds. That makes it a very important matter indeed, which clearly the Westminster Parliament as a whole needs to pronounce on. Can he remind us by what majority the Westminster Parliament decided that this should happen in Scotland?

Lord Tyler (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, it did not—but I quoted specifically the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who identified precisely that the Cabinet of the previous Government actually agreed with that change.

I am not arguing today for the extension of the franchise in all parts of our electoral system. That is not what is on the Order Paper. What we are debating is very specific. I have an expert witness—I will come to him in a moment—who says that this is an exceptional circumstance in which it should be done.

I simply do not understand on what basis the Government, without a principled or practical objection, are continuing to resist—assuming that they are.

Viscount Ridley (Conservative)

The noble Lord said that the Electoral Commission’s advice is based on the experience of Scotland. Does he accept that when the franchise was extended to 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland, we still had household registration without the requirement, as I said earlier, for national insurance numbers and so on, and that the process would be much more complex now?

Lord Tyler (Liberal Democrat)

I have had that discussion with the Electoral Commission. It does not regard that as a particular obstacle in this case. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for helping me in that respect.

Any reference to the disadvantages of piecemeal constitutional change is frankly absurd, particularly from that side of the House. When female suffrage was extended, that is exactly what we had: piecemeal changes. I used to be a historian. It was Disraeli who started this process. The Conservatives have been at it ever since. They always tell us that they want change on an incremental basis. That is constantly what we are told. It was the same with female suffrage. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who said that he heard some of the arguments we have been hearing today before, at the time of the extension of female suffrage. My wife and I went to see the excellent film about that subject, and there were occasions when I thought I was listening to the present-day House of Lords.

Lord Trimble (Conservative)

I have been reflecting on this issue and the piecemeal way it has been done. Presumably when David Cameron decided that he wanted to make sure that people aged between 16 and 18 did not have a vote, it must have been because he considered, or feared, that most of them would vote to leave.

Lord Tyler (Liberal Democrat)

I do not follow that because I do not think that at this stage the Conservative Party has collectively made up its mind. It will be very interesting to see what happens, because a large number of Conservative Members take the view that this is an inevitable change. That was reflected in the contributions of a number of Conservative Members in the Bill Committee.

The evolution of our constitution has always been piecemeal. Indeed, down the other end, the Government are currently changing the constitution, through English votes for English laws—EVEL, or evil, as some would prefer it— on a piecemeal basis. It may be that before Christmas, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will come forward with another piecemeal change to our constitution. Are noble Lords going to be against that? Some may be, but I do not think that others will be. It is frankly absurd to argue that we cannot make a change because it is piecemeal and ad hoc.

I have a great deal of sympathy with those who say that we should in the longer term have a constitutional convention. I have no problem with that—I have always thought that—but here and now we have a Bill before your Lordships’ House, and we have to deal with the franchise. We have already agreed some changes to the franchise, not least to include your Lordships in the electorate for this referendum.

I do not understand the argument that somehow, it is not the right time. That was what they said about female suffrage before the First World War, and some went on saying it after the First World War. We have a Bill before us and a big decision for the citizens of this country to take in the near future. Those young people who will be so affected by the outcome—just like their colleagues and compatriots were in Scotland a year ago—should be given the opportunity to participate in the choice about their future.

I was challenged earlier about why this situation is exceptional. I have an expert witness. Last week, David Cameron described this vote as,

“a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision”.

That is the strongest argument I have heard for extending the franchise to this particular group. The Prime Minister is absolutely right, and it must surely follow that this group of our fellow citizens cannot be denied a say in that decision.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)

My Lords, I wonder if I could set out on a very brief quest which I fear most of your Lordships will regard as hopeless. That quest is to prick the conscience of Liberal Democrat Members of your Lordships’ House if they are thinking of supporting this amendment and thus voting it through. I do so by reminding them of their policy before the last election of appointing Peers to your Lordships’ House in accordance with the votes cast in the previous general election. I take the opportunity of reminding the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and his colleagues that the percentage of their votes in the last general election was 7.9% of the votes cast. That would give them 43 Peers in this House whereas at the moment they have 112—69 more Peers than they ought to.

We have heard much from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and Liberal Democrat Peers about democratic legitimacy and all the rest of it, but I recall our debate on 15 September about the future of your Lordships’ House. I have to say to the Liberal Democrat Peers that if they are thinking of using their hugely unconstitutional and undemocratic position in this House to vote the amendment through, I remind them that the Bill has already been through the House of Commons and has the approval of that House.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, with Labour and with others that we need a constitutional convention to restore our democracy because not only is the position of the Liberal Democrat party in your Lordships’ House absurd but so is that of the Labour Party—and indeed that of the Government in the House of Commons, where the Government of the day, the Conservative Party, got a mere 24% of the electorate, 37% of the votes cast, yet that gave them 330 seats and an outright majority. I am sure that your Lordships would be disappointed if I did not compare that performance to the UKIP result in the House of Commons, where we got a big percentage of the electorate—one-third of the electorate of the Government of the day, 12.6% of the votes cast—but that gave us just one Member of Parliament. Still, I do not want to labour that point now. I simply say to the Liberal Democrats: are they wise if they are going to use this position to vote through the amendment? Otherwise, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Forsyth, who say that this is a transparent attempt to rig the referendum in favour of those who may wish to stay in the EU. As for the amendment itself, I oppose it and I hope it fails.

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

My Lords—

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

I will be brief, not least because I agreed with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. That might surprise some of my noble friends. I cannot agree that it is right to argue that the giving of access to rights and civic rights to young people is analogous to the age at which we protect them from harm and abuse. They are different things, and the noble Lord, Lord Blair, was quite right in making the point that he did. We should not construct this vote, on this issue, on this Bill as determining or seeking to determine the franchise for general elections.

My personal view has been for some time that 16 and 17 year-olds should be able to vote in local government elections but not yet in general elections. I think that what this comes down to—and I have not yet heard this point expressed—is that this is not just a singular election, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said by reference to the Prime Minister’s view about the singular nature of the referendum as an occasion upon which votes are taking place, but it is singular in terms of its impact on those young people. Of course that would be true for younger people, but we have to make a judgment where we can. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was right to say that we know from recent experience in Scotland that we have young people who are well equipped to take a decision on an issue of this kind in a debate of this kind, so in my view we should support them in doing that.

The singular nature of this is that these 16 and 17 year-olds of whom we are speaking will be able to vote at the next general election—but at the next general election they will not be able to change the outcome of the referendum. So often in the past, one of the reasons that has been adduced for not extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds is that, “You will access your civic rights and will have your chance to vote, and at subsequent general elections you will have the chance to change the Government if you don’t like it”. On this referendum they will not have that subsequent chance. If they do not like it, I am afraid they are stuck with it. In the course of what I hope will be next year’s extensive debate about the future of the country in which they have to live, I, for one, would not want to argue to 16 and 17 year-olds that they should not participate in that election.

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

My Lords, Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, would extend the referendum franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds in the United Kingdom. As I think a number of noble Lords will appreciate, the amendment is incomplete, because it would not enfranchise 16 and 17 year-olds in Gibraltar and does not make provision for the technical legislation and time-consuming operational work that would be required to register these young electors. The question of principle, however, has been roundly debated in Committee and here today. There has not been a great deal of agreement, but I hope that there may be some agreement about the House that it is essential that this referendum should be seen to be fair—and that it should be fair. We should avoid any action that could be seen as some attempt to push towards a particular outcome. That is a significant reason why, with the small changes to enfranchise Gibraltar electors and Peers, both of whom are already entitled to vote in certain elections, the Bill adopts the parliamentary franchise. We want to avoid any allegations of interference and we fear that changing the franchise, including this particular change, could be seen as doing exactly that and could seriously undermine the legitimacy of the referendum.

Much mention has been made of the Scottish independence referendum: how that came about, whether it was opportunism by the SNP, or whether the Conservative Government were somewhat asleep on the job. It took place, and noble Lords have pointed to it and suggested that we should learn a great deal from it. However, just as the franchise used in Scotland was a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine, I suggest that the franchise for elections and referendums that affect the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a matter for this Parliament to decide. As I am sure noble Lords would accept, a decision of the Scottish Parliament does not and should not prevent this Parliament taking a different approach; the example of Scottish guardians is a particularly vivid illustration.

During the course of this debate there was an interesting use of the concept of a precedent. It is said that this referendum is exceptional, and in one sense it is. However, at the same time the argument seems to be that the decisions of the Scottish Parliament after a referendum involving 16 and 17 year-olds provide a clear precedent and indicate that the franchise should be lowered for this referendum. Yet apparently, as I understand it, the Labour Party will not argue that this will therefore lead to any proposed change in the franchise for a general election. This sits rather uneasily with the argument in Committee, which was, essentially, that the genie was out of the bottle and that once you had allowed 16 year-olds to vote in the Scottish Parliament, the argument was all over. I suggest that we need to look at the argument carefully to consider whether it is right for this country.

Noble Lords have pointed to the difference, but surely, devolution by its very nature gives rise to the possibility of difference. It does not mean that we should necessarily harmonise. The fact that people may do certain things in Scotland aged 16—get married without parental consent, formally change their name, access their birth records if adopted—does not mean that the same rules must or should apply across the United Kingdom.

It is said, correctly, that the poll is exceptional and will affect 16 and 17 year-olds for longer. Noble Lords have suggested that, because the vote will—or should, in view of what the Prime Minister has said—affect everybody in this country for the rest of their lives, that means that 16 and 17 year-olds ought to have a say. But of course, without being frivolous in any way, it follows that 14 and 15 year-olds will have to live with the outcome for longer, and no one is seriously suggesting, except in order to illustrate the argument, that they should be allowed to vote.

We heard about the response of most democracies to the voting age. It is 18 in all the countries in the European Union except Austria. I leave aside Cuba and other interesting examples of democracies. It is also the voting age that has been applied in other exceptional circumstances. In 2011, when the public voted in a referendum with similarly lasting constitutional significance—namely, the voting system used to elect Members of the other place—where was the cry for 16 year-olds then?

Does the decision that we will make with this referendum outweigh in importance all other decisions that Parliament comes to? I suggest that the answer is: not necessarily. For example, there is the decision that in England all those under 18 must be in education or training, yet we do not allow individuals under 18 years of age to participate in parliamentary elections. We have to draw a line somewhere where the voting age is concerned, and I accept that there is always an element of arbitrariness about it. However, arbitrary though it is, it is one that hitherto has generally received approval.

It is said that young people have shown signs of engagement and political activity—for example, in the Scottish referendum—and that this indicates their readiness to vote. However, recent YouGov polling suggested that only 56% of 16 year-olds said that they would like to be able to vote, and that figure decreased to 42% of 17 year-olds and 36% of 18 year-olds. Using democratic engagement and the burst of enthusiasm that there seems to have been, or the lack of it, as the basis for giving or denying the vote would set a very odd precedent. There are of course many 50 year-olds who are not politically engaged, but that does not mean that we are going to disfranchise them. Simply lowering the voting age will not necessarily increase levels of democratic engagement among all young people.

I turn now to the complexity associated with the age of majority and the need to draw a line. Scientific study of the adolescent brain has yet to identify an obvious point at which we can distinguish between adolescents and adults. There is a considerably held view that it is not until the age of 25 that the adult brain reaches its ultimate state of maturity, so we look at the broader framework. A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lord Blencathra, did not think that at 16 young people were ready to vote. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel—few have more concern about and knowledge of 16 and 17 year-olds—also took that view.

We should not underestimate the gravity of voting. One can say that it is all great fun, we can join in and it is good to enthuse, but it is a huge responsibility. It is a momentous occasion for every individual, and of course a 16 year-old, given the chance to vote, will and should take it very seriously. However, we have to ask ourselves whether, in our desire to enthuse 16 and 17 year-olds, we may be in danger of placing too great a responsibility on them.

Lord Morgan (Labour)

My Lords, is it not extraordinarily patronising to young people to suggest that they will somehow regard voting as being like a university rag and not a serious intellectual and civil responsibility?

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

That is precisely the point that I am not making. The point I am making is that they will not, and should not, regard it trivially. The question is whether it is appropriate for us to burden them with a responsibility which they will no doubt take seriously. It is not a question of simply saying, “This is a good thing for them to do. Therefore, we should grant them that right”.

Baroness Thornton (Labour)

A person’s mental ability has never been taken into account when considering their right to vote, so is the noble Lord getting on to dangerous ground here? People who lack mental ability still have the right to vote. Surely he is not saying that they should not have the right to vote because they may not have that maturity.

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

The noble Baroness is right in the sense that we do not assess mental capacity before deciding whether somebody might vote. That is correct. However, when we take the difficult decision on where to draw the line—on whether the voting age should be 18, 16 or 21—we are entitled to inform ourselves generally about individuals’ state of development to see generally what a typical adolescent might be like.

Lord Tyler (Liberal Democrat)

Will the noble Lord tell us whether he has seen the film “Suffragette”? The argument that he has just been advancing was the argument for not giving women the vote until after the First World War and then for not extending it to those under the age of 28. Those arguments were deployed by his contemporaries, as it were, of that period.

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

I am afraid that I have not had enough time to see the film, but any argument about where you draw a line could be simply dismissed as one that has been used hitherto in different circumstances. I am concerned about whether giving these particular young people the vote is appropriate.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)

I am sure that the noble Lord does not wish to be offensive but the last time I heard arguments about brains and capacity was in Jackson, Mississippi, with the Ku Klux Klan showing me charts of the average Negro brain compared with a white brain. Does he not realise that arguments of that kind are deeply offensive?

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

I resent the noble Lord’s suggestion. We are engaging in an argument about whether to lower the voting age. Seeking comparisons with the Ku Klux Klan is entirely inappropriate and I reject it.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

On the point about suffragettes, would it be worth reminding the Benches opposite that it was Asquith and Lloyd George who consistently denied women the vote, the reason being that they thought it would upset the men and lose votes. That was exactly the kind of opportunism that we are seeing here today from the Liberal Benches.

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

I said at the beginning of my remarks that I did not think it was appropriate to try to guess how 16 and 17 year-olds would vote. In fact, it would probably be a mistake even to begin to speculate—we would probably be wrong about it. Although I am grateful for the interruption, that is not the issue that I am trying to engage upon.

Baroness Crawley (Labour)

Does the noble Lord accept as fact that this cohort of 16 and 17 year-olds is extremely mature and culturally aware? More than 45% of young people in this cohort will go to university or on to further education, whereas 60 years ago 5% of them did so. We have an extremely developed and mature 16 and 17 year-old cohort.

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

I am afraid that I cannot accept facts baldly stated—engagingly stated though they are.

The answer is that many more people than before are being educated, and it is a different debate as to whether this is appropriate—

Baroness Crawley (Labour)

My Lords—

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

Perhaps I could have a chance to answer the question first.

Baroness Crawley (Labour)

Would the noble Lord accept the facts from the House of Commons Library?

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

I am not sure that it is going to enlighten the House very much if we try to decide how well educated or not well educated these young people are. One of the arguments was that young people spend a great deal of time on the internet or go travelling. The answer is that some 16 and 17 year-olds are extremely intelligent and well informed; others are not. The bigger point is whether, looking at them as a cohort, they have changed radically since, for example, Parliament considered this matter in the round in debating the Representation of the People Bill.

Lord Blunkett (Labour)

This is my first ever intervention and I ought to explain to the House that I am a convert to the idea of 16 and 17 year-olds being able to vote. The great benefit regarding this particular cohort is that at least many of them, although not as many as I would wish, will have benefited from citizenship education in school, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of the population.

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

I am honoured to have been intervened on by the noble Lord, and I hear what he says.

I was endeavouring to address the House on the Representation of the People Act 1969, which was brought in by the party opposite when it was in power. At that stage, the question was whether to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The debates in this House ranged over the issues that one would expect. Often, amendments were put forward suggesting that it be lowered only to the age of 20. There was no suggestion that it should be lowered to the age of 16. What has changed so fundamentally about adolescence between then and now?

Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)

I can tell the Minister what the difference is between then and now. The difference is that, now, we have a well-fed, well-educated set of 16 and 17 year-olds who are vastly more mature than I was at that age, and that was 40 years ago. Let us get on with the present.

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

Let me turn to something that may excite the party opposite slightly less, which is the question of what may happen in practical terms if there is a change of franchise. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said that with a fair wind these matters could easily be accommodated—I hope that she will forgive me if I summarise what she said. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was, I think, suggesting that I had in some way misquoted the Electoral Commission, but I do not think that that is a fair accusation. Let me make entirely clear what the Electoral Commission said in its publication yesterday. The commission states that it is not the case that there must be a 12-month period between a change to the franchise and the referendum, or indeed any fixed period. Reports in the media that refer to the 12-month period are incorrect.

I ask the House’s indulgence while I quote accurately one paragraph from that publication:

“It is important that Parliament is aware that if the annual canvass does not fall before the electoral event that a franchise change applies to, a key opportunity is missed to get the new group of voters registered. This does not mean, however, that other options are not available to help get as many voters as possible on the register in the available timeframe. Although the scale of the challenge presented by some of these options should not be underestimated—and it must be borne in mind that every voter is now required to register themselves individually—this does not mean that steps cannot be taken to reduce the risks presented by them with proper planning and funding”.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)

I just want to ask a factual question. Can the noble Lord say whether or not the annual canvass could be brought forward? I have no idea.

Lord Faulks (Conservative)

I have no idea of the answer to that question. The Electoral Commission will no doubt do its best, as I said in Committee, to follow what Parliament decides should be the franchise. It is also the case that, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, there are things that can be done, notwithstanding that there are various steps necessary to implement the legislation; for example, setting the referendum date and the start date. It is a very considerable undertaking involving a great many people.

I echo the point made my noble friend Lord Forsyth that being left off the register is considered a matter of considerable importance. Although there can be a campaign to increase awareness, there is a real risk that this matter would not be achieved in a satisfactory way, notwithstanding the willingness of the Electoral Commission to assist.

Legislation as momentous as this must command consensus in both Houses and the country as a whole. Reference was made to a recent amendment voted on in this House to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill to allow 16 year-olds to vote: that was reversed by the House of Commons yesterday by a substantial majority.

A change of this sort needs substantial legislation; it is a very important change. We have decided that the appropriate franchise is the one that has pertained satisfactorily in previous referenda and general elections, one that pertains in every country in the EU except Austria. There may come a time for change, when we lower the age to 16. There may be a debate to be had. This is not the moment for that debate.

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

I thank noble Lords for participating in this debate. I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the Minister and by others.

The one thing that we can all agree on is the need for us, at some point, to generally tidy up the inconsistencies around when young people are considered legally responsible for various aspects of their lives. But that is not the point of this amendment. Young people are the future of this nation. This is their one chance to have a say in this country’s relationship with the European Union. It is an exceptional case. They will have to live with the consequences of the result for longer than anyone. Let us show them that we have confidence in them, and that we respect them and their opinions. Let us give them a vote in the EU referendum.

I am not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Report (1st Day) (Continued)

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

My Lords, I raised this issue in Committee, but in the debate it was made pretty clear that my previous effort did not work because it had the effect of preventing political parties from spending any money at all. I do not want to repeat the arguments that we had in Committee, but what this is about is tackling the basic unfairness which the Bill creates for spending limits between the two camps—the leave and the stay camps. As the Bill is currently drafted, it will mean in practice that those who wish to campaign to stay in the European Union will have more than twice the funds to spend of those who wish to campaign to leave. Perhaps I am a bit naive, but I thought that the whole point of having expenditure limits was to ensure fairness so that no party, whichever side it is on, is able to outspend the other unfairly. Yet what the Bill does is to enshrine in legislation as an absolute fact the ability of the stay campaign to spend more than twice what the leave campaign can spend.

This arises because, although the Bill provides for equal expenditure for the two designated campaigns, the political parties are able to spend money at similar levels according to the share of the vote that they got at the last general election. I just do not understand why the amount that the political parties can spend on the referendum campaign should be related to the votes they got at the last general election. In the case of the Conservative Party, many of the people who voted Conservative will have wanted to leave the European

Union. To be fair to the Conservative Party, it has decided that it will be neutral during the course of the campaign.

I suppose it could be argued that the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have no money because they have been bankrupted by their efforts in the election campaign and therefore that this is not something to be too concerned about. But that does not stop people giving money to those parties in order to support the campaign that wishes to stay in the European Union. This seems to go to the heart of what these limits are about. My first question for the Minister is: if we cannot devise a way in which the limits ensure that both campaigns are treated fairly and are able to spend the same amount, what is the point of having the limits at all? Further, why should these limits be related to the vote at the last general election?

I noted that the Electoral Commission sent out a missive to us all suggesting that it could not support this amendment. I had a word on the telephone with the nice lady who sent out the press release and asked her to explain why the Electoral Commission was not concerned about the issue of fairness. She said that it was a matter for the political parties and not something that the commission could concern itself with. I asked her to send me a brief indicating what the position of the commission is on these issues, but I have to say that it has not come in time to discuss the amendment—which I suppose could be because the commission is short of resources. It does actually cost as much as half the cost of the Royal Family; it is a very expensive quango indeed, and I would have thought that it would have been able to find the resource to think of a way to ensure that there is fairness in the funding of these campaigns. Rather naively, I thought that the reason we are spending £25 million or £26 million of taxpayers’ money every year on the Electoral Commission is so that it can ensure that elections and referenda are fair. But apparently the commission cannot think of anything and it is not its job to do that, it is up to the Government.

At an earlier stage my noble friend said that it was quite difficult to make this work. I did not draft the legislation and I did not suggest the limits. I cannot for the life of me understand why we should have limits which have the perverse effect of creating a great unfairness. Earlier in our consideration of amendments today, my noble friend Lord Faulks made a really important point. He said that it was very important at the end of the day that everyone accepted the result of the referendum and that no one could cry unfairness. I do not know how, if it turns out that one side is able to spend two and a half times or 2.3 times as much as the other, it will be possible for the Government to avoid the accusation of unfairness.

Some people say, “Actually, how much you spend does not have much of an influence”—in which case, why have spending limits? The perverse effect of this legislation, as it stands, is that it will limit the amount that those of us who wish to leave the European Union can spend, simply because the political parties have taken a particular view. In the case of my own party, where the leadership has a particular view that seems to be towards staying in the European Union, the vast majority of the members would take the opposite view. It could be argued—I do not want to tread into the dangerous territory of suggesting that there is some kind of operation going on here—that the decision to make the Conservative Party neutral was to avoid the embarrassment of finding that the money which it could spend, some £7 million, might have gone to the leave campaign.

I know that my amendment may not be perfect. I know that the Electoral Commission cannot possibly take on this role because it does not have the resources even to explain why it cannot take on the role, or how it could ensure fairness if it did take it on. I think that my noble friend needs to think about this from the point of view of ensuring that we have a fair campaign and that we do not have all kinds of abuses happening. We can see, for example, that people might be tempted to fund the political parties that wish to stay as a way of getting round the limitations that are put on expenditure that would otherwise be available to the campaigns.

I apologise for raising the issue again, but I have produced a different amendment which approaches it in a different way. I am not as clever as my noble friend and I certainly do not have the resources of the Electoral Commission, so I cannot believe that between them they could not devise a way to ensure that we have a limit on expenditure that is fair to all parties. I beg to move.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

I very much support my noble friend Lord Forsyth in his amendment. He mentions that, because we have this completely disparate allocation of funds, we may have a rather ridiculous situation. Let us suppose that a Conservative donor wants to donate towards staying in. He cannot donate to the Tory party because it is neutral and is not allocating funds in either direction, so he may end up giving funds to the rather bankrupt Liberal Democrats as a way of getting his funds into supporting the staying-in campaign.

The real problem with all this is that the results of the last election are completely immaterial. Why should somebody who is Labour vote to stay in? I can tell noble Lords that hosts of Labour supporters will vote to come out. Even some members of UKIP will vote to stay in. This will break in every direction. The Liberal Democrats are these fanatical pro-Europeans. Their supporters, who I know well down in the West Country, are not fanatical pro-Europeans. Many of them were extremely tempted to vote for UKIP in the last election. The reasons are: they are chapel, anti-establishment and do not terribly like the major parties either way round. The Liberal Democrats know that well but they have a leadership in the country that is completely unrepresentative of their members and voters all around.

This is the problem: all parties will break in different directions, so what on earth are we doing basing the financing of an in or an out campaign on the results of the last election? It is completely irrelevant because everybody will vote in different directions. They will be influenced by a lot of different factors. It is inconceivable how we could have dreamed up this extraordinary funding system, which allocates a lot more money to the “stay in” campaign than it does to those who want to pull out. We know the figures: £7 million for each— £7 million for the Labour Party because it seems to be pretending that all its members want to stay in. Then the Liberal Democrats get £3 million; the CBI and the SNP will allocate their funds for staying in. That comes to more than £11 million. What have we got on the other side? We have £7 million for the allocated body, then we have £4 million for UKIP, which makes £11 million, so you have £11 million against £18 million. This is supposed to be a fair, level playing field but the financing of it is completely skewed. Everyone will say that money was used to completely skew the result.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

It is £11 million to £18 million only because the Conservative Party is remaining neutral.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

My noble friend is absolutely right. If the Conservative Party had decided to support the “staying in” campaign it would have been £25 million to £11 million, which is extraordinarily disproportionate in the circumstances.

I do not know what the thinking is behind this. I cannot understand where everybody is coming from. This is a referendum on whether we stay in the EU or whether we leave. It is nothing to do with how we all voted in the last election. How can the whole basis of financing be based on that? It is quite beyond me.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)

My Lords, I support the amendment because it is absolutely necessary. I support it very much because I took part in the last referendum in 1975. The claim that those of us who wanted to come out at that stage have always been able to make—of course, some, like myself, remain of the opinion that we should come out as soon as possible—was that we were on the outside, outgunned in finance by £20 million to £1 million. That was why the in side was able to convince the people that they should remain—by money, not by any other means. In spite of that, 33% of the voting population voted to come out, so there is all to play for when we get to the referendum.

It is important that we get balance. The system that has just been outlined, where the funding is dependent on the votes cast in the last election, is absurd. What is even more absurd is that the Conservative Party, which would get about £9 million, I think, is not going to use it. I have never had much respect for the thinking of the Tory party, but this really takes the biscuit. We have a party led by a Prime Minister, who is negotiating with his partners in Europe and is apparently agreeing with his party that it should be outspent by the other parties. That seems absolutely crazy. I would have thought that the Tory party would be up in arms about it, sending in resolutions, demonstrating outside the headquarters and all that sort of thing so that we could have a bit of fairness.

So I agree with this amendment and for other reasons, too. In 1975 the Tory party campaigned to stay in Europe, as of course did the Liberals—I think they were called the Liberals then, not the Lib Dems—and big business. I well remember that Sir Donald Stokes, who later became Lord Stokes, wrote to all my former constituents in Swindon, because there was a BLMC factory there, warning them that if they voted to come out their jobs would be at stake. That, of course, was a lie because at that time we had a surplus in car exports to the continent. However, by 1975, we were in deficit. That deficit had grown to a huge figure of £69 billion overall per annum. My constituents were told not only by Sir Donald Stokes but by those running other big businesses in Swindon and elsewhere that coming out would harm their prospects. Of course, that is where the big money came from—big business.

It is essential that there should be fairness between the campaigns. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would ensure that that happens, or at least go a long way to do so. If it does not, once again we will hear the losing side say, “We were outgunned by the others on finance”. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. The Tory party may be able to exert influence over the Government by saying to them, “Look here, you have this opportunity. You really must take it so that there is a proper balance between the parties during the referendum”.

Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I declare my interests as a member of UKIP and a dedicated “outer”. I am not sure which members of UKIP the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, thinks will vote to stay in. I hope he was not referring to my noble friend Lord Pearson. I assure the noble Lord that he definitely wants us to get out. I cannot imagine that a UKIP member would vote to stay in the EU.

Leaving that aside, on all the previous amendments the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, rightly made the point that this referendum needed to be seen to be fair. He has said that on several occasions today and in Committee. However, regardless of who wins or loses, the referendum will be seen to be manifestly unfair if one campaign, whether in or out, is preponderantly better financed than the other. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who seemed to imply that just because an organisation has less money, it will lose. That is not necessarily the case at all. Even if we have a few pounds less than the “stay in” campaign, we will still win. However, it would be much nicer and better, and would be seen to be fairer, if the campaigns had equality of financing.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

Surely the real problem is that if the “stay ins” win the referendum by a very narrow margin, and they are seen to have been financed much more heavily than those who want to leave, those who want to leave will cry foul and say that the others won because they had more money. Whether that does the trick at the end of the day is debatable, but the fact is that it would be used as a reason to say that the referendum was completely slanted in the direction of the people who wanted to stay in.

Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)

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 (Labour)

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 (Conservative)

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 (Labour)

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 (Conservative)

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 (Labour)

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.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendment 12 would introduce an overall cap on referendum spending by political parties and the designated lead organisations that will campaign for each outcome: either leave or remain. As my noble friend explained, it arises from his concern that the rules as they stand create great unfairness and that the remain side will be able to spend more than the leave side.

Amendment 12 would unpick one of the fundamental principles in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which provides a framework for this as for other referendums since its passage. My noble friend Lord Forsyth asked why we have limits and why are they linked to the results of the general election. My noble friend Lord Hamilton asked how we arrived at the provisions. We arrived at them after an exhaustive and exhausting parliamentary method of having draft legislation scrutinised carefully by Members of both Houses. After draft legislation, a Bill was drawn up that reflected the submissions that had been made. In particular, the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, provided recommendations that led to PPERA being passed. These provisions have been in place for 15 years. I was in the House 15 years ago. I did not take part in discussions on the Bill—at the time I was on the Front Bench carrying another brief—but I recall that much careful attention was paid to the Bill.

Having said that, I appreciate that there are concerns about unfairness. In this particular case, the concern appears to be that particular parties may support particular sides of the referendum. That is as may be. The report produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life considered an overall cap for all campaigners on each side of the argument. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, concluded:

“The administrative apparatus required would resemble one of Heath Robinson’s most outlandish contraptions—and would almost certainly not work”.

Those are his words, not mine. As well as being administratively impractical, the report further noted that such a cap,

“would, or at least might, impose an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech”.

I appreciate that my noble friend has tried to avoid some of the pitfalls of his earlier amendment in devising this one by focusing purely on certain categories of potential campaigners—the political parties and the designated organisations. However, as others, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, said, if one is a Conservative and finds that one’s national party is taking a neutral position, there are still places where one can put one’s money if one wants to bet on the outcome of the referendum. Political parties will not be the only campaigners at the referendum—far from it.

Although I know that my noble friend has tried to take great care to narrow down his amendment and focus it more, it still will not deliver what he might intend. The amendment provides that the Electoral Commission must set an overall spending limit and can then apportion this between the political parties and lead campaigners on each side. We believe that the spending limits are a matter for Parliament. They were decided by Parliament in legislation, on the basis that changes would also be made by legislation. The spending limits which apply to the EU referendum are therefore in the Act and, as I said, have been in operation for 15 years.

There is no guarantee that each of the campaigners within the umbrella cap will be able to raise the funds necessary to hit the spending limits. One or two noble Lords have referred to that, perhaps with some feeling of regret. We will have to see what happens. Perhaps to avoid the risk of restricting freedom of speech, the amendment does not deal with the other committed participants, each of whom will be able to spend up to £700,000. So the referendum will not only feature campaigning by political parties and the lead campaigners; there will be interest, and lots of voices, on both sides. But I would say that it is highly unlikely that exactly the same number of committed participants will register on each side of the argument. One can imagine that it would take an imbalance of only 10 campaigners on one side or the other to create a £7 million difference in overall potential spending.

These are the kind of vagaries with which this House and another place had to struggle when the initial Bill was considered and became an Act. Indeed, I note that when the draft Bill was published, the spending limits for political parties were the same—but it was then challenged during the course of the scrutiny of the Bill, particularly by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which questioned whether it was right that political parties were subject to the same limits regardless of their respective number of MPs. So the sliding scale that we see now in PPERA was introduced in response to consultation on the Bill back in 2000. Therefore, we are not seeking to amend that basic framework.

These matters have been of concern before and I recognise my noble friend’s concerns, but they were considered carefully when the legislation was under consideration here, both in draft form and on the Floor of the House. Certainly, it is the case that the approach taken in this Bill by applying PPERA is that those who seek to spend modest amounts—that is, no more than £10,000, which I know some people reading this debate in Hansard may consider is by no means modest, but in the context of elections it is—can decide not to register and so be subject only to a relatively light-touch regulatory regime. Meanwhile, to prevent wealthy campaigners having an undue influence, there are individual spending caps for those who register.

What we see in the Bill is a well-established approach which is practicable and enforceable and, most importantly, encourages participation. So although I understand my noble friend’s concerns, I hope that, with that explanation, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

Oh dear. I have to say to my noble friend that, although I understand the practical difficulties, she has not addressed the point. The reason why we have spending limits is to create fairness. People will be able to provide funding through political parties and other organisations. Some may say that people could set up 10 organisations to compensate for a political party’s spending, but a political party will have an organisation on the ground. It is not about the quantity of money; it is also about how it is spent, the organisation and the machine behind it.

Throughout the conduct of this Bill, my noble friend has been extremely patient and helpful and I pay tribute to the way in which she has handled the Bill, but this just will not do, because the Government’s declared policy is that there should be seen to be a level playing field.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

My Lords, I am not trying to address the overall point of fairness. In each and every referendum, the perception of what is fair will vary according to the position taken by the groups, as my noble friend has pointed out in his amendment, and according to the nature of the event. I am saying that these matters were considered carefully by this House and another place in drafting the legislation used for referendums. It is only on that basis that I am explaining that there is statutory provision for how we address the matter of donations. I am not seeking to put the world to rights in this case, in the way that I know my noble friend would like to put it to rights, as he sees it. I am saying that there is a statutory basis on which this system has to rely.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

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 (Labour)

Now it is your turn.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

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.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Amendment 13

Moved by Lord Hamilton of Epsom

13: Schedule 1, page 17, line 19, at end insert—

“Restrictions on campaigning by the EU institutions

For the purposes of the referendum, the following is to be treated as inserted after section 119 of the 2000 Act—

“119A Restrictions on the EU institutions

(1) Notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, during the referendum period, an EU institution must not incur referendum expenses or do anything else for referendum purposes.

(2) Notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, a permitted participant must not accept a donation from an EU institution.

(3) In this section, “EU institution” has the same meaning as in Article 13(1) of the Treaty on European Union.

(4) In this section, “for referendum purposes” and “referendum expenses” have the same meaning as in section 111 of this Act.””

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 18. Amendment 13 is to do with the EU Commission and the EU generally in terms of financing, by one means or another, this referendum. We were reassured in Committee that there are two reasons why we should not worry about this. The first was that an undertaking had been made by the EU Commission not to interfere in this referendum and the second was that John Penrose had said in another place that the EU is not so stupid as to get involved in a UK referendum.

I agree with him on one thing: the EU is not stupid. Just to give an idea of how much it is intending not to interfere, it has an EU task force to do with the UK referendum which is made up of six administrators and two assistants. In 2014, the EU spent €560 million on self-promotion. The reasons why it is not stupid is because it has spent money before interfering in other people’s referenda with enormous success. It spent €1.5 million to persuade the Irish to vote for the Lisbon treaty and €3.8 million over three years to persuade Croatia that it was a good idea to join the EU.

If you judge the EU, and the EU Commission particularly, on what they do rather than on what they say, the answer is that they have moved into the former offices of the Conservative Party in Smith Square. I have no doubt that there is a very large number of people sitting there, and do we really imagine that they are going to be sitting on their hands doing nothing during a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should leave the EU saying “It’s nothing to with us. We’re completely neutral on all this. We’re just going to sit here and answer emails and provide information where it is requested”? Come on—let us live in the real world. In Ireland it went so far as to spend a very large sum of money on issuing 1.1 million pamphlets to the Irish about why the EU was such a good idea. The problem with all this is that the EU has set itself up so that it can interfere in our referendum, and because of the total lack of democratic accountability—

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords—

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

I will give way in a moment. We cannot actually stop the EU interfering in our referendum because it is written into its treaties that it is allowed to spill out information at will and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, may be conflating two different things. The first is the period of renegotiation that Her Majesty’s Government are undertaking at present and the second is the referendum. My understanding is that the task force is actually to deal with the renegotiation, which is at the request of the Government, not an initiative of the European Union, and therefore is not an interference in the referendum. I also believe that such interference would be misguided; it would not be right for the EU institutions to be involved.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

At the end of the day, the EU thinks that it is free to issue information. Information can take many different forms, and I do not see that there is anything that can be done. The Minister has already said that we cannot actually stop the EU financing activities because they are all done in the name of information—and what is the difference between information and propaganda?

Lord Liddle (Labour)

Is the noble Lord a regular reader of the Daily Express and the Daily Mail? Does he think that they provide objective, truthful information about the European Union?

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

I have to say that that is an entirely different issue.

Lord Liddle (Labour)

My Lords—

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

The noble Lord has intervened so let me answer his question. I think that the Daily Mail and the Daily Express have their own views, as do the Guardian and the Independent. We have a free press; it is up to them what they do. We are talking here about what the EU does to finance activities during this referendum.

Lord Liddle (Labour)

My Lords, does the noble Lord believe it is wrong for the EU to provide factual information about what it does when in large sections of our press, which are foreign owned, lies are printed about the EU virtually every day?

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, will know well, factual information from the EU amounts to it advertising that it is spending inordinate amounts of money on different interest groups of one sort or another around the UK, as if this were all manna from heaven: “Gosh, you’re lucky, the EU has decided to spend some money on you”. What it does not bother to tell people is that it is their own money.

The great problem that Lord Joseph had when he was in the Thatcher Government was to persuade Ministers to talk not about “public money” that they were being so generous with, but about “taxpayers’ money”. He managed to hold that line for a time with the Conservative Cabinet, but quite quickly it drifted off and we got back to Ministers constantly talking about how incredibly generous they were being with “government money”, as if all this stuff came from heaven. Of course, half the government money that we have now is borrowed anyway. It is an absurd mentality to think that people can be generous with other people’s money and get credit for it. Why should they, when it is actually the money that they have taken off the people of this country? We must live in the real world.

Amendment 18 is about purdah. The problem with purdah, as we all know, is that the Government are arguing that they have to allow the normal functions of government to continue. Obviously that is quite justifiable, but the point of my amendment is to restrict what can be done with regard to purdah. To return once more to my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s argument that this has to be seen to be a fair referendum, our worry is that we should not, as we did in the Scottish referendum on independence, suddenly have an enormous initiative from the Government to try to swing the vote because the polls are going the wrong way. We do not want some great initiative from the EU saying how incredibly generous or wonderful it has been in order to try to swing the vote here.

Lord Liddle (Labour)

I moved an amendment on this in Committee, partly in jest. If the noble Lord wants a fair referendum, why does he not persuade his friends in the Conservative newspapers to give equal space to people who are in favour of our membership and people who are against?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)

My Lords—

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

I think that was for me. I am confused by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, because he always produces these amendments in jest. I remember another one that said that the referendum should be delayed until 2019. That was tongue in cheek, was it not? The fact is that the Government do not control a free press in this country. You either have a free press or you do not, and if it is free it can take whatever line it wants to take. Perhaps we should be controlling the Guardian, with its attitudes to all this. This is absurd. We have a free press, which takes different sides on different things, and that is not a responsibility of the Government. Does the noble Lord want to give way again? No, he does not.

Earl of Courtown (Conservative)

I remind the House that before the dinner break I suggested that noble Lords should read page 151 of the Companion. I will repeat it, because obviously noble Lords have not been able to remember it:

“On report no member may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment in reply or a member who has obtained leave of the House, which may only be granted to: a member to explain himself in some material point of his speech, no new matter being introduced”.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)

My Lords—

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

I am very grateful to my noble friend for that; can I now give way to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)

My Lords, I think this is the only time I have spoken on this amendment, and with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and your Lordships, I will do so. I would add the BBC to the list of media outlets that my noble friend has been good enough to name. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, whether he has read the News-watch website about the BBC’s behaviour in this matter and whether he hopes that the BBC—

Earl of Courtown (Conservative)

Order. The noble Lord has not yet moved his amendment.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has slightly confused things, because he was intervening on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on me. Therefore this adds to the confusion. However, I do not think we will revert to talking about the free press and the fact that different newspapers have different views on things—I am not sure how productive that is. What we were talking about—or what I was talking about—was purdah and the fact that there is a concern, which I hope the Minister will address, that there will be some last-minute intervention, if the polls indicate that the country wants to pull out, to try to swing the vote with some bit of propaganda from the EU. Clearly, business has to continue to be done with the EU, but at the same time we do not want to see the whole referendum slewed by a last-minute intervention where the EU is being inordinately generous with other people’s money and doing something to try to swing the vote. That is what my Amendment 18 is about. I beg to move.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

My Lords, I certainly support my noble friend, but I will speak to Amendment 21 in this group, which is in my name. We have had a lot of discussion, and my noble friend Lord Hamilton has emphasised the importance of having rules on purdah. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that he needs to distinguish the difference between public and private money. The Daily Mail and other newspapers are not spending taxpayers’ money, while the EU is. My noble friend is concerned that money that is provided by the taxpayer should not be used for a political purpose. That is a very important principle. I know that he is so enthusiastic about the European Union that he sometimes finds it difficult to see the distinction, but that is what we are talking about, and that is why we have these rules on purdah.

It was with some dismay and utter disbelief that I discovered that if people break these rules on purdah—the Scottish Government, the British Government or some other public agency—there is no sanction or penalty for doing so. It is true that people can seek judicial review at vast expense and then get a judgment after the event. I think it very unlikely that any court would say, “You’ve got to rerun the referendum because a public body spent money which was prohibited by purdah”. Therefore, with this amendment I am seeking to create some kind of sanction.

In Committee, I suggested that we bring back the old thing that applied in local government. Very spectacularly, Dame Shirley Porter ended up getting a bill for £20 million for having transgressed in terms of her abilities to operate under statute. I understand that that system of surcharging councillors has now disappeared. In Committee, I suggested a system of surcharging but it was dismissed on the grounds that it was inappropriate. My friends in the Electoral Commission said that it would be wrong to hold individuals to account. I do not really understand that. I think that if people are responsible for spending public money in a way that is ultra vires, they should be held responsible for it. If no one is responsible then no one is going to make sure that the rules are obeyed.

Having found that that suggestion did not find favour with my noble friend the Minister, I have had another go. This amendment suggests that we create a system where a fine is imposed on whoever is responsible and that it should be not less than the amount of taxpayers’ money which they have had cause to spend in breach of the purdah rules. This may not be the ideal solution, but in Committee my noble friend was kind enough to indicate that she recognised that there was a problem and she said that she would think about what could be done by way of a sanction. I am hopeful that she might consider Amendment 21 to be the answer to this problem but, if it is not, that she herself will have an answer. If there is no effective sanction, it rather begs the question: what is the point of having the rules on purdah if they can be breached?

I anticipate that somewhere in her file my noble friend will have a note saying that it would be very embarrassing for any public institution to breach the purdah rules and that it would be disadvantageous to it in the campaign. All I can say is that, having experienced the Scottish referendum campaign, I would not put much trust or hope in that limiting the kind of misuse of public funds which my noble friend Lord Hamilton has talked about.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

Does my noble friend agree that, if it comes to the difference between winning a referendum and losing it, a bit of embarrassment can be lived with?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

I am sure that, like me, my noble friend would want always to strictly obey the law and the rules and that he would not be tempted to stray from the true path by the prospect of winning or losing. However, I am rather concerned that that might not be true of Governments. Individuals are not held responsible for the actions of Governments, which is why I am proposing this amendment.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)

My Lords, if I am free to talk to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, there is perhaps a way in which we can penalise the European Commission if it cheats in this matter, as I assure your Lordships it will. We could withhold from our contribution to the corrupt coffers of Brussels an amount which would make the Commission think again before it behaved in a manner in which it certainly will. In the background, we have the gross figure that we pay to Brussels every year. According to the 2014 Pink Book, which has just come out, the figure was £19.994 billion, of which Brussels was graciously pleased to give us back £7.66 billion. That leaves £12.329 billion, which we pay net into the coffers of Brussels every year for it to waste on matters which do nothing in our national interest. I suggest to the Minister that the Government think about this. I ventilated this idea in Committee and repeat it now: if it behaves in the way that it certainly will, and if it knows that it is going to suffer a financial penalty, perhaps that will make it not worth its while doing so.

Viscount Ridley (Conservative)

My Lords, I would like to speak briefly in support of the amendments from both my noble friends.

As my noble friend Lord Hamilton said, the Commission’s denial that it will campaign is belied by the evidence. We cannot take that promise on trust. Jonathan Faull stated in a letter dated 4 September that:

“The Commission will play the role that it is given by the treaties, notably to promote the general interest of the EU”.

That could be interpreted as campaigning or it could be seen as being more innocent than that. On 2 October, Jean Claude Juncker said that the European Commission would have,

“input into information activities in the run-up to the UK referendum”.

As my noble friend Lord Hamilton said, in the Irish referendum in 2009 and the Croatian referendum in 2012, it was very clear that the European Commission did use finance to, in the case of Croatia, foster an,

“increased level of public and political support to the EU”.

The EU institutions have budgets worth £3.1 billion, which include clauses allowing promotion of the EU.

In this country, the European Communities Act 1972 allows EU institutions to engage in activities that are authorised by EU law. To the extent that they are operating under EU law, EU institutions are exempt from UK campaign controls. The Electoral Commission says that it has no regulatory powers that could be used directly against these institutions if they do undertake such activity. That question needs to be addressed.

On Amendment 21, from my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I agree that judicial review is clearly a nuclear option that is not going to do much good if these rules are transgressed. If purdah is to be taken seriously, a more effective, prompter enforcement mechanism must be found.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)

My Lords, I do not want to say too much at this time of night but I want to make a couple of points.

First, on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, the Commission can interfere, as he said, in all sorts of ways. One of the ways—this has some relationship to the alterations that were made earlier to the franchise—is through its entry into primary and secondary schools with what some of us would term propaganda material. The Education Act 1996 makes it clear in Clauses 406 and 407 that there should be balance. In spite of that, the Government, according to their Answers to my Written Questions, seem not to be very concerned with this and will do nothing to ensure that schools and head teachers make sure that there is balance on the question of Britain’s membership of the European Union.

Even now, the EU is seeking to advertise itself in our countryside. It wants farmers to put up huge advertising boards, saying, “You are getting all this money from the EU; you should be grateful and should therefore advertise the fact that this money is coming from the EU”. Not many farmers are going to be fooled by that, because they will know that, for every pound we get, we have first to give the EU three, so the grants to farmers are in fact some of our own money coming back. The rest of it, or much of it, goes to other farmers to subsidise their much less well-farmed areas.

There are all sorts of ways in which the EU can intervene in our affairs. It does so and it will continue do so. One way or another, by hook or by crook, the EU will interfere in the referendum when it comes.

Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)

My Lords, I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. As a farmer—I declare my interest as a farmer—I remember getting this directive that we must advertise that we are getting money from the EU through the single farm payment, or what now is the basic payment scheme. Of course, my noble friend Lord Pearson made the point it is not EU money at all. It is money that is given to the EU by the British taxpayer—mulcted from the British taxpayer—and recycled through Brussels, who tell us what to do with it. It seems completely absurd that we have to put up a big sign on our fields saying how generous it is of the EU to give us this money. It is not. I, of course, alter those signs slightly to put a different twist on them.

On the broader point of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—he made the case, I will not repeat it—it is essential that this provision be included in the Bill. Of course, the EU Commission has form when it comes to referendums, as we have heard, and I will not repeat the point. It is essential that Mr Jonathan Faull’s letter not be taken as gospel and that is the end of the story. Again, it is about fairness and the referendum’s being seen to be fair. It will not be seen to be fair if the EU Commission starts chucking its weight about, which it has always done and wishes to do in this case.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)

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 (Labour)

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 (Conservative)

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 (Labour)

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 (Conservative)

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.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)

My Lords—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

My Lords, I wonder whether I might address my noble friend’s point, because we are on Report and I am trying to give an answer to questions put by him in speaking to his amendments.

Specifically on that point, in the letter that the European Commission wrote—I refer to the letter that was circulated—the last part states that,

“the referendum itself and the related campaigns are a matter for the British government and the British people in which the Commission, in view of its institutional role, cannot and will not take an active part”.

I gave an undertaking, which the Government have fulfilled and will continue to fulfil, that we will engage at a diplomatic level with the European Commission to ensure that that is observed in spirit as well as in the letter.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)

On the question of EU institutions that broke the rules, what sanctions could be used against them?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

I am saying that we are working with the European institutions and they should not break the rules. That, of course, is a matter of interstate agreement.

Where the institutions are operating in their official capacity within our jurisdiction they are afforded immunities and privileges under EU law. I know that the noble Lord has previously referred to that. However, as the Government have already made clear, the best way to prevent EU institutions from influencing the outcome of the referendum is through the process of constructive dialogue. That is what we have been doing and will firmly continue to do. That is why I circulated the letters. Indeed, I note that a written question was put in the summer or the spring—I suppose you could call it autumn in parliamentary terms; I always wonder what the seasons are—and on 4 September an answer was given by President Juncker on behalf of the Commission. He simply said that the Commission does not campaign in national referendums. We will hold him to that, and that is exactly the point.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

My noble friend has referred to constructive dialogue. Does she think that there was constructive dialogue between the Irish Government and the EU when they put out 1.1 million leaflets, at a cost of €139,000, during the Lisbon referendum? Presumably the Irish Government were quite happy that the leaflet should go out, but it upset the people who did not want to accept the Lisbon treaty.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

My Lords, the Government would not be happy with any such move and the European Commission is clearly aware of that. We are not the Irish Government and this is a referendum on a different matter.

I understand and recognise the legitimate concerns about these matters and that is exactly why the Government are putting so much effort into trying to address them. It is not a matter of taking our eye off the ball: we will continue working on these issues.

My noble friend Lord Hamilton has tabled two amendments, Amendments 18 and 19, to Clause 6. The clause provides a power for the Minister to make regulations modifying Section 125 for the purposes of the EU referendum. However, I repeat the assurance that I made in Committee that the Government have no plans to use the regulation-making power under Clause 6. I tried to make that as clear as I could. I appreciate though that my noble friend seeks to limit the power so that Ministers can make regulations only where they have reasonable grounds to consider that regulations are necessary to secure the continuing function of the Government or the safety of the public or a section of the public.

This follows on from our discussion in Committee when noble Lords were trying to get me to posit the future—to look into a crystal ball and say, “This is what may happen”. The very nature of why Clause 6 was inserted in another place was because this would be something that people could not foretell. Not one voice in the other place was raised against Clause 6 going into the Bill. We ought to bear that in mind because, having given the undertaking that we have no plans, we cannot foresee the future. We have to have a care for the safety and security of this country and it would be unfortunate for this House to consider constraining the ability of the Government properly to be able to respond.

The reason, I suspect, why not a voice was raised in another place is that safeguards requested by the other place were put into the use of this power before the amendments were brought forward. These state that regulations would need to be made at least four months ahead of the poll following consultation with the Electoral Commission—and of course that would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses.

As I say, although there are no plans to use the power, there may be exceptional circumstances which would require the Government to lay regulations before Parliament on this issue. No doubt we would all be rather surprised if that were to happen, because, as I say, we have no plans to do so at the moment. However, a responsible Government should be able to keep the power available.

My noble friend also tabled an amendment to remove Clause 6(8) because he is worried that it might ensure that the Government cannot disapply the restrictions in Section 125 under the power in Clause 4. What I hope to be able to do is give my noble friend a reassurance that his concerns are misplaced in this respect. I can assure him that Clause 4(1)(c) as currently drafted simply would not allow the Government to disapply in regulations the restrictions in Section 125 for the EU referendum; we could not do it. Like Clause 6, it could be used to modify aspects of Section 125, although we do not have plans to do so. But we consider that Clause 6(8) is necessary for a rather technical reason. It ensures that the power to amend Section 125 in Clause 6 does not in any way call into question the general regulation-making power in Clause 4 to make modifications to PPERA for the purpose of the EU referendum. The general regulation-making power is essential for aspects of the published conduct rules; it is not about the purdah enshrined in Section 125, about which I know and understand why some noble Lords have concerns. In this case, it could be used if we identify other issues with the PPERA provisions. I can give my noble friend an assurance that, like Clause 6, the power in Clause 4 can be used only following consultation with the Electoral Commission and will of course be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Finally, I come to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, proposing a penalty for a breach of Section 125. Interesting questions have been raised about the whole issue of how one holds people to account. My noble friend is seeking to impose a monetary penalty on a person who breaches the restrictions in Section 125. The Electoral Commission has no role in the enforcement of Section 125, and has said in its response that it is not clear how this significant change to its role and powers would work in practice. That is the issue; it is not what the commission was set up to do and it would change its role.

We believe that the current arrangements are appropriate and that they work. Those within the scope of Section 125 will be legally obliged to comply with it. Like other legal obligations on public authorities across the statute book, it can be enforced through judicial review. That is the purpose of judicial review: to ensure that public authorities comply with the law. I know that my noble friend has concerns that this may be a paper tiger, but he has been an admirable Secretary of State in difficult times. He will know how difficult it is for a Government to face judicial review; he will know about the inconvenience and the cost. I would expect that others would be mindful of that as well. Judicial review is something that this Government seek to avoid having to incur, and I am sure that other public bodies take the same approach.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

The point is that judicial review is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

My Lords, with due respect, given the legal system of this country—in which I should declare an interest because my husband is a barrister—I would say that if a prosecution were to be brought in a civil case, or indeed in a criminal case, I doubt whether it would be resolved before the referendum had taken place. However, my noble friend has raised a justifiable concern about how we deal with these punitive matters. If we had the luxury of a separate piece of legislation to look at how all these matters are to be resolved, consideration could be given in relation to that. However, I think that that is a long way off at the moment. Of course, as a politician at the Dispatch Box, “long” to me can be a matter of just a few weeks because they can seem like a long time, too—particularly if I have breathing down my ear on my right-hand side a Chief Whip who has had an overfull session already, so I shall not try to offer extra legislation. I want to get out alive.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)

I do not know whether the noble Baroness is coming to the end of her peroration, but I have not yet heard her answer the question that I asked. Perhaps she will do so, in which case I will sit down and wait for the answer. I suggested in Committee, and again this evening, that because we are dealing not so much with the leopard that does not change its spots but with a corrupt octopus that cannot do anything else but extend its tentacles around every morsel of our democracy which comes within its reach, it is entirely possible that the Commission will break the rules. My noble friend Lord Hamilton mentioned Ireland and Croatia. I would mention Denmark and France—which voted clearly against the constitution that came back in the shape of the Lisbon treaty and it was persuaded to vote in favour of it.

We are dealing with a fundamentally dishonest, corrupt and failed body, which is bound to try one way or another to make sure that the British people do not vote to leave its clutches. I repeat again: why do we not make it clear to the Commission that if it breaks the rules and we catch it at it, we will fine it by a multiple of the amount of money it has spent? We have £12.329 billion at our disposal. Surely we should be able to make that clear to it.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

My Lords, this Government are not corrupt. This Government have strong leadership. This Government have given their word to work with all our colleagues across Europe to ensure that this referendum is as fair as it can be—and this Government will deliver. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

My Lords, the amendments I tabled by necessity were probing for the simple reason that we cannot stop the EU getting involved in our referendum. All we can rely on is the voluntary statements that it has made. We need to have an act of faith over this. We have to presuppose that if this referendum runs and it is getting very tight up to referendum day, and it is debatable whether the country will vote to stay in our pull out, somehow the EU will stand back and not do anything when it has the power to do it—to actually influence that final result.

Some people will believe that the EU will be totally honourable to its word on this. Others will say that it had such success in Denmark, Ireland and Croatia, so why should it not try it here? The great argument is that it will not do it because it would be counter- productive. I do not quite understand that argument. It was not counterproductive in Denmark. It was not counterproductive in Croatia. It was not counterproductive in Ireland. Why should it be counterproductive here?

But as I say, these are probing amendments. There is nothing the Government can do to constrain the EU. I suspect that the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that we should fine it is out of order completely, so there is nothing that we can do in this Bill to stop the EU interfering. If it does not, in my opinion it will be a miracle. But I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Amendment 14

Moved by Lord Jay of Ewelme

14: Schedule 1, page 22, line 34, at end insert—

“Prohibition on use of impermissible funds to meet referendum expenses

For the purposes of the referendum, the following section is to be treated as inserted after section 119 of the 2000 Act (control of donations to permitted participants)—

“119A Prohibition on use of impermissible funds to meet referendum expenses

(1) Any money or other property received by any individual or other body, at any time, from a person who is not at the time of its receipt a permissible donor falling within section 52(2) or a person falling within paragraph 6(1A) of Schedule 15, must not be used to meet any referendum expenses.

(2) Any person who allows the use of such money or property as set out in subsection (1) to meet referendum expenses shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2), it shall be a defence to prove that the person was unaware that the money or property was not received from a permissible donor.””

Lord Jay of Ewelme (Crossbench)

My Lords, Amendment 14 is a technical and—as I reassured the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, in advance—neutral amendment, but nevertheless an important one. Its effect would be to clarify that funds from an impermissible source, whenever received, should not be spent on referendum campaigning.

The amendment is supported—indeed, encouraged —by the Electoral Commission, which has identified a clarification that is needed in the provisions designed to stop donations from foreign sources being spent on the referendum. My amendment is designed to address this.

As background, the Electoral Commission has come to the view that the controls in the Bill, which flow from the usual PPERA regime and which prevent campaigners accepting donations from foreign sources, come into effect only at the point the campaigner registers with the commission to be a permitted participant in the referendum. In practice, this means that there may be no control on the sources of funding a campaigner receives before it registers with the Electoral Commission, even if those funds are then used for campaigning during the referendum.

My amendment is designed to make clear that a campaigner cannot use any money for its referendum campaign from a source that would otherwise be impermissible under the PPERA regime. That, of course, includes donations from foreign sources. Without this clarification it would be possible for a campaign organisation to receive significant donations from foreign sources before it registered as a permitted participant. That money could then be spent in its entirety on campaigning during the referendum period. As I said, the amendment is designed to remove that risk.

This is a technical, neutral but important amendment that will help reduce the risk of accusations after the referendum that one side or the other has behaved improperly. I beg to move.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

My Lords, this seems a very sensible amendment. I was going to try to save time by asking the noble Lord before he sat down whether “foreign sources” includes the European Commission and the European Union. I will give way to the noble Lord so that he can intervene and tell me the answer.

Lord Jay of Ewelme (Crossbench)

It may do—the Minister will be able to answer that question when she comes to sum up the debate.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

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 (Labour)

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 (Conservative)

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.

Lord Jay of Ewelme (Crossbench)

I am very grateful to the Minister. I think there is an issue here but I am grateful for her commitment to look into it and particularly to focus on the need for transparency. In the light of that commitment, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Clause 4: Conduct regulations, etc

Amendment 15

Moved by Baroness Anelay of St Johns

15: Clause 4, page 3, line 9, after “enactment” insert “(other than this Act)”

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

My Lords, in moving Amendment 15, I will speak also to government Amendments 16 and 17. These are technical amendments required to implement one of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They are to Clause 4, which provides that the Minister may make regulations about, among other things, the combination of the referendum poll with other polls taking place on the same day. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised concerns about the scope of the power to make combination regulations set out in Clause 4(2), as currently drafted. The committee’s concern was that the power to amend what will become the European Union Referendum Act itself was too broad.

I begin by saying that the Government have no intention of combining this poll with any other planned election, as I made clear at earlier stages. The Bill already prevents the referendum from being held on days in May 2016 or May 2017 when elections are already planned. So this power is very much a contingency one.

We have considered carefully the committee’s recommendation and the amendments we have tabled narrow the power contained in Clause 4(2) to amend or modify the Act. Under the amendments, the power would apply only to those parts of the Act that may need to be amended or modified in the event of the combination of the referendum with another poll. The relevant parts of the Act are: the definition of “counting officer” in Clause 9(1); Clause 9(2), which defines the voting areas to be used for the referendum; and Schedule 3, which makes further provision about the referendum. The power may not be used to amend any other part of the Act.

I am grateful for the work carried out by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as I said on the first day in Committee. I am pleased that the Government were able to respond by agreeing to all the committee’s recommendations. I beg to move.

Amendment 15 agreed.

Amendments 16 and 17

Moved by Baroness Anelay of St Johns

16: Clause 4, page 3, line 16, leave out “this Act or any other” and insert “any”

17: Clause 4, page 3, line 18, at end insert—

“( ) The reference in subsection (2) to any enactment includes—

(a) the definition of “counting officer” in section 9(1),

(b) section 9(2), and

(c) Schedule 3,

but does not include any other provision of this Act.”

Amendments 16 and 17 agreed.

Clause 6: Power to modify section 125 of the 2000 Act

Amendments 18 and 19 not moved.

Amendment 20 had been retabled as Amendment 7B.

Amendments 21 and 22 not moved.

Clause 7: Regulations

Amendments 23 and 24

Moved by Baroness Anelay of St Johns

23: Clause 7, page 4, line 42, leave out paragraph (b)

24: Clause 7, page 5, line 2, leave out subsection (5)

Amendments 23 and 24 agreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned.