NOTIONAL REFERENDUM EXPENSES (Hansard, 16 February 2000)

§ Mr. Grieve
I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 66, line 2, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".

§ The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 51, in clause 107, page 67, line 10, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".

§ Mr. Grieve
These amendments follow a pattern reflected elsewhere concerning de minimis amounts. In the light of some earlier comments, considerations in the context of referendum expenditure may be slightly different from those that apply to elections.
Under clause 105, any individual or body that is provided with certain services must declare them, and they are treated as incurred if they exceed £100. Similarly, clause 107 states: No payment (of whatever nature) may be made in respect of any referendum expenses incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of a permitted participant unless it is…less than £100. If payment is over £100, it must be properly recorded and submitted to the commission.
There seems to be a difference between the two clauses. Clause 105 refers to any "individual or body", whereas clause 107 refers to "a permitted participant". Will the Minister clarify whether it is intended that clause 105 should cover a wider group of people? One way of interpreting matters is that, unlike clause 105, clause 107 does not apply to others who might wish to get involved in a campaign—individuals whom I described earlier as the loose cannon of the procedure. If that is so, why the distinction between the two clauses?
Have we got the limits right? We have had some debate about whether the £100 limit—or the £200 limit, as we propose in our probing amendment—is appropriate. I shall not take up the Committee's time on that; the arguments were rehearsed almost ad infinitum when debating election expenses. However, the Minister will have to ponder the following issue.
1007 We have discussed—we shall return to it—what those who are not permitted participants but foreign nationals, individuals or organisations can do in referendum campaigns. The Minister has conceded that they can spend up to £10,000. I find it difficult to identify mechanisms of scrutiny by which one may ascertain how much such individuals spend. It might be a criminal offence for them to spend more than £10,000, but there is nothing to indicate how they are supposed to make a return to the commission, how the commission might investigate them, or how such individuals might be kept under control. In addition, we must accept that because such individuals can spend up to £10,000, all they need do is club together as a group of, say, 10 and they can spend £100,000.
Are we being reasonable in specifying that if permitted participants spend a penny over £100 they must have an invoice and every conceivable detail, but all other people milling around on the sidelines, dabbling in a referendum campaign, can spend up to £10,000 without having to do so? I am prepared to accept the Minister's guidance. Clause 105 might just cover people who spend money as if there were no tomorrow.
It seems to me that the issue may be different from that which we discussed when we considered election expenses upstairs. We are imposing all these burdens on the poor old permitted participants, whereas there is a huge loophole allowing others to campaign without turning into third parties, as in the case of elections. They will be able to campaign, put forward their view and argue that a vote should go a particular way, yet they will not be subject to the same controls.
I should be grateful to hear from the Minister about the precise scope of clauses 105 and 107, and whether the limits that are being imposed are reasonable, in view of the fact that many other people will be able to participate without being subject to such stringent conditions.

§ Mr. Tipping
Clause 105 is concerned with goods or services provided to a permitted participant by a third party. Clause 107 is concerned with direct expenditure by a permitted participant. That is the difference between the two clauses.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the loose cannons that may get involved, and there may be some. He is always interested in hypothetical situations, in which such loose cannons appear larger than in reality.

§ Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury)
Loose cannon.

§ Mr. Tipping
Loose cannon. I am corrected by a voice that rarely speaks, but when it does, it does so with force.
The hypothetical situations described by the hon. Gentleman may not develop in reality to the extent that he is tempted to think.
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman about the de minimis provision. People can spend up to £10,000 without being a permitted party and without having to keep accounts. He asks what monitoring there will be. The commission will examine the matter. The offence is set out in clause 106(2). It is a criminal offence. That will put the brake on overspending, avoidance and evasion. 1008 I remember that only a day or two ago, the hon. Gentleman told me that the criminal sanctions in the Bill were far too draconian.

§ Mr. Grieve
I counted 68 criminal offences created by the Bill. Some of them are draconian, and some appear absolute—I shall shortly deal with one—and may need amendment. I know that the Minister will do that.
However, an offence is draconian only if someone can be convicted of it. If I spend £100,000 and am investigated for it, I produce 10 friends and say that we spent £10,000 each.

§ Mr. Tipping
Of course that is a possibility. We discussed the matter on Second Reading and on various occasions since. It takes us back to the argument about hypothesis versus reality. I expect that the reality will not be as exciting as the hon. Gentleman tempts me to believe.
Let me be more helpful to the hon. Gentleman and say that he makes a fair point in amendment No. 50. We discussed the figure in the context of part V. I am happy to accept amendment No. 50—another example of the Bill being improved.

§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)
Can the Minister tell us how often the Bill has had to be improved so far? On how many amendments has he said that he will come back to the Committee? Does not that show how ill prepared the Bill was, rather than how much it has been improved?

§ Mr. Tipping
The hon. Gentleman makes a point, and I shall make another. Under previous Governments, there was a regime where it was seen as inappropriate to make concessions. I remember that he was a Minister in that regime.

§ Mr. McLoughlin
It was a Government, not a regime.

§ Mr. Tipping
It may have been a Government, but the regime introduced by the Government led to their losing office. One of the things that I have been keen to do during the course of the Bill—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will speak to some of his hon. Friends about this—is to listen to the arguments and make concessions where that will improve—

§ Mr. McLoughlin
How many?

§ Mr. Tipping
I do not have a score chart. I will write to the hon. Gentleman. There have been a good number of occasions when appropriate suggestion were made. We are coming to one from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) in a moment.
It has been appropriate to make changes because the Bill will affect us all fundamentally. What marks the Bill is the fact that we all know something about the political system, and we all have a contribution to make. I do not accept that the Bill was ill prepared. I remind the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that it was published in draft form in July. His party had an opportunity to comment on it. If there are failings in it, it 1009 reflects badly on those who work for his party that they were not picked up. I shall not be tempted further down that route. He hits a nerve, and I shall return to the matter.
I am not persuaded to accept amendment No. 51, which deals with receipts and suggests that the value of the receipts should be increased from £100 to £200. There is a case, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove may make, in relation to smaller organisations. The de minimis provision is £100, which applies in this case, so only organisations that spend more than that will be affected.
The figure in the Bill is drawn from the Representation of the People Act 1983, where it was set at £20. It has been increased to £100, so that affords referendum campaigns more leeway. However, it is not unreasonable to ask well run, well resourced campaigns to present receipts and invoices.
These are ultimately matters of judgment. There is not a great deal between £100 and £200. What is important is that a milestone is set down. In my judgment, £100, rather than £200, is the right figure.

§ Mr. Grieve
I have reason to be grateful to the Minister, who has given me 50 per cent. more than I expected. I am happy that he has accepted amendment No. 50.