Vol. 750 Friday No. 94 10 January 2014

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

European Union (Referendum) Bill Second Reading ...... 1738 Written Answer...... WA 319

£4·00 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/index/140110.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords £4 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords £600 LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £60 (£100 for a two-volume edition). Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage.

The first time a Member speaks to a new piece of parliamentary business, the following abbreviations are used to show their party affiliation: Abbreviation Party/Group CB Cross Bench Con Conservative Con Ind Conservative Independent DUP Democratic Unionist Party GP Green Party Ind Lab Independent Labour Ind LD Independent Liberal Democrat Lab Labour Lab Ind Labour Independent LD Liberal Democrat LD Ind Liberal Democrat Independent Non-afl Non-affiliated PC Plaid Cymru UKIP UK Independence Party UUP Ulster Unionist Party

No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leave of absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2014, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1735 Arrangement of Business[10 JANUARY 2014] Arrangement of Business 1736

express no opinion one way or the other on what went House of Lords on in the Government Whips’ Office, save to say that I was insistent that I had put my name down but that it Friday, 10 January 2014. did not appear on the speakers list. I am grateful to the Chief Whip for indicating what she is going to do. 10 am However, I am slightly concerned about the procedure that she has outlined for the rest of the debate. Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds. The Companion is very clear. It is a firm convention of this House that, when Private Members’ Bills are taken on a Friday, the House does not sit beyond Arrangement of Business 3 pm. From what the noble Baroness has just said, I am not sure whether she accepts that it should not sit Announcement beyond 3 pm—in which case, if we come to 3 pm and the debate has not concluded, it will be adjourned 10.07 am even though it has not been completed—or whether she is saying that if everybody does what she would Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con): My Lords, like us to do, it is her hope that the debate will finish by before we begin the Second Reading of the European 3 pm. If it is the latter—if it is merely her hope—that, Union (Referendum) Bill, perhaps I may offer the with great respect, is not in accordance with the House some advice on timings and say a brief word Companion. The Companion is very clear on this. I will about the speakers list. It has come to my attention read out the relevant piece from the Companion. Chapter 3, that there may be an error on the list. The noble Lord, headed “Sittings and Documents of the House”, states: Lord Richard, for whom we all have great regard, “The House also sits on Fridays at 10 a.m. when pressure of appears not to be on it, and I believe that the name of business makes it necessary. It is a firm convention that the House the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, may be on it in error. normally rises by about 10 p.m. on Mondays to Wednesdays, by With the leave of the House, I propose that after we about 7 p.m. on Thursdays, and by about 3 p.m. on Fridays”. have had the opening speech from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, I will discuss the matter with the opposition Noble Lords: Oh! Chief Whip—the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—and ensure not only that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is able to Lord Richard: My Lords, if everybody takes three speak but that he is able to do so in an appropriately minutes, of course we will be up by 3 pm. If everybody prominent place in the list. I hope that that will meet takes 10 minutes, there is not a hope that we will be up with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, by then. This is not a time-limited debate. The only and of the House. limit is that set out in the Companion, which I think I turn to advice on timings. If we exclude from the the government Chief Whip is now prepared to ignore. guidance I am about to give my noble friend Lord I am not against this Bill getting a Second Reading; Dobbs, who will propose the Second Reading, and the of course it should get a Second Reading. What I am two speakers who will wind up—the noble Lord, Lord concerned about is that the Bill should be treated no Triesman, and my noble friend Lady Warsi—everybody differently from any other Private Member’s Bill. I else should speak for four minutes. That would give us have been present in this House on a recent Friday a concluding time for the debate of about 3 pm. That when the axe came down at 2.50 pm when one of my terminology does not quite sit with my usual vocabulary, noble friends had a Bill he was about to propose. I am but I believe that the wording will sound particularly told that that was at the behest—although I cannot familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who is to verify that—but certainly at with the concurrence of speak in the debate, as I have blatantly pinched his the government Chief Whip. We were told that 3 pm words: it is the self-same advice that he gave on a was the time and therefore the Bill did not proceed. similar occasion for the Second Reading of a Private When the noble Lord, Lord Steel, was proposing Member’s Bill on a Friday, when he was the then one of his Bills, I distinctly recollect a situation in Labour Government’s Chief Whip. It was his advice which it was—I hesitate to use the words, “talked for the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, out”, but there was expansive discussion of the previous proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. On that Bill, as a result of which, at 3 pm, down came the axe occasion, the same guidance of four-minute speeches and the noble Lord’s Bill could not proceed. It is was given and there were no complaints, despite the important to establish the principle that this Bill is a fact that there were then 92 speakers listed, as opposed Private Member’s Bill and should be treated as such. It to 68. The House followed the prediction of the noble should be treated no differently from any other Bill. I Lord, Lord Grocott. He said that it would rise between say to the noble Baroness that if it comes to 2.50 pm 5 pm and 6 pm and, my goodness, it rose at 5.29 pm this afternoon and another 30-odd speakers remain on —he was very accurate. The debate proceeded in an the list, I will be minded in those circumstances to orderly manner, because that is the way this House move an adjournment of further discussion on the operates. I feel that it is the will of the House that that Bill. I am not saying that I am going to do that, but I should apply to this Bill, too. am certainly not saying that I am not going to do that.

Lord Richard (Lab): My Lords, before the noble Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I think it Lord, Lord Dobbs, opens the debate, I will say to the would be appropriate if I responded. The mood of the Chief Whip that I am grateful for what she said. I House is clearly that it wishes to get on with the debate 1737 Arrangement of Business[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1738

[BARONESS ANELAY OF ST JOHNS] European Union (Referendum) Bill rather than debate procedure. I remind the House that Second Reading as government Chief Whip I am indeed the guardian of the Companion, so of course I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, quoted from part of it. I 10.18 am sought in my introduction to explain that I was indeed Moved by Lord Dobbs following normal procedure. The Companion was phrased in 2006 in the way in which the noble Lord described—it That the Bill be read a second time. is normal that we rise at 3 pm, but the House is self-regulating and if Members wish to speak for longer than four minutes and rise later than 3 pm, it is Lord Dobbs (Con): My Lords, I thank each and in their hands. every one of your Lordships for being here in such numbers for this important debate. I must apologise for the fact that it is a Friday and it will be a full day. I However, on previous occasions, Private Members’ understand just how difficult that is for many and how Bills have never—ever—taken more than one day. much not inconvenience but real sacrifice your presence There has never been an attempt to adjourn the House has entailed. I am grateful. I intend to make a short on a Second Reading; and it would be unprecedented speech, lasting less than 10 minutes, I hope—if any of for a Member to seek to adjourn the House to prevent your Lordships think that 10 minutes is not showing the completion of a Second Reading. On previous sufficient respect for such an important Bill, I can only occasions, anyone who wished to prevent a Second offer a further apology. However, this Bill is short, the Reading tabled a Motion beforehand—and, before principle at its heart is extraordinarily simple and I am those procedures were put in place long ago, a vote conscious of how many others will want to speak. against Second Reading itself was made. The principle behind this Bill is that the people have a right to decide their own future. We had a vote of Let us not indulge in procedural quotations from course in 1975, in which we embraced the Common only part of the Companion. I did explain that I was Market by a huge majority. I was one of those voters. following the position of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, However, that vote needs reinforcing. The institutions when a very serious Private Member’s Bill was before of Europe have changed beyond imagination since this House. In that case, the House chose to rise at then and no one in this country below the age of 60 5.30 pm. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to has had any say. It has caused great controversy and another occasion recently. Perhaps I may explain to has resulted in growing scepticism, not just about the House that when that Second Reading did not Europe but about all our political processes. The noble proceed, I had beforehand talked to the mover of the Lord, Lord Ashdown, who, I am sad to say, is not in Private Member’s Bill to ensure that if the Second his seat today, was entirely right the other day in an Reading could not be concluded at a reasonable time, interview with the Times when he said that voters’ I would of course ensure that they had the first available trust in all sorts of institutions was collapsing, so opportunity and date that would ensure that their Bill much so that many people simply were not even bothering could reach another place. So I always play fair. I am to vote. I agree with him entirely. keeping to the rules and suggest that the House moves Sir John Major, in a speech a few weeks ago to the on. It is now 10.16 am. This is a Bill that the House Atlantic Partnership, said that Europe had become a wants to debate. toxic issue: “Many Britons believe they were misled during the Referendum on entry, and we need to drain that poison out of the system”. Lord Grocott (Lab): My Lords, given that I have He went on to say: been quoted in evidence, I should be able to make a “Only—only a fresh endorsement of membership can do this. couple of comments. Yes, this is a Private Member’s Without that we will never be rid of the turbulent debate that has Bill—but, my word, it is a Private Member’s Bill like racked British politics for too long”. no other that anyone else can remember in this House. That comes from a man with huge experience who is I need to remind the House that it is a Private Member’s committed publicly and passionately to Britain remaining Bill that is passionately supported by the Prime within the EU. Minister—so much so that when it was going through I will not bother the House with the details of how the House of Commons, the Conservative Party was many opinion polls show that the British public repeatedly, on a heavy three-line whip. That makes the Bill very and by huge margins, insist on a referendum. This different from any other Private Member’s Bill in my Bill, which will give them one, came to us from the experience—and, I would guess, that of anyone in this House of Commons after many days of debate and a House with longer experience than mine. I will leave great deal of time spent in the Division Lobbies. It that aside for a moment. passed its Second Reading there by 304 votes with not a single vote against. The lowest vote for the Bill at any I will make just this plea to the Chief Whip. As she stage was 233 and the highest vote for any amendment has been kind enough to say that she is following was 29. precisely my advice in this respect, will she at least do This Bill is needed and it is also very much wanted. me the courtesy of assuring me that whenever I give It will give us a referendum before the last day of 2017. advice on the timing of Bills between now and, say, the Some people have insisted that it is the wrong date. I general election, she will take it? simply ask them: if not then, when? Others suggest 1739 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1740 that the uncertainty will be damaging, but why should There are provisions in the Bill to cover the exceptional it be more damaging than the outcome of an election position of Gibraltar, the conduct of the referendum campaign? Right now, the whole of Europe is riddled and its costs. The AV referendum cost £75 million; this with uncertainty, although perhaps the greatest uncertainty referendum might conceivably cost more, but at least is felt on the Benches opposite. Having been at one people seem to want this one and it could very well be stage desperate to get out of Europe and at other the best money we ever spent. How much longer can stages desperate to bind themselves more closely to we allow, let alone encourage, the issue of Europe to Europe, no one in the current Labour Party seems able distort our politics and destroy the public’s respect for to tell us what their policy will be at the next election. I our institutions? do not mean that to be a criticism. This is a difficult Sir John Major has said that he will campaign at issue. We politicians have made a regular mess of it the referendum for us to stay in Europe. The Prime over decades, which is why we need to get the people to Minister has declared very publicly that he will campaign decide. After all, my noble friends on the Liberal for us to stay in Europe. They both support this Democrat Benches, in their last election manifesto, referendum. Labour figures, by contrast, have suggested said that they, that a referendum is like a lottery. It is not. A referendum “remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a is about democracy. It is not about being anti-European British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship or pro-European; it is about allowing people to decide between the UK and the EU”. their own future. It will be a brave man who denies That is precisely what the Prime Minister intends to them that choice, and an even braver unelected Peer. do, yet apparently my noble friends have changed their We are allowed great latitude in this House to minds. I shall be entirely frank: many people out there indulge our interests and our expertise but never, I have not been particularly impressed with the Conservative hope, to indulge ourselves. What we want individually record either, which is why the people must decide. from Europe or what we feel individually about Europe The question that the Bill proposes putting to them is not relevant here. The question is what the country is: wants. I think that the answer is very clear. They “Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member want—they demand—this Bill, which I commend to of the European Union?”. the House. I beg to move. That is what the House of Commons approved. Most of us would think that this is a straightforward question. 10.28 am The Electoral Commission acknowledges that it is, Lord Liddle (Lab): My Lords, in rising to put the “brief, uses straightforward language, and is easy to understand”. Labour Party’s position on the Bill, I should like to However—and it is a significant “however”—the congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, on the very commission believes that there is a possibility of confusion charming and elegant way in which he moved the because some voters may not be aware that we are Second Reading of his Bill, except that we all know already members of the European Union. No doubt that it is not really a Private Member’s Bill; it is a we can, and will, debate the wording with passion and Conservative Party Bill for a Conservative Party purpose. real commitment in this House, although I think it is That purpose is to try to create a semblance of unity in worth pointing out that when the commission canvassed a party that is deeply divided on the question of the far and wide for views on this question it received only European Union and, at the same time, to convince 19 responses. Most of the 19 were from various politically voters tempted by UKIP not to follow down that path. involved organisations and politicians; five were from I realise that many Conservatives may not like this members of the public; but not a single Peer expressed characterisation of their position on the Bill but, if any view whatever, although perhaps that is about to challenged on it in the confidentiality of the Lobby, change. surely their only possible response would be one very familiar to Francis Urquhart, the character created by I move on to the franchise. The proposal in Clause 2 the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs: “You may very well is very simple. Those entitled to vote would be those think that; I couldn’t possibly comment”. who are eligible to vote in parliamentary elections, with the addition of Peers. It is a very generous Bill Labour does not have these visceral internal divisions and it is also pretty standard stuff. Some have suggested to manage. that the franchise could be extended to those from other EU countries who are resident in Britain, to all Noble Lords: Oh! British nationals who live in the EU or to 16 and 17 year- olds. All those cases are arguable and I have a suspicion that they will be argued passionately and eloquently. Lord Liddle: It does not. With one or two honourable They are arguable but none of them is overwhelming. exceptions, we are unambiguously a pro-European Nothing in this Bill is so unfair or so unbalanced that it party. That does not mean that we want a European is sufficient reason for denying the people their referendum. superstate—we do not. It does not mean that we It would be beyond irony, and in some eyes beyond always agree with what the European Union does; we forgiveness, if this House were to pursue attempts to are passionate advocates of EU reform in its economic improve the question to the point where the Bill died policies, its regulatory approach, and its accountability and no question could be put, or to try to widen the to national Parliaments and public opinion. franchise of those entitled to vote to the point where Some may say, “If you believe in the European not a single person ended up getting the opportunity Union so strongly, why are you so unwilling to support to vote. a referendum on our membership?”. It is a fair question. 1741 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1742

[LORD LIDDLE] that possibility a certainty, with a negative impact on “Is it only because you are not confident of winning investment, living standards and growth. People may your case?”. I wish to set out today why Labour argues not believe me, but listen to what Nissan has to say, that the question of whether to hold a referendum has listen to what Siemens has to say, listen to what to be judged first and foremost on the test of the Goldman Sachs and other overseas banks based in the national interest, not what serves one sectional force City have to say. Do we really want to create now four of a political party in the land. It is for that reason that years of major economic uncertainty by passing this we have severe doubts about this Bill. Bill? Labour is not in principle an anti-referendum Even if you disregard the wider consequences, the party. It was, after all, a Labour Government that Bill is flawed. First, as your Lordships’ Constitution ensured that we had a referendum on the decision to Committee and Delegated Powers and Regulatory join in 1975. Where there has been the possibility of Reform Committee have pointed out, the Bill sets a major constitutional change, we have proposed a question for the referendum that the Electoral Commission referendum—on whether to join the single currency has judged unsatisfactory.Secondly, it leaves to ministerial after 1997 and on the abortive constitutional treaty. In discretion the procedures for holding a referendum the passage of the European Union Bill through this without the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny House in 2011, we were always clear that a major which every other referendum proposition put into change in Britain’s relationship with the EU would in legislation has allowed. future require a referendum. Thirdly, 16 year-olds will be able to vote in Scotland The Conservative Party has never shown that on the question of the country’s independence but not consistency of commitment. Edward Heath refused a on whether Britain should stay in the EU, which is a referendum in 1972; Margaret Thatcher pushed through key question for their future. Fourthly, Gibraltarians the Single European Act without a question of a will have a voice in Britain’s future in the EU, but not referendum; and John Major behaved similarly over the hundreds of thousands of British citizens living Maastricht. It is true that David Cameron made and working in the rest of the Union. a binding commitment to hold a referendum on the Fifthly, the Bill does not nothing to facilitate the Lisbon treaty, but he then abandoned it once Lisbon fullest possible unbiased public debate before a referendum was ratified in 2009, doubtless because he then believed is held. In that respect it is an “all power to the Daily that it would be damaging to his party in the 2010 Mail” Bill. Sixthly—and this is what I care about general election if, as he put it, it was always “banging most—it is a threat to our union, the United Kingdom. on about Europe”. If, as is perfectly possible, Scotland in 2017 were to What has changed since then? The truth is that all vote to stay in the EU and England to leave, that that has changed is internal Conservative division and would re-open the result of what many of us on all the misreading by Conservative Back-Benchers—certainly sides of this House want to be a decisive rejection of if you read the poll of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, independence in the Scottish referendum this autumn. it is a misreading—of the nature of the UKIP threat A referendum now would settle nothing. A vote to to their position. That is why the party has shifted its leave would open up complex negotiations on the position on a referendum. nature of Britain’s future relationship with the EU, with demands possibly emerging for a further referendum We judge the question on the national interest. If on the outcome of those negotiations. A vote to stay there was a major treaty in prospect that would radically could be re-opened if, say within a decade, there is a change the nature of the EU then, yes, there is already major treaty change. All in all, this Bill is a pig in a legislation on the statute book to say that there would poke and it cannot be in the national interest to buy be a referendum. However, the Cameron proposition into it. Their Lordships would be failing in their on the referendum in his eloquently argued Bloomberg constitutional duty if they did not give this bad Bill speech—with much of which I agree—is nevertheless the fullest parliamentary scrutiny. fundamentally flawed. He has chosen, as this Bill sets out, the end of 2017 as the end date for a UK referendum without the slightest idea of what by then he will have 10.37 am tried to negotiate, whether there is any prospect of our Lord Strathclyde (Con): My Lords, 12 months ago, partners playing ball with such a renegotiation, whether almost to the day, your Lordships kindly and generously a new treaty is necessary as part of that and what he paid tribute to my time as Leader of the House and to would judge to be an acceptable outcome. my 14 years as leader of the Conservative Party in this The truth is that he is playing Russian roulette with House. It was a fulsome tribute, and wholly ill deserved, the British economic recovery. So far we have seen a but the best way of showing my appreciation for those recovery in consumer confidence and the housing tributes was, I believe, a long period of silence from market, but there is as yet very little sign of new me. However, I think one year is long enough, so I am business investment and exports. If the business world delighted to support my noble friend Lord Dobbs’ was to think seriously that this Bill had the slightest timely Bill and to listen to this vast list of speakers. We chance of passage and that the Conservatives were have hardly seen such a large list since we last debated likely winners of the next general election, the uncertainty the vexed subject of House of Lords reform. generated over our continuing membership of the EU As we all know, referendums are rare beasts. We for the next four years could have a devastating economic also know that they are hugely important and significant effect. If the Labour Party were now to acquiesce in issues which need to be debated seriously by Parliament. the central proposition of this Bill, it could well make However, equally, they are not unprecedented. This 1743 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1744 controversial issue of our continued membership of We welcome the opportunity to debate this brief the EU has grown considerably over the course of the Bill, which makes provision for a referendum on the past two decades. It is an issue on which parties are United Kingdom remaining in, or leaving, the European divided, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Union by 2017. Its brevity is not to be confused with Liddle, explained in his speech, and it is therefore right modesty, for its ambitions are too important to be that on this issue we should change the normal political expressed in a 700-word, six-clause piece of legislation process of Parliament and consult the people directly debated at the end of a parliamentary Session. This in a referendum. is too important for a Bill to be rushed though the The European Union has changed out of all House with 16 weeks to go before a European recognition over the past 40 years and has changed election and 16 months before the British public give pretty fundamentally in the past 10 years. The EU their verdict on this Government’s performance—a institutions continue to evolve, particularly as they Government who have a good record of meeting the digest the full implications of the eurozone. We need challenges that our country has faced in the past three the agreement of the people to our continuing years. participation and involvement. Of course, today is not The implications for our country’s future trajectory about the outcome of the referendum or, indeed, the in the EU should not be consigned to a Private Member’s merits of continuing our membership of the EU but Bill and the ability to call on the House on a Friday, about whether a referendum should take place. Some against a ticking clock, when the other place needs to will argue that a referendum creates uncertainty—we receive it. Indeed, we know from Mr Cameron’s have heard some of that from the Labour Front Bench. Bloomberg speech that his passion for an “in or out” I argue that having an end date for a referendum referendum for the UK was set out only a year ago, resolves uncertainty. last January, and was to be implemented after a We debate the Second Reading today and, as is Conservative victory in 2015, not today. customary in this House, there is no Motion to deny The Bill before us has not had the benefit of being the Bill that Second Reading. Therefore, by the end of subject to public consultation, pre-legislative scrutiny today, the House will have agreed the principle of the or the taking of evidence from interested parties, and Bill. Many Peers have asked me whether it would be has arrived here unamended. It has been left to this right for this House to block the Bill. We do have the House to do its duty as a revising Chamber. I have no power to block the Bill, but I believe we do not have doubt that noble Lords here are up to the task—indeed the authority to do so. The Bill, as my noble friend it is our duty, as our country’s future is at stake—but explained, was passed through the House of Commons this is not the manner in which to pass legislation of largely unopposed, with huge majorities, and nobody constitutional import. outside this House would understand why the House of Lords was deliberately denying the people their say Noble Lords will want to hear the Lib Dem position on this issue. on the Bill. I will put my hands up at the outset: I was one of the Liberal Democrat policy researchers Furthermore, I hear it whispered that a small number who first put it to my noble friend Lord Ashdown— of Peers plan to stop the Bill by using our much the then leader of the Liberal Democrats—as long valued free and open procedures to disrupt its progress, ago as 1995 that the Liberal Democrats should consult therefore delaying the Bill and using time to stop it the British people through a referendum on any from becoming law. I can think of little else that would constitutional changes that might arise out of the be so comprehensively damaging to the well earned 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. I know it is not reputation of your Lordships’ House for fair-minded the tradition of the House to brandish documents scrutiny than to see a tiny minority of Peers indulge in around, but if noble Lords on the Conservative Benches the worst kind of procedural tactics. I very much hope wish to peruse that pledge, I have the document here that these rumours are untrue. and they can leave the Chamber and do so. The Bill gives the people of this country their voice—a voice to be heard directly. It has been passed It was from that consistent position that I stood by the House of Commons, and my noble friend Lord here in this very spot, three years ago, and supported Dobbs, and the Bill’s sponsor in another place, James the referendum Bill that become the European Union Wharton, should be able to anticipate that the Bill will Act 2011, when many noble Lords across the Chamber become law by the end of the Session. We in this were opposed to it. We stood by the democratic principle House are unelected and appointed. To defy the elected that the people should be consulted when significant House from time to time on a government Bill is one change is proposed and we do so today. We are proud thing; to defy the House of Commons and the people to have enshrined in law the European Union Act at the same time is quite another, and I urge the House 2011. So the Liberal Democrat position is clear: we not to do it. I support the Bill and wish it well. say yes to reform of the EU and yes to a referendum if there is any further change. I come to the Bill we are looking at today. The 10.43 am noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has set out a general case for Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD): My Lords, I why the Conservatives believe that we need an “in or thank the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, for his bravery in out” referendum by the end of 2017. A date for a sponsoring the Bill in your Lordships’ House. It was decision is arbitrarily plucked out of the air as the end also wonderful to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, of 2017, and the period for the preparation of that break his vow of silence to engage us on the Bill today. decision is randomly established as December 2016, It is always a pleasure to hear from the noble Lord. without an indication of what substantive change will 1745 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1746

[BARONESS FALKNER OF MARGRAVINE] of our economy and our capacity to influence and have occurred in the United Kingdom’s position vis-à-vis shape events in a rapidly changing world. To act in this the EU in the interim. The general election is to be way with our European Union membership is a high-risk held in May 2015. strategy that has been ill thought through by its authors The question the noble Lord has not addressed is and is fraught with possible unintended negative what change will take place in our relationship with consequences for this country. However, our task, as the EU between May 2015 and December 2016 for with every other Bill that comes before us, is to scrutinise which the EU referendum Act will not be sufficient the Bill rigorously and, where possible, improve it—not safeguard. If he believes that we will have a transfer of simply denounce it, tempting though that may be. competences in that 19-month period, then surely the The Bill is also in many respects an oddity. First, Act will apply. If there is treaty change from today on, take its proclaimed status as a Private Member’s Bill. the Act will apply. The answer to the question must be That is surely more of a sham than a reality. Just about that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have the only characteristic that fits its proclaimed status is come to the view that the Act only guarantees a say for that we are debating it on a Friday and will continue to the people on future change, whereas they now—only do so as we work our way through its Committee and two years after voting for that Bill—feel the need for a Report stages. However, I understand that the Bill was repatriation of powers referendum, which is what this as good as whipped in another place and, if I am not should be called. That is the message behind this Bill. badly informed, it is as good as whipped in this House. However, even on that reasoning, they are contradicting It has been openly suggested by Ministers of one of themselves. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself said in the two coalition parties that the Bill has their full his Bloomberg speech that the next Conservative manifesto support. That hardly makes it much of a Private will ask for a mandate to negotiate a new settlement Member’s Bill, even if it was introduced in this House with EU partners and that the British people would be by a distinguished Back-Bencher, the noble Lord, asked after that negotiation. Yet now this House is Lord Dobbs, who has, with others, regaled us over the asked to approve a fixed date for a referendum before years with the odder aspects of our political life. we even know whether that mandate is to be granted The oddities do not stop there. It is generally recognised or, indeed, what is to be negotiated. Should the detail as a convention of our unwritten constitution that our of a new settlement not be outlined to the people Parliament cannot and should not aim to bind the before they are asked for their view on remaining in or hands of its successors, but the sole purpose of this leaving? If it is a matter of trust, then the Conservatives Bill is to do precisely that. It has no other purpose and are saying, “Trust us to negotiate before we tell you will have no effect at all during the lifetime of this what we will negotiate and trust us to have a referendum Parliament. Its object is to ensure that, whatever the on it irrespective of success”. It will be interesting to outcome of the 2015 election, the die will have been see what the House makes of that. I look forward to cast. Once a precedent like that has been set, one learning more of their thinking on the Bill as we delve wonders what there will be to stop any Government deeper in Committee. I will try to keep an open mind that can exercise a majority in the other place from on their responses. pre-legislating commitments for their successor. I come to the other significant issue in the Bill: that Another oddity is that only two years or so ago, of the question itself. I should declare that I am a when we dealt with the European Union Act 2011 and member of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, its 57 or so varieties of decision in the EU that would which has reported on the Bill. The Electoral Commission trigger a referendum in this country, we were assured has recommended a change to clarify the question, as with great intensity and certainty by the noble Lords, it appears that a number of voters are not yet aware Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we are in the European Union and may not that once that Act was passed Britain would be at ease understand the question. We will explore the possibility with its membership and there would be no question of improving that aspect and examine the question of of needing any referendum outside the scope of that the franchise in terms of eligibility to vote in the Act. What has happened in the two and a half years referendum. since then to justify reversing those assurances? It is For the moment, let me end on that question of not anything in Brussels, where no decision has been trust—trusting the voters to make the right choice on taken to trigger that Act. I suppose the answer must be the EU, which we unequivocally do. William Gladstone the rise of UKIP and the attitude of a significant 150 years ago defined liberalism as, number of the Government’s supporters in another place who believe that, because they cannot secure a “a principle of trust in the people only qualified by prudence”. majority in Parliament for their objective of Britain It is that combination of trust and prudence that we withdrawing from the EU, some other means must be will put into the scrutiny of this Bill in the coming found. weeks. The finally oddity is that the cry has gone up before we have even given the Bill a Second Reading that this 10.50 am House should not resist the will of the elected Chamber. Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB): My Lords, the Yet, if you come to think of it, every Bill that reaches European Union (Referendum) Bill to which we are this House from another place falls into that category. invited to give a Second Reading today is a mercifully Are we therefore not to scrutinise or, where we consider short one, but it is also exceptionally significant. It it to be defective, amend this Bill? If so, there is not an puts into play Britain’s role as a member of the European awful lot left for us to do and the concept of a Union—a role that underlies much of the functioning bicameral system would be junked. 1747 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1748

In addition to these oddities and constitutional levels, it would be a travesty to argue—as the proposers imperfections, the Bill has a number of other substantive of referendums are wont to do—that “the people have defects. Does it really make sense to impose an artificial had their say”. timetable and deadline of 2017 for the holding of an What, too, about the requirements for the provision “in or out” referendum, some three years or more of relevant, objective information to the electorate ahead of the event? I suggest not. For one thing, 2017 ahead of the vote? On this, the Bill we are considering is a singularly poorly chosen year for such an exercise. is completely and astonishingly silent. Is it just to be In the first half of that year, France will hold presidential left to government edict and the protagonists in the and parliamentary elections. In the second half, the campaign to provide information—or perhaps Germans will hold national elections and, judging by disinformation? Or will a party with the majority in last year’s precedent, it takes some time and much the other place after the 2015 election simply be able internal negotiation before they form a coalition. That to impose its preferences in this respect? That surely same year, Britain will next hold the presidency of the would not do. That was certainly the view of our European Union. These are as suboptimal conditions Delegated Powers Committee when it reported. Would as one could devise for this choice of year, so there it not be far better to set out in this Bill the way in must be doubt that it is really a sensible way to which information should be provided ahead of a proceed. referendum vote on the economic impact of the decision, the consequences for individuals’ rights and status, But the whole concept of setting a date so far in and so on? Nothing is more distorted— advance is surely deeply flawed, too. Would it not make more sense for the Government of the day first to secure the reforms they wish for in order to put the Lord Trefgarne (Con): My Lords, I apologise for question on Britain’s continued membership to a interrupting the noble Lord, and I will do so very referendum and then set a date? That is what was done briefly. I am listening very carefully to what he has to in 1974-75. Does it not also make no sense to create say—detailed arguments which will no doubt be such a long period of uncertainty for inward investors, redeployed in Committee. Could he indicate for how on whose decisions the continued improved of the much longer we will have to listen to this? economy is so dependent? Then there is the question to be put in the referendum. Lord Hannay of Chiswick: This is not a time-limited The authors of this Bill devised a form of words that debate, and I have not the slightest intention of replying the Electoral Commission judged to be flawed on the to that interruption, but I am in fact getting rather grounds of clarity and objectivity. More than that, the close to the end. That will give pleasure to the noble Electoral Commission submitted two formulations which Lord, and he would have spared us two minutes’ more it believed met those criteria, but the authors of the time if he had not made that intervention. Bill brushed those aside and continued with their own. It is essential that objective information should be What on earth do we have an Electoral Commission provided, and the requirement for the provision of for if we just ignore its advice? I was glad to see that such information would best find its place in the Bill our own Constitutional Committee shared my bafflement itself. at this cavalier treatment of that advice. I apologise for having spoken at some length about the deficiencies of the Bill. I hope that its promoters There is also the question of the franchise, which will reflect carefully on the points that I and others are has been referred to by other noble Lords. It is no making before we reach Committee and Report on the doubt very welcome that Members of your Lordships’ Bill. This is far too serious a matter, with profound House are to be allowed to vote on this occasion, but consequences for the future of this country, to be three important and much larger blocks of voters who handled in the rather slap-dash and simplistic way that will be critically affected by the decisions to be taken the legislation does in its present form. as a result of the proposed referendum are being excluded, despite the fact that this is not a vote for the 11.01 am duration of a five-year Parliament but a much longer period. The three blocks are: teenagers between the Lord Crickhowell (Con): My Lords, the Constitution ages of 16 and 18, whose future job prospects and lives Committee, of which I am a member, published a brief will be directly affected; the 1.5 million to 2 million but important report on the Bill. Paragraphs 9 to 14 British citizens resident in other member states, many cover the referendum question and the role of the of whom are disfranchised from our parliamentary Electoral Commission. Paragraphs 15 to 17 cover the elections due to the length of their residence but regulation of the referendum. The very important whose rights and status will be directly affected by this paragraphs 6 to 8 on process make two crucial points decision; and citizens from other EU member states must be taken into account: first, that the Bill has resident in this country who can vote in our local reached us having been approved by huge majorities in elections and who will also be affected by this. Does the Commons; and, secondly, that if any amendments the case for giving these categories the vote on this are approved here, it will almost certainly kill the occasion not deserve careful consideration? Bill—or, as we delicately put it, “make it unlikely” that there would be time for the Bill to be passed. We surely need some threshold to be set for a In what we have to say about the recommendations referendum of this sort if its outcome is to be considered of the Electoral Commission, we included the words: legally or politically binding. If either the turnout or “Taking account of the circumstances described in paragraphs 6–8, majority for the result was to fall short of certain the House will wish to consider”, 1749 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1750

[LORD CRICKHOWELL] “the referendum is a tactical device to get over a split”, et cetera. Those circumstances included the rejection in the Labour Party. She continued: “The referendum’s by 244 votes to three of an amendment which would true genesis” is, have replaced the proposed question with the first alternative proposed by the Electoral Commission. “a piece of thoughtless short-term brokerage in the Labour Party”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/75; cols. 306, 317.] In paragraph 17, which considers whether the conduct of the referendum should be decided by a process set One could say, with Mrs Thatcher, that Mr Cameron’s out in full in the Act of Parliament, we have again conversion to an “in or out” referendum, something used the words: which he did not have in his election manifesto, is a “Taking account of the circumstances described in paragraphs piece of short-term brokerage. We have heard some 6–8, the House will wish to consider”. very impressive speeches already, but let us get down Those circumstances include the very limited time to basics. Under pressure from UKIP and his Eurosceptic available. We have proposed that undertakings should Back-Benchers—that is where the pressure has come be sought as to how the Secretary of State would from—Mr Cameron has committed his party to a intend to fulfil the duty imposed by Clause 3(2), in referendum, as he puts it in his Bloomberg speech— light of the fact that it would be virtually impossible in incidentally, notice the language he uses—whether to a Private Member’s Bill to set up the process in full in stay in on renegotiated terms of membership or to pull the Act. out altogether. He does not use the language of the Bill, I note. I turn from the agreed position of the committee to my own conclusions as to how we should proceed. The In short, in order to keep his party together, the issue that confronts us concerns the relationship between Conservative Prime Minister has taken a very big the two Houses and the proper role of the unelected gamble with the country’s future. We know from House. The Bill has come to us with the full authority Mr Cameron’s speech that if a Conservative Government of the elected House, and with a great deal of evidence are elected, they will then introduce the necessary that the electorate want a referendum. Having served legislation and, after negotiation with our partners, in both Houses, I am certain that, although the work hold a referendum in the first half of the new Parliament. we do here is hugely valuable, the will of the elected In other words, it is quite unnecessary to have the Bill House must prevail. For that reason, I believe that it at all. would be a grave mistake if the Lords were to kill the Like all the speakers so far, I very much admire the Bill. We have heard a good deal recently about the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. I have read his political cynicism of the public and their considerable contempt thrillers and dramas with great interest and involvement, for politicians. Very few outside Parliament will understand but I have to say to him that his Bill, apart from its our arcane procedures, and if the Bill dies in the hands place as a piece of political symbolism—because that of this non-elected Chamber, many will believe that it is what it is—is neither necessary nor fit for purpose. I was just another political manoeuvre designed to frustrate agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that their legitimate wishes. such a crucial step as an “in or out” referendum I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who has should not be introduced as a Private Member’s Bill. given immensely distinguished service to his country, We all know why it is being introduced as a Private but has never been elected, and who indicated that he Member’s Bill. intended to table many amendments and spend a great The Bill also has a number of crucial weaknesses. It deal of time debating them, that if Members in his is no good ignoring them altogether. I have also been position take that line, it will simply add salt to the in Parliament for 40 years both down at the other end wounds already opened. Many of us fought vigorously and at this end. Those weaknesses include the inflexibility and with success to defeat legislation that would have of the date. If Mr Cameron is going to embark on a destroyed the House of Lords as we have known it and process of complex renegotiation, he will need flexibility made it wholly elected. To defy the will of the Commons in the timing of the referendum. He is not going to get on this issue would be ample reason for those who that if the Bill goes through. Secondly, the rules under believe in Lords reform to drag the question out of the which the referendum is to be conducted are made by long grass, where it lies at present. orders of the Secretary of State. The Delegated Powers There will be those who will debate the merits of Committee said in its report that these powers are staying in or leaving the EU and related questions. I inappropriate. Are we to totally ignore that? will not join those debates. I do not think that this is the time or the place to do so. The issues before us are Thirdly, the referendum question should be amended, really very simple. Are we to approve or are we to we are told, by the Electoral Commission. It is no destroy the Bill sent to us by the Commons? Are we to good just brushing it aside; we set it up in order to give add to the despair that exists about the political system? us advice on elections and referendums. It has said Are we going to block the wishes of ordinary people that the question should be amended and offered two who want the certainty that their views will be heard? I far superior alternatives to the one in the Bill. Although, profoundly hope that the Bill will pass. as I have made clear, I believe that the Bill is unnecessary, I hope that this House does its proper job, as it always does, and is able to amend the Bill to make it better. If 11.04 am there are certain Bills which we are not allowed to Lord Radice (Lab): In 1975, Mrs Thatcher, as she amend, where are we as a second Chamber? A special then was, said in her first parliamentary speech as rule for one Bill? Come on—that really is not a good leader of the Opposition, that, enough argument. 1751 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1752

In conclusion, I agree with my noble friend Lord a vote in the referendum. I am sure that that was to Liddle, who made a very impressive speech. It is guarantee that there was no amendment on that topic absolutely right that our party is not committing itself, introduced in this House but, as has been said, there in a Gadarene rush, to a referendum until it becomes are other significant limitations on those voting because much clearer what developments are actually happening of the basis of the parliamentary franchise. There is a in the EU. That is not clear at this moment. I end on strong case for basing it on the local government this sentence: if there is an “in and out” referendum, I electorate, as this would permit other citizens of the shall vote as I did in 1975—to stay in the EU—and European Union to vote in the referendum. They will I shall be voting that way with great confidence, because be clearly affected in such a decision and we should I believe British membership to be in the economic certainly consider this in Committee. My noble friend and strategic interests of the United Kingdom and of Lord Shipley will be raising the related question of the the European Union. right to vote of British citizens living in the European Union. I share his view that we should consider that in 11.10 am Committee. Lord Roper (LD): My Lords, I must begin with a Finally, our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform confession. I have changed my attitude to referendums. Committee raised in its report questions related to For the first half of my life, my sceptical view of Clause 3 on the rules of the conduct of the referendum referendums was very much based on the view in and suggested that, as in some previous referendums, Clement Attlee’s dictum that they were, they should be incorporated as a schedule to the Bill “a device for despots and dictators”, so that they can be given detailed parliamentary scrutiny. and that they were inappropriate for a parliamentary It is the problem of having a Private Member’s Bill democracy. In 1972, my sympathy was with my then that it would have been very difficult for the Member right honourable friends Roy Jenkins and George of the House of Commons who introduced the Bill Thomson, when they resigned from the Labour Party’s there, or indeed for the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, to Front Bench rather than support a referendum. However, draft a schedule when in the case of the other Bills it after the 1974 elections I was much involved in the amounted to some 100 pages. This is therefore a 1975 referendum and I much enjoyed working under matter which we will have to think about rather carefully the leadership of the father of the noble Baroness, but we are unlikely to be able to make an appropriate Lady O’Neill, and with my noble friend Lord Hurd of amendment. The House should give a Second Reading Westwell. I remember that my noble friend Lord Newby, to the Bill but then carry on its normal function of who is the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, was careful consideration in Committee. one of the most enthusiastic young campaigners in that campaign, and that in Manchester I worked with 11.15 am my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Dame Helen Wallace. I, too, am therefore in favour of the Lord Kakkar (CB): My Lords, I congratulate the broad thrust of the European Union Act 2011, with noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, on the thoughtful way in its obligation to have a referendum when there is a which he introduced this Second Reading. In listening significant shift of power to European institutions. to the noble Lord, it reminded me of something that Why, then, do I have questions about the Bill that was said to me many years ago: that in life, to be we are considering? As the noble Lord, Lord Radice, successful, you must answer the exam question before has said he does, I have considerable doubts as to you. The question before your Lordships’ House is not whether it is right for a referendum to be introduced one today of whether our country should remain part by a Private Member’s Bill. I do not believe that that in of, or leave, the European Union but simply whether itself is a reason for opposing the Bill. However, like the people of our country should have a say by way of other noble Lords, I feel that there are significant a referendum in determining the answer to that question. defects in the Bill before us and that this House would Whatever one’s views on about whether the Bill is be failing in its function as a revising Chamber if it appropriate, wise or necessary, your Lordships need to was not to consider them carefully, but not for too be sensitive to the circumstances in which we have long, in Committee. received the Bill. We have heard already in this important As has been said by others, I believe that at this debate that in the other place—the place that is composed stage to fix the date at 2017 is a mistake. It is not clear of the elected representatives of our fellow citizens, how long it would take a Conservative Government, sent to that Chamber to exercise their judgment on the assuming that they were elected at a general election, half of the citizens—that the Bill passed through its to agree the necessary reforms to the European Union various stages either unopposed or with very substantial and Britain’s relations to it. There would be a case for majorities, reflecting public opinion on this matter of a referendum when that had occurred but it is clearly a whether the people more generally should have their mistake to make a fixed decision on the year of that say by way of a referendum. referendum now. As has been said, as our own Select Having said that, there is of course a clear constitutional Committee on the Constitution has reported, the question responsibility that this Chamber has, in a bicameral in the Bill has been examined by the Electoral Commission Parliament, to undertake thorough and appropriate and I believe that we must return to that issue in scrutiny and revision of legislation. Indeed, this whole Committee. question of the role of the second Chamber was The Bill, as has been drawn to our attention, has a debated at length in the last Session as part of discussions rather unusual provision in that it widens the normal and debates generally on the House of Lords Reform parliamentary franchise in order to give your Lordships Bill, so it is very clear that we have this constitutional 1753 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1754

[LORD KAKKAR] growing budgets, the increasing temptation for some responsibility. Although the Shadow Foreign Secretary, to extend Community competence and the need to Douglas Alexander, speaking at Third Reading in reassert subsidiarity. So I strongly support the Prime another place stated that members of the Labour Minister’s view about renegotiation. Party had provided an appropriate level of scrutiny in On the referendum, I am much struck by the facts all stages of the Bill, both in Committee and on that we had a referendum on Europe in 1975; we have Report, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee had subsequent referendums on the alternative vote identified areas where further scrutiny might indeed and now of course on Scottish independence, so they be advisable and necessary but also stated very clearly are becoming more commonplace; and there are many that there are implications in that revision and scrutiny. in the other place who were not able to vote in 1975 It suggested ways in which much of that might be because they were too young or, as in the case of the dealt with through undertakings provided by the promoter, were not even born then. I therefore feel ministerial response to questions raised in your Lordships’ that there is a very strong case for a referendum on this House. issue so I support the Bill. It is vitally important that we come back to the It seems to make no sense to have a referendum question of how your Lordships should exercise before the renegotiation takes place so I agree with the the substantial powers that they have with regard to timing point in the Bill. the conduct of their constitutional responsibilities. In the short time that I have had the privilege of sitting I come to the point that most concerns me, and I among your Lordships, I have come to understand very much support what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that we have substantial powers but we show maturity said. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has made it clear and considerable restraint in the exercise of those that he has severe doubts about the Bill. I must ask powers. The question of Europe and our country’s him: why then did the Labour Party in the House of future role in Europe is important, and one which has Commons not vote at Second Reading or in fact on been fraught with considerable political disagreement. any amendments to amend the Bill on the points that However, the situation would be made considerably have been raised here? The Labour Party accepted worse if, in addition to the important debate on the them, did not vote and did not take a position, and I future relations of our nation with Europe, the debate therefore do not understand why it should be only this were to be attended by a further accusation. That House that does so. accusation might be that those who have the privilege I am a firm advocate of our non-elected House, for of sitting in your Lordships’ House and therefore the all the reasons that we have often debated, the most opportunity for their individual voices to be heard on important of which is the expertise and experience of every issue, apart from questions of supply and confidence, the Members of this House that enable us, among were to deny our fellow citizens the opportunity for other things, to improve in detail the legislation that their voice to be heard at the ballot box on the question comes before us. A crucial point here, though, is that of our future membership of the European Union, in the end, where there is disagreement on amendments particularly when their elected representatives, sitting between our two Houses, this House always gives way in another place, have made it very clear that it is their to the elected Chamber. That is the principle that judgment that our fellow citizens should be given a enables this House to continue to do its work, despite voice. those critics who believe that both Houses in a democracy should be elected. Here, though, we face a rare and most unusual situation. There is strong support in the 11.20 am country for a referendum, as is clear from the polls, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market (Con): My and this was very much reflected in the debates in the Lords, given the need to be brief, I am tempted simply other place on the Bill and the decisions that the to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Dobbs, elected House made on it. to whom I am grateful for the way in which he introduced I have read all the debates on the Bill in the other the Bill, and to my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and place and in principle, as others have said, the Bill was Lord Crickhowell, and then simply sit down, but I do unopposed at Second Reading. There many amendments not think that that would be quite sufficient. I want to that dealt with most of the points that have been express a few views about both the Bill and the position raised here today but no one, or a very tiny minority of of this House. people, voted in favour of them, so the other place has In the early and mid-1960s, when I first took an overwhelmingly made its position very clear. The elected interest in politics, I became a convinced supporter of House has therefore debated all these points and, as I the campaign for us to join the EEC, for all the say, made its position clear, and the point that we now reasons that we expounded then. During the mid-1980s face is that any amendments passed by this House and 1990s I often had to negotiate in Brussels in the could almost certainly—indeed, will—kill the Bill. In DTI, in agriculture, for the Treasury, in transport and my view, it is not for this unelected House to do so, even sometimes on education, and I continued to take and I hope that we will not. a very positive view but with considerable concerns about the extensions of the EU budget and the erosion 11.24 am of the principle of subsidiarity. Today, as others have said, the EU is a very different place and a different Lord Mandelson (Lab): My Lords, we have heard Community and we face new situations. I do not have some excellent speeches in this debate so far, including, time to elaborate them all but they include many new charmingly, from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in members bringing new challenges, the eurozone, ever- a very good five-minute contribution. 1755 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1756

Having been a member of the European Commission, and the Prime Minister were taken hostage by the I think that I can talk with some experience about the militant tendency within their party, when he said need for change in the European Union. My experience about a referendum: has made me decidedly pro-reform of the EU, but not “It would not help anyone looking for a job. It would not help in favour of a pig-in-a-poke referendum in this country any business trying to expand. It would mean that for a time, we, designed to bridge the divisions within the Conservative the leading advocates of removing barriers to trade in Europe and Party. Of course, at a time when people across Europe the rest of the world, would lack the authority to do so”.—[Official are worried about their jobs, borne down by the cost Report, Commons, 24/10/11; col. 55.] of living and nervous about whether or when the He was absolutely right. We would simply create more fast-rising economic powers in the world are going to alienation and public disillusion in Britain and on the eat Europe’s collective lunch, it is hardly surprising continent and sacrifice yet more of our authority if we that public hostility is directed at the EU. However, it were to accept this Bill and if, instead of leading the is instructive that opinion polls, including recent ones, charge for reform, we devoted the next three years to a indicate that while the public are in favour of a referendum referendum that presents a choice between standing they are by a bigger majority in favour of Britain on the periphery of an unreformed Europe or leaving showing leadership in the EU, exerting its influence it altogether. That, in essence, is what the backers of and not walking away from its responsibilities within this Bill are inviting us to do, and we should resoundingly it. That is why I am very confident that in any public reject that choice. debate we will win the argument that breaking up the EU is not the answer and Britain leaving it will not 11.30 am help our own economic future, which is completely Lord Taverne (LD): My Lords, the noble Lord, intertwined with that of Europe. Lord Dobbs, in his very eloquent speech opening this debate, said that the referendum is about democracy. That is why collectively our primary purpose should We need to be very cautious about the use of the be to raise Europe’s performance and game globally, referendum. It is very much against the tradition of and why Britain is an essential component in changing parliamentary government. Personally, I am a great Europe and bringing about that rise in Europe’s admirer of Locke, the champion of parliamentary performance. We therefore need to concentrate all our government, and less an admirer of Rousseau, who efforts and energy on building up Britain’s influence in felt that the will of the people should prevail in all Europe, not driving Britain out of it. I am co-president circumstances and, if necessary, override that of a with Kenneth Clarke and Danny Alexander of British Parliament. Influence, the organisation dedicated to making our EU membership more effective. We want above all to It seems to me that we now accept the referendum see a confident Britain at the heart of a reforming as part of our procedures, but it has to be used very Europe. My opposition to the Bill is based on the fact cautiously and it can be justified only if the choice in a that it will scupper that objective. referendum is clear. Will that be the case in 2017? It is extremely unlikely. The eurozone is in a state of flux The Bill is not about changing or improving the and the European Union as a whole is in a state of EU; indeed, it is stage 1 in raising impossible demands turmoil. In the southern states of the Union, there is a of the EU in order to create a pretext for leaving it. It revolt against the austerity which they see as imposed will create huge uncertainty among investors when we on them by Germany and against excessive regulation need confidence to build our economic recovery, and proposed—or imposed—by Brussels. Germany is right it will put the Government into a straitjacket, binding to insist on structural reforms and effective government, them to a rigid timetable regardless of what is happening but it has pushed austerity too far and the question in the rest of Europe and indeed in our own country. It still arises: will the eurozone survive? I note that Mr certainly will not increase the Government’s negotiating Draghi says that it is wrong to assume that the worst is authority in Europe, at a time when we need to be now over. So the question may well arise by 2017: what reaching out and building coalitions so as to safeguard sort of Europe are we going to have to leave? It will our national interests as a member of the EU and in not be clear. Will there be a larger eurozone or a the single market but not in the core eurozone. smaller eurozone? The result will have a very great effect on relations between Britain and Europe. Will My message to the Government is: stop grandstanding there be a new banking union and, if so, what form to the UKIP gallery. If they are really serious about will it take? There probably will be one, but the form is European reform, they have to go out and work for it still very uncertain, and it may take a long time to and join others in achieving it. If the need or cause for work out the details, yet the shape of a banking union a referendum arises in the future—if a new treaty will make a very big difference to the future of the City involving fresh European integration or transfer of of London. powers requires it—that will be the time to consider What is going to happen in the May elections? It the proposition of holding a referendum. seems quite possible that the extreme anti-European parties in France, Greece, the Netherlands, Finland In conclusion, while we should be out there in and, perhaps, the UK, will win an overall majority in Europe banging the drum for British interests, making the European Parliament. That will have major effects sure that our people fill the right posts and that our and cause major changes in the European Union as we policies are uppermost in the minds of the European know it. Will we know the effects by 2017? It is very Commission or others, we should recall the words of unlikely. If we are to have a referendum, it is vital to William Hague, who originally got it right before he know what sort of Europe we are going to join, and in 1757 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1758

[LORD TAVERNE] Lord Howell of Guildford: No. Of course I am not the next three years we cannot predict exactly what the saying any such thing. implications will be. The only logical reason for having Secondly, I understand and sympathise with the a fixed date now is that the events of the next three doubts and cautions that your Lordships have about years are irrelevant. The only logical reason, in a referendums. We just heard from the noble Lord, Lord sense, therefore, is for those who just want out: UKIP Taverne, on that. However the disdain—I heard a lot and the Tea Party section of the Conservative Party. of that when I had the honour of taking the European As Mr Farage has admitted, he does not really care Union Bill through this House on behalf of the about the economic effects or the effect on jobs and Government in 2011—of some for referring great British influence in the world. What matters to UKIP issues of constitutional power and the national future is that in an isolated little England we should be free to to popular judgment damages the European cause keep beastly foreigners out. It is the gut anti-Europeans which the strongest European enthusiasts claim they who really can justify a referendum irrespective of the espouse. There could be no better way of wounding date. the cause of European reform and progress—here I want to be optimistic, but careful—which I sensed from a debate we had in this Chamber last night may 11.35 am just be beginning to rise above party and acquire Lord Howell of Guildford (Con): Apart from the all-party common-sense support, which will be necessary obvious unwisdom of this House trying to throw out for this nation, than hiding the issue. There could be or talk out a Bill passed overwhelmingly in the other no better way of wounding all that than hiding the place, on which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde issue from popular judgment and setting that trend spoke so eloquently and pleased so many of us, I have back. If I am right, that trend is there. There could be just two brief observations to make. no more effective way of consolidating a more democratic First, I noticed that the other day the very able and popular European Union—and, I say to the noble Treasury Minister Danny Alexander MP was deploring Lord, Lord Hannay, one that has been undergoing the uncertainty here about the European Union and huge change in the past two or three years and will all the scepticism, argument and talk of actual withdrawal. continue to change over the next three years—than He believed it was undermining investment in the UK. referring it to the people for decision in due course. We have heard the same message here today. My view Noble Lords may dislike the referendum instrument, of Mr Alexander is that much of the time he talks a but in this information age, they must know perfectly great deal of sense and is an extremely able Treasury well that Parliament is trusted only up to a point and Minister, but on this occasion I believe he and the when it comes to letting go of further powers, or party of which he is a member have got things completely taking steps into a very uncertain constitutional future, upside down. not much at all. With two-thirds of this nation on the What is the best way to drain the uncertainty and internet each morning, it is absurd to believe that a doubts out of the system and end the bickering and decision such as one on our membership of the EU difficulties that have gone on? Obviously, it is to have can somehow be kept from them. in due course, at the right time, a popular vote which I read somewhere that the great Lord Salisbury, at will settle the matter for decades ahead, just as the the beginning of the previous century, used to deplore previous referendum did in 1975. It may not be for in this House the way that public opinion was beginning ever as things change. The whole of Europe is changing, to intrude into matters of foreign policy and international but it will certainly settle the matter for decades ahead. affairs. It is probably time that we moved on a little Anything which assists that outcome, such as this Bill, from that. This Bill will help us to do so. should be strongly supported, not opposed, by those who see themselves as good Europeans. If Mr Alexander and his colleagues in his party or, indeed, the noble 11.40 am Lord, Lord Mandelson, from whom we have just Lord Turnbull (CB): My Lords, there are many heard, want less uncertainty and a stronger investor features of the EU and our relationship with it that are commitment to this nation over the next decade, they beneficial, but there are also many that are objectionable, should be supporting, not opposing, this Bill. Those beginning with the complacency of the Brussels elite, who oppose the in/out referendum idea are really exemplified on the radio this morning. There is the saying that they are in favour of more friction and contempt for popular opinion; the driving ambition continuing, unending uncertainty, precisely the conditions for ever closer union; the relentless expansion of the which turn off investors and weaken confidence. In EU competences; the extravagance over buildings and the end I believe that in reality all the political parties, expenses; the waste within EU programmes such as even our Liberal Democrat friends sitting here, will the CAP, overseas aid and the common fisheries policy; have to face that and commit themselves to a referendum. the hypocrisy of demanding a 6% real-terms increase in the EU budget while imposing harsh austerity on national budgets; the economic illiteracy of many of Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD): Is the noble the regimes, such as the euro, the Social Chapter and Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, whose expertise on the working time directive; and the damage to this matter is known throughout the House, really competitiveness in seeking to decarbonise in only 35 more saying that the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, who years, largely on the basis of renewables. There is also the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, has just quoted, was the jealousy and hostility towards London as a financial wrong when he opposed having a fixed date? centre. Finally, there is the abject failure of the Lisbon 1759 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1760 agenda, agreed in 2000, to make Europe the most the unlikely event that the British people vote to leave competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy the European Union, far from it being the end of the in the world. game it would be just the beginning. Following a It is not surprising that many people have become withdrawal vote, the Government of the day would, exasperated, but does that justify this curious Bill? It one assumes, enter into negotiations with our former does not in my view. To make a rational and informed partners on a treaty setting out the terms and conditions choice on EU membership, one needs to start with an of our relationship with our largest trading partner. I analysis of the status quo of EU membership—its do not propose today to enter into the complexity of costs and benefits—and then compare that with not such negotiations. Suffice it to say that they would one but two counterfactuals. First, what would life be bring into sharp focus the real issues that would arise like as a member of the EU on revised terms? Secondly, in such a situation. what would life be like outside the EU? Current Let me give just one brief example. Whatever the government policy at least attempts to address the detailed outcome of the negotiations might be, there first. That is, after a period of negotiation the results can be no doubt that Britain, like Norway, would be are to be put to the people for a decision. However, obliged to follow EU rules on the single market. In this still fails to deal with the nature of life outside the reality, this would mean that any changes in the said EU. rules—they are, by their nature, constantly evolving— The Bill deals with neither of these cases. Leaving would be made in a forum where Britain was not the EU cannot be treated like deciding not to renew represented. Any new directive emerging from it would one’s subscription to a golf club, which has no lasting be sent to the UK Parliament and we would have consequences. The decision to leave the EU would 90 days to comply. It would be goodbye to parliamentary leave a host of important issues unresolved, including sovereignty. In the trade, I think this is known as “fax citizenship and rights of residence affecting millions diplomacy”. As in so many other walks of life, the of people who have moved one way or another within devil is in the detail. Those who believe that a vote in the European Union; ownership of property; employment; favour of withdrawal would signify the end of the trade in goods and services; recognition of intellectual game are mistaken—the game is just beginning. I property; the operation of cross-border businesses; mentioned compliance with single market rules, which study at European universities; and many others. We is just one of many hugely complex issues that would would need to know how many of the favourable need to be settled. aspects of EU membership, such as free trade, we I firmly believe that the Prime Minister is right to could retain through bilateral agreements, and how seek change. Indeed, I believe that many of our partners many of the unfavourable elements we could jettison. would be sympathetic to the proposition that “one size This is a defective Bill as it does nothing to address fits all” is not always the best way to maintain relations these issues and help the people to make an informed between 28 countries. Again, I give just one brief decision of a very major kind. It is also, I believe, a example. The principle of subsidiarity needs adjusting pointless Bill as it will not settle the question of to ensure greater and smoother involvement by national whether or when there will be an “in or out”referendum. parliaments. Therefore, I very much support what the That will be determined by the outcome of the next Prime Minister seeks to do. election, in the next Parliament, which can endorse, Some noble Lords may be surprised that continued amend or repeal this Bill. membership of the European Union remains the official policy of the Conservative Party. I just wish we could 11.44 am be a little more robust in setting out the advantages of membership and a little more aggressive in setting out Lord Garel-Jones (Con): My Lords, I begin by the real dangers of withdrawal. You do not pander to saying that this Bill is, in my view, otiose. That is, I UKIP; you confront it with a barrage of facts. hope, a polite way of saying that it is unnecessary. Two things seem abundantly clear. If, as I hope, the 11.48 am Conservative Party wins the next general election, there will be a referendum. It will appear in the party Lord Grocott (Lab): My Lords, whatever one’s views manifesto and that is quite good enough for me. If on the merits of the Bill—I shall come to those in a the incoming Government is not Conservative or moment—I hope we can agree on one point, which is Conservative-led and is not committed to a referendum that, as a parliamentary occasion, this has certain or enthusiastic about this Bill, all they need is a “Alice in Wonderland” characteristics. I just remind guillotine Motion and one day to dispose of it in the Members of the origins of this Private Member’s Bill, other place. Therefore, I ask myself: what is the point which were as follows. At each stage I feel we probably of all this? Is there, perhaps, a hidden agenda? Could it need another chapter of Erskine May. possibly be an effort to bounce the Labour Party into First, it was a Bill that the Prime Minister wanted lining up behind the Conservatives on this matter, or to include in the Queen’s Speech but felt that he did perhaps an effort to attract potential UKIP voters? not have the parliamentary strength to do so. Normally, I confess that I am something of a Thatcherite if Prime Ministers—certainly Prime Ministers I have where referenda are concerned, but I accept, picking known and, I dare say, most other people—want a Bill up the point that my noble friend Lord Howell has just in the Queen’s Speech, they tend to get that Bill in the made about Lord Salisbury’s remarks 100 years ago, Queen’s Speech. They have various mechanisms that that we have moved on. The Prime Minister has given they can deploy to achieve this. However, of course it his word on this matter and I accept that. However, in did not go into the Queen’s Speech because the Minister 1761 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1762

[LORD GROCOTT] what it should be doing. That is particularly true as we in charge of constitutional affairs—heaven help us—who are nearly in the fifth year of this Parliament—we is the Deputy Prime Minister, decided that it should come back to that wretched Fixed-term Parliaments not be in the Queen’s Speech because he was opposed Act again—so many people down the other end will to legislating for an “in or out” referendum on our either not be standing at the next election or, please membership of the European Union. He is also, of God, a few of them on the government Benches will course, the only party leader who fought the previous not be back and will be spending more time with their election on a manifesto commitment to do that. So the families. strangeness develops as we go along this journey. So that is where we are in respect of one Parliament We then have what I can only describe as a slightly trying to bounce the next. That is my answer to all humiliating process whereby the Prime Minister keeps those who say—and several speakers have said it—that all his fingers crossed that one Back-Bencher will be the right thing to do is to put this to the people and successful in the private Members’ ballot and he can that that is the democratic thing to do. It is not persuade that Back-Bencher to introduce the Bill that democratic for a Parliament elected in 2010, in what is he himself could not introduce. It then gets stranger. nearly its fag-end year, to tell a Parliament that will be As the Bill proceeds through the House of Commons, elected in 2015 what it should do in 2017. That is a a heavy three-line Whip is imposed on the Conservative matter for that Parliament to decide, not this one. Party to vote in favour of the Bill. We should have no concern, anxiety or sense of If I were being generous I would say, “I’m sympathetic embarrassment about saying that this is something on to the Prime Minister because it’s a coalition—we’re in which we should cave in to the Commons. a funny old game at the moment—and maybe he can In particular—I will make this very brief procedural be excused for this”. But of course the truth is that he point—it really would contort our procedures in this has been hoist with his own petard, because what House to get this Bill back to the House of Commons should normally happen in a situation like this is that by 28 February, which is what the procedures would the Prime Minister should say, “I can’t do what I think require us to do. We have to have gaps between Second is in the national interest to do. Therefore I will call a Reading and Committee, between Committee and Report general election and see whether the public agree with and between Report and Third Reading, and if there me or not”. That option has, however, been removed are any amendments, they will all have to be dealt with by one part of the constitutional vandalism of this by 28 February. You would never do that with a Government, which is that they passed the Fixed-term constitutional Bill, or with a Bill with constitutional Parliaments Act. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, implications of this sort. said at Second Reading—he can reread that speech I conclude by saying that I am not opposed to a with pleasure—that the problem with that is that it referendum in principle at all, but we should look in puts Prime Ministers and Governments into a straitjacket. the history books. The right way to do this is the way That, of course, is where we see ourselves today. So in which the dear old Labour Party did it in 1974. It those characteristics make this situation very unusual fought a general election with a commitment to a if not unique. referendum in its manifesto and it carried out its As for the principle of a referendum, I have no manifesto commitment. If that is what the Labour problem whatever with the principle of an “in or out” Party decides, then it will be in the Labour Party referendum on our membership of the European Union. manifesto. That is the procedure that the Conservative I would be surprised if there were many people in my Party, I respectfully suggest, ought to adopt. That dear old party who have an objection in principle to should be enough. That is the correct way to proceed, that. It was, after all, a Labour Government who not the way that is being recommended by the Bill. introduced what at that time was a brand-new constitutional device: in 1975 we introduced a Bill on 11.55 am which many of us voted, one way or another, and we had our first ever referendum. That is the correct thing Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (LD): My Lords, to do for a matter of constitutional significance of this this is an utterly unnecessary, indeed otiose, Bill. It kind. For accuracy, I should record that I voted no in does serious damage to business and jobs in Britain that referendum, and I may say that I have never been and to stability and security in Europe. As my old persuaded subsequently that I made a colossal error of friend the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out, it is judgment. Indeed, at the very least, had the public playing with fire for long-term confidence and investment followed the same direction as I did, we would be able from all over the world. to be home today instead of debating this Bill. Let me make my own position clear. I was actively So I do not have any problem with the principle involved with my then boss, Roy Jenkins, who was whatever. However, I do have a great problem—this president of the 1975 yes campaign in the referendum. was the constitutional point that the noble Lord, Lord I fought and nearly won a seat—like the noble Lord, Turnbull, made—with the notion of this Parliament Lord Grocott, who won his—in the October 1974 telling the next Parliament what to do. That point is general election on a pledge that our future in Europe fundamental, and it is particularly so. We have heard would be decided either at a referendum or at a several people ask, “What does this House of Lords general election. How I wish that we had stuck to a got to do with telling that House of Commons whether general election as the way to decide. Unlike my old it should or should not go ahead with a piece of noble friend Lord Roper, the more referenda I see, the legislation?”. My answer is that this House of Commons less I like them. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord should not be telling the next House of Commons Salisbury, on this, if on nothing else. Who fixes the 1763 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1764 topic, and who decides the date? We had a crystal-clear Health Service. And what have they done? We used to result by 2:1 in 1975. Will we have another referendum believe that the mandate meant something, but now every 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years? Who decides that, and we are told that the mandate cannot be trusted. why? No; referenda are the coward’s way out. They are Under these circumstances, it seems not unreasonable an abdication of responsibility by leaders and parties for all three major parties to commit themselves to a who do not have the courage to take a decision and referendum, because it is a settled will of the British put it to the people. In any case, there is no need for a people in my judgment that there should be a referendum. referendum on Europe when there is a clear choice at I personally believe that we should start negotiating the next general election. If you want to come out of that now; I do not accept at all that it is not possible to Europe, you vote UKIP. If you want to stay in, you get to a situation in Europe where we could have a vote Liberal Democrat or Labour. If you do not know referendum in the early part of next year before there or do not care, you vote Conservative. is a general election. That would be the best thing; we Nevertheless, the Commons in its infinite wisdom would have a lot of political parties actually trying to has sent us this defective little Bill, so we must do our get a serious negotiation. Most people in Europe feel constitutional duty and scrutinise, amend and examine that this issue going on is debilitating to Europe, and it as thoroughly as we possibly can. I will press, with damaging to confidence. We have not resolved the my noble friend Lord Shipley, one amendment in issue of the eurozone, which is not yet safe. The whole particular as the Bill proceeds, to ensure that all the situation that will come over the next year or so is estimated 1.5 million UK citizens living in the other hanging around—whether or not Britain will or not member states of the EU—that figure is from the be in the European Union—is not good for Europe, Commons Library—have a vote, if, by any chance, a not good for Britain, and not good for foreign investment referendum comes to pass. Those fellow citizens of or the world economy. ours, 1 million of whom live in Spain, France and Ireland alone, have made the decision, often many Personally, I do not have any particular wish to years ago, to go to work or retire in the rest of Europe have a referendum in 2017. I agree very much with in good faith and in the assurance that we were part of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the EU, with free movement of labour guaranteed, that that will not happen. There are juxtapositions of and equal rights with any other European citizen to presidencies and general elections in Germany, which live wherever they want in Europe. What a betrayal of are crucial, and you would not opt to have it in 2017. their trust it would be to take away their rights and So if it comes, it is more likely to be in 2016—but I risk uprooting them from their jobs and homes, without would far prefer it to be at the end of this year or in giving them a vote in a referendum which would be so 2015. crucial to their future. As to the constitutional process, it would be madness A decision to leave the EU could hit Britons living for this House to reject the Bill, and to invoke the abroad far harder even than many people who have Parliament Act would be absurd. It would also be always lived in this country. If, heaven forbid, there is ridiculous for us to be bullied into not having proper ever another referendum on Britain’s place in Europe, constitutional discussions of these very important issues. all Britons living in the European Union must have a We are actually saying that we do not like the Electoral vote. Commission set-up on the question. I personally think that there is a very good reason to go along with it; 11.59 am why set up an Electoral Commission and then ignore its advice? The other thing that is absolutely crazy is to Lord Owen (CB): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord go again with what was done over the alternative vote Grocott, must be correct that the procedure that should and have a whole year in which you have announced be followed in a perfect world would be the one that he an election. The provision that you must do this by outlined. The trouble is that we do not live in a perfect December 2016 seems ridiculous, but I do not get very world, and we never have done. Europe splits parties fussed about it because I do not think that there will and families, and has been doing so for 40 years. That be a referendum in 2017. Let us have a proper debate is what we have to grapple with on this issue. and make time for that. The Government may have to As my noble friend Lord Roper knows, I supported postpone starting the new Session, if it is so important a referendum in 1972, and was defeated in the argument to them. in our group. I resigned over the issue, but it was not really the central core of that question. It is right that I believe that what has happened has improved there was a vote—but in those days it was a vote on UKIP’s chances. The politics of the Prime Minister’s whether there should be referendum then, in that decision was wrong, I think—but that is his judgment Parliament of 1972 to 1973. I think that this is a and one for the Conservatives. It is a fact that this Bill gimmick, in many respects. However, why are we here? comes to us not having been contested in the House of We are here because successive Prime Ministers have Commons, with great big majorities there. I think that given commitments to hold referendums and then the largest opposition vote was 240 to 30. Neither the have not done so. The country does not trust us. On Liberal Democrats nor the Labour Party wants to this issue of Europe, they have seen party after party break cover and say that they will not have a referendum, manoeuvre and manipulate, and they do not believe but that is because it is quite obvious that the general it—and they do not actually believe it, even if they say public wants one. So my advice is to do it. at a general election that there will be a referendum. I The referendum in 1975 settled the issue for a long was told by the parties opposite at the last election time, and was salutary and important. We were not that there would be no top-down changes in the National going into Europe in 1972 with the whole-hearted 1765 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1766

[LORD OWEN] I accept that this is not a normal parliamentary consent of the British people—and we did after that. Bill—or it is not a normal Private Member’s Bill, let us When we were negotiating and when we held the first put it that way. It is due to the courtesy of the coalition presidency in 1977, it was an inestimable help to have that we have to go about it in this way. That is what is that referendum behind us. So there is another reason. being respected. The other problem about the courtesy And then, in the 1983 election, the proposition was of coalition makes difficult another of the propositions put to the country to come out of the European of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, which I would otherwise Union without even a referendum. That was blown to strongly support. I refer to the difficulty of entering smithereens in the election. We will never come out of now into negotiations on this matter, which the coalition the European Union without a referendum, and I may make more difficult. believe that that is an important constitutional safeguard. Having said that, I think that there is general agreement. So those who decry having referendums on anything, The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made the point that it like the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, are not living in is quite wrong for us to lay down an Act of Parliament the modern world. Referendums are here on constitutional that will affect things that successive Parliaments may questions; they have been incredibly helpful in Northern want to do. But how many Acts of Parliament might Ireland and can be stabilising mechanisms if they are that apply to? That is what Parliaments do. No Parliament used wisely. can bind its successor; if the successor Parliament is We are not using the referendum wisely in this case. deeply offended by something, it can change it. That is This is a silly piece of legislation and should not be in our parliamentary process. front of us. Were we to vote, I would vote rather We all come to this without trailing clouds of glory reluctantly for it, because any other vote shows to the and with some memories of our previous involvement. general public that you do not want a referendum and I was in Parliament when we joined the Common that you are afraid of it. As to the question of how I Market, and I supported Prime Minister Heath at that vote, I would leave that open. I do not think that this time. I voted yes in the referendum in 1975 and then renegotiation is trivial; I hope that in the European found myself as the Minister representing the United elections we will have a long period in which people Kingdom, first for environment and then for employment. advance their reform agendas. Let us hear what they I had a whole succession of ministerial meetings. I are, and hear what the Social Democrats want. worked at first with my noble friend Lord Heseltine, a On present conduct and performance, I do not staunch European who found his Europeanism was think that the present Prime Minister is ideally suited helped by never attending any of those meetings. I to negotiating a good deal for us. It is quite likely that actually did them all, and it was a test of one’s European a new Labour Government coming in in 2015 would faith, at three o’clock in the morning in Luxembourg be in a far better position, for one practical reason: or Brussels, on some of the turgid exercises that we got they are fully paid-up members of the social democratic involved in. But what I remember, if course, is that we grouping, which is hugely influential in the European joined the six—and we were part of the nine. I tested Parliament. That is another thing that has changed one or two of my distinguished colleagues of this dramatically since 1975. You do not make changes House in asking them how many members there now nowadays in European treaties or make any major are of the European Union. I have to say, sparing one reform without the European Parliament. I regret or two blushes here, that neither of them got it right. that, because I think that it has been given too much power, but the fact is that you cannot get through any substantive reform without a fair measure of support Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con): I was out by only one. in the European Parliament. Therefore, getting a political party like the Labour Party, which can mobilise the Lord King of Bridgwater: In case I test other Members Social Democrats, would be helpful. The fact is that of this House, I will make the simple point about how the Conservative Party is not able to mobilise the much it has changed: from the Common Market to Christian Democrats. the European Economic Community and now the I have spoken for long enough and feel that I have European Union. The current figure—the lunchtime said all that I intend to say on this debate. I do not score—is 28. That is the simplest illustration of the intend to participate in Committee. extraordinary changes that have taken place. Of course, the point has already been made that over this period we have had four more treaties, changes 12.07 pm happening in all sorts of directions, and the real Lord King of Bridgwater (Con): My Lords, I was feeling that the founding principles of the European going to start by saying that I thought that there was a Union—how it is going to be managed, administered lot of common ground between my views and what and led—need amendment and change. I think that is the noble Lord, Lord Owen, was saying until, common ground. This morning I heard Mr Chuka unfortunately, his last comment, which I was not able Umunna, the spokesman for the Labour Party, saying to go along with. But I certainly agree with him in his that the problem with the enlargement of the Union, support for the principle of a referendum on occasions, with the whole lot of other countries that have come and particularly his reference to Northern Ireland. in—as Wikipedia says, “located primarily in Europe”— The very existence of Northern Ireland as part of the and now make up the European Union, a number of United Kingdom depends on referenda; that is the them, sadly, with vastly divergent economic situations, constitutional position that we have established, and standards of living and income expectations, is that its value has been shown. But there is common ground. the free movement of labour should now be interpreted 1767 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1768 as being not for jobseekers, only for workers. As the Even more relevantly, Mr Cameron could have noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, pointed out, as various acknowledged that participation in the single market, tensions and issues have given rise to public concern, which he says is, the current economic situation and prospects of “the principal reason for our membership of the EU”, employment for young people have brought a particular clearly and inevitably had to involve and will continue focus on the free movement of labour, and this is a to require full political, legal and constitutional challenge that will have to be faced. engagement in the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made a very interesting The reason is simple. To function properly, markets speech. He set out all the arguments for why it is a must have rules that are meaningful, and the Commission, pretty bad idea ever to have a referendum and all the Ministers representing our Governments and other risks that you have to face, but I agree with the noble Governments in the Council and the European Court Lord, Lord Owen, that in the end you cannot just of Justice are vital to ensure the fair application of duck it; you cannot have Prime Ministers promising those rules. There is no single market, no participation and never delivering; you cannot have parties moving in the single market, without full recognition of that one way or the other. I am sure that the Labour Party judicial, political and constitutional reality; to will be outstandingly responsible in this House but its pretend otherwise is to mock the intelligence of the performance in the other place, where it could not British people. The British people definitely—to use make up its mind whether it was yes, no or maybe, Mr Cameron’s term—“signed up” to that explicit underlines the lack of public confidence in this. condition of participation in the single market. Of course, I recognise that there are risks. There In response to what Mr Cameron has called the have to be significant reforms and there then has to be people who feel concerned at the direction allegedly a major campaign. My noble friend Lord Garel-Jones being taken by the European Union, he could have made the point that people will have to start standing recognised candidly and crucially that if in the future, up—not now because we do not know what the changes as in the past, proposals are made about the EU, the will be, but when the changes are made—and if they euro or the banking system that would be harmful to believe in Europe, fight for it. But to say, “We will not the well-being of our country, we can and will be able have this Bill, we dare not trust the people”, is an to exercise our ability to secure modification, derogation impossible position for this House and this Parliament or opt-out, or, if necessary, use our right to veto. He to take. I support this Bill. could add that we can and must use the same powers, derived from full engagement, to secure the necessary reforms of the European Union and its operation. 12.13 pm Those truths, all supported by evidence and experience, Lord Kinnock (Lab): My Lords, I am not against would have been fitting weapons for a Prime Minister referendums in principle. I have long expressed my who sensibly wanted the United Kingdom to remain conviction that in this parliamentary democracy, in the EU and the single market, as he says, and was referendums are justified when proposals are made to prepared to show resilient, responsible leadership. By change significantly the way in which our country is heeding those in business and commerce who are governed. But this Bill has nothing to do with any gravely alarmed by the pall of doubt now hanging fundamental alterations in the governance of the United over our country’s continued membership, by recognising Kingdom. It exists because the Prime Minister, through the sincere concerns of allies who understand the a series of lame gestures and rejected assurances, has necessity of the UK’s continuing role in the world’s tried to assuage the militant Europhobes in his party most developed association of democracies, and by and has failed. He has sought to mollify them; in repelling those who seek departure from the European return he gets mockery, intensified demands and a Union, Mr Cameron would have shown those qualities host of Private Members’ Bills, including this one. His of determination and duty. efforts have been as fruitless as appeasement always The Prime Minister has chosen not to follow such a deserves to be. course. Instead, again echoing the Europhobes, he The most celebrated manifestation of the Prime declared portentously: Minister’s futile attempts to buy internal party peace “It is time to settle this European question in British politics”. with concession came in his long gestated Bloomberg It is a statement made absurd by the tortured experience speech a year ago. Setting out his case for a referendum, of my party for years after the 1975 referendum was he repeated, with apparent endorsement, some of the supposed to resolve schisms between proponents and nostrums favoured by the Europhobes. He said that, opponents of Community membership. More relevant “many ask ‘why can’t we just have what we voted to join—a for the Prime Minister, it is a statement made pitifully common market?’ … People feel that the EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to”. ludicrous by the vexatious history of his own party, not for a few years but for five whole decades. Of course, Mr Cameron could have answered himself by revisiting the irrefragable fact that in 1973, in the At one time, I thought Mr Cameron understood approach to accession, and in the staying-in referendum that. In 2006, as a newly elected leader, he called on his in 1975, proponents and opponents of Community party to concentrate on, membership very loudly, repeatedly and graphically “the things that most people care about”, told the people of this country of the significant and and to stop “banging on about Europe”. I thought essential political and constitutional obligations and then that the obsessive introversion of the Europhobes implications of being part of the European Community. was to be rebuffed, as it was by Margaret Thatcher There was no doubt—there is no doubt—about that. and by John Major. Instead, Mr Cameron’s appeal to 1769 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1770

[LORD KINNOCK] It is of great interest to me that, in the referendum stop the “banging on” has been greeted daily by the on Scottish independence later this year, the test for war-drums of the unyielding Europhobes inside, and who can vote is residency. A voter must reside in UKIP outside, his party, and to the detriment of our Scotland, so 790,000 people born in Scotland but country, he has pranced to their rhythm. living elsewhere in the UK cannot vote. Conversely, As a result, the basic question about the Bill is why 413,000 people born elsewhere in the UK can vote the United Kingdom should suffer the potentially because they reside in Scotland. This is a very different huge risks and costs of an “in or out” referendum on approach, but that difference confirms my view that issues yet to be indentified and negotiated, involving we need to explore the matter of who can vote in this conditions and consequences yet to be revealed, under EU referendum in much greater depth in Committee. a Government yet to be elected, simply because the Prime Minister lacks the fortitude to lead his own 12.25 pm party with authority. The answer to that question is, like Mr Cameron, blowing in the wind. The Marquess of Lothian (Con): My Lords, I support Let us scrutinise the Bill. Let us expose the fictions. the Bill for two reasons. First, it seeks, finally, after Let us concentrate on the facts and, then, let us ensure 40 years, to re-establish the rights of the British people that the people really have the information that they to decide their own future in or out of Europe. That is need to come to the right result at the next election. to be welcomed. Never in the history of democracy has there been such a large bureaucratic empire built over nearly half a century without once consulting the 12.20 pm peoples who are affected by it as to whether they wanted it or whether they liked the shape of it. The Lord Shipley (LD): My Lords, I led a debate in your Bill really establishes a principle which has to be Lordships’ House in October on the importance of welcomed. our continued membership of the EU to our economy and to jobs. I live in the north-east of England, where I have been interested in this debate to try to our regional economy is hugely dependent on exports analyse why the dog that should have barked has not to the EU and inward investment from abroad. As we barked or perhaps dared not bark—expect that it know from the warnings of Nissan, Hitachi and others, almost barked in the case of the speech of the noble leaving the EU could cost us thousands of jobs if we Lord, Lord Oakeshott, but he withdrew from it just lost the benefits of the single market. before its sound was fully heard. That bark is that there are, and have been all over my political career, I have no difficulty with the principle of referendums. people who are passionately in favour of Europe and They can give legitimacy to constitutional change, believe that it is too important and complex an issue to they can clear the air when there are differences of trust the British people to decide. Those same people, opinion and they can engage voters directly in decision- and there have been one or two today, will say, “Well, making. However, they should be used only when they have the right to do that in a general election”. there is an identifiable constitutional need, when the Some of us who have fought many general elections question to be asked has been approved by the Electoral know that a general election cannot be fought on a Commission and when the franchise applies to all single issue. There are many issues, so to say after those who could be personally affected by the result. a general election, “Part of our manifesto touched on The Bill fails those tests: the timing proposed does not Europe, and you voted for us and have therefore made reflect constitutional need; the question needs to be your decision”, is actually nonsense. We have to have a changed because the Electoral Commission recommends clear decision taken, and I believe that this is the right a different question; and many people likely to be waytodoit. directly affected by the result will be denied a vote. The other thing that I have learnt in my political I now pursue this latter issue about who can vote. career is that this issue, however hard we have tried, is UK voters who move abroad can vote in UK irresolvable by political parties. It is irresolvable between parliamentary elections from their last UK address for political parties and within them. In the end, when up to 15 years after moving, but not after 15 years. So, you have a situation like that, the only answer is to let UK citizens who have lived elsewhere in the EU for the people themselves decide. less than 15 years can have a vote in this referendum if they have a registered address in a UK constituency. The second reason I support the Bill is that it gives However, what about UK pensioners who may have us time. It gives us until 2017 to prepare. That is the lived elsewhere in the EU for more than 15 years? one distinction between the 1975 referendum and this They will be denied a vote. Yet their pensions, currently one. In 1975, we had very little time to prepare. We uprated, as in the UK, could cease to be uprated if we were told, if I remember rightly, that there had been a leave the EU. They could be treated as UK pensioners renegotiation. In fact, when we look at it in retrospect, living in Commonwealth countries are treated, where the renegotiation was not worth a row of beans, but pensions are not uprated. These pensioners may have some of us were taken in. We regret that now, and we contributed all their lives and they have a right to be voted yes in that referendum. involved in a referendum. So do all those working and The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, touched on an living elsewhere in the EU, whether under or over important point: on this occasion, when the referendum 15 years, since they could lose their rights to do so. So comes, we must have established fully the cases for and do all those from elsewhere in the EU working in the against, so that the British people can make a sensible UK and paying taxes here. They should have the same decision. I have heard the arguments for the reforms rights in a referendum as they hold for local elections. that are needed. They have to be fundamental, reversible 1771 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1772 only by further referendum, and must ultimately return country and channelled it to the unelected bureaucrats to the people of this country the sovereignty which we in Brussels. Very little that matters is now left to the have given away without asking their consent over Westminster Parliament, which has nothing at all to many years. say about the economy, immigration, energy, trade, The noble Lord’s second point was to make the case agriculture, fisheries and social policy. as to what would be the situation of this country were During those 20 seemingly endless years, with endless we to come out of the European Union. That equally debates about our membership of the EU, some of us requires time. The argument so often used on Europe were always against the handover of powers—the is, “You may not be very happy with Europe, but look surrender to Brussels of the powers of Parliament and what it will be like if you come out. You will be cast of the British people. However, in this House at least, into the outer darkness of isolation”. Well, we must we have always been outnumbered by the Europhile fill that outer darkness of isolation over the years tendency—the Euro-grandees, who seem unable to see between now and 2017 by exploring what other politics except through their Euro-prism. They accuse arrangements can be made. those who believe in parliamentary democracy in this I hope that we will explore with some of our country—the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, was at it Commonwealth colleagues, some of whom have some today—of being “little Englanders”, of wrapping of the larger economies in the world, what free trade ourselves in the union jack and of wanting to turn or further trading arrangements can be made. We need back the clock. That is patronising rubbish. Why are to take part in further discussion about the future of they so blinded by Brussels and the desire for further NATO, which is a crucial issue whether we are in or integration that they are unable to see the truth? out of Europe. It has to be part of what would be there After all, it is the Europhiles who got it wrong, not were we to come out of Europe. We also have to start us, the “foam-flecked Europhobes”. It was the Europhiles discussing with our European partners what trading who wanted us to join the euro. They said that if we arrangements we can have with them if we did come did not we would be marginalised. However, the euro out of Europe. There is no question that they are has not exactly been a shining example of political going to need to continue to trade with us just as much and fiscal success, has it? Just ask the millions of as we are going to need to continue to trade with them. unemployed in France, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and We have the ability over three years to start filling Greece how they are getting on with the euro. It is not that vacuum. If we do that, when we get to the really very successful. referendum—and I think we will, because I am confident The Europhiles were badly wrong then and they are that there will be a Conservative Government which badly wrong now when they say that we will be will deliver a referendum—then, for the first time, we marginalised and somehow turned into a pariah state will be able to ask a sensible question of the British if we were rash enough to leave the EU. As EU people, to make a decision between two viable alternatives: Employment Commissioner László Andor happily put “Which way do you want to see your country going?”. it the other day, we will become the “nasty country” of I hope that, if we do that, they will decide that Europe—that is, the nasty country that gives the EU governing our own destiny must be the right answer. £20 billion a year at the moment. We look forward to getting that back. 12.30 pm The Vice-President of the European Commission, Viviane Reding, could not have been blunter when she Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP): My Lords, I am spoke in Athens the day before yesterday. She said: very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, for introducing this important Bill. It has been a long time “We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission getting here, has it not? It is more than 20 years since as government”. we last debated an EU referendum, when there was a That is not an invention of Nigel Farage and UKIP’s Motion to approve a referendum on the Maastricht “foam-flecked Europhobes”—it is straight from the treaty. I voted for it, but we were defeated, thanks apparatchik’s mouth. So we know what direction Europe largely to the very successful whipping of the then is going in. I am grateful to Mr Andor and Ms Reding Conservative Chief Whip in this House, the noble for reminding us that the EU is going one way and one Lord, Lord Hesketh—who, I am happy to say, has way only, for reminding us how damaging and how now seen the light and is a member of UKIP. humiliating our membership of this club is and for reminding us that the European project is all about I have to say that I am still astonished and disappointed rampant supranationalism, with a sneering disregard that it was successive Conservative Governments who for national sovereignty. started handing over the powers of Parliament and of the British people, without asking them, to Brussels. This Bill will give the British people a chance to That was enthusiastically followed up by successive make their voice heard, and to vote on whether they Labour Governments, who were cheered from the wish to continue to be run from Brussels or whether it sidelines by the Liberal Democrats, for whom no is time to throw off the shackles of the EU and to be a surrender to Europe and Brussels is ever meek enough. truly free nation with the ability to frame our own laws and decide our own destiny at last. Many of the powers were given away, as I will tell noble Lords in a minute, without the British people 12.35 pm ever being asked whether that was what they wanted. Treaty after treaty—Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam, Lord Finkelstein (Con): I begin by congratulating Lisbon—drained ever more power away from the British my noble friend on his sponsorship of this important Parliament at Westminster and from the people of this Bill and by commiserating with him on the fact that its 1773 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1774

[LORD FINKELSTEIN] would pay the penalty for being out of it. We would be Second Reading is being held on one of the alternate excluded from the councils of Europe. “Monetary Fridays in which the moon is in the orbit of Jupiter union is a marriage”, he declared forthrightly, “and and both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats people who are married do not want others in the find themselves against a European referendum at the bedroom”. How wonderful the bedroom metaphor same time. was, given that the Minister was Dominique Strauss-Kahn. However, we should not be too critical of those Apposite it was—but wrong. We can with confidence who wish to extend the debate. After all, if they do negotiate reform of the European Union. We have that for long enough, it will soon be Monday and they learnt from experience that we can insist on our rights, might by then be in favour of a European referendum. that we can negotiate with success and that it is right I admire the courage of those opposite who have to trust the people. I am therefore pleased to support thrown themselves into the case against a European my noble friend. referendum and their touching confidence that their leader will not change his mind. It is a bit like Charlie 12.39 pm Brown’s faith that Lucy will not pull the ball away when she holds it for him. Baroness Quin (Lab): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Liddle, in his excellent speech on behalf of the I will confine myself to three points that reflect my Labour Party, reminded us that our party is not against status as a new Member of the House as I contemplate, referendums, and that is certainly the case, as the without the advantage of others’ long service, my record shows. My personal position is a little different obligations as a Peer. The first is that we are a revising in that I have always been rather concerned about the Chamber, with a particular duty to protect the essential way that ad hoc and ill thought out referendums have liberties and good government of the United Kingdom, seemed to become part of our constitution. Therefore, and to be always mindful of the potential for abuse I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, reminded through the arbitrary use of executive power in the me that my political hero Clement Attlee greatly distrusted House of Commons. It is our job to insist that the referendums. House of Commons enjoys legitimacy and public However, I accept that at this stage the genie is consent for its actions. This is particularly the case probably largely out of the bottle and, certainly, if we where its actions have constitutional implications. Here are to have referendums, the major constitutional I look for correction from more experienced colleagues. issues of the day are, presumably, suitable subjects for Would it not be odd for the House to attempt to block them. Therefore, my objections to the Bill do not a proposal made in the other place for a referendum? relate to the fact that it calls for a referendum but are Would it not be odd for it to be us who removed a much more concerned with other aspects of it, including check on executive power and ruled that the people the substance of the clauses and, indeed, some of the should not be consulted? Should an appointed House political circumstances surrounding the process and stand between the people and a chance to vote? Surely passage of the Bill, which were very effectively described not. by my noble friend Lord Kinnock a few minutes ago. I hope noble Lords will forgive a further piece of The timing issue is a very serious one. To call for a naivety. Is it not also one of our duties to accept the referendum by a specific date, regardless of the principle laid down in the manifesto of the governing circumstances of the time and whether we might be in parties? Surely it would be almost a breach of the negotiations with other EU countries, is simply crazy. Salisbury convention for us to veto the principle of an I am also concerned at the suggestion that we should “in or out” referendum advanced so steadfastly and deal with this Bill in this House in a completely well by the Liberal Democrats at the most recent different way from the way we would normally deal general election. with legislation, including Private Members’ Bills. I The same principle should surely persuade noble certainly cannot see the justification for that. That Lords to embed this principle in legislation now. New point was made very effectively by my noble friend though I am to these things, it seems to be in the best Lord Radice. traditions of the House to act as a guarantor when Another possible rule seemed to emerge during the previous referendum promises have been made and debate that we should give easy passage to items which then ignored. There has been much talk of UKIP, but have been heavily voted in favour of in another place. we all understand the politics here. We understand This would be a rather dangerous route for us to go that the Labour Party promised a referendum on the down if it were applied to all future legislation. I am European constitution. It won an election on that not sure what the proponents of such an approach promise and then denied a referendum on the Lisbon mean in terms of how many votes would need to be treaty. With the best will in the world, that was a cast in favour of a measure in the other place for us scandalous event that demands and requires this Bill. not to treat it seriously in this House. However, as I My third point is that this House brings experience say, I think that it would be a very dangerous route to to the debate, as today has shown. If an argument is go down. made, the House has heard it before and knows its I join other noble Lords in saying that I do not like worth. At every stage of Europe’s development, we the fact that the Bill attempts to bind a successor have been told that what happens is inevitable, that a Parliament. That is quite wrong. Although it is true, as better deal is impossible and that Britain cannot stand I think the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord King, apart and insist on its own terms. When the euro said, that Parliaments pass many bits of legislation began, France’s Finance Minister said that Britain which may have effect in the future, this Bill is unusual 1775 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1776 in singling out a specific date in a future Parliament. I Chamber and should remain so. I think that there is a do not recall that having been done before in quite this clear division in this House and in the other place as to way. If we give the Bill easy passage, we will follow a the desirability, or otherwise, of this legislation. The constitutionally alarming procedure. only way in which we can proceed sensibly is to ensure The point has been made many times that the that our consideration of the Bill is strictly in accordance general public are very much in favour of a referendum. with the rules and conventions of this House. That I accept that opinion polls show that to be the case. includes the timing of sessions and the intervals between However, we should also remember that in recent the different stages of the Bill. general elections Europe has been a much lower priority than many other issues, certainly compared with such I say at the outset that I do not oppose the Bill issues as the cost of living, health, education and getting a Second Reading. It has passed the House of housing. This was confirmed to me in the most recent Commons and deserves full consideration in this House. spate of door knocking that I took part in, which was However, I do not accept that the Bill somehow or during the South Shields by-election. While canvassing other deserves to be treated differently from any other in different areas over two days, Europe was not raised Private Member’s Bill. It should have its Second Reading with me once although many other issues were, despite and proceed to a Committee stage, at which no doubt the fact that there was a great deal of media frenzy amendments will be put down and debated. It may about it and that UKIP’s best efforts were deployed to even be thought appropriate for some amendments to try to raise the issue and profit from the unpopularity be passed by this House. The Bill should then go to of the coalition parties. Report and Third Reading in exactly the same way as any other Private Member’s Bill. The idea that somehow Much has been made of how much certainty the or other the Bill should be given an accelerated and Bill introduces into the debate, but I do not think that easier passage is to my mind constitutional nonsense. it introduces any certainty at all. As I said, Parliament It should receive proper scrutiny and proper consideration. cannot bind its successor. Therefore, there are many The timetabling of legislation in the other place is not reasons why a referendum held at the particular time something that we up here should have to take into envisaged in the Bill will not go ahead. For that account. It is a matter for the House of Commons and reason, it is very understandable that businesses in is not a matter for this House. particular are very worried about the uncertainty that the Bill would create. I agree very much with the If, after the Bill has completed its passage here, it comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Certainly, has been amended, the Commons will have to consider in the north-east of England, which has the Nissan car those amendments. Perhaps we will be into ping-pong—I plant, which is one of the most productive on the know not. At the end of the day, the House of Commons planet, and which is an exporting region—I think that must be entitled to have its way. Of course it must. we are the only part of the country to have a positive That is a view that I have held and expressed on many trade balance—there is great fear and uncertainty as a occasions in the past few years, particularly when this result of this measure. Given the number of firms House was actively considering the issue of House of involved and the number of people they employ up Lords reform. However, to say that at the end of the and down the country, it would be wrong for us to day the House of Commons must be entitled to have disregard this in our approach to the Bill. its way is not quite sufficient. This Bill is not at the end For all those reasons, I hope that the Bill, which has of the day but at the beginning, and I do not approve, attracted so many excellent speakers today, will be frankly, of the Bill having a dawning in this House and given the closest and most careful scrutiny in your suddenly going back to the House of Commons Lordships’ House, and that we will deal with it seriously unconsidered and possibly unamended. in the way that we deal with other legislation. I regard the Bill, I am bound to say, as grotesquely 12.44 pm premature. I do not want to say too much about its merits or demerits, particularly as I have spoken for Lord Richard: My Lords, your Lordships may have four minutes already. I regard the Bill as ill advised noticed that on the list of speakers this slot is down for and ill intentioned. It is ill advised because how on the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. Your Lordships will earth can we say now what the issues will be in 2017? also note that I am not the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. How do we know what sort of negotiations will be Apparently, what has happened is that, when I registered carried out? How do we know what the result of those my name to speak in the debate in the government negotiations will be? How can we now, today, say that Chief Whips’ Office, they succeeded in confusing we believe that the result of those negotiations should “Bichard” and “Richard”, so that is why I am in this be put to a referendum in four years’ time? It is absurd. slot. One could not do it. The only reason that we are Your Lordships may have gathered from my earlier beings asked to do it is because of the ill intention intervention that I believe this Bill should be treated in behind the Bill. It is nothing to do with the merits or exactly the same way as any other Private Member’s demerits of a referendum. Bill. I want to deal, although in not too much detail, with the argument that somehow or other this Bill is The problem with the Bill is that it is patently so special that this House should resile from its normal inspired not by the issue but by the politics of the position as a revising Chamber. That argument was issue. Relations with Europe have proved toxic to accurately recounted by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, the Conservative Party over the past 30 years, and the in his rather refreshing speech. This House is a revising Bill is an attempt to do two things—first, to try and 1777 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1778

[LORD RICHARD] distress, overlooking the fact that we import some recoup some of the party’s losses to UKIP and, secondly, 800,000 more cars from the EU—450,000 from Germany to try and wrong-foot the Liberal Democrats and the alone—and that this only partially accounts for our Labour Party. huge trading imbalance with the EU, currently running This is not a government Bill. It is a Private Member’s at £50 billion a year. Bill supported by the Conservative Party. The noble Trade crosses all boundaries. Germany exports all Baroness, Lady Warsi, who is to wind up the debate, round the world. It will continue to export to us, just speaks not for the Government but for the Conservative as we will continue to export to it. Can anybody Party. No. 10 has been briefing not for the Government seriously argue that trade on this scale would come to but for the Conservative Party. It is a partisan Bill and a standstill? Bilateral trading arrangements would be deserves to be treated accordingly—strictly in accordance made, as they have been recently with Turkey, and with the rules and conventions of this House, no more trade would carry on. They need us more than we and no less. need them. It is high time that the truth of this matter was 12.51 pm given to the British people, and the BBC editorial Lord Vinson (Con): My Lords, I should like briefly committee, for once, has encouraged a fair and balanced to revert to why we need a referendum and why this coverage of the alternatives. Frankly, I believe that it is Bill is thus so important. Our nation has nearly impossible to be a democrat today and to support our bankrupted itself fighting three wars in Afghanistan, continued membership of an unreformed European Iraq and Libya, all of which aimed to give democracy Union. It is time that this matter was put to the British and self-determination to those three nations. Yet here people—we want our country back. at home we daily deny self-rule, even to the extent that last week, contrary to the views of our own Health 12.54 pm and Safety Executive, the EU issued a diktat controlling the nature of how much spice bakers can put into Lord Monks (Lab): My Lords, there is much mention pastries. This is a perfect example, albeit insignificant of people being told the truth in the European debate. in itself, of how Parliament has become a charade, as I ask supporters of this Bill to reflect for a moment on the EU reaches into every nook and cranny of our the following truths, which seem self-evident to me as nation. Surely, it was never meant to be like that. a former general-secretary of the TUC and the European Things have moved on. Currently, thousands of the TUC. An important truth is that, once the business decisions that widely affect the lives of voters are world—or certainly those parts of it concerned with taken by anonymous and unaccountable bureaucrats exports—considers that Britain may well leave the EU, rather than by parliamentarians responsible to those thousands of British jobs will be at grave risk. If the voters. Is it any wonder that there is widespread voter Bill is enacted, the prospect of that exit will become disenchantment? rather more real and tangible. Noble Lords will recall that the American War of Europhobes and Eurosceptics often say that the Independence, just over 200 years ago, was triggered British people are not being told the truth about the on that famous slogan, “No taxation without EU—there was an echo of that from the previous representation”. We are now back to roughly the same speaker—but let us have a go at some of those truths. position: we have regulation without rectification. It is The first is that the British economy is closely integrated virtually impossible to change EU regulations. Most with the economies of other countries, not just in decision-making has been taken away from national Europe but perhaps particularly in Europe. The 40% Parliaments and for virtually everything that matters, share of our trade with the EU is easily the biggest from the economy to immigration, decisions are made component of our business. Before nostalgics get too elsewhere, many of them extremely damaging to our keen on the Commonwealth connection, they might national efficiency—not least as regards the working just bear in mind that the level of our trade with time directive; and we were told last night in an North Rhine-Westphalia is larger than that with Australia excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, of and India combined. Our trade with China has only the harm that that had done to our medical service. recently exceeded our trade with the Republic of Ireland. Far from being little Englanders, there are those of So get real. The booming motor industry—all foreign us who believe that democracy, however imperfect it owned—exports the bulk of its vehicles to European may be, is the right for citizens to sack those who rule destinations. We certainly import a lot but the import and regulate them, something we are unable to do side is not going to change in a way that threatens the today. This democratic deficit lies at the malfunctioning export side. However, there is a threat because many heart of the EU. The people of this country have been UK manufacturing firms are foreign owned, including promised a referendum and I hope that they will get a huge slice of the City of London. There has been a one as we need our sovereignty back. Meanwhile, of big change since 1975 and inward investment would course, every attempt will be made from the Benches certainly be affected. There have been several references opposite to scare people into thinking that we should to Nissan and its importance to the north-east economy hold on to the EU nurse for fear of meeting something but its importance goes much wider than that. Siemens worse. has also been mentioned, and Goldman Sachs was Unbalanced projections are given that 3 million referred to by my noble friend Lord Liddle. We have to jobs in this country depend on our EU trade, conveniently start believing what some of these chief executives say. forgetting that 4 million jobs in the EU depend on us. Others who are not saying it publicly are saying it We are advised that the car industry will be in deep privately. 1779 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1780

The fact is that, like it or not—I address this In the interests of brevity I will not repeat the points particularly to the nationalist tendency here today made by the Select Committee on the Constitution, who are dreaming of a Britain that was perhaps the Electoral Commission or the Committee on Delegated relevant 30 or 40 years ago but is not relevant today— Powers, but I endorse a great many of them and I do many of the levers of power are in foreign hands. They not think that the House should fly in the face of are the sources of much of the investment, technology, them. The points deserve serious consideration. know-how and jobs that help Britain to pay its way in I would add two further points of my own. One the world. Mr Farage may not care if an EU exit point concerns the position of Gibraltar. It is bizarre makes us all poorer; the rest of us just do not have that that Gibraltarians should be given the right to participate luxury. in a referendum of this kind. I do not see why that Remember this: foreign firms will not have a vote in particular overseas territory, or any other overseas a referendum but they can surely vote with their feet if territory, should be given that right. If Gibraltar has a they become worried about the future of this country. referendum on its relationship with Spain, or whatever By the way, no Europhobe or Eurosceptic ever seems it might be, we will not have a vote, and I do not see to complain about the selling of Britain to foreign why it should have a vote here. There is an element of owners. That is a much great constraint on our sovereignty absurdity in that. than any Europhile ever dreamt of. That is the reality Much more serious is the position of the hundreds and the truth which people on the other side of this of thousands of British citizens who work, live and House, particularly those in the Conservative Party, have retired in other countries within the European should face up to. Union. Those people will be directly affected by the Another truth is that if many of the better foreign result of any referendum and I think that they certainly firms started to wind down their activities in this have the right to participate. I do not know what the country—it would not happen overnight—new product figures would be but it would not be impossible to put lines would go to other countries and outside the EU together arrangements which would enable a great we would become a sub-contractor to the world, with many of those people to participate. zero economic sovereignty and a disappearing tax We should perhaps learn from Australia, a country base. We would become a bits-and-pieces economy, which goes in for referenda from time to time. It had offering low-paid, transient work to our people. People an important referendum some years ago on whether knock the Social Chapter and the working time directive, or not it wanted to remain a monarchy. Australians but do we really want junior hospital doctors to go living, working or retired in this country, the United back to working 100 hours a week? Do we really want States, the continent of Europe, India or wherever it to get rid of the four-week minimum holiday entitlement might be were able to vote, under certain conditions that workers have been given? That is what the Social and as long as they met certain criteria. Just as Australians Chapter is about. If those on the other side of the were able to vote on the constitutional future of their House want to get rid of things, I hope that they will country even if they were not at the time living in tell us specifically what those things are. Australia, so British citizens should be able to do the same even if they are not at the precise time living in this country. 1pm To conclude, the Conservative Party will ensure Lord Tugendhat (Con): My Lords, as the House that there is a referendum if it wins the election. That knows, I am a former EU Commissioner and, as such, is true whatever happens to this Bill. However, the Bill I look forward to campaigning in the referendum that provides an inadequate basis on which to hold such a the Prime Minister has promised to hold in the event referendum. Therefore the House should not feel inhibited of a Conservative election victory. Whatever happens about seeking to improve it. to this Bill, that remains the case. The Prime Minister set out his policy in his Bloomberg speech and I support that policy. The Prime Minister has given his 1.04 pm word and I am sure that he will keep it. So, in the event Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab): My Lords, we of a Conservative electoral victory, there will be a have had a number of very interesting speeches in the referendum whether or not this Bill goes through past couple of hours, but the first few sentences of the Parliament. The important thing is that the referendum speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, absolutely will take place because the Prime Minister has said it sums the situation up. If the Prime Minister wants a will, provided that he of course can lead a successful referendum on Europe before December 2017, he puts campaign in the election. it in his manifesto, goes to the people and, if he is So the Bill is, in part, unnecessary. However, I am elected, gets his referendum. The noble Lord, Lord afraid that it is also, in part, a bad Bill. A referendum Finkelstein, in his very amusing speech, talked about on UK membership of the European Union will be a leadership—it is not a sign of leadership to cower major political, economic and constitutional event. behind the, albeit elegant, coat-tails of a Back-Bencher On that point everyone can agree. It should therefore to try to get a piece of legislation before this House be organised with the greatest possible care and because of fear of UKIP on the one hand or of what thoroughness; it should not be based on a rushed and the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, described as the inadequate Private Member’s Bill. The Electoral Tea Party tendency in the Tory party on the other. Commission has drawn attention to some of the Nevertheless, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord inadequacies, as have the reports of the Select Committee Dobbs, on his opening remarks. It is quite interesting on the Constitution and the Delegated Powers Committee. that the ghost of Francis Urquhart is sitting out in the 1781 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1782

[BARONESS LIDDELL OF COATDYKE] Government and what was then a deeply sceptical Prince’s Chamber, because that gives the show away—this Treasury and Foreign Office. The Bill before us today is a government Bill masquerading as a Back-Bencher’s is but the latest instalment in what is so far a 64 year- Bill. That is regrettable for two reasons: first, it is here old psychodrama. under false pretences and, secondly, the very fact that it seeks to bind a future Government is absolutely Standard British political boundaries have never outrageous. It is a constitutional outrage that one been able to cope with the European question. The Government should seek to bind another. divisions are as much within parties as between them, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, reminded us. This has been the morning for true confessions, The particular fervour of our great and perpetual with a number of noble Lords saying how they voted European debate is fuelled, too, by deep individual as yes in 1975. I voted no, but have changed my position, well as collective questions about who we are, what because I have seen the advantages of the single market. kind of country we wish to be and how best we can The oldest and best single market is here in the United engineer for ourselves a decent and effective place in Kingdom. Right now, another referendum is going the world. Our free trading instincts jostle against our on—it seems to have been going on since time began protectionist impulses. Our maritime, open-sea instincts but has actually been going on for only a couple of cut against excessive continental commitments. years—which seeks to break up that oldest and best single market. This Trojan horse of a Bill seeks to take All the time, though it is little spoken of, the question us out of the biggest single market in the world—the of Europe arouses a sense of our specialness; our single market that changed my opinion. My fear about quirkiness; our suspicion of grand schemes and their this Bill is that it talks about a referendum in 2017 and dirigiste implications; our refusal to contemplate life that there will be uncertainty between now and then. as a medium-sized power folded inside a huge European Anyone who has had anything to do with foreign grouping; and our absolute belief that we are not and direct investment—not just with the Nissans of this never can be just any old country. All these factors world but with SMEs, many of which are at the leave a profound emotional deficit for many of our high-tech end of the market—knows that when you go people with the idea of a deeply integrated federal to the United States, Australia, the BRICs or, as we Europe. This deficit has not eased over the four decades are now supposed to say, the MINTs, one of the great since accession. On the contrary, I think the deficit has advantages we have is that we say, “Come and settle in steadily accumulated. the United Kingdom. We have access to the biggest In my judgment, all these impulses and feelings single market in the world, transparent accountancy swirl through the Bill before us, short though it is. and a transparent legal system”. What we are saying Europe is undeniably a first-order question for our to them today is: “Hold on a minute, maybe we will people and for our place in the world. Therefore, it is but maybe we won’t”. At this stage in what we hope is necessary that the consent of the British people to our an economic recovery, that is barking mad. We need membership of the European Union should be tested stability and certainty and to be able to play, as my every couple of generations or so. The bulk of the noble friend Lord Monks said, to the power of that British electorate has not been asked the “in or out” single market, to bring jobs to this country and to question, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, stressed in consolidate them. his eloquent opening speech. The time is approaching The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and a number of when they need to be—but how soon? Is it desirable other noble Lords have said today that the country now to fix a deadline and set the clock ticking? Here, wants a referendum. That is not the case where I come for me, the reservations set in. from—it is very far down the list of priorities there. The saloon bar may want a referendum but most of The negotiating climate today is far less manageable the people of this country have other priorities and we than in 1975, with our current EU of 28 members, should be concentrating on those. Mark my words: the several of whom deeply resent their experience of the problem that you get with a long and protracted UK as the permanent awkward squad in Europe, referendum is that the focus of attention is diverted emitting a constant drizzle of complaint within the from key and influential matters that we should be Union’s councils. The climate is different, too, at the addressing. I ask your Lordships’ House to give this very top. It is not the era of Schmidt and Giscard. To legislation detailed line-by-line scrutiny. As many have borrow from PG Wodehouse, if you are a 21st century already said, the Bill is not fit for purpose and, as German Chancellor or French President, it is always Members of a revising Chamber with a respect for the easy to distinguish between a ray of sunshine and a unwritten constitution of our country, we should not British Prime Minister bearing a request to renegotiate. be prepared to tolerate a Trojan horse. That is what I accept that there is never an ideal time for a this Bill is. renegotiation followed by a referendum. Our economy was in terrible shape in 1975, with inflation rising above 25%, deindustrialisation proceeding apace and 1.10 pm stagflation everywhere—but the road to a 2017 referendum Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB): My Lords, the would be hard, stretching and sloggy, even if unforgiving European question was sent to try us. It has succeeded and unforeseen events do not add to the wear and tear mightily in doing so ever since that week in May 1950 of high diplomacy and political manoeuvre. To legislate when Jean Monnet turned up in London and sprung now for a date three years away and the other side of a his and Robert Schuman’s plan for a Coal and Steel general election strikes me as not just undesirable but Community upon a suspicious and resentful Attlee immensely risky for our country. 1783 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1784

Only one thing is certain: even a meaningful and because any amendment might scupper the Bill”. Is successful renegotiation followed by a referendum in the noble Lord really saying that we should not pass which the British people showed a continuing desire to any amendment because of that danger? remain within the EU would not settle the matter. There were those nearly 40 years ago who thought the Lord Wakeham: I did not say that at all. If noble 1975 referendum had done just that. How wrong they Lords want to vote against it, they can vote against it, were. Even if the UK is still an EU nation in 2020—I but they should not pretend that there is any alternative. profoundly hope that it will be—we will remain the awkward squad over the channel, while for us at home Lord Anderson of Swansea: I am not pretending at the European question will always retain its own special all; any amendment may well have certain consequences. talent to torment. I am reminded of the noble Metternich, the great leader who, when news was brought to him of the 1.14 pm death of his opposite number, the Russian ambassador, was alleged to have said, “What was his motive?”. We Lord Wakeham (Con): My Lords, I will be brief, are quite entitled to ask of the Bill: what is the motive? because I think that the issue before us is important What has changed the view of the Prime Minister and but simple, and also because my noble friend Lord the Foreign Secretary over the past two years? Can it Selsdon has told me that I have made more than 6,000 be anything other than the rise of UKIP? I congratulate speeches in Parliament since the date of the previous the UKIP representative on the influence that the referendum Bill in 1975, so a short speech is probably party has had on the Government. to be recommended. Is it just the result of looking at opinion polls or the This is an important Bill for me, not so much taking of soundings by a well padded Lord? Is it the because of its substance as because of the position fact that the Conservative Party has no confidence in that the House of Lords should take on a Bill of this the word of its leader, who has said that he would sort. The previous referendum Bill was passed in the certainly have a referendum, and wants to tie him Commons by a majority of 64. At that time, many down? Equally, surely the Conservative Party has no noble Lords, particularly on the Labour Benches, took confidence that it will win the next election. As many the view that although they were totally opposed to Members of your Lordships’ House have said, no referenda, it was not the role of the House of Lords to Parliament can bind its successor, so this is a total seek to overturn or delay the will of a democratically charade. It may be a signal, but it is a signal only of elected House of Commons if it wanted to consult the the divisions within the Conservative Party. This is a people. In 1975, I voted against the referendum Bill, partisan Bill and should be treated as such. but then I was a Member of another place. I am no I could linger on the details of the Bill, but they are great fan of referenda, but then I was a democratically matters for Committee: the Electoral Commission, the elected representative. wording of the question, whether there should be a The Bill we are considering today was passed in the threshold and the precise electorate. I just want to Commons by a majority of more than 300, and I find make three brief reflections at this stage. it very hard indeed to think of a proper justification First, there is the problem of the alternative. The for opposing or delaying it here today. We know that, Prime Minister put it well when he said that, in practice, any amendment—I would vote for some of “the problem with an in/out referendum is it … only gives people the suggested amendments if we could—would almost those two choices: you can either stay in with all the status quo, or certainly be detrimental to the Bill’s progress and so it you can get out”. would be lost. An amended Bill would go to the Surely, if we seriously wanted to ascertain the views of bottom of the list in the House of Commons and the great electorate—Rousseau’s “popular will”—we never be reached. should ask them, “What is the alternative?”, and therefore I do not think that it is proper or right for us to seek have questions on that. Is it the fact that you, the to reject the Bill, or to alter it in such a way as to people, would want to be wholly alone? Is it the fact, achieve its rejection. If I remember correctly, in 1975, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said, that you your Lordships gave Second Reading to the Bill on 6 would wish to evolve some sort of new, free-trade May, Committee on 7 May, Report and Third Reading relationship with the Commonwealth? It is not clear on 8 May, without a Division, and shortly after it that any members of the Commonwealth seriously received Royal Assent. That seems to me to set an want to do that. Certainly India would not. Perhaps example that your Lordships would be well advised to Canada would, but you really need two to tango and follow. there is no traction in that. What about the Norwegian example? There is a continuing debate in Norway—I am part-Norwegian— 1.17 pm and the Norwegians certainly know that with the Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab): My Lords, the single market, they are told without any serious input substance of what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, what they should accept. That is hardly democratic, said, is surely that this House has no serious role in the but it is the current reality of the Norwegian relationship debate; we should pack up now and go home. The with the European Union. What about the Swiss? normal position of this House as an advising House, No—surely, rather than going into the emptiness of a looking coolly at what comes from another place, void, there should be some way of ascertaining, if that would be thrown out of the window. We should simply be the case, what it is that the people want. What are say. “They have decided, full stop. We should go home, the so-called alternatives? 1785 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1786

[LORD ANDERSON OF SWANSEA] has the authority. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, I shall not linger on my second reflection, because spoke about us having that power but having the the point has been made often, but the date of 2017 is tradition of exercising it maturely. In some ways, I was wholly arbitrary and unrealistic. Since the Prime Minister most impressed with what the noble Lord, Lord Owen, has said that any negotiations will not start until after had to say, and if I may summarise it to him, although the 2015 general election, can the position be such that he is not in his place, it was that there is a political we will know clearly what is on offer from our European inevitability about the process of having a referendum partners and that all the various ratification processes and we should get on with it—there was a political will have been gone through? The only question that dynamic in place. I have some sympathy with that. Let can be put is: do you, the people, believe that the us have the real argument, not these shadow ones Government should continue along the course they about process. have set? What are the prospects of a radical new deal Scrutiny has to happen, though. As a Back-Bencher, and of it being done and dusted and ratified by 2017? I rather feel—“resentment” is not quite the right word— The Prime Minister is not going about it very well. He slightly taken aback by what I think I am hearing: that must have read over Christmas the book, How to Lose we may discuss the Bill but may not put forward Friends & Alienate People, because he has already put amendments or vote on them, which seems to be a off a potential ally in Mr Sikorski of Poland and very peculiar position for us to be in, particularly harmed his relationship with Monsieur Mitterrand. when there are two very clear issues that need to be scrutinised. They are the most fundamental points Noble Lords: Monsieur Hollande. about any such Bill, which are, put simply: what is the question, and who gets to vote? Those are the two that have come up from a number of people. On the point Lord Anderson of Swansea: I am sorry, Monsieur about who has the right to vote, the noble Lord, Lord Hollande. Already, the Prime Minister has given a Oakeshott, raised an interesting point about the position clear signal to our partners in terms of the opt-out on of the 1.5 million British citizens living in Europe, justice and home affairs. If you are serious about the which clearly needs debate and discussion. European Union, you have to be seen as part of the team if you are to achieve your objectives—so how With regard to the question, I have not yet heard would he define success? what is wrong with the independent Electoral Commission’s version of the question. I have heard Finally, it is an illusion to imagine that having the that there is not time to discuss it but I have not referendum would result in closure. Many colleagues actually heard what is wrong with it. Parliament needs have confessed, and my own confession is that in the to have a good reason to overrule a group of independent 1974-75 campaign, I stood on campaign platforms experts which it has set up to advise it, and we need to with Mr Heath. I have not changed my mind and it is understand what that good reason is if we are to go an illusion that we can somehow get rid of the spectre ahead with the question that is currently in the Bill. of Europe from our body politic. I recall Mr Benn at Very simply, my view is that we need to respect the will that time telling me that it would lead to closure, yet of the Commons and there is an inevitability about almost immediately afterwards he was campaigning moving towards a referendum, but we need to have the for an exit from Europe. The separatists in Quebec, power and the time to scrutinise these important issues who almost succeeded in the Quebec referendum of and get answers. 1995, have not suddenly forgotten their separatist ambitions because they keep on losing referenda. No, the clear message—I see the clock—is that, yes, the 1.27 pm Prime Minister is right to seek to negotiate, but he should seek to negotiate in the right spirit, showing Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con): My Lords, I that he is a member of the team, and not bring to this confess from the very first that I am Eurosceptic and House a narrow, reckless Bill for partisan reasons. always have been. I voted in 1971 against the principle of joining. However, this Bill is not about Euroscepticism; it is about giving an opportunity to the people of this 1.24 pm country, who are very confused in many ways about Lord Crisp (CB): My Lords, my personal view is various things that have happened. It is crucial that very straightforward: we are inevitably and intricately they should be given this opportunity and should be linked with Europe, and we need to work out our given it at a time when the principles of what had been future in it through negotiation. I am also very clear accepted have been discussed, expressed and investigated. that change is needed; I agree with my noble friend They need to be informed and they need a referendum Lord Turnbull about the range of issues that need to because at this moment in time they are very puzzled be tackled in our relationship with Europe. There may indeed. be a place for a referendum in that process but I would We all know what the main issues have been—it is not start with one. There will be consequences of not a question of UKIP; these things have come up doing so, as many noble Lords have spelt out today. over and again—which have been disturbing to the However, in the course of this debate I have been general public and have never fully been explained. I very impressed by the points that have been made remember that when we were on the Benches opposite about the will of both the Commons and indeed a there was a huge question of millions and millions of significant part of the public. The noble Lord, Lord pounds, or rather euros, that had been spent or not Strathclyde, spoke about the House having the power spent and had vanished down some black hole. There to defy the will of the Commons but asked whether it never was a proper explanation. My only slight dismay 1787 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1788 is that I do not think this should be an issue of a very and could survive outside it, but the conditions of narrow number of situations about which people have doing so would be extremely damaging indeed. Like concerns, any more than it should be about the nitty-gritty. most other noble Lords who have spoken, I think that I was extremely impressed by the speech of the noble at some point the people should decide. I am therefore Lord, Lord Owen, with a whole part of which I found in favour of a referendum, which would be sensible myself in great agreement. and democratic to hold at some point. I believe so strongly in referendums that when we However, no one should doubt that if Britain were faced the question of entering Europe, I told my to exit the EU, there would be a wrenching and constituents at the time that they would get the benefit protracted process of readjustment. Other noble Lords of my advice. I visited all the cities twinned with my have drawn attention to this. The idea that the country constituency of Gloucester and held a referendum at would magically retrieve lost sovereignty is superficial my own expense, which was organised and carried out and foolish. What matters in the contemporary world by the Hansard Society. is not paper sovereignty but real sovereignty in a world I do not want to rake up a lot of old and certainly that has been transformed out of all recognition over worrying issues that have occurred over the years or the past two or so decades. For example, the European any of the matters which I believe have left the people economies and the American economy are likely to be of this country worse, not better, off. I will be very transformed by the transatlantic free trade agreement. satisfied indeed if this Bill is given a Second Reading This is very much on the books; it is likely to happen in this House. I regard it as a very important step that within the next two years. There is very strong support should be taken as soon as possible, as long as the from the Obama Administration. You cannot tell me British people are given the right answers. that if the UK were outside the EU and had to A young lady working for me yesterday wanted to negotiate individually it would have more sovereignty see me today. She is a very—I shall not say ordinary— than it would inside the EU. normal person. She has just got her mortgage, and she is very pleased. I said, “I can’t come tomorrow because This is not a trivial thing; a tremendous process of of this European debate”. She replied, “I just don’t transformation is envisaged here. Essentially, the country know about Europe. Do you?”. That is it. would have to reinvent itself and the reinvention that would have to follow would be the opposite of UKIP’s “beer and cigarettes, back to 1950s” version of Britain. 1.31 pm It would have to reinvent itself not like Switzerland or Lord Giddens (Lab): My Lords, I am a strong and Norway but, if you want a really positive model, like committed pro-European, and if noble Lords will Canada—as a kind of open, small economy, heavily forgive me, I shall describe the reasons for that as three dependent on a much larger one to which it is adjacent Ps and an S. First, I am a pro-European because of and to which it must orient its actions, with far less peace. Many people say that dealing with conflict in influence in the world than the UK has at the moment, Europe is a thing of the past. That is manifestly not so. but nevertheless a society that survives well. That There was a bloody and horrible war in the Balkans could be a model for the future but it would be a some two decades ago. It is highly important for dramatic process of transformation. The country would Serbia, Kosovo, Albania and the Balkan countries to have to be anti-UKIP because it would have to be enter the European Union. Secondly, I am a pro-European much more cosmopolitan and open-looking. There because of prosperity. It sounds an odd thing to say would have to be more immigration, rather than less, given the travails of the eurozone, but the single market just as Canada has. adds something like 2.6% to the GDP of its member nations, and the eurozone is in the process of basically I think a referendum should be held but only if positive reform. certain conditions are satisfied. Since these have been widely discussed in the debate, I shall zoom through Thirdly, I am a pro-European because of power. In them fairly quickly. First, as many noble Lords have our globally interdependent world, if Europe cannot noted, it should not be driven by short-term political collectively exert an influence over the rest of the concerns but by the long-term interests of the country. world, we will live in a kind of G2 world in which we As I have just stressed, it would be the biggest will be a backwater and will simply be subject to the transformation that the country has faced for more decisions of others. Fourthly, and this is important in than 60 years. It would be quite different from the this debate, I am a pro-European because of what I 1975 referendum, which was held when Europe was in call “sovereignty plus”—that is, because, contrary to the process of being formed. We would be leaving an what many people seem to imagine, each nation gets entity of 520 million people, which is still moving more sovereignty from being part of the European forward. It would be a very dramatic and consequential Union than it has outside it. This was recognised in step to take, and the whole country should realise that. the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech where he said that in foreign policy we get much more clout from Secondly, a referendum should not be held until it is being a member of the European Union than we clear what shape the EU, and specifically the eurozone, would otherwise. This can be generalised to most will assume. This point has also been made previously aspects of EU membership. by noble Lords. Europe is in flux and in movement; we I am a committed pro-European, but I am not one do not know what the outcome will be. What we can of those who hold that it would be economic and be sure of is that there will be treaty change; I think political suicide for the UK to leave. I think that the that is inevitable. That treaty change is likely to happen UK could at some point leave the European Union within the next five or six years. That is the process to 1789 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1790

[LORD GIDDENS] currently drafted does not deal with the possibility of be monitored at the time when people should be asked a yes vote in Scotland’s referendum. It does not provide to decide in an “in or out” referendum in this country. for the results to be published in each of the constituent Thirdly—I feel this very strongly as I am very nations of the UK. It is our duty, as a revising Chamber, worried about it and I do not like the impact of the to consider such amendments and to make them if we Bill on it—there must be a full and fair open public deem it appropriate. debate. It takes a long time for such a debate to be set The fact that the Bill comes to us late in the in motion. What really worries me is that the UK parliamentary year is not our fault. Since the Bill could drift out of the EU without most citizens fully proposes a referendum in 2017, there is no reason why understanding the consequences and implications. I such a Bill should not come next year for proper think a great deal of attention needs to be given to this discussion and debate. A Bill of such enormous because it would be the very worst outcome for anyone. implication should never be steamrollered through In conclusion, I am strongly against the Bill because Parliament. My fear is that that is what we are experiencing not one of the three conditions is realised. It deserves, today. at the minimum, to be substantially overhauled in this House and I am strongly persuaded that it will be. 1.41 pm Lord Balfe (Con): My Lords, I support the Bill and 1.38 pm look forward to it passing. However, I also look forward Lord Wigley (PC): My Lords, it is surely ludicrous to campaigning for a yes vote in the inevitable referendum. that a debate of this significance is limited to just one Although some people have said, “This isn’t the right day and for us to be told that we cannot amend the Bill”, there is an undercurrent that there should be a Bill. I make it clear where I stand in the context of the referendum, and there is, again, a need to get the will Bill: I am as passionately pro-European as I am committed of the British people expressed. That, of course, is one to Wales. Wales is a European nation in language and of the inconveniences of living in a democracy—from religion, in history and culture. We belong to Europe. time to time you just have to let the people say what This year we remember how, twice in the past century, they want to do. This Bill is a vehicle for that. our continent tore itself apart in two bloody wars in I spent 25 years in the European Parliament and which millions of innocent people were killed. The the overwhelming impression I got was the failure to vision of European unity was born to ensure that understand and to engage between both sides. As an never, ever again does that happen. Anyone who mindlessly MEP I constantly felt—having, of course, the joy of jettisons the structures that have helped to ensure serving in both parties—that neither party knew what peace over the past 60 years does so at his peril. to do with its MEPs. They felt that they were a bit of a I believe in the value of nations but mine is a civic, nuisance and a bit of an irrelevance. However, seriously, not a racial, nationalism. Everyone who chooses to if you look at other European member states you find make their home in Wales, whatever their language, a much better level of integration between what is colour or creed, is a full and equal citizen of our going on in Brussels and what is going on in the country. Yes, we want to see as many decisions as member state than you do in the United Kingdom. We possible that affect Wales taken in Wales. That chimes have consistently failed to engage, and that comes in with the European principle of subsidiarity, that down to very petty things. When do you ever see an decisions should be taken as close as possible to the MEP wandering around this House? I see the former communities on which they impact, and that principle leader of the Opposition, who will know the Danish certainly needs to be strengthened. But some decisions— Parliament well, and if you go to the Danish Parliament environmental ones and those relating to the single you will often find MEPs wandering around it because market—must be taken on a European level, and we there is a structure for them to relate to it and be there. must be there, arguing our corner, whether that “we” Therefore we need to settle quite a lot of things. refers to Wales or to Britain. We also need to look at what would happen if Of course there are things that need reforming in people vote no. The question will be, “Do you want to the EU, but that does not mean that we chuck our toys be in the European Union?”. That would start a long out of the pram and throw a tantrum if we don’t process of disengagement, which would be messy. On always get our own way. It should mean that we argue this side of the House our Conservative Party is not our case, without the implicit blackmail that unless we best served by not being in the European People’s get our own way we quit. That is the fundamental Party, which contains a lot of people who have influence. problem with the Bill: it is driven by UKIP, which We need to be in a position of influence, because if we wants only one thing—for Britain to quit the EU. For were on the path to withdrawal—and I sincerely hope them, it is not about getting better terms, less bureaucracy, that we are not—the European Parliament plays a quicker decisions, less waste. It is simply about getting very central role in the settlement that is reached, out. because there will be a huge number of financial The Bill does not attempt to establish what would overhangs. be the acceptable terms on which to remain in the EU. I still serve as president of the European Parliament It does not accept the logic that if reforms to improve Pension Fund. If you look at the liabilities towards the EU can be achieved, why should we need a referendum European public servants, they are considerable and at all? The Bill will clearly need to be amended in would have to be met. Other liabilities that would have Committee to ensure that everyone living in Britain, to be untangled are also considerable—and, with all of whose well-being may be at stake, can vote. The Bill as them, the European Parliament would have budgetary 1791 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1792 authority. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson is much wanted renegotiating, he could not answer the detail more of an expert than I am on that matter, and he of any of them. That is one of the great problems that will know that the European Parliament would have a we have. considerable say in what happens. As my noble friend Lady Liddell, said in her excellent I draw attention to the role of European civil servants. contribution, the idea that we may have a referendum We sometimes bemoan the fact that British nationals creates uncertainty. We get that argument in relation are not getting their fair share in Europe. But what are to Scotland. I ask this House to contrast and compare we offering them in terms of a career? We are saying to the comments made by the Conservative Members the brightest and best of our graduates, “Well, yes, if opposite and in the other place in relation to the you go to Europe we might help you and we might referendum in Scotland with what they are saying in not—or we might withdraw tomorrow”. Is that how relation to this referendum. They say, rightly, that the you get people to the top? There was a time when we referendum in Scotland is causing and will cause held the general secretaryship of the European uncertainty about the future of the United Kingdom Commission; indeed, the noble Lord who held that is and that people will not invest in Scotland. Exactly the a Member of this House. We held the general secretaryship same applies to a referendum on the United Kingdom’s of the European Parliament, with the distinguished place in the European Union. Sir Julian Priestley, for many years. We have held the general secretaryship of the European Economic and I want to deal with the point raised by Members Social Committee. Today we hold no senior positions opposite that there is great demand for a referendum. in any European institutions that would be worthy of Okay, if you specifically ask the question, “Would you the weight of this country; we are slipping behind. like to be consulted on Britain’s membership of the European Union?”, most people will say yes. But if We are always talking about numbers, but this goes you ask, “What is the most important issue facing you beyond numbers. Britain has a moral duty in Europe today?”, the latest Ipsos MORI poll said that only 7% to lead and to join. There is a long queue of people thought it was Europe—24% thought it was the health wanting to join; there is only a small queue—and then service. Of course, one reason why the Government not a representative one—of people who want to want to do this—we have heard the other reasons—is leave. Our job and our duty is at the heart of Europe, to deflect our attention and that of the public away campaigning and helping the emerging democracies in from the manifest failures that they are having in other the European Union, setting an example, bringing areas. It is a distraction. them forward and welcoming them into the family of European nations. We should not be going on in the The main point I want to raise is that a number of xenophobic way that the British press has been so Members opposite, almost all the former Ministers fond of recently, which frankly I feel ashamed to be who have been lined up—the good old trusties who associated with, when I read it. We need to pass this have been brought in early on to support the Bill—have Bill, we need a positive yes vote, and we need a full and been saying, “No, no, you must not even consider thorough engagement with the European Union. amendments. You are not allowed to, the House of Commons is supreme”. My noble friend Lord Richard dealt with some of this earlier. “Scrutiny procedures 1.47 pm should not be used”, they said. First, I remind the House Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab): My Lords, while I that we scrutinised the Bill relating to the alternative cannot congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, on vote and the boundaries review. If the other place had bringing this Bill before us, for reasons that I shall go paid attention to what we said in relation to that, they into in a moment, I commend him on his energy and would have saved a lot of time and money and another diligence, both qualities that he will need in Committee, referendum would not have taken place, with all the when we deal with all the amendments that will come cost that that involved. That was discussed during before us. However, I was slightly surprised to hear government time—all that time we took to deal with him on the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning the amendments. describe the European Union as a pestilence and a poison. While I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord What has happened now is that by asking the noble Turnbull, said— Lord, Lord Dobbs, to bring forward this Bill, the Government are hijacking Private Members’ time. By doing so, they are imposing an arbitrary deadline on Lord Dobbs: I hate to interrupt, and I promise that us, an artificial timetable, and saying that if we do not it will be the last time, if I possibly can, but I did not get it through this House by the end of February, it is say that. I was quoting other people and reflecting the going to be lost. That is not our decision; we have not mood out there, which I wish to resolve not to emphasise. imposed that timetable; it is an arbitrary timetable imposed upon us. At the same time, they have hijacked all the time for Private Members’ Bills. Have a look at Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Even picking up from all the other Private Members’ Bills that are waiting other people and repeating that it is a pestilence and a for a Friday to come forward. I say to the noble Lord, poison gives a certain tenor to the noble Lord’s argument. Lord Dobbs, that I have kept all my Fridays free for I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, in his the next few months—just a little indication to him. criticisms of the European Union. However, on the But look at all the other Private Members’ Bills that so-called renegotiation, when the Prime Minister was are waiting: on mental health services, crime, care—a being gently interviewed by Andrew Marr on his whole lot of other areas. No, this is a misguided effort, programme and was asked what the issues were that he which is why I could not congratulate the noble Lord, 1793 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1794

[LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK] least, should the enactment of the Bill not be subject Lord Dobbs, however much I like and admire him. In to an affirmative resolution of both Houses following fairness to this House, this issue and the other Private the next general election? I look forward very much to Members’ Bills, he should think again and perhaps discussing these and other issues in more detail in decide to withdraw the Bill. Committee and on Report over the next few Fridays.

1.53 pm 1.57 pm Baroness Suttie (LD): My Lords, like anyone born Baroness Hooper (Con): My Lords, as one of a very after 1958 in this country, I have never had the opportunity small number of current Members of your Lordships’ to vote in a referendum on the UK’s membership of House to have been elected to the European Parliament the European Union. Some noble Lords, with all their in the first direct elections in 1979, a time when the experience of actual referendum campaigns, may tell ideals and opportunities of the European Economic me that I am being a little optimistic, but as a pro- Community gave rise to much more enthusiasm than European I have always believed that a referendum they appear to do now, I feel that it is important to campaign could allow the positive case for membership state my support for my noble friend’s Bill. As a of the European Union to be heard—or at the very Minister in your Lordships’ House well over 20 years least provide the opportunity to correct many of the ago now, I, too, participated in meetings of the Council more ludicrous Euro-myths that have gained currency of Ministers and saw at first hand how it was possible over the years. to influence and to work with Ministers from other I very much agree with the speech made earlier by member countries for the benefit of our own. my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones. He said it is a I wish it were not necessary to hold a referendum, matter of considerable regret that successive UK particularly given the clear result of the previous one Governments have failed effectively to make the positive in 1975, which I acknowledge was only two years after case for EU membership. Instead of arguing for much we had joined the then EEC. However, institutions needed EU reform from a position of strength as a change and develop, and sometimes need reform; that committed European leader, we have consistently is true even of our own, venerable, mother of parliaments. weakened our negotiating position by giving the I therefore see it as now inevitable. impression that we really do not know whether we As someone who believes, like others who have want to be in or out. spoken today, that we are inextricably linked in and There is therefore a good case for a referendum, cannot and should not detach ourselves from full which is why the Liberal Democrats supported the membership of the European Union, and that the 2011 referendum Act and why we are in favour of an United Kingdom has an appreciated and influential “in or out” referendum the next time there is a further role as a leading member, I would be working for a yes transfer of power from London to Brussels. I agree result in any referendum. It is therefore of the utmost with many of the noble Lords today who have said importance that the case for our remaining in the that they believe that a referendum is now inevitable. European Union should be made in a clear, calm and However, the Bill in front of us today is flawed in measured way, and illustrated with the many social, many important respects and leaves a great many trade and economic benefits of our membership which unanswered questions. Indeed, it reads like a Bill drafted have been cited today. I hope that this will result in a in haste for purely party-political purposes. resounding yes for remaining in. In particular, I ask those noble Lords who support Apart from my noble friend Lord Balfe, few speakers the Bill to ask themselves the following questions. Do have referred to the European Parliament, or indeed they believe that the referendum question in the Bill, to the European Parliament elections which are due as currently drafted, is genuinely fair? Is it not a on 22 May this year and which in themselves provide leading question? Do they not agree with the position an opportunity for the electorate to voice their views taken by the Electoral Commission on this issue? and vote on the issues. The party manifestos for that What is the justification for the somewhat arbitrary campaign should therefore give the British public the date of 2017? Is there not a danger that setting this chance to understand the pros and cons and the random date in law will provoke economic uncertainty differences between party policies. Let us hope that at a time when the fragile economies of the UK and the apparent keenness on the part of the British public our EU partners are only just beginning to recover? for a referendum will be reflected in a better turnout What is the justification for the inconsistencies of who than usual at those elections. will actually be allowed to vote in this referendum? In Given the fact of the European parliamentary elections Scotland later this year, 16 and 17 year-olds will be this year and the need to make absolutely clear the allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum on the basis implications of our membership and of the alternative, that it is very much their future at stake. Surely the the referendum campaign should not be rushed. I same logic should apply to a referendum on our therefore cannot agree with those who wish to bring membership of the European Union? Also, should the forward the proposed date. As for binding future electorate not be based on local election electoral lists, Parliaments, my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones disposed as it will be in the Scottish referendum? of that worry very effectively. Good arguments have Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I agree with been made for altering the wording of the question the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that it is not acceptable to be put to the electorate—I prefer the proposal of for this Parliament to attempt to mandate a future the Electoral Commission—but that is a matter for Parliament on an issue of this magnitude. At the very Committee. 1795 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1796

It is clear that, when asked, the British public want Mr Cameron, what the objectives of any bilateral a referendum. While I have been disappointed by the negotiation will be and therefore in what context the hectoring tone of some of those who have written in possibility of a unilateral withdrawal will arise. The demanding a referendum, I believe that there should referendum and politics surrounding it will be utterly be one and that is why I support my noble friend’s Bill. dependent on the outcome of one or other of those However, let us not forget that no country has yet negotiations. seceded from the European Union—Greenland is only The present formulation of the question in the Bill a partial precedent, but there can be no comparison does not allow for any reference to the outcome of there. I certainly do not want the United Kingdom to negotiations or to any treaty. The outcome, will, of be seen as the only country that cannot cope and course, determine how many people vote. Under certain wants to drop out. outcomes, I would find it difficult to vote for staying in. If the Tea Party totally takes over the Conservative Party and it wins the next general election and we opt 2.01 pm out of many of the more beneficial aspects of the Lord Whitty (Lab): My Lords, I share some of the European Union, I would hesitate. I would probably constitutional distaste for referenda, and I share the still vote to stay in, but it would be a very different dismay of many of my pro-European colleagues about European Union. The outcome of the negotiations is the toxicity with which the European issue has infected important, and the way that it is sold to the electorate British politics for the past few decades. However, I will determine the vote. That effectively makes the Bill am also a political realist and, like the noble Lord, redundant, although improvements could be made to Lord Owen, I recognise that it is pretty much the it in this House regarding the conduct of the referendum, settled will of the British people that, at some point, the electorate and the question itself. If the powers there will be a referendum on our future relationships that be insist on giving substantial time—unprecedented with Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and I shall time—to the Bill, the House will need to insist on campaign again on the same side, and I believe that conducting its normal scrutiny of Private Members’ the campaign is winnable. Bills. Between then and now, we have a very interesting The Bill will not be the basis for a future referendum. political period; that is, interesting in the Chinese There will be a prolonged period between now and sense. We have European elections coming up this then, and the world will inevitably change. All the year, the outcome of which may well determine—or, passage of the Bill will do at this time is aggravate rather, the relative success of UKIP may well determine— discord with our EU partners, and cause dismay in the vehemence with which the Conservative Party Washington, uncertainty and a reluctance to invest approaches the general election; later on in the year, among global investors, as my noble friend Lord Monks we will have a referendum in Scotland that will irretrievably graphically pointed out, and a reduction in Britain’s determine the future of the United Kingdom; and influence in the world. That is not a very good use of with this Bill and the referendum in 2016 or 2017, we our Fridays, now or in the next few weeks. will be voting on something that will irretrievably determine the future geopolitical position and influence of the United Kingdom. 2.06 pm In between all that, we have an old-fashioned general Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB): My Lords, I say at the election. As my noble friend Lord Grocott, who takes outset that I am strongly in favour of Britain’s membership a rather different view from me on Europe, pointed of the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord out, no Parliament can bind its successor. It has been Giddens, said a little while ago, in this year of all years argued on this Bill that the Lords should not attempt we should surely be conscious of the need for an to dispute the will of the House of Commons, but it is effective, endurable network linking the member states the will not of this House of Commons but of the next of the European Union east and west, and removing one that will determine the nature of the referendum. the risk of conflict—as, indeed, the European Union This Bill attempts to determine now the timing, the provides. Is it perfect? Of course, it is not perfect. My question and the electorate—although, as the Electoral noble friend Lord Turnbull explained very elegantly Commission and Delegated Powers Committee have the defects that it has. However, the European Union pointed out, it fails to deal with the basis of conduct entrenches democracy and the principles of a market of that referendum. Whoever the next Government economy in much of our continent and, in so doing, are and whatever the balance of the next House of benefits this country, too. I will take just two examples. Commons, we will need a new, comprehensive Bill if Membership of the European Union enhances the we are going to carry out any referendum. In that projection of our foreign policy. What would be our sense, although we have a very good attendance in the influence on Iran, Syria or the Middle East if the Chamber today for a Friday, we are all wasting our Foreign Secretary were not engaged fully in EU councils, time. where Britain and France are by far the most influential However, there are aspects of the Bill that I want to countries in the European Union on foreign policy address, because, apart from the valid objections from matters? Membership benefits our economy, too. Other the Electoral Commission, any referendum will follow noble Lords have made this point, but we should only a treaty change or the outcome of a bilateral imagine the impact on jobs in Sunderland if Renault- negotiation. Given the turbulence in the eurozone, we Nissan were to stop investing or to switch its investment do not know what kind of treaty changes are likely elsewhere—as it well might were we not a member of to be proposed, and we have no idea, not even from the European Union. 1797 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1798

[LORD JAY OF EWELME] must remember that we are talking about the future Therefore, our national interest surely lies in working and not the past, whatever problems there have been with like-minded partners within the EU to ensure and whatever mistakes have been made. In addition, it that the European Union is, indeed, an open, democratic is important that the public must be able to handle the Union, enhancing the security and prosperity of its goods before they buy. We must know what the options members, as, in their rather different ways, Lady Thatcher are before any decision in this direction is taken. Let and Sir John Major did so effectively when they were us not forget that we had a referendum on EC membership Prime Minister—at least in the 17 successive European and it did not bring closure to the issue. Councils at which I had the pleasure and honour of Whatever we do must be handled wisely and even- accompanying them. I would infinitely prefer that we handedly. The problem we face is that the Bill’s authority fight our corner in the European Union, using our has been damaged by the criticisms made by both the undoubted influence to do so, in the way that they did Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers rather than through the threat of renegotiation followed Committee, as well as by a number of criticisms made by referendum. in this debate. Even if we as individuals think that the However, I accept that the mood of the country criticisms do not matter, many electors are going to favours a referendum and that the Commons has think that they do. Even if the authors of the Bill do voted by a large majority for the Bill—the noble Lord, not think that the criticisms matter, millions of people Lord Owen, made those points very forcefully—so the who will inevitably find after a referendum that the question, it seems to me, is how to ensure that, if there outcome for them is unsatisfactory and not to their is to be a referendum, it is properly prepared and liking will use that fact to keep the issue alive. thought through. To do otherwise on a subject of such I confess that I am also concerned about the profound importance for the United Kingdom would circumstances of the Bill’s conception and birth, which surely be wholly wrong. are weird. Its passage through the Commons as a That leaves me with two major concerns. The first is Private Member’s Bill strikes me as being extraordinary timing. The process and the outcome of the renegotiation and irregular for a Bill of such significant constitutional are uncertain—but so, crucially, is its timing, which and political importance. I really do not like the may well not fit with the timing proposed in the Bill prospect of throwing poison pills through the next for the referendum. The final decision on when to have general election into the legislative programme of the a referendum must surely depend on the progress of next Parliament. I feel very strongly that process and the negotiations—something that we cannot possibly procedure matter because they provide a framework know now. for important decision-making and send out a message My second point relates to the view of the Electoral to those affected about the even-handedness and integrity Commission, as other noble Lords have mentioned. It of what is involved. is unwise to go against the view of the commission on One of the interesting conclusions of our debate a matter as important as this. Those two questions—the thus far suggests that had the Bill been drawn up question of the referendum itself and of the timing of slightly differently from the way in which its authors the decision on when to hold it—will need to be saw fit to do, it would probably have moved on to the considered further in Committee. That is the constitutional statute book relatively seamlessly. However, against duty of this House as a revising Chamber. that background, am I, and we as a House, prepared to acquiesce to the prospect that we must set aside our 2.10 pm revising and amending role because the Bill is so Lord Inglewood (Con): My Lords, I have been a important? Surely the more important the Bill, the Conservative almost all my adult life, and, during that more important it is that one exercises that role. period, a supporter—but certainly not an uncritical Equally, I say to my noble friends Lord Dobbs and supporter—of UK membership of the European Union, Lady Warsi that, because the Bill is so important, they which is, as my noble friend Lady Warsi commented should get up, show a bit of can-do and find a way of to your Lordships earlier this week, in the national enabling this House to amend it so that it can proceed interest. That perspective is shared by hundreds of in a proper manner. The ball is in their court. This is a thousands—no, millions—of other people in this country. very important issue and, whatever one’s views, I find In the Bill, I am being asked to support a course it extraordinary to be told that I should not propose or that could put that at risk. I understand that and the vote for amendments. At the end of the process, we reasons for it; and I am not on my feet now to oppose need something that is simple and straightforward, a plan for a referendum on this country’s membership and that—as they say in Cumbria, where I come of the European Union during the next Parliament. from—does the job right. That is probably going to be the most important political decision taken during the next Government’s term of office. For that reason, it seems to me that the 2.15 pm procedures and context of that decision have to be Lord Tomlinson (Lab): My Lords, this is an inadequate handled with the greatest care and wisdom. Bill. However, it is worse than that because it is a Two points are absolutely central. First, the Prime grossly premature Bill and a shabby political manoeuvre Minister is absolutely correct to negotiate and see to appease UKIP and Tory Back-Benchers in another what changes might be forthcoming in the arrangements place. It has nothing to do with the quality of governance within the European Union, both looking to our but everything to do with appeasement. I hope that we country’s best interests and to the Union’s. That is treat this exactly as we would treat any other Private what he is doing and I fully support him. Secondly, we Member’s Bill. That means that we have 45 minutes. 1799 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1800

A noble Lord: Then sit down. only two points, which have already, of course, been made in this debate. There are only about three points to be made throughout the debate. Lord Tomlinson: I will sit down sooner than most of the people who have spoken. Everybody who has On the first point, the Prime Minister has made a taken part in this debate favours reforms but we have clear commitment that if he returns to office after the not had any statement about what those reforms are, election next year he will enter into negotiations for how we are intending to progress them and how we do changes in this country’s relationship with the European these things. We have often been told by people coming Union with a view to concluding them by 2017 and in back from Brussels that they have achieved reform. time for the outcome to be the basis for a referendum. For example, we have had a vast expansion of qualified He needs no legislative reinforcement for that commitment, majority voting, which in many ways I regard as a although of course he will be able, if he wishes, to reform. Is that what Members in the Conservative reiterate it in his party’s manifesto in due course. If he Party view as a reform? It involves losing our veto, is returned, he will be able to use his best endeavours which they seem very much to want to keep. to fulfil his commitment whether or not the Bill is I know what I have asked for. I have asked this passed. He does not need to have his feet held to the question of the noble Baroness on several occasions, firebyalaw. and I ask it of her again today because she is speaking If he is not returned in the election, his successor for the Government. Is she prepared, as a fundamental will not be bound by his commitment. It is the established and much-needed reform—one pursued previously by convention that no Parliament can bind its successor. my noble friend Lord Kinnock and by me when I was If another Prime Minister after the 2015 election in the European Parliament—to get a system of zero-based decides that a referendum is not necessary or called budgeting? It is the only method by which we will be for, he will be entitled to invite the new Parliament to able to get a proper evaluation of the quality of pass a new Bill—one of those mythical one-clause expenditure and its value for money and direct resources Bills—and guillotine it, repealing this legislation if it as they are needed, rather than in this across-the-board has been passed by this Parliament. The Prime Minister’s way that happens at the moment? commitment is quite as binding as it need or can be I want to reply to two people who have spoken in without legislative underpinning. This Bill is unnecessary this debate. One is the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and, I might almost say, pointless. who, having given of his wisdom, has now departed, The second point I should like to underline—it was although I shall make sure on Monday that he reads made a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Jay the bit that I am going to say about him. He implied of Ewelme—is that the Bill is, in some respects, bad that we have no right whatever to challenge in any way policy. Negotiations within the European Union for any piece of legislation that comes from the other major changes in the constitution of the Union can place. In fact, that is saying that we might as well pack take a very long time. This is particularly the case at a our bags and go home. It is always our job to challenge time when many other member countries will also be views if we believe that they are wrong, and nowhere looking for changes and wide-ranging reform seems does that responsibility lie heavier than when we are likely. It is impossible to predict either the form in challenging a major constitutional reform, fully backed which or the date by which the Union will emerge by the Government but wrapped up under the illusion from the process of renegotiation. and pretence of it being private Members’ business. It is admirable for the Prime Minister to say that he We have to examine this Bill in Committee thoroughly intends to achieve changes by 2017, but he cannot be and fully and, if necessary, pass amendments to it, sure of being able to do so in complex negotiations irrespective of the significance of any date, such as which will involve 27 other member countries as well 28 February. as the United Kingdom. It is not likely to be conducive This Government still have more than a year to run. to constructive negotiations and he is not likely to be If they do not get their way in this Session, they assisted in his negotiations if he goes into them with a should have the courage to bring forward their own time bomb in his briefcase which he says that he must Bill in the next Session of Parliament, when we will detonate if he does not get the result he wants by a subject it to full scrutiny, including the tabling of fixed date in 2017. amendments. Of course, ultimately the Government He would do better to take a leaf out of the book of must get their way on a government Bill, but that is Mrs Thatcher. When she wanted to get a satisfactory not the same as saying that we will always bow our outcome on the British rebate, she did not threaten her knee to whatever Motion, in whatever form, comes partners with an “in or out” referendum if she did not from the other House. This is a means of trying to get her way by a certain date. It took her five years to cheat the people of this country and it is a cheating get an outcome which she was prepared to accept, but process that we will not go along with. I hope that, she stayed in there until she got what she wanted or, at having properly given the Bill a Second Reading, on least, what she was prepared to accept. There are some Report we will take every opportunity to challenge it of us who still bear the scars received in the course of in every way necessary. that bruising process; but it worked. If the Prime Minister is returned to office in May 2.20 pm 2015, he should be allowed to take whatever time it Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB): My Lords, I do requires, even if that is more than two and a half not intend to spend time today on the intra-party or years, to stay in there and get the result he wants or at inter-party shenanigans of this Bill. I propose to underline least a result that he is prepared to commend to the 1801 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1802

[LORD ARMSTRONG OF ILMINSTER] That has influenced the way in which the public no Parliament and people of this country. He would no longer have any confidence in what any of us say doubt try to achieve that outcome within two years—and about promises to do with Europe. Prime Ministers of I should wish him the best of British luck in doing both parties have successively prayed in aid their so—but the issues at stake for this country, and for the negotiations in various treaties when they have gone to European Union, are too great, too important, to be the electorate in a general election. We have come up confined by this kind of deadline. It is not in the best with all sorts of politics-speak about subsidiarity and interests of the United Kingdom for Parliament to things like that, which we hoped would comfort the send the Prime Minister into these negotiations with a general public and suggest that, somehow, we were fixed two-year deadline. still in charge as politicians. However, the nub of this, I conclude by saying that this is a funny old Bill. I and the reason why this referendum and this very am not sure whether it is a government Bill masquerading specific promise of a referendum are so important in as a Private Member’s Bill, or how you should define this Bill, is that the general public out there believe it, but in a sense it is a one-off and a unique thing that that the power that they thought they had through the defies the conventions. All your Lordships will accept ballot box—not the power we as politicians have—has the rule—it is not just a convention—that the will of gradually been eroded. We have conspired across the the House of Commons should in the end prevail, but parties to use language to defuse and to try to subjugate that should not, in this case, be allowed to override the the real discussion that was needed so that people duty of this House to exercise its own responsibility to could have a very clear understanding of what was revise and improve the Bill if it sees fit to do so. If the being done, in successive treaties, in their name. Gradually Government really feel very strongly that this Bill has you erode from people the opportunity to hold their to be completed in this Session and cannot wait, as the elected representatives in another place to account. noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, suggested, until the next Increasingly, when those elected representatives then one, I suggest that the Government make room in quite rightly hold the Ministers of the day to account, business for the proceedings that would be required to those Ministers have to defuse matters and cannot enable the Bill to complete its passage in this Session. answer straight questions. A classic case in point before us in the debate today 2.26 pm is the question of our borders. It does not matter what a Minister says about our borders. No Minister here Baroness Browning (Con): My Lords, I support my or in another place can do anything to control immigration noble friend Lord Dobbs in championing this Bill in across our borders as far as EU citizens are concerned, your Lordships’ House. In the contributions today and yet anybody who has raised that issue in the past from noble Lords, who clearly hold diverse views not few years has been name-called in a way to stop that only on this Bill but on the wider subject of our debate. In the end, the general public see through that membership of the European Union, the common and realise that they are the loser here. The general theme has been the recognition that the people of this public cannot get answers from their democratically country are in the mood for a referendum on the elected representatives, who in turn cannot get answers subject. It is worth drilling down a bit to ask why that from Ministers. That is the end of democracy as we is. My own view is that people now feel so much more know it and have understood it for many years. That is strongly about the need for a referendum because, as why we need a renegotiation to bring some balance other noble Lords have already mentioned, of their back into what was an agreement that we voted on in lack of confidence and trust in the body politic, for 1975. I put my hand up to being one of those who which many of us—all of us perhaps—should take voted for us to go into a Common Market, as I some responsibility. understood it, but over the years the EU has changed. On the specific subject of our membership of the That is why the renegotiation is needed and the British EU, in the quiet corners of the Conservative Party, people now want the guarantee of a referendum. when my name is mentioned in conjunction with the subject of the EU, I might perhaps be described as one of the “usual suspects”. I agree that that would probably 2.31 pm be the correct terminology, but I have noticed today that the language we use when discussing Europe and Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab): My Lords, I people’s different views on it is not the language that congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, on picking one would expect to find in a debate on education, up this piece of legislation from the House of Commons. health or any other big political issue. It is very personal, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady very subjective and, sometimes, very unpleasant. I am Browning, on this subject. one of those in the Chamber—looking around, I see I shall certainly support the Bill on the basis, first of other noble Lords who have had this experience—who all, of pressuring government and opposition parties have been subject to name-calling over the years because to ensure that the issue of a referendum and our place we have taken a certain view. For example, we have in Europe is dealt with in their manifestos and by warned against our membership of the single currency whoever forms the next Government. Secondly, we and of the dangers of a central European bank, and should not seek to frustrate the will of the House of argued that we should not readily give up our gold to Commons on this particular issue, which surely must buy up euros in order to prop up that currency. When be a matter for that House—not us. Of course, we these things have been discussed, they have not been should have had a referendum over the Lisbon treaty. discussed in a very mature way across the parties in Mr Blair promised that we would have one and then, either House. through a device, broke that promise. Had it been 1803 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1804 kept, we would not be bothering ourselves on a Friday and therefore for ever—that is the key issue about with this particular Bill because the issue would have Parliament having given up its sovereignty: a successor been settled in 2009. Parliament will not have the powers because the previous This issue transcends party politics. It is not about Parliament has given them away. party politics and never has been because all parties That has been put forward as a situation which are split on the issue. The issue is about who governs would be created by the Bill. Actually, it has already Britain: whether we govern it from Westminster through been written down in a treaty which we have signed. our own Government and institutions or are governed We have already signed away the power of Parliament from abroad by an undemocratic Commission and the to keep sovereignty for itself. The two eminent former institutions of the European Union. Many people Permanent Secretaries raised that as an issue about describe those such as me as Europhobes. We are not: the Bill. They were fighting each other, by the way—I I love Europe. The problem is that the way Europe is do not know if anyone else noticed—because the governed, and is likely to be governed in future, will noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was saying that it is a bad injure Europe. Europe is Europe and has its great thing because we were binding another Parliament, history because it has been a collection of different and the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said that it was a people, countries and borders. To merge this into a bad thing because we were not. Leaving that aside, it great conglomerate will do the interests of Europe has been done already. We are already giving away very badly indeed. powers to control the economy and we are doing it for I have to confess that I was never in favour of ever. If that is not something which requires a referendum, joining what was then called the Common Market, I do not know what is. and I still believe, despite all I have heard today and There is one remaining question: does this apply to hear all the time, that we would be better off out on Britain? Is Britain, because of its opt-out, perhaps the our own, as a country with a great history which still only country which does not need a referendum? It has a great deal to offer to the world. I believe that might be argued that all the other countries need very sincerely. referendums and we do not. The answer to that, in my We had a referendum in 1975. The people were view, concerns something I asked a Question about urged to remain in what was then known as the yesterday: the acquis communautaire. That is endemic Common Market and they did exactly that, they voted to the treaty of Rome. It states clearly throughout the to remain in the Common Market. As so many people treaty that any change in the treaty must be in one have said today, things have moved on since then. direction, towards European statehood. That is absolutely Treaty by treaty, powers have been transferred from clear. It is written in there and it will, incidentally, our Government, from our Parliament, to the institutions sweep Britain along with it in a great tidal wave. of the European Union. That is the answer, by the way, to the “Waiting for I will finish on this point. We now have the vice- Godot” people who say that we must wait for some president of the European Commission, Viviane Reding, great event to take place in Europe before we have a really telling the truth in a speech, blowing the gaffe, referendum. A dynamo already exists in the system, because she wants a United States of Europe in which and if I was keen on preserving a move towards a the powers, the sovereignty of this Parliament would federal state of Europe I would just leave things alone be transferred to the European Parliament. Of course, as it is all there already. It is a very strong argument, the sovereignty of Britain would be transferred with it. they usually say, for us to wait for some great event to I am very much against that. I feel quite sure that the happen before we have the referendum. They are absolutely people of this country are very much against that. wrong about that—but right in their own terms because That is why the people of this country should and a federal state of Europe is what they want. If you do must be consulted on our future in the European not want that then at some point the British people Union, or whatever it may become. will have to be consulted. That time should, in my view, be here as quick as possible, but the Bill is certainly a step in that direction. 2.37 pm Lord Spicer (Con): My Lords, I begin with a confession. I have form on this matter as one of those who 2.40 pm opposed the Maastricht treaty when it came before the Baroness Goudie (Lab): My Lords, in the House of Commons. It is always a bad thing to say 1975 referendum campaign, I voted and campaigned that one was right or that I told you so, so I will not do for yes. I am strongly in favour of the European Union that, but I will say that what was clear in those days but I am not in favour of the Bill that has been has become a fact of life in many cases now. brought to the House today. It has been brought as a Take for instance the linkage between fiscal policy Private Member’s Bill instead of the Government and and monetary policy, which is absolutely clear after the Prime Minister having the courage to take it to the the events of last year. It is quite clear that if you have Cabinet and get the Cabinet on side. In spite of that, I a monetary union, you have to have a fiscal union as will ensure that the Bill is dealt with in this House. I well. If you transfer your tax policy, your expenditure will participate in the Committee so that it might be so policy and your monetary policy to another institution, and be scrutinised. I really am upset, in a way, that the you have at the very least created a circumstance of Bill has been brought here. Also, having looked at constitutional change for which a referendum is highly the Bill, there is no real substance on how we tell the appropriate. That is in the context of something being British people what the European Union is about and irrevocable, not changeable, written into the treaty what we would be going into a referendum about. It is 1805 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1806

[BARONESS GOUDIE] we are fated to lose every argument that we join. The wrong for a future Government to have their hands track record of this country in the EU simply does not tied. For all those reasons, I would vote against the bear that out. Bill at the end of its Committee in this House. One of the reasons why what is proposed in the Bill I agree very much that the European Union needs is in many ways a dangerous course is that it weakens reform. It has changed dramatically, in some ways for the diplomatic power and effectiveness of this country the good and in some for the bad, since 1975. But the in its negotiating position in Brussels. We should not way for us to do that is by giving leadership from the make the mistake of believing that there is an indefinite centre of Europe, not from being on the outside or tolerance among other member states of the British threatening that we will leave. We must be there and position on this. The results of a poll published last we have to be part of that. I will not go into what the week stated that only 16% of Germans and 26% of right honourable William Hague said in the other French believed that they would favour a special deal place, because I do not want to take up too much for the United Kingdom. Whenever these negotiations valuable time in this Second Reading, but I agree with take place, they are not going to be a pushover; they what he said. If we continue to go down this road, as will be really difficult, and we will have to persuade the Bill would have us do, we will put at risk everything our colleagues in Europe that it is clearly in their that Britain has in this difficult economic time. We will interests to participate in them and to progress with put at risk jobs, growth and investment. We all know further reform. how investors are global and if there is any chance that In that, incidentally, the position of Germany is something is jittery about Britain plc, they will move particularly important. The Germans have gone a out and other companies will not think to reinvest. All long way, as they did over the rebate, to give support this makes us very vulnerable. to British positions, but if you say to the German At the same time, we have to remember that part of Government, “Well, here it is, we’d like your full the reason that the European Union came together all support and if you do not give it to us we’re going to those years ago, before we were rejected and then press the button and we may be out”, what is the end allowed, was because it was about peace and security. result of that attitudinal position? It was all about Britain and Europe’s role in the world. If there is a threat, certainly implicit, to our diplomatic If we were not part of Europe, the American Government effectiveness as a result of committing ourselves to an would not look at us a second time and we would have “in and out” referendum in this Parliament to bind the no traction in the ASEAN countries, as they are today. next, what is the likely effect on our economic and The Commonwealth would steer away from us. Where industrial strength? Many of the figures have already would our trading be? Where would we be going with been rehearsed in this debate, but one struck me the our e-learning or our legal learning? Where would we other day that I had not picked up on before: one-half be in the Middle East? Would they wish to continue to of all non-EU companies operating now in Europe are invest with us? No, we have to be part of the European headquartered in the UK. That is a far greater proportion Union for us to survive and it is for all those reasons in total than those headquartered in either Germany that I feel really strongly about this referendum Bill. or France. Do we really believe that those companies would continue to be headquartered here were we to 2.44 pm exit from the EU? I very much doubt it. Goldman Lord Watson of Richmond (LD): My Lords, this is Sachs, Hyundai, Toyota, Siemens and so on—the list not so much a declaration of interest as a declaration is endless and I assure the House that it will get longer of pride. I worked with the late Lord Jenkins when he and more strident as this debate continues. was President of the European Commission, its only The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, was quite right British President to date, and during that period I was to say in this debate that were the referendum to result enormously impressed by the professionalism and in an out vote, it would not be the end of anything; effectiveness of the UK Permanent Representation in rather, it would be the beginning of an extraordinarily Brussels—the so-called UKRep. As many of us know, difficult, painful and protracted process. That is why I at the end of last year Sir Robin Butler passed away. am glad that my own party, in its own commitment on He was an outstanding civil servant who worked within a referendum, has been very specific, not generic. We UKRep as well. are committed to an “in or out” referendum the next time that there is a significant transfer of power from the UK to the EU. That is a specific commitment. Noble Lords: Sir Michael. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said in his fine speech at the beginning of the debate that if Lord Watson of Richmond: Sir Michael Butler; I am there is a fundamental change in our relationship with so sorry. Sir Robin Butler—the noble Lord, Lord Europe, in many cases the reality is that the statutory Butler of Brockwell—is still here. Sir Michael was power to have such a referendum already exists, so the closely involved in the negotiations that led to the Bill is unnecessary. rebate. I find that the proposer of the Bill has made a very If you look at the track record of British membership odd argument. If I have understood it right, and he of the European Union in its various stages of evolution, also said it on Radio 4 this morning, the reason for you see that UKRep has been remarkably effective. I this referendum now is that no one in the UK under absolutely do not accept the inherent pessimism and the age of 60 has had a chance to vote on EU membership. lack of self-confidence that we keep hearing that somehow If you think about other vital elements of our 1807 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1808 constitutional and societal arrangements in this country, shaking his head, but he cannot deny the figures or the in many cases no one alive today has ever voted on fact that this Bill was not properly scrutinised, even them either. Have we voted on the Hanoverian succession? though there was an opportunity for it to be scrutinised, Have we voted on the monarchy? Do we need to do in the other place. both in order to legitimise the present position? I do not seriously think that anyone would propose that in Lord Richard: The noble Lord said it was not this House. scrutinised in another place. It may be so. Is that not an additional argument for it being scrutinised properly We are engaged in something which is inherently here? foolish and significantly risky. If our main concern is about how we are viewed by the British people, I think Lord Cormack: No, because it came to us—and the expectation of the British people is that this House the noble Lord, Lord Richard, ought to know this as does the job that it has been given, which is to review a former distinguished Member of another place—with legislation and to do it with integrity, honesty and massive majorities. In other words, they said, by their thoroughness. votes, “We don’t want to do anything about this. Your Lordships’ House should have it”. Your Lordships’ 2.50 pm House having been given the Bill, it now has a duty to allow the people of this country to have the Lord Cormack (Con): My Lords, this has been quite referendum. I would not have tackled it in this way a debate. We have seen Mitterrand reincarnated and but, in those famous words, we are where we are. We the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, buried. I are confronted with a particular situation and we have am bound to say that, like the proverbial Irishman, I to respond to it. would not have started from here, but there is a very I hope that it may be possible for the Government serious issue to address and I will seek to do so in a to devote a little more time. I would not be against moment. Let me just make it plain that I am one of having amendments debated, but for this House, by those who have for many years—indeed, since the whatever means, to kill this Bill would not be acting in Maastricht treaty ground its way through another the best interests of our parliamentary system or of place when my noble friend Lord Spicer and I were in this House. I believe that I am entitled to say that, opposite corners—advocated an “in or out” referendum having played a reasonable part in ensuring that the to lance the boil and have made it quite plain at the malevolent schemes of the Deputy Prime Minister same time that in any such referendum I would campaign, were seen off, as they rightly should have been. as I did alongside Labour parliamentarians in 1975, for this country to remain within the European Union. I find the position of the Liberal Democrats, our That is my position. beloved partners in the coalition, for many of whom I have individual affection and regard, a little queer. If I am somewhat tempted by the noble Lord, Lord your Lordships’ House found itself the butt of criticism, Armstrong of Ilminster, to recount a story. I was the Liberal Democrats would quite welcome it, because standing outside this House, before I entered it, talking it would advance their case for abolishing this House in Prince’s Chamber to the late Lord Carter, the Labour and replacing it with an elected second Chamber. Chief Whip, much loved by many people in both Therefore, do not let us be deceived by those who sit Houses. One of his colleagues came up to him and by our side and let us not be seduced by those who sit said, “They’re going on in there. It’s all been said”. opposite. Let us say that this Bill is imperfect and has “Yes”, said Lord Carter, “but not by everybody”. One got here by a most peculiar route, but let us speed it on is reminded of that in this debate. its way so that those outside this House cannot say I want to address the most serious subject to arise: that the House of Lords stood between them and the position of this House as a revising Chamber. I do having their say on perhaps the most important not think that anyone in this House could reasonably international issue of modern times. accuse me of not being devoted to it or of not being prepared—as indeed I did on Wednesday this week—to 2.56 pm vote against the Government of the day if I felt that Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab): My Lords, the the legislation before us could be improved, but we are noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, made an excellent speech in dealing with something rather special here. We are introducing this Bill, as he invariably does. He is a very dealing with a Bill that had a fair amount of time in respected and popular Member of this House and I the other place and was never seriously opposed by quite understand why the Prime Minister asked him to either the Official Opposition or our partners in the be his standard bearer in bringing this difficult piece coalition. If noble Lords need to be reminded of that, of legislation before us. I hope, therefore, that he will all they need to do is look at the figures and the not think it in any way a personal attack on him if I Division lists. In other words, this Bill has come to us say that the Bill he has brought before us is a very bad with the other place having had the time to revise and Bill. It is not a good Bill at all. It is a very dubious Bill amend it but having decided, for a variety of reasons, that, in at least three respects, purports to be something not to do so. that it is not. There is an English word for that but it is In a sense, what the Labour Party and the Liberal not a parliamentary word so I will not use it. It is, at Democrats have said to us is, “Let the House of Lords the very least, a cynical Bill, which we should treat do our dirty work for us. Let them be the ones to with considerable scepticism. defeat this Bill by making it run out of time”. I believe The first example of the Bill purporting to be that any constitutional arguments have to be measured something that it is not has not escaped the attention against that. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, may be of many colleagues in the House on both sides. We 1809 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1810

[LORD DAVIES OF STAMFORD] Cabinet said that we should not have a referendum in have already discussed it at length today. It is the fact this Parliament, giving all those reasons—uncertainty that it is a Private Member’s Bill that is really a Prime of the economy, and so on and so forth—why we Minister’s Bill. Prime Minister’s Bills that are whipped should not do that. They were absolutely right about through the House of Commons and will be whipped that. through the House of Lords—and are said by the Why did they suddenly switch? We all know why—there Prime Minister of the day, to his supporters, to be has been a purely party politically orientated initiative essential for the credibility of the Government, as has to try to buy off the Eurosceptics in the Tory party been said in this case—are not Private Members’ Bills. and keep them quiet until after the election and to If the Government have chosen to bring the Bill prevent Conservative voters slipping over to UKIP because forward in this camouflage, two things follow. UKIP is offering a referendum, so the Government First, they must accept the rules of the game—the thought that they had to offer one too. Of course, no rules that apply to Private Members’ Bills. They have sane or sensible person would ever go to the public chosen that route; it is their fault. Under no circumstances and ask them to decide on something and say, “It’s should we allow ourselves to be blackmailed by being important that the public have their say—but you told that there are difficulties with Private Members’ can’t do it for the next four years”. Nobody knows Bills but the Government need to get this one through what will happen in the intervening four years; in fact, by 28 February, otherwise there will be difficulties. It there is quite a large probability that there will be a was the Government’s decision to bring forward this new treaty under negotiation—not concluded—by 2017. Bill as a Private Member’s Bill and they must take the It cannot possibly be concluded in practice before the consequences. Under no circumstances should we be French and German elections in that year, which have blackmailed along those lines. Indeed, if I am still already been referred to. How absurd it would be if we speaking at 3 pm, which I probably will be, I hope had a legal obligation to hold a referendum before the someone will interrupt me. If they do not interrupt me end of 2017, but there was another treaty in gestation at 3 pm, I hope that will be established as a precedent and we were part of that negotiation, so we would for future Private Members’ Bills going through this have to have another referendum on that in 2018 or House, which should equally be allowed additional 2019. That would be absolutely absurd. time if there is particular interest in speaking on them From a practical point of view the whole idea is on the part of the House as a whole. ridiculous and any sensible person would have been The second thing that follows from the Government’s able to see that it was ridiculous. Indeed, I have no voluntary decision to bring this forward as a Private doubt that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary Member’s Bill is that, clearly, we should not treat it know that it is ridiculous, and that that is what they with the respect and regard with which, normally and would have said a year and a half ago in public. naturally, the second, unelected House treats government However, they have decided on this slightly squalid initiatives. Normally, we operate on the basis that we party political ploy, which is why we have the Bill can hold up legislation—we can put forward proposals before us today. for amendment to the House of Commons—but, at There is a third aspect to this lack of frankness the end of the day, the Government of the day tend to about the Government’s legislative proposal this afternoon, get their business through. This is not, by the Government’s which has not been referred to at all. That is, although own choice, a government Bill. We therefore do not the Government purport to wish to give the public a need to regard it with quite the same respect and free choice, to consult the British public about our consideration that we would give a government Bill. future in the European Union, there is one obvious We should, of course, be sceptical and we should do choice—not just a coherent or a theoretically possible our duty. If we come to the conclusion that the Bill choice, and not even a practically possible one. It is an needs to be amended, we should be even more confident obvious choice that has been the default choice, the of our duty to amend it than we would be if it were a consensus choice and the automatic choice of 17 out government Bill. of the 28 members of the European Union. That choice is to be a full member of all aspects of the The second aspect of the lack of straightforwardness Union: to be a member of the core, if you like, of the to which I referred—of the Bill being presented as Union—which, of course, means being a party to something that it is not—is again a matter that has, Schengen and to the euro and so forth. unsurprisingly, received quite a lot of attention in this debate. This is a Bill that purports to be a democratic, Noble Lords: Oh! altruistic initiative designed to give the public their say. That is a phrase that we have heard several times. In Lord Davies of Stamford: Noble Lords opposite fact, it is nothing of the kind. Only 18 months ago, may well think that that is an appalling prospect, and both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, they are entitled to feel that. However, they cannot William Hague, were bringing forward arguments for deny that that is a possible choice. They also cannot not having a referendum in this Parliament. They were deny that that is a choice that many of our partners in powerful arguments, which have already been referred the Union—the majority of them—have taken. They to—some of them have been quoted today. I had it in cannot fairly deny that there are good theoretical mind to bring in a whole sheaf of quotations, but I arguments for all those proposals. It might very well thought I would not burden the House with them be argued that now would be a very good time to join because it is very familiar with the words concerned. the euro, before interest rates and the parity go up, but Only 18 months ago the Prime Minister, the Foreign we are not having that discussion today. However, that Secretary and other members of the Tory party in the choice is being denied to the British people. Other 1811 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1812 people have had the choice of doing that, but we have amend this Bill. As you would expect, he told a not—our electorate have not. compelling story, but I regret to say that, despite Clearly, both parties in this rather squalid transaction advice to the contrary from many distinguished colleagues between the extremist Eurosceptics in the Tory party on this side of the House, I remain unconvinced that and the Prime Minister have been at one, I am sure, in we should accept a Bill of this importance without wishing to exclude any possibility of going down that proper consideration. Opposition to giving the electorate road, which they would call the federalist road. So a referendum on any terms is not to seek to deny them democracy has not reached that far, and democracy that referendum, but this Bill in its current form may will not include giving the opportunity for that particular well be detrimental to all our interests. choice to be expressed in the referendum. There may I share with other noble Lords at least two concerns be practical reasons: people would say, “Well, you about the Bill. The first is about the question, which can’t have more than two questions in a referendum”—but has been referred to many times. It is clear from the that is nonsense. If there was an aggregate majority of report of the Electoral Commission that it has concerns those who were in favour of our joining the core of the about the neutrality and clarity of the question. My European Union on the one side and those who were noble friend questioned the consultation, but with in favour of joining the Union with the various derogations respect he cannot question the unambiguous negotiated by the Prime Minister on the other, and if recommendation, and no doubt this will be pursued in those two votes together came to a majority of the Committee. If there is indeed a referendum and a vote, clearly you could not argue that there was a future Conservative Government are campaigning in majority in favour of our leaving the European Union. favour of the United Kingdom’s continuing membership, So in practical terms this is a very real possibility. they may well find themselves at a disadvantage if the I notice that I have gone beyond 3 pm. Quite question leans against a yes vote, since I fear that it is disgracefully, no one from the Front Bench and none almost certain that the Conservative Party will not be of the Whips sitting there has interrupted me, which of united behind a recommendation to stay in on any course they should have done. Therefore, I have no terms which retain the essential principles of the European bad conscience at all in delaying the House a little Union. I do not seek a question which leans the other longer. That is their fault, not mine. They are in breach way, merely one which is neutral and fair. of the rules. What is more, this precedent is something My second concern relates to the date. This could that we should not forget, and one that should be put a negotiating Prime Minister at a huge disadvantage applied in all fairness and in all honesty to all future if critical negotiations were not complete by the time Private Members’ Bills. Otherwise, this will just be when the date for the referendum arrived. The timescale seen as a very underhand procedural trick by the is in my view unrealistic. If we are seeking significant Government. Of course, it also blows the cover completely changes, which may well involve treaty change, the about this being a Private Member’s Bill. It is nothing fast-track procedure in the Lisbon treaty will not be of the kind. available, and the normal procedures under Article 48 Lord Trefgarne: My Lords— take time. I have asked in previous debates how it is anticipated that this will be resolved in two years, Lord Davies of Stamford: No, I am not going to between 2015 and 2017, but I have not received an give way. I know perfectly well what the noble Lord is answer. I hope that the Minister or my noble friend going to say, and I am not going to give way. I am Lord Dobbs may address that when replying. going to finish my remarks, and I am not going to give For those reasons and others, I do not believe that way. I make that absolutely plain. There has been we should abandon our usual scrutinising role. I know—I scandalous conduct in this House this afternoon, not am not comfortable about it—that many of my noble by me or anyone on my side but on the part of the friends will consider this an act of considerable disloyalty Members of the government Front Bench sitting opposite, to the party but, more importantly, detrimental to and I am certainly not going to allow them or any of your Lordships’ House. I regret that. their minions to interrupt me. However, perhaps we might examine the history of What do we do in the squalid circumstances that I this issue without calling into question anyone’s motives. have described? We do our duty, and look at this Bill Originally the Prime Minister resisted calls for a thoroughly, sceptically and responsibly.If we can improve referendum but after a large vote, against a three-line it, we improve it. There are one or two particularly Whip, it was promised for the next Conservative manifesto. scandalous aspects of the Bill, notably where the Those who, like me, question the wisdom of referenda Government try to override the decisions of the Electoral generally accepted the position, as I do today, although Commission on the formulation of the question. That I would campaign for a yes vote and for the UK to amounts to appointing an umpire and then rejecting the stay in the European Union. A Bill to provide for the umpire’s decisions. It is a scandalous thing to propose referendum was then demanded and when it was not and, obviously, something that this House needs to included in the gracious Speech, government Members look at very sceptically, along with many other things. in large numbers, unusually, voted against their own We will not do our duty if we do not do that. gracious Speech. A Bill was then produced, to be 3.06 pm taken up by any Member successful in the Private Lord Bowness (Con): My Lords, I thank my noble Members’ ballot. friend Lord Dobbs for his introduction to the Bill and The question in that draft Bill was very close indeed his explanation of why your Lordships should not to the suggestion and recommendation of the Electoral attempt to scrutinise and maybe as a consequence Commission, unlike that which is in the Bill before 1813 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1814

[LORD BOWNESS] to be locked into Europe and that it was vital that your Lordships today. But even if that were not enough Britain was the country that ensured that Germany and the potentially skewed wording of the question in was always locked in. That is the relationship. The the Bill were substituted for that in the draft, we are noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, will corroborate that now in this position. In the latest instalment of this the late Lady Thatcher did indeed have a good working story, we are being asked to accept a position into relationship, as, I think, did all the other Prime Ministers which we have been placed because some people have from Edward Heath onwards—certainly the late Lord been unwilling to accept the word and leadership of Callaghan and the Labour Prime Ministers who followed the Prime Minister. had good working relationships. That point seems to I cannot accept accusations that concerns about the be given no consideration at all by those who want to Bill, if it is pursued, amount to an attempt to deny the play the nationalist card. Europe is not about the people a vote. The pressures of time were not of our nationalisms of 1914; we are in a different world. making but of those who precipitated a Bill despite The noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave his standard the original policy of my party. I hope my noble speech, which is very interesting, about China and the friends will at least understand that I find that emerging nations. However, the European economy is unacceptable, and therefore my unwillingness to accept twice as big as China’s. Our relationship with China is the Bill as it stands, and that, upon reflection, my mediated through the fact that it invests here because noble friend Lord Dobbs and the Minister may engage we are part of the European Union. You do not need as they would in connection with any other Bill to see to take my word for it, as somebody said earlier: take how the question of amendments and timetables might the word of the Chinese President; in the case of be resolved within the proper proceedings of not only Japan, take the word of the president of Toyota; take this House but the other place. the word of the chief executive of BMW. It may well be, as has been said by several speakers 3.12 pm on the other side, that it does not matter too much if there is a different balance of trade. We will have trade Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab): My Lords, this debate with the rest of Europe, yes, but with the balance of has proved far more interesting than many would have trade deficit growing and growing. At that time the expected. A number of points have become politically pound probably would sink to the level of the euro—not clear. One is the central point made in his magisterial the scenario envisaged by my noble friend Lord Davies speech by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, of Stamford but one which could come about. whose conclusion was that this Bill could almost be Finally, the Bill should be considered in the proper described as pointless. He was pretty forensic in describing way. We cannot have a position where the famed his reasoning; namely, that whoever is Prime Minister democracy of Parliament has to be put aside when we after the next election will not in practice be constrained are considering a matter of this import. I suspect that either way by this Bill. to go to the British people and say that we have Presumably, if it is a Conservative Prime Minister— brought in some legislation which has not properly although there are all sorts of variations of the gone through Parliament would be an impossible configuration—you can write the script. There might proposition in any case. I trust that this rearguard well be some sort of timetable of negotiation leading action, that we cannot have a proper examination in up to a referendum. However, if it is a timetable that Committee, will dissipate. looks like blackmail, saying to Angela Merkel and Mr Hollande, “I have got only 18 months to come 3.19 pm back with the goods, you must help me”, is that really the best sort of diplomacy? Other colleagues have put Lord Selsdon (Con): My Lords, I have rather enjoyed it in terms of an unrealistic, artificial timetable but I myself, which is quite usual in your Lordships’ House. would like to put it in terms of the personal relationships However, when I first came here something over 50 between the party leaders. years ago, I was told, “Don’t worry, my dear chap. You I would like to put this in the context that was going will be used as cannon fodder for a period of time”. through my mind as I was listening to the noble Lord, There were two great people who used me as cannon Lord Jay of Ewelme. It is now exactly 100 years since fodder: the late Lord Jellicoe and the late Lord Shackleton. the misunderstandings—let us put it that way—which On one occasion, Lord Jellicoe said, “Look, this led to the First World War. All these splendid books European lark is getting rather interesting. We are on the origins of the First World War which have been going to shove you on the Council of Europe”. I could published in the past three or four months show that not possibly admit to him that I did not know what the the total absence of a context of regular meetings Council of Europe was. Lord Shackleton said, “Well, between Russia, Serbia, Austro-Hungary, France, I’m getting involved in eastern European matters and Germany and Britain had a considerable impact on things of that sort and, soon, part of the Soviet bloc the causes of this catastrophic event 100 years ago in will come back and become part of Europe”. This was Europe, with 50 million, or whatever, killed as a all right for me, but I had a full-time job with two consequence. Even leading up to the declaration and weeks’ holiday, and swanning off to Strasbourg was mobilisation of the First World War, there were not really part of the game, so I agreed with my misunderstandings as to who was doing what as well employers that I would not take a rise in salary and as mutual suspicion between all the capitals. would have only one week’s holiday. Helmut Kohl said about 15 years ago to one of my As I went off to Strasbourg, I suddenly realised colleagues, in my presence, that Germany must continue that what we were talking about was people who had a 1815 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1816 fear of war; almost everybody you met had fought in Lordships would be kind enough, quietly over the the war. That was something that I had not thought weekend, to sit with a piece of paper and draw for me about. As you moved on over a period of time, so the current map of Europe. trade became important. I thoroughly enjoyed that period but began to 3.24 pm wonder where it would lead us. We then came to the Lord Grenfell (Lab): My Lords, it is always a pleasure referendum of earlier days, and I would like just to to listen in this House to the autobiographical discourses quote Alec Douglas-Home, who in 1971 said: of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, on accepting a challenge “In this House and out of it, there is widespread recognition that we have reached the time of decision, and that the proper that even Eddie the Eagle would have balked at, but he place for that decision to be taken is Parliament”.—[Official made an elegant speech. Report, Commons, 21/10/71; col. 912.] The outstanding feature of this debate so far has That is what we are talking about today.James Callaghan, been the total failure of the Bill’s supporters to address, at the same time, said: let alone answer, any of the flaws in the Bill repeatedly identified by speakers around the House. The Bill will “Tonight is no more than the first skirmish in the struggle, in need serious amendment if it is to serve any purpose the course of which we shall, I hope, by debate and discussion between ourselves, establish what is Britain’s correct relationship beyond that of attempting to quell unrest within the with Europe and what is our role in the world ahead”.—[Official ranks of the Conservative Party. To appropriate a Report, Commons, 28/10/71; col. 2202.] matter of such high constitutional importance for so Again, that was in 1971. narrow a purpose is, in my view, not worthy of the senior partner in a coalition Government. In the middle, I got dropped in it again—it was not We on these Benches will apply to this Bill what we really due to my noble friend Lord MacGregor—because apply to any other Bill before us, which is a thorough I suddenly found that I was, effectively, treasurer of scrutiny of it clause by clause throughout its legislative the Conservative Group for Europe. I was the one who passage through this House. We will table sensible and was meant to find money and, in particular, money for responsibly framed amendments which we judge would the referendum. Of course, a lot of mistakes were materially improve the Bill, and seek their acceptance. made in those early days and, suddenly, you found to That is our constitutional duty. The noble Lord, Lord your surprise when everything went through that the Crickhowell, appears to disagree. I found his intervention Labour Party refused to send a delegation to Strasbourg. on this point incredible, coming from someone with As a result, the Conservatives had a problem in that such a long career in Parliament. they did not have any money, because you could not There is absolutely no reason or justification for get any money for a vote of that sort. So what did they granting the Bill special treatment, which is what its do? They turned to the treasurer of the Conservative promoters seek in their efforts to ensure that not a Group for Europe, who with his secretary found himself single word or number in the text is amended. What is in difficulty. I suggested that we should hold a great so sacred about this text that it has its promoters so event. We managed to get the Banqueting House— paralysed by fear of any attempt to tamper with it? Geoffrey Rippon was very kind and helpful—to hold From the degree of panic visibly permeating their a big event for the first time so that those in industry ranks in the face of this perceived vandalism, one and the financial world would understand the difficulties might think that we were daring to rewrite the opening that we were in, would understand that I had been bars of the Fifth Symphony or draw a moustache on dropped in it and would agree to subscribe. the face of the Mona Lisa. No, we are not vandals, Unfortunately, a certain leading Conservative figure and they know that. The cause of their fear is of their made a speech during that period, when life was pretty own creation. Mismanagement of the timing of the bad, and said that everything was good, so no money Bill has resulted in a time-bind that could lead to the was forthcoming. So I had a brief moment wondering loss of it. If that is the outcome, they will have only whether I would be sued, but somehow the great and themselves to blame, and the prospect of that can the good turned up and gave me a cheque and we neither excuse this House from its duty to scrutinise managed effectively. But they were the problems in properly nor deprive it of its right to propose amendments those days. to improve the Bill. The Bill cannot possibly be allowed When Sir Alec Douglas-Home made the suggestion to go on to the statute book in its present form. There in that debate that a decision should be made by are serious questions surrounding: the timing of a Parliament, Stanley Orme said: referendum; the almost unfettered powers granted to the Secretary of State to appoint the day on which the “No. Ask the people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/10/71; Act would come into force; the wording of the question col. 912.] to be put to the people; the need to spell out a turnout In the time when I was involved, we went through the threshold and a voting age; and the Bill’s inappropriately EEC, the ECSC and all those areas and finally thought, restrictive policy on voter eligibility—and there are “Well, could we not actually call it Europe?” and then, other issues which time does not permit me to enumerate. “Where does Europe begin and end?”. Without doubt, Many of the amendments will be tabled, and in all my time there, the key factor was bilateral trade, supported, by Members drawn from all sides of the which in due course became immigration. But suddenly, House. We fully expect them to be resisted by the we ask ourselves the question: “What is it all about?”. promoters of the Bill because that is their blanket It is really about economic rather than political affairs, response to any attempt to amend it. They will dismiss and I would be most grateful if any one of your them as the confections of troublemakers bent on 1817 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1818

[LORD GRENFELL] that. That school combined amounts to half those obstructing the Bill’s passage to the statute book. who have spoken in favour of the House of Lords However, I ask them to consider carefully this: are doing its job and amending the Bill. they going to toss aside the conclusions and I had intended to try to deal with what seemed to be recommendations of such important Lords committees the two central heresies in the brilliant speech of the as the Constitution Committee and the Delegated noble Lord, Lord Dobbs—the heresy that if one gets Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on such this Bill one is guaranteed a referendum, and the crucial questions as the exercise of the powers conferred heresy that if one does not get the Bill one does not get by the Bill on the Secretary of State? Are they going to a referendum. Those are both nonsense but that was reject the Electoral Commission’s recommended wording clearly explained most recently by my noble friend of the referendum question? I cannot believe that they Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, so I see no reason to would follow such a risky course but, if they do so, it trouble the House with that. will confirm in my mind, at least, that the Bill’s Conservative promoters are not acting in the national There is a third argument lurking in the House, interest but only in the narrow interest of a party about which the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, needs to divided on Europe. think as he considers how he proposes to handle We on these Benches do not believe that an “in or Committee and Report. That is the feeling in the out” referendum by December 31 2017, at the latest, is House, from the bias of the question, from what the in the national interest. That is why we oppose the Bill. Bill says about the franchise and from what it does not As my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary say about the rules, that it is all slightly slanted—that of State said in the Second Reading of the Bill in this is a Bill to produce not just a referendum but a another place: referendum result whereby the UK is to leave the European Union. That feeling is quite prevalent in the “The Bill reflects an arbitrary date unrelated to the likely timetable of major treaty change”.—[Official Report, Commons, House and it would be good if the promoters were to 5/7/13; col. 1181.] consider what adjustments to the Bill could be made That can hardly be in the national interest. What is the to deal with that point. purpose of holding an “in or out” referendum at a I want to add only two points that I genuinely think point when we will almost certainly not yet know what have not been made so far in this debate—one on treaty changes will need to be agreed to reform the timing and procedure and one on perceptions. On EU, and thus what kind of EU, and what our negotiated timing, the big point is the one made by the noble relationship with it is, is the subject of the question to Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Owen. You would be be put to the people? In the same Second Reading plumb crazy if you seriously thought that the right debate in the other place, the Secretary of State, year to bring to a climax a renegotiation of the terms Mr Hague, repeatedly said that his Government’s policy of British membership of the European Union was was to seek reform of the EU. The noble Baroness, the year of a French presidential election and a German Lady Warsi, said it at least twice yesterday, and will federal election. You would be mad if you thought surely say it again this afternoon. We all want to see that the last thing Mr Hollande would like to do effective reforms. Our European partners want to see before he seeks re-election is make concessions to the effective reforms, but why risk a British exit at a time British in order to, in his judgment, increase his electoral when reform is work still in progress, in which we are chances. You would be mad if you thought that the all—and should be—actively participating ? It makes SPD in the German coalition which will be in office no sense at all, so why the rush? for the first half of 2017 would be likely to agree to the I conclude by suggesting to our Conservatives on changes to, say, the human rights or social elements of the other side of the House, particularly to its leadership, the treaty, or to the free movement of persons, all of that they heed the words of a formidable European which government spokesmen have told us in the past statesman: four weeks are to be elements in our renegotiation “In the European card game we must not allow ourselves to be strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, also made the forced from the phase of waiting into the phase of premature important point that it would be quite a good idea, if action by impatience, complaisance, vanity or the provocation of renegotiation were intended, to start now defining our friends”. what we want rather than going with whatever the The greatest political truths have long lives. That was Daily Mail suggests this week is the right element to be Otto von Bismarck. in the renegotiation. 3.30 pm Our foreign friends greatly enjoyed the Bloomberg Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB): My Lords, when speech and admired a lot of things in it, but they are speaking at number 59 in the list one can reflect, as very puzzled that, in the year that has passed since the one hears all of one’s points made by others, on how speech, no papers have been produced and no attempts very much better one would have made them oneself. have been made to secure allies. Indeed, in recent One can also keep score. I have to tell the noble Lord, weeks it has rather looked as though we have decided Lord Dobbs, whom I greatly admire for his cavalry that it is essential for domestic reasons that we have a officer skills, that it begins to look a bit like Balaclava. major row with the Poles, the Romanians, the Bulgarians At the present rate it is 2:1 against, counting on the and all eastern Europeans. side of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, those who are I turn to the issue of procedure. I do not know why all-out supporters of his Bill and those in the Cormack we want to amend the treaty. Mrs Thatcher secured school, who believe that the Bill has warts but, warts the rebate after five years’ hard work, as my noble and all, it must be “waved on its way”—I think I heard friend Lord Armstrong reminded us, without any 1819 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1820 treaty change. However, if we have decided that it is The Government and those supporting the Bill really important that the reforms we need are changes have stressed the current necessity for European Union to the treaty, we have to go through four stages. First, revision, arguing that otherwise European democracy we have to secure a simple majority. That means that and quality of life will increasingly suffer. However, as we need to find 14 member state Governments who we have also heard today, detractors claim that this agree with us. We have not started that task and it position is adopted only for political gain, with the looks as though we are not going to start it until after United Kingdom and our Government thereby trying the election. Secondly, we have to get a consensus in to attain some narrow advantage. Also that renegotiation, the necessary convention. The last convention took and thereafter a British referendum, are said to be 18 months. The third stage is that we have to get both disruptive and mistaken expedients. unanimity in the intergovernmental conference— Yet what is intended and proposed is not in the least Maastricht took a year—and the final stage is ratification. irresponsible; instead, it is much overdue—that is, if This Bill tells us that the referendum will happen in European Union revision should remove competitive 2017. Even if renegotiation finished in 2017, would we burdens and restrictions while completing the single really want to have our referendum before we knew market. Few would dissent from this and the majority whether everybody else could sell the deal in their of member states would welcome that changed direction. countries? Supposing that we have our referendum To colleagues and fellow member states, clear and the Latvian or Luxembourg referenda go the presentation of the case is of course a separate matter. wrong way. What would then happen in this country? Can the Minister say what steps the Government are What would happen to our position in the European taking to communicate this simple prescription, and Union and the world? All four stages have to be gone to date which measure of European consensus may through and it is crazy to lay down a deadline now, in have been achieved? advance—a point which I think is almost bound to To some extent the distinction between renegotiation come back in Committee. and reform is semantic. In other respects it is extremely I turn to my point about perceptions. This concerns important. No doubt the aim of single market completion what foreigners think. I do not know what all foreigners is already common ground, but many other aspects think but those whom I meet—I am sorry but from are not. Over them, and with our European partners, time to time I do meet some—find this all very puzzling. progress will continue to demand constant diplomacy, They are waiting for the British proposals. They are and by us a determined programme of give and take. sorry that the British seem to be slightly out of the Another shared perception is that reform will revitalise game and will clearly be staying out of the game for European democracy. If so, what different role do the another 18 months. It is their treaty too and they all Government envisage for national Parliaments? Internally, need to get ratified whatever changes we secure. We within regions and communities, how far will they need to buy their consent and they need to get their advocate and promote more active citizenship, and publics to buy it. They find it very odd that this Bill externally, in what ways will they encourage working appears to be slightly slanted towards producing a no synergies between different European cities and localities? vote and that it appears to lay down a deadline which There is also the connection between reform of the they know—because they are going to be in the IGC European Union of 27 states and that of the Council and the convention—is impossible. of Europe of 47 states, of whose Parliament I have the They are beginning to wonder about our motives honour to be a member. Does the Minister agree that and about why the Prime Minister, in the year since the Council of Europe’s much respected and necessary the Bloomberg speech, has not filled out the speech or functions in human rights and the rule of law ought to produced anything to follow it up. They are beginning remain as they are and thus should not be tampered to find it very sad that the party of Peter Carrington, with by a reformed European Union? Not least is that Alec Douglas-Home, Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher so owing to the Council of Europe’s link to the Court is behind this kind of Bill, which they find, as a of Human Rights, and in political democracy, owing minimum, surprising. They suspect our motives. This to that institution’s unprecedented achievement which has an immediate effect. I am talking not merely about has managed to put state and citizen on an equal the future but about today and our negotiating clout footing. in Brussels. Eleven months ago, Herman Van Rompuy, Nevertheless, a European Union reform process the President of the European Council, came to London can now considerably benefit from that of the Council and made a speech at the Guildhall in which he of Europe. The latter, for example, has recently slimmed warned us about the effect of our present position on its bureaucracy and, for the first time in its history, in our negotiating clout in Brussels. He asked us: real terms cut its budget. Also, in common with the “How do you convince a room full of people, when you keep Council of Europe, a reformed European Union should your hand on the door handle? How to encourage a friend to now seek to advance those things that really matter to change, if your eyes are searching for your coat?”. individual people. Equally, it must come to sharpen its He was right. This Bill is not just nugatory; it is also focus upon what it does well and upon areas where, for noxious because it increases that perception abroad. the British and European citizen, it can have proper meaning and impact.

3.38 pm 3.42 pm The Earl of Dundee (Con): My Lords, on his Lord Berkeley (Lab): My Lords, I shall not detain introduction of this Bill, I join with others in warmly the House very long but, having listened to virtually congratulating my noble friend Lord Dobbs. all the speeches in this debate, I am, first, surprised at 1821 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1822

[LORD BERKELEY] narrow issue of whether or not to have a referendum the lack of supportive speeches from the Tories for the on the country remaining inside the European Union. Bill and, secondly, I am still not persuaded why we We need to have more thought on this issue than we need the Bill at all. have had. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, mentioned the war. British politics has always seemed to me to be a I hope that we are not going to go onto the war garden, with many diverse streams, rockeries and rose again—I shall not—but I go back to when I lived in beds, but also animals, including monsters. The referendum Romania in the 1970s in the communist period and is the monster which we have now discovered, to our was struck by the complete lack of liberty of all the surprise, is in our garden. I agree with the noble Lord, people who lived there. The European Union has Lord Oakeshott, on the subject of referenda. He seemed given eastern Europe liberty and peace and we must to place the position of the monster of a referendum never forget that. We need only look at what is going very clearly. I largely agree with what he said and on in Ukraine at the moment to reflect on whether regret that I also agree with, and realise the importance they will or will not come. of, what the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said when he My interest now is, and has been for many years, in talked about the role of referenda in Northern Ireland. the single market and in particular in the rail sector. A referendum is a curiously foreign concept to all Some 40% or 50% of our trade is with the European political philosophers whom we know about. We talk Union now. Of course, we can gain a great deal of of Burke, Peel, John Stuart Mill, Salisbury and even benefit from the rail industry exporting and from train Churchill and Disraeli. None of them has anything to operators—particularly passenger ones but also some say about referendums—or referenda—and all of us freight ones—operating on the continent. are obliged, when we look up the subject in encyclopaedias, to rely on the Swiss or, perhaps, if we are lucky, When you get into negotiations with the Commission Napoleon III. Noble Lords may say that the names I and other member states you find many of the other have mentioned are from very long ago but, nevertheless, member states—the big ones, France and Germany, most of us would think that the definition of the come to mind—blocking everyone else coming in. relationship between a Member of Parliament and his They are obstructing the single market and the constituents was put better by Edmund Burke than by Commission, bless its heart, is doing a great job in anyone else. Mr Callaghan—Lord Callaghan as he infraction proceedings. However, the point I am making was known for so long in this House—said more or is that with all this trade potential we could do an less the same thing in 1975 when he pointed out that awful lot more. Parliament makes decisions, not the people. The smaller member states, in particular, look to us We have not discussed, in this debate, in what as an example and for support and leadership, as the circumstances the adventure of a referendum should noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just said. This will all stop be embarked on. At some point, as the noble Lord, if we leave. If we want trade, we will have to conform Lord Spicer, said, the British people have to be consulted. to their standards, which of course they set to protect But is a referendum really better than an election? The their own domestic industry, not European industry. noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, would not agree. The As I have said, the French and the Germans are risks of a referendum in normal circumstances are particularly good at this. We will probably lose an very considerable. What would the public have said awful lot of our trade and exports. about the question of a referendum on capital punishment, When the Government have decided what it is they membership of NATO, or support for Israel or Iran? want to renegotiate—which, as I said, is not clear to All those are issues on which the public would be me—I hope that they will negotiate from the inside. entitled to insist on a strong point of view. They should do it not in an arrogant way—it is not as I recall two statements made in relation to the if we are still a global empire, addressing one of our referendum of 1975. First, Harold Wilson said that small colonies—but as one member among equals. We the decision in consequence of the campaign would will go a long way that way, but let us do it from the have to be final and binding. We all realise that the inside and forget about this Bill completely. reverse happened. Lord Callaghan said in his memoirs that, in the end, he looked on the referendum as a life 3.45 pm raft on which both sides in the Labour Party might Lord Thomas of Swynnerton (CB): My Lords, I take refuge. In the end, they both did. have been a supporter of Britain being in Europe ever 3.50 pm since I was at Cambridge and I had the honour and duty of showing Mr Robert Schuman around the Lord Howe of Aberavon (Con): My Lords, I university. Mr Schuman wanted to talk about religion, contemplated making a comment on what the noble while I wanted to talk about politics. We are not Lord, Lord Thomas, raised just now but on further talking today about the benefits or disadvantages of reflection I think my comment would be a diversion. I membership of the European Union—we shall had better restrain myself and allow the House to presumably leave that until later, to our campaign in proceed without any further ado. relation to this referendum. Most of us are concerned about the need for radical revision of the rules and 3.51 pm practices of the European Union, something which Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab): My Lords, has not really divided us today either, and we look I place it on record that those of us who wish to forward to having elaborate discussions on the matter consider this Bill properly are not defying the will of later on. We are instead concerned with the very the Commons. Also, at least one noble Lord referred 1823 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1824 to the fact that by agreeing to a Second Reading, the party political. It is not a government Bill, it is certainly House would accept the principle of the Bill. That is not an opposition Bill; it is a Bill of the Conservative not true. I accept the conventions and accept that this Party. Bill should have a Second Reading. I also believe that In the past—certainly during my membership of it ought to be revised in many ways. All the issues—such the Liberal Democrats—we have been accused of being as who votes and when the timing of the vote is the party that obsesses about Europe. We were always right—need to be debated in depth by your Lordships. accused of putting Europe or discussion about If there is to be a referendum, some of the most internationalism first and our own nation second. As recent speeches would indicate that there needs to be a party, we have grown up. We have gone through that widespread public explanation and debate about the adolescent stage. We are now a party of government, complementary but differing roles of the Council of but a party that puts things in proportion. I regret that Europe and the European Union. Far too many people our coalition partners seem to have gone in the opposite confuse the two. Among those who are asked about direction in terms of obsession which, together with continuing membership of the European Union, many our popular press, gives a very tempting and addictive of the replies are actually to do with the Council of formula that means that the issue of Europe starts to Europe and not with the Union. I enjoyed the speech dominate our politics in a negative fashion. of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, enormously. Of course, Some of the most interesting e-mails I get, which all the changes that he thought should, might or does not go into my junk e-mail box, come from a would be introduced are already protected under the member of my fellow coalition party, the noble Lord, 2011 Act because they involve revision of treaties. Lord Ashcroft. He does some very interesting polling, The most important thing that has been debated is which I am sure all of us in this House read. I the perception of Britain’s allies in the European congratulate the noble Lord on making his information Union. In a very minor way, I had experience of public. He wrote: that—the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was present—as “As I found in my research … Europe is not much of a priority a founder member of the Committee of the Regions. even for those who say they might vote”, The first thing I learnt was that to secure agreement in for us; a pan-European forum one had to speak quietly, build “the EU is just one of the (many) things they are cross about”. alliances, listen to people’s concerns and consider the He continues: needs of northern Europe, central Europe, centralised “For most voters … Europe barely registers on their list of countries, decentralised countries, small countries and concerns”. large countries. Our Prime Minister will have to do Those are the poll findings of the noble Lord, Lord that to secure any sort of hope of getting agreement to Ashcroft. changes. That is a painstaking situation. It is not What are those other concerns? The economy and something secured by grandstanding or throwing down jobs, welfare payments, migration, which is related to the gauntlet in advance. Europe, the deficit and the National Health Service. Like virtually everyone who has spoken, I believe As someone who believes in democracy and, in some that aspects of current European Union policy and ways, in Parliament reflecting public views, I might practice do not always work in the interests of this ask: what about all those constituencies who want country. However, to look at the interests of this important decisions, whether different decisions or to country in a calm, rational way, one has to have regard endorse decisions on those areas? I see no request for to the timing of political events. The Bill looks at the referenda in those areas. I therefore question why this timing of political events in this country. We are not issue is quite so urgent as to bring a Bill to this alone in having political events; political events are Parliament at this time. occurring all the time. I cannot find it in my heart to I will clarify the Liberal Democrat position again. accept any argument that we here ought to agree that My noble friend Lord Watson of Richmond did that other people will fall into line with our timing, our absolutely adequately but there seem to be some questions needs and our wishes just to suit a Bill which has not about it. Before I do that, let me move on to two other even got the title of a government Bill. things. A number of proponents of the Bill have said I am pleased to be speaking towards the end of the that we should not in any way contest the sovereignty debate. I did not expect to be in a meeting discussing of the House of Commons. Clearly, that is a good the details of Tory manifesto commitments, how they principle. However, I remind a number of those were worked out in the past and they will be worked proponents that there was a Second Reading vote in out in future. I would say that I leave this debate pretty the last Session of Parliament which had a parliamentary startled. I have heard many subjects repeated, rightfully majority of 338. That was for the House of Lords at length, in your Lordships’ Chamber. I ask those Reform Bill. Why did that not come into this House? noble Lords who have always fought for the interests It was because a cabal of Back-Benchers within the of the CBI and the financial status of the City of Conservative Party had a discussion with the Prime London: where were you? Minister and that Bill went no further whatever. So I question the sanctity of majorities in the other House. I believe they are important, but in that case it certainly 3.56 pm did not happen. Lord Teverson (LD): My Lords, the noble Lord, In terms of amendments to the Bill, I, too, agree Lord Stoddart, made the interesting comment that that until this House is abolished or changed—I would this issue is not party political. I agree that the fundamental certainly welcome a change—it needs to carry out its issue is not party political, but the Bill is completely responsibilities. We are always reminded of the Dangerous 1825 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1826

[LORD TEVERSON] will be one from each side of the House. I single out Dogs Act and the bad legislation that has been passed, those noble Lords because they made good points although maybe some Members of the other place that, remarkably, have not been made by anyone else, would see it more as the dangerous frogs Act in this and they each drew the wrong conclusion from them. case, given the difficulties that we have with some of The first point was made by the noble Lord, Lord our European partners. Kinnock, who alone referred to the importance of What is the Liberal Democrat position? First, I banking, finance and the City of London to the make it absolutely clear that our manifesto in 2010 said: British economy, and the relevance of the regulatory “Liberal Democrats … remain committed to an in/out referendum proposals that are coming out of Brussels that will the next time a British government signs up for fundamental affect us. However, he then said that if there is something change in the relationship between the UK and the EU”. we do not like there, we can veto it. I have to tell the We pretty well have that now in legislation, having noble Lord and indeed the House that we simply worked with our coalition colleagues to deliver it cannot do so. This is a very serious point because in through this House. We were successful as a coalition my opinion the destiny of this country is not European; in passing that legislation. We as a party have always it is global. In the City of London, we have one of the said that it needs to be about not just that treaty but an only two global financial centres, and it is the only one “in or out” question. I suspect that my coalition in the European time zone, which is tremendously colleagues would agree with that as well. We are important. I have to tell noble Lords, and to some it united; so I question the need for the Bill. might come as a shock, that even if we were to leave We also agree that Europe requires change and the European Union we would still be within the reform, whether on budget expenditure, the ridiculous European time zone. Our global reach is particularly situation of having two parliamentary seats, the important—this point has frequently been made by common agricultural policy or employment issues. my noble friend Lord Howell—given the great There is also the obtaining of all those worldwide free opportunities that will continue to arise in the coming trade agreements, such as the one with North America. decades in the emerging world. That started with Canada and we wish now to conclude The other point was made by my old friend— I do it with the United States. All those are important but not see him here but I am sure he is—my noble friend we need to negotiate with our 27 other partners. We Lord Garel-Jones. Oh, he is here. He likes to come saw under the fiscal pact back in December 2011 what close to me, I know. He made the important point that happens when you tell your partners that you will do there needs to be a debate about how we as a nation something different—they will go off and get on with are going to conduct ourselves should there be a it themselves, except maybe for the Czech Republic on referendum and should we choose out. That needs to that occasion. We were then isolated and that is not be considered. His mistake was to say that we will be the way to approach these matters. I suggest that there in the position of Norway. No way Norway! I have a is also a golden rule in negotiation: that you do not high regard for Norway and the Norwegians. I got to insult the citizens of the nations that you are trying to know them very well when I was Secretary of State for negotiate with, because internal conversations and Energy and we had a lot of discussions about North debates within the United Kingdom are looked upon Sea oil, which we shared. They were very amicable carefully in other member states. discussions and I was immensely impressed by the The key issue at the moment is that, yes, we will at calibre of the Norwegians. But Norway is a very small some point have to have a referendum about the EU. country while we are a pretty sizeable one, and anyone That is a Liberal Democrat policy and I believe in it who is as interested in realpolitik as my noble friend strongly. We need to lance that boil. We also need a will know the enormous difference. negotiation which is led through real leadership to show that we are a European nation that can meet the Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, will my noble friend expectations of our partners, let alone our own. So we give way? should show real leadership, obtain a real negotiation and a real improvement for all of Europe. Rather than Lord Lawson of Blaby: No, I do not have time to having a referendum now, we can achieve one then. I give way. am sure that it will be positive, but I am also willing to take the risk that it might be negative. Noble Lords: Oh! 4.05 pm Lord Lawson of Blaby: If I may add this, official Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con): My Lords, I am sure demographic projections suggest that within a few that the whole House will be delighted that we are years’ time, because of the declining population of close to the end of what has been a very long debate. It Germany and the increasing population of the UK, has been a good one, with a number of very interesting this country will be the largest in Europe in population contributions. A number of noble Lords have referred terms. Even now, the Americans are interested in a to the problem of those British subjects who live on free trade agreement with the EU, and I hope that this the continent of Europe. As someone who lives in happens. Even today, before we are as big as we are France, I strongly support the principle of this Bill so likely to become, exports from the rest of the EU to ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Dobbs. the UK are even greater than exports from the rest of Among the other contributions—unfortunately, there the EU to the United States. We are an even more is not time to mention many—I shall refer to two. To important market than it is, so to compare us with show my complete and customary impartiality, there Norway is ludicrous. 1827 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1828

Another argument which has been raised is that we views. However, even given the nuances of those views, should not have a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord I think I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it is Thomas, was very much against referenda. In most still roughly 2:1 in favour of those who do not support cases, that is a perfectly valid argument, but not in this an unamended Bill. I will settle for 2:1 every average case. I recall my maiden speech in your Lordships’ weekend. House some 20 years ago. The subject on which I I doubt that my role today is to seduce Lord Cormack, made it was an amendment proposed by Lord Blake or indeed any others, but I will certainly have a go at it. calling for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, Lord Blake was a distinguished political historian and will undoubtedly, over the years, make people reflect a very eminent constitutional authority. He was an old on his courage. It is a poor Bill and it is a Trojan Bill. I friend of mine. When I was an undergraduate at suspect it has the unintended benefit of making us Oxford his were among the very few lectures I bothered address some fundamental questions. I suspect it will to go to. He set out with constitutional propriety why also have the intended or unintended disbenefit of this was the kind of issue on which it was appropriate edging us still further towards exit from Europe, whether to have a referendum. that is a declared intention or not. Noble Lords ask why now, as there has been no Some of our questions go to the heart of why so specific change. There has been a huge change, a sea many accession nations, starting with poor rule of law, change, in the nature of the European Union since the a lack of democracy, overweening state bureaucracy 1975 referendum. It is not just the passage of time. I and no viable markets, have sought to bring all these agree with noble Lords who think that that alone is deficiencies to an end in order to join the EU. I share not a reason for having a referendum, but the people with my noble friend Lord Giddens the view that they of this country want a referendum and they are right have also understood the unstoppable progress to because of the huge change that has come about peace in Europe, historically one of the most bloodstained following the creation of the European monetary union continents in the world. In every case, I believe those and the political consequences of that decision. This is countries have honed in on the paramount issue: what fundamental. People say there is now no specific event is right for their nation? So should we this afternoon. which would trigger a referendum. The fact is that a major and fundamental change, even if it is incremental, What is right for the people of the United Kingdom? is still major and fundamental. There does not need to I have a preference; of course I do. I want the United be some specific event to warrant a referendum on the Kingdom to remain part of a non-nationalistic and issue. peaceful Europe. However, the Bill would impose on Some 25 years ago, when I was Chancellor, I warned that decision an arbitrary date for a referendum, which in a speech at Chatham House how fundamental it is why it is imperative to weigh the evidence. It gives a would be were the countries of Europe, who were fixed year for a referendum, come what may. Is that thinking about it, to move to a monetary union and the optimum position for the people of the United what the enormous political consequences would be. Kingdom? That has happened, and it has been disastrous, but The case for the United Kingdom’s continued there it is. However, there are consequences not just membership is better than strong. Putting it at risk for those countries which are members of the eurozone. seems unwise. Starting a process that is likely to lead It has changed fundamentally the nature of the to exit by fixing the date in this way is still worse. relationship between this country, which rightly decided Indeed, continuing membership of the EU was so not to join the common currency, and those countries compelling that, at the previous general election, nobody that are part of the eurozone. That is a fundamental thought to raise it in the way that it has been described change. This divergence is going to increase. There is in either of the major party manifestos. There was no no way that we can stop that unless we are prepared to mention at all of an “in or out” referendum. Nor did embrace the common currency, which I do not think the coalition mention it in its agreement. I think we any of us, or very few of us, with the exception of the have heard a decent explanation of the Lib Dems’ noble Lord, Lord Davies, wishes to do. position at that time in the course of today’s debate. We are now in a position where a referendum is Our national interest is about our ability to earn called for. Indeed, I have reached the careful conclusion our living in a complex world. It is about families that we would be considerably better off outside the having the opportunity for prosperity rather than tumbling European Union. I wrote this in a long article in the standards of living. It is about the best education that Times in May last year. I was reassured to see that that we can afford and the healthiest population that we article was followed by a column in the Financial can create. It is about dignity and decent standards in Times by its most perceptive European columnist, the old age. It is about all those things because only a German Wolfgang Münchau. He wrote his article sound trading economy can generate the wealth that under the excellent heading, “Lord Lawson is right”. I can deliver them. It is about the values of a decent commend it to the House. society. It is about fairness and is opposed to the unfairness that always accelerates when we see any 4.14 pm corrosion or downgrading of an economy. The interests Lord Triesman (Lab): My Lords, it has been a long of the United Kingdom seem straightforward enough and remarkable Friday, not least perhaps for the to me. extraordinary role that a Private Member’s Bill has Indeed, there has been a long-standing consensus taken up. This is an issue that has generated 68 speeches, on the issue. That was clearly expressed by Sir John which were bound to demonstrate widely divergent Major recently—a leader who had at least won a 1829 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1830

[LORD TRIESMAN] mega-decibel level in the Conservative Party, largely general election and had dealt with some volcanic giving rise to problems of party management, that has anti-Europeans in his party—who said: “I’m not in now come to trump national interest. favour of Mr Wharton’s Bill”. He said that his party Let us in this House, therefore, consider this. There should focus on taxes, jobs, education, health and will probably be some economic turbulence for some living standards. He recognised that in a world of time to come—possibly, even probably, including major 7 billion, the EU was the closest and largest of the anxieties about unemployment, household incomes trading groups drawing together that offered us any and acute pressure on pensions. The British people kind of option—an option that simply would not be may be asked whether to leave the EU in circumstances available, in his words, “for our island”. that might lose another 3.5 million jobs, which would In that Sir John Major echoes the CBI, which, like be at stake, and they might reflect on whether an all of us, most certainly sees the case for reform in invigorated trade with North America and the Asians Europe and the development of more appropriate would make us more prosperous in what has been institutions but which is clear that leaving the EU described as potentially the Asian century. All of that would be catastrophic for our economy and for jobs will be at play during the course of 1917—or, rather, and that the EU provides global leverage that we, on 2017. It was probably at stake in 1917 as well—we our own, cannot exercise. He echoes business leaders have not come very far, have we? That will be very such as Sir Martin Sorrell, Sir Richard Branson and likely to turn into a referendum on the Government of very many others, leaders to whom we look for the the day or on any of the dissatisfactions that emerge energy to fuel economic recovery. I know that not all during tough financial times. business leaders take exactly that view, but it is fair to The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, say that an overwhelming proportion of them do. He on all the other events of 2017 are all absolutely echoes what has been said by businesses such as Nissan, fundamental to understanding whether progress can which has been quoted several times today, which be made. Of course, there is always uncertainty. I described its remarkable Sunderland plant as, think that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said at the “a very competitive plant, it’s a very productive plant and it’s a beginning, “In a world of uncertainty, why not 2017? European plant”— There is always uncertainty”. I hope that I do not not just simply a plant in the United Kingdom. misquote him. About a week ago, commenting on whether we are The point is surely to choose the time that is least now in a period of economic recovery—we will see likely to rack up the degree of uncertainty, plainly set whether that is true over time—the Chancellor cautioned out by business for us and by many others, or a time the whole country, saying that the job was not yet half when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of done. I will take him at his word, not argue about the day can feel most confident that the interests of whether we are making progress. This, then, is a period the nation will be properly served and resolved. It does when uncertainties and instabilities are best avoided. not drain uncertainty to have the date 2017; it makes Two days ago, a sober analysis of our major banks uncertainty a certainty. As far as possible, it is our suggested that there is a further £28 billion hole in obligation to try to measure certainty and mitigate their far-from-repaired balance sheets. The problems uncertainty. of lending and the cost of lending are still serious issues. The costs of maintaining and building small I said earlier that the case for reform in Europe is and medium enterprises still rise. Europe, where we powerful. There are issues that should and must be already have less influence in its financial institutions, addressed, such as democratic enlargement, managing has a long way to go to achieve overall stability. That is enlargement itself, the push for more liberalised services another instability that impacts on us. Who knows sectors, the budget, mechanisms for changing Community where all this will be at some arbitrary date in 2017? law and so on. It is not difficult to identify a reform agenda, but I would start by trying to reform eurospeak, It may be that, with the unresolved issues, the party which is a form of language that I do not personally speech that was given by David Cameron when he understand—and I am not sure that I have ever met became leader of his party will now come to be seen as anyone from Tottenham who did. very significant. He told his party that they had been locked in a dispute. People have been quoting the part The fact is that any kind of negotiation on these about banging on about Europe, but the beginning of issues will not be helped by an arbitrary timetable with the quote is more interesting. He said that they had for a difficult background, which, as I have said, we are too long been locked in a dispute about being in the very likely to face. It is always easier for the negotiator EU. While normal people, who has no time constraints than the one who has to “worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing perform to time constraints, and those of us who have work and family life, we were banging on about Europe”. earned our living over the years as negotiators know that only too well. The silence from the Government I can tell the House that, as a rather elderly dad of a on this is alarming. I do not prejudge Mr Cameron’s young child here late on a Friday afternoon, I think I future work in negotiations, although I am not optimistic, know what he means. In November 2011, the Foreign as noble Lords can tell. I always want success for any Secretary said that, negotiator who goes to negotiate for our country. I “a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU … at this time observe only that Mr Cameron has taken on this task of profound economic uncertainty, is not the answer”. in the least propitious circumstances that could be He then developed the case very cogently. Therefore, created. It is a millstone that he bears from Tory EU although there is internal dissension, which has reached history. Labour itself had a difficult history—it was 1831 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1832

40 years ago, and I remember it well. My own trade In deference to my noble friends in the Liberal union told me to vote no, but I voted yes. It is clear Democrats, I must say that I am not speaking for the that our European partners are becoming tetchier whole coalition. As will be obvious to the House, I am with us all the time. speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party. Two There are a number of faults in the text that we years ago we passed the European Union Act 2011 to have to consider, but I shall not go through them, as ensure that no Government could agree to transfer they have already been mentioned. But I suspect that areas of power from Britain to the EU without a all colleagues on all Benches believe that saying that referendum. Sadly, at that time, as we see now, it was any attempt to make this Bill better will “Kill the Bill” met with complete indecision from the Opposition, is gratuitous hyperbole. Proper scrutiny and amendment who resolutely and bravely abstained. However, support are the central purpose of this House, and the purpose for it, especially now from the noble Lord, Lord will be served without any impropriety. There is no Liddle, is welcome. Two years on, they have adopted possibility of any amendment making that worse in our policy and we are pleased that they have done so. terms of our process and practice. A Private Member’s Today, with this Bill, we discover a similar wave of Bill on a take-it-or-leave-it basis could lead only to one indecision on the opposition Benches. I certainly look conclusion, which has been expressed in the House forward to a time when they could possibly adopt our today—a very dark conclusion, which would be a current position as well. disaster for this House. The Government have at least The two points that we have heard from noble 14 months to get it right, and there is no point in Lords many times today are, first, about proper scrutiny blaming anyone else for the difficulties of timing. of the Bill and, secondly, about the clear will that has They can use the time properly if they wish to, and can been expressed by the other place. I will briefly remind take account of the decisions that may be taken in this noble Lords of the very large majorities on votes in House. The odds are that we would not produce a the other place: at Second Reading, 275 and 304; on wrecking policy for the future of our people. Report, 257, 261, 290 and 299, to list but a few. On many occasions, the numbers passing through the Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con): Before the noble other Division Lobbies did not rise even to double Lord sits down, could he clarify for the benefit of the figures. The other place had six Committee days, three House whether Labour is in favour of an “in or out” Report days—many hours to scrutinise the Bill and referendum, or is it keeping its options open? many hours for opponents of the Bill to table an amendment to kill the Bill if they, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thought that I had Lord Tomlinson, said today, opposed it vigorously, or collapsed then, let alone sat down. If there is to be to table and vote for amendments which now exercise such a referendum, or consideration of one, it will be noble Lords, especially those on the Labour and indeed at a time that does not wreck our economy. the Liberal Democrat Benches. But we did not see that there. 4.29 pm No institution can survive without the support of The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities the people. The EU needs reform if it is to be and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth democratically sustainable for all its members, which Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con): My Lords, the noble it will not be if ever greater centralisation sucks ever Lord, Lord Grocott, spoke today about Alice in Wonderland more powers from its member states. As the Dutch and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to “tea Government recently said, parties”, but the quality of the debate, the expertise, “the time of an ‘ever closer union’ in every possible policy area is the experience and the humour have not allowed my behind us”, concentration to wander on to thoughts of Mad Hatters, and they are right. Our policy, therefore, is to seek Cheshire Cats and cream cakes. reform so that the EU can be more competitive and When I first joined your Lordships’ House many flexible for the modern age so that powers can come years ago, I was told that it was good practice to back to the countries of the European Union and so acknowledge most people’s contributions when you that national Parliaments—the indispensable vessels stand to respond to a debate. Six and a half hours of democracy—can have a more powerful role and put after we started, even at the speed at which I can the decision in the hands of the British people. This speak—and I can speak at speed—I could not realistically Bill does that. That is why every Member of this refer to the dozens of excellent contributions that we House who is a true democrat can and should unite have heard today. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords behind the Bill. It is about letting the people decide. will be understanding. My noble friend Lord Dobbs is This is not a pro-Europe Bill or an anti-Europe Bill; to be applauded for introducing the Bill, and for his it is a pro-democracy Bill. It will finally enable the excellent speech. Huge numbers of people across this British people to have their say on one of the greatest country, as well as in this House, will thank him for it. questions facing our country. The last time the public The matter before us is about Europe’s future, our had their say was nearly 40 years ago. Since then, the country’s place in it and, above all, democracy. It is Common Market has become something that nobody about giving the people of this country the decisive could have envisaged. We are convinced that we can say that is their right. At a time of profound change in negotiate a fresh settlement, and it should be up to the Europe and scepticism about Europe across Europe, British people to decide whether they want to be in or the Bill could give the British people the power to out. decide one of the greatest questions facing Britain: Those who like the EU as it is—not me, but evidently whether we should be in the EU or out of it. some on the Labour Benches—can campaign to see 1833 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1834

[BARONESS WARSI] However, we have heard neither from the Labour the EU regain its democratic legitimacy in this country. Party nor from our friends in the Liberal Democrats Those, like me, who want to see Britain succeed in definitively whether or not they will have a referendum reforming the EU can see what success we have in commitment in their manifestos. My sense is that both changing it and then put that choice to the people. will eventually move to their position, which is why Those who want Britain to leave the EU, come what their objections to the Bill today, I think, leave a bad may, will also have the chance to persuade the British taste. people. Ultimately it would be up to the voters to decide and that is the essence of democracy. That is Lord Grenfell: Is the noble Baroness asking us to why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister believe that there is not one single flaw in the Bill? Is said that in 2015 we, the Conservative Party claiming a kind of papal infallibility that cannot be changed? “will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative Government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament”. Baroness Warsi: My Lords, my point is that we have heard clearly from neither the Labour Front Bench I have stood at this Dispatch Box on numerous nor the Liberal Democrats whether, at the next election, occasions and spoken about the benefits of EU the question of a referendum will or will not be in membership but also about how much better the EU their manifesto. could be: more competitive, more flexible and more democratically accountable. It is in that vein that we Baroness Falkner of Margravine: Forgive me; my have been ambitious about reform. noble friend cannot have heard me correctly. I sketched The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, can be optimistic. out the point that, since 1995, we have had a commitment There can be no doubt about our commitment to to a referendum in every Liberal Democrat manifesto. reform. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister At this point, we may not know what will be happening is tirelessly, in this Parliament, never mind the next in 2015 and are therefore not going to disclose the one, going around Europe making sure that this country content of our manifesto to the noble Baroness. However, gets what it needs. The Opposition do not have a we have a consistent record of having done so, which policy to reform the EU but we do, and we are is more than I can say for the noble Baroness’s party. pursuing it. Labour never cut the EU budget, but we already have. Labour signed us up to eurozone bailouts, Baroness Warsi: I am delighted to hear my noble and the Prime Minister has got us out of them. friend talk about this commitment being in every Labour surrendered part of the rebate; the Prime single manifesto. I hope that, in that vein, she can Minister has never surrendered part of the rebate. persuade her colleagues to support the Bill. Noble Lords can rest assured that my right honourable The Bill boils down simply to giving the people of friend the Prime Minister is well equipped to go around this country a choice. If noble Lords were not to Europe preserving our national interest. support the Bill, it would be a double blow to democracy: an unelected Chamber preventing the people having It has been said by a number of noble Lords that their say. The mandate from another place was now is not the right time, that the uncertainty would overwhelming, and it reflected the huge public support not be right and that the date is not the right date. for a referendum. The public will see through any There is already uncertainty.Public calls for a referendum attempts to scupper the Bill. They will see it at politicians are growing. I refer noble Lords to a UN survey, blocking their right to decide. This is the right question published only months ago, which said that, despite at the right time, and it is right that we should finally the debate in the United Kingdom, in the first half of let Britain decide. 2013 the UK attracted more foreign direct investment than anywhere else in the world. Ernst & Young 4.40 pm reported last year that the UK attracted nearly a fifth Lord Dobbs: My Lords, I congratulate this House of all European foreign direct investment in 2012. on what has been an exceptional day and an exceptional There is a question out there, and that question needs debate. I thank every Member of this House for their to be answered. patience, their courtesy and their commitment. It has Some of the debate we have had today has been on been a long day—nearly seven hours. I have been here the question that would be put on the paper, on the for every minute of that. constitutional position and the binding of a future Parliament. Some of the debate has focused on trading Noble Lords: Hear, hear! quotes of what different Members from different parties have said at different times. There has been some Lord Dobbs: I am reminded of the politician who questioning of motivation, but I can say that the said, “Always speak with a full bladder to be sure that, number of speakers, the interest both inside and outside even if your audience falls asleep, you won’t”. How Parliament, the passion and deeply held views all right he is. show that this is an important political issue of our I started off this debate by suggesting that no party time. Some, like my noble friend Lord Oakeshott of has an unblemished record on this European issue and Seagrove Bay, said that there was no need for a Bill I shall not, at this late hour, follow those who have because it could be dealt with in manifestos at the next dashed down the narrow party-political path. Let me general election. Well, I can say on behalf of the deal with some points, starting with that made by the Conservative Party that, in our manifesto, there will noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, the noble Lords, Lord be a commitment to have a referendum. Grocott and Lord Turnbull, and others that this 1835 European Union (Referendum) Bill[10 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1836

Parliament cannot tell future Parliaments what to do. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, echoed by the We tell them all the time what to do. We have told noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about the Bill holding them in this very Session of Parliament that they will the Prime Minister’s feet to the fire. It is not; it is have their next election in May 2020. The constitutional strengthening his elbow. That is how he sees it. That is principle behind all this is very clear: if they do not why he is a pro-European. He wants reform and has like it, they change it. That is the way to deal with it, already achieved so much in that regard. It is not a and that is the way in which we will deal with the process that has not yet begun; it is already under way. emotional deficit to which the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, It also shows the public that their disillusion has been so eloquently referred. noted, their voice has been heard and there will be no The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, spoke about more broken electoral promises about Europe, of which Gibraltar. Gibraltar is part of the South West England we are all guilty. constituency. Gibraltarians have a vote in our European On the Benches opposite much has been made of elections. Their relationship with the EU is entirely how a referendum putting the “in or out” question dependent on our membership of the EU and it is before the people will cause rampant uncertainty. In only right that they should be included in this Bill. fact, listening to some speeches, I thought that it The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, mentioned Norway. would be the end of civilisation. I think that the noble Its arrangement is not an alternative that I would Baroness, Lady Goudie, and the noble Lords, Lord happen to support. Although I agreed with much of Whitty, Lord Watson, Lord Monks, Lord Inglewood, what he said, he will understand that I do not agree Lord Lea and Lord Mandelson, all echoed that point. with every word. I have nothing more to say on that. I think that the Let me turn to the franchise, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has said it all for me. If a noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott and Lord Shipley, the noble referendum were to cause such uncertainty, is it the Baroness, Lady Suttie, and many others. The points case, then, that we can never have a referendum and that have been made about the franchise and extending take the risk of asking the people? I do not hear many it are of course arguable, and I have some sympathy Members of this House suggesting that, but that is the with some of those representations, but all these matters logic of their case. I am still left wondering why the are a balance—we always have to draw a line somewhere Opposition and the Liberal Democrats simply did not on them. The arrangements in the Bill are not unfair. seek to divide the House of Commons on the Bill. What would be unfair would be to hide behind this Much has been made of the role of this House. The issue to deny everyone a vote. Similarly with the wording noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Bowness, Lord Grenfell, of the question, mentioned by so many noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Thomas, all made very including the noble Lords, Lord Radice, Lord Crisp eloquent speeches on this. A long list of noble Lords and Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lord Bowness, of huge experience have offered their views, and some and very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. have warned about the dangers that might be in store The Electoral Commission has not declared that the for this House if we mishandle this very difficult and proposed question is unfair. It says that it is simple delicate matter: for instance, the noble Lord, Lord and easy to understand. It has concerns that a few Strathclyde—no one comes with a longer pedigree might be confused and might not be aware that we are than his—the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, Lord members of the European Union. That is a matter of MacGregor, Lord King, Lord Wakeham and Lord judgment. Whether that confusion would remain after Spicer, the noble Marquis, Lord Lothian, and, from the lengthy and fiercely fought referendum campaign I the Cross Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart happen to doubt. Tellingly, the Electoral Commission and Lord Kakkar. One of our newer Members, the was unable to come with a single alternative but noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein—I enjoyed his words— instead has offered two. expressed his views most amusingly and we heard a I have been struck by how many passionate pro- most powerful speech from my noble friend Lord Europeans are in favour of this Bill, not just Sir John Cormack. Major, whom I have mentioned, and the Prime Minister but the noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Balfe and I do not think I can add to what has been said Lord Cormack. Many other passionate Europeans, except to say that it would be a tragedy if we were to because they are passionate Europeans, oppose the find ourselves appearing to adopt a position of Peers Bill—like the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. Those who versus the people. It would be a desperately uncomfortable truly believe in the European Union should embrace and damaging position to be in at a time when the this Bill with every ounce of their energy, because it is reputation of this House is already under attack almost the best way, and perhaps the only way, to cement the weekly in parts of the media. European Union in the hearts and minds of the people. The hour is late. I apologise to those whose views I Of course, I forgive the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for simply have not had time to mention effectively. I mishearing me this morning while he was splashing thank all noble Lords who took the time and attention about in his morning bath. to contribute to this debate. It has all been said by The view has been expressed that 2017 is not the almost everyone, and now by me. The noble Lord, right time for a referendum. That was mentioned by Lord Anderson, was reminded of Metternich, although many noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Jay, Lord I think actually he was talking about Talleyrand. Tomlinson, Lord Roper and Lord Taverne, and the However, I have in mind Mary Tudor: 456 years ago noble Baronesses, Lady Quin and Lady Falkner—but this week, Britain lost its last foothold on the European if not then, when? Answer comes there none. We all continent after the siege of Calais. The Queen said know that for many the answer is never. that when she died they would find “Calais” engraved 1837 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1838

[LORD DOBBS] Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee on her heart. I think that when my time has come, they of the Whole House. might well open me up and find this Bill engraved on my heart. In that spirit, I ask this House to give the Bill its Second Reading. House adjourned at 4.49 pm. WA 319 Written Answers[10 JANUARY 2014] Written Answers WA 320

Written Answer Age Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69

Friday 10 January 2014 3 23 118 223 1639 (1%) (1%) (6%) (11%) (81%)

Asked by Lord Beecham Justice: Lay Magistrates To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the Question age and ethnic profile of lay magistrates appointed Asked by Lord Beecham in the last year. [HL4163] Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: A more diverse judiciary To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to is important in retaining the public’s confidence and the Written Answer by Lord McNally on 11 December trust in justice, and better reflecting the society it (WA 126), how many lay magistrates resigned in the serves. This Government has made a number of changes last year; and what was the age and ethnic profile of through the Crime 84 Courts Act 2013 that we believe those individuals. [HL4162] will promote judicial diversity. We have introduced part time working in the senior courts, including the Supreme Court, we have enabled the equal merit provision Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): A more diverse for judicial appointments to allow protected characteristics judiciary is important in retaining the public’s confidence to be taken into account where two applicants are of and trust in justice, and better reflecting the society it equal merit, and a statutory duty for the Lord Chancellor serves. This Government has made a number of changes and Lord Chief Justice to encourage judicial diversity. through the Crime & Courts Act 2013 that we believe will promote judicial diversity. We have introduced A total of 354 magistrates were appointed between part time working in the senior courts, including the 16 December 2012 and 17 December 2013, The age Supreme Court, we have enabled the equal merit provision and ethnicity profile of those magistrates is shown for judicial appointments to allow protected characteristics below: to be taken into account where two applicants are of Age equal merit, and a statutory duty for the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice to encourage judicial diversity. Under 40 40-49 50-59 60-69 A total of 2,016 magistrates resigned in the last 68 88 114 84 year. The ethnicity and age profiles of those magistrates (19%) (25%) (32%) (24%) is shown in the tables below: Ethnicity Ethnicity White Mixed Asian Black Chinese Other White Mixed Asian Black Chinese Other 306 10 13 18 1 6 1910 8 51 37 2 8 (86%) (3%) (4%) (5%) (>1%) (1%) (94%) (1%) (2%) (1%) (1%) (1%)

Friday 10 January 2014

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWER

Col. No. Col. No. Justice: Lay Magistrates ...... 319 NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWER

Col. No. Col. No. [HL4162] ...... 319 [HL4163] ...... 320 Volume 750 Friday No. 94 10 January 2014

CONTENTS

Friday 10 January 2014 European Union (Referendum) Bill Second Reading ...... 1738 Written Answer ...... WA 319