Vol. 751 Friday No. 108 31 January 2014

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

European Union (Referendum) Bill Committee (2nd day)...... 1469 Written Answers ...... WA 265

£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/140131.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/. 1469 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1470

Americans overwhelmingly believe that it is important House of Lords from our point of view, from the European Union point of view and from their point of view. Friday, 31 January 2014. I return to the Bill and this amendment. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord 10 am Trefgarne. I bumped into him earlier on and described him as the custodian of the Companion. I respect him Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester. in that capacity. I will keep an eye on him and he will be keeping an eye me to make sure that I stay in order. European Union (Referendum) Bill I said in my initial speech that the Bill is not fit for purpose. These amendments and many of the Committee (2nd Day) amendments that we will deal with today point out some of the problems, omissions and inadequacies of 10.06 am the Bill as drafted. I do not know who drafted the Bill, but it certainly does not have the fingerprints of good Clause 1: Referendum on the United Kingdom’s parliamentary draftsmen. It is totally inadequate. membership of the European Union Some people in Scotland think, and we can take the Scottish referendum as an example, that if—heaven forbid—they vote yes on 18 September this year then Amendment 50 if not immediately within very quick succession Scotland Moved by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock will become an independent nation. However, it is not as simple as that; it is not at all simple. It is up to 50: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (6) Parliament—this Parliament—to consider the result of that referendum, to legislate, and to negotiate and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab): My Lords, I apologise discuss it with the Scottish Government. if I appear less lucid than I hope I usually am. Similarly, there is a view that if 50% plus one vote for the United Kingdom to move out of the European Noble Lords: Never! Union, that would happen very quickly. However, again, that is not the case. It is up to Parliament to assess the result, which is why subsequent amendments Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Who said never? I have that say Parliament must assess whether the result of just travelled back overnight from the United States. the referendum is “definitive and beyond challenge”. It would create tremendous problems if it was challenged. Noble Lords: Why? The problems could arise, first, if the referendum was very close indeed, especially if there were a lot of Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I was there with the spoilt ballot papers, which there could be—we have noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who told me that he would known elections where the number of spoilt ballot have made a lot of money if he had been able to keep papers has exceeded the majority vote. In a referendum, me there. But I managed to escape and here I am. that would mean that the result could be challenged. Earlier on, it sounded as though the noble Lord, Lord We will come to amendments later about counting Dobbs, had been flying overnight. in each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom: England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. If A noble Lord: Get on with it! there was a different result, for example, in Scotland, as we discussed briefly last Friday, we should think of the consequences of that. Indeed, there are other Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I will get on with it, as consequences in other parts of the United Kingdom. my noble friend said. What if the result of the referendum was very close? I was there with the European Union Sub-Committee Under the Bill, everyone who has a vote for a UK on External Affairs, which is not irrelevant to what we European Parliament constituency will be voting in are talking about today—to the Bill as a whole and this referendum, which means that people from Gibraltar indeed to this amendment. We were there to discuss will be voting. We will come to those amendments in with senators, congressmen and members of the more detail later on, but just imagine if, on a very close Administration the proposed TTIP, the trade and result, the outcome of the referendum as to whether investment deal between the European Union and the the United Kingdom should remain a member of the United States, dealing with important issues such as European Union was decided by the votes of the financial services, agriculture, automobiles and so forth. people of Gibraltar. That would be astonishing, but it It is because we are a member of the European Union could happen. These are the kind of things that we that we are part of that and we can benefit from that have to take account of. trade deal as well as many other trade deals. Later on, we will discuss who votes in the referendum, It was very interesting because, in the margins, which is relevant to this as well. We will discuss just about everyone we spoke to, including the whether 16 and 17 year-olds should vote, and whether trade union—the AFLCIO—businessmen, senators European Union citizens living in the United Kingdom and congressmen, said that they hoped that the United or UK citizens living in Europe should. Again, Kingdom would stay in the European Union. The whether or not we incorporate and accept any of those 1471 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1472

[LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK] the importance of turnout. We had a problem in amendments—I hope we will—will affect the outcome Wales in the 1997 referendum, where there was a of the referendum as well. These are important matters, turnout of 50%—25% for and 25% against—although, which is why the gravamen of what I am proposing is as it happens, the devolved institutions are now wholly that, ultimately, this Parliament should decide. accepted. The aim of these amendments is to prevent a 10.15 am constitutional outrage. Any sixth-former who studies Two amendments, in the names of my noble friend politics knows it is a clear principle of the constitution Lord Anderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that no Government can bind their successor. So why and in my name, relate to specifically defining some of try? What is the purpose? I had a television debate the qualifications that Parliament should take account with a leading member of the Conservative Party, and of. In particular, Amendment 51 says that 40% of when it was put to him, “What, really, is the purpose those registered to vote should, of this Bill?”, his reply was very honest: he said, “It’s a “give assent in the referendum”, signal”. If something is a signal, one of course has to while Amendment 56 would require that, ask the simple question of who it is a signal to. The signal was intended, presumably, either for potential “40 per cent of those registered to vote participate in the referendum”. UKIP supporters or Conservative Party Back-Benchers Amendment 56 is the one that I am really arguing for. in the other place. If it is a signal, it is clearly a signal I think that we have got the wording wrong in which has not been heard or heeded. Amendment 51 and, at a later stage, I would take the opportunity of changing that. Let us say that 40% I referred last Friday, which seems an age ago, to an participate in the referendum and it passes by a small excellent article in the Financial Times which argued majority of just over 50%. That means, effectively, that Mr Cameron’s gamble had failed. He can try fewer than 25% of voters could determine the future perhaps to buy off a portion of the electorate, be it a of the United Kingdom within the European Union. portion of his own party, with this gesture, but it will That is astonishing. There needs to be, and Parliament not work, because they will ask for more. Rather like should say that there needs to be, a good turnout for the penguins in the penguin house they will swallow it the result of this referendum to be definitive and down and demand more—the trouble is that this beyond challenge. Government may be inclined to give it to them. I have occasionally been accused, here and elsewhere, The Mirror this morning contains a piece apparently of going on too long— saying that the Prime Minister is in office but not in power—I think that I have heard that somewhere before. It means that the Prime Minister’s is less and Noble Lords: Oh! less in authority. Clearly, he needs allies in the European Union. He has insulted Monsieur Hollande, who is Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The record shows that here today, by saying that the French economy is my critics are completely wrong, as my noble friends substantially worse than our own. That is probably rightly agree. All the records show that none of my true, but it is not a way of influencing people and speeches is more than 10 minutes, and neither is this making friends. one. I beg to move. I would remind the Prime Minister that the Czech coalition negotiations have just been announced. The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza): I remind Previously, there was a highly Eurosceptic Government your Lordships that if Amendment 50 is agreed, I there under President Klaus; now, with the change cannot call Amendment 50A by reason of pre-emption. having taken place, a potential ally has been lost in the Czech Republic. The Czech position on Europe has Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab): My Lords, as so fundamentally changed in that the party there which is often, I follow my noble friend Lord Foulkes. Our allied with my own party is Europhile; the Christian names appear on a number of the amendments. In the Democrats are Europhile; and the party of former other place, we used to work together as part of a President Klaus has been consigned to the sidelines— team, and I believe that we are part of a team now, and so, again, the Prime Minister has lost an ally. He lost wholly in agreement. He talked about his visit to an ally in Bulgaria and Romania with what is being Washington and the trade deal. If the Scotch Whisky said in respect of immigration. He has lost an ally in Association, for example, were to have a problem with Poland. So where is he going to find that coalition Japan in respect of Japanese whisky, is it better that which is necessary in any European politics, as the the UK Government make representations to Japan noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, would say? or that we rely on the full weight of the European Where would he find those allies? Union? That is why business is so concerned about the The other problem which exercises me—I shall say unilateralism of this Government and, indeed, of this it at this stage rather than later—is that the noble very strange Bill. Baroness, Lady Warsi, agreed last Friday that she was My noble friend has said that he is very tired after speaking from the Front Bench but on behalf of the coming back overnight from Washington. Given the Conservative Party. That was an honest assessment of clarity and lucidity of his speech, I hope he can do that where she stands; she clearly does not speak on behalf more often, as it clearly had a marked effect on him. I of the coalition. She also sought to preserve the fiction came back after only a week in Strasbourg fairly tired. that this is a Private Member’s Bill. If this be an This is clearly a very important debate. He mentioned initiative of the Conservative Party, on whose behalf 1473 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1474 she speaks, and if it be the case that this is purely a Here we have a Bill which is in a class of its own, a Private Member’s Bill, I ask with all delicacy what the Bill which should never have come before this House officials are doing in the official Box. Who are they as a Private Member’s Bill let alone with the support briefing? Are they briefing the Conservative Party—that of government. That is where the problem over the surely would be wholly improper? Once upon a time, I delegation of powers in this Bill starts. This is not a was a member of the Diplomatic Service and I sat in government Bill. There is no Explanatory Memorandum, the officials’ box; I would like to think that I wrote one which is what we would have expected in the Delegated of Mr Heath’s best speeches, but that is another story. Powers Committee had it been a government Bill. I was then, as an official, briefing the Government. Such an Explanatory Memorandum would have set Who are the officials briefing on this occasion? This is out the case for delegation; it would have defended it; a matter of considerable constitutional importance it would have explained why it was the only recourse; and is potentially quite improper. and we would have been able to test those arguments. If we proceed with the prospect of a referendum by We would have brought those arguments to the House 2017, and even if one has to trigger that as a result of and made a judgment on them. Motions in both Houses on the basis that no Parliament can bind its successor, what is absolutely clear, as night We are not able to do that. Reports from two very follows day, is that there will be substantial uncertainty. distinguished committees of this House have made Dare I say that business does not like uncertainty? severe judgments on this Bill, but we have not been Inward investors do not like uncertainty. There will able to test the arguments. I am sure that when the therefore be considerable problems. We have enough noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, replies to the amendment, inward investment at the moment; we are a relatively he will try to help the House and offer an explanation proud recipient of inward investment because of our as to why there is such a unique—apart from in the stability; but what will be the consequences if we say 1975 referendum Bill, which was very different—degree that we do not know, perhaps for the next four years, of delegation in this Bill. what will happen in this country? The CBI has pointed it out very clearly: what indeed is going to happen? However, I do not believe that an oral explanation I return to the purpose of the amendments. It is is sufficient for this House, so I invite the noble Lord, clear that no Parliament can bind its successor—it Lord Dobbs—and I do not believe that it is too late for is an outrage to pretend otherwise—and that the whole him to do it—to provide, even now, an Explanatory purpose of this Bill is to give some signal to Conservative Memorandum for the House to consider, to explain Back-Benchers. They have rejected it and we should why he thinks that a Bill of this magnitude should reject it. delegate the key functions to secondary legislation and thus place debate on those functions effectively beyond the reach of this House, rather than provide for them Baroness Andrews (Lab): My Lords, I rise to speak in the Bill, as would have been far more proper. I do briefly in support of Amendment 50 and to address not have to remind the noble Lord that, since it is a the issue of delegation. I am delighted to see my noble Private Member’s Bill, such a memorandum would friend in his place, undiminished in his powers of have to be entirely his own work, but I do not think argument and bringing such positive messages. that, as a gifted novelist, he would have any difficulty The amendment anticipates in principle a wider with that, so I look forward to his reply argument about the nature of delegation as a whole in what we all agree is a very perverse Bill. I hope that it Any Bill of such major constitutional significance provides some context for later amendments, Amendments should be a government Bill, which sets out on its face 66 and 70—to which I have put my name—which raise the major characteristics and implications and which the question of inappropriate delegation. I do not can be debated, explored, and above all, changed, if want to pre-empt that debate but instead to raise a necessary, in this House. That is what we are for; that general point about the approach taken to parliamentary is what we do. control in a Bill of such enormous constitutional importance. I am sure that our debates on Amendments 66 and This House is well versed in discussing issues of 70 will reflect on how Parliament could exert stronger delegation and we are well used to challenging a control over this process. In terms of this amendment, Government when they bring forward legislation with Clause 1(6) attempts to put both the date of the inappropriate or inadequate delegation and parliamentary election and the Welsh version of the question into an control. We are all too familiar with the problem that affirmative order. In any other context, that would statutory instruments can be debated but not overturned indeed be an appropriate level of control. However, I apart from in exceptional, even notorious, circumstances. believe that this clause should simply be removed Time and time again, the Delegated Powers Committee, because, in the words of so many noble Lords, the Bill on which I have the privilege to sit and which is ably is unfit for purpose. It is of such a confused parentage chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of that it is very difficult to know whether it is a single Winchester, has had to challenge attempts to delegate parentage. If it were a child, it would certainly be very legislation which is sloppily drafted and based on much at risk; social services would be taking a serious arguments which are weak, confused, disingenuous interest in it. Under these circumstances, any attempt and generally inadequate. We have often in our reports to legitimise the process by way of delegation is to government rejected those arguments in favour of inappropriate itself and should be rejected. That is stronger controls. We have been successful and this what my noble friend Lord Foulkes’s amendment does House has supported us in protecting Parliament. and that is what I hope the House will commend. 1475 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1476

10.30 am major constitutional issue; for it to be brought forward by a private Member in a rush, and to be told by Lord Cormack (Con): This Bill came to this House Members on the other side of this House that we are from another place. In that other place, it was not not entitled to consider it properly, is not only arrogant, opposed properly either by the noble Baroness’s party but positively impudent. I hope that the noble Lord, or by the Liberal Democrats. It is a point that has been Lord Cormack, will reflect on this at some stage. made before and a point that needs to be made again. This Bill is indeed defective, but it came to us in the The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said that the Bill state in which it came. Last week, your Lordships’ was improved by the two amendments that we passed House inserted two constructive and sensible amendments last week. That is true: it might be further improved by which did not in any way destroy the intent and two amendments that we pass today, without purpose of the Bill. It is up to your Lordships’ House destroying—as he put it—the purpose of the Bill. The to deal with this matter now as expeditiously as we can amendments that have gone down were tabled with so that it can go back with those amendments—there thought. They were not tabled in order to filibuster; may even be another one—and the other place will they were tabled to deal with a situation into which then have the duty to decide whether it is going to pass this House—and indeed the country—should never the Bill as amended by your Lordships’ House or not. have been put by this Government. If the Government It is at that end of the Corridor where that ultimate had shown an ounce of steel in their relationship with decision should be made. It is the duty of this House their own right wing, we would not be in this position not to impede what the other House has passed, but to today. They have not and we are in this mess, which is improve it. That has been done. It is now up to the what it is, and we must now try to deal with it, but to other House—or it should be when we have completed be lectured by a sermon from the noble Lord, Lord our Committee and Report stages—to accept the Cormack, is, frankly, almost too much. amendments or not. Your Lordships’ House must not I will try, perhaps, to calm down slightly. I have an be cast in the role of a body that has stood in the way amendment in this group—Amendment 73—which I of a referendum by destroying the Bill. This House’s hope the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will think is duty is to improve, not to destroy. It is the job of the helpful and constructive. It is a serious attempt to deal other House to decide whether the legislation should with the difficulties raised by this Bill in terms of go on the statute book and I hope that that will legislating now for what might happen in the next motivate our discussions today. Parliament. The next Parliament after the next election will be a different Parliament from the one that is now Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the noble sitting. In those circumstances, that Parliament should Lord has properly said that a week ago, this House have a say—and a direct say—given by this Bill, and passed two constructive amendments. Why did he not not by some general constitutional doctrine that no support them? Parliament can bind its successors. It should be given by this Bill in the sense that, before the Bill actually comes into force—it can be passed in this Parliament Lord Cormack: I made my position very plain at if that is what Parliament wishes to do—a resolution Second Reading. I did not support those amendments is passed by both Houses in the next Parliament saying because I believed it was sensible to give the Bill a fair that the Bill should now come into force. That is an passage. However, I accepted last week—and made a attempt to deal with the dilemma in which we are speech to this effect—that we had improved the Bill placed, that we have a Bill in this Parliament designed with those two amendments and the Bill had not in to take effect in the next Parliament. Let me wrap it any way been destroyed in its intent or purpose. We up: that is the effect of the Bill. It is not designed to must not now make ourselves a laughing stock by take effect in this Parliament; it is designed to take talking too long or by too many of us talking. We need effect in the next Parliament. to get this Bill through today so we can have Report next week or as soon as possible. The Commons must Therefore, it seems to me that in those circumstances, make the final decision as to whether this Bill goes on it is only just, reasonable and fair—and, indeed, the statute book. constitutional—that that successor Parliament will have some say in whether and how the Bill comes into force. My amendment is not, I hope, a foolish one or a Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab): My Lords, filibustering one. I said in my speech that it was not a the noble Lord has spoken about sticking to the rules filibustering one: it is not going to go on for very long, in your Lordships’ House. I listened carefully to what anyway. It is an attempt to square this very difficult he said and could not detect whether he was speaking circle in which we have been placed by the shenanigans for or against the amendment in front of us. I was of the party opposite, and particularly by the Government. quite clear last week that he was against the amendments The amendment aims to square that circle, by providing that he now admits have improved the Bill. Information that, although the Bill is legislating for something would be helpful. designed to take effect in the next Parliament, the next Parliament will nevertheless have a direct say as to Lord Richard (Lab): My Lords, the last thing I am whether or not that should take place. prepared to do, with great respect, is to have a lecture from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, as to the functions of this House or the way in which we ought to behave. Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD): The noble This whole Bill is a prominent and clear example of Lord, Lord Richard, in addressing his comments to how this House should not behave. This is clearly a the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, several times suggested 1477 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1478 that this was the Government’s Bill. I just wanted to Lord Finkelstein (Con): Is it the noble Lord’s contention put on the record that it is a Conservative Party as a constitutional principle that this Parliament can Private Member’s Bill, not a government Bill. never determine anything that happens in the next Parliament? If so, how did we come to commit ourselves to the Olympics? Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB): My Lords, I will speak to the same amendment in this group to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred: Amendment 73. Lord Hannay of Chiswick: If the noble Lord had I would like to do so in a spirit of positive response to listened to what I said, which I fear he did not, he what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said—that is to would know that I did not say that this House or this say, to attempt to improve this Bill. I will also, therefore, Parliament can never pass measures that have an effect speak briefly. in a future Parliament. Indeed, I specifically said that I The point of Amendment 73, as the noble Lord, am sure that there are lots of examples where that has Lord Richard, said, is to deal with one of the most been the case. I merely said that I thought that this glaring defects in this Bill as currently drafted, which measure, the sole purpose of which is to bind the is that its sole purpose is to bind the hands of a future hands of a future Parliament—it has no other purpose; Parliament. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord nothing will happen during this Parliament—is a very Dobbs, will be able to produce chapter and verse for odd constitutional innovation. occasions on which legislation has had a binding effect on future Parliaments, unless they chose to repeal the Lord Giddens (Lab): My Lords, I am one of those measure, but I would be delighted if he could produce who believe that it is sensible to discuss the content of a single example of a piece of legislation that had no the Bill, if only because it is a marker, so I should like purpose other than to bind the hands of a future to return to its substance and talk briefly to the Parliament, which is the case with the Bill as drafted. amendments. Amendment 73 would remedy that defect. It would If the UK were to leave the EU, it would be the ensure that a future Parliament would have to pass a biggest decision that the country had taken for at least resolution to bring the Bill into effect. That seems to 60 years. The idea that its consequence would be a me to restore the balance in our constitutional practice. simple retrieval of lost sovereignty is surely ridiculous. I am occasionally astonished by the nonchalance—or, The country would have to redefine its place in the some would say, the recklessness—with which the world: 60 million people confronting a world of 7 billion. sponsors of the Bill are lopping great chunks off our Leaving the EU would not magically open up new constitutional practice. It is really pretty odd. Yesterday markets. The UK would have to go cap in hand to an in this House, we had a superb debate about the future organisation that it had just spurned to get some kind of the union of the United Kingdom and there was of trading deal. Its situation would not be at all like unanimity around the House, but today Members that of Norway or Switzerland, which did not join the opposite, the sponsors of the Bill, are supporting a Bill EU in the first place and were able to tailor deals at an that will increase the number of yes votes in Scotland early stage. in September 2014 and decrease the number of no That is the backdrop to my support for many of the votes. I know that logic is not normally a strong suit amendments tabled to the Bill, including Amendment of our countrymen, and probably me, but I think that 50. A referendum result that is, in the terms of the we are carrying this a little far now. I hope that, when amendment, “definitive and beyond challenge”, is he comes to reply to this debate, the noble Lord, Lord absolutely necessary, and all means must be pursued Dobbs, will take on board the importance of to ensure that it is achieved. There could easily be Amendment 73, as well as the others in this group. protracted legal challenges if the Bill is not thought through in all its ramifications—for example, challenges Lord Spicer (Con): May I ask the noble Lord whether to the extent of the franchise. Many further amendments he is in favour of joining the monetary union? are relevant to that point. I have studied referendums all around the world in Lord Hannay of Chiswick: The noble Lord may the course of my academic work and I feel that very well ask me that, but it would take me too long to Amendment 56 is also essential. I lived for quite a few answer while at the same time staying within the years in California, where the problematic aspects of bounds of not filibustering. referendums were very visible. It is vital to insist on a baseline turnout for a referendum of any importance, otherwise decisions, even highly consequential ones, Lord Spicer: The reason why I ask him that is that, can be taken that do not reflect the will of the people. if he was in favour of joining, under the treaty of A minimum of 40% turnout is therefore to me an Maastricht, that would be irrevocable—it would be absolute exigency. binding on another Parliament in future. Lord Dobbs (Con): My Lords— Lord Hannay of Chiswick: The noble Lord has shifted between two tenses. He first asked whether I 10.45 am was in favour of joining the monetary union. The answer to that is yes. He also asked whether I am now Lord Triesman (Lab): My Lords, I was not passing in favour of joining the monetary union at this point up the opportunity, I just could not believe that no one in time. The answer is no. else was standing up. 1479 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1480

[LORD TRIESMAN] we would need to conduct. Those negotiations would The amendments present some serious options for be considerably complicated by being conducted in the House to consider. There is a need for serious circumstances where there was a marginal result on a parliamentary analysis of the outcome of whatever low turnout. All the counterparties in the negotiation referendum there may be. Let me set out the argument would understand that it was a weak decision which, in these terms. It may be that, after a referendum, it is in that sense, would reflect that at that moment we had wholly clear what the people of the United Kingdom become a weak nation. I cannot believe that counterparties wanted—but, even in those circumstances, some things in the modern world would not take advantage of would not be wholly clear because work would still fall those circumstances. Those are real politics in what to be done. could be a real set of circumstances. I am not saying that because I would disrespect a I have heard it said in the House that we resolve serious majority among a large number of people issues at general elections on simple majorities. However, voting, but just in terms of trying to work out what this is not like a general election, where people are would need to be done and how we might set about it. being voted for in a single constituency. It is not The precise terms of the disengagement would need to one-650th of the variance at stake; it is much more be thought through and negotiated. Later amendments profound than that. Neither will it be changed five address this question, but there would need to be a years further on by another election or, in an even consideration of what the continuing relationship would shorter period, by a by-election. It is essentially an be as, many people would submit, we would not indelible decision and, for all those reasons, it does not simply cut ourselves off and that would be the end of have the potential to be corrected—certainly not in the the matter; there would be a continuing relationship of short or the middle term. some kind, and that would need to be thought through. The terms of the continuing relationship would, I I do not believe that the appeal to other kinds of submit, need to cover trade agreements and competition votes which we have had on other matters is really a rules—we would not want suddenly to find that the direct comparison either. The weight of this decision businesses and industries of the United Kingdom is quite different from that about whether someone were at a massive disadvantage in relation to other wants to have a mayor in Tyneside, for example. That nations in competition terms. We would need to look is no comment on Tyneside or its relative importance; with considerable attention at labour market it could be a mayor anywhere else. It is simply a arrangements—I know that they are among the most different decision, and when people have said, “Well, highly contentious things, but none the less, it is what about all those decisions?”, I cannot believe that unavoidable that we would need to analyse them properly. they would transform our constitution in so fundamental I will not bore the House with the whole list, but as a way on the basis of those kinds of decisions setting another example, we would need to look at environmental the precedents. The length of time for which the co-operation and at all the arrangements, which have decision would hold, as I said, would be of profound preoccupied me during parts of my career, for the significance. relationship between higher education institutions, the movement of scholars, what we regard as comparable I would argue that the issues at stake are quite qualifications and so on. In all those cases, and in different. This set of decisions will be fundamental to many other issues, we would need to consider timing. our economy, now and in the future. The decisions will Their timing might not be identical. There would need be fundamental to our relations in economic terms to be a serious analysis. Parliament will have a major with North America, China, the BRIC states and the role in that analysis at every phase. MINT states, whatever difficulties some of those states may be facing, probably temporarily. When we start I made the point a few moments ago that in the case thinking about the character of the economic relations of a big majority and a very good turnout, we might that we would want with them, we will have a totally be able to say that we were at least wholly clear. In different game plan in any negotiation with them, those circumstances, there is what I described last depending on whether we are doing it within Europe Friday as an expression of the settled will. Even that or trying to do it without the rest of Europe. It is has its complexities, which are also addressed in fundamental to our economy, and to political and amendments. The settled will of people in Scotland or international relations. people in Wales about the EU is a significant issue, because we have already devolved a considerable amount I ask the House to reflect on what has happened in of political authority, and I think that the people to the past weeks over Iran, the possible consequences—they whom that political authority has moved will want to are not certain by any means; it is still highly feel that they have an objective view of what is happening problematic—for Syria and Iraq, and the broader and what their interests might be. So even that expression settlement of the Middle East conflict. The role of my of settled will has ramifications. noble friend Lady Ashton has been commented on, However, the result may not be of that kind. Personally, quite rightly, in this House and at some length. I I do not believe that it will be. I would like to believe believe that everybody in your Lordships’ House that the people of the United Kingdom would wish to understands that the power and authority which she remain in the European Union, but let us suppose for exhibited in that role was because she was speaking for a moment that they decided by a very marginal result, a bloc of real international importance, and that she on a very small turnout, that there was a wish to leave. could not have achieved that result, whatever her I completely accept that that would be a result of talents, in any other way. That is a Britain operating sorts, but just think of the set of negotiations which properly in an international context to produce profound 1481 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1482 international results which may be a route—as I earnestly Parliament is the best judge of this. It is sensible to pray that they will be—towards a peace which has say that the weight of the vote will show itself either to been so elusive. be compelling or not, and will show whether there is a Our impact, even with a permanent seat on the settled will. Taking the right steps to be negotiated and Security Council, is not of the same order. We are assessed will be a matter for Parliament. It is not in relatively small and no longer quite a power in the old any sense disrespectful to the people of the United sense. I believe that if we took the wrong decision, it Kingdom for their Parliament to give coherent thought would not be long before the argument about whether to the real circumstances—what in some circles are we should retain that permanent seat rose to the top of called the ground truths. the agenda again. If I was in one of the countries that The only objection to this is not to do with democracy might be affected, I can tell your Lordships that it or following democratic practice. The objection is that would be high on my agenda because I would know it would get in the way of a rush to exit the EU. That is that I was speaking from strength to people who why the Bill is in the form that it is and it is reckless—a would speak only from weakness. word that was used earlier in the debate. It may be that The reason I put all these points to the House is Mr Cameron does not intend this to be the outcome, that my view is that the decision has to be very clear, but it may also be that he can no longer manage the and it is inevitable that Parliament will have to review wish of much of his party to leave the EU. and decide in terms of the realities on the ground. I Some may have reached that decision because they think that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made the have a paralysed fear of UKIP and no desire to take point last Friday about how people would have to deal on UKIP and its arguments. That would be a pity. with the realities. We already know that the decision However, I suspect that many simply want to leave the taken in a referendum would be advisory. That has EU and that is all there is to it. They are entitled to certainly given weight to the decision but it still means that view but this House and the other place—Parliament that there is much to do, and it will have to be done by as a whole—are entitled to ensure that we get the both Houses. whole of this right, so that we know that the will of the people of the United Kingdom is a serious expression, not a marginal one leaving us with little to say in Lord Cormack: The noble Lord has made a number anything that follows. of constructive and sensible speeches from the Dispatch Box. Is he speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition? If that is the case, why on earth were these points not 11 am put with such cogent lucidity in another place by those who speak for his party on these issues? Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I rise briefly to point out to the House that the House of Lords Constitution Committee published a comprehensive Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am speaking for myself report on referendums in its session of 2009-10. Its in this House. This is a Private Member’s Bill and all I conclusion on thresholds—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, can do is to urge the House on the basis of my has commented on 40%—was that: experience of foreign affairs. As I think I said last “We recommend that there should be a general presumption week to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the decisions against the use of voter turnout thresholds and supermajorities. taken at the other end will always be decisions with We recognise however that there may be exceptional circumstances which I shall not even try to interfere, knowing the in which they may be deemed appropriate”. way that that would be responded to. I will try to tie One of those exceptional circumstances that the this up quickly. I understand why the noble Lord committee, of which I was not a member at the time makes his point but I think that everyone will know although I am now, was issues of major constitutional that, whether sitting on government Benches or on change. I think that there is a general view around the these Benches, I have essentially argued in this way the House that the issue we are debating today is one of whole of the time that I have been in your Lordships’ major constitutional change, and the House may therefore House. I am making these points because I think that wish to reflect on the advice given by the Constitution they are the right points to make. Committee at that time. If the result is a narrow one on a low turnout, the terms of disengagement will appear to Parliament to be potentially quite dangerous—or very dangerous—for Lord Dobbs: My Lords, another hour, another group the United Kingdom both in economics and politics, of amendments. We have 15 groups of amendments to as I have said. In those circumstances, to decide to go get through today if we are to reach the end of ahead regardless—to recognise that it is an oncoming Committee stage. That is my ambition, so noble Lords car crash and to do nothing about that—is hardly will understand if I attempt to be reasonably brief in what the people of the United Kingdom will expect of responding to them. their Parliament. Few will regard it in the decades that These amendments go to the very heart of the follow as having been a heroic moment. The bell-wether differences between us. I believe in the Bill because I moments in geopolitics are probably not all that many believe that we politicians have failed the people—it is but I suspect that, rather like the comment that this as simple as that. We have flipped and flopped like a might be the most profound decision in 60 years, if we hooked fish dragged out on to the riverbank. I am also get it wrong in terms of geopolitics it may well rank in favour of the Bill because I believe that ultimately it with Suez and one or two other things which have is the right of the people to decide their own future. been real disasters for us internationally. Noble Lords pressing this amendment have an opposite 1483 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1484

[LORD DOBBS] why not? The noble Lord did not reply to that. I asked view from me: they believe that Parliament should last week why there were no schedules to the Bill. A decide, not the people. In a representative democracy Bill of this kind, as my noble friend Lord Hennessy will that is an entirely reasonable point of view, except— know as an expert in these matters, should have schedules setting out the conduct of the referendum so that we Lord Lipsey (Lab): My Lords— know exactly how it is going to be carried out. My noble friend Lord Anderson raised a very Lord Dobbs: I am only a minute into my speech, but important constitutional point about what the officials of course I will make way for the noble Lord. in the Box are here for. Are they officials of the Conservative Party advising the noble Lord, Lord Lord Lipsey: Last week, when we were proceeding Dobbs, or are they from the Foreign Office? We have at precisely this pace, the noble Lord said that we were not had a reply to that. The noble Baroness, Lady making very good progress, so I think that he might Warsi, has not spoken. Last week we got her into some allow a fuller debate today.He has just made a completely difficulty, but on this occasion either she or the noble unsubstantiated accusation against the opponents of Lord the Leader of the House would be welcome to the Bill. Many of us are not against a referendum; I intervene and explain why, if they are Foreign Office myself am strongly in favour of one. We are against officials, they are there. this dog’s dinner of a Bill, which requires improvement by every side of this House. Noble Lords: Come on! Lord Dobbs: The noble Lord has made his point, again. I think that it is a point that he made last week Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: This is a very important in Committee and I suspect that we may hear more of point. My noble friend Lord Anderson has been a it again today. Of course Parliament decides, and we Member of the other place and of this House for some discussed that in Committee last week, but there comes time, and he was an official in the Foreign Office, so he a point when all these nostrums about parliamentary understands how these things work. The House needs sovereignty require a dose of carbolic and common to know. Is the promoter of this private Bill being sense, when we need to find a democratic balance. advised and handed notes by officials of the Foreign That balance is not achieved by this unelected House Office, paid for by the taxpayer? obstructing the clearly expressed view of the other place. Parliament is sovereign, of course it is, but even above a sovereign Parliament there are the people. The Senior Minister of State, Department for When the people have expressed their will, it is a Communities and Local Government & Foreign and terrible thing for any House of Parliament to defy. Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con): My What British Parliament, as sovereign as it may be, Lords, if the House really wants to know the answer would be unwise enough to turn around to the people then maybe I should give it. In the Box we have and say, “We hear you but we choose to ignore you”? officials from the Foreign Office, who have prepared a government brief on a government position on many Noble Lords opposite have taken us around the issues that will be arising during the Bill. They are planet. They have taken advice from Brussels to government officials providing a government line on Washington and have sought advice from Strasbourg elements that may come up during the Bill upon which and in Japan, yet they are completely failing to convince there is an agreed government line. Also in the Box I anyone that they are keen to take the advice of the have my special adviser. He is there to provide me with people. If we pursue these amendments, we are doing any political lines, and it is those that are prepared by only one thing—turning around to the people and the Conservative Party. There is a clear distinction. saying that their voice, will and instruction are not enough, and that we unelected politicians know better. That is why they are so disillusioned and why we need Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab): Will a referendum to cleanse these stables. If that is the side those government officials who are dealing with the of the barricade where the noble Lord wishes to take a strictly government parts of this Bill—I am bound to stand, that is his choice. Otherwise, though, I beg him say that it is hard to know what the government parts to withdraw his amendment. are, because the Liberal Democrat party seems to be opposing the Bill vociferously—also therefore be making Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, with respect, their advice available to the spokesman for the other the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has not addressed any of part of the Government, the noble Baroness, Lady the amendments or replied to any of the points made Falkner of Margravine? When we discussed this last in the debate. All that he has done is repeat what he week, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said that for said last week about the right of the people to decide. the purposes of this Bill she was very clear that she It is totally inadequate for him to go on repeating that was speaking as spokesman for the Conservative Party. again and again in reply to every amendment. Surely That party is indeed a party of government, but the the promoter of the Bill should deal with the points noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, is speaking as the raised in some of the brilliant speeches that have been spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party, which is made. also a party of the Government. The defects of the Bill have been coming out thick This is a serious point, not a trivial one. As it and fast in this debate. My noble friend Lady Andrews happens, since it is a constitutional issue, I think that has said that there is no Explanatory Memorandum— it is wrong that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, is sitting on the Bench. I am sorry to say that. I think 1485 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1486 that she is an excellent Minister—she is diligent and appropriate constitutional arrangement in terms of hard-working and serves this House very well indeed—but collective responsibility would be to have a Minister for the purposes of the Bill it would be more appropriate from the Liberal Democrats share the responsibility if the noble Baroness sat on the Back Benches. with the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. Alternatively, if we want to take a precedent, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was joined by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford: The noble Baroness sums up Lord McNally, on the government Front Bench to the position quite well in the sense that if there were a deal with the Leveson inquiry, and they were both on Liberal Democrat Minister who wanted to speak from the Front Bench together. That way the Government the Front Bench, that would be perfectly proper. were represented on the Front Bench, because those are the two parties. We have a problem here: either the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, should be sitting with her Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sorry to intervene Back-Benchers—and we would be delighted to hear again, but has an approach been made by the Foreign her because she is always cogent and good—or else the Office, or indeed by the Leader of the House, to noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, should inquire whether anybody would wish to do that? be joining her on the Front Bench. Baroness Warsi: I can inform the House that officials The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord provide the same level of support and the same Hill of Oareford) (Con): Let me help the House because information to Ministers from both coalition parties. I know there has been some confusion. The Leader of the Opposition and I have had an exchange about this. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab): It is quite difficult I understand the question that the noble Baroness, when there is no Liberal Democrat Minister from the Lady Symons, is asking, but she is quite wrong in her Foreign Office. I know that there is a Liberal Democrat summary of the position. My noble friend Lady Warsi Whip. I know that we wish to move on, but I think that is a government Minister; therefore she sits on the many people in the Chamber are concerned about this Front Bench, and by convention those who sit on constitutional aspect because it pertains not only to the Front Bench speak at the Dispatch Box. That is today, it has future relevance as we move towards the position. While there is no collectively agreed the end of this Parliament. Noble Lords sitting on the position on the overall policy in the Bill, there is a Front Bench opposite have not been able to see the government position on much to do with the Bill. For Liberal Democrat Members shaking their heads. It is instance, on questions about our relationship with the clear from these Benches that there is a difference of EU, Gibraltar and referendums, there is a government opinion between the two parties in the coalition. Perhaps position. From that point of view, having a government it is something that could be clarified later, but I think Minister available to answer questions to do with that we are not in a happy constitutional position on government policy, advised as appropriate, is absolutely this issue. the right thing to do. It is also perfectly in order for my noble friend, or any other Minister from across the 11.15 am coalition, to offer an opinion—as a Conservative, in Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My name and that the case of my noble friend—as an individual. My of my party have been invoked, so it is important for noble friend is completely entitled to do that. Any me to clarify where we are. I say to the noble Baroness, Minister in our proceedings can do that so long as Lady Symons, that we are not necessarily in opposition they make it clear when doing so that that is what they to this Bill. We are doing our proper function of are doing. When my noble friend Lady Warsi speaks scrutiny, amendment, improvement and revision on on behalf of the Conservative Party alone, which is a this Bill. I say to the noble Lord the Leader of the distinction that my noble friend Lady Falkner drew House that his comments have been very helpful and earlier, she will do that and be absolutely clear about illuminating, but it would have been helpful to the it. That is the position. House if we had had that explained to us from the outset. When the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, whose Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab): My Lords, I reputation improves every day on all sides of the hesitate to intervene because, unfortunately, for various House and who is held in very regard, spoke on the reasons, I could not be here last week. I have, however, Bill last Friday, she did not make the distinction that read the debate. I have the privilege of chairing the she was speaking only on matters to do with the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, implications for government that might arise out of and when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, say the Bill. Will the Leader of the House tell the House earlier that he was surprised by the number of whether when the noble Baroness speaks on matters constitutional matters that seem to arise—because the to do with her position in the Conservative Party she House seems to be taking up so many different things will move back to the Back Benches in order to create on a rather ad hoc basis—I had to agree. Surely the clarity between the Dispatch Box and a Back-Bench position that my noble friend Lady Symons has just position? Finally, we have been told of the precedent raised about collective responsibility, which is what set when the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord this is about, is central to the way that we conduct McNally, both spoke on Leveson. They did so in a business in this House. If, as the noble Lord says, the self-regulating House with the consent of the House. noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who is representing her It seems to me that the House is quite clearly expressing party in this matter, should not sit on the Front Bench the opinion that it is not entirely happy with this because she is not a government Minister, surely the position. 1487 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1488

Lord Hill of Oareford: I shall be brief because I do scholar, who has warned of possible protracted legal not think there is much I can add. I think I have set the challenges. These are the kind of things that the promoter position out extremely clearly. I do not think there is of the Bill should take account of and answer in any confusion. It is the case that Ministers speak from debate. He should deal with them and he has dealt the Front Bench; they therefore speak from the Dispatch with none of them. Not one of them has been dealt Box. On the rare occasions when there is not an agreed with. He is totally inadequate in promoting this Bill. collective position, they are obviously under an obligation My noble friend Lord Triesman gave a brilliant to make clear when they are speaking solely in their reply. It was one of those speeches which you wish you capacity as a member of a party. My noble friend will had made yourself, because it was so eloquent. It was do that. I think it is clear. I regret if there has been any a brilliant analysis—I will get the money later. confusion, but I hope the House now understands the position. Lord Cormack: The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, this has been made it quite plain that he was speaking for himself. a very illuminating intervention in my reply to the debate. However, with respect to the Leader of the House, he still has not clarified the point raised by my Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: He was not speaking for noble friend Lord Anderson, which I also raised, me—I wish he had been, if you see what I mean—but I about the officials who appear to be advising not just agree with everything he said. Have I got that right? the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, but the noble Lord, Yes. As he pointed out, we are not talking just about Lord Dobbs. election to a constituency in a general election, when, of course, a few votes here or there can decide it, but it Lord Hill of Oareford: My noble friend Lady Warsi can change in five years’ time, and things change again was extremely clear about that as well. As it happens, and again. We are talking about an irrevocable decision, there is a convention that we should not name people and if that irrevocable decision is made on a low in the House who are not Members. That aside, we turnout by just a few people or if it is made by the have clearly gone past that point. My noble friend people of Gibraltar, because the vote is so close, it made very clear the distinction, which anyone who has would really be an outrage. been a Minister will understand, that there are civil I believe that this amendment is the right one. servants and officials to advise on government policy However, it has been pointed out to me that it is and a political person to advise on political matters. I technically deficient; it is not drafted in the right way. have always believed extremely strongly in the traditional There are other amendments later that would do the distinction in our system between civil servants who same thing, which we can consider when we get to properly should stay one side of the line. I expect all them. Therefore, for that reason and for that reason civil servants to do that, to know very well how to alone, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. tread the right side of the line and to make sure that Ministers do not step over it. Political advisers are Amendment 50 withdrawn. another matter. That is the distinction, and that is the way it operates. Amendment 50A Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I am very grateful to the Moved by Lord Turnbull Leader of the House. That is absolutely clear. I now return to what I was saying earlier. Incidentally, I hope 50A: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert— I will be given injury time and that people outside will “(7) No order shall be made under subsection (6) until the not take all those interventions as part of my response. Secretary of State has prepared, published and laid before Parliament an assessment of the United Kingdom’s intended relationship I want to return to what the noble Lord, Lord with the European Union in the event of withdrawal from the Cormack, said. I have great respect for him. We served European Union.” together for a long time in the House of Commons. I was quite surprised that he returned again to the steamroller argument that we have to get this through, Lord Turnbull (CB): My Lords, I do not intend to that we are not able to carry out our role of scrutinising move Amendment 72, the other amendment in this properly and that we have this arbitrary deadline. I am group. replying to that very inadequately, but it was replied to The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has set out the case very adequately by my noble friend Lord Richard, for this Bill in his characteristic urbane manner, but no who has 25 years’ experience in this House and is a amount of urbanity or suavity can disguise the fact former Leader of the Opposition. I hope the noble that the arguments for the Bill are superficial and the Lord, Lord Cormack, will pay attention to that. evidence thin. He has sought, for example, to persuade us that the other place has spoken loud and clear and A noble Lord: Former Leader of the House. that, with a majority of around 300, it would be wrong for this House even to amend it. However, I suspect Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Yes, former Leader of that that does not reflect the true depth of support in the House. the other Chamber. In any case, it will soon be put to This Bill has been criticised by people like the noble the test. If the support for the Bill is as strong as he Lord, Lord Hannay, with a distinguished record in the claims, there will be no problem in securing the additional Civil Service, who has described it as reckless, and by time that the Bill needs to consider our amendments. people like my noble friend Lord Giddens, a distinguished To judge from the glum faces on the Benches opposite 1489 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1490 when the first amendment was passed, I do not believe will be reduced to what has been called fax diplomacy— that they believe that there is really that degree of receiving notice of changes in regulations on which we support in the Commons. have had no influence. In my view, it might not be as extreme as that, as we and the EU have a huge amount The noble Lord made much of the argument that of trade together, far more than Norway and Switzerland, we must give people a choice. I agree with that, but it and a mutual interest in fostering trade in goods and must be an informed choice. I am not against a services. That would all have to be negotiated. But it is referendum—I am against a “pig in a poke” or a “leap likely that we would have a reduced influence. in the dark” referendum. Amendment 9, which was Furthermore, will my intellectual property rights, registered passed last week, established the principle that people at the European Patent Office, be protected? Will I must be given the information that they need about have to renegotiate and reregister my patents in the the results of an exit from the EU, without which they UK? Will the interchange of students be encouraged, may make a choice that they come to regret. Responding will professional qualifications be recognised and will to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, the noble Lord, Lord accounting standards stay the same? The list goes on. Dobbs, said that it was unnecessary to make special provision for such information and that people could Let me give an example of the kind of work that get it through political parties, through referendum needs to be done. The “five tests” assessment of 2003 campaigns, and through the press and business groups, for membership of the euro was a huge exercise, led by pretty much as the Scots are getting their information the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, in the Treasury, and now. That will not suffice, as some information can had many components, but it was crucial in helping come only from the Government, which is what the UK to reach what I believe has been vindicated as Amendment 50A addresses. the right decision. It has also helped us resist the blandishments of some people who are now in this As I pointed out at Second Reading, voters need House, who wanted to make a politically inspired, three things to make an informed choice: an understanding unevidenced decision to go in. of how society and the economy will develop if we remain in the EU with its current framework; an I am struck by the contrast between the debate that assessment of how that might be modified by a process we had yesterday, when we spent six hours discussing of renegotiation and reform in the EU; and an assessment Scottish secession. A recurring criticism was that the of what our relationship with the EU might be—what Scottish Government had made an inadequate analysis might be retained or replicated, mimicked, modified of what independence might look like, that they are or dropped. Only then can the impact assessment exchanging contracts on a house before completing called for in Amendment 9 be established. Having set surveys or agreeing a price. It is ironic that some of the up these scenarios, the pros and cons of each can be people making that criticism of the Scottish Government compared and the balance of advantage struck in should today be proposing a Bill that is equally flawed. what, in the current jargon, would be called the delta. A decision is being made against a fixed deadline, But the information required by voters cannot simply based on a plunge into the unknown and on a wish list be left to laissez-faire; much of it can come only from rather than bankable, negotiated assurances. the Government, who would be left with the task of This is a Bill for those who have made up their negotiating the divorce settlement. minds, have seen enough and do not want any more evidence. In my view, any Government who propose a People will need answers to a host of questions—some referendum have a duty to provide voters with the best general and some affecting their personal lives or their information they can on what a decision to leave businesses. Let me give the House a practical example. would involve and what our relationship with the EU Forty-two years ago, I found myself on the Treasury’s would be. Amendment 50A, taken in conjunction with agriculture desk, looking after MAFF spending. I Amendment 9, passed last week, ensures that no order soon had to master the outgoing UK regime of deficiency can be made to trigger a referendum until that duty payments for each sector of agriculture—beef, dairy, has been discharged. I beg to move. and so on. I then had to grapple with the incoming CAP regime—intervention prices, export subsidies and import measures. Then I had to master what was 11.30 am called the fourchette, the transition plan between the Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB): My Lords, I strongly two. With a leave vote, we would face that journey in support Amendment 50A from the noble Lord, Lord reverse. Farmers will want answers. What will the new Turnbull. It is most unusual for the Foreign Office to regime be for them? Will they still be able to export be in agreement with the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, their beef, and should they expand their dairy herd, or but in this case it is. The Diplomatic Service is a should they get out of farming altogether? Being told separate service and takes no instructions from the that it is too soon to say will not cut much ice, inform Civil Service, so these arguments are my own. any sensible investment decisions or, worse still, satisfy I do not support the menu of amendments offered the bank manager. by my fellow countryman, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes This problem will be repeated in a hundred different of Cumnock—there is a big difference between them domains. Top of the list will be residence, citizenship and the amendment offered by the noble Lord, Lord and employment. People will ask, “Can I still employ Turnbull, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell, EU nationals? Can I get a job in the EU? What Lord Shipley and Lord Anderson. The assessments healthcare or welfare benefits can the thousands of called for by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, are descriptive. British retirees now living in the EU expect?”. Then They are describing potential scenarios. The assessment there is trade and the single market. Many fear that we called for by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, would be 1491 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1492

[LORD KERR OF KINLOCHARD] It would be wholly irresponsible to produce for the normative because it would be authoritative and be country a prospectus based on conjecture. If the country describing the situation we would be in if we went out chose to leave the tent and found outside a landscape through the door. If we left the tent, like Captain different from the one that it had expected and a Oates, we might be out for some considerable time. We climate much colder, the Government who did that might find it cold out there. I think the country would would never be forgiven. wish to be told. I accept that the process of establishing I hope all shades of opinion in the House will an authoritative statement of what life would be like understand that the amendment from the noble Lord, outside might take time—Article 50 of the treaty of Lord Turnbull, is precisely in the category that the Lisbon talks about seceding from the European Union noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was talking about— being a two-year process—but this would be before amendments that genuinely improve the Bill. In my that. This would be before the referendum. This would view—on the Cross Bench one speaks only for oneself— be the assessment that the country would need so it this would be a genuine improvement and I urge the could weigh up the case for and against staying in or House to support it. going out. I believe it would be important not just to set out Lord Low of Dalston (CB): My Lords, can I just ask what the Government hoped, felt and wanted but the noble Lord for a point of clarification before he what they believed was negotiable. There would have concludes? He said that he was in favour of the to be some process of discussion with other countries amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and and principally with our partners in the European against the set of amendments from the noble Lord, Union, which we would be considering leaving. That Lord Foulkes, on thresholds for participation and process would take time. This point is very relevant to assent. Are these two mutually exclusive? He can vote the amendment on questions of timing which— for both of them. encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—I withdrew last week. We will be coming back to that on Report. Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: I apologise. I was unclear. I was not commenting on the amendments that have Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con): My Lords, I totally been discussed—those put forward in the first group agree with the noble Lord that if there were to be a by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of referendum the British public would be entitled to Cumnock. I was commenting on amendments in the information about the consequences and the mechanism. current group, linked alongside the one proposed by However, that is completely different; the mechanism the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, which are all to do is a subsequent step to the referendum. All this Bill with assessments to be made available before the does is to establish that there will be a referendum. referendum takes place. The point the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, made when he drew the analogy with the Scottish debate yesterday Lord Low of Dalston: I am grateful to the noble seems to me not to be correct. We had a Bill about the Lord. That is very helpful. Thank you very much. referendum. The criticism about the lack of information came afterwards. The mechanism was quite separate. Lord Grenfell (Lab): My Lords, I put my name to Although all the points the noble Lord is making this amendment because I believe its purpose to be might be correct, they are not for this stage. This stage profoundly important. I do not have much to add is just about the referendum. to the very persuasive argument of the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. I merely Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: Precisely the same argument wish to endorse a lot of what he said and hope that could be applied to the second of the amendments we noble Lords will strongly support the amendment. made last week. The House did not buy the argument last week and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was I am afraid that the amendment, while I support it, good enough to say today that, in his view, both the is open to two different interpretations. Therefore, I amendments laid last week were improvements to the slightly take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and Bill and did not impair it. If we are passing a Bill on stand somewhere between him and the noble Lord, this referendum it is very important that we do not Lord Foulkes, on this one. The amendment refers to, pass a defective Bill that omits important elements. “an assessment of the United Kingdom’s intended relationship Nobody in this House has proposed an amendment to with the European Union in the event of withdrawal”. Clause 1(1), which says that there shall be a referendum. I am not sure that you can really make that assessment In my view, this House is trying to do its job and get on purely normative lines. It has to be descriptive as right the conditions and rules for that referendum, well. If this amendment is addressed not just to Parliament which is a point that we will need to come back to and but to the people, we are asking that the people be which has been raised by several noble Lords this informed of the Government’s view of that future morning. We will have to come back to how the relationship. There has to be an element of the descriptive referendum will be conducted and—the point I am in that. That is the line that I have clung to in my concerned about, for reasons well explained in the first support for this amendment. leader in this morning’s Financial Times—the timing The Prime Minister has said over and over again—and of the referendum. to the discomfort, to put it mildly, of a substantial I believe that the crucial thing about the assessment number of his Back-Benchers—that he wishes the called for by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull—who is United Kingdom to stay in the European Union. completely right—is that it would have to be authoritative. However, what if the people in an “in or out”referendum 1493 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1494 beg to disagree with him? It is inconceivable to me I conclude from this that there has to be a document that, with eventual withdrawal a possibility, the people published that explains the implications clearly.However, should vote without the benefit of knowing in advance there cannot be a document unless it is clear what the what kind of relationship he would wish the UK to intended relationship with the European Union is have with the Union that it is leaving. I would have going to be in the event of withdrawal. Otherwise, thought that to so inform the electorate was a simple there will be serious confusion in the minds of voters matter of common sense, not to mention courtesy. In as to what the implications of a referendum, and their other words, does the Prime Minister have a plan B? If vote in that referendum, might be, whichever way they he does not, he must construct one and, having done cast it. so, the Secretary of State must publish it and lay it I noted a moment ago the words of the Leader of before Parliament before making any order under the House in commenting on the role of my noble Clause 1(6). That is what the amendment would be friend Lady Warsi, the Minister. He said that she calling for. could respond on behalf of the Government, from At the heart of this assessment, or plan B, would advice given by Foreign Office officials, on the implications presumably be the end product that the Government of a referendum. I therefore hope that, when we hear seek to gain by negotiation—the best terms that they from my noble friend Lady Warsi, we will hear the can obtain for access to the single market, to take but views on the implications of this referendum being one example. Will the Prime Minister opt for the kind held. of relationship enjoyed by current members of the I hope that there will be clarity at that stage about European Economic Area and EFTA? Will he take whether the supporters of the Bill want to follow in the relationships enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland the steps of Norway. Norway is often cited publicly as as his model? I use the word “enjoyed” with some a parallel for the United Kingdom. Inside the European hesitancy, since EEA and EFTA members suffer taxation Economic Area it may be, but it has no direct power in without representation, having to contribute to the the EU, it has no seat at the table and it cannot vote. EU’s budget without getting any money back, a reality However, it still has to abide by directives just as full of which the public ought to be made aware before members do. Indeed, Norway has to implement three- voting. Or will he be aiming for some other kind of quarters of all EU legislation, including the working association? What kind of associate status would he time directive. It has to implement other employment judge appropriate for one of the largest economies in laws—consumer protection, environmental policy and Europe and, indeed, the world? Whatever his intentions competition—and has to contribute to EU budgets. or preferences, in the case of withdrawal they need to Norway’s per capita contribution is just over £100; the be put on the table for all to see and discuss before the UK’s net per capita contribution is £128. If we joint referendum is called. the EEA, there will be little saving in practice for us. We on this side of the House are not alone in Switzerland if often cited as another example that calling for an eventual impact assessment of the actual we might emulate, but it has no right of access to the effects of withdrawal on the British economy and on single market and it has to negotiate each and every the rights of British individuals living both within and case separately. Even Switzerland contributes to EU outside the UK, as well as on EU citizens living budgets at £53 per capita. If we left the EU, it is here—the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred to that. possible that we could operate with a most-favoured-nation That assessment could show that things would turn status, but that would mean that 90% of UK exports out to be disastrous if a Government who had taken to the EU by value would face tariffs. If we were in the the UK out of the EU had failed before doing so to EEA, trade would be tariff free and, as with Norway, formulate a proper vision of the intended relationship. the four freedoms relating to the movement of goods, That would be inviting our erstwhile partners to do services, labour and capital would apply, along with our thinking for us. I strongly support this eminently the implementation of three-quarters of EU legislation reasonable and crucial amendment. over which, as I have explained, we would have no say. Advocates of EEA membership should remember Lord Shipley (LD): My Lords, my name, too, is that goods entering the EU via an EEA country attached to Amendments 50A and 72. I start with the cannot do so without implementing the rules of origin, principles established by the Electoral Commission. A a regulatory process that takes time and money. Goods week ago we discussed in detail what the Electoral imported into the EU via a full member of the EU can Commission said about the question and its wording. move freely. The document produced on this referendum by the Electoral Commission said that, in a referendum, voters 11.45 am should be able to “understand the question”—we covered that last week—“and its implications”. That is Lord Trefgarne (Con): I apologise to my noble what this amendment would address. The Electoral friend. We are considering Amendments 50A and 72. I Commission said that voters should be, am not entirely clear to which of those he is speaking. “informed about the possible outcomes, and”, Perhaps he could help. should be able to, “easily understand the campaign arguments”. Lord Shipley: I am speaking to both of them, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr: we should not because they are about the Government and the movers pass a defective Bill, without the amendment, because of the Bill explaining their intentions. The Bill cannot it makes it clear at this stage of the progress of the Bill be passed in its current state. The noble Lord, Lord that these specific words are important. Lipsey, called it a “dog’s dinner”; I agree entirely with 1495 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1496

[LORD SHIPLEY] Commission’s report on the importance of providing that. We have to be clear about these matters, otherwise information to voters. It is very important that information we are not doing our job as a revising and scrutinising is provided, but the commission did not say that it House properly. should be given before the Act comes into force. It Those who wish for less regulation and believe that could have said that, but it did not. we can get less regulation by leaving the European Union should explain the implications of having to Lord Shipley: My Lords, I did not say that it did; apply the rules of origin. There is a rising tide of the point is important because the Electoral Commission concern about this. We could end up with more made it absolutely clear that information must be bureaucracy and regulation rather than less. Mention provided. That is why this amendment is so important. has been made this morning of trade agreements. I made the point that we need to get this right at this What will the implications be for our trade agreements? stage of the Bill, otherwise we will have a bad Bill. If our intended relationship is not clear, where do we lie with the 46 trade agreements that the EU has with other countries—and, I understand, a further 78 trade Lord Wigley (PC): My Lords, I will intervene briefly agreements pending? If we left the EU, we would lose in this debate. The debate would be that much shorter access to every EU trade agreement with a third party if the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, now indicated that he and each of those would have to be renegotiated, a will accept the amendment. It is patently obvious that long and time-consuming process that would damage this sort of provision has to be made. If the wording is exports in the interim. not absolutely right we can come back on Report or at In conclusion, Amendments 50A and 72 make it a later stage to correct it, but surely the principle has clear that the Government have to explain what our to be accepted. intended relationship would be with the EU if we I come from a background in Wales where the main withdrew. It is an absolutely fundamental matter, it question will undoubtedly be an economic one: what seems to me. I look forward to hearing from my noble effect will pulling out of the European Union have on friend Lady Warsi, the Minister, when she speaks on jobs? I will refer briefly to three headings. The first, this matter, and from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, which was touched on by the noble Lord who moved when he replies to the debate. The British people have the amendment, is in regard to agriculture. The Farmers’ a right to understand this matter and that needs to be Union of Wales came here last year to brief noble done at this point in the debate rather than at some Lords on the effect of pulling out of the European later stage. Union. It indicated that some 80% of its business would be affected adversely if we pulled out of the Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab): My Lords, it is incumbent European Union. That is a massive consideration, and on this occasion—it was not done with the previous a shadow that will hang over the industry until this is group of amendments—that we have some substantive put to bed. replies from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, to the The second sector that I referred to is the motor points made by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and sector. Last week I referred to Toyota. There are a subsequent speakers. It is of vital importance that the number of other important motor companies in various British people have information and that they do not parts of the United Kingdom that will be affected—as vote in ignorance of the consequences of the different will jobs. I started my career working for the Ford potential results of the referendum. It may well be that Motor Company, and I know very well that companies as part of the noble Lord’s cunning plot, if I can use such as that one do not have a time horizon three years that expression, the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily ahead; they plan for a decade ahead, and longer. If Telegraph—indeed, all the press bar a couple of there is uncertainty as regards the conditions in which numerically small exceptions—would be very happy companies that operate in the United Kingdom will to provide all the information that the British people trade after 2017, it will affect investment decisions. need, but it would not exactly be balanced. That has already been flagged up by companies from When Harold Wilson decided to have a referendum Japan, and we cannot ignore it. When voters come to in 1975, most noble Lords in this House will remember vote in a referendum, they need to have the information very clearly that there was information of exactly the available on how the Government interpret what the type that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred to. situation will be if we pull out, and on what the Therefore in reply, it is incumbent on the noble Lord, alternative is. Companies need to know that so that Lord Dobbs, to remove any impression that the people they can inform their employees and others who will who want the referendum do so with the motive of be affected. making sure that we get out. They are not interested in The third sector I referred to is an important one in having a referendum on a level playing field; that does my area: the nuclear power industry. In Anglesey the not motivate the movers of the Bill. Perhaps when the Wylfa B project is likely to go ahead, but the company noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, comes to reply, he can from Japan that is involved in it has other interests, respond to the question: what can possibly be said in wanting possibly to build a nuclear power station in support of the idea that no such assessment should be Lithuania or in other locations in mainland Europe. placed before the British people if there is a referendum? The issue is that if it decides to put more emphasis on mainland Europe because we are not part of the Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con): My Lords, I European Union, the likelihood will be that the contracts will intervene very briefly in response to my noble for manufacturing all the components that go into a friend Lord Shipley, who had called in aid the Electoral nuclear power station would drift to Germany rather 1497 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1498 than to the United Kingdom. The Government have leave, the terms of the relationship will be different. already indicated that they see the knock-on effect of Some people may think that they will be better, while their programme of building nuclear power stations as others may think that they will be worse, but the important, not just as regards the locations themselves British people need to be able to form a view based on but as regards the industries associated with that. as much information as possible. That is the purpose They would be undermined and there would be of this amendment, and I support it because I wish the uncertainty—and, goodness knows, with nuclear power Bill to be a better one. stations the time horizon is even longer. Therefore, those three sectors, the employees who Noon currently work in them and the communities that Lord Giddens: I am very grateful for that intervention depend upon them, need to know. We surely need to on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat. I am a pass the Bill back with provision in it to ensure that pro-European. I am unusual for a Brit in that I am a that happens. passionate pro-European but I also believe in having a referendum. It is important to have an “in or out” Lord Tugendhat (Con): My Lords, I support the referendum at some point. I think that most of us who amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord are arguing in relation to the clauses of the Bill are Turnbull, for the reasons which he so eloquently set doing so because we see that this is the beginning of an out. However, I will address a few remarks to my extended discussion. The House is laying down important noble friend Lord Dobbs. My noble friend seeks to markers for the progress of that discussion. The discussion paint those who propose or support amendments as will go on for several years. It should and must do, and being opponents of the Bill who are seeking to deny it must reach the citizenry. The worst thing that could the people of this country a referendum. However, happen is that the UK will exit the EU without its that is not true. As I made clear in my speech at citizens having a proper grasp of the issues at stake. As Second Reading, and again last week— I see it, this amendment is a contribution to making a resource that will help people understand the pros and cons of leaving or staying in the European Union. Lord Dobbs: I have never made that allegation. I have always accepted that there are men and women of I repeat the point I made earlier about leaving an great principle who are fighting the Bill from responsible organisation and then making requests of that positions. However, I have taken the advantage of organisation. If we turn down our membership of it, pointing out—and others may conclude this—that we will not be in a strong negotiating position. We will some noble Lords may well oppose the Bill not for not be in a position to say that we want to be like responsible, sensible and principled reasons but because Switzerland or Norway. Therefore, it is highly important they are simply determined to kill it. I have never to think through not just the objective bases for, and whitewashed the entire opposition in the way my consequences of, leaving but also the strategic noble friend suggests. consequences. It is very important, for example, to consult other states in the European Union well before the referendum so that we know what they are likely to Lord Tugendhat: My noble friend used the word concede to us. “oppose”, but I do not oppose the Bill, and neither do I may be excommunicated from my side, but I I oppose a referendum. I have made it quite clear, as support, or understand, the position of the noble have other noble Lords, that I support a referendum Lord, Lord Cormack. The Bill has clauses. The House on the basis put forward by the Prime Minister in his of Lords is here to discuss those clauses. We should Bloomberg speech. It is precisely because I support a make sure that we do the best job we can and leave referendum that I believe that the terms of that referendum something that will be the first stage of a massive need to be as good as we can possibly make them. This national debate down the line. will be a very important referendum—all noble Lords agree on that point. Therefore, if it is to be a very important referendum, the terms on which it is held Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I support the have to be drawn up as carefully and objectively as amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord possible. Because of that, it is very important that the Turnbull, and many of the arguments which have people of this country should be able to make an already been deployed in support of it. However, in objective choice based on as much information as connection with the intervention by the noble Lord, possible. That must mean that they should be able, as Lord Lamont, of course it would have been possible far as possible, to balance the advantages and to put forward an amendment which would require disadvantages of membership of the European Union the Government now to say what they would do in the against the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed context of a no vote in the referendum—but that is new relationship. not what the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, is suggesting. I do not often invoke the noble Lord, Lord Pearson He is suggesting merely that the Government of the of Rannoch, but on this occasion I will do so. He day should be required to provide this information to points out, very frequently, that if we leave the European the electorate ahead of the referendum, which seems Union, there will still be trade between us and the to me a totally reasonable thing to do. European Union, and we will still deal very closely It does not involve holding up the Bill or preventing with it in economic matters. Of course he is right; one a Bill that provides the basis for an eventual “in or must not overstate the consequences of staying or out” referendum going on to the statute book. However, leaving. However, it is undoubtedly the case that if we it does say that, before such a referendum can be held, 1499 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1500

[LORD HANNAY OF CHISWICK] the measure to say what their plan B is. Surely, we do the electorate must be aware of what the choice they not say to the electorate, “You will vote yes or no. If are making implies, because a referendum vote is a you vote no, you will step into the void. We will be coy very stark choice between one option and another. about what the implications are”. That is why I have The other option, which would be to leave the European tabled a series of amendments—Amendments 74A to Union, would have very serious consequences. Is it not 74G—which I will summarise briefly. Amendment 74A totally reasonable to require that those consequences is headed, “Report on alternatives to membership of are brought to the attention of the electorate before the European Union: Switzerland”; Amendment 74B they are asked to vote? If that logic is correct, I very is headed, “Report on alternatives to membership of much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, will— the European Union: Norway”; Amendment 74C is headed. “Report on alternatives to membership of the Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I entirely agree with the European Union: the Commonwealth”; Amendment 74D noble Lord, and with the point that has been made is headed, “Report on alternatives to membership of widely, that all the information on both sides should the European Union: North America”; Amendment 74E be put forward in a referendum, but I do not see why is headed, “Report on alternatives to membership of that should be in this Bill, which is about the mechanism the European Union”, which is concerned with other of a referendum. I remind the noble Lord that the alternatives to membership of the European Union; Prime Minister said that he himself favours continued Amendment 74F is headed, “Report on alternatives to membership of the EU. If the Prime Minister recommends membership of the European Union: European Economic continued membership of the EU, is it conceivable Area”, and Amendment 74G is headed, “Report on that he will not spell out the advantages of being a alternatives to membership of the European Union: member of the EU before a referendum is held? He is European Free Trade Association”. bound to do that. There is a whole series of potential alternatives. Probably the most likely would be a relationship akin Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I am sure the noble Lord to that of Norway or Switzerland, or akin to that of is right, but the extent to which the Prime Minister the Commonwealth. I will not give a dress rehearsal of carries his party with him seems to be in a little more what I will say if we reach those amendments, as that doubt today than it was a few days ago. As I say, I am would surely bore your Lordships. However, if the sure that the noble Lord is correct, but the amendment amendment we are discussing is passed—I very much would require the Government of the day—that hope that it will be because of its potential for an Government may well not be the present Prime Minister’s informed electorate—my amendments may then be Government—to provide, at the time a referendum is otiose. However, I say for the benefit of the House held, and in advance of it, certain kinds of information that, as regards the position in respect of Norway, the that are not called for in the Bill as it stands. I happen report published about two years ago for the Norwegian to think that this falls fairly and squarely in what I Government by a learned professor is very helpful. He would call in the argot the “Cormack category”—that said, in terms, that he had come to the conclusion that is, a provision that will improve the Bill. I hope very it made sense for Norway to be fully part of the much that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, will accept the European Union. He set out all the disadvantages of amendment. I do not think that there is any ambiguity Norway’s position, including the financial cost to it in it at all. Therefore, I hope very much that it will be and the extent to which it was not able to make any endorsed. serious input into discussions. Indeed, that was underlined by a representative of the Norwegian employers’ Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, if the noble federation, the NHO, who said: Lord, Lord Dobbs, says that he will accept this “We feel we have access”— amendment, I will very happily sit down and spare your Lordships’ House a few moments of my thoughts. to Brussels— I think I detect a negative response, in which case I ask “and the doors are open to us, but no one listens. Interest in the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, what is the purpose Norway, and the influence of Norway, is diminishing”. of giving information to the electorate after the event, That is as much as I can say about Norway. In and telling them plan B after they have voted yes or respect of Switzerland, the bilateral deals that that no, possibly partly in ignorance of what the implications country has with the European Union are of interest, of so doing are? I am reminded of the story of the but the EU is unhappy with those relationships and is eminent Scottish divine who, to his surprise, after a unlikely to want to repeat them. Switzerland is of blameless life, found himself languishing in hell. He course outside the financial arrangements of the EU looked up, saw the good Lord and said, “Oh, Lord, I and, because of the importance of the City of London, dinna ken, I dinna ken”. The good Lord, in his infinite those arrangements are of considerable importance to mercy and goodness, replied, “Ye ken the noo”. That us. Frankfurt and other financial centres look eagerly will the position of the electorate. They will know the to see if they can replace the City of London. As to consequences of the referendum result for good or ill, the implications for Switzerland—I shall not dwell on but after the event—after the blameless life, in that this because it would bore your Lordships if I were to case. go through them all—there is a very useful document I am a signatory to both the amendments we are by David Buchan for the Centre for European Reform, discussing. I put my name to them because I believe Outsiders on the Inside: Swiss and Norwegian Lessons that on an issue of such importance the electorate for the UK. It sets out clearly what the implications of should be informed about it. It is for those proposing withdrawal are likely to be. 1501 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1502

The Conservative Party appears latterly to have Before the end of this year, one part of Britain will discovered the Commonwealth. I recall when, once take a vote on whether to leave the oldest and most upon a time, I spoke for the Opposition in respect of successful single market in the world. If there is a no South Africa. In 1986-87, the Conservative Party almost vote in the referendum to come on the EU, we will be destroyed the Commonwealth over that country and taking a decision about leaving the biggest single wishes now to forget that. However, probably the best market in the world. It is essential for the long-term reply in respect of the European Union and the decision-making of British and international business Commonwealth was given in a speech by the then for us to give an indication of the options, what the Commonwealth Secretary-General, the New Zealander, possible plan B is, and what the consequences will Don McKinnon. He gave clear answers in response to be. The Government, as part of the debate about the a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I have future of Scotland, has produced some excellent analytical copies if colleagues wish to see it. I shall not extensively papers. I commend to noble Lords who do not want to go over what was said, but Don McKinnon was saying go into the minutiae of the nature of the debate on essentially that the Commonwealth needs the United Scotland one paper in particular: the analysis of the Kingdom to be part of the European Union as an situation regarding defence. The capability exists within advocate on behalf of Commonwealth interests—whether the Civil Service to produce a balanced argument. in relation to bananas, or the interests of Gibraltar in I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, is a little relation to Spain. There is a whole series of areas in more anxious today than he was last time, and I feel which the Commonwealth is needed. Don McKinnon, for him. It is probably the only time in this House that who was obviously totally a Commonwealth man, he will ever have unrestrained power. As a Back-Bencher gave the lie to those who see the Commonwealth as with a Bill, he is in a position, without consulting some sort of alternative, not a partner. anybody else, to be able to say that he accepts an To conclude, the real question is: do we want an amendment. We will get a move on and put a common- informed electorate or do we not? We should, as sense element into the Bill. If there had been schedules democrats, seek to have an informed electorate and, to it, we could have looked at them; but there are none. therefore, I shall support these amendments. I therefore appeal to the noble Lord. Let us give a crumb to those who want this campaign to take place Viscount Eccles (Con): My Lords, at some time, in an atmosphere of calmness and give a signal to the preferably not today, I should like to hear about the business community, which has lots of money to invest implications of a yes vote. The amendment is defective at the moment, that it can do so in an atmosphere of because it does not balance the possibility of a no vote certainty. with the more likely outcome of a yes vote. I, like the Prime Minister, want to find myself in a position to vote yes, if I am still around. The problem is that the Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab): My Lords, I take it people know that we have been on a long journey of as pretty certain that there will ultimately be a referendum some 60 years to get to where we are. But the people because, at some point, there will be a new treaty are also apprehensive because they do not know where anyway. I totally agree with my noble friend Lady they are being taken. Does Brussels, with the eurozone Liddell that any referendum produces economic costs problems, know where it wants to go? Perhaps I may and uncertainties, and that is why it is particularly give just one example. What does subsidiarity mean? regrettable that the Government have, quite unnecessarily, What is it meant to mean? We should concentrate on brought forward this entirely gratuitous Bill in this the reasons why it is sensible for us to stay in the Session of Parliament to have a referendum at some European Union. Many people have talked about point in the next Parliament. It would be much better reform but the problem is that we have no agreed sense if we left the matter until then. of direction and neither does the European Union. However, I do not think that our labours are wasted because what we are producing today, were producing 12.15 pm last week and will go on producing in the remaining Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab): My Lords, I days on which the Bill is under consideration, is a kind support the amendment. In an earlier intervention, of template for any future referendum when it occurs. the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, drew a parallel with a It will be clear to any Government what can and debate we had in this House yesterday about the cannot get through the House of Lords. No Government Scottish referendum. One of the key themes that came will again be tempted to try to fiddle around with the out was the need for a plan B regarding the currency. main question to be asked on the referendum ballot The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to uncertainty. paper, which we discussed last week. The Bill has now Take it from me that if you are in an extended referendum established that and it would not be sensible to change campaign, the impact of uncertainty, particularly on it. In future, Governments will be guided by the Electoral business intentions, is very considerable indeed. We Commission’s views on what the proper question would are not confidently out of recession; even the Chancellor be. Again, if we were to pass this amendment, it would acknowledges that. One thing that business cries out for be carried forward into any future Bill, even if this Bill is a degree of certainty.That is why this is a common-sense were not to be passed and this referendum did not take amendment. We have to go into any referendum in an place. atmosphere of calm. It should not be held in an A few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, atmosphere in which some people think that the rug is said that if we had a referendum the country would going to be pulled for political reasons rather than for have a very stark choice. I entirely agree. We all know the best interests of the country as a whole. that it will also be a very momentous choice, but it will 1503 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1504

[LORD DAVIES OF STAMFORD] that in the type of circumstances in which we would actually be a rather uneven choice because the British leave the European Union there would be very little public will be asked to choose between a known and inclination to come up with special favours for us. an unknown—between an established and familiar Some have said, “Oh well, we have a deficit with the fact on the one side and a purely hypothetical speculation European Union. The rest of the European Union on the other. It is very unfair and very dangerous to exports to us more than we export to them”. However, put the electorate in that position. It is dangerous in point of fact, it is not a question of how big the because in those circumstances there is great scope, deficit is for us or how substantial our imports or and therefore great temptation, for the promoters of exports are; the leverage consists of the extent to the unknown option—those who, in this case, want to which our trade is a proportion of the trade of our leave the European Union—to replace the unknown continental partners. It is generally never more than with a picture of their own devising which may be 25%. Therefore, I am afraid that we probably do not entirely fanciful, very wishful and even deliberately have a leverage. and cynically deceptive. That would be a very bad In any case, there is no point in speculating about thing; it would be a very bad day for democracy to this, and it would be very dishonest to do so. It is have a dishonest campaign of that kind. Therefore, it important that a serious effort is made to sort out the is very important that the electorate is able, as far as consequences of our leaving the European Union. possible, to choose between two explicit descriptions That should be set down in black and white by a of the two scenarios that are being offered. That is Government who are then committed to making sure why I think that the amendment is enormously important. that they do not say anything which is deliberately There are some areas where a relatively reliable untrue. They would have to have had serious discussions statement can be made about an unknown. For example, with our colleagues and partners in the rest of the we all know that the Tory party does not like the European Union about what would and would not Social Chapter. If we leave the European Union, we eventuate from our leaving. The British public could will not, by definition, be part of the Social Chapter, then be offered a genuinely honest choice between two so it will be possible to say to people that there will not scenarios, the details of which would have been set out be a part-time workers directive or a parental leave as truthfully as possible. directive, and anybody who is a part-time worker or who is thinking of having children will know where they stand. There are areas of greater uncertainty but Lord Giddens: I have not heard a single noble Lord they are ones where one can at least produce a reasonable object to the content of this amendment. The only one description of the sort of scenario that might eventuate. seems to be the “ram it through at all costs” objection. For example, people are particularly concerned about Could not the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, simply accept whether we could still have access to the single market. the amendment at this point? There is a precedent in Norway and a precedent for EFTA, so there is a certain degree of credibility and responsibility in saying that there is certainly a likelihood Lord Dobbs: Of course I could but quite clearly I that we could join EFTA if we wanted to. However, am not going to. It would deprive us of hearing the the rules of EFTA are quite clear—they have already noble Lord, Lord Kinnock. been mentioned this morning—and it has already been explained why in many cases it would be very unsatisfactory to a great many of us. Lord Kinnock (Lab): I am grateful to the noble Lord. Although I endorse entirely the appeal made by However, there are areas where nothing certain at my noble friend Lord Giddens and indeed others, I all can be said about what the position would be if we suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that he could left the European Union today, and I fear that that is accept this amendment, and he could do it with the becoming increasingly likely in relation to the great approval of the Prime Minister. My authority for area of access to the single market. Recently I have claiming that comes from no less a source than the noticed that even those people who have been advocating Bloomberg speech, which I am now quoting so frequently our leaving the European Union have ceased to say, that I am beginning to think of it as the Bloomberg “Well, we could get a deal like Norway”. They have bible. even ceased to say that we could get a deal like that of Switzerland. There is universal consensus on the continent In that speech, the Prime Minister was very clear— among our partners and in the Commission that no indeed, commendably clear—that: one would ever be allowed to do a Swiss-type deal “If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, again. It is simply too complicated and difficult to not a return”. administer with, I think, 140 separate agreements with That is a very sobering thought and a very grave the European Union. That type of scenario is out proposition. To his further credit, the Prime Minister anyway, and anybody who takes a look at the situation was balanced in his treatment of the issues in much of will realise that it is not a possibility. that speech. He said, quite correctly, that: Therefore, one increasingly hears—we hear it “Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the increasingly often in this House—Eurosceptics and EU”. promoters of our leaving the European Union who He then, in a very balanced way, went on to say: say, “We’ll do better than Norway or Switzerland”. “But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that What do they mean by that? It seems to be far from the very best future for our country?”. clear. I detect in conversations with continental colleagues He said that of course we, 1505 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1506

“would be free to take our own decisions … But we don’t leave We would have to stretch credulity to come to the view NATO because it is in our national interest to stay and benefit that the EU is not going to be in flux somewhere from its collective defence guarantee”. around 31 December 2017. The idea that the problems The only question that I would pose to the Prime relating to the eurozone will be resolved, that enlargement Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, on this of the EU will have been completed by that time or aspect is: how free would we be to take our own that, by some magic, all the problems that forbid an decisions? immediate referendum would make it not a sensible In a further balancing item, the Prime Minister possibility will have been resolved and will have become responded to such a rhetorical question by saying: calm, rational and easy by that date is beyond any “If we leave the EU, we cannot of course leave Europe. It will belief. remain for many years our biggest market, and forever our With that in mind therefore the Government have geographical neighbourhood. We are tied by a complex web of the cause, the opportunity and the time to ensure that legal commitments”. an assessment is made and publicly provided of what He continued: the intended relationship of the UK would be with the “Even if we pulled out completely”— European Union in the event of our departure. An “in and I do not see that there is any other option other or out” referendum is being proposed. Both possibilities than a complete pull-out, given what the Prime Minister have to be considered comprehensively and calmly. I said about it being a one-way ticket— agree with the noble Lord who said earlier that we “decisions made in the EU would continue to have a profound should pay even more attention and give much more effect on our country. But we would have lost all our remaining publicity to the detail dispassionately provided of what vetoes and our voice in those decisions”. would occur and what we can reasonably anticipate by If the Prime Minister was willing to say that a year staying in. Since this is an “in or out” referendum, it is ago in the Bloomberg speech and to spell out the at least equally important for the British people to be implications of our departure, what conceivable resistance fully acquainted with the implications of coming out, could there be to accepting an amendment that would which is the other option being offered. Bearing those make it mandatory to provide an assessment of the realities in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will United Kingdom’s intended relationship with the reconsider what appeared to be his peremptory response European Union in the event of withdrawal? In fact, to my noble friend Lord Giddens and extend his view on this occasion I am being as uncharacteristically so that he will give further consideration to accepting helpful as I possibly can be to Mr Cameron. Maybe an amendment which is only asking for a realistic one day he will reciprocate that. appraisal of a real possibility. Of course, the question remains: how free would we If such an assessment were to be provided about be to make our own decisions? This House will know what the relationship probably would and could be in that if the search is for sovereignty, then the definition the event of our departure, it would have a certain of sovereignty as the power to make effective decisions additional attraction. In my view, it would comprehensively must be predominant in our minds. Outside the European counter and destroy the deceit of the Euro-secessionists; Union in the world of the 21st century and beyond, we those people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, have to wonder how a medium-sized economy with a earlier referred, who seek to give the impression—both population of around 60 million, abutting the world’s outside and inside the Conservative Party, and I do biggest single market, would fare if we had to conduct not mind which label they have—that withdrawal from our own relationships individually—dare I say the European Union would bring with it only opportunity unilaterally?—with emerging and emerged global powers. and virtually no penalty whatever. How would we fare in terms of resolving the crisis of We have had enough allusions to the cases of Norway the environment or in terms of combating international and Switzerland. Again in a praiseworthy passage in crime, were it not for the fact that inside the European the Bloomberg speech, the Prime Minister said why Union we can exert substantial influence on the direction the so-called Swiss or Norwegian options were simply of affairs and on the nature of international relationships not rational possibilities for our country to consider. in an increasingly complex and interdependent world? If more detail about the reasonability of the Prime Minister’s stance were to be made available in good 12.30 pm time and as a precondition of holding the referendum for the British people to understand and digest, a Freedom and increased sovereignty do not offer considerable favour would be done. Even more themselves if we are outside the European Union. To importantly than that, a real duty would be performed. do the Prime Minister credit, I think he was articulating that view in offering his balancing comments on what life might be like outside. Again I commend him on his balance when he further went on to speak about Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB): My Lords, I timing, because that is relevant to this amendment shall be brief. The core purposes of this Bill are that too. He said that he could not accept the call being there should be an “in or out” referendum. It is not made by people who want a vote now or in the about what the result of that referendum should be; it immediate future because: is about whether there should be a referendum and that it should be before the end of 2017. This amendment “A vote today between the status quo and leaving would be an has no bearing on those purposes. It leaves them entirely false choice. Now—while the EU is in flux, and when we don’t know what the future holds and what sort of EU will unaffected. It requires the Government in certain emerge from this crisis—is not the right time to make such a circumstances to do something which any self-respecting momentous decision about the future of our country”. Government would or should do in those circumstances. 1507 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1508

[LORD ARMSTRONG OF ILMINSTER] carried out a thorough assessment. In the case of this I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that he and proposed referendum, we need to have a thorough his colleagues in the House of Commons have the best assessment of what the alternatives would be. chance of this Bill passing if he decides to accept this Many people assume that we can continue to enjoy amendment. the benefits of free trade with our European partners by being in the EEA. That, of course, is the economic Lord Liddle (Lab): My Lords, I will not detain the option with the least pain. But as my noble friend House for long. I think that there is pretty strong Lord Kinnock said when he talked about sovereignty, support all around the House for this amendment. It although being in the EEA might involve a minimum certainly has the support of the Opposition, who will of economic pain, it would certainly involve a huge vote for the proposition in the name of the noble loss of British sovereignty. Whereas now we have a say Lord, Lord Turnbull, if he chooses to test the opinion on every EU regulation that applies to us, in future, as of the House. What is needed in any “in or out” choice members of the EEA, we would simply have to accept is an authoritative assessment of Britain’s intended every regulation decided in Brussels, and we would relationship with the European Union should the people have to make a budgetary contribution as well. Being decide to withdraw from it. That does not have to be in the EEA would mean a massive loss of sovereignty just a wish list of hoping that we can have our cake for Britain. We may no longer be in the European and eat it outside the Union. It has to be a hard, Union but, in my view, we would also no longer be realistic assessment. Great Britain, a sovereign nation able to exercise some I am a great lover of history. I like reading books say over its future. about Britain’s post-war relationship with the European As for the alternative at the other end of the spectrum, Union. The Macmillan Diaries is one of the books I relying on our WTO membership and trying to negotiate have read. Harold Macmillan tried to establish a free free trade agreements, noble Lords have already pointed trade relationship with the Common Market when the out some of the problems. We would immediately be treaty of Rome was signed. He explored that and withdrawing ourselves from free trade agreements that failed because, even in 1958, he was not able to achieve the EU has with other countries, and the whole future what was necessary for the national interest, and he of agriculture would be put into grave uncertainty. decided we had no alternative but to join the Common The car industry is perhaps the best example of what Market. So we have to be realistic and this assessment noble Lords on the other side have to address. The car has to be realistic. industry is probably the most outstanding example of Many Members on our side of the House have the manufacturing renaissance that we have seen in pointed out that the proposed referendum is not a Britain. popularity poll, it is a fundamental choice. It is not a choice you take once every five or 10 years. You 12.45 pm cannot say that it would be a choice made for ever but you can certainly say that it would be made for generations. Viscount Eccles: I would be grateful if the noble It is important that this choice is taken not on the Lord would agree that I personally do not have a case basis of wish lists or hypothetical speculations—as I to answer because I want to stay in. And I think that it think the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said—but on the is extremely damaging for him continuously to tell us basis of what is a realistic alternative. The truth is that that he expects the people to vote no. those who want to take us out of the European Union rarely state what they think the alternative is for Lord Liddle: I have the greatest respect for the noble Britain, which is why this amendment is crucial. There Viscount, Lord Eccles. I am not worried about the is a huge range of possibilities. At one end of the result of an election if there is a fair vote which is spectrum, there is membership of the European Economic based on fair information. However, I am really worried Area, probably as a consequence of rejoining EFTA; about a referendum that is based on an artificial but at the other end, we would have to rely on our timetable which is led by the Prime Minister. I have WTO status in terms of our trading relationship with great respect for the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg the European Union. speech—as I said to the House, I agreed with 80% of it. To be frank, however, my honest fear, and I speak as Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Does the noble Lord an individual, is that when you look at what happened recall that when he worked in Downing Street and the in the other place yesterday, when the Government noble Lord, Lord Triesman, was a Minister at the collapsed in the face of rebellion from their own Foreign Office, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, endlessly Back-Benchers— put down Questions asking for an assessment of the pros and cons—the benefits and the costs, because there are costs—of our membership? The noble Lord Noble Lords: No! and the Government endlessly rejected that, year after year. Even a Bill was put down, but it was talked out. Lord Liddle: Conservative Back-Benchers, I hasten Does he think that he owes the noble Lord some sort to add, not Liberal Democrat ones. The Prime Minister’s of apology? response to that was pathetic, even when what was at stake was a question of us sticking to the law. What Lord Liddle: I am afraid that I do not, no. What I kind of confidence can we have that an EU referendum do know about the Labour Government is that when would be fought on a fair basis unless these kinds of they were considering whether to join the euro, they guarantee are written into the Bill? 1509 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1510

I come back to the case of our car industry outside It is unthinkable that people would not be fully the EU. Unless we can negotiate a special deal with supplied with responsible information before any our partners there will be a 10% tariff on cars that are referendum campaign. There may of course be plenty made in Britain. That will have a devastating impact of irresponsible information too, but that is the stuff on jobs in the British car industry. We cannot take of politics. It is nobody’s intention to ask people to these decisions lightly. We have to think about what we vote on such a fundamental issue when they are not would be able to negotiate. fully briefed and fully aware of what the issues are. No We should also have a realistic assessment of what one can expect people to come to a rational and we will be able to negotiate. Many people think that reasoned decision—as we would want them to—without we would have the whip hand in any such negotiations the appropriate information. were we outside the EU. I think that it was my noble However, it is very difficult to see what this amendment friend Lord Davies who said that, in fact, that is not would add that is so very different from the amendment the case. We have to face the fact—and people are that the House carried last week in the name of the hard-headed about economic matters—that our exports noble Lord, Lord Roper, which called for, to the single market account for between 40% and “an evidence based assessment of the impact of the United 50% of our total exports, however we calculate it. The Kingdom ceasing to be a member of the European Union”. rest of the single market’s exports to us account for about 8% of its exports, so if we are just looking at this I argued against that amendment, simply on the grounds in terms of the balance of power in that negotiation, it that people would get all that information anyway and is not an attractive one from the prospect of jobs and that it was not necessary to include those provisions in growth in Britain. the Bill. The House decided otherwise and passed that amendment calling for an evidence-based assessment In conclusion, if the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, is of the impact of the United Kingdom ceasing to be a not prepared to accept this amendment, is he certain member of the European Union. I am genuinely puzzled what his alternative to EU membership would entail? therefore as to the need for this amendment. How would he go about making sure that the referendum was fought on a fair basis? If we cannot have this fair Again, the wording is important here. It asks about assessment then, frankly, the Bill is as I described it at our “intended” future relationship with the EU. As it Second Reading: an invitation to buy a pig in a poke. seems likely that, under most circumstances, all the major parties will be campaigning for us to stay in the EU, the question is: the outlines of this future relationship Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before the noble Lord as intended by whom? How can this task be completed? finally sits down, will he explain to me why, when By consulting UKIP? The only sensible way to seek a legislation was taken through Parliament for a referendum response to the question of how one intends to get regarding the European Union in 1975, no such provisions divorced—which I think was the phraseology of the as the ones he is now calling for were included? noble Lord, Lord Turnbull—is to ask those who actually want to get divorced in the first place. Any plan B drawn up by those who do not believe in it, will not be Lord Liddle: If I recollect correctly—I took an arguing for it and have no intention of pursuing it active part in that campaign—there was an assessment would not be worth the paper that it was printed on. of the reasons for British membership, which was sent to every household. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, suggested, in defence of this amendment, that we should do what the Labour Government did for the euro by making their intended Baroness Warsi: My Lords, there is a government position clear. If that is the example he expects us to view on membership of the European Union, which is follow, I am not in favour of it. It was the most bizarre that the UK’s interest is to be a member of a reformed approach that any Government have taken to such an European Union. There are also agreed government important issue and points to the difficulty of an views on how to run a referendum, following the intended position on something of this sort. The alternative vote and Scottish independence polls. However, suggestion that underpins this amendment is really there is no collective position on holding a membership rather woolly. It is ambiguous and therefore I think referendum and hence no government view on its that it is flawed. That is why I oppose it, which is implications. Noble Lords can be assured that, by the perhaps why a very similar amendment was defeated time of the referendum, the official yes and no campaigns on Report in the other place by a majority of 265 to will have made their cases in some detail. Therefore, eight. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has come up the British people will be in no doubt about the choice with an interesting constitutional principle that a clear that they are making. vote in the other House does not reflect the view of that House, but we will pass on from that. Lord Dobbs: My Lords, this has been another lengthy This is not a Bill for those with closed minds, and debate and I do not wish to prolong it. First, I will just there are closed minds on both sides of this issue. This respond to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is a Bill designed to give those with common sense an made earlier. I assure him that I have never sought and opportunity to come to an informed position as to never been given, so far as I am aware, any advice from what they intend for their futures. If the noble Lord, a government official for this debate other than factual Lord Shipley, will forgive me, I do not intend to follow advice or advice about the Government’s agreed position. him up the Swiss mountains or sail along the Norwegian I believe that all the proprieties have been maintained, fjords. The Prime Minister does not want that; I do as they ought to be. not want that; this is another argument that seems to 1511 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1512

[LORD DOBBS] I think that our debate yesterday showed a Government be constructed in order to knock it down that I can see campaigning for a change and not making preparation very few people putting. I shall certainly not be following for plan B. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, argued that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in the magnificent it was inconceivable that such an assessment would tour that he gave us around every part of the world. not be supplied. If it is inconceivable, what is the harm The argument that we need to specify even more than of putting it in the Bill? More importantly, however, we have done under the previous amendment and that the noble Lord said that we should rely on the arguments we need to load the people with more information, not coming forward from the yes campaign and the no as a result of democracy or of our campaigning skills campaign. Each of those documents will be partisan, and our passionate beliefs in where we stand but on because they will try to make a particular case, whereas the face of a Bill because the Government require it, the assessment required by the amendment would implies a huge lack of faith in the ability of the establish some factual ground. different sides in a referendum campaign to put their What is the difference between this amendment and case. I do not share that lack of faith. I cannot see the amendment passed last week? The noble Lord, what this amendment would do that the amendment Lord Hannay, made this clear. It falls exclusively to that we passed last week— the government of the day to make the assessment. They will have to cope with the consequences of a no Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I am most grateful to the vote and they should set out what they think those noble Lord for giving way, but I am afraid that he is consequences should be. yet again caricaturing the supporters of this amendment. It was asked why we should not have a similar On the day after a referendum, whatever the result has document on the consequences of a yes vote. There been, it will not be for the protagonists of staying in or are two reasons why I have not included that in the for the protagonists of leaving the European Union to amendment. The first is that the Prime Minister has define Britain’s future relationship if the vote has gone promised us his view of what the consequences of a for a no; it will be for the Government to do so. The yes vote would be after a renegotiation. The second is, amendment would require the Government to set out as was perceptively pointed out by the noble Lord, what the relationship might be if there was a no vote. Lord Davies of Stamford, that there is an asymmetry That cannot be left either to the yes campaign or to of information. A lot more will be known about being the no campaign. in and staying in than about moving out and something is needed to rectify that imbalance. Lord Dobbs: If the noble Lord will forgive me, that I lived in hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, is not what the amendment seeks. It is not about what would accept the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord the relationship might be; it is about what that relationship Wigley, and others. I hoped that he would accept the is intended to be, which is a very different point. That principle of it and come back with something better. is the point on which I suggest that this amendment is He complained that this is not a perfect amendment. flawed. He has had the opportunity to take it away and It will come as no surprise to the House to know improve it but he has decided to spurn that. On that that I do not share the enthusiasm of those who do basis, I do not think we can take this argument further. not believe that all this information will come out in an adequate referendum campaign. I regard this Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con): Before the noble amendment as being entirely unnecessary. I believe Lord sits down, can he indicate whose intention he has that it is ambiguous and flawed, and that no one can in mind? The amendment refers to the “intended come up with a suitable intended relationship in those relationship”. Whose intention is at issue? circumstances. I therefore request the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Lord Turnbull: That would be the responsibility of the Government who inherit the responsibility for Lord Turnbull: My Lords, this has been another negotiating the terms of separation. I beg to move. hour and a half—but I do not begrudge that—of very interesting discussion. I am grateful to noble Lords 1pm who have spoken, overwhelmingly in support of the amendment. There are certain common themes. First, Division on Amendment 50A we are faced with a momentous decision. That was made very clear by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, in Contents 198; Not-Contents 134. [The name of a noble his intervention during discussion on the previous Lord who voted in both Lobbies has been removed from amendment. Secondly, the matter is immensely complex. the voting lists.] I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for giving us a sight of the trade implications Amendment 50A agreed. and for making the link with the Electoral Commission in that one has to understand not only the question Division No. 1 but the implications of the question. It was also agreed that we as a Parliament and supporters of democracy CONTENTS owe it to the electorate to give the best possible information on which to make such an informed decision. Of the Adams of Craigielea, B. Anderson of Swansea, L. arguments against, one was that such an assessment Addington, L. Andrews, B. was unnecessary because it was going to happen anyway. Alli, L. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. 1513 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1514

Bach, L. Hussain, L. Soley, L. Tyler, L. Bakewell of Hardington Hussein-Ece, B. Stirrup, L. Uddin, B. Mandeville, B. Irvine of Lairg, L. Suttie, B. Wall of New Barnet, B. Bakewell, B. Janvrin, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Barker, B. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Walmsley, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Temple-Morris, L. Warner, L. Beecham, L. Jones, L. Teverson, L. Warnock, B. Thomas of Gresford, L. Benjamin, B. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Thomas of Swynnerton, L. Berkeley, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Watson of Richmond, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Bhattacharyya, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Whitaker, B. Billingham, B. Kestenbaum, L. Tomlinson, L. Tope, L. Wigley, L. Bowness, L. Kinnock of Holyhead, B. Wilkins, B. Bragg, L. Kinnock, L. Triesman, L. Truscott, L. Williams of Crosby, B. Brennan, L. Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Williams of Elvel, L. Brinton, B. Knight of Weymouth, L. Tugendhat, L. Wood of Anfield, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Lea of Crondall, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L. Brookman, L. Leitch, L. Turnberg, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Turnbull, L. [Teller] Worthington, B. Carlile of Berriew, L. Liddle, L. Turner of Camden, B. Wright of Richmond, L. Carter of Coles, L. Lipsey, L. Chidgey, L. Low of Dalston, L. NOT CONTENTS Christopher, L. McAvoy, L. Clancarty, E. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Clement-Jones, L. McFall of Alcluith, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Heyhoe Flint, B. Clinton-Davis, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Arran, E. Higgins, L. Collins of Highbury, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Hill of Oareford, L. Crawley, B. McKenzie of Luton, L. Astor of Hever, L. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Davies of Oldham, L. Maclennan of Rogart, L. Attlee, E. Home, E. Davies of Stamford, L. McNally, L. Balfe, L. Hooper, B. Desai, L. Maddock, B. Bamford, L. Horam, L. Dholakia, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Bates, L. Howard of Lympne, L. Donaghy, B. Manzoor, B. Bew, L. Howard of Rising, L. Drake, B. Massey of Darwen, B. Black of Brentwood, L. Howe, E. Dykes, L. Maxton, L. Blencathra, L. Howell of Guildford, L. Elder, L. Mendelsohn, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Elystan-Morgan, L. Morgan of Ely, B. Brabazon of Tara, L. James of Blackheath, L. Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Morgan of Huyton, B. Bridgeman, V. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Falkner of Margravine, B. Morgan, L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Jenkin of Roding, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Morris of Handsworth, L. L. Jopling, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Myners, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Kakkar, L. Filkin, L. Newby, L. Brown of Eaton-under- Kalms, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Noon, L. Heywood, L. Kirkham, L. Gale, B. Northover, B. Byford, B. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Nye, B. Caithness, E. Lang of Monkton, L. German, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Paddick, L. Cathcart, E. Lexden, L. Giddens, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Lingfield, L. Glasgow, E. Pannick, L. Colwyn, L. Liverpool, E. Glasman, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Cope of Berkeley, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Golding, B. Pendry, L. Cormack, L. Lucas, L. Goodhart, L. Peston, L. Courtown, E. Luke, L. Goudie, B. Phillips of Sudbury, L. Craigavon, V. McColl of Dulwich, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Pitkeathley, B. Crickhowell, L. Macfarlane of Bearsden, L. Graham of Edmonton, L. Quin, B. [Teller] De Mauley, L. MacGregor of Pulham Grantchester, L. Quirk, L. Deighton, L. Market, L. Grender, B. Radice, L. Dixon-Smith, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Grenfell, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Dobbs, L. Magan of Castletown, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Ramsbotham, L. Dundee, E. Mancroft, L. Hamwee, B. Rea, L. Eaton, B. [Teller] Miller of Hendon, B. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Redesdale, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Morris of Bolton, B. Hanworth, V. Rees of Ludlow, L. Eccles, V. Naseby, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. Eden of Winton, L. Nash, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Rendell of Babergh, B. Empey, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Hart of Chilton, L. Richard, L. Faulks, L. Newlove, B. Haworth, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Feldman of Elstree, L. Noakes, B. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. O’Cathain, B. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Rogers of Riverside, L. Fink, L. Patten, L. Henig, B. Roper, L. Fookes, B. Perry of Southwark, B. Hennessy of Nympsfield, L. Rosser, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Popat, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Fowler, L. Rawlings, B. Hollis of Heigham, B. Sawyer, L. Framlingham, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Howarth of Newport, L. Scotland of Asthal, B. Freud, L. Ribeiro, L. Howells of St Davids, B. Sharkey, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Ridley, V. Howie of Troon, L. Shipley, L. Gardner of Parkes, B. Risby, L. Hoyle, L. Simon, V. Geddes, L. Seccombe, B. Hughes of Woodside, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Gold, L. Selborne, E. Humphreys, B. Smith of Clifton, L. Goodlad, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Snape, L. Goschen, V. Selsdon, L. 1515 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1516

Sharples, B. Trefgarne, L. ensure that it has a separate count. We all have a Sheikh, L. Trimble, L. special responsibility for Gibraltar. That is seen, for Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Trumpington, B. example, in the fact that Gibraltar is represented by Shrewsbury, E. [Teller] Verma, B. one of the constituencies of the UK in the European Skelmersdale, L. Warsi, B. Spicer, L. Parliament. It has a very proud history, not least in the Wasserman, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Second World War. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Wei, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. Wheatcroft, B. Coming here today, I was musing how the people of Strathclyde, L. Whitby, L. Gibraltar, which is relatively small—perhaps not much Sutherland of Houndwood, L. Wilcox, B. larger than a ward in my own former constituency—none Swinfen, L. Williams of Trafford, B. the less represent so much of the Mediterranean. The Taylor of Holbeach, L. Younger of Leckie, V. current Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, has a good Mediterranean name; Sir Joshua Hassan showed that 1.13 pm there was a Jewish community in Gibraltar; Peter Caruana, the former Chief Minister, has a good Maltese Clause 1, as amended, agreed. name; and even Albert Poggio, who is the excellent representative of Gibraltar in this country, has an Amendment 51 not moved. Italian name. There is currently a total linkage of the people of Gibraltar with many Mediterranean countries. The relevance to Gibraltar of the European Union Amendment 52 is in part because of the dispute with Spain. Most if Moved by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock not all of us would agree that Spain has been extremely unwise in seeking not to build up relations with Gibraltar. 52: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— There have been the disputes leading to endless delays “Count for votes cast at the border, which harm Spanish nationals who The count for votes cast in the referendum shall be carried work in Gibraltar. Equally, there has been the dispute out and declared separately for— over the territorial waters. These matters are litigated (a) Scotland; in Brussels. The people of Gibraltar quite properly (b) Wales; criticise some of what goes on in the European Union (c) Northern Ireland; and in respect of the Spanish judge who I think recently (d) England.” presided over a judgment to the detriment of Gibraltar. We criticise sometimes the fact that, although Britain should represent the interests of Gibraltar in Brussels, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, this amendment sometimes the UK representative has perhaps failed can be dealt with relatively briefly—by me, certainly. to notice matters that are relevant to those people. The amendment before your Lordships requires that On one thing, though, the people of Gibraltar are the votes cast in any referendum on Britain’s membership clear: it is in their interest to have the UK there in the of the European Union would, EU, fighting the Gibraltar cause and putting up the “be carried out and declared separately for”, objections to any particularly nationalist and populist each of the component nations of the United Kingdom. sentiments put forward by the Spanish. It is therefore We have already discussed why a referendum should most important that the Gibraltese, the people of the not result in Britain leaving the EU unless it secures a Rock, are able to show their opinion and to do so simple majority in each of the component parts of the clearly, and that Gibraltar is established as a separate United Kingdom, so I will not go further into that. electoral unit with a separate result. It could be an The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the interesting point if the people of the Rock were to say result of any EU referendum is agreed across the yes, because they recognised the importance of their length and breadth of the United Kingdom by counting, relationship with the European Union through the and publicising the overall result, in individual component UK, and yet the UK were to turn its back on the nations. Only if that is done will the referendum be European Union and therefore, in effect, on Gibraltar. seen as legitimate and will those who wish to break up However, that is for another day. Both in chairing the the union be forced to admit, for good or ill, that Foreign Affairs Committee and in other fora, I have whatever Britain’s relationship with Europe may be, it long stood shoulder to shoulder with the people of was consensually agreed upon by the whole of the Gibraltar. I am happy to do so again to ensure that United Kingdom and not imposed on any part. I so there is a separate count, separately recorded. I beg to move. move.

Amendment 53 (to Amendment 52) Lord Wigley: My Lords, I am sorry that I missed Moved by Lord Anderson of Swansea the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. His brevity in speaking today is no doubt recognised 53: After Clause 1, line 8, at end insert “; and by all across the Chamber. Any accusations that he (e) Gibraltar” could be filibustering would be absolute nonsense. However, the question raised about Gibraltar is slightly Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, my amendment different. I understand the position that my noble relates to Gibraltar. Many of us in this House have a friend Lord Anderson comes from, but the main thrust special concern for Gibraltar and therefore wish to of my support for the amendment moved by my noble 1517 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1518 friend Lord Foulkes—and my amendment, Amendment 67 on our own, we might very well have chosen to leave”—but —is the need to ensure that the people of Wales, there would never be an allegation that they were Scotland, Northern Ireland and England know exactly caught by the fact that the vote was hidden or that where they stand on this matter. there was something unreasonable, unfair or deceptive As I indicated before in a more general debate, if about it. That argument about process is potentially there is no publication of the results for each nation, the one that is most damaging, because it can never be there will be speculation—and speculation could be properly addressed. It is much better to have the votes much more damaging than facing up to the reality of clearly and in the open. whatever the result may be. I believe that, because of Noble Lords will have noted that I have not mentioned the importance of the economic question, to which I Northern Ireland in this debate, not because I do not referred earlier, there will be a yes vote in Wales—but think that there would be an interest in Northern whatever the outcome, the people of Wales and, indeed, Ireland but because I do not detect, broadly speaking, the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, among the majority of the population of Northern have a right to know where they stand. The overall Ireland, a desire to move to a still greater distance result will no doubt be taken on a United Kingdom from the rest of the United Kingdom. There are basis and would be the aggregation of those votes, but always nuances in the United Kingdom and in Northern at least people would know where they stood, and for Ireland as a whole. that reason, I support the amendment. I express my support for the points that my noble friend Lord Anderson made about Gibraltar. It was Lord Triesman: My Lords, this is a fair enough certainly my experience when in the Foreign Office amendment. Were we to have been conducting this that the European Union mitigates—though not always debate 25 or 30 years ago, I suspect that everybody successfully, it has to be said—the character and intensity would have thought it wholly appropriate to take the of some of the disagreements that occur with Spain. temperature of the nation as a whole, because we Even when other members of the EU are supportive would not have seen the degree of change within the of Spain, it none the less damps down the intensity of United Kingdom and the extent of devolution. Of the discussion. Of course, Gibraltar sometimes criticises course, it will still be useful to have a United Kingdom- the EU, but it is without question that Gibraltar wide picture at the end of a referendum, and it is would prefer to have the armoury of the United essential that there should be—but on its own, that Kingdom around it in the discussions of those issues will not do now. than to have to face them on its own. For those Twenty-five years on, the home nations of the reasons, it is particularly helpful that my noble friend United Kingdom are sufficiently and significantly distinct. made those points. People see themselves as having very distinct interests. Some of them are to do with the individual nations Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, one of and some are to do with the character of the relationship the other things that we want to seek in a referendum that those nations have with Europe. There are distinct would be transparency, as the Electoral Commission issues about the development of social policy, economic recommends. Of course, in general elections, the public interests and the trajectories of economic interests. It know precisely how people have voted in different is not just that those factors have emerged in the parts of the country because of the constituency system. overall politics of the United Kingdom, but that the So you can tell how many people are returned from experience has some depth. There is real depth of which party from the respective countries of the United experience. It is not just a constitutional formality that Kingdom, and it is very clear. In that sense, I am these things have taken place; it represents very real rather tempted by the amendment, which would allow experience, which people generally treasure. that level of transparency to come in, not as finely As with all the issues in front of your Lordships in defined as that but broadly, for us to be able to tell these debates, it is very helpful to look at this from all where opinions lie in one direction or the other. It angles. Were there to be a vote to leave—and I have would help us to reflect on what to do next and how said in the House before that I profoundly hope, as we might best reflect the opinions of those constituent many other do, that there will not be—especially if it parts of the United Kingdom, depending on the outcome were a narrow vote, and a strong belief persisted in of the referendum, along the lines of the amendment Scotland and/or Wales that their electorates did not that we have just agreed. want to leave, that would create stresses within the United Kingdom that unquestionably would push those home nations towards still greater devolution or full Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: My Lords, before the independence. If we did it as a single country, it is noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, replies to the debate, I likely to promote the belief that the results in effect should like to speak briefly on the Gibraltar point hide the way in which people in Scotland and Wales raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I should would prefer to conduct their relationship with Europe, also like to raise a bigger point for the noble Lord, and the fact that they wish to do so in a way that is Lord Dobbs, to think about. significantly different from the approach of England. On Gibraltar, I point out first that no one has an Knowing all that, there is a very good case for believing amendment tabled to Clause 4; nobody in this House that it would put energy into further separation. objects in principle to the idea of Gibraltar voting in If there is an overall vote, and if people know what the referendum. Although it was not in the original the votes are in each of the home nations, that does Bill and was added in the House of Commons, nobody not necessarily mean that people will say, “Actually, here is objecting to it, and I certainly do not do so. It is 1519 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1520 a little anomalous that a British overseas territory We had an hour and a half’s debate and then a should vote, of course, but that the Gibraltarians Division on something that plainly was correct and should be able to vote is not nearly as anomalous as was going to be written into the Bill one way or the expatriates across the frontier in Spain being unable another. The only argument that the noble Lord, Lord to vote. Gibraltar is a country member of the European Dobbs, produced against it was that it was unnecessary. Union; large numbers of European Union rules do He did not say it would be damaging. I do not think he not apply there—it does not have VAT, and it is not in was right. The House did not think he was right and the customs union, the common commercial policy, clearly thought the amendment was necessary. If the the CAP or the CFP. On the other hand, expatriates noble Lord thinks that it is unnecessary but does not would see a very serious change to what they might do any harm why does he not buy it? What does the legitimately have expected, if the referendum produced House expect to happen when it puts forward probing a no—but we will come to that under a later amendment, amendments and takes them away again? It expects and I shall not pursue it now. something to occur, perhaps in the gap between Committee and Report. The gap is there for approaches. The very small point that I would like to make is on I had hoped that there would be an approach to me the Channel Islands, which are much more closely about Amendment 10 by now and I am very sorry that integrated into the European Union than is Gibraltar. has not happened. It is pity to force us into the They apply the common agricultural policy, and their Division Lobbies. It wastes a lot of time. It would be main export is to France—agricultural goods and much better, and we would make progress with this products derived from them. I do not know why the Bill, if the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was prepared to drafters of the Bill included Gibraltar and not the accept amendments. Channel Islands. That is a legitimate question to ask I am not saying that the Gibraltar issue, let alone the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, to think about and come the Channel Islands issue that I have raised, is one that back to. I am speaking in support of what was, I think, deserves an immediate answer or anything like that. a probing amendment about Gibraltar and asking Mine was a genuine probing amendment. I do not that the probe should go a little wider and include the know why the Channel Islands are not in and Gibraltar anomaly of the Channel Islands. is. The biggest question is that I do not know how we make progress with this Bill if no amendments can be I come to my bigger point about the nature of accepted other than through the Division Lobbies. probing amendments. We worked quite hard for quite a long time a week ago. A number of noble Lords withdrew amendments, for which there was quite a lot Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab): Following up on that of support around the House, on the understanding contribution to the debate, the Isle of Man, which is a that there would be reflection. I have heard nothing Crown dependency, is in the same situation. Its relationship from the sponsors of the Bill on the major amendment with the EU is determined by Protocol 3 of the 1972 I withdrew. I have heard from one distinguished Member accession Act. The United Kingdom has traditionally of this House—he is now in his place—but I am not been responsible for the foreign relationships and foreign going to embarrass him by saying who he is or what he affairs of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It said. Probing amendments are well worth it if they are would be helpful to know—not necessarily today, but designed to see whether the sponsors will accept them on another occasion—to what extent the United Kingdom or will come back with a different version of them. Government are committed to consultation with the However, on none of the amendments that were Crown dependencies, such as the Channel Islands and withdrawn in our eight-hour debate last week with a the Isle of Man, on the effect of a possible withdrawal view to coming back on Report, have the sponsors of the UK from the EU, and doing so in advance of subsequently been in touch with the proposers. What any referendum, to take their views and to enable is the point of a probing amendment? It seems to me them to be made clear. If the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, the only way one can get the defects in this Bill is able to comment today, which is possibly unlikely, corrected is in the Division Lobbies. The House has that would be helpful. If not, perhaps we could return voted three times, and three times by substantial majorities to it on a future occasion. has amended the Bill.

It has been suggested more than once that, once Baroness Quin (Lab): My Lords, there is no doubt one amendment was carried and therefore the argument that the inclusion of Gibraltar was greatly welcomed that the Bill must stay intact had collapsed, there was in Gibraltar itself. It was certainly done on the basis of no cost to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, in buying an one of the rare obvious cross-party agreements on this amendment. Indeed, there might be considerable issue in the other place. Of course, the people of advantage. I had hoped that today’s debate would take Gibraltar vote in European parliamentary elections. place in a less confrontational way than last week’s However, the points that have been raised on this one started and that we would be more consensual issue are important. I, too, would like to reinforce the and try to find areas of agreement. However, on the point just made by my noble friend and by the noble previous amendment on which we have just voted, the Lord, Lord Kerr, as to what consultation there has noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, must have known from been with both the Channel Islands and the Isle of the debate that the Division Lobbies would not give Man, whether or not they have expressed an interest in the result he wanted. Why did he not feel that he could wanting to be involved in the vote, how they think that accept the amendment? Why do we have to force it on their interests are going to be affected and what kind him? If anything is wasting time, it is this. of consultation will take place with them. 1521 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1522

Lord Dobbs: My Lords, first, I take the point about reasonable amendment if the consequence of adding Gibraltar. The drafters of the Bill had not chosen to those amendments to the Bill—which has to go back distinguish between Gibraltar and the Channel Islands. to another place, which has already spoken so clearly The drafters of the Bill did not include Gibraltar; that about the Bill—will be not a new way of counting the was included at the express request and instruction of votes but no votes being counted at all. That would be the other place. The situation of the Channel Islands a tragedy, and I am trying to avoid it. was of course discussed in the other place. There are The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has always been a of course constitutional differences between the two great tribune of the people, if I can put it that way—of but I will, of course, take that away and we will be in the Scottish people. Most recent opinion polls in Scotland touch. show very strong support for a referendum: 3:1. Those I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, if he same people had the common sense, time after time, to thinks that I have been in any way deficient or impolite send him back to Westminster as the representative of in dealing with the points that he made in the previous his constituency of Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Committee sitting. He raised the point then that he Valley. They were persuaded by him then, and I see no would be bringing the issue of timing, for instance, up reason why they should not continue to listen to his on Report, and I was hoping to get a sensible time entreaties and be persuaded by them in a referendum. between Committee and Report to discuss exactly All I am trying to do, above all, is to make sure that those matters with him. That was my intention; if I the Bill does not founder because so many baubles are have not been prompt enough in dealing with that, added to the Christmas tree that the entire tree collapses. then I apologise. It is certainly not my intention to The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is no timorous wee turn my back on sensible points so responsibly made. beastie who runs from the sound of gunfire. He is a I hope that those noble Lords with their names to man who has always shown confidence in his cause, the amendments in this group will forgive me if, once and I want him to be able to put his cause out there in again, I say that they are unnecessary. The rules of public on the matter of the EU. It is in that spirit that I conduct for most polls, including general elections, are say that this amendment is unnecessary and I beg him set out in secondary legislation rather than in an Act; to withdraw it. that is the custom. The appropriate, nuanced arrangements—I hope that they will be nuanced, the term that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, so sensibly Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I moved the used, because one has to be sensitive to the differing amendment in respect of Gibraltar— circumstances of the time—are taken care of in Clause 3. Clause 3 stipulates that the arrangements will be based Lord Dobbs: I beg pardon of the noble Lord, Lord in due course on the published recommendations of Anderson, if I overlooked him. I think we have never the Electoral Commission, which will come back to gone into the same Division Lobby, but have always the House at an appropriate time. parted company with a smile and good grace, and I hope that that will continue. I apologise if I overlooked Lord Roper (LD): My Lords, in many cases, they him in the tributes that I was so eager to pay to the have been in schedules to proposals for referendums. noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. This time, they will merely come back as a statutory instrument, which this House will have no chance of Lord Anderson of Swansea: That is the story of my amending unless a subsequent amendment to the Bill life and of Gibraltar. However, I hope that the noble is accepted. Lord will recognise me and my noble friend Lord Wigley as tribunes of the people of Wales in the same Lord Dobbs: The noble Lord is entirely right—they way. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said at the will come back to this House, which is the point I was beginning, this problem would not have arisen if there making, although they may not come back in the form had been schedules to the Bill with that set out, but the that he would like. However, nobody is trying to avoid problem the noble Lord, Lord Roper, mentioned, has ensuring that the arrangements for counting these arisen. Apparently the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, fails votes are satisfactory. This should not be a divisive to recognise that we are now in a new context because matter. Why do we need to specify at this stage how amendments have been passed—two last Friday and the votes should be counted? The point I make time one so far today. The speed and the pressure have and again—perhaps in response to the position of the gone, so he should have a spirit of looking carefully at noble Lord, Lord Kerr—is on the cost of accepting how the Bill might be improved. these amendments. If this debate were entirely among As regards the people of Gibraltar, it is clear that rational, reasonable men and women who simply wanted there could be very serious problems for our good to come to an agreed conclusion, then of course there friends on the Rock if the UK was to withdraw, so would be very little cost. However, let us be real. We they have a very proper interest in this. It is therefore a know what is going on in this House, in the corners matter for reflection as to whether to ensure not only and dusty corridors of this place. Some noble Lords that their votes are counted but that the position of will not accept the Bill under any circumstances. We the Rock is seen to be clear. I hope that the noble read about that in the press all the time, particularly in Lord, Lord Dobbs, and his advisers, whether they are the Guardian, which appears to be particularly well in the officials’ Box or wherever, will make time for informed of what goes on in those corners. Therefore, reflection so that we can find common ground. This is I cannot simply say that of course I can accept any in no way partisan; I am very ready to accept that 1523 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1524 there is strong support for Gibraltar throughout this House. Therefore although I will withdraw this Amendment 55 amendment I hope that it will give an opportunity for reflection by all those of good will. Moved by Lord Williams of Elvel 55: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— Amendment 53 (to Amendment 52) withdrawn. “Definition of “United Kingdom” (1) For the purposes of this Act, the United Kingdom comprises 1.45 pm England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I assure the (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the Secretary of State noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that I have not spoken to the may amend subsection (1) by order made by statutory instrument Guardian about this issue, so, if an article has appeared subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. on it, that was certainly not my doing. However, if (3) Notwithstanding any provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, Guardian staff do want to talk to me, I am very happy the Government of Wales Acts 1998 and 2006 and the Northern to do so. Ireland Act 1998, the— (a) Scottish Parliament relating to Scotland, I remind the House that we are talking about (b) Welsh Assembly relating to Wales, or counts rather than eligibility to vote, although I can (c) the Northern Ireland Assembly relating to Northern understand why we have strayed into eligibility to Ireland, vote. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, rightly made some may authorise their presiding officer to forward a request, ironic comments. I agree with him and the noble Lord, along with any relevant reports agreed to by the Parliament Lord Anderson, that the people of Gibraltar should or Assembly, that the Secretary of State make an order be able to vote on this issue. However, it is ironic if under subsection (2) to amend subsection (1). they are able to vote on it but not EU citizens living in (4) No order shall be made under this section until the the United Kingdom who are taxpayers—the noble Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out any opinion on his or her proposal to make Lord, Lord Shipley, has tabled an excellent amendment such an order expressed by any of the Scottish Parliament, the on that matter—or British expatriates living in the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Welsh Assembly.” south of Spain who have a very strong interest in it. I have tabled a later amendment on that issue which I hope we will discuss when we reach it. Lord Williams of Elvel (Lab): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to a consensus. Amendment 55, I also touch on Amendment 75 in the I was a bit hard on the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. earlier when I thought that he had not replied satisfactorily I hasten to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, to our amendment. As he knows, I respect him. However, that this is a genuine probing amendment. We are not I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that a Bill’s trying to elicit any response other than that there is a sponsor has a responsibility to take on board the problem— feeling of the House without a vote necessarily taking place on an issue, or to give a commitment in Committee Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting that, between the stages of the Bill, he will look at the the noble Lord but I hope that the sound system can arguments that have been put forward and come back be adjusted as, most regrettably, I am finding it impossible with amendments. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord to hear him. Dobbs, will do that in relation to separate counts. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, for whom I have the Lord Williams of Elvel: I will do my best. Can the greatest respect, and who has great experience as a noble Lord hear me now? chairman of the European Union Select Committee and from his many previous positions and his long Noble Lords: Hear, hear! membership of this House, endorsed what I and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said about schedules. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that it would Lord Williams of Elvel: This is a probing amendment. greatly help the proper consideration of the Bill if, The question is: how can the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, between now and Report, he talked to the Public Bill and the House involve devolved Administrations in Office. It is full of enthusiastic people who want to the conduct of the referendum? There are two issues. help noble Lords draft measures and who can suggest This, in a sense, follows on from the previous debate. amendments and schedules. It would be good to have First, there is the potential for a disaster if we do not a schedule on the conduct of the referendum, as we get this right. Secondly, there is the question of how have had in previous Bills. In the hope that the noble devolved Administrations can indicate to their constituents Lord might listen to our plea—it is not just my plea, what their considered view is. but our plea—and that we do not have to divide so Let me take the first issue. I give your Lordships a often but that he will accept later amendments in rather irreverent description of the United Kingdom. Committee and will come up with his own suggestions Not long ago, the former First Minister of Wales, on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Rhodri Morgan, had a meeting with Alex Salmond. “The United Kingdom”, Rhodri said, “consisted of Amendment 52 withdrawn. one large mammal: an elephant and three fleas”. The elephant was England and the three fleas were Scotland, Amendment 54 not moved. Wales and Northern Ireland. As it happened, Mr Salmond 1525 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1526 was not entirely pleased with this analogy, nor would As for Scotland, again the picture is not entirely many of my colleagues in Wales or Northern Ireland clear. After all, the Scottish National Party has spent a be. Nevertheless, let us consider the truth of the matter. good deal of energy, and quite a lot of money on legal England, in population terms—hence, in terms of fees, arguing for continued Scottish membership of votes—outweighs the combined total of the three the European Union in the event of Scotland leaving devolved Administrations by a factor of roughly five. the United Kingdom. It would be almost absurdly In other words, the elephant can easily vote on any idiosyncratic for it to advocate the UK leaving the EU issue to squash the fleas. To be more precise, England if Scotland itself voted to remain part of the UK. might vote in any UK-wide referendum by such a wide That being so, and given the relative weakness of the margin that the matter would be settled, regardless of Conservatives and UKIP in Scotland, I think that it how the votes fell in Scotland, Wales and Northern would be safe to assume that the Scottish vote would Ireland. Therein lies the problem. fall in favour of the UK staying in the European Let me consider the “in or out” referendum as Union. proposed in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. As for England—well, who knows? It seems clear By the way, in the light of what my noble friend Lord that a large section of the Conservative vote and, I Giddens said about referendums, I should note that, in imagine, the totality of the UKIP vote would be in my experience, they always start off with one question favour of the UK leaving the European Union. Of and end up with another, usually on whether the course, I very much hope that I am wrong but I very electorate want to give the Government of the day a much fear that the English vote may go quite powerfully kicking. That happened in France, for instance, in the in what I personally regard as the wrong direction. referendum there. I hope that that will not translate Worse still—and here is the major point—I fear that it into the referendum that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, would go in the wrong direction to the point where an proposes. If all constituent parts of the United Kingdom, English majority might overwhelm the totality of the the elephant and the fleas, voted in the same way, there vote in the Celtic fringe. would be no problem. All would be harmony. As for So what happens then? It could easily be that my the specific referendum proposals that we have in front worst-case scenario comes about: England votes for of us, if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland showed exit in sufficient numbers to overcome the Celtic fringe the same appetite as England for staying in or leaving voting to stay in. With an overall majority in its the European Union and all were as one, there would pocket, the Conservative Government of the day would be no problem. Alas, on the current evidence on this then presumably proceed to dismantle all the arrangements issue, that may not be case. between the UK and the European Union which have Let me take the situation as I understand it to be in been put in place since we first joined all those years the four regions that make up the UK and try to gauge ago. So far, so relatively simple—or disastrous, according their attitudes to UK membership of the European to your opinion. Union. I cannot speak for Northern Ireland as I have At that point, what is at present a theoretical problem no great knowledge of the feeling there on this issue. I becomes a constitutional nightmare. The new Conservative have had to consult colleagues. All that I can say is Government set about legislating for the exit of the that it would look odd, to say the least, to see Northern United Kingdom from the European Union. However, Ireland out of the European Union and the Republic how would that play with the Celtic fringe countries if staying in. This matter, I am told, worries the Republic the result of the “in or out” referendum had been a a lot. That might please some people but it would thumping “out” in England and an equally thumping surely disconcert others. After consulting noble colleagues “in” in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the on the spread of opinion, I am led to believe that a overall vote in the UK—including, of course, Gibraltar— vote in Northern Ireland would go, on a best guess, when totted up amounted to “out”? 60:40 in favour of remaining in the European Union. As is normal, some noble colleagues think that it As for Northern Ireland, noble Lords with better might go the other way, but I am not there to judge knowledge than mine will no doubt have their own that. opinion. All I can say is that there would probably be, as usual, political fireworks, and possibly real fireworks As for Wales, the position is equally unclear. A as well. As for Wales, I am afraid that I imagine there distinguished academic wrote only a few days ago that would be the customary sullen acceptance of the as far as he knew, historical domination of the English—expressed yet “nobody in the mainstream of Welsh politics, business and academia again—over their Celtic neighbour, but it would be wants to leave the European Union”. sullen anger to be fed into resentment in the future. As In fact, he argued that Wales has benefited greatly for Scotland, I cannot even begin to imagine the from UK membership. The protections afforded by reaction of Scots when they hear that the English have the EU treaties and consequent directives and regulations, kicked them out of Europe. It just does not bear as well as the flow of funds from the EU, have been thinking about. much welcomed. Economic development, environmental So what can be done? I have to be honest and say policy and the protection of social and employment that I doubt whether it will be possible, within the rights are just a few examples. In short, it is hard to see present legislative framework, to solve this problem in the Welsh electorate voting to reject all that has been its entirety. The Committee will no doubt be aware of benefit to them from UK membership of the European that foreign affairs are a reserved issue under the Union. Nevertheless, some polling evidence in Wales devolution Acts and are thus the preserve of the UK suggests that there might be a substantial “out” vote. Government. In the normal course of events, this is a 1527 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1528 perfectly reasonable arrangement, but this Bill does and useful device in arguments between the UK and not fall within the normal course of events, and I do the rest of Europe. If granted, they would form a not see how anybody could claim that it does. Therefore, platform for negotiation between an England which we have a special situation that calls for special measures. might have wished to leave the European Union and What I propose in the amendment is that devolved an opted-out country about the future relationship. If Administrations should have the right to request of refused, at the least it would give the devolved the Secretary of State what amounts to an opt-out Governments the right to have their opinions heard. It from the referendum proposed in the Bill. In deciding may also be argued that foreign affairs are no business whether to make such a request, each devolved Assembly of the devolved Administrations, as the devolution or Parliament shall debate the grounds for such a Acts make clear, and should be handled by Members request and explain them to the Secretary of State in a of the UK Parliament on their behalf. It is precisely memorandum after consulting, in one form or another, those policy areas which are the responsibility of the their electorate. It goes, I think, without saying that devolved Administrations—environment, education, each one would take into account the advantages and culture and so on—where UK membership of the EU disadvantages for their electorate in taking part in the has been most beneficial. They have a right, and I “in or out” referendum—in other words, the debate would argue a duty, to defend that. Otherwise, there is would be a responsible one and not just a petulant no point in them being there. gesture. The best we can do is to allow a formal Finally, it may be argued that my proposal would mechanism which would enable the devolved put at risk the stability of the United Kingdom. However, Administrations to have their voices heard. At present, the risk involved if my worst-case scenario comes under the devolution Act, they have no right to do so. about is infinitely greater. Of course I, like others around me, hope that it does not come about. If an “in or out” referendum is ever launched, I hope that all 2pm four countries of the United Kingdom will vote decisively That leads me to my second issue. Let us suppose to remain in the European Union and work constructively that Wales, for instance, was to make such a request. at all levels of government to reform the EU in a The Secretary of State, under my proposal, would sensible and rational way. I hope for all that. But along have the right to refuse it. The Welsh memorandum with hoping for the best, one must also fear the worst would be the property of the Welsh Assembly, which and do whatever is possible to provide a way of might and almost certainly would wish to publish it. If mitigating its effects. It is in that spirit that I beg to the Secretary of State were to accede to the request to move my amendment. make an order removing Wales from the United Kingdom for the purposes, and only for the purposes, of the referendum, he would be obliged to publish the Lord Wigley: My Lords, after speaking to memorandum to support his decision. In either event, Amendment 75 in my name, I shall come back to the the formal view of the Welsh Assembly, whose Members interesting points put forward by the noble Lord, are elected by the citizens of Wales, would be in the Lord Williams. Amendment 75 is simple and I would public domain. have thought that, if the owners of this Bill were in a Let us now suppose that Scotland were to make mind to accept amendments, this would be the sort of such a request. Judging from what I have heard in amendment that should be built in. It purely and previous debates in this House, I think it goes without simply makes provision—were the Scottish to vote for saying that if the Scots voted for independence next independence in the referendum, and we do not know September, the Secretary of State would be pretty well whether they will—to take Scotland out of the Bill. bound to accede to its request since Scotland was That may not be what the majority of noble Lords in removing itself from the United Kingdom however this Chamber want, but it could happen, and it strikes defined. In fact, even if my amendment is not accepted, me as being a little short-sighted to put through a Bill the Scottish vote for independence would bring with it that does not make provision for one of the eventualities legislation in some form to exempt Scotland in the UK that we have spent considerable time discussing, including referendum. However, if the Scots were to remain in just yesterday in this Chamber. I therefore put this the United Kingdom and the Secretary of State rejected forward as a constructive amendment to be considered the Scottish Parliament’s request for an opt-out, the at the appropriate stage—if not now, in fine-tuning view of Parliament could and would be published, as the Bill—to meet that eventuality. in the Welsh case. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord What would happen if the overall UK was to leave Williams, touches on some pretty sensitive areas. I, the European Union thanks to an English majority? I like the noble Lord, want to see all parts of the United have absolutely no doubt that there would be the Kingdom voting yes to remain within the European mother and father of a row. No doubt there would be Union. Certainly, there need to be changes to the new demands for Scottish independence. In all probability European Union, but I want Wales, Scotland, Northern it would ignite a similar debate in Wales and even in Ireland and England—the UK, as it is now—to be Northern Ireland. No one can foresee the consequences members of the European Union. That is my starting of all that. The least one can say is that it would put in point and that is what I will be campaigning for. doubt the whole future of a viable United Kingdom. However, issues arise in the context of the referendum There will of course be objections to my proposal. because the interests in Scotland, Wales and Northern No doubt there will be arguments that opt-outs are Ireland are, to some extent, different from the mainstream impractical, although they have proved to be a practical interests in England. For example, in Scotland, there is 1529 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1530 the question of fisheries. A lot of attention has been argue that the voices of other parts of the country given to that in recent months and the Government were eclipsed. It will be interesting to hear what the have made some progress on some issues. But Scotland noble Lord has to say on that issue. always wants to have its Ministers associated with any UK team. The problem at present is that, within the UK ministerial team negotiating in Brussels, Ministers Lord Liddle: My Lords, I will be very brief on this from the devolved Administrations have to follow the point, but my noble friend Lord Williams has raised lead of the UK Minister. an issue of fundamental importance with this amendment. It covers the role of the devolved Administrations, That is fine if there is unanimity of view on these their views on EU membership and how those views issues, but there are occasions on matters such as are communicated to their electorate, and the risks fisheries where there may not be. Whatever our that this whole venture poses to the union we care relationships are with each other in the United Kingdom about most, the union of the United Kingdom. I care over the coming years, our relationship with the European a lot about the European Union but I care even more Union must develop in a way that allows flexibility to about the union of the United Kingdom. take that consideration on board. That must arise in countries such as Spain as well, where Catalonia or the Basque country may have a slightly different view Lord Dobbs: Can the noble Lord clarify whether, from Madrid on some issues. If the European Union when he says that this venture poses risks, he is talking insists on being a totally centralist organisation, which about the Bill or a referendum as a whole? I do not believe in its essence it has to be if the principle of subsidiarity works through, then the European Union must work towards an ability to take these Lord Liddle: I am talking about an “in or out” variations from area to area on board. referendum, which this Bill is designed to generate in I mentioned Scotland and now I come to Wales and quick time. It is quite possible that the different parts the farming regime, which I mentioned earlier. On the of the UK will vote in different ways. As I said at sheep-meat regime, particularly as sheep are the greater Second Reading, the risk is that independence is defeated part of the Welsh agricultural economy, there have in the Scottish referendum this autumn, but that an been times when the Minister from the Government in EU referendum in which Scotland voted to stay in and Wales spoke in the UK team in Brussels on these England, by a majority, took the United Kingdom out matters. But if there is an idea that the well-being of would just reignite the whole argument about Scottish vital sectors such as fisheries in Scotland and sheep nationalism once again. The Government have to farming in Wales is going to be lost, swamped by the think very seriously about this problem. I quite accept English vote in a referendum, that can build up tensions. that it is not easily dealt with through amendments to This needs to be thought through. I do not think that this Bill, but it is a very serious issue for the future of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, necessarily sees this as the UK. the formula to provide all the answers, but he is raising the questions and these are questions that should be Lord Dobbs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, raised. Lord Williams and Lord Wigley, for the way they They should also be raised in the context of Northern introduced this very important issue—there is no denying Ireland. We are all a little sensitive of treading into its importance. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, himself Northern Irish matters but, quite clearly, the co-operation readily acknowledged that the amendments go beyond that has developed over the past 15 years or so in the scope of this very simple and very narrow Bill, and Northern Ireland has grown to some extent because of the technical answer to them is that the UK’s relationship cross-border movement, which is so easy. If the Irish with the EU is not a devolved matter. However, that of Republic were in the European Union and Northern course is not a sufficient answer to the points that they Ireland were out, I fear that there could be a winding made. back of the clock and that some people would want to Amendment 55 is a probing amendment, which has do that. been put in a dignified and detailed matter, and I want I realise that these amendments go much further to try to deal with it in that spirit. I have specific than the intention of the Bill. None the less, the issues concerns about the amendments. The logical consequence are worthy of consideration. As we move forward, not of this group of amendments would be to raise at least just in the context of the European Union referendum the possibility that some parts of our United Kingdom but in the context of what happens to the United might be denied the opportunity to vote. It would Kingdom in the wake of the Scottish referendum, render a national referendum pointless because of the these considerations must be taken on board, one way involvement of devolved parliaments, which I am sure or another. is not the intention of the noble Lords who tabled these amendments at all. Noble Lords have waved the Lord Giddens: My noble friend Lord Williams raises flags of the various constituent parts of our United a significant set of issues. There plainly could be big Kingdom with pride, and I congratulate them on that. discrepancies in patterns of voting across the United They have raised useful points which we should all be Kingdom and these will be consequential for Scotland, sensitive to, such as the possibility of Northern Ireland Wales and Northern Ireland. It would be interesting and the Republic being on opposite sides of the fence. to from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, how the Government It is a very serious, complicated issue. However, along would deal with a situation where the English basically with all the other issues that have been raised, that is settled the vote in such a decisive way that you could fundamentally a political challenge. They are not ones 1531 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1532 that we should try to anticipate by an analysis, no that this Bill raises, including the question to be asked, matter how acute and insightful, of various hypothetical the threshold and the information required by voters. situations at this time. This amendment concerns another major issue of The issue was raised of the possibility—indeed the principle: who is entitled to vote in this referendum? necessity—of trying to pre-empt the outcome of the Other amendments following this one cover very Scottish referendum, in case Scotland voted for important related issues on the entitlement to vote. independence. In the event of that very sad decision of The purpose of all the amendments to which I have Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, all sorts of put my name is to extend the right to vote in this new arrangements would need to be made, and the referendum to all those who could be directly affected arrangements required for this Bill would be part of a by the outcome. much more complex bundle. The Bill gives the right to vote only to those who 2.15 pm are entitled to vote at a parliamentary election in the Lord Wigley: The noble Lord touches on a fundamental UK in any constituency, plus Members of this House here. The implication of what he is saying is that if and Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar. Except for Scotland voted for independence it would undermine the proposal on Gibraltar, this is in line with the this Bill because of the complexity of issues that entitlement to vote in the recent AVreferendum, which, would arise. Surely that is not his intention. By accepting understandably, gave a vote to those who would be the amendment in my name, he would have the flexibility directly affected by it. to deal with it. However, this Bill is not in line with the entitlement to vote in the Scottish referendum later this year, Lord Dobbs: As I have said, I think that the issue which applies a residency test based on the electoral would go far beyond the scope of any one single Bill. register for local elections. The view in Scotland is that He and I, I hope, will be fighting on the same side of those residents who may be affected directly by the the barricade in order to retain the United Kingdom outcome should be allowed to express an opinion which we both value so highly. through the ballot box. I concur with that decision in The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that he cannot Scotland, rightly made on behalf of EU voters living even imagine what our responses would be in various in Scotland—although in my view voters entitled to situations. That is precisely the point: we cannot imagine vote in a parliamentary election in Scotland but resident them. We should not therefore try, because, in trying elsewhere in the UK or overseas should be allowed to to do so in the form of legislation, we would inevitably vote as well. But that is not the proposition in Scotland get things wrong. I certainly do not think that we need so, be that as it may, the principle established in to make that effort at this stage. In that spirit of Scotland is that the local election register should be understanding, I ask that the amendments be not used in that referendum so that all residents living in pressed. Scotland can register to vote. Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble The rules on eligibility to vote in UK elections are Lord, Lord Dobbs. As I said, this was a probing these. Citizens of the UK, the Republic of Ireland, amendment, intended simply to raise the problem as I Cyprus and Malta can vote in UK parliamentary saw it of how to involve the devolved Administrations elections, so they can vote in this referendum, according in this referendum, because at the moment there is no to the proposal in the Bill. Citizens of EU countries mechanism for them to be involved. After all, they will other than the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus be affected and they are elected by their own constituents and Malta cannot vote in UK parliamentary elections, to their assemblies or parliaments. I hope that the so cannot vote in this referendum. However, they can noble Lord has taken that on board. I hope that the vote in local government elections, in Scottish Government have done so, too, because, if it comes to parliamentary elections if they are registered in Scotland, implementing the amendment in the name of the in elections to the National Assembly for Wales if they noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, this will be one of the are registered in Wales and in elections to the Greater issues that will be addressed by the Government at London Authority if they are registered in London. that point. However, in view of the sympathetic response They can also vote in European parliamentary elections from the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the if they fill in a form stating that they wish to vote in amendment. the UK and not in their home country. Amendment 55 withdrawn. If, as Amendment 57 proposes, the same test were Amendment 56 not moved. to be applied in this referendum as applies in the Scottish referendum, it would mean that all those Clause 2: Entitlement to vote in the referendum resident in the UK and registered to vote in local elections would be able to vote in this referendum. Amendment 57 This seems to me to be right: these residents of the UK have a big stake in the outcome because it will affect Moved by Lord Shipley their futures, so this referendum should include them 57: Clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out “parliamentary election in exactly the same way as the referendum on Scottish in any constituency” and insert “local authority election in the independence will. Because this Bill does not give all United Kingdom” EU citizens resident here the right to vote, even though Lord Shipley: My Lords, I should make it clear at they may work and pay taxes here—direct and indirect— the outset that this is a probing amendment at this this Bill should be amended to include them. I beg stage. We have discussed several issues of principle to move. 1533 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1534

Baroness Quin: My Lords, I will speak briefly in having given some thought to the composition of the support of this amendment, to which I am a co-signatory; franchise. I hope that my noble friend Lord Dobbs can I very much agree with the points made by the noble tell me that some thought was given to it. I suspect Lord, Lord Shipley, in moving it. I was a little bit that the easiest, quickest option, which did not involve puzzled—given that it clearly refers to eligibility to too much thought, was employed to put the provision vote—that it is not being considered with many of the in the Bill. This and other amendments need to be other amendments relating to that issue. There might carefully considered in the interest of fairness before be some procedural reason for that that escapes me. I the Bill passes into law and we have a referendum. certainly look forward to the later debates, when we will be talking about people in other categories whom we feel should also be eligible to vote. Lord Kinnock: This is another amendment which, I am certain, is moved with a helpful motivation, and Many Members—I am one of them—have received one that I hope, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord quite a large amount of lobbying literature and e-mails Dobbs, will feel able to accept. The acceptance of an about eligibility to vote, showing that there are many amendment of this kind would not in any sense people who would very much want to take part in a compromise the Bill, because substantial changes have referendum and feel that they would be affected by the been made. This is a change of lesser dimension, but, outcome of it. It is going to be extremely important for the reasons that we have just heard from the noble for us to take these views seriously and show that we Lord, Lord Bowness, it has particular focus. respond to the valid concerns that have been expressed. This amendment is a useful step forward and I am The referendum that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, glad that it will not pre-empt us from also considering wants is distinct from the referendum that I want—I the very valid claims on behalf of many other people want a referendum if there is a significant treaty who would like to vote in this referendum. change under the terms of the 2011 Act. If that is what we were facing, I would be making exactly the same proposal, if the electorate were confined in the way that they are in the Bill. The argument relating to the Lord Bowness (Con): My Lords, I put my name to electorate applies in any case to any referendum, this amendment; I do not want to add very much to particularly any referendum relating to the European what has already been said, but I support it because I Union and our future or lack of future in it—or the want this referendum which—I must say to my noble nature of our future in it. friends for the avoidance of doubt—I accept is a commitment of my party and is going to happen. I I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that in a want this referendum to be fair, and to include European referendum he will want the maximum number of Union citizens living here would add to the fairness. entitled electors to be able to vote. It is crucial to the They will be affected by whatever the outcome is of a whole country; I will not tire the House by repeating referendum. They have taken residence in this country what I said previously. The Prime Minister precisely and made their lives under the provisions of the treaties and accurately said that this was an issue of massive into which we, as a nation, freely entered and to which dimension and that no return ticket was available. I have agreed to be a party. The same can be said of the put it to the noble Lord that the only way to ensure the rights and interests of British citizens living in other maximum size of an electorate above the age of 18 is European Union countries, to which we may come to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in a local later. authority election could vote in the referendum. The number of persons who have that entitlement is larger However, in the interest of fairness, one might than that of those who have the parliamentary entitlement, make the comparison between those citizens living in for the obvious reason that people who are citizens of other European Union countries—and European Union other European Union countries—and, indeed, other citizens living in this country—with the position of countries—are, rightly, entitled to vote in their local Commonwealth citizens, who are not British citizens authority elections but, equally rightly, are not entitled but who will have the right to vote, even if their to vote for their Member of Parliament. countries have been suspended or expelled from membership of the Commonwealth. According to a reply which I received to a Written Question, we have 2.30 pm no idea how many Commonwealth citizens who are At its most basic, I suppose that this is an adaptation not British citizens are on the electoral roll. However, of the argument, “No taxation without representation”. there have been estimates—I have no idea how reliable In this case, since we are talking about all people who they are; I believe that they may have been based on are taxpayers—not just income tax payers and national the 2011 census—that the number of people, whether insurance payers, but local taxation payers and people or not on the electoral roll, which is not known, could who pay their share of VAT and other fees and charges amount to 900,000 in the country as a whole. That is that are, rightly, levied in this state—we should have not insignificant. respect for a fresh maxim, “No taxation without The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, prepared participation”. There is a valid, basic and democratic a report for the previous Government on citizenship in case that should permit them to vote in a referendum which he made the observation, not pursued by the deciding on the future in the European Union of the previous Government—or, indeed, this Government—that country in which they have residence and in which the right to vote and citizenship are closely linked. I do most of them work. Would it not be odd if these not think that it is good enough to embark on this people had the right to elect their councillors, or referendum asking a question of this importance without indeed in a referendum to determine whether the local 1535 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1536 area in which they live was to have a directly elected around me in Pakistan, that no white person ventured mayor, and yet did not have an entitlement to vote on into the country. You could see that even in the queue the future in or out of the European Union of the for immigration. There was a period when business country in which they have residence and to which investment and everything collapsed because the Pakistani they make a contribution? state was incapable of guaranteeing people’s safety. I hope that, having reflected on the legitimacy of There were particular attitudes in these countries towards the franchise and on the electorate, the noble Lord, the West in general and the United Kingdom specifically. Lord Dobbs, will be willing to give further consideration On that basis, there may be numerous other reasons to the idea of making what in terminology is quite a why all sorts of people come and live in this country small change to the Bill but one that, in terms of but decide not to take nationality. I know of Americans legitimacy, would be significant. who have lived here. They tend not to take British nationality for taxation reasons. That does not mean that they should be denied a franchise on a matter of Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I, too, such vital interest not only to them but to us as British support this amendment. The alternative vote referendum, nationals. the legislation for which was passed during this Parliament, had the franchise as proposed by my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: My Lords, my name is on Lord Shipley that we ought to include local authority the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, areas. The forthcoming Scottish referendum has exactly Lord Shipley. I have very little to add to the arguments the same provisions. that he advanced. I pay tribute to the arguments I want to illuminate my request that European advanced just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. Union citizens be included in this vital matter affecting I want to pick up something that the noble Lord, them from a personal perspective. I therefore declare Lord Bowness, said. The noble Lord is a very nice an interest. I am married to a German citizen. There man. His suggestion about the motive for not following are many reasons why large numbers of EU citizens the precedent of the Scottish referendum and for past live in our country, which has the largest number of precedents being broken with was that this was just expatriate EU citizens of all the EU countries. However, the quickest and simplest thing and that there was no one fact is indisputable, as other noble Lords have policy intention. I am not a very nice man. I am not as mentioned: that they pay taxes in this country. We nice as the noble Lord. I ask the “Cui bono?” question. incurred the wrath of the Polish Foreign Minister, Why should the sponsors of the Bill want to exclude Mr Sikorski, only five or six weeks ago when, in the the citizens of the European Union who have come hostile debate against eastern European workers on here under the conditions set out in the treaty and who the whole, he reminded our country that those people are living here, paying their taxes here, working here live here and that they contribute, work and pay taxes and possibly being officers on local councils here? here. I do not think that we won a friend in Poland by Why should we want to deny them the vote? The only having gone out of our way intentionally to annoy reason I can think of is that the sponsors of the Bill member countries whose citizens have made such a are not just seeking a referendum. In this case, as on positive contribution. No one who has had to have the question and the timing, they are looking for a construction work done, or who needed babysitting or referendum that is likely to produce the answer, “Let’s anything else, in the south-east in the past 15 years can get out”. I strongly support the amendment of the doubt that. noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Noble Lords on the Conservative Benches might wonder why, if some of these citizens make such a positive contribution—in the case of the one I know, it Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I strongly support the has been a contribution of 20 years—they do not amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I declare become nationals of this country. In that case, they what may be a tangential interest: I am entitled to vote would be entitled to vote. I want to address that in local elections in France. specifically. There are certain countries which have, as I feel very strongly that people who are entitled to Germany had in place, a statute against the holding of vote in local elections here as EU citizens should not dual nationality. That can be one reason why people be denied that right. My fear is that if we were to deny do not take the nationality of the country in which them this right, we would be reinforcing the image of a they have worked and lived. It does not diminish for a country that was on its way out of the EU. You could second their loyalty here. If you look at their voting look at it the other way around, too: if we were to records, in terms of their entitlements, they take up allow this amendment to go through, which I hope we their entitlements when they can. will, then to my great pleasure we might be reinforcing There is another possible reason, and in my case the image of a country that was engaging properly this is a very personal one. I travel to lots of countries with its European partners. where a white person or—I am afraid to say, after the I think particularly of my French friends, who are Iraq and Afghanistan wars—a person associated with living here in Britain. There are thousands of them the foreign policy of our country may not necessarily living here—not all of them my friends—and maybe I consider themselves safe. My origins lie in Pakistan. will be destroying my own case here by saying: do not My daughter was young and we went back to Pakistan count on all of them to vote in an in/out referendum frequently to see my aged parents. I requested my for Britain to stay in. Some of them may think that husband not to adopt British nationality in the light of Britain is too much trouble to keep in the European the Daniel Pearl murder because I could see, palpably Union. I venture to add that I think the vast majority, 1537 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1538 if given the vote, would want Britain to stay in, not not think the argument is total, so I put forward just in their own personal interest but in the interests a potential opposite view. I take a great interest in this of Britain, France and the European Union. small debate, but I do not think it is quite as straightforward as noble Lords who have spoken so Lord Teverson (LD): My Lords, I shall be slightly far have said. contentious because I am not sure I completely agree with the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have been very concerned Lord Shipley. I feel strongly that Britain should remain to understand how the conduct of the debate in the within the European Union, unless it might be as the course of a referendum could be most useful. Noble noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, just said and at some point Lords will recall that we debated parliamentary in the future Britain becomes rather destructive to the constituency boundaries at great length; it was argued European Union and we might come out. I do not that they work for parliamentary elections despite the know. I think we have to take this issue as a responsibility fact that the homogeneity of almost any of the that British citizens take upon themselves to make up constituencies was significantly disrupted. Some of our mind what we are going to do. I do not know that them were essentially very artificial; they were no the local government or national electoral rolls are the longer built around any kind of core principle but right ones. If I were given a logical choice, I would say were to meet a numerical target, which I did not agree it should be British citizens and perhaps I would add with but I fully understood. those with 10 years’ residence or less or something like I make that point because, by and large, local that. It is very difficult to do in a list that has to be authorities are not constructed that way. Some of the brought together and it would probably be impossible very large ones may be, but a very significant number for residency. I do not know. However, I do not think are constructed around entities where you can see the the arguments are compelling one way on this. I think degree of homogeneity of the economic system that that if we come to a referendum, it is up to British applies in that part of the country. That seems to me citizens to make up their own mind and, if they want to be very important, because I believe that one of the to commit suicide economically and in every other telling debates during any referendum would be on the way, that is up to them. balance of economic interests for us as a community. Do we see a future? Will our kids continue to want to Baroness Whitaker (Lab): My Lords, I shall put a live here? Will the economic community be capable of contrary point. If residency is to be the test of voting, sustaining the sorts of schools and kinds of medical as it is in other votes, and if London is the sixth city of provision that we want? All those will be live issues. It France, as some of us may have heard on Radio 4 this is no accident that chambers of commerce and a great morning, surely these job-creating, tax-generating people many other economic entities in all those communities ought to be represented, as they are in local elections, are organised with that kind of boundary in mind. for very good reasons. That is where many of these most telling debates will take place—they will not take place on the grounds of constituencies. Lord Teverson: Did the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, want to make a comment? 2.45 pm I realise that this is about voting, but the voting will Lord Giddens: I hope the noble Lord will accept be at the end of a process of debate, and if we can help that that all British citizens living in EU countries to formulate a mechanism in which that debate is should have a vote in the referendum. likely to be most relevant and successful, that seems to me of very considerable benefit in the whole process Lord Teverson: Yes, I do. I am just putting a principle. that could lead up to the referendum. Could the noble My noble friend kindly introduced this probing Lord, Lord Dobbs, reflect on that? I take the point amendment, and I am exploring some of the issues. that this is about making arrangements so that people get a chance to express a view on the future of the United Kingdom in the EU. I would like to believe Lord Davies of Stamford: The noble Lord says that that he thinks, and I feel sure that he will, that it is the vote should be based purely on citizenship, whether important to know that the quality of the debate will the voter is resident in this country or elsewhere. What be as fundamental before that decision is taken as the is his view about citizens of the Irish republic who are decision itself—otherwise it will probably be a decision resident here and are on the electoral roll? repented of at leisure.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I should state that I have Lord Cormack: I express the hope that it is not as a dual Irish and British nationality. I am putting forward result of our friendly exchange this morning that the an argument. I do not think there is a perfect answer noble Lord is now speaking from the Back Benches. to this, but I would exclude purely Irish citizens under this definition. In fact, you could argue very strongly Lord Triesman: I promise that I shall be even closer that the Republic of Ireland would be by far the most to the noble Lord later. affected other EU member state and therefore perhaps you should include all Irish citizens. I do not think one Lord Liddle: My Lords, this debate has raised another could sustain that. I just want to make the point that set of issues that need to be properly and thoroughly as Britain we need to make up our mind on this area, addressed before we put arrangements in place for any and we need to be responsible for our decision. I do kind of referendum on our future in the European 1539 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1540

Union. On this side of the House, Members would be Lord Dobbs: Have your Lordships finished? This, of very sympathetic to the principle that my noble friend course, is a very simple amendment, but the discussion Lord Kinnock set out that we should have the broadest has shown that the issue is far from simple. The possible vote on this fundamental issue. I know the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would sort of arguments that some people might make against change the franchise for parliamentary elections to this. One is that that it would set a precedent for voting that of the local government franchise. The noble in general elections and local elections, but I do not Lord wants to extend his net as widely as possible, but think that it would. An EU referendum is fundamentally my noble friend Lord Teverson has indicated what different; it is certainly not a vote for a councillor, an muddy waters we swim in. MP or a Government. It is a vote not for eternity, This amendment is far from simple on its own perhaps, but for generations ahead. The Prime Minister’s merits. For instance, by my reading of it, it would phrase about “no return ticket” comes to mind. It is a deprive British citizens abroad who are on the different type of vote from any other that we are likely parliamentary register, but do not qualify for the local to have in this country in the near future, and therefore authority register, of their vote in this referendum. I needs to be considered differently. know I will be told that there are later amendments that would correct that deficiency but it shows again There is a second, more low-level political point. that this is not a simple question. The issue of the Even now, with the debate that we have had, I am sure franchise in all its possible forms was given detailed that we run the risk of seeing some headline in the scrutiny in the elected Chamber, and that Chamber Daily Mail that says, “Peers demand the vote for voted for the proposals set out in this Bill by a huge foreigners in British EU referendum”. I can well imagine majority. It is not as a result of lack of study of this that being the headline—and I see that the noble issue that we are where we are. Lord, Lord Forsyth, thoroughly agrees with that proposition and thinks that such a headline would be As has been said on several sides, there is no clear right. precedent for how we should set the parameters. That is what we are talking about—setting parameters and The question of EU citizens living in this country drawing a line. As a Parliament we have never come to and of British citizens living in the EU has to be a common, agreed set of conditions for votes in a treated in the same breath. It is basically an issue referendum. Every referendum Bill that has gone through about the people who have shaped their lives around this Parliament seems to have had different conditions the fact that we are members of the European Union. and different electorates attached to it. There are no This referendum proposes to put at serious risk the precedents. It seems to me that the question arises: rights to live, work, study, retire, marry, partner and why should we give those groups whom we deliberately do whatever else you want, which are enormous enhancers deny, for good reasons, the opportunity to express of human freedom. Let the UKIP people say how they their views in a UK parliamentary election, a vote in would deal with these rights. As a simple matter of the our EU referendum? rights of these citizens—both EU citizens here and I am not sure that there is any EU country which UK citizens in the rest of the EU—this matter deserves allows citizens of other, foreign countries the right to the greatest consideration. vote on issues which are entirely national. No matter how much those from foreign countries, from other EU countries, might contribute to our country, culture Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can and society, that does not give them the automatic see the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, nodding at points right to take part in all of our elections. When it comes on the issue of the views that may be expressed in the down to it, in these muddy waters, it seems that one Daily Mail. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me has to draw a line somewhere. The only sensible line is if I remind the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that during that the future of Britain lies first and foremost in the the passage of the legislation to establish the Scottish hands— Parliament he supported his much lamented friend John MacKay when he argued that the waiter from Brussels living in Scotland would have a vote but his Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I am most grateful to the daughter who worked in Brussels and was Scottish noble Lord for giving way, but he seems now to be in would not. I know that the noble Lord will make the process of rejecting all of about the next five sets certain that the views he expresses on this Bill will be of amendments before we have even got to them. That in line with his firmly held principles on that occasion. is a little impetuous, if I may say so. He is also ignoring the fact that of all those who have spoken in Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I have been tempted to this first debate on the franchise, not one has supported rise. Actually I was not in this House when my late the position in the Bill. It is the least justifiable of noble friend Lord MacKay was performing at the them all. Dispatch Box, and the Scotland Bill is not a piece of The noble Lord is of course quite right to say that legislation that I am associated with as a great friend. some of the variants down here, including the one we The noble Lord is making a very curious argument are debating now, have complications about them, as because in the Scottish referendum, Scots who have the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. All that is being made their lives south of the border are being given no asked of the noble Lord is that he could take all these votes at all. It is very unfortunate that the noble franchise issues away and think again in light of the Baroness should pick on Scotland as an example fact that he has got the wrong one in the Bill. He has because it makes the case against her noble friend. expended his eloquence, which is considerable, on this 1541 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1542

House in favour of people who are affected by this 3pm decision having a say, and now he is busy excluding Lord Shipley: My Lords, I am grateful for the depth several millions of them. British citizens who live in of this discussion, and in particular to the noble Lord, other EU countries will be deeply affected by this, and Lord Hannay, for giving such a clear exposition of the they are not going to have a say at all. European position. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, Union citizens who live here will be deeply affected; the issues around the parliamentary franchise are they are not going to have a say. It would be best if the covered in amendments we have yet to debate, notably noble Lord were to reflect a little more on this before Amendment 59 and others. dismissing out of hand all the amendments on the franchise that have been moved. Lord Dobbs: On that point, it would have been very helpful if these had been grouped together; we could Lord Dobbs: I thank the noble Lord for his advice. I then have had a comprehensive discussion rather than was hoping that he was going to get up and give me an elongated and fractured discussion on the issue. another example of a European country that accepts, on purely national issues, the right of foreign citizens Lord Shipley: The point is taken; perhaps we can do to vote. There may be, and I would like to be able to that on Report, because no doubt we shall discuss this examine those precedents. again in great detail at that stage. I will say, in response partly to my noble friend Lord Teverson and also to Lord Richard: Would the noble Lord like to examine my noble friend Lord Dobbs, that we have to think the situation of the Irish of this country? through the question: is this only for British citizens? If it is, citizens of the Republic of Ireland would have to be excluded, in which case my noble friend Lord Lord Dobbs: My Lords, they are included on the Dobbs would have to amend the Bill because the parliamentary register if they apply. This is the register relevant clause is out of date on the basis of what he which has been chosen, not by chance. The noble just said. Is this for British citizens or for all those who Lord, Lord Hannay, says that this is the worst possible will be directly affected by the outcome? In moving register. It is not; it has been debated time and again. Amendment 57, I said that a change needed to be It is the register that we choose in our country as the made because those who will be directly affected by standard for these issues, and have done so for many the outcome should have a vote. That same principle years. I do not see why the noble Lord should suddenly will apply when we get to Amendments 59 and 63, and come out and decide that democracy as we have others later in the debate. For the moment, I beg leave practised it in this country suddenly ought to be to withdraw the amendment. thrown out of the window. Amendment 57 withdrawn. Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I did not say that it was the worst possible measurement for any election. I Motion happen to support the rules that we have for our national parliamentary elections, and will continue to Moved by Lord Lipsey do so. I merely said that it was the worst possible one for this referendum. That the House do now resume.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Lord Dobbs: I am suggesting that we have seen that House do now resume. I had hoped that the noble these are muddy waters. We have to draw a line somewhere. Baroness, Lady Anelay, would have leapt to her feet to Where is that line to be drawn? We clearly all have a do this, because we are now past the witching hour. I different view on that but, as the sponsor of the Bill, I noticed that she did not do so; if she now wishes to do believe that where the line ought to be drawn is very so I shall happily withdraw my Motion. clear. The future of Britain lies primarily, first and foremost, in the hands of British voters; not the citizens It is unusual for a Back-Bencher to move this of other countries, no matter how friendly they are, Motion, and I do so only because the noble Baroness, how much they might contribute to our welfare or Lady Anelay, is not doing so. Of course, the Chief how much we enjoy them being here. Whip is responsible for ensuring that the rules of the House are adhered to, and the facts here are I therefore conclude that there is no need to change straightforward. The Companion states on page 40, the provision in the Bill and that it is entirely acceptable. paragraph 3.01: Indeed, it was accepted by an overwhelming majority “It is a firm convention that the House normally rises … by in the elected House. I therefore suggest to the noble about 3 p.m. on Fridays”. Lord that the case that he made, however cogently and On 10 January the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, politely, has not succeeded, and that it will not succeed said: in the world outside. The noble Lord is already writing “I am indeed the guardian of the Companion”.—[Official headlines for the Daily Mail, which has a lot of readers— Report, 10/1/14; col. 1737.] and on this issue they may well, just for once, be right: Last week the guardian of the Companion did not put the future of this country lies in the hands of British up much of a fight. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, voters, not other voters. I therefore ask the noble Lord the mover of the Bill, rightly said that the House to withdraw his amendment. had made good progress—and we have, dealing with 1543 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1544

49 amendments. However, despite that good progress, the two stages. They are largely on second-order matters the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, insisted on overtime —some are important—but we have made rather less to nearly 6 pm, despite a promise from the Whip on progress. the Bench that the House would rise by 5 pm to 5.30 pm. It is no good crying over spilt milk, and every Noble Lords: Oh! dog is permitted one bite. However, I submit that what Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It is clear that we have cannot be tolerated in this House is that the Companion— made less progress. Noble Lords may disagree with me the sole way in which we regulate our proceedings—is on whether they are first-order or second-order matters; ignored week after week in the interests of one party it will be a matter of opinion—I appreciate that. in the House. It is, of course, for others, not me, to judge, but The noble Baroness cited the precedent of the Bill some Members of this House may believe that not on dignity in dying, when we did, indeed, go on until everybody has focused entirely on the amendments in 6 pm. That was because we expected to finish the Bill hand. Comments were made, particularly on the previous that night by so doing. However, there is no prospect group of amendments, on why matters were not grouped. whatever of our completing this Bill by 5.30 pm this I am not expressing my view wearing any of my three evening. Indeed, by my calculations, we could expect hats. By the way, I do not like wearing hats—I am just to finish at about two or three in the morning at the straightforward; I get on with it. present rate of progress. On a Bill of constitutional importance of this magnitude, the idea that this House I am certainly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord could be debating these issues at three on a Saturday Lipsey, for the way in which he put his Motion. He morning cannot be contemplated. was very courteous. However, I would like my name to be pronounced properly once in this Chamber. It I have a measure of sympathy with the Chief Whip. would be nice as I have been here since 1996, but there She sits on the Government Front Bench—I am glad you go. The noble Lord has moved that the House be to see her in her place—wearing three hats: as a Tory, a now resumed. That would mean that we would now member of the Government and a defender of the abandon the Committee stage, if that is what the rules governing our proceedings. However—and it House wishes to do. The noble Lord has done the pains me to say this—she is not in this case defending House a service because he has enabled every single our rules. She is not acting as a member of the Member present today to put on record whether or Government, as this is not a government Bill. She is not they wish the Bill to pass. acting wholly and solely as a partisan politician in what she perceives to be in the interests of her party. Noble Lords: No! That cannot be permitted. I beg to move. Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, if the The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) Motion is agreed, I will not be able to offer my noble (Con): The Question is that the House be resumed. friend Lord Dobbs more time for the Bill because the Since this is a somewhat unusual situation, I should House itself will have collectively indicated that it no advise the Committee that this Question is debatable longer wishes to consider the Committee stage. If the and, if necessary, divisible. House disagrees the Motion, I will take that as a desirable, clear indication that we should complete the remainder of the Committee stage today. Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con): My Lords, clearly, I listened very carefully to what the noble It is not a difficult question and I think we all know Lord, Lord Lipsey, said. My role as government Chief where we are so, after some consideration of our Whip is very clear. In scheduling Private Members’ proper conduct, I beg to move that the Question be Bills, it has always been the practice of all government now put. Chief Whips in all parties to consult the sponsor of The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness the relevant Bill in that scheduling. My role in the Morris of Bolton) (Con): My Lords, I am instructed by proceedings has been to facilitate the scrutiny of this order of the House to say that the Motion “That the Bill by this House. As ever, progress is in the hands of Question be now put” is considered to be a most the House. We are a self-regulating House. Therefore, exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is, save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only indeed, a legitimate Motion. As he says, it is unusual means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business for a Back-Bencher to move it, but it is by no means of the House; further, if a Member who seeks to move not available to him. That is a double negative, but I it persists in his or her intention, the practice of the mean that his action in moving the Motion is legitimate. House is that the Question on the Motion is put The noble Lord referred to the House’s use of time without debate. Does the noble Baroness still wish to and predicts that it will progress so slowly that it will move the closure Motion? not rise, at this rate, until the early hours of the morning. I do not like to predict; I like to go on what is Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I wish to move it. and what has been. That is what I sought to do last week when I gave advice to the House. Last week, we 3.11 pm got through 14 groups of amendments in reasonable Division on the Motion that the Question be now put. time. Several of those debates involved big, important Tellers for the Not-Contents were not appointed, so the subjects. Indeed, the Committee amended the referendum Division could not proceed. question itself. This week, there are 15 groups of amendments, after about another 14 were tabled between Motion agreed. 1545 European Union (Referendum) Bill[31 JANUARY 2014] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1546

3.17 pm Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. Rea, L. Tomlinson, L. Division on Motion that the House do now resume. Redesdale, L. Tope, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. Triesman, L. Rendell of Babergh, B. Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller] Contents 180; Not-Contents 130. Richard, L. Turnberg, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Turnbull, L. Motion agreed. Rogers of Riverside, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Roper, L. Uddin, B. Rosser, L. Wall of New Barnet, B. Division No. 2 Royall of Blaisdon, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Sawyer, L. Walmsley, B. CONTENTS Scotland of Asthal, B. Warner, L. Adams of Craigielea, B. Hamwee, B. Sharkey, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Addington, L. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Sharman, L. Watson of Richmond, L. Sharp of Guildford, B. Whitaker, B. Allan of Hallam, L. Hanworth, V. Shipley, L. Wilkins, B. Anderson of Swansea, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Simon, V. Williams of Baglan, L. Andrews, B. Hart of Chilton, L. Skidelsky, L. Williams of Crosby, B. Avebury, L. Haworth, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Williams of Elvel, L. Bach, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Snape, L. Wills, L. Bakewell of Hardington Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Soley, L. Winston, L. Mandeville, B. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Wood of Anfield, L. Bakewell, B. Hollis of Heigham, B. Suttie, B. Woolmer of Leeds, L. Barker, B. Howarth of Newport, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Worthington, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Howells of St Davids, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. Wrigglesworth, L. [Teller] Howie of Troon, L. Temple-Morris, L. Wright of Richmond, L. Beecham, L. Hoyle, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. Benjamin, B. Hughes of Woodside, L. Berkeley, L. Humphreys, B. NOT CONTENTS Bhattacharyya, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Billingham, B. Hussain, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Blackstone, B. Hussein-Ece, B. Anelay of St Johns, B. Fowler, L. Bragg, L. Irvine of Lairg, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Framlingham, L. Brennan, L. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Astor of Hever, L. Freeman, L. Brinton, B. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Astor, V. Freud, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Attlee, E. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Brookman, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Balfe, L. Gardner of Parkes, B. Campbell-Savours, L. King of Bow, B. Bates, L. Geddes, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Kinnock of Holyhead, B. Bew, L. Gold, L. Carter of Coles, L. Kinnock, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Goodlad, L. Chidgey, L. Knight of Weymouth, L. Blencathra, L. Goschen, V. Christopher, L. Lea of Crondall, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Clement-Jones, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Brabazon of Tara, L. Clinton-Davis, L. Liddle, L. Bridgeman, V. Hennessy of Nympsfield, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Lipsey, L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Heyhoe Flint, B. Crawley, B. Loomba, L. L. Higgins, L. Davies of Abersoch, L. Low of Dalston, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Hill of Oareford, L. Davies of Oldham, L. McAvoy, L. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Davies of Stamford, L. McDonagh, B. Brown of Eaton-under- Home, E. Desai, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Heywood, L. Dholakia, L. McFall of Alcluith, L. Byford, B. Hooper, B. Donaghy, B. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Caithness, E. Horam, L. Donoughue, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Howard of Lympne, L. Drake, B. McKenzie of Luton, L. Cathcart, E. Howard of Rising, L. Drayson, L. McNally, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Howe, E. Colwyn, L. Dubs, L. Maddock, B. Howell of Guildford, L. Elder, L. Manzoor, B. Cope of Berkeley, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Maxton, L. Cormack, L. Falkner of Margravine, B. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Courtown, E. James of Blackheath, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Morgan of Ely, B. Crickhowell, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Morgan of Huyton, B. De Mauley, L. Jenkin of Roding, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Morgan, L. Deighton, L. Jopling, L. Gale, B. Morris of Handsworth, L. Dixon-Smith, L. Kakkar, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Newby, L. Dobbs, L. Kirkham, L. German, L. Noon, L. Dundee, E. Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Northover, B. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Eaton, B. [Teller] Giddens, L. Nye, B. Lang of Monkton, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Glasgow, E. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. Glasman, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. Eccles, V. Eden of Winton, L. Lexden, L. Golding, B. Paddick, L. Liverpool, E. Goudie, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Empey, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Pannick, L. Faulks, L. Grantchester, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Lucas, L. Grender, B. Pendry, L. Fink, L. Luke, L. Grenfell, L. Quin, B. Finkelstein, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Radice, L. Fookes, B. Macfarlane of Bearsden, L. 1547 European Union (Referendum) Bill[LORDS] European Union (Referendum) Bill 1548

MacGregor of Pulham Selborne, E. Whitby, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Market, L. Selsdon, L. Wilcox, B. Younger of Leckie, V. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Sharples, B. Magan of Castletown, L. Sheikh, L. Mancroft, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. House resumed. Morris of Bolton, B. Shrewsbury, E. [Teller] Myners, L. Spicer, L. House adjourned at 3.30 pm. Naseby, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Nash, L. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Stowell of Beeston, B. Newlove, B. Strathclyde, L. Noakes, B. Taylor of Holbeach, L. CORRECTION O’Cathain, B. Teverson, L. Patten, L. Trefgarne, L. Perry of Southwark, B. Trimble, L. In yesterday’s Hansard, at col. 1367, five lines Phillips of Sudbury, L. Tugendhat, L. from the end of the column, Lord McConnell of Popat, L. Verma, B. Glenscorrodale was misreported; he should have been Rawlings, B. Warnock, B. reported as saying: “With the support of the Home Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Warsi, B. Ribeiro, L. Wasserman, L. Office and the Government back in the early part Ridley, V. Wei, L. of the past decade, we took a different approach to Seccombe, B. Wheatcroft, B. in-migration.” WA 265 Written Answers[31 JANUARY 2014] Written Answers WA 266

Written Answers 2009-10 2012-13 Private Office (£) (£)

Friday 31 January 2014 Minister of State for Children and 333,975 109,248 Families—Sarah Teather MP (April 2012–September 2012) Electoral Registration Parliamentary Under Secretary of State N/A 134,599 Question for Education and Childcareiii— Elizabeth Truss MP (September 2012– Asked by Lord Wills March 2013) Minister of State for Schools—Nick 379,685 260,413 To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much Gibb MP (April 2012–September 2013) money was or has been allocated within the revenue David Laws MP (September 2012– March 2013) support grant for the purposes of electoral registration, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State 424,464 277,369 apart from the one-off costs of introducing individual for Children and Families—Tim electoral registration, in each of the following years Loughton MP (April 2012–September (1) 2009, (2) 2010, (3) 2011, (4) 2012, (5) 2013, 2012) Edward Timpson MP (September (6) 2014, (7) 2015, and (8) 2016. [HL4792] 2012–March 2013) Total 2,294,253 1,829,605 Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): As was the case i The Minister for Skills and Enterprise’s administrative costs are under the previous administration, electoral registration largely met by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills; however the Department for Education does take some of the is one of the services covered by the Local Government costs, which are included in the Secretary of State figures in the Finance Settlement. The Local Government Finance table. Settlement comprises both the Revenue Support Grant ii The expenditure includes salary costs for Lord Hill of Oareford and business rates. Electoral registration is funded up to 7 January 2013. Lord Nash does not receive a salary through both funding streams which are not ring-fenced. iii The Department’s accounting system does not cater for the separation of expenditure for the Private Office of the Minister of State for Children and Families and the Parliamentary Government Departments: Administrative Under-Secretary of State for Education and Childcare directly. Costs and Salaries As a consequence, an apportionment of Private Office expenditure (excluding Ministerial staff costs) has been applied, based on the Question Cabinet reshuffle date of 4 September 2012, to allocate expenditure Asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon to the above Private Offices for 2012-13. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the South Sudan administrative costs, including salaries, of the private Question offices of each Minister in the Department for Education for the last year for which figures are Asked by Lord Hylton available. [HL4363] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they consider appropriate to encourage co-operation The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for between the President and Vice-President of South Schools (Lord Nash) (Con): The table below summarises Sudan, the United Nations and international aid the administrative costs of each Private Office, including donors. [HL4770] the Secretary of State’s, Ministers’ and Private Office staff salaries for 2012-13. Data for Private Offices under the last Government for 2009-10 is included for Baroness Northover (LD): We have called upon all comparison. parties to the conflict to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law. We have made Under this Government the overall annual clear that the targeting of civilians, civilian infrastructure administration costs of Private Offices has fallen by or UN premises is unacceptable. It is vital that there is £464,648 since 2009-10. This represents a saving of safe and secure access to the agencies providing neutral more than 20%, even though the number of Ministers and impartial humanitarian assistance. in the Department has increased from five to six. We are working closely with the US, the EU 2009-10 2012-13 and other donors to urge co-operation between the Private Office (£) (£) Government of South Sudan, the UN and international donors to ensure that humanitarian agencies are able Secretary of State for Education— 790,915 732,838 to provide assistance to those that need it most. Michael Gove MP (April 2012–March 2013) We are also urging the parties to the conflict to Parliamentary Under Secretary of State 365,214 315,138 implement immediately the Cessation of Hostilities for Schoolsii—Lord Hill (April 2012– Agreement they signed on 23 January and to begin an January 2013) Lord Nash (January inclusive political process to address the problems that 2013–March 2013) led to the conflict.

Friday 31 January 2014

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. Electoral Registration...... 265 South Sudan ...... 266 Government Departments: Administrative Costs and Salaries ...... 265 NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. [HL4363] ...... 265 [HL4792] ...... 265 [HL4770] ...... 266 Volume 751 Friday No. 108 31 January 2014

CONTENTS

Friday 31 January 2014 European Union (Referendum) Bill Committee (2nd day) ...... 1469 Written Answers...... WA 265