European Union (Referendum) Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. I have a dog point—but the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, made it himself. I would put it in a slightly different form. I would say, “Why have a watchdog and ignore its barking?”.

I also have a tartan point—but the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, made it himself. When Mr Salmond put forward his question for the Scottish referendum, loud were our complaints and strong were our strictures, particularly from the former Secretaries of State for Scotland. Their wizened locks shook. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, his head shook. Loud was our condemnation of Mr Salmond for ignoring the advice of the Electoral Commission. What happened? He listened to us, or he listened to the Electoral Commission, and he changed his question. He did as the House of Lords encouraged him to do. That seems to be quite a relevant precedent.

My third point you could call cui bono. I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Lipsey. They say that the question in the Bill—the slanted question—was written by Conservative Central Office. However, we know from the Second Reading debate that that is not true, because we were told then that the form of the question that the Tea Party in the other place has chosen to put in the Bill was not the one it was given by the Conservative Party hierarchy. The Conservative Party hierarchy provided a question very like the one proposed by my noble friend Lord Armstrong of Ilminster in the amendment before the House.

You have to say, “cui bono”. There will be people in this House who think that it is a very good idea to have a slanted question because they are not seeking a referendum; they are seeking a referendum that says we leave the European Union. Those on the other side who are thinking of opposing the amendment of my noble friend Lord Armstrong—and I hope they are very few—should reflect that this is not what the Conservative Party sought. This is a question that is not accidentally defective but deliberately defective. I support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whose name is added to Amendment 1 and the other amendments in this group, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. My noble friend is unable to be in the House this morning because he has a medical appointment.

I agree with Amendments 1, 28 and 31, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and with Amendment 32, and I want to speak briefly to them—but, before doing so, I want to take on what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, said. I tend not to tangle with the noble Lord—normally he is far too ferocious for me to lift my head above the parapet— but I remind him that it was Mr David Cameron, the Prime Minister, who undertook in a speech in January 2013, famously known as the Bloomberg speech, to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners. He said that once the settlement had been negotiated, there would be an “in or out” referendum in which the British people would choose to stay in the EU on these new terms or come out altogether. He undertook that this would be done in the first half of the next Parliament. He said:

“Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative Government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year”.

In fact, what has happened is that the Bill before us is the enabling legislation. It should not be before us in this Parliament; it should come as enabling legislation after the next general election.

I will now speak to the amendment. I note that I am the first member of this House’s Constitution Committee to so do and I regret that our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, is unable to be here now. However, I draw the House’s attention to the Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill. The report is brief but clear. It clearly sets out that the Electoral Commission has, in Section 104, a duty,

“to ‘consider the wording’ of a referendum question and to report on its ‘intelligibility’. In doing so the Electoral Commission considers whether the question presents the options to voters ‘clearly, simply and neutrally’”.

It recommends that the question be amended from the question in the Bill, which is:

“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”,

to one of two alternatives. One is:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”,

and several noble Lords have spoken to that, and the other is:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”,

with the possible answers to the second option being, instead of yes or no, remain or leave. We should discuss both options.

My personal preference is not, as this group of amendments recommends, that the question should require a yes or no answer but that it should ask whether the UK should remain a member of the EU or leave the EU, with a “remain or leave” option clearly put to the electorate. The reason I say that is that when the Electoral Commission conducted its research—in the way that the noble Lord, Lipsey, might have found flawed, although I will not address his concerns at this point—it discovered that significant numbers of the public were confused as to whether we were members of the EU or members of the eurozone, and indeed there were people who did not know that we were members of the European Union. In the light of that, the committee certainly suggests that the House should carefully consider whether it is satisfied with the question and that it should do so in the spirit of its obligation to carry out scrutiny and revision.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make two or three short points. They will be short because, at least in large part, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has made one of the most important points—that when the SNP drew up the question, we all, rightly, said no. We have the Electoral Commission to do this and it must set the question. Notwithstanding some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and others about views within and between political parties, the principle of having an independent body to draw up the question is an important one. Personally, I am not fond of referendums at the best of times. They are usually invented in order to help political parties get out of difficult situations. However, if we are to have them—and I accept that they are now part of the furniture of politics—it is very important that the question should be drawn up independently. That is why, whichever question is acceptable, it must be agreed or approved by the Electoral Commission.

My second point concerns the wording. That is particularly important, as was pointed out in an earlier intervention. The question in the Bill is:

“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”.

I liked the use made by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, of the “To be or not to be” approach. My knowledge of English grammar is terrible. I seem to be able to use it all right, but I have never understood it. However, what I can say with some conviction is that in another part of “Hamlet” it is said that he ought to be sent to England because we are all mad here—so perhaps there was more logic to it than I realised.

My point is that, if you put it in those terms, you must also look at the context, which I think my noble friend Lord Lipsey put his finger on—that is, the importance of the question to the whole population. As has just been said, the reality is that a minority—it is a significant, although not huge, minority—do not know whether we are a member of the European Union. They are uncertain about that, and they often confuse membership of the EU with membership of the eurozone.

If a question is put to them in the format that appears in the Bill, the tendency is, as the Liberal party discovered when it proposed the amendment on voting systems, that people will tend to vote no if they think that by doing so they will preserve the status quo. In other words, a no vote is saying, “I don’t want change”. However, by voting no to this—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, knows this, having written “House of Cards” so well; knowledge of the Whips’ Office is always a useful experience, not to mention knowledge of No. 10—you will change things, but a significant minority, although by no means the majority, of people will believe that they are maintaining the status quo.

I like the wording in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, because it clearly presents the issue, which we have never resolved in this country. It says quite clearly:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”.

It is a statement of a factual situation and it gives a choice. Given that one of the arguments about a referendum has always been that the people must choose but must be informed by the discussion that runs up to the referendum, it is very important that that discussion takes place in the context of a question that says, “Your two alternatives are either to leave, which has big implications, or to stay in, which also has big implications, and you must make the choice”. If we do that, at least we will be open and honest with the electorate and challenge them to think about it.

If we surrender to the people as a whole our right to be the representatives in a democracy who decide these issues and then put ourselves before the electorate—this is one of the reasons why I do not like referendums —we must ensure that the people as a whole are presented with the arguments. The wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, does that and enables the debate to take place.

My other big concern about referendums of course is that, as with the one in 1975, they do not solve the matter; people are still uncertain. I suspect that in 25 years’ time you might find people arguing for another referendum. I can think of at least one person in this House who will be happy to come back next year with a referendum if necessary.

Even if noble Lords do not accept this amendment, they should accept one that will enable the Electoral Commission to deliver the referendum question in a way that enables the British people to make a proper choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, in order to have an enforceable entitlement, it is essential, as I see it, to have a question that is related to the issue that you want to raise. Essentially, the Bill is legislating to say, “There shall be a referendum”. However, in order to be enforceable and to create a real entitlement, it has to state the time within which the referendum must happen, the question that must be raised, the mechanisms by which a system can be set and who the electorate are. That is all necessary in order to create an entitlement, but the entitlement does not mean that the referendum is going to take place only in accordance with the Bill. There is no question that this Bill binds any other Parliament any more than any other Bill with a sunset clause in it. This Bill does nothing except give that entitlement to the British people. If the Bill passes, I shall be interested in the number of manifestos that contain an undertaking to repeal it.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

The noble and learned Lord has set out his position repeatedly and carefully but there is one point where I am unclear on it. Is he not aware that there is an entitlement, called the European Union Act 2011, which creates a steadfast, watertight provision that there will be a referendum should there be any change and transfer of powers from the United Kingdom to the EU? It does not even limit us to having that referendum by 2017. Should that happen before 2017, we would be required to have a referendum before 2017.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warsi]

They are—and that Government are headed by a Conservative Prime Minister and a Conservative Foreign Secretary, who have led on these matters in the negotiations.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

The noble Baroness suggested that, if the Liberal Democrats had a different position, perhaps my noble friend Lord Wallace would be welcome to come and speak from the Dispatch Box. I remind her, and clarify for the House, that my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire is a government Whip. If there is anything analogous to a Liberal Democrat Front Bench, I believe it is represented by me, who am chairman of the House of Lords parliamentary policy committee on foreign affairs.

[Baroness Warsi]

It is good to hear that we have consistently heard from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. There should therefore be no concerns in your Lordships’ House.

I will just end by making the point that, for some, there will never be the right time for a referendum; others, I know, hold sincere views as to why a certain time is not the right one. However, the British people are deeply sceptical about the status quo—they want to know that they will have a say and when.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, this has been a very serious and significant debate. It is the sort of debate that we should have had on this Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for the dignified and detailed way in which he introduced his amendment. If I may be forgiven, because it is a very significant amendment, I will take a little time in dealing with it.

I see the logic of so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others have said. I take a different logic, and I need to explain that. This amendment goes right to the heart of why I got involved with this Bill in the first place. I do not want to destroy—far from it, I want to build, and I want to build trust. I do not want to fan any flames; I want to put them out once and for all. I have heard a lot during this debate about our relationship with our European partners, but I think that we should show at least as much if not more concern for the feelings of our own people.

Why do we need a date, or at least a timeframe, because that is what it is? The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, explained with great eloquence and experience how complicated these things are, and he is right. That is why, despite all the promises that have been made, all the forests that have been felled in order to print political manifestos, nothing has been done. That is the cause of the distrust. People have been promised a referendum and have been denied it, time and again. Those are the flames of discontent that I wish to put out. We need a timeframe in order to stop that further decay of trust. Less than 10% of this House would have been too young to vote in the referendum in 1975, but more than 70% of the population of our country fall into that category. We are not representative of the country, least of all in its desire for a referendum.

Let us suppose that the referendum is held in October 2017. Of course, there will be shopping lists of what we have got right, what we have got wrong, where we have failed, where we will gain and where we will lose. But the job will not be finished then. These relationships are never once-and-for-all matters, whether we are in or out of the EU. We will have to deal with it and our relationship will carry on developing. Of course, there will be more to be done. It will not all be finished by October 2017. There is always more to be done. We will not be saying that the job is over once and for all but we will be asking the people if they are willing to support a future in the European Union or outside it.

Why 2017? It is because we as politicians have consistently failed. We have talked the talk but never walked the walk. We have never provided the referendum that we all have talked about at various times. The people want something more solid than yet more broken promises. The question I asked at Second Reading, which the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, was kind enough to acknowledge, was: if not 2017, when? Answer comes there none.

Let us go back eight years. During the past eight years, when would we have said that it was a good time for a referendum? I cannot think of one. There are always reasons not to do something.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

The noble Lord will surely recall that in 2008, on the Lisbon treaty, the Liberal Democrats proposed a referendum on this very question of “in or out”.

[Lord Dobbs]

The noble Baroness will understand that I could spend a great deal of time with a great deal of joy talking about the Liberal Democrat position on referendums and I would happily do that in public, but, if I may, I will pass over that and get on with the points that I want to make. There is always a reason for not doing something. We must be wary in this House of falling into the trap of implying, as several noble Lords have done, that there will never be a good time for such a vote. That is how many people will interpret much of what has been said here today: that too many people feel that there is a never a time to trust them.

This process of negotiation has effectively already begun, with changes to the budget, the common fisheries policy and other things, but I shall not go into the detail of that—now is not the time. Those negotiations will make more progress between now and the referendum, and I believe that we will make more progress after a referendum—that is what a relationship is all about. That brings me to the one hugely significant point that has been mentioned here time and again: that we are binding a future Parliament.

We are no more binding a future Parliament than we did when we passed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which said that the election of the next Parliament but one will be held in May 2020. Exactly the same point applies for the date that is in this Bill. Let me pursue that analogy a little further.

If the next Parliament were to decide that the circumstances of the date of that election, in May 2020, were unacceptable for whatever reason, it would change it. If that next Parliament were to decide that the circumstances of the date of this referendum were not acceptable—that it had become fatally flawed perhaps by change in circumstance—it would change that, too. It would need a darned good reason to change it, one that people would find acceptable—not another game that we politicians keep playing with them over this. The people would have to be taken into their confidence, persuaded of any need for a change. However, if we keep putting off the date of this referendum, we will find that that distrust, the poison that Sir John Major said had entered the system—

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point: if it had any sense. I must remind the noble Lord that the Liberal Democrats had in their previous election manifesto a commitment to an “in or out” referendum, and where are they today? I mentioned at Second Reading that I do not want to make a party-political—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Dobbs]

May I just finish the point? I do not particularly want to make a party-political point of this, because, as I said at Second Reading, all parties are guilty of having changed their stance on this. That is why the people no longer trust us.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, would the noble Lord like to tell me on which page of our 2010 manifesto he believes it states we do not have a commitment to a referendum should there be any treaty change or transfer of competencies? Let me update him on Liberal Democrat policy if he wants further assurance—he clearly does. Our commitment is, as passed in September at the Liberal Democrats’ party conference, to have an “in or out” referendum, not just on the basis of treaty change but should there be any transfer or powers or further treaty in future. That is slightly further than the noble Lord’s own party has gone in terms of its last conference.