The UK’s Relationship with the Pacific Alliance (International Relations Committee Report)

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Victorian commentator on the constitution, Walter Bagehot, said in 1867 that the committees of the House of Lords, as is well known, do a great deal of work and do it very well. I think we would all agree that this is still true, over 150 years later. However, I wondered whether it was true that there might have been a quicker response in Bagehot’s day from the Government, and the House authorities as a whole, to acting on the reports of committees. I share very much the frustrations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Not having been a member of the International Relations Committee, I was most surprised to see that its report had come out in June 2019. I was also amazed that the Government’s response took over a year. Why was this? The report is not long. It covers policy areas where the Government already had a stated policy approach. I cannot understand at all why, even in challenging circumstances, such a huge delay came about. We have to think about much tighter time limits for responses from the Government and the House authorities in finding time to debate committees’ reports.

Serendipitously, however, the report has coincided with the Government’s approach to the CPTPP, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, pointed out. There is therefore a timeliness to this debate, but by accident rather than design. I very much welcome that approach by the Government and wish them success in that venture, although some of the coverage in the newspapers yesterday struck me as ridiculously overhyped or jingoistic. It was the Express which said

“Boris Toasts Another Big Brexit Bonus … As the EU tears itself apart, Global Britain powers on”.


In fact, as we know, in most cases we are talking about continuity arrangements with these countries. The coverage also somehow perpetuated the myth that we were unable to trade with these countries while in the EU. Yet if we look at the export figures from Germany to the countries concerned, for example, we can see that they are very considerable. Germany has at least 10 times the surplus of trade that we have with them. We need to have a sense of reality when we look at these issues.

The report was very good, but I would like to follow up on one question, which I think my noble friend Lord Hain asked earlier, about the consequences of recent government cuts to aid and changes in aid policy. Have the Government assessed what the effect of recent changes will be on the countries that this report covers? I also endorse strongly the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, whose work in this area has been really interesting and impressive, while I will be interested in the response to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Grocott on trade envoys.

Finally, I will refer briefly to Colombia. A few years ago I went to Colombia for the first time. I was rather wary of going, because of its reputation for drugs and criminality, but was bowled over by the country’s potential and particularly by its wonderful flora and fauna. I therefore ask the Government: what is happening with their partnership for sustainable growth, which they signed with Colombia last year? Will they follow up with the City of London Corporation on the evidence that it gave to the committee about the importance of green finance? Also, what progress has been made on the mutual recognition of degrees and on co-operation with Colombia in tackling crime and supporting the rule of law and judicial independence?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has withdrawn, so we come to the Front-Bench speakers. I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

United Kingdom’s Ambassador to the United States: Leaked Messages

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Quin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the leaking of confidential messages from Sir Kim Darroch and their subsequent publication.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this issue. I should perhaps apologise to the Minister and other Front-Bench spokespeople for bringing them to the Chamber at the end of a busy time when the summer is beckoning, but I hope that he and others agree that this is an important issue which we must not lose sight of. I am glad that many colleagues have been keen to contribute to this Question for Short Debate.

I want to begin with my own brief tribute to Sir Kim Darroch. I know how highly he was regarded in the Foreign Office during my own time as a Minister there. I also know what great service he has given over a long and successful career.

The circumstances of his departure from his post have caused great concern across both Houses of Parliament, throughout our embassies abroad and the whole of our Diplomatic Service. Included in the excellent briefing prepared for us by the House of Lords Library is an article by our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who I know regrets that he is unable to be with us today. He wrote:

“The scandal surrounding the reporting from British ambassador Kim Darroch … is not that he was sending home his unvarnished analysis: that’s what good ambassadors have done for centuries. It’s that someone inside the British system deliberately amassed a stash of his assessments, then chose the moment of maximum impact to leak it. This was not a spontaneous decision to make public a single document: it required premeditation and therefore an agenda”.


What that agenda might have been I will come to shortly. 

The Government responded quite properly to the leak by setting up an immediate inquiry and stating their full confidence in Sir Kim. They also said that the inquiry would investigate whether criminality had occurred and expressed their fear that such a leak undermined the professionalism of the Diplomatic Service as a whole and risked making ambassadors wary of giving honest assessments of situations in the countries in which they serve—not all of which are friendly, and some are even dangerous to operate in. The Minister who is responding today said in this House that the inquiry would be concluded in the shortest possible timescale. I would be interested if he could give us any further clues about that timescale today.

As the Minister will know, the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place is conducting its own inquiry. On 8 July, the chairman of that committee, Tom Tugendhat, wrote a number of letters, respectively to Jeremy Hunt, who was then Foreign Secretary, to Theresa May, who was then Prime Minister, and to Cressida Dick, the head of the Metropolitan Police, requesting some detailed information. Have any replies been sent to the committee as a result of those inquiries?

We know that the leak coincided—surely deliberately —with the Conservative Party’s leadership election. The failure of Boris Johnson, now Prime Minister, to defend our ambassador when asked to do so in one of the TV leadership debates caused deep alarm and much comment. Sir Alan Duncan, the former Europe Minister, accused him of throwing the ambassador under a bus, and comments from former ambassadors and others subsequently indicated that one factor which led Sir Kim to resign his post, despite the Government’s initial reaction in his defence, was that he felt he could not rely on the support of the likely future Prime Minister.

I was interested to see the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the other place last week, where he was asked by the honourable Member for Edinburgh South, Ian Murray, whether the resignation had set a dangerous precedent if people thought that leaking could get rid of someone whom they did not like. The noble Lord replied:

“I certainly think it has set a dangerous precedent … I think it was most unfortunate that not all former Foreign Secretaries could give robust and unequivocal support, but there is an opportunity to put that right. As I say, there will be, in some form, a new Cabinet next week. Again, I would suggest that that is a good moment to make it clear how the British Government will approach these things”.


Can the Minister tell us today whether the Government will make a Statement about how they will support our professional Diplomatic Service in future? Will the Prime Minister take a different approach now that he is in 10 Downing Street?

The newspaper that published the leak claims that it was in the public interest. I assume the Minister does not agree, but can he confirm that this is the Government’s view as a whole? As many colleagues across Parliament have pointed out, the assessments of Sir Kim Darroch were very similar to much that had already been published both here and throughout the United States over a long period, so, in that sense, publishing the assessments did not provide us with new information. However, the effect of the leak was to harm UK relations with our close ally at a difficult and challenging time for our country as well as to make our ambassadors throughout the world nervous about doing their job objectively and honestly. Is that in the public interest? I think not.

In any case, who should judge the public interest? I am sure that some newspapers are responsible in approaching these issues, but they also want to sell newspapers by publishing juicy stories. Is there an agreed view of what constitutes the public interest?

The journalist who claims that he was the author of the article has said that his “trusted source” neither asked for nor received any payment. Does the Minister have any information about this or is the inquiry still looking into that aspect?

Different Ministers have said different things about whether the newspaper was right to publish. For example, Amber Rudd said that she supported the paper’s decision to disclose the information, adding that we have very precious freedom of press information here.

There was also controversy surrounding the statement of Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, who said that publication of leaked communications when the damage they are likely to cause is known may be a criminal matter. This provoked an outburst from George Osborne, editor of the Evening Standard, who said that Cressida Dick, the head of the Met, should distance herself from this stupid and ill-advised statement from a junior officer who did not appear to understand much about press freedom. However, I thought that, if the Official Secrets Act has been breached, the law as it stands means that criminal prosecution is possible. Was not the Act amended in 1989 to revoke the public interest defence previously in place, so that Neil Basu was simply saying what the current law is? If I am correct, for him to be lambasted and criticised is quite unjustified. I am not aware of any further reaction by Cressida Dick, but perhaps the Minister could let us know if such further statements have been made.

None of us should be above the law and all should be equal before it, and if the law itself is at fault then it should be changed, but the police’s duty is surely to uphold the law as it is. Incidentally, the organisation Hacked Off, for which I have much respect, has been in favour of a such a change in the law so as not to hamper investigative journalism, but, again, it quite rightly stresses that no one should be above the law. It also calls for the Leveson recommendations to be implemented in full, which I support—although I realise that it is not an issue I can deal with in this debate.

Our democracy would be much the poorer without investigative journalism, but I am not convinced that publication of the leaked messages was in the public interest and am concerned that it undermined the work of our Diplomatic Service as well as bringing an end to the career of one of our most able ambassadors. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, that Sir Kim should be replaced by another professional and that those with political agendas and those who want to see ambassadors appointed on the basis of their political views—including whether those views coincide with those of the Governments of friendly countries—should not prevail.

This remains a serious situation which I hope the Government will act effectively to address once the inquiry into who leaked the information is concluded. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl and I hope to pick up on some of his points during my own remarks. I make no apologies for talking about the referendum campaign itself and sharing my own experience of it. This is not because I want to cry over spilt milk or wallow in despair but because there are lessons to be learned from this campaign for any future referendums that we may hold and for our democracy as a whole.

I canvassed and leafleted for remain in my home area of the north-east and spent that time between where I live in rural Northumberland and my old parliamentary patch of Gateshead. I also spoke at meetings throughout the area, from Tyneside to Teesside. Sadly, apart from the city of Newcastle upon Tyne those areas all voted leave in the referendum. In the course of the campaign, I certainly encountered some of the anger and alienation that others have described in this debate, as well as a great deal of confusion about some of the issues involved. While I accept the result I do not believe that it is wrong to be very concerned about the poor quality of the information disseminated throughout the campaign. I did not like some of the claims on the remain side, particularly what I felt were overprecise economic predictions, knowing how economic predictions can be swept away by unforeseen events. However, I have to say that many of the leave campaign claims were, at best, half-truths and, at worst, blatant lies.

The prize for the most misleading leaflet in the campaign must surely go to the rather innocent looking leave leaflet entitled, “Not sure which way to vote on the EU?”. This was a clever leaflet, with this opening question and its statement on the front that there were risks in voting either way, but when you opened it up it was revealed in its true colours, with its statement that Turkey is set to join the EU, with its 72 million people and borders with Syria and Iraq, and, of course, the claim about the £350 million a week being spent on health. Indeed, much to my sadness there was a quotation in the leaflet from my erstwhile honourable and good friend, Gisela Stuart:

“The rights we have won for British workers came from our Parliament, not the EU”.

This was a perfect example of a half-truth: to a certain extent it is true, in that Governments had agreed such legislation and such initiatives inside the European Union and given legislative effect to them in our own legal system. Indeed, that fact contradicts the myth that the Commission imposes such legislation on us without our participation. This half-truth, of course, also conveys, utterly falsely, that the EU was not interested in, and not a prime mover in, promoting the rights of people at work. This is an absolute travesty of the reality. Indeed, as a Member of the European Parliament from 1979 to 1989 I was involved on behalf of constituents in cases going to the European Court of Justice to ensure that we delivered to employees in practice the rights that we had agreed to and introduced through our own legislation.

Finally, this leaflet claimed that major employers such as Nissan, Airbus, Unilever and others had stated that they would stay in the UK whatever the result of the referendum and reproduced all the logos of these firms in the leaflet, giving the impression that they endorsed it. Not surprisingly, Nissan, for one, has begun legal proceedings against the leave campaign as a result.

Noble Lords may say that this was just one leaflet, but it was quoted to me several times on the doorstep, particularly the Nissan section, being in the north-east, and the section about Turkey’s membership. When I pointed out that all countries of the existing 28 members, big and small, have a veto on any new country’s application to join I was often looked at with varying degrees of incredulity. Like my noble friend Lord Cashman in his terrific speech yesterday, I did not recognise the description of European institutions or European decision-making portrayed by leave in the hysteria about faceless, dictatorial EU bureaucrats. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that European Commissioners attend the meetings of the European Parliament and are regularly questioned by them. Indeed, European Commissioners have been interviewed and questioned by committees of this House. The thought that they are faceless seems slightly odd. I have never thought of the former European Commissioners who sit in your Lordships’ House—the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, who is in his place, or my noble friends Lord Kinnock, Lord Mandelson, Lord Richard, or Lord Clinton-Davis—as either faceless or dictatorial. In fact, I would have liked their wise words and experience to have been given more publicity during this campaign.

The BBC, I am glad to say, had its EU Reality Check website, but many people conducting interviews during the course of the referendum campaign did not seem briefed on the facts and many wild allegations therefore went unchallenged. Surely, given that we knew the date of the referendum quite a few months in advance, media interviewers should have been better prepared and better briefed about the issues to raise.

Reference has been made to the petition with 4 million signatures calling for a second referendum, but another petition is interesting: it calls for truthful politics and the creation of an independent office to monitor political campaigns. This petition shows the frustration that so many people felt about the conduct of the campaign.

Finally, the most cheering political event for me recently was the election of Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London. I salute Londoners for voting remain in such numbers, but while I accept that London and the devolved authorities should be closely involved in negotiations, I also plead for those areas such as mine which voted leave not to be forgotten. It would be the cruellest of ironies if those who voted leave and were therefore on the winning side should lose out even further.

The Lord Privy Seal said that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, are in listening mode. Of course I welcome that, but we need not just to be listened to, we need answers, we need reassurances and we need to find a credible way forward in the interests of our country as a whole.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (EUC Report)

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, very much welcome this debate and the fact that it is taking place shortly after the publication of our report, which means that the timing is appropriate. As a member of the sub-committee, I should also like to say how much I enjoyed working on the report with colleagues. There was a constructive and friendly atmosphere in our deliberations, perhaps in no small way due to the calm, wise and always good-humoured chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat.

It is a good report that deals with a wide-ranging subject. It has a good balance between an overview of the situation and a lot of detail and examples from the various sectors likely to form part of the TTIP. The committee staff certainly deserve thanks for marshalling this huge amount of information and presenting it in a logical and readable way. I hope the report will be read in Parliament and outside, and by those involved in the negotiations.

As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, has said, the significance of this agreement is huge. It has been compared to the achievement of the European single market, and in some ways it has obvious parallels with the work that was done on completing the single market. However, I know concerns have been expressed about it as well, and I should like to comment on these, as well as giving some examples of where I hope and expect the UK will do well out of the agreement.

First, the partnership is still at an early stage. I was quite taken aback to receive an e-mail from a friend in Germany, urging me to vote against TTIP through an online petition. I think that was partly because of the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, has already explained, which are currently part of the political climate in Germany. However, signing a petition at this stage, when one has very little idea of the details of the agreement, does not seem at all a good idea to me. We certainly need to see what comes out of the agreement before deciding whether it is something that is worthy of support.

However, concerns have been raised. My noble friend Lord Rosser, in winding up the debate on the gracious Speech last Wednesday, asked the Government to give assurances that there would be no weakening of employment conditions and the working environment as a result of this agreement. Concerns have also been expressed about environmental and phytosanitary standards. These are important issues to which attention needs to be given. However, I was very glad to see, in the excellent briefing pack prepared by the House of Lords Library for this debate, a publication from the European Commission that is more recent than our report, entitled TTIP Explained. It already has some reassurances on those issues. For example, it says very robustly,

“we need to ensure that our high standards in the areas of the environment, health and safety, protection of privacy as well as workers’ and consumer rights are maintained. Our high levels of protection are not, therefore, negotiable”.

That is an important statement to bear in mind.

Concerns were also expressed in the course of our inquiry about how much democratic oversight of the process there was. Indeed, one of our witnesses felt that the European Parliament in particular had influence over this process only at the very last stage. However, I do not believe that is true. The trade committee of the European Parliament has already issued papers and reports about TTIP, which have been presented to the Parliament as a whole. The European Parliament, like any other, has plenty of opportunities to initiate debates and questions—questions to the Commission and questions to the Council of Ministers—so parliamentarians who are interested in this issue will have many opportunities to raise it in the course of the negotiations. I certainly hope that will be echoed in work being carried out in national parliaments as well. Perhaps the sub-committee has set the ball rolling in this respect, but I am very pleased that there is an all-party group across both Houses that is very active in consideration of issues to do with TTIP.

I should also like to praise Commissioner De Gucht for his openness, both in his dealings with the committee and in his meetings with representatives of various business and consumer organisations and trade unions, which have a natural interest in TTIP. He has been very open with us in particular, and I hope that the new Commission will continue very much in the same spirit.

As to other concerns, one matter of considerable discussion in the committee was the concern about the investor state dispute settlement arrangements and whether these might have a harmful effect on Governments seeking to protect the public nature of the services that they were offering to their citizens. The Commission document is quite robust on this particular issue. It refers to the carve-out that already exists in international trade to enable the European Union to keep monopolies for the provision of public services at all administrative levels, including local councils, and says that similar concerns have been satisfactorily met in the trade agreement being negotiated with Canada. I hope that this is the case. It is certainly an issue that needs watching very closely during the course of the negotiations.

I turn briefly to some of the areas where I think there should be gains. The chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, mentioned the automotive industry, and certainly that industry has a great deal to gain from regulatory alignment and cutting the costs of production through agreement with the United States on a whole range of standards, without safety standards being jeopardised, which is obviously an important consideration. I agree with the chairman’s comments on financial services. This is potentially a very important area for the UK and I am interested to hear from the Minister what progress is being made with talking to the United States on this issue. It would be a great pity if potential gains to a sector where the UK has a lot to give were undermined by a very hostile US attitude.

Agriculture is also an area of interest to me. I hope that these negotiations will allow a resumption of the trade in beef and lamb and in some of the major agricultural products and processed foods in which we have a huge interest as a country. However, this agreement also has the potential to benefit small and medium-sized enterprises in the agricultural sector. One example I remember giving in committee concerned my frustration at not being able to send some excellent Northumberland cheese to friends in the United States. It is true that small speciality food producers find doing this extremely difficult, partly because of the expense of dealing with the FDA in the United States and getting agreement so that they can export their products, and partly because of the bureaucratic costs involved, both to the company wishing to export from here and to the recipients at the other end. It is a very frustrating situation. I can cite many other examples, including cake producers and speciality food producers, from regions up and down the country that have this problem, which I hope will be addressed in the course of these negotiations. Small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly those in rural areas, stand to benefit if we can get mutually agreed standards and cut bureaucracy and expense.

Finally, as important as the agreement itself is the fact that it is the beginning of a process for continued and permanent dialogue on regulatory issues between the two sides. That kind of process is vital, rather than simply relying on occasional trade talks or disruptive negotiations. That, for me, is one of the big potential gains of the TTIP arrangement. I believe that the United Kingdom has a particular role, being both an active member of the European Union and very close to the United States on many issues. Therefore, I wish the Government—and, if I may say so, their replacement Government after the next election—every success in pursuing these negotiations and, we hope, achieving a deal that is good for Britain, good for the European Union, good for the United States and good for world trade.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we began today with the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, making it clear that he wishes a proper process on this Bill. I know from Peers who have come to see me who are against the Bill that they want to proceed. I suggest that we do so in the normal manner, but I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, did not impugn my motives or actions as government Chief Whip. I answered all those matters to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in that private letter, which will clearly remain private as far as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I are concerned.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, this is important because the Chief Whip said that she acted in accordance with the actions of previous Chief Whips. However, this situation is unprecedented as only one part of the Government is imposing business on us in this way. She is not acting in accordance with the actions of previous Chief Whips because she acting only as part of the Government and not the whole Government. That is a very big difference from what has happened before.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am grateful for those interesting interventions, which clarified quite a lot. As my noble friend Lady Quin rightly said, it is unprecedented for a Tory Chief Whip to use her position as a government Whip to put Tory party Bills high up the agenda. Perhaps she can give me an example of where a particular Private Member’s Bill has been given precedence over every other Private Member’s Bill. All the others have been kicked to the sidelines. I understand that she is making promises to promoters of Private Members’ Bills that their Bills will be given priority next year because they have been kicked out in the current Session.

The other outrageous matter is that because of the procedure here and in the other place, and because this is a Private Member’s Bill, not a government Bill, we are told that we cannot discuss it in the detail that we should discuss it in and we cannot scrutinise it in the way that we should scrutinise it. An artificial deadline has been imposed on us that we have to finish it by a particular time. This is no way to treat a major constitutional issue.

That brings me to the first group of amendments. My amendments, like others, say that the key issue of the question on the ballot paper should be based on the impartial advice of the Electoral Commission. We have set up the Electoral Commission to give advice on these questions. The Scottish Government have accepted the Electoral Commission’s advice regarding the question in the Scottish referendum. This Government should do the same and accept the advice of the impartial Electoral Commission.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who is today a proxy for the Government—that is what he is; he is a government stooge—that if he refuses to accept this amendment, it will be clear confirmation that this Bill is a party political ploy and not a serious attempt to legitimise and legislate for a fair and genuine referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Quin]

From what the noble and learned Lord is saying, it seems that the Bill has no purpose whatever. Moreover, on his earlier point about timing, is it not the case that if we pass amendments to this Bill, it will be up to the House of Commons, if it decides that it wants to allocate more time, to do so? That could be done via the usual channels.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I have not myself been a Member of the House of Commons, but as I understand it our Constitution Committee, which knows much more about these matters than I do, has said that it is likely that if we pass amendments, this Bill will fall. That is a fact as stated by the committee. The noble Baroness has said that I am saying that the Bill has no purpose at all. I do not say that for a moment. The purpose of the Bill is that it gives the best assurance to the British people that they will get an “in or out” referendum in due course. However, it is only an entitlement and the full—

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that our debate on this subject will not necessarily be as long as our previous debate, and I have tried to set out the major points that need to be covered in these reports. We will also, at some stage, need to consider the best way in which such information can be made available to the public. I beg to move.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, as a signatory to the amendment, which has been so well moved by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, I should like to say a few words in support of it.

Given that the House has just decided to amend the Bill, I hope that this amendment in particular will be looked at very sympathetically because it is designed to improve the circumstances surrounding the referendum for the benefit of Parliament and our citizens, if that referendum takes place. The amendment would ensure that Parliament and the public get the best possible amount of information about the consequences of their vote either for or against. It is a principle on which we should all be able to unite, and I am glad that the amendment has attracted support from around the House.

As the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has said, the amendment relates to getting information to Parliament and the public on a variety of issues that will be crucial during the referendum campaign. The first relates to the possible effects on the economy of staying in or withdrawing from the European Union, and we know that there is a good deal of discussion about this issue. We all know that businesses have expressed a great deal of concern about the prospects of withdrawal from the EU. I was interested to see only yesterday, for example, it was reported in the newspapers that concerns had been expressed by JP Morgan, BAE Systems, the British Bankers’ Association and Unilever, which is quite a cross-section of economic interests.

Concerns on economic grounds have been expressed in many parts of the country, including the City of London. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, is very much aware of City publications expressing concern about the uncertainty surrounding Britain’s future membership of the EU. Concerns have also been expressed in my part of the country, the north-east, where, as I mentioned in previous debates, we have large, successful firms such as Nissan exporting to the EU. The people who work in those firms will be concerned to make sure that their future will be as guaranteed as much as it can be, following any referendum. I think economic information is going to be vital for those reasons.

The noble Lord, Lord Roper, also mentioned—and indeed the amendments contain—references to other aspects of our membership of the European Union where we need to be fully informed about the consequences of either staying in or withdrawing. That is particularly vital for citizens’ rights. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, quite rightly mentioned the freedom of movement provisions, which many citizens in the UK benefit from on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, it is interesting that in consideration of this Bill I, and I am sure other Members of the House, have been lobbied a great deal by European Union citizens living in Britain and also British citizens living in other parts of the European Union wondering if they are going to be able to take part in this vote and what the future means for them and their rights as citizens. These are important matters that we need to take into account.

We know that the rights of citizens and, indeed, the rights of people in employment have been affected very considerably by membership of the European Union. A large number of European directives have been brought in to guarantee, for example, paid holidays, increased maternity benefits, paternity leave and so forth. People will want to know what the future holds on those issues following a referendum vote.

Although this is a straightforward amendment and is reasonable in asking for full information before such an important decision is made, it actually says a lot. Indeed, we could have days of debate on each of the matters mentioned in the amendment, but that is not what we are trying to do today. We are trying to make progress with the scrutiny of this Bill. I hope that my few comments have explained why I so strongly support what I believe is a very reasonable and sensible amendment to the Bill.

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment for slightly different reasons. If there is to be a meaningful decision, the choice must be clear. Unfortunately, I think it is extremely likely that if the 2017 date survives in this Bill the choice will be anything but clear because, for reasons that I shall advance later when we come to Amendment 10, it is extremely unlikely that the negotiations that Mr Cameron wishes to enter on, which he has not entered on so far, will be concluded by 2017. There are many reasons why fixing a date is the last way of getting effective negotiations.

What could be the result? We do not know. We will not know in 2017 what kind of choice we are facing. What sort of Europe will we be invited to stay in or to leave? What sort of eurozone will there be? Personally, I believe the eurozone will survive but this is by no means certain. However, suppose it does survive, how big will the eurozone be? How tightly knit will it be? What will be the relations between that eurozone and the single market? There may be several countries which do not wish to support the British expansion of the single market.

There may also be several countries in the eurozone which may not wish to come to an agreement that will be favourable to the City. Certain forces in Germany would like Frankfurt to be the financial centre of the eurozone while others in France will want Paris to be it. All sorts of problems will exist and we will need some sort of knowledge about the assessment. There is a great danger that the City would be sidelined and that is something to which the impact assessment would have to draw attention.

What would happen if, as seems possible but not certain, the banking union will then be complete? What will be the relations between the banking union and British banks? I certainly get the impression that there is a growing movement among bankers that they would rather like to join the banking union. They are not as afraid of the new regulations because our regulations are tighter than theirs and they fear being excluded from these vital decisions.

I think that we will face a very difficult decision if we have a referendum in 2017. Negotiations should take place first and then there should be a referendum, rather than facing a decision at a time when it is very unlikely that negotiations will be complete. The whole question of whether to stay in or leave will need a very careful impact assessment, certainly if the date of 2017 is preserved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, someone has just passed me a note to remind me that today is the anniversary of when the Emperor Caligula was deserted by his noble friends in 41 AD and came to a sticky end. I am not quite sure what they meant by that.

Another amendment, another hour, so I will be brief. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for the dignified way in which he has introduced the amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes; I hope that it will not embarrass him if I confirm that we have extremely cordial personal relations outside this Chamber, but I assure noble Lords that that has never done anything to undermine the asperity of our politics.

Once again, this is a specific matter that was debated in the other place at some length and was turned down by a resounding margin. I understand why. The amendment could be taken as implying a lack of belief in our democratic process and the ability and capacity of people to come to a sensible conclusion. Of course they should be fully informed. That is the basis of our democracy; it is what election and referendum campaigns are all about. We have the most mature democracy in the world. The people are more than capable of understanding that the press often talks complete nonsense, as do the political parties and even perhaps the CBI. We have heard a lot about the CBI on this particular amendment; I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and others would like the CBI to have a role in this independent, objective and dispassionate—to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock—assessment. Is that the same CBI that a few years ago was chiding the then Labour Government to get off the fence and join the euro? You see, it is not quite as simple as—

[Baroness Quin]

I take the point that the noble Lord is making, but actually the CBI had conducted a survey and what it was doing was reflecting the views of its companies up and down the country and the people who worked for them.

[Lord Dobbs]

Many of those companies have changed their mind. The noble Baroness is simply confirming the point that I want to make: these objective assessments are terribly difficult, and not simply obtained by the movement of a pen.

--- Later in debate ---

The second requirement outlined in this amendment concerns turnout—requiring at least 40% in all of the component nations. The move would again help to ensure the absolute validity of any referendum, leaving its outcome beyond any doubt. As I said, a similar yardstick was used in the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum. Both the measures in this amendment would function as an effective double lock ensuring, I hope, a definitive answer on the topic of Europe for a generation at least. I hope Members on all sides of the House will support these amendments. I therefore move Amendment 40.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments standing in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Roper, Lord Bowness and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. We have tabled an amendment that says that the referendum may not result in the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union unless at least half of those eligible to vote have voted. This is very much a probing amendment at this stage, given that there are various ideas around this Chamber about thresholds or indeed whether any threshold should exist at all. Certainly, looking at the history of debates on referendums in both Houses over many years, I do not think that there has ever been a proposal for a referendum without someone putting forward the notion of some kind of threshold.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am really sorry to interrupt, having just spoken. I should have said— and I forgot because of all the other things going on with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson —that my amendments are probing amendments as well.

[Baroness Quin]

I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying that. It would be good to look before Report at the different views expressed on thresholds to see how the matter might be taken forward at a later stage, if indeed there is a feeling that it ought to be pursued.

Quite understandably in all the various debates about thresholds the concern has been that on issues of major importance people feel uncomfortable if the vote is decided by a very tiny margin on a very low turnout. That, of course, explains why there have been so many initiatives in the past about having thresholds in such legislation. Looking through the history of this I cannot discern any particular party affiliation to any one notion about any particular threshold. Looking at the amendments tabled in the past on referendums legislation, some have been tabled by Conservative Members in the other place, some by Labour Members and some by Liberal Democrat Members and, as I say, these issues have come up on practically all issues where a referendum has been proposed. In a way, we need to bear all this in mind when deciding how to move forward.

I was helped in my own thoughts about it by an excellent research note prepared by the House of Commons on thresholds in referendums, which gives a lot of food for thought. It could be food for thought that we ourselves could have before Report. I should say too that how we are looking at this issue is also very much part and parcel of political debate about referendums in other countries. The very good research note from the House of Commons looks at countries around the world—not only in the European Union but in Australia, for example, and in non-EU member states such as Switzerland—and it looks at the various requirements in those countries for thresholds in referendums.

At this stage, this is very much an opinion-gathering exercise in order that I and my fellow signatories may decide how we might pursue this issue later in our proceedings.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, my name is added to some, but not all, of these amendments. It appears that two important aspects are covered in different ways. The first is whether a threshold should be required for the outcome to have credibility. There are arguments both ways on that, and there are dangers. I do not need to remind my noble friend Lord Foulkes that in 1979 Scotland voted by a majority in favour of having a Scottish Parliament—or Assembly, as it was then called—with 33% voting yes and 31% voting no. However, because of the 40% threshold rule, it did not happen. My noble friend will be very aware of the consternation that that caused, with the feeling that a majority had been in favour.

It is very important to set a threshold at a level that is acceptable and which does not appear to be loaded one way or another. I suppose that a 25% threshold is an absolute minimum, but I should be very interested in hearing the response of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, on this. Depending on what is said between now and Report, we will no doubt need to come back to refine these thoughts further.

The other element built into these amendments—which, grouped together, bring in different aspects—is the question of the results from the four nations of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, touched on this in an earlier debate. I put it to the Committee that there is a strong argument for each of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom to know how they have voted. If they do not, assumptions will be made, and those assumptions may be the cause of much more political rancour than dealing with the reality of the situation. If Scotland votes yes and England votes no and the English vote dominates the rest of the United Kingdom, there will undoubtedly be pressures in Scotland, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes rightly said, to reopen the whole question of the independence referendum, assuming that it is not carried the first time round. We know what happened in Quebec when there was a rerun of a referendum: it came very much closer than had been the case on the first occasion. Therefore, these issues need to be thought about very carefully.

I come from a different viewpoint from virtually everybody else in the House with regard to the Scottish referendum but I recognise that, whichever point of view you come from, the outcome needs to be logical, transparent and acceptable, and I hope that we will work towards that in the context of these amendments.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Friday 10th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Liddle, in his excellent speech on behalf of the Labour Party, reminded us that our party is not against referendums, and that is certainly the case, as the record shows. My personal position is a little different in that I have always been rather concerned about the way that ad hoc and ill thought out referendums have seemed to become part of our constitution. Therefore, I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, reminded me that my political hero Clement Attlee greatly distrusted referendums.

However, I accept that at this stage the genie is probably largely out of the bottle and, certainly, if we are to have referendums, the major constitutional issues of the day are, presumably, suitable subjects for them. Therefore, my objections to the Bill do not relate to the fact that it calls for a referendum but are much more concerned with other aspects of it, including the substance of the clauses and, indeed, some of the political circumstances surrounding the process and passage of the Bill, which were very effectively described by my noble friend Lord Kinnock a few minutes ago.

The timing issue is a very serious one. To call for a referendum by a specific date, regardless of the circumstances of the time and whether we might be in negotiations with other EU countries, is simply crazy. I am also concerned at the suggestion that we should deal with this Bill in this House in a completely different way from the way we would normally deal with legislation, including Private Members’ Bills. I certainly cannot see the justification for that. That point was made very effectively by my noble friend Lord Radice.

Another possible rule seemed to emerge during the debate that we should give easy passage to items which have been heavily voted in favour of in another place. This would be a rather dangerous route for us to go down if it were applied to all future legislation. I am not sure what the proponents of such an approach mean in terms of how many votes would need to be cast in favour of a measure in the other place for us not to treat it seriously in this House. However, as I say, I think that it would be a very dangerous route to go down.

I join other noble Lords in saying that I do not like the fact that the Bill attempts to bind a successor Parliament. That is quite wrong. Although it is true, as I think the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord King, said, that Parliaments pass many bits of legislation which may have effect in the future, this Bill is unusual in singling out a specific date in a future Parliament. I do not recall that having been done before in quite this way. If we give the Bill easy passage, we will follow a constitutionally alarming procedure.

The point has been made many times that the general public are very much in favour of a referendum. I accept that opinion polls show that to be the case. However, we should also remember that in recent general elections Europe has been a much lower priority than many other issues, certainly compared with such issues as the cost of living, health, education and housing. This was confirmed to me in the most recent spate of door knocking that I took part in, which was during the South Shields by-election. While canvassing in different areas over two days, Europe was not raised with me once although many other issues were, despite the fact that there was a great deal of media frenzy about it and that UKIP’s best efforts were deployed to try to raise the issue and profit from the unpopularity of the coalition parties.

Much has been made of how much certainty the Bill introduces into the debate, but I do not think that it introduces any certainty at all. As I said, Parliament cannot bind its successor. Therefore, there are many reasons why a referendum held at the particular time envisaged in the Bill will not go ahead. For that reason, it is very understandable that businesses in particular are very worried about the uncertainty that the Bill would create. I agree very much with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Certainly, in the north-east of England, which has the Nissan car plant, which is one of the most productive on the planet, and which is an exporting region—I think that we are the only part of the country to have a positive trade balance—there is great fear and uncertainty as a result of this measure. Given the number of firms involved and the number of people they employ up and down the country, it would be wrong for us to disregard this in our approach to the Bill.

For all those reasons, I hope that the Bill, which has attracted so many excellent speakers today, will be given the closest and most careful scrutiny in your Lordships’ House, and that we will deal with it seriously in the way that we deal with other legislation.

EU: UK Isolation

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on securing this debate. He has consistently advocated the importance of close relations between ourselves and our European partners and has always argued for making Britain’s membership a success, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, whom it is a pleasure to follow.

I am not opposed at all to a Government arguing for change within the European Union, nor am I opposed to wide public debate about that issue, providing that it is well informed and open, because there is no doubt that Europe is changing and has to respond to a large number of challenges. However, I have great concerns about the Government’s goals and the lack of clarity surrounding them. I also have concerns about the timing of recent government initiatives, which are sometimes unhelpful, particularly as they come at a time when the eurozone countries are, quite understandably, concentrating on trying to resolve current difficulties. I also have concern about the Government’s approach to alliance-building, both with other Governments and in the context of the European Parliament, where the Government seem sadly to have cut themselves off from the European mainstream.

In the short time that I have available, I would like to question the Government about their goals. There is a lot of talk within the Government, and within the Conservative Party particularly, about having a looser relationship with the European Union. The more I read about this, the less I understand exactly what is meant by it, and I would like some clarification of what is in the Government’s mind. For example, what does it mean for environmental policy, an area that has become very important in EU work in recent years? What involvement do the Government expect to have in that very important area of policy in future? What about economic policy? It is not just about the euro but about many other things. How are the Government going to approach this? For example, I was disappointed recently that they managed to get themselves in a minority of one over the bankers’ bonuses issue, even though it is an issue that is of concern to citizens across the European Union. What does it mean for development policy? Will we be involved in development policy in future, in the Government’s view, or is that something that they want to see left to national Governments? What about the extent of foreign policy co-operation, an increasingly important area within the European Union’s work?

Furthermore, we know that the Government said a lot of things in opposition to social policy, which was a part of the EEC from the outset—so it is not a dangerous additional add-on. I remember, when I was first in Parliament, the warnings that the Government gave about what they called the job-destroying social chapter, even though, after the Labour Government signed it, employment was at the highest ever recorded level and their fears seemed to be completely unfounded.

In approaching those things, I urge the Government not to oppose those policies capable of attracting our citizens and electors. I refer to the excellent brief provided to us by the Law Society, which says:

“The EU has taken significant steps towards ensuring equal treatment; in particular in the work place through initiatives such as the Equality Directive and Equal Pay Directive. The Society is keen to ensure that UK works alongside other Member States as the EU continues to protect and uphold such rights whilst respecting differing legal traditions”.

The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, mentioned justice and home affairs co-operation. That has been a welcome area of co-operation in terms of practical results, but it is not at all clear what the Government’s approach will be to that in the future.

My final plea is that I hope the Government will take some of their arguments out to the public so that we can all join in. It would be good if next year’s European elections were about European issues rather than a referendum on national government policies. Perhaps that would be a better opportunity than a referendum at some vague time in the future.

European Union: Recent Developments

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, in following the noble Lord I pay tribute to his persistence and consistency, even though my remarks will not agree with the line that he has taken. It is difficult speaking at the end of a debate such as this as those arguments that I foolishly hoped would be most telling in my own contribution have already been made very effectively. A little like my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford, I shall try to pick up some of the points that have been made during the debate rather than make the speech that I had originally intended.

I would like, as the vast majority of Members have done, to welcome the accession of Croatia. I applaud the arrangements that have been put in place to reinforce the progress that has been made in Croatia and the transitional arrangements that the Minister explained from the outset. I noted that in the debate in the other place some fairly well known Eurosceptic voices spoke against Croatia’s accession. I think only the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has done so in this House. I certainly remember those same people speaking against previous enlargements in previous debates. For example, when I was European spokesperson for the Opposition in the 1990s, rather to my surprise, they expressed scepticism about enlargement to Sweden, Finland and Austria. I think the nub of it was that they disliked the EU so much that they simply could not understand anyone wanting to join, despite the fact that a large number of countries have in fact joined.

We should trumpet the fact that enlargement has been a resounding success in many ways. People have pointed to the underpinning and the entrenching of democracy, which the process has involved in these countries, and that is very important. However, it is not just a question of having free and fair elections. It is also about respecting human rights and minority rights, and that has been an important success story in the countries that have joined the EU, as has the economic performance of many of the countries that have joined in recent years. Poland, in particular, has had a lot of economic success. All those countries now see their future very firmly within the EU, not because they want to be dictated to by Brussels but because they have entered into it freely and they believe that it is very much in their interests.

In this debate much reference has been made to the Government’s policy on Europe. I am still somewhat confused about their intentions regarding a referendum. Different Ministers seem to have said different things, and certainly there are different views on this within the parties that form the coalition. I do not like referendums at all. I certainly do not like the way in which they have been introduced into our system without much thought about the long-term consequences of what they mean for our constitution. However, if we are to have a referendum, I hope that the terms of the debate will be much more informed than they have been up to the present time.

I would like to look briefly at three myths that I think are very unhelpful in terms of the current debate. The first myth, which one or two Members touched on, is that it is widely claimed these days on television, on radio and in the newspapers that we simply joined a free trade area back in the 1970s. This, of course, is not true. We were already members of a free trade association—EFTA—and it was very clear from the debates at the time, particularly when you looked at what was in the Treaty of Rome, that we were talking about a very different animal when we talked about joining the then EEC. The fact that this argument is still being put forward is very misleading. Indeed, I have heard it so often lately that I thought perhaps my memory was playing tricks on me. As I am a bit of a glutton for punishment, I looked at some of the debates held around the time of our entry, particularly in October 1971. I reread a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, at that time, when he was a Member of the other place. The arguments were full of references to sovereignty and the integrationist aims that were in some of the treaties at that time. So we should not rewrite history in this way.

The second myth concerns social policy. The current Government seem to see social policy as some sort of new add-on that is not really part of Britain in the European project, yet social policy was part even of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty. Measures were there to help redundant coal and steel workers to retrain. There were also social measures to help in those particular areas of the EU. I very much endorse what my noble friends Lord Liddle and Lord Monks said about social policy.

The third myth, which is very prevalent in the press, is seeing the EU simply as a battleground all the time, mostly with Britain on one side and everybody else on the other. Indeed, in the run-up to this particular summit, which seems to have been a fairly constructive one, newspapers were saying, “This is going to be a bruising bust-up”, and “If you think the EU is about hot air and rows, you ain’t seen nothing yet”. As so often happens, these predictions turned out to be false. Those of us who have attended European Council of Ministers’ meetings on various subjects know that votes are rarely taken and normally consensus is reached without much difficulty, even in an EU of 27 countries.

I listened with great interest to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Tugendhat, Lord Owen, and Lord Howell of Guildford. They seemed to be proposing a new way forward. However, what they said begged a number of questions. They talked very firmly about the internal market, and I agree with them about the importance of that. However, big question marks remained about whether we were still going to be part of EU environmental policy, which has had many successes; and what we would do about all the different aspects of social policy and the benefits, actual and potential, of justice and home affairs co-operation, which were referred to in a speech with which I very much agreed and which can be a real gain for all of us in the EU. I was not really clear about what the way forward was on that.

Last week, I attended a conference in the north-east of England looking at the effects of the financial crisis on the real economy and on the regions. I was struck by how many business interests there, including small businesses, were worried that a referendum on Europe, at a time of economic difficulty, would simply create further uncertainty for them in the day-to-day work of trying to grow their businesses and access European and world markets. I urge the Government to consult them rather than be distracted by short-term, probably short-lived, political considerations.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, in bringing this Bill before the House, I am very much aware that I do so at a time when the spotlight is on the eurozone. As the Prime Minister said last week, it is vital for Britain’s interests that the eurozone resolves its problems. I do not underestimate those problems. On Monday, a number of noble Lords gave their very expert views on the broader issues during the debate on the report of the European Union Committee on the euro area crisis. It was a very interesting debate.

However, this Bill is simple and straightforward. It provides solely for the parliamentary approval of an amendment to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The proposed amendment makes explicit the ability of eurozone countries to set up a financial assistance mechanism. In other words, it confirms that the eurozone can support fellow eurozone members in financial difficulty.

Although the United Kingdom is not in the eurozone, the treaty amendment is nevertheless important to us. The eurozone is in the process of setting up the European stability mechanism—or ESM. I apologise for these endless initials. The ESM will play an important role as eurozone countries work towards stability, which obviously we hope they will do. Eurozone stability is important for our own stability. When the Prime Minister agreed to the treaty amendment, he also secured an important commitment. The UK will not be liable through the European Union budget for any future eurozone bailouts once the European stability mechanism comes into force. In effect, that is another way of saying that the European financial stability mechanism will be closed down and there will be no further disbursements from that source.

[Baroness Quin]

The Minister has stressed, as have other Ministers, that we are not liable to contribute to any future bailouts. Will he none the less confirm that if we judge that it is in our economic interest to do so, as we did in the case of Ireland for example, bilateral help can be available?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

There is complete freedom outside the treaties to take any decisions we want. I will come in more detail to what I have just said in reference to the EFSM, and during the afternoon we can discuss what other mechanisms of support for economies, whether in Europe or the eurozone or not, are justified, but that is the position in relation to what we are discussing today.

It is not the first time that this treaty amendment has been considered by Parliament. Before the Prime Minister signed the treaty last March, a Motion in favour of signature was passed by both Houses, with no opposition in your Lordships’ House. At the time I committed to bringing the decision before Parliament again. Thus we are applying the more rigorous requirements for parliamentary control over European Union decision-making, as we committed to do in the European Union Act 2011. Parliamentary approval will enable the UK to complete its ratification process for this treaty amendment.

I recognise that 14 months is a long time in eurozone terms, so it may help your Lordships if I recap how the European Council came to decide to amend the treaty. In May 2010, in response to the first Greek crisis, two emergency instruments were established to respond to the financial crises. The first is the European financial stability facility. This is an emergency facility established intergovernmentally by euro area member states. It is used to provide loans to euro area member states in difficulty. The UK is not—I repeat, not—a member of the EFSF and has no exposure to the financial assistance provided by it.

The second is the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which I have already mentioned, which we inherited from the previous Government. Under this mechanism, the Council can agree, by qualified majority, to the Commission providing assistance using money raised on the financial markets, backed by the European Union budget. It therefore created a contingent liability for the United Kingdom, which is a very important point.

As uncertainty continued in financial markets, the European Council agreed in December 2010 to amend Article 136 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. The amendment confirms that member states of the eurozone may establish a permanent stability mechanism. This mechanism—the European stability mechanism, or ESM—which I have already mentioned, will provide a permanent means for dealing with events that pose a risk to the financial stability of the euro area as a whole.

Having gained Parliament’s approval in March 2011, the Prime Minister returned to Brussels to agree to the decision at the European Council. The decision must now be ratified by all 27 members before the amendment to Article 136 can come into force. The target date for entry into force, as set out in the European Council decision, is 1 January 2013.

As I have already mentioned, the Minister for Europe and I committed to further consideration of the decision under the terms of the EU Act 2011 when it came into force. Under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, the Foreign Secretary laid a Statement before Parliament in October 2011. He indicated that in his opinion a referendum is not required to give parliamentary approval. The proposed amendment to Article 136 applies only to member states whose currency is the euro. Consequently it does not transfer further competence or power to the European Union from the United Kingdom. The statement was open to judicial review, but in the intervening eight months no one has sought to challenge it in the courts.

To comply fully with the requirements of the EU Act, I am now presenting this Bill to the House. Should Parliament grant its approval, the Government intend to ratify the European Council decision by the end of this year.

Now I turn briefly to the European stability mechanism itself. The ESM is a stability mechanism funded by eurozone countries to provide financial assistance to eurozone countries. The intention is that it will replace both the EFSM and EFSF. It is being set up under an intergovernmental treaty that was signed on 2 February by eurozone member states. It must now be ratified by all 17 member states and is expected to come into force in July 2012.

The treaty amendment does not establish the ESM. The UK, of course, will not ratify the ESM as we have not signed up to the intergovernmental agreement, and the amendment certainly does not commit the UK to contribute to any bailout fund. However, let me make it clear what the decision does. The treaty amendment that we are asking Parliament to approve will put beyond doubt the ability of eurozone countries to set up a financial assistance mechanism. It does this by adding a third paragraph to Article 136, which states that eurozone member states may establish a financial stability mechanism to assist other eurozone member states in financial difficulties. Article 136 applies solely to member states whose currency is the euro. Therefore, the provisions of Article 136 do not apply to the UK.

Alongside the agreement to enshrine the legal basis for the mechanism in the EU treaty, the Prime Minister secured an important agreement. Once the ESM is established, Article 122(2), on which basis the EFSM was established, should no longer be used for such purposes. Our liability for future euro area financial assistance programmes under the EU budget will be removed. This is strongly in the UK’s national interest.

The intensification of the crisis has led eurozone member states to agree to bring forward the introduction of the ESM to July 2012. When they announced this decision in January, we carefully considered the implications that it would have on our handling of the treaty amendment. Would it need to be ratified sooner, and was it still needed at all? We decided to proceed as planned, as it has always been the Government’s opinion that without the agreement to amend the treaty there would be no European stability mechanism. The clear message from eurozone member states is that they still need this treaty amendment.

That brings me back to the central point of why this Bill is important.

European Union Bill

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I was attempting to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to give way during his very impassioned defence of this particular Motion. I merely wish to tease him a bit for one moment by saying that it is clear that he does not understand the readership of the Daily Mail—and I am sure that that is the case, as it does not appear to be his favourite reading, from what he said on an earlier intervention. But I do not think that he absolutely understands the Liberal Democrats either. Indeed, I am not actually sure that he listens to the Liberal Democrats. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made it absolutely plain in his statement that he was a Liberal Democrat, and I too, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, knows, belong to that party.

None the less, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made a very serious and profound point, which was reflected in his signature to the important letter to the Times today, which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other immensely eminent noble Lords have signed also. The point, of course, is that the issues reflected in the EU Bill for referendums are of “fundamental constitutional importance”, to quote the letter. The statement made in the letter, which he reflected again today in his speech, is that:

“The Parliamentary Constitution Scrutiny Committee recommends that referendums should be confined to changes of fundamental constitutional importance”.

Of course, economy of the truth is something that others, maybe even Secretaries to the Cabinet, have used to great effect. While I personally disagree profoundly with him on losing a national veto over key areas outlined in the Bill being regarded as of “fundamental constitutional importance”—I think they should be—none the less, I take issue with the noble Lord for the way in which he has clipped the important statements made by the Constitution Committee in its report on referendums in the UK. The report goes on to say:

“There are difficulties in defining what constitutes a ‘fundamental constitutional issue’. Although some constitutional issues clearly are of fundamental importance, and others not, there is a grey area where the importance of issues is a matter of political judgment”.

The committee did,

“not believe that it is possible to provide a precise definition of what constitutes a ‘fundamental constitutional issue’”.

While it is,

“possible to set out in legislation specific issues which should be subject to a referendum”—

[Baroness Quin]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I was a member of the Constitution Committee and was very active in promoting the report on referendums. The noble Baroness should recognise that the committee as a whole was very sceptical about the use of referendums, which it wanted to be used only in very limited circumstances.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I thank the noble Baroness. Of course she is absolutely correct. She was a member, so how can I argue with her? None the less, on the record the committee pointed out that Parliament should judge what issues will be the subject of a referendum.

I feel profoundly that that is why the other place has clearly supported all these issues that other noble Lords are seeking to remove. The other place has the touchstone of having the pulse of the electorate—after all, the other place is elected. In recent months, four out of five members of the public have said that they believe that transfers of sovereignty should be put to referendum, so I really think that noble Lords would do best to withdraw their opposition to the other place’s position and not press Motion B to a vote. I think it would be an error of judgment on their Lordships’ part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Quin]

The noble Lord said that he could foresee referendums dealing with issues in packages. In those circumstances, how are people who agree with one issue but disagree with another supposed to vote?

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

That question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, earlier in the debate. The answer is: just as they vote in elections. They have to decide on five or six issues in an election. In the past, there were referendums in other countries on treaties in which they had to decide on a series of questions raised by those treaties. I repeat my point that where a veto exists, it is not necessarily just at Britain's insistence but because other countries, too, wanted it.

Thirdly, I think we will have referendums only where a British Minister agrees with the proposition that will be put to the people of this country, and where the Government believe that they can win the referendum. For that reason, and with great respect, I do not agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that our flexibility in negotiations will be impeded because a certain area is covered by the possibility of a referendum being held on it. If a Minister wishes to argue in favour of something, presumably he is confident that he can sell it to the public. If he cannot sell it to the public, and they are going to disagree with it, perhaps he should think carefully about whether it should be advanced at all. Therefore, although I agree with the general proposition that we do not want to go down the road of having a massive extension of plebiscitary democracy, I do not think that that will be the consequence of the Bill. That assertion has been repeated many times, but the argument is not convincing and I urge my noble friend to support the Government on this.