European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Anderson of Swansea and Baroness Andrews

Friday 31st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, as so often, I follow my noble friend Lord Foulkes. Our names appear on a number of the amendments. In the other place, we used to work together as part of a team, and I believe that we are part of a team now, and wholly in agreement. He talked about his visit to Washington and the trade deal. If the Scotch Whisky Association, for example, were to have a problem with Japan in respect of Japanese whisky, is it better that the UK Government make representations to Japan or that we rely on the full weight of the European Union? That is why business is so concerned about the unilateralism of this Government and, indeed, of this very strange Bill.

My noble friend has said that he is very tired after coming back overnight from Washington. Given the clarity and lucidity of his speech, I hope he can do that more often, as it clearly had a marked effect on him. I came back after only a week in Strasbourg fairly tired. This is clearly a very important debate. He mentioned the importance of turnout. We had a problem in Wales in the 1997 referendum, where there was a turnout of 50%—25% for and 25% against—although, as it happens, the devolved institutions are now wholly accepted.

The aim of these amendments is to prevent a constitutional outrage. Any sixth-former who studies politics knows it is a clear principle of the constitution that no Government can bind their successor. So why try? What is the purpose? I had a television debate with a leading member of the Conservative Party, and when it was put to him, “What, really, is the purpose of this Bill?”, his reply was very honest: he said, “It’s a signal”. If something is a signal, one of course has to ask the simple question of who it is a signal to. The signal was intended, presumably, either for potential UKIP supporters or Conservative Party Back-Benchers in the other place. If it is a signal, it is clearly a signal which has not been heard or heeded.

I referred last Friday, which seems an age ago, to an excellent article in the Financial Times which argued that Mr Cameron’s gamble had failed. He can try perhaps to buy off a portion of the electorate, be it a portion of his own party, with this gesture, but it will not work, because they will ask for more. Rather like the penguins in the penguin house they will swallow it down and demand more—the trouble is that this Government may be inclined to give it to them.

The Mirror this morning contains a piece apparently saying that the Prime Minister is in office but not in power—I think that I have heard that somewhere before. It means that the Prime Minister’s is less and less in authority. Clearly, he needs allies in the European Union. He has insulted Monsieur Hollande, who is here today, by saying that the French economy is substantially worse than our own. That is probably true, but it is not a way of influencing people and making friends.

I would remind the Prime Minister that the Czech coalition negotiations have just been announced. Previously, there was a highly Eurosceptic Government there under President Klaus; now, with the change having taken place, a potential ally has been lost in the Czech Republic. The Czech position on Europe has fundamentally changed in that the party there which is allied with my own party is Europhile; the Christian Democrats are Europhile; and the party of former President Klaus has been consigned to the sidelines— so, again, the Prime Minister has lost an ally. He lost an ally in Bulgaria and Romania with what is being said in respect of immigration. He has lost an ally in Poland. So where is he going to find that coalition which is necessary in any European politics, as the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, would say? Where would he find those allies?

The other problem which exercises me—I shall say it at this stage rather than later—is that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, agreed last Friday that she was speaking from the Front Bench but on behalf of the Conservative Party. That was an honest assessment of where she stands; she clearly does not speak on behalf of the coalition. She also sought to preserve the fiction that this is a Private Member’s Bill. If this be an initiative of the Conservative Party, on whose behalf she speaks, and if it be the case that this is purely a Private Member’s Bill, I ask with all delicacy what the officials are doing in the official Box. Who are they briefing? Are they briefing the Conservative Party—that surely would be wholly improper? Once upon a time, I was a member of the Diplomatic Service and I sat in the officials’ box; I would like to think that I wrote one of Mr Heath’s best speeches, but that is another story. I was then, as an official, briefing the Government. Who are the officials briefing on this occasion? This is a matter of considerable constitutional importance and is potentially quite improper.

If we proceed with the prospect of a referendum by 2017, and even if one has to trigger that as a result of Motions in both Houses on the basis that no Parliament can bind its successor, what is absolutely clear, as night follows day, is that there will be substantial uncertainty. Dare I say that business does not like uncertainty? Inward investors do not like uncertainty. There will therefore be considerable problems. We have enough inward investment at the moment; we are a relatively proud recipient of inward investment because of our stability; but what will be the consequences if we say that we do not know, perhaps for the next four years, what will happen in this country? The CBI has pointed it out very clearly: what indeed is going to happen?

I return to the purpose of the amendments. It is clear that no Parliament can bind its successor—it is an outrage to pretend otherwise—and that the whole purpose of this Bill is to give some signal to Conservative Back-Benchers. They have rejected it and we should reject it.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 50 and to address the issue of delegation. I am delighted to see my noble friend in his place, undiminished in his powers of argument and bringing such positive messages.

The amendment anticipates in principle a wider argument about the nature of delegation as a whole in what we all agree is a very perverse Bill. I hope that it provides some context for later amendments, Amendments 66 and 70—to which I have put my name—which raise the question of inappropriate delegation. I do not want to pre-empt that debate but instead to raise a general point about the approach taken to parliamentary control in a Bill of such enormous constitutional importance.

This House is well versed in discussing issues of delegation and we are well used to challenging a Government when they bring forward legislation with inappropriate or inadequate delegation and parliamentary control. We are all too familiar with the problem that statutory instruments can be debated but not overturned apart from in exceptional, even notorious, circumstances. Time and time again, the Delegated Powers Committee, on which I have the privilege to sit and which is ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, has had to challenge attempts to delegate legislation which is sloppily drafted and based on arguments which are weak, confused, disingenuous and generally inadequate. We have often in our reports to government rejected those arguments in favour of stronger controls. We have been successful and this House has supported us in protecting Parliament.

Here we have a Bill which is in a class of its own, a Bill which should never have come before this House as a Private Member’s Bill let alone with the support of government. That is where the problem over the delegation of powers in this Bill starts. This is not a government Bill. There is no Explanatory Memorandum, which is what we would have expected in the Delegated Powers Committee had it been a government Bill. Such an Explanatory Memorandum would have set out the case for delegation; it would have defended it; it would have explained why it was the only recourse; and we would have been able to test those arguments. We would have brought those arguments to the House and made a judgment on them.

We are not able to do that. Reports from two very distinguished committees of this House have made severe judgments on this Bill, but we have not been able to test the arguments. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, replies to the amendment, he will try to help the House and offer an explanation as to why there is such a unique—apart from in the 1975 referendum Bill, which was very different—degree of delegation in this Bill.

However, I do not believe that an oral explanation is sufficient for this House, so I invite the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs—and I do not believe that it is too late for him to do it—to provide, even now, an Explanatory Memorandum for the House to consider, to explain why he thinks that a Bill of this magnitude should delegate the key functions to secondary legislation and thus place debate on those functions effectively beyond the reach of this House, rather than provide for them in the Bill, as would have been far more proper. I do not have to remind the noble Lord that, since it is a Private Member’s Bill, such a memorandum would have to be entirely his own work, but I do not think that, as a gifted novelist, he would have any difficulty with that, so I look forward to his reply

Any Bill of such major constitutional significance should be a government Bill, which sets out on its face the major characteristics and implications and which can be debated, explored, and above all, changed, if necessary, in this House. That is what we are for; that is what we do.

I am sure that our debates on Amendments 66 and 70 will reflect on how Parliament could exert stronger control over this process. In terms of this amendment, Clause 1(6) attempts to put both the date of the election and the Welsh version of the question into an affirmative order. In any other context, that would indeed be an appropriate level of control. However, I believe that this clause should simply be removed because, in the words of so many noble Lords, the Bill is unfit for purpose. It is of such a confused parentage that it is very difficult to know whether it is a single parentage. If it were a child, it would certainly be very much at risk; social services would be taking a serious interest in it. Under these circumstances, any attempt to legitimise the process by way of delegation is inappropriate itself and should be rejected. That is what my noble friend Lord Foulkes’s amendment does and that is what I hope the House will commend.