European Union Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman (The Countess of Mar)]

I have to tell noble Lords that if Amendment 5 or Amendment 6 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 7 because of pre-emption.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I support the noble Lord’s amendment. I am not someone who likes referenda at all, in any circumstance, and I have always made that quite clear, so I hope someone does not quote me from the past as being inconsistent in supporting this amendment. When one is scrutinising any Bill in Committee, I think we are in the business of trying to remove some of the worst disadvantages or most unattractive features of a Bill so that we end up with something a little better than what is originally presented to us.

I totally agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that the way in which, and the purpose for which, the Bill has been set up would not lead to a large number of referenda. It is completely impractical and inconceivable to have endless referenda often on very petty subjects. I made that argument at Second Reading and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, agrees with that. The result is that we will not have many referenda. I will not read from Schedule 1 again, as I did that earlier in today’s proceedings. I read out a different list of examples at Second Reading to prove the same point and to show how very inconsequential for the great majority of the public a lot of these issues—on which the Bill provides that we should have referenda—would be if any decision were taken about them or about the decision-making process to be used in relation to decisions made under them. Those sorts of issues—this must be the greatest understatement of the evening—would not enthuse the public.

I know perfectly well that the good people of Lincolnshire are second to none in their civic sense and their support for the democratic process. All of us in this country are very proud of our parliamentary traditions and are worried that in recent elections, there has been a circular decline in the participation rate of the electorate. However, if we present to the electorate the sort of issues in Schedule 1 and ask them to try to master the subject—or to form any view on it at all—and then to take time out from their leisure-time or working-time activities to turn out at the polls to cast a considered vote on these subjects, we are being not only completely unrealistic but deeply insulting to them. They would say, “That is what we elect you to Parliament to decide.”.

The result would be that only the very small number of people—one might refer to them as anoraks, but perhaps that would be disobliging—who are enormously enthusiastic about some arcane or technical aspect of the European Union or some other subject thrown up by one of these referenda would vote. We could have incredibly low participation rates. We could easily have participation rates of less than 20 per cent. If noble Lords read Schedule 1 and ask themselves what proportion of the country would be prepared to spend their private time on those issues, we could easily come to the conclusion that we will be lucky to get 10 per cent of the electorate turning out.

It would be monstrous if we took a decision that would have important practical consequences in relation to the matter under review on that basis. It might have even more important knock-on consequences if we were unable to take part in a major initiative which our partners in the European Union thought was essential because of the way the world was moving in whatever field—the economy and the single market, the environment or law, justice and home affairs. It might have considerable consequences on our influence and position in the European Union or our ability to defend our interests in the world generally if we could not go along with what was obviously a sensible initiative.

To leave the matter in the hands of that tiny minority of the electorate would be to treat those issues frivolously and irresponsibly. If we have to have those referenda—I repeat that, personally, I think that the whole idea is fundamentally misconceived—the mitigation of the situation proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, is about as good as could be devised in the circumstances. I therefore hope that the amendment is given the most sympathetic treatment and support in this House.

[Lord Hurd of Westwell]

My Lords, I may not be alone in your Lordships’ House in feeling a little weary that, after all this time, two things which could be kept separate have been inextricably mingled together: the question of holding a referendum and the question of the British position in and policy towards Europe. This has been dragging on in one form or another for a long time now.

It is almost 17 years to the day since I had a message from the then Prime Minister, John Major: would I undertake a delicate mission for him, which was to sound out his Cabinet one by one on the proposition of committing the party to holding a referendum, should we decide to enter the euro? I knocked on various doors: I knocked on the doors of enthusiasts; I knocked on the doors of sceptics. I had to report to the Prime Minister that there was no support for the proposal. He and I were the only people who supported it, and I was getting a bit wobbly. Two years later, in 1996, he managed to rally a sufficiency of the party and colleagues to put that in our manifesto. That started the whole process. Tony Blair followed suit, and so it went on. That whole connection between the two things took shape and has been with us ever since. There is something to be said for trying to separate them, but we cannot.

I am as realistic a politician as anyone here. I understand the political urge; I understand the coalition document; I understand why my noble friend Lord Howell utters the words “coalition document” almost with the tone of one approaching an altar. I understand the realities of the situation, and they require a measure of this kind, but if we could find some way of mitigating it—to use a phrase which has already been used—then we should try to do that. Some way of reasserting at any rate the concept of a parliamentary democracy, in which it is Parliament that takes decisions on ratifying treaties, would be a step in the right direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I think the time has come for me to grumble quietly. We have had a range of interesting speeches in what has been a high quality debate, although there was a point, when the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was talking about anoraks, when I thought that a good definition to look for in a political anorak was that of someone who wishes to return after dinner to a two-hour discussion of arcane issues of constitutional procedures and international engagement. We recognise that we are all part of the political anorak class.

We have ranged over parliamentary sovereignty, parliamentary democracy, political trust, the problem of trust in Parliament, and whether we are putting representative democracy at risk, as at least one noble Lord said—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. We have to recognise that the concept of parliamentary democracy, about which the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, spoke so passionately, is to some extent at risk. In Britain, as in other European countries—a point made by another noble Lord in the debate—we have more educated but at the same time much less trustful electorates. How the political elite responds to and works with our mistrustful electorates is part of the problem that we all face. I have to say that it was my own experience in the 1975 referendum that referendum campaigns provide an opportunity to focus the attention of a public who, for much of the time, are only really prepared to listen to politicians who can offer soundbites.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is a very intelligent man and he has had enormous experience of politics from the academic world and now from the Front Bench in the House of Lords. Is he seriously saying that the way to increase public respect for the political process or public involvement in the European issue is to ask the public to turn up to vote on a referendum on the appointment of judges in the European Union?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am merely pointing out that we all face some rather large structural problems in our democracy. I also note that we face some extremely complex issues in attempting to define what we mean by parliamentary sovereignty, to which we will return later.

We have seen a number of other interesting elements in this debate. I liked the emergence of the Stoddart/Hannay/Kerr consensus. I enjoyed hearing the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, as I think I understood him, emerge as a staunch campaigner for electoral reform. I noted the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, resurrecting the doctrine of the mandate that has reappeared in Labour Party policy as a means, I think, of attempting to argue that the coalition agreement is illegitimate. I would just remind her that, many years ago, when I was giving evidence to a committee on which she sat—I think it was on the Salisbury convention—she asked me about clear mandates in manifestos. I had to point out that the clearest pledge in the 1997 Labour manifesto was to hold a referendum on the alternative vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I am sure the noble Lord is as expert on parliamentary sovereignty as I am. No Parliament can bind its successors; any Parliament can overturn a decision of a previous Parliament or even a previous decision of that Parliament. That is part of what we understand by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. There is nothing we can do to prevent a future Parliament from undoing what we are doing. That is my limited understanding of all of this.

Perhaps I may quote a greater constitutional expert than myself.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Before the Minister moves from this point, perhaps I may follow up on the question posed by my noble friend Lord Foulkes following his momentous statement about parliamentary sovereignty. It is important for the House to understand how in practice it would be possible for Parliament to exercise that sovereignty and to disagree with a referendum.

I refer the Minister to Clause 3(2)(a) of the Bill, which states:

“The referendum condition is that … the Act providing for the approval of the decision provides that the provision approving the decision is not to come into force until a referendum about whether the decision should be approved has been held”.

In other words, Parliament would have passed a Bill, turned it into an Act and the electorate would then have voted. For Parliament to be able to exercise its sovereignty in opposition to the decision of the electorate—which the Minister said is a possibility—it would presumably have to repeal the Bill which it passed before the referendum took place. Is that the procedure the Minister has in mind?