European Union Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, my problem with this amendment is that it seems to me to meet precisely what the Government want. The Government have been arguing that this clause would apply only to matters of constitutional value and that those who have worried about various aspects of it are worrying unnecessarily. We now have an amendment which specifically says that the Minister must say publicly that the referendum concerns a matter of constitutional or economic importance. That seems to me not an unreasonable thing to do when it is precisely what the Government say this clause is meant to do. Although I do not believe in referenda in any circumstances, I am not approaching this from that point of view. Frankly, I am trying to help the Government because it seems to me that they have not convinced all of us that their explanation of this clause is precisely right.

My noble friend Lord Blackwell is entirely wrong: this is not a wrecking amendment—unless the Government’s proposal is a wrecking amendment—in fact, it enhances what the Government have asked for. Your Lordships should say to yourselves, “Whether we are Eurosceptics or enthusiasts for Europe”—as I am—“whatever our view may be, it is not unreasonable to say that referenda should be held on matters of considerable importance, not ones which are not of considerable importance”. It is not unreasonable to put that in the Bill.

As regards the way in which we have approached this, I believe that there are real issues for our stance in the European Union. Those who are Eurosceptic ought to be just as concerned as those of us who are of a different opinion, because unless we are able to argue about minor matters with the freedom which a representative Government have, we will do ourselves down on many of the issues that have been raised. If this amendment merely allows for that freedom, it is important and valuable and certainly does not in any way wreck the proposal.

There is truth in the argument that says that we should watch any constitutional change of this magnitude with great care. I say to the noble Baroness behind me who spoke on the Liberal Democrat position that the more she read what the Constitution Committee of this House said, the more she made the case for the amendment, because the Constitution Committee said that if you are going to have referenda, you should make sure that they are on serious matters. Sometimes it is difficult to decide what are serious matters. We have produced an amendment which says to the Minister, “You have to make up your mind, you have to agree to it and you have to say that publicly”. After all, most of our Bills have a statement on the front that the relevant Minister knows that it accords with human rights. It is not unreasonable to ask Ministers to make that choice. I think that is what the Government want. Why, therefore, have they not accepted this amendment, or something like it?

I end with a plea to my noble friend. He knows that many of us are not entirely happy with the logic of saying that we have to have all this in order to reconnect with the public. Could he not move towards us just a little and be prepared to put in the Bill what he has told us is actually there? That would make us feel that the Government had listened to us and that there was a two-way discussion on this. If he does not do that, I am afraid that I cannot even begin to reach out to the concept that this Bill enhances our relationships and I shall begin to recede into a position of wondering whether it is not intended to make people like my noble friend happier. I am not sure that that is what we should be debating.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that certain noble Lords are perhaps a bit out of touch with British public opinion? It is clear that the British public are against Governments surrendering any further sovereignty to the EU without the consent of the people. That was very much reflected in the attitude taken to the previous Government’s signing up to Lisbon, having promised a referendum and then having ratted on it. The whole point of the Bill, clumsy though it may be, is to provide a deterrent to stop Governments of any political hue giving away yet more sovereignty, and the British people not having a say in that. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, gave the game away. He was arguing that he wanted a situation where Governments could fudge it and give away a bit more sovereignty and was very unhappy that they might be deterred from doing that through fear of losing a referendum. The whole point of the Bill is to provide an effective deterrent to Governments giving away sovereignty. This amendment would weaken that principle.

European Union Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

My Lords, I brought a similar amendment to this in Committee which did not find favour with the Government. That was in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I listened to the arguments then that the five-year gap that we proposed was perhaps too long, so this amendment proposes simply a mandatory three-year gap between referendums. When he replied to that similar amendment on 23 May, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, went off on a rather bizarre tangent about the European Gendarmerie Force, which I had not even mentioned in my speech. I do not know quite what that was all about. However, in reply to my amendment he went on to say:

“If the Government were defeated in a referendum, it would be tantamount to a defeat of the Government”,

and they would have to reconsider the matter. He went on to say:

“It would be unusual for the Government then to consider asking the public the same question in short order, having failed to convince them”—[Official Report, 23/5/11; col. 1623-24—]

at the time to change their minds the second time around.

The point of my amendment is that this is what has happened in the EU in the past. It is exactly what happened on the Maastricht treaty and in Ireland with the Nice treaty. It happened on the constitutional treaty. When the French and the Dutch voted that down, it was brought back under the cloak of the Lisbon treaty with a rather unsavoury démarche which allowed the then Government to pretend that it was not the same thing at all as the constitutional treaty. Yet a stinkweed by any other name still smells as foul. This constant backsliding, weaving, dodging and bobbing and ducking are what have given the European Union a bad name. Several speakers made the same point on the amendments that we discussed this afternoon: that there is a very prevalent distrust of the EU in this country, and not only in this country but throughout the European Union now.

In many of his remarks during both Committee and Report, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has repeatedly underlined that the purpose of this Bill is to reduce the distrust of the British people in the institutions of the EU and in the way that the Government deal with EU matters and directives which have, so far, gone through without any influence by the people of this country. The amendment really should be there to reassure those people that if they vote in a referendum under this Bill, it will not be interfered with again by a Government, who may be more manipulative than this one, for at least three years. That is helpful to the Government and I hope that they will take it in that spirit. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I find this a fascinating amendment because those of us who are opposed to referenda in any case are now presented with somebody who is in favour of a referendum but does not want to have it when it is inconvenient. This is a most peculiar amendment. I think that referenda are always wrong in a parliamentary democracy and I have always stood by that. I have never changed my view from that and I am not changing it now, but if we are to have a referendum, the concept that we must not have one except in three years’ time, irrespective of what the public think, seems a most peculiar argument. To complain about the fact that in a second referendum people made a different choice seems an odd thing. After all, that was the choice the people made. I think that this is proof of why referenda are not an acceptable way forward, because the truth is that a referendum analyses what people think at a particular moment.

I became opposed to referenda at my father’s knee. I remember just after the war he was explaining to his infant son about politics. He said that he remembered the peace pledge. Eleven million people signed the peace pledge and two years later one could not find any of them. Once we got near to the war, they all disappeared. That is the problem with a referendum, because it is an irresponsible act—one is not responsible for the vote that one makes because it is secret and private. Surprisingly enough, I found a number of my constituents who voted one way in the referendum we had about remaining in the European Union and who within two or three years decided they had really voted the other way. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and felt that they had mistaken themselves, but if one is going to have a referendum, one has to have it without strings.

The noble Lord is presenting something that gives the lie to the whole referendum argument. People who want referenda want referenda because they want a particular response. That is why they want them. They want it because they think it will produce a particular answer of which they approve. When they find that there is a possibility that it might not produce that, they want rules to make sure that the public cannot have another go. I beg your Lordships’ House to accept that if we are going to have referenda, we had better have them on a fair deal and not on the basis that we restrict them in case the public possibly take a different view the second time.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I cannot really follow the points of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on referenda. I disagree with his initial argument, but I support the principle about the people having their say, whether one agrees with it or not. I find it understandable that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, proposed the amendment, given the frustrations that he and his colleagues clearly feel about both the Irish and Danish referendums on treaties in the past, but it seems to me that there are two reasons to oppose the amendment.

In Committee, the Minister made the valid point that it would be very unlikely that two successive referendums would be called, not least for the important political reason that it would be likely to cost the Government of the day dear—assuming that it were the same Government—with a cynical public punishing them for so doing. Secondly, the Bill is not a crystal ball attempting to predict the future, no matter how much the noble Lord would wish it so. The Bill must allow for flexibility for a future Government and this amendment would tie their hands.

There are checks and balances within the Bill: a second referendum would require a second Act of Parliament with the detailed and appropriate scrutiny that comes with that—and that is before the Government of the day would have to start convincing the public of the need for that second referendum. There might be rare circumstances in which a second referendum were relevant—the checks and balances that I have outlined will force politicians and the public to think carefully about returning down the road of another referendum. To ban it completely for three years, or even five, as we looked at in Committee, removes that option for those circumstances which, though rare, are not impossible. There might be changes to the treaty that significantly benefited our country and other member states, which it might therefore be appropriate to consider. Or there might be a financial crisis in the eurozone—as there has been recently—in which the circumstances have so substantially changed that it might be appropriate to go back for a second referendum.

To conclude, the amendment seeks to remove the flexibility and the voice of Parliament and the people should there be a rare but necessary need to consider a second referendum.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I very much sympathise with my noble friend Lady Brinton because it is unlikely that any Government would be brave enough to hold another referendum on the same subject when the country had made it quite clear that it did not want the measure put forward originally. However, to turn to the distaste of referenda generally expressed by my noble friend Lord Deben, presumably that distaste is slightly tempered by the referendum confirming our membership of the European Union. Let us face it, this referendum was put forward by Harold Wilson to solve a problem that he had within his own Labour party and settle the issue for good. Many people—I am one of them—voted in favour of our remaining in the European Union and it seemed to settle the issue for some time after that.

[Lord Deben]

I was opposed to that referendum, as I have always been opposed to referenda. I am absolutely consistent on that matter, whether they were favourable or unfavourable.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My noble friend prides himself on his consistency, but that decision put the issue to bed at the time. That would seem to have certain advantages that he does not acknowledge in any way.

European Union Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, I voted on two occasions for the Rooker amendment on AV. It is tempting to join the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in taking the position that there may be a similar argument for supporting here an amendment that requires a 40 per cent turnout. However, the position is not at all analogous. In this situation, the aim is to protect the people of this country from having the powers of their Parliament and Government further diluted and given away, as has sadly happened in the recent past, with Parliaments breaking their word to citizens and acting in a way contrary to that which they promised—I refer, for example, to the recent Lisbon treaty.

It is very clear that the Bill is there as a protection for the British people, and it would be made meaningless if we said to them, “We are going to give you this lock and protection, but if less than 40 per cent of people vote, we will give power back to the Government of the day who command a majority in the House of Commons”. It is not an analogous situation to changing the voting system, where there were powerful arguments requiring an adequate turnout. It is not a situation that Burke would have supported in the slightest; he would have been absolutely against giving away the powers of the British Government and Parliament to another organisation. Either we give citizens a meaningful lock or we do not. Therefore, I feel no discomfort in opposing these amendments, having supported the Rooker amendment on AV; it is the whole point of the Bill.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I find myself in disagreement with both my noble friend Lord Lamont and the noble Lord behind him. I am opposed to referenda in any case and do not think that we should judge referenda, even if we are in favour of them, by the particular amendment that is before us. We should judge referenda as referenda. Therefore, to vote for a 40 per cent division between compulsory and advisory on one subject and not to vote for it on another seems not to hang together. The issue is not about the European Union. Everyone knows where I stand on that. It is about an issue which comes from before that. Long before there were these debates on the European Union, there were debates about referenda. I enjoyed debating them and I have not changed my view on them.

The parliamentary democracy which we have is the greatest gift which we have been able to give to the world as a whole. Irrespective of the comments of my noble friend Lord Risby, parliamentary democracy and referenda do not go together, as a matter of fact. The one comes from a different tradition and I am not going to be one of those who besmirches the tradition by referring to the use of referenda by such people as Louis-Napoleon. That would be wrong. But referenda do come from that tradition and not from our parliamentary tradition.

Therefore, I was much enlightened by the reminder which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, gave us of the great conservative thinker, Edmund Burke. He said that the embarrassing fact of being a parliamentarian is that you do have, in the end, to make up your own mind, even though the popular press, the women’s advisory committee of your association, the local doctors’ alliance and a whole range of other people tell you that you have got it wrong. I remind noble Lords of what happens if you take that away. It means that nobody with a strong view on abortion, for example, would be able to uphold his or her view in those circumstances. If he or she were to follow the views of the electorate, he or she would not be able to uphold what he or she thought was a moral position. The same would be true about capital punishment. No one would have voted against capital punishment if they had listened to the average elector over the past 30 or 40 years.

Let us not be too easily lulled into that simple concept of the referendum now being part of our democratic heritage. Referenda have always been used—I say this as a committed Conservative—in a way which has tended to favour those who take a very conservative attitude. My noble friend takes a very conservative attitude, so I am happy to give way to him.

[Lord Tebbit]

May I assume, therefore, that in defence of parliamentary sovereignty and all that of which he has been speaking, my noble friend will assert the right of Parliament, and none other, to decide whether prisoners should have any voting rights at all? Will he be on side in this matter or will he defer to some agency outside Parliament?

[Lord Deben]

I am always worried when my noble friend intervenes upon me but I am very pleased on this occasion to say that I agree with him entirely. This is an issue for Parliament and Parliament should make up its own mind—I have no doubt about that at all. He need not worry. I am a great defender of Parliament. But I ask this House not to allow itself to get into the situation which the Swiss got into. After all, Switzerland was the last country in Europe to allow women to vote. Why was that? Every time they passed it in Parliament, it was the referenda which defeated it. I ask noble Lords to be very careful about this.

Let us look at this amendment. I have great sympathy for the view which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, expressed. It seems to me that this is a very simple concept. We who are arguing for it have accepted that in our view, for bad reasons, we are going to have referenda. We are unlikely to have a referendum on something trivial—I do not really agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson; I think it will be likely to be on something of note. It will be on something which the Government have decided not to veto. It is going to be quite a rare occasion. It is going to be something which the Government have presented to Parliament, Parliament is going to vote for it, and it will then be placed before the public. All we are saying is that if less than 40 per cent of the public think it worth while voting, Parliament can reconsider the matter. It can take into account what the public have said and then ask itself what should it do.

I finish by saying that I would say this about a proposal for a referendum on something that I believed my side would win in all circumstances. This is not a matter about the subject; it is about the mechanism. It is that which we should face. May I suggest to noble Lords that this House has got to do its duty in ensuring that when there is a major change, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, we ensure that it is not one with unforeseen circumstances? All we are saying is that if enough people vote, then it is mandatory; if not enough people vote, it is advisory. That seems to me to be a sensible compromise, so I ask the Minister to help those of us who find this Bill very difficult indeed and at least allow us to have this compromise, which is in the best tradition of British parliamentary democracy.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, seldom have I been made glummer than I have been made by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and indeed, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and those who tabled this amendment. They have encapsulated perfectly the disdain of the political class for the people of this country.

European Union Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I oppose all the amendments, and indeed the clause itself, because of a simple proposition that people will understand. Like the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, I cannot claim to have any legal background in these matters. I do know, however, that during the whole of my political life, which has been a very long one, I and everyone else understands that the British constitution is based on the proposition, and indeed the law, that one Parliament cannot bind its successor. That you must hold to. It is indivisible, and once you start qualifying it you undermine the whole concept. That is why I oppose all the amendments and Clause 18, because they all seek to qualify that absolute part of our constitution.

That is such a simple proposition that all ordinary people understand what it means: that Parliament is supreme, and that what Parliament does can be undone. It is absolutely true that things can be sorted out by repealing the 1972 Act. The only problem so often is that people go on to say that that is inconceivable, but it is not. There are circumstances in which this country may wish, and indeed may have the duty, to withdraw from the Community. I know that that sounds as though it is out in the clouds. Nevertheless, there are circumstances in which it would be desirable, and perhaps essential, not to be bound by the European Communities Act, and it can be repealed. That is the essence that we have to stick to: the fact that that Act is simply an Act of Parliament that can be repealed by any Parliament in the future or in the present. I agree with those who say that letting go of that could be a dangerous course.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I have not been able to support the Government at all times during the passage of this Bill. I hope therefore to rectify that, at least in part, on this occasion. It seems to me that it is a mistake to say that at all times a declaratory statement is unhelpful. Clearly, there is a need for some declaration, having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, who clearly believes that what would be declared would not be right. Therefore, declaring it is not merely otiose. In the present world, it is occasionally valuable to make a statement which may for some be a statement of the obvious but clearly for some it is not. Therefore, I am happy for there to be a declaration.

My problem is not about the need for a declaration but in the wording of Clause 18. That problem arises from two directions. First, I do not believe that it is safe to have anything which is in the slightest bit ambiguous. That is not because I have the same suspicion that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has of the Government’s intentions. I have been reassured on that by my noble friend the Minister. It is simply because there are people in this country who will do anything possible to try to drive in wedges where there is really no hole to drive them into. Therefore, one should just make sure that one does not provide a means for them driving. Let us be careful about ambiguity.

Secondly, I wish that we would talk about these things while remembering the other countries in the European Union. There is a tendency to feel that somehow it would be perfectly all right for Britain to decide that it liked “this” Act but not “that” one. But the moment that the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese or the Slovenians do that, we get on our high horse immediately. That interesting daily newspaper, the Daily Mail, spends most of its time doing precisely that and saying that someone is being absolutely unacceptable because they are not agreeing, supporting or doing what they should under the European Union. But the moment it is convenient to complain about Britain, somehow Britain is in a different category. I do not think it harms us to be reminded of the enormous value that we have in the fact that all members of the European Union are bound by the European treaties.

Earlier, a noble Lord mentioned BSE. I do not think that anyone has had more experience of BSE than me or that anyone has been more photographed as regards BSE. I say to your Lordships’ House that the ability to insist that countries could not use excuses for restraining trade was a crucial part of this country’s defence against what turned out to be a situation which could have damaged us in an unfair and unreasonable way. That is only one example but there are dozens. Anyone with any ministerial experience knows that, within the context of the European Union, issues are pressed one way or another: Denmark may make a statement about something and the French may be difficult about something else. We are very difficult about a lot of things, which is part of the give and take of a community in which we are all members and partners. It is the same give and take that you have in any Cabinet. Sometimes there is more take than give, which has been our experience of Britain’s attitude to the European Union in my view. We have often failed to give enough and, therefore, we have found ourselves looking as though we are more concerned with the take.

I have a considerable desire to remind the House of the advantages of this clause, as amended by the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, and supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. Clarity is a valuable addition to what is not an unnecessary clause but something which would be well worth having.

I end by making one comment which should be mentioned in this debate. One of the problems with our system—I support the system enormously—is that we produce legislation in our Houses of Parliament to carry into law the decisions that are made by us all around the table in the European Union. I make that point because it is not Brussels which makes those decisions. We make them with others in Brussels of our own volition. Then we carry it into law. The real concern is that, unlike many other European countries, we have a wonderful opportunity to make the whole thing more complicated. We can add this and that. “Better not leave that out”, and, “Have they thought about this possibility?”, says the civil servant. When you look to see where the gold-plating comes from, you can see that it comes from our system. I am in favour of us doing this, but I would not like to have spoken to this amendment without reminding the Committee that every time we do it, we ought to be careful. Perhaps we would do better to keep to the simplicity of much of European law rather than elaborate it for the benefit of the curious mind of the bureaucracy of Britain.

I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment. It cannot mean anything different from what they intend to mean in their Clause 18. However, if Clause 18 does mean something different, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right to be suspicious. If it means the same, surely it would be better to take the wise advice of noble Lords who are learned in the law and accept that the formulation put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Dubs, is a better way of achieving something that I believe is worth while.

European Union Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

What would the referendum question be, were such a suggestion to be made? Would that referendum question be capable of a reasonable yes or no answer for the majority of the people of Great Britain?

[Lord Liddle]

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has made an apposite intervention. I do not know what the relevant question would be but this is something in the real world that Ministers might have to address. It could enormously strengthen the Union’s capacity to deal with climate change and energy issues.

Amendments 23J and 23L are further examples. Amendment 23L is on piracy. We know that there is a growing problem of piracy, particularly in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. We know that an EU force is attempting to deal with this problem but that its efforts are inadequate. What is the reason for that? Is it a lack of resources or commitment on the part of the member states? That is possible, but another explanation is that the basis on which the force is patrolling this area does not match the tough circumstances that need to be dealt with. There is no agreement between the member states on the terms of engagement between the EU force and the pirates. There is no agreement on the circumstances in which force can legitimately be used.

These are difficult issues to tackle within the European Union because they touch on terribly sensitive issues to do with defence and armies, areas where the European Union has rightly been cautious in getting involved. I am not in favour of a European army, nor is the Labour Party, so do not try to say that this is trying to open the door to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s contribution. I said that it was how some people felt. That was the formula I used; I did not myself endorse the conspiracy theory. The implication was that the conduct of the Government was such as to make it possible for constituents to develop that conspiracy theory. In relation to his most recent remarks to me, I accept that piracy is a matter for international law. Piracy has always been against international law. There should not be a problem there. His implication was that we needed to co-ordinate with the Indians and the Chinese, which we do to some extent. We might need to co-ordinate with them more. That is true and I acknowledged it explicitly in my recent remarks. I said that in this context, as in others—I suspect the noble Lord used to teach this to his students—it is much more effective, if we want international agreement and consensus on a matter, to act as the European Union rather than as one country or as 27 different countries. That is the point I was making.

However, there is a third point that I must make in relation to the noble Lord’s comments to me, which is that I was specifically addressing the need for powers to make it an offence to make ransom payments. I think that he, and anyone with any knowledge of the world, will agree that the chances of getting 150 or 193 countries to legislate identically for anything are virtually zero; that is not going to happen. If you wish to make it a criminal offence to transfer such payments, to collect money for the purpose of paying ransoms, to provide money for the purpose of paying ransoms, to make ransom payments, and to enforce those criminal offences, you need to obtain agreement throughout the European Union as an essential starting point. That is not a matter of international law; it is very much a matter of European law. If we do not have the powers to do that at present, it is very desirable that we should develop them. However, if we needed to develop them, we would run into the issue that, if the Government succeeded in passing this Bill, Article 48 would no longer be usable in that context if Great Britain were to be included.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, it might encourage your Lordships’ House to hear that I do not intend to talk about piracy; I seek to talk about the amendments that deal with the environment and climate change. These differ from earlier amendments. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, as it seems to me that most of the areas that he covered were unique competences of the European Union, whereas we are now talking about a number of areas where there is joint competence. I say to my noble friends that if we were arguing that the British Government felt that we had sufficient powers in the European Union to do most of the things that we wanted to do, if we saw no reason to extend powers, and if the Government were going to commit themselves not to do that, I would have real sympathy with that.

If the Government went on to say that there might be occasions on which we have to go along with things that seem to be sensible extensions, I would have sympathy with that too. However, I find entirely unacceptable the concept that we cannot go along with anything unless we have a referendum. I find that unacceptable with regard to the environment, for the reason that I gave when I interrupted the noble Lord. Many of the issues about which we are talking are almost incapable of admitting a question of the kind of which a referendum admits. I do not like referenda. As the Committee knows, I am opposed to referenda on any grounds in any circumstances. I am a believer in parliamentary democracy. One of the sadnesses of this Government is that they have betrayed what seems to me to be a fundamental part of our constitution.

Referenda have always been used in partial circumstances for particular reasons. Napoleon III was the best user of referenda before General de Gaulle. This is a foreign activity much disliked by sensible people in the United Kingdom. I yield to no one in my dislike of referenda. They are always partial and always undertaken for a particular reason. The provision that we are discussing is included because the Government want to make it difficult to do anything in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, thinks that this is not so. The difficulty is that the Government speak in different ways to different people. They say to some people, “This is a wonderful step forward for those who are Eurosceptic”, and to other people, “This does not matter very much anyway because we are not going to need it”. Therefore, I find it very difficult to take this debate seriously. However, it is crucial with regard to environmental issues.

I have one or two suggestions as to why that is the case. For example, we are going to have a real issue with the transfer of electricity across the European Union. The superconductor systems, which will enable us to pass electricity very fast without losing power, will be very important in enabling us to meet our energy requirements and the requirement to cut the damage we do to the atmosphere and to mitigate climate change. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, does not believe in climate change. He is a sceptic on a wide range of subjects. It will not therefore worry him, but it worries me considerably if we cannot do something about this

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I wanted to make a point about his example and did not want him to lose his train of thought. If the superhighway had to go through France’s territory—leaving aside the parody of the need for a referendum there, because it is a policy question, not necessarily a competence question—and the French did not wish to sign up to that because they felt that one of their strategic industries, nuclear power, would be at a loss, would it be right, in the spirit of European Union co-operation, to use qualified majority voting or some other passerelle or clause to force the French to allow their territorial sovereignty to be infringed by others? That would seem to be curiously anti-European and against the spirit of European co-operation.

[Lord Deben]

That would mean that we had no common trade policy. Every country could say that this decision was contrary to their national interest. The French have managed to make the sale of Orangina contrary to their national interest. What the noble Baroness suggests would destroy any possibility of the scheme. It would not touch their sovereignty. They would not have to use the electricity. All that they would have to do was not prevent someone else using the electricity. It is otherwise a curious definition of national sovereignty.

Secondly, if we do not do that, my national sovereignty is being infringed, because my climate is being changed. Unless we find ways of using non-fossil fuels, my climate will be changed. This is a question on which we have to accept that our national sovereignties are all imperilled—but I do not want to go further down that road, or someone will suggest that I am not keeping to the amendments.

There is a whole series of issues here where the Government are making it more difficult to stand up for Britain's interests within the European Union by setting this entirely unnecessary and manufactured way to enable them to say to the rest of the world, “We are not going to be pushed around”. I think that the Government are perfectly capable of not being pushed around without the Bill. I think that my noble friend is quite wrong to apply Canute to a bit of the Bill. The whole Bill is a Canute Bill. It suggests that you can in some way stop the necessity of the nations of Europe working together by setting in train a system which makes Britain uniquely unable to play its part in the European Union. It is all right saying that other people have all sorts of methods, and the rest of it, but they have been much more careful in writing their legislation, and they do not have a situation where even the simplified system is called into question, which is the way that this legislation operates.

I want to say just two more things. The first is that if ever there were a policy that needs change, it is the common fisheries policy. It is hugely important, and it is based on a European competence, but there are some things on which the European Union does not have competence. For example, it does not have competence to enter member states’ ports with European inspectors, but there is no way to have a sensible common fisheries policy without that. Who has been against that? We do not want people entering our ports. I cannot understand why, because we try to keep the law, but evidently we will not allow that. If we were to do that, we might do something about the very policy which is, for most of us, the least satisfactory of European policies. That is why, given the environment, it will be very important. Evidently, we are not going to do that unless we have a referendum asking people whether they are prepared for French inspectors to come into English ports. Of course, they will say no to that, because the question does not say what I want it to say: are we prepared for British inspectors to go into French ports? They would say yes to that. It depends what the question is. That again comes back to the danger of having referendums.

My last point is that the trouble with this bit of the Bill, unless it is amended as we suggest, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, rightly said, it gives the opportunity for anybody who does not like the European Union, who has an obsessive belief that somehow it is the epitome of evil instead of being our most exciting and remarkable peacetime achievement, to find any change, any aspect that is altered, any suspicion or scintilla of alteration proof positive that there should have been a referendum. Therefore, instead of doing what the Government think will happen under the Bill, instead of ensuring that people feel happier about the European Union, it will give endless opportunities for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others to suspect that there is something much deeper, much worse, much more wicked. Frankly, it is like the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is a perversion of the realities and the truths. Once you have caught it, you cannot see the realities and the truth except through that prism. The Bill helps that. The bit which does not allow the European Union to take proper steps to strengthen its effectiveness in mitigating the effects of climate change and pollution is particularly damaging, and it is especially damaging for the nation that leads in these matters—Britain. I want Britain to lead in these things and not to say to the rest of Europe, “Frightfully sorry, old boy, we can’t manage this because it means a referendum and we’re within two years of an election”.

[Lord Judd]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. That was a powerful argument, well put, and one with which I found myself completely in agreement. These amendments go to the centre of what is wrong with this lamentable piece of legislation. It is not just a question of a lack of vision; it is a matter of selling the British people short. If there is one fundamental reality in relevant politics, it is that we live in a totally interdependent world. The job of government is to help the British people to find a place within the reality of that interdependence and to work out how the interdependence can best be handled. That should be central to our education system and to the whole message of politics.

The trouble with the Bill, as we said powerfully at Second Reading, is that it does not provide any flexibility. Here I slightly differ from my noble friend Lord Liddle, who is doing a formidable job on the Bill and makes me very proud to come from the same county in England. However, it is not simply flexibility that we are talking about but leadership of the British people in meeting the realities that confront us. The trouble with the Bill—and we all know it—is that it is an effort to reassure the British people that government will protect them against the European Union. Instead of asking how we can strengthen the well-being of the British people through the part that we play in Europe, and instead of coming out of negotiations and saying, “My God, look at what we have achieved for the people of Europe and therefore for ourselves in this context”, we come out saying, “Look at what we’ve managed to hold off in looking after British interests”. That kind of argument is all tactical and totally lacks strategy. From that standpoint, it seems to me that these amendments are central. Not one issue is mentioned in them that can possibly be carried forward on behalf of the British people within the context of the nation state alone. They require international solutions.

In responding to my noble friend’s very important intervention on piracy, kidnapping and ransom, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, seemed to suggest that these are matters of international law. Of course they are, and they are absolutely central to the future of my children and grandchildren. Of course we have to get the international and global policies right, but surely the noble Lord does not want to align himself with the argument that establishing firmly in the European Community a stepping stone towards making that wider international policy effective is somehow unnecessary. It is vital, and we have done it with, for example, arms exports. It was in the context of the whole issue of arms exports and the damage they could do that we saw the establishment of the European code on arms exports. A lot of work is still to be done on it but it is a starting point. It illustrates to the world what can be done and it enables us to move forward practically to a wider, more successful policy within the United Nations.

The issue that we must come back to is that these amendments are vital because they try to ensure that we bring home to the British people that their interests lie in strong collective action at the international level. I repeat that the trouble with the Bill is that it faces in the opposite direction. It is saying, “We will make some concessions to Europe where necessary, but we do not see our future in international co-operation and effective international instruments: we see these as something that reluctantly we have to concede from time to time—and, my God, we will insist on the opportunity always to test public opinion if we are asked to take an obviously sensible step”.

These amendments deal with the heart of the Bill. It is a sad day in British history when we have this wretched piece of legislation before us.

--- Later in debate ---

In order to help the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on a referendum question, I should have thought that it is very simple. You simply have to ask the British people whether they want to go on spending masses of their hard-earned taxpayers’ money on supporting an energy source which is not only supremely inefficient but massively more expensive than any other energy source. I think that that is quite a simple question.

[Lord Deben]

Might the noble Lord not suggest that there could be a better question: do the people of Britain want to have their climate changed and their health impaired by the continuation of extremely dirty power stations, which happily we are going to close down?

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

The noble Lord says, “happily we are going to close down”. I hope that he has got a generator in his house so that he can watch his television and read his books because with wind power that simply will not happen. Nuclear of course is a different matter, but let us not get into that debate right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

Very simply, the EU does not have powers to insist that we improve the electricity transfer between countries, yet that will be an essential part of our future energy needs.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, Article 170 says:

“To help achieve the objectives referred to in Articles 26 and 174”,

et cetera,

“the Union shall contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European networks in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures”.

That seems to me very much to give the competences needed.

[Baroness Brinton]

I am grateful for that intervention from my noble friend Lord Wallace, which was much more informed than I could possibly have given.

[Lord Deben]

It was a perfectly right intervention but that does not actually give powers to compel. It says that the countries shall do it but there is no mechanism at the moment to insist that they do it. That is the issue.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I fundamentally disagree with that point. The key point here, which we have come back to day after day on this Bill, is that this is about the process not the policy. The process has been absolutely clear and I still wait to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on where these are not covered by existing treaties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Yes, but we should not have gone along with that decision because we should not have been in the policy in the first place. I therefore insist that most of the fish which swim now in European waters and are fished by European boats used to belong to us and they could and should belong to us again. I do not wish to detain the House—

[Lord Deben]

The noble Lord really must not say that. It is not true. Most of our fishing grounds have always been shared with our neighbours—the French, the Belgians and the Germans—and we have always had to come to terms with them. All that the European common fisheries policy does is to have a sensible mechanism. It is not that the policy being common is wrong but that the policy is wrong. You have to have a common policy; otherwise you can only make these decisions with the marlinspike. It is just not true that we had 75 per cent of it before.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

The noble Lord and those of his view have been saying this now for 30 years. It has not happened and it is not going to happen. The solution for this country is to leave the common fisheries policy and take back our waters to the median line and whatever we had before in territorial waters into our own control. Then, when our own fishing industry, which has been decimated by the common fisheries policy, has been rebuilt, we can share any surplus and lease it out to people who want to buy it.

European Union Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords, it will not surprise anyone who was at Second Reading that I not only support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but think that no part of Part 1 is worth preserving. It is therefore axiomatic, as someone who is opposed to the whole of Part 1, that I support every aspect of deletion of the Bill—hence the various notices that I have given, along with colleagues, to vote against clauses standing part of the Bill. However, if the House were to be persuaded by the more gentle logic of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in relation to particular aspects, such as Article 48(6), I might well be prepared to concede, if individual clauses are so useless by the time they are amended, that a Motion to delete a clause might not be necessary.

Let us be absolutely clear—and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made it particularly clear—that Article 48(6) and the procedures laid down by it were debated in this House and in another place when we endorsed the Lisbon treaty. The article was endorsed by both Houses in the ratification process. All that it does, as our Constitution Committee pointed out with abundant clarity, is allow for the provision of Part 3 of the Treaty on European Union relating to internal policies and actions of the EU, and to them only, and subject to a restriction that this kind of decision shall not increase European Union competences.

Under this provision, the European Council, when it is debating anything proposed under Article 48(6), is required to consult the European Commission and the European Parliament and then to act in unanimity. In these circumstances, I should be very interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, precisely which type of issue his normally extremely fertile mind can determine might be one to which we want to agree in the Council but we are fearful that we will incur the wrath of the British people and, therefore, may have to hold a referendum. It would help your Lordships’ House if we heard one or two illustrative examples of the sort of potentially excessive transfers of powers to the European Union that are causing Foreign Office Ministers to have sleepless nights.

I support the amendment. It is the least change that would be acceptable to many Members of your Lordships’ House. It should be carried if there are no persuasive arguments to retain this provision. If that happens, it may not be necessary to delete Clause 1, although obviously that option will remain available to us when we have completed the debate.

[Lord Deben]

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, can help us on this occasion, because I fear that if he does not, two problems will occur. The first is the way in which the Bill has been explained to people such as me, who hold the same view about Europe that we started with and have no intention of changing it because it is even more important now than it was when we began. We have been told that the Bill is merely a means whereby we can give the British people confidence that, should some very large change be made, there will be an automatic opportunity for them to give their view.

I do not believe in referenda in any circumstances. They are wholly unsuitable in a parliamentary democracy; they are a foreign invention used by people for ulterior motives; and they have never been part of the sort of society in which we live. I am ashamed that my Government have brought this forward. I am even more ashamed that the Liberal Democrats allowed an agreement with the Conservative Party to contain this element. I look forward to hearing an explanation from some noble Lords who stood side by side with me in debates again and again yet who allowed this to happen. However, it has happened and the excuse given to people such as me is that it is all right because it will be used only in extreme cases when probably one would want the information anyway, and we have to understand that we have moved on when it comes to referenda.

I have still to be convinced, and this does not help the convincing. The suggestion is that we reserve the right to have a referendum on something that cannot take powers from this country and give them to the European Union. Later I shall point out that there are many things that we need. I will mention quickly the need for greater European competence in energy, so that the Spanish will be able to feed their energy into the grid and will not be stopped by the French who want to protect their nuclear industry. That needs specific European powers. I can imagine going up and down the country, trying to explain to people why we have to have a referendum on energy moving from Spain to France, because the Government have trapped themselves with the Bill. However, that is for later. Here we are giving the Government powers to ask for a referendum on something that they do not need in the rest of the Bill; it is the most amazing proposal. I will come to my second reason when I have given way to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Lord referred to competence on energy. Is not an even more powerful example that of the environment? I heard the noble Lord chair an international conference on the environment; he chaired it splendidly. Is that not a perfect example of where a European competence is even more vital?

[Lord Deben]

Well, we could go into the referendum and opinion poll mechanism of running government, which of course means the Daily Mail running government—let us be clear what the purpose of this is. If we ran government by opinion poll, we would exempt from the Bill anything to do with the environment, because an overwhelming majority of people believe that the environment is better protected on a European basis. They understand that half the emissions we create we give to the rest of Europe, and half the pollution in this country comes from the rest of Europe. One cannot have an air pollution policy unless it is European, and that is true of most of the issues about which we talk.

I will give my noble friend Lord Howell the second reason why we need to be very careful about this; it is for his own protection. If this is in the Bill, the head-bangers, of whom there are some in both Houses, will say, every time there is any decision in the European Union, “What about this?”. We all know who they are; it would be quite wrong of me to mention any names, but they will rise to their feet again and again because they are utterly committed to doing anything to stop—I give way to the noble Lord, whom I have not named.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I think we all know whom the noble Lord is talking about. Does he agree that the head-bangers now include a growing majority of the British people?

[Lord Deben]

I would say that a large number of people spend a great deal of time misleading as many people as possible on the European Union and it is not surprising that some of it has rubbed off. However, I named no names and I will not do so now. That intervention shows us exactly that what I have said is true. Any Government proposing anything in Europe will come to this part of Europe and present it to the House of Commons, and someone will say, “Why are you not moving for a referendum to be held under this part of the Bill?”. There is no subject which would not come under it. I say to the noble Lord that this is a serious issue for any future Government because, if this part of the Bill goes through, no Government will be free of it in any decision they make. What will be the result of that in the Council?

Of course, I yield to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in negotiations but I think that my experience as a Minister is at least as long as that of anyone else in the country. Sixteen years of that experience was spent in the European Union, much of it in agriculture dealing with the detail of tiny issues that really mattered and much of it in environmental matters. However, I do not see how I could have negotiated, because any bit of this part of the Bill could have been brought up. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord that, if there is something of an argument here, can we please present it in a different way which does not bring all this baggage with it? If there is nothing here, it should be his devout wish that the Committee divides and he loses on this amendment, because it will damage Governments of all kinds. However, what it will damage most is the country that I love—the United Kingdom. It will mean that no Minister will be able to negotiate with the freedom of any other Minister in the European Union. We will be like the Belgians, who, for any decision, have to go back to three Ministers, all of whom have different views, and, as a result, they decide and contribute to nothing.

Therefore, I simply say to the noble Lord that, if he can move on this, he will give me confidence in the claim of my Government that this provision is intended merely to prevent huge changes being carried out without the consent of the British people. If he can move on this, he will protect this and other Governments from the effect of the provision, and I think he will find much of the rest of the debate very much easier. However, if he does not, I fear that many of us will have to vote again and again against a Bill which, for me, is the Conservative version of the Hunting Bill. It has been brought forward to look after a particular group of atavistic individuals and it is not in any way sensible. Everyone else knows that it is not sensible and that it is there for a purpose, and I am ashamed of the Liberal Democrats for not making sure that it was never there at all.

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Deben will no doubt be pleased to hear that I agree with every word that he has just said, and I do so with a good deal more feeling than I agree with the views of the coalition.

In her speech at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said that the use of referendums in this Bill is unprecedented in terms of constitutional practice. That is absolutely true, but I would go further than that because I believe that important parts of the Bill are unconstitutional. Those parts of the Bill are the provisions that will require, for effective enactment, favourable decisions from both Parliament and a referendum. Here, when a Bill comes before Parliament, the decision by Parliament to enact the Bill may be overridden by its rejection in a referendum. Nothing like that has ever happened before in this country. What is proposed will set a precedent which could, and may well, lead to referendums being put on an equal footing with decisions by Parliament. We could, of course, consider a fundamental change to our constitution that would enable referendums to be incorporated into our system of legislation. However, this Bill is definitely not the place for doing that. I believe that once a Bill has been approved by Parliament, it is the law and cannot be overridden by a referendum imposed not by itself but by Parliament at an earlier date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

No. I am afraid that I am among those who regard sovereignty as being rather like virginity; you either have it or you do not. Certainly, in all those parts of the treaty that are now subject to qualified majority voting, where we have some 9 per cent of the votes, we have in effect given up power. I really do not think that there is any doubt about that.

[Lord Deben]

Perhaps I may talk about the question of virginity. In the matter of air pollution, we do not have sovereignty over half the air pollution that affects my former constituents and the noble Lord’s neighbours. By pooling our sovereignty, we now share the sovereignty over all the air pollution and we can do something about it. By doing that, we have increased our sovereignty. If I may say so, the noble Lord really misleads people when he talks about sovereignty as if it is something that in the modern world means keeping everything. I remind him of the biblical concept that if you want to gain something, you share it, which surely is the point of the European Union.

[Lord Taverne]

Perhaps I may put two further examples to the noble Lord. He is very conscientious and I am sure that he read carefully every word that was spoken at Second Reading. What about the examples that have been given? The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, previously referred to defence equipment, an area in which we would have an enormous amount to gain if we shared sovereignty. Presently, we do not.

My second example, patents, was given by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. Are these not perfect examples of where we gain enormously from sharing a certain amount of authority instead of keeping it entirely in a narrow sense?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I cannot accept those points from the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Taverne. Why could we not have done these great things by intergovernmental collaboration? Why did we need to pool our sovereignty to achieve them? On the environment, if the noble Lord, Lord Deben, as he did in his speech, is going to extol his 16 years in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as an Agriculture Minister, is he really going to tell your Lordships that he is all that proud of that? What about the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy? These are also examples of the EU’s environmental control over what used to be our sovereign territory.

[Lord Deben]

I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would like to say the same about the last 16 years of the Houses of Parliament. It would be quite possible to say that a lot of things were done here in a way that he does not like, but would he suggest that we should leave the parliamentary system because he does not like some of the things that are done? All we are saying to him is that sharing sovereignty gains and does not lose, and that this particular clause has nothing to do with sharing sovereignty because it actually excludes anything that does share sovereignty. Why is he talking about sharing sovereignty in relation to this particular amendment when it refers specifically to internal housekeeping decisions that have nothing to do with sharing or transferring sovereignty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

Does the noble Lord agree that the British Government would have had to vote as part of that unanimity, thereby accepting that this would not change the nature of powers, but would then have to come back to Britain and say, “We voted the wrong way. We will now need to have a referendum, after saying that this did not increase the powers”?

[Lord Kinnock]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I will show him this piece of paper afterwards.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Educational Allowances

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is true that state boarding-school places are excellent, but unfortunately it is not true that they are available. Diplomats with children who need to be educated when they go abroad to places where they cannot take their children—I have a list of 48 countries to which children are not allowed to be taken—need to find places quickly. However, they find that they are not at the top of the queue for the 5,000 boarding places available in state schools in this country. I appreciate very much the point that the noble Lord makes but it does not add up if you are trying to find a place for your child.

[Lord Deben]

Does my noble friend agree that it is a very important part of keeping the best people in the Foreign Service that we provide this service for their young children, as without it we would not have the quality people whom we expect? It is about time that people stopped sniping at the Foreign Service on this issue.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that support. He is absolutely right but I shall correct him on one thing, if I may. It involves not only senior staff as 75 per cent of the children helped are of parents with quite junior salaries. The Foreign Office sends junior people to very difficult posts and they may have young children who need to be educated.