Syria: Idlib

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As the noble Lord will know, one of the major extremist terrorist groups that has been operating in Syria is Daesh. In that regard, the universal coalition against Daesh of 70-plus countries has seen the defeat of that particular organisation. That sets the precedent for how you can defeat extremist and terrorist voices. I assure the noble Lord that we are speaking to all players within and across the region to ensure that we can reach the settlement that we all want to see.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very difficult area, but what is the point in refusing to talk to the Assad regime? How on earth can we expect to have influence if we simply do nothing but throw bombs at them? We talked to Stalin, we talked to Mao Tse-Tung and we talked to Idi Amin, a man who kept human heads in his refrigerators. The art of diplomacy means dealing with some very difficult people over some very difficult issues. At the end of the day, salving our consciences should not be the main question—it is the ability to save as many lives as possible and restore stability to Syria as quickly as possible.

United States: Diplomatic Relations

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

Yes, my Lords.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that what we have witnessed in America is actually a great triumph of democracy? The most powerful nation in the world is able to hand over power from one Administration to another relatively peacefully, in a way in which three-quarters of the world could not possibly manage. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a pretty awful system of government except that it is much better than anything else we happen to have invented. Alongside all the criticisms, can we not celebrate the fact that we live in a free western world?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My noble friend is absolutely right. As I am privileged to travel around the world for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I see countries that do not have peaceful transitions, so I certainly celebrate in the way that my noble friend does.

Syria

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the coalition has implemented safe separation measures for aircraft operating in Syria and keeps the issue under constant review. British aircraft are already flying combat missions over Iraq and reconnaissance missions over Syria. That includes overflying Turkish airspace by agreement with the Turkish Government and following long-standing practice among NATO allies, which ensures full transparency and communication at all times. I assure the noble Lord that all these missions are co-ordinated by the US-led coalition co-ordination centre.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, there are inevitably conflicting and competing claims about what actually happened. Can my noble friend cast any light on whether in fact that Russian jet was over Turkish territory? If so, for how long was it over Turkish territory? Is she able to tell us whether the Turks did indeed give adequate warning of their intention to shoot it down?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we support Turkey in the way in which it has presented the facts of the case. Turkey has said that the Russian plane was warned 10 times in five minutes before they shot at the plane, and the US military spokesperson has corroborated that. It is clear that the most important thing at this time is that the issue is de-escalated. As President Obama and the Prime Minister here have said, it is important that all sides consider carefully their relationship with each other.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I feel a bit like a shaggy old dog stirred from his hearth by a shadow at the kitchen door, the whistle of a familiar refrain and the instruction that it is time to go ratting again. I am in good heart, though, because although it has been a long day, it is not a Friday, we are dealing today with a Bill that has been endorsed by the voters at an election and—dare I say it?—it is a better Bill than the one that I had the honour and pleasure of presenting to your Lordships a year ago. Time and reflection have helped to tweak it, and perhaps it is appropriate for me to apologise to one or two noble Lords who came forward at that time with reasoned and perhaps sensible amendments to that original Bill. We knew that it was never going to work as a Bill, but it was the first light before the dawn.

I am the tail-end Charlie on this and I do not wish to go into too many details of the Bill since that has been done so eloquently by so many people today. However, I will say in passing that I look forward to the efforts the Minister will put into justifying how it is consistent to acquiesce to votes for 16 and 17 year-olds for a referendum on Scotland but not on Europe. I wish her luck—she may need it.

I am a passionate European. I was struck, as I often am, by the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. We were schoolkids together—no, not at that school, at a grammar school in Hertford. His words have always been something of an inspiration to me. He asked, “What do we mean by Europe?”. For more than 2,000 years Europe has been the centre of the world. In fact, for almost 2,000 years it was the world: Plato, Homer, Mozart, Picasso—the great artists, the philosophers, the statesmen, the writers, the musicians —Shakespeare, Chopin, Beethoven, the Beatles and all the rest. It has been a pretty formidable and often glorious history. We have been the birthplace of democracy. It is said that the Greeks invented democracy, although it appears that they have been in a measure of chaos ever since. We have been the champions of basic liberties. We introduced the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Okay, I accept there have been a few historical hiccups along the way—things that were less than beneficial—but in Europe we have been, and still are, a beacon of hope for those around the world who are less fortunate than we are.

It is 2,000 years of extraordinary achievement, and yet during those years we have had so many different forms of institutions. You can still hear the footsteps of Socrates and Michelangelo and the Venerable Bede, even though the streets they walked along have long been worn away and the institutions they served have gone. The republics, the monarchies, the empires, the leagues and the confederations are nothing but ancient echoes. The world has moved on. I think it is a great flaw in the wider debate about Europe that we have been having for so many years that it has focused excessively on institutions and not on those deeper issues, because our Europeanness is defined not by our institutions but by our culture.

That is why I was very distressed with the words of the German Finance Minister Herr Schäuble when he was talking about Greece. He said that elections would change nothing and that there was no alternative. I hope that his words lost something in translation because they are pretty cold, hard and unnecessary. The history of Europe tells us that there is always an alternative. In every corner of Europe that you go to nowadays there are voices saying that our institutions are wrong: both sides of this great debate agree on that. We must change, we must go off in one direction or another, but what we cannot do is stand still.

There has never been a better time for a British Prime Minister to argue that there has to be a better way for British leadership in Europe. I wish our Prime Minister well in that undertaking. It is an enormous task. We are playing with history here. This is not a light or an easy decision, but he is absolutely right in that whatever he manages to do, the people must be given the final decision. That is the essence of this Bill here. It is the people, not the institutions, who are the final source of political authority. We have just had this wonderful discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and my noble friend Lord Lawson about ever-closer union. I have to tell the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is absolutely right. Right at the top of the treaty of Rome in 1975 the preamble talks first and foremost about ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe. Notice the plural—the peoples of Europe.

There are other words that I think are relevant:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”,

and that,

“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it”.

Those were the wise words of the authors of the Declaration of Independence and I think they are as relevant today as they were 240 years ago. They seemed to make quite a success of it—and entirely without the benefit of a government paper setting out the consequences of their actions.

I am a passionate European in a way that my father and my grandfather could never have been. If I may take the Bard’s words at liberty, there is a lot of good in the state of Denmark—which means that I desperately want the Prime Minister to come back with a deal that I can accept: a clear, strong, substantial deal and not vague promises that might disappear like vapour trails in an evening sun. That would be good not just for Britain but for Europe as a whole—and then let the people decide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dobbs]

Forgive me for interrupting, but I would also remind the noble Lord that the United States, in order to achieve a single currency, actually required a civil war to do it, which is scarcely a model that one wishes to follow.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I should remind the noble Lord that, when I have given talks in Washington and elsewhere on European integration, I have often said—sometimes years ago—that, if we ever achieved a United States of Europe, I had no doubt that the policy process would work almost as well as the policy process in Washington. I hope that the noble Lord understands the point.

We have teased out of this debate what issues we have to deal with in Committee and on Report. We are now agreed that there is to be a referendum; the question is now settled; and the date is beyond Parliament’s control, except when the negotiations have been agreed and the Government come back to us. Therefore, we are left with a number of manageable issues.

On the question of purdah, clearly, if we have a long campaign, the Government have to go on negotiating with their partners in the European Union, and Ministers will have to say some things. In that area we will need to explore what the correct outcome is.

On the franchise, on which a great deal has been said, it is quite clear that the current British franchise is a mess. It is a historical, imperial legacy which means that someone who was born in Rwanda or Mozambique and moved to London last year can vote on whether we stay in the European Union. When we are in London, we stay in Wandsworth, where you hear French spoken extensively in the streets, which has been the case for 20 to 30 years. However, French people who have been working and living in London for 20 or 30 years, paying taxes here, contributing in every sense to our economy, cannot vote. There are a whole set of issues there which we need to explore in detail. This is not an ordinary vote. As has been said during this debate and elsewhere, this is a vote about the future of this country, and therefore we need to look at the franchise for this exceptional vote in exceptional ways.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton, and other noble Lords raised the question of threshold, which clearly we will have to explore a little, although it is a very difficult issue. Whatever happens at the end of it, if we have a narrow majority, either with a low or a high turnout, it will not settle the issue. However, we all know that referendums do not settle the issue. Six months after the 1975 referendum, the Labour Party was still arguing against staying in the European Union, and look at what happened in Scotland, where the referendum did not settle the future of that country.

The issue of the provision of information is extremely important and very difficult, and again we need to spend some time on it. We have to ask for a White Paper; certainly we need to look at the implications of leaving and, if possible, the prospect of staying. However, I bear hard scars from the problems of having to try to create dispassionate evidence on Britain’s relations with Europe. I spent two years in government negotiating 32 reports on the balance of competences between Britain and the European Union. Some 2,500 pieces of evidence came in; the Conservatives put that in the coalition agreement because they were convinced that this would provide the evidential basis for knowing what sort of powers we would want to repatriate from Brussels back to Britain. The overwhelming evidence submitted to the balance of competences review—from business, universities, financial and legal services—was that they think the current balance of competences is pretty good, thank you. The evidence submitted by easyJet began: easyJet would not exist if it were not for the single market in the European Union.

How did the press and No. 10 react to this? They did their best to bury the balance of competences reports in full. They were usually published at the beginning of the Christmas or the July Recess, just to make sure that the press were looking somewhere else instead. That is part of the problem in trying to get dispassionate evidence into our debate: myths float by us, undisturbed by reality.

I saw in a Church of England blog, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred to yesterday, that a lay member of the synod of Canterbury said that one of the reasons why the BBC is so biased in favour of Europe is because it receives so much significant funding from the European Union. I look at that with amazement. That is clearly going round in some circles as part of this wonderful phantasmagoria of the EU as a monster, reaching across the Channel to seduce honest Englishmen, strangle our free institutions and reduce us to serfdom under German—and perhaps also French—domination. Therefore, we will struggle between evidence and myth as we go on through this debate.

I will remark on one of the myths, which I have heard several times in this debate: “We thought we were joining a Common Market, and no one ever told us that this was a political project”. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself, in his speech to the Conservative Party conference last week, said:

“When we joined the European Union we were told that it was about going into a common market, rather than the goal that some had for ‘ever closer union’”.

Last night, therefore, again I dug out Sir Alec Douglas -Home’s speech on 21 October 1971, on the first day of the Commons debate on the issue of principle of joining the European Economic Community. He said that,

“when Germany, France, Italy and the rest sit down to talk about their problems of security, and their attitude to world problems … it is vital that we should be in their councils. During the last year I have … been in the councils of the Ten, because they have anticipated the larger Community. Matters are talked about there which concern the defence of Europe and the defence of Britain. Matters are talked about—for example, the Middle East—which have the greatest implications for our country. It is essential that we should be in the councils when these questions are discussed, and that a decision should not be taken without us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/10/71; col. 922.]

I say that for all those who think that we would be better off as a sort of Switzerland with nuclear weapons, which I think is what—

Queen’s Speech

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Thursday 28th May 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I would follow her anywhere. We have heard many fine speeches this afternoon—from my noble friend Lord Howe from his new position on the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Lothian, who is not in his seat, my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, that very special maiden speech by my noble friend Lady Helic, and many others. It has been an excellent debate so far.

On my desk at home, there is a chunk of the Berlin Wall. I knew the wall: when I was a teenager in the 1960s, I used to run messages back and forth across it for families who had been ripped apart by its construction. Yet that wall came tumbling down, and it is worth remembering how it came tumbling down. Despite the massive arsenals that were built up on both sides, that wall—that physical expression of evil—was not blown apart by bombs. In the end, it was torn down by the bare hands of millions of ordinary people from the East, who saw in us, yes, an opportunity for economic advancement of course, but more profoundly a set of values in which they wanted to share.

I wonder how we would fare today if we were playing by the rules of the Berlin Wall game, where we are judged by the extent to which we manage to persuade rather than simply bludgeon. We have been doing a lot of bludgeoning in recent years. We often see the merits of our western values to be self-evident, yet I fear that there are many around the world today who do not see those values at all, even in places we have tried so hard to impress, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. For some reason, many see us as aggressors rather than liberators, and we need to understand why.

We went to war in those places for two purposes: to rescue them from chaos and to make our own streets safer. However, in both of those aims, we have failed. We have not rescued the Middle East. We have not even rescued ourselves: our terrorist threat is now increasingly homegrown. A little soul-searching is in order. We need a thoroughgoing and fundamental review of British foreign policy, warts and all—and not one that is simply squeezed inside the confines of the SDSR. For instance, how much is it our priority to spread human rights and democracy elsewhere in the world? Instead, should the emphasis be more on seeking stability and security? Which of those alternatives would end up saving more lives? It is not an easy discussion but it is one we must have.

We should welcome new ideas and new insights. The Cold War was a period of intense intellectual activity and of sometimes torrid self-questioning here in the West, by academics and analysts such as George Kennan and Henry Kissinger in the States and Sir Michael Howard and Professor John Erickson over here. Their analyses helped transform the world because, while communism stood still, we overwhelmed its people with ideas and fresh thinking. That is the way we shall eventually defeat ISIS: not by bombing it into oblivion but by denying it its followers, pursuing a policy of patience and persistence in which military activity is always subordinate to political and diplomatic strategy, not used as a knee-jerk response to glib commentators insisting that “something must be done”.

We got Iraq wrong. We got the Arab spring wrong. We got Ukraine wrong. We have meddled and muddled. We have not always lived up to our own standards. The Chilcot report seems likely to highlight some of those failings. Whatever that report says and whenever it comes, it should be seen not as an end but as a beginning, the first part of an ongoing and thorough, open inquiry where we test every aspect of our foreign policy and what it is that we need to achieve.

Yet, enough of the negative. In that analysis, we should not forget that we still have extraordinary scope for influence. We have the world’s fifth-largest economy and the world’s fifth most powerful Armed Forces. We commit a higher percentage of our national wealth to foreign aid than almost any other country. We are one of the most generous nations in the world. We are central members of the UN, EU and NATO. London, this wonderful capital city, is the most dynamic capital in the world. We have one of the richest cultures and one of the world’s most extraordinary histories. These are assets of real value. We do not travel alone in this world. We have many friends. Yes, we have the BBC. Though it needs a good kicking and fundamental reshaping and rebuilding, let us never forget what it does for our ability to use soft power—about which this House has written and reported on so eloquently in the past.

Here in Britain, we punch above our weight and, as I like to say, sing above the scale. We rescued Europe from dictatorship and despair more times than Brussels has managed a balanced budget. The walls that divide the world today are built not so much of concrete but of extremism, intolerance and ignorance. Our Britain is one of the finest and freest countries on the planet, a beacon of hope and values in a dark world. Our foreign policy should reflect that far better than it manages at the moment.

EU: UK Membership

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, our identity is defined by our culture, not by institutions. This morning I was fortunate enough to go to the National Gallery to see some of the glories produced by that extraordinary Dutch artist, Rembrandt. It was a small reminder, among so many, that we Europeans have been the most successful peoples in the history of the world. Indeed, for 2,000 years we were the world. We bound more books, we parsed more poetry, we made more music and, in the process, we framed more freedoms than anyone else.

However, recently something has gone wrong. We have lost our sense of purpose. Why is that? President Juncker has an answer. For him, it seems, it is the fault of the people. This is what he said recently:

“We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it”.

Those are haunting words. They imply an appalling lack of leadership and a serious disconnect with the peoples, which puzzles me because, if the EU is not for the peoples, who on earth is it for?

Tragically, the single most powerful factor propping up the current hopelessly arthritic structures of the EU right now is not ambition, and least of all is it success. It is fear: fear of the unknown, fear of admitting failure, and fear of what might happen if the nettle is grasped and the eurozone is reorganised, yet fear of endless economic stagnation if it is not. But fear is a pretty miserable basis for building the future. Surely we can do better than that.

In a remarkable intervention today while on a visit to Strasbourg, the Pope, as we have heard, described the EU as,

“a ‘grandmother’, no longer fertile and vibrant”.

It might also be described as a bit of a dinosaur—all muscle-bound body and a tiny head, but with one idea echoing inside it: that of ever closer union. However, the dinosaur has entirely forgotten what that means. It was an idea launched through the treaty of Rome, which called for an ever closer union,

“among the peoples of Europe”.

I repeat: the peoples, not the institutional fixtures and fittings. In that ambition, at least, the EU seems to have succeeded. It has united the people—in dismay and growing disenchantment. The EU must change or it will be changed by the peoples.

Earlier this year I asked this House to consider an EU referendum Bill, and I recognise some familiar faces. It was never going to pass—not through this House —but the debate was necessary in order to throw light on this mighty issue. And it worked beyond my wildest dreams. Labour Members of this House rose as one to deny the people their say. They did not even wait until the white vans had pulled up in their driveways. They said, definitively, “No”. I shall be eternally grateful to a noble friend on the Liberal Democrat Benches who, at the time of the crucial vote, rose in his place, cast aside his party’s habitual coyness, pointed to the Division Lobby and cried, “This way to kill the Bill!”. His party, to a man and a woman, were counted through.

And so, through the fog of confusion, came clarity. This side of the House, the Conservative side, demands a referendum; every other party opposes it.

As grateful as I am to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for securing this debate, he and I could argue for a thousand years, I suspect, until we were old men, and still, I fear, we would never agree.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that every other party opposes a referendum. I restate, for the sake of clarity, that the Liberal Democrat position, as expressed in the European Union Act 2011, is that there should be a referendum if there is a significant transfer of powers to the European Union. The Liberal Democrat spin on that is that that should be an “in or out” referendum, so we are in favour of a referendum under certain conditions.

[Lord Dobbs]

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. We hear the words—we have always heard the words—and yet we saw what they did when the time came to put their necks on the line.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for this debate. We need these debates. We need to clarify the issue. It is time to take this agonising issue—because we do not agree and we will never agree—out of the hands of us agonised politicians and give it to the people to decide. It is their future, and it must be their decision.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, thank you. I have listened carefully to this debate and have given this particular issue a great deal of thought over recent weeks. I have also taken note of the fact that 81 amendments have been put down so far to the Bill. This is but the first group of amendments and we have already taken well over two hours in discussing it—which is why, at the risk of seeming discourteous to the House, I do not intend to take any interventions. I want to get on with this. Although I simply do not have time—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Dobbs]

Well, we have just seen five interventions on the noble Baroness in three minutes.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords—

[Lord Dobbs]

No, I am sorry, I am not going to take—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition and I would like to be heard. The difference between the noble Lord who has sponsored the Bill and the Minister is that it is the noble Lord’s Bill. It is a Private Member’s Bill. I think that the whole House would therefore expect the noble Lord to answer the questions that have been put to him—and if noble Lords who have intervened previously in this debate feel that there are additional questions to be answered, that is entirely appropriate. I think the House would find it appropriate if the noble Lord answered those questions.

[Lord Dobbs]

If I may be allowed to make progress, I will do my best to do precisely that and to answer the questions that have been raised. They are about the questions in the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, tabled. I am afraid that I simply do not have time to acknowledge all those who have spoken, although I thank noble Lords for their, by and large, reasoned and reasonable contributions, and in particular for the elegant way in which the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, introduced his amendment.

I am not entirely unsympathetic to what has been said. As I said at Second Reading, the case about the question is arguable but not overwhelming. Although some noble Lords have implied that we are standing at the gates of hell, and that almost any question would be better than this one, it is worth remembering that the Electoral Commission did not condemn out of hand the question that stands in the Bill. Some of the references to the commission’s findings that were made during this debate were hugely exaggerated. I have its findings here and have read every word. The commission said:

“We found that the wording of the question itself”—

the question contained in the Bill—

“is brief, uses straightforward language, and is easy to understand and answer”,

not that it was confusing and misleading, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, suggested. The Electoral Commission had its reservations, of course—

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

Since the noble Lord is quoting from the Electoral Commission’s report, his quotation, in order to be accurate, should be precise. Exactly after the phrase which he has quoted, the words of the Electoral Commission are,

“however … the phrase ‘be a member of the European Union’ to describe the referendum choice is not sufficiently clear to ensure a full understanding of the referendum as a whole … The question wording does not make it clear for some people what the current status of the UK is within the EU, and the referendum choice as expressed in the question is likely to lead to confusion”.

If that is not a clear dismissal of the version of the question that the noble Lord is offering, I do not know what is.

[Lord Dobbs]

I thank the noble Lord. That is precisely why I do not wish to take too many interventions.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Dobbs]

It is precisely that point which I am about to address. If noble Lords would do me the courtesy of listening, they might actually learn a little about what I feel about this, rather than what the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, feels about it. That is more time wasted. I will get on to the time-wasting in just a minute, if noble Lords will allow me.

As I was about to say, the Electoral Commission had its reservations, of course, and we have already heard much of that from noble Lords. However, I believe that the commission’s concern that some voters might be confused, because they are unaware that we are already members of the European Union, is a little oversensitive. Yet the role of the commission is to be cautious, and I do not criticise it for that. I understand that in the past we have made a habit of accepting the commission’s recommendations about any referendum question, but it is worth remembering that its role in this matter is entirely advisory. It is not an umpire or a judge but, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has just pointed out, a source of advice. At the end of the day, it is up to us. The other place debated almost this exact same amendment as we are dealing with here and, after a lengthy debate, rejected it by a majority of 241.

It is also worth remembering that the commission was not able to offer a clear single alternative question. It is hugely significant that this amendment, which mirrors the second alternative suggested by the commission’s report, has not been properly tested by the commission; it clearly states in its report that it did not have time. So it is entirely possible that if I accepted this amendment, the commission might come back at a later stage and tell us that this wording was not good enough either. That would put us in a most awkward position and embarrass so much of what has already been said here today.

At Second Reading I mentioned other potential weaknesses in the commission’s report. I do not want to go back over too much of that ground but many noble Lords have expressed their concerns today. It is perhaps a pity—I put it as no more than that—that not a single Member of this House expressed any concern while the Electoral Commission was undertaking consultation at a stage that might have avoided the need for this amendment in the first place. Indeed, only 19 individuals and organisations offered any comment whatever. If this is a serious issue, it has been a long time coming.

It is also a fact of life that currently 81 amendments have been tabled to this short Bill. We know that some of the Bill’s opponents are determined to use any means to kill it. While I want to make progress, I hope that the House will allow me a moment to deal with that central issue because it gives a context to all else that we do here. Right from the start, the moment that the Bill came to this House, it has been true that, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who sadly I do not see in his seat, told the BBC—and I am grateful for his frankness about this—the opponents will use every trick in the book to derail it. It was put to him in an interview by Mr Mark D’Arcy that the aim would be to keep this Bill running in one form or another pretty much right up to the election. The noble Lord replied: “What they do not want to do, I do not think anyone wants to do, is to have their fingerprints on the dagger that kills it”. There we have it—death by a thousand cuts, or at least by 81 amendments, and that is what undermines the rights of this House.

I hasten to add that I am not accusing the sponsors of this amendment of any hint of deviousness. Many of them have made their points with charm and eloquence, as we would expect them to. However, we all know what is going on. We cannot deny the presence of an elephant in the room, a very large and unreasonable elephant—those who have no intention whatever of working to improve the Bill but who are solely intent on trying to kill it. They claim to be trying to improve the question but in fact are trying to ensure that no question is ever put.

We all know that if the Bill is to survive—if we are to give people the referendum they want—we have to get the Bill through this House in reasonable shape and in very short time. That timetable is not mine; it is simply another fact of life. It is a further fact that after six days of detailed consideration, the Bill went through the other place at every stage with a huge majority or no opposition whatever. We could all speculate why Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs ran for cover, but the fact is that they did. So, in the belief that what was good enough for Labour and Liberal Democrat geese down the other end of the Palace must surely be more than enough to satisfy their noble ganders, I ask the noble Lord, who is not party to any of these games, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster]

My Lords, my modest, innocent little amendment has given rise to a long, interesting and wide-ranging debate, and after more than two hours I do not propose to try to deal with every point. We are being told that the Bill must pass unamended to go back to the House of Commons in order to be concluded in time to be passed into legislation in this Session. As to that, although I am not an expert in procedure, it seems that if the House of Commons is sufficiently keen to see the Bill passed, it can change its procedure as a matter of exception in order to deal with it. I therefore hope that your Lordships will not be put off by that threat.

We are told that the Bill is a necessity as a guarantee or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, an assurance that there will an “in or out” referendum about our membership of the European Union in 2017. With the greatest respect to those who are saying so, I cannot see it. It is impossible for this Parliament to give a cast-iron guarantee or assurance about something that is going to happen after the next election. Suppose that in May 2015, after the next election, there were to be a change of Government and the new Government decided that there should not be a referendum on this matter. The new Government would be free to introduce legislation in the House of Commons to give effect to that decision; the House of Commons would pass it; and then it would come back to this House, and no doubt we should be told that an unelected House ought not to challenge the view of the House of Commons.

I am with those who feel that we should not shirk our duty to scrutinise the Bill and, if we can, improve it, and that, with the greatest respect to the House of Commons, if that House feels that the Bill is so important, it should then adjust its procedures in order to deal with it. I do not think that the Bill provides the kind of guarantee or assurance that we shall have a referendum, because no one can know what will happen in 2015. If it is a guarantee at all, it is so only until May of that year. In fact, the best assurance that the people of Britain can have that there should be a referendum will be the commitment by the present Prime Minister to hold a referendum in 2017. As I said at Second Reading, that is a commitment that he can enshrine in a manifesto. No doubt the manifesto does not have the force of a statute, but at least its shadow stretches beyond the next election and would govern what the new Parliament did. I might almost argue, if I allowed myself to be political, that if the British people thought it so vital to have a referendum, as I am sure they do, their best means of assuring themselves of getting it would be to return Mr Cameron, who has given them this commitment.

The time has come for us to take a decision on this matter. I am afraid that I am not persuaded by the procedural arguments that have been deployed from the Benches here, and I think there is a strong measure of support for the amendment that I have proposed. Without any further ado, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, this is a helpful amendment, and I have only one very brief comment to make. We have had a number of proposals coming through this and the other House over a period of time that have changed our unwritten constitution in quite significant ways. It is very difficult to know how they all mesh together, because they are almost never spoken of in terms of taking a helicopter view of the whole set of proposals. That probably leads towards the laws of unintended consequences on occasions because we do not have a holistic view. It would be incredibly hard before the Scottish referendum, allowing for one of the possible outcomes of that referendum, to make any intelligent decisions in this area. I do not think that we would be thanked by the people of Scotland, as it might very well be that they would feel that it took an element of their choice away from them, in the full sense of a choice about their future in Europe, in relation to the currency, and so on. It is a very sensible proposal, and I hope that the House will give it proper consideration.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, dates are very difficult, are they not? We have this particular amendment, which talks about October 2014, and other amendments that suggest 2020. We have talked about the Scottish referendum, yet at other times in debates on the Bill we have heard that we cannot have this or that date because of what is going on in Germany, Brussels, and so forth. Dates are difficult, and I acknowledge that. There is no ideal date; it is a bit like trying to find the right time to suggest that your wife should start a diet. There is never going to be a right time for that, which is why—

[Lord Radice]

Then why is there a date in this Bill at all?

[Lord Dobbs]

It is very simple, and I was about to get on to that. That is why the date in this Bill is very flexible. The Bill says that the referendum must be held any time up until the last day of 2017. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has spent so much time instructing us, this is not the last time that this Bill and the measures for this referendum will come back to this House.

Dates are difficult, which is why the Bill has a very flexible date contained in it. However, I believe that, to put it this way, while many people might understand why the House took the view that it did on the previous amendment, I suspect very few would understand why we would twist and turn the Bill around to pass this amendment. It is unnecessary and perhaps misguided.

[Lord Wigley]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving away, and I understand part of what he is saying. However, were Scotland to vote yes, although that may be an unlikely outcome as things stand, would he accept that for the period after the referendum, perhaps even up to 2016, when independence would become a fact, it would be difficult to hold the referendum on the EU?

[Lord Dobbs]

I like to deal with the practical world, rather than hypotheses, and the Prime Minister has already said that he needs this time to undertake the fundamental renegotiation that is behind all this. That is why he is going to campaign at that referendum on the basis of staying in, not getting out. He has already started that process of renegotiation, which will take time. There is no chance, in the practical, real world, that we could encounter a situation in which this referendum would be begun before the date that the noble Lord suggests. So this is really an unnecessary amendment, and I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing it.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity of having at least put the point on the record that there is an issue here to which we may well return on later amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, indicated. I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warsi]

As the noble Lord is aware, the balance of competences review is to be done over four terms. The first set of papers has already been published and the second is being published as we speak. It is important that there is a timeframe within which this proper process is allowed to take place, and that is why the date as set in this Bill is not before the end of 2017. In those circumstances, I would say that the overwhelming feeling of the British people is to allow the referendum to happen.

[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.

[Lord Radice]

A number of us have argued for using the Office for Budget Responsibility. Is the noble Lord seriously saying that that is not a reputable and objective body? If so, he is of course undermining the whole basis of his Government’s economic policy.

[Lord Dobbs]

The noble Lord fully understands that that is not at all what I am saying. I am simply suggesting that this is not only a difficult issue but an important one. Of course we want people to make up their minds, and in order for them to do that they need information. Above all, though, what they need first and foremost is a vote—the first vote that they will have had in 40 years.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords—

[Lord Dobbs]

I am coming almost to the end. If the noble Lord insists, then of course I will give way.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Why should the vote be first and foremost? Should not an evidence-based assessment be first and foremost?

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, nothing in the Bill prevents a future Parliament, before a referendum, from asking for just such an independent assessment in the circumstances of the time. Nothing in this Bill says that that is not going to happen. It is simply that this Bill is not required to do that in order for that to be achieved. The people will get their information—they will probably start complaining that they have had too much information—but they do not need this amendment in order to get it.

Having listened to the noble Lord’s argument and not disagreeing with his fundamental approach that the people of course need the right information to make up their minds, given that it is not necessary for this amendment to be passed in order for them to get that information, I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Roper]

My Lords, I am extraordinarily grateful for the support from all parts of the House for this cross-party Back-Bench amendment asking for the Bill to include an obligation to provide objective information on these critical matters. Given the time, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go into detail on all the points raised, although I think that the agenda which the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, proposed is probably rather more than the one which I was thinking of, but there are obviously other ways in which these other matters can be dealt with.

I also felt that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on environmental matters and the social chapter spelled out some of the things which were already included. I hope that the House understands very clearly the distinction between the objective analysis which we are putting forward in this set of amendments and the other matters which are put forward in other amendments to which we will be returning later.

In view of the support from all parts of the House, I was very disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, the promoter of this Bill, having said that he agrees with it, feels that it is not necessary to have it in the Bill. That is an argument one often gets as far as amendments are concerned. It is, of course, no longer possible to say that we must not have any amendments because we already have one, and having got one, the arguments against this one seem much reduced. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

That is an absolute calumny. [Interruption.] The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, is known for his acerbity on these matters. I have been going for six minutes; when did we last take six minutes on a filibuster? In my main speech earlier in the day I was less than 10 minutes whereas the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, rambled on for nearly 30 minutes. He was the one doing the filibustering, not me.

[Lord Dobbs]

At the risk of wasting any more time, dare I suggest that it is not a filibuster but a “Milibuster”, something designed by the Labour Party to cause so much delay and confusion that we will all have forgotten where we started from?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has read the people’s tweets. They coined the word “Milibuster" and he is using it. The interesting, remarkable and ironic thing is that if the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Dobbs, had not intervened, I would have sat down two minutes ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I have huge regard for the noble Baroness. There are clearly strongly held views on this matter so I will take advice and ensure that matters are clarified.

[Lord Dobbs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

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

[Lord Dobbs]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Does the noble Lord realise that the analogy that he draws with fixed-term Parliaments is not very apt? This Parliament has changed the periodicity of general elections quite often in the past. The party to which he belongs used to be in favour of annual Parliaments in the early 1700s, which I do not imagine it would come back to now. That has been done, and it has nothing whatever to do with what is being proposed here. What is being proposed here is a Bill whose sole purpose is to bind the hands of a future Parliament; it has no other purpose whatever. That is surely a germane point.

The other point to which the noble Lord could perhaps reply is his suggestion that the amendment would somehow mean endless prevarication. A party which has in its manifesto at the 2015 election the holding of a referendum will have the Salisbury convention on its side to pass legislation necessary to hold the referendum when it decides to do so. If it has any sense, it will not this time put the cart before the horse and decide the date of the referendum before it has had the negotiation.

[Lord Dobbs]

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

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Dobbs]

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

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

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

[Lord Dobbs]

I will happily debate this with my noble friend at another time, but remind her of the situation in 2008 in another place where the Liberal Democrats fell apart on precisely this point about an “in or out” referendum. Please, if I may, I will make progress. I still hear no alternative date being offered. If we keep putting off the date of this referendum, we will find more of the distrust and poison that Sir John Major mentioned—

[Noble Lords]

My Lords—

[Lord Dobbs]

May I please just finish this point? The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned Sir John Major. Sir John is entirely in support of this referendum. He says it is the only way that we can rid the poison of the European issue from the distrust of the people.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

We may have to disagree about Sir John Major. I have a quotation from him here saying that he would not support the Wharton Bill. Give me 10 minutes and I will find it but I am afraid I do not have it to hand.

[Lord Grenfell]

I add one point to that. It would be wholly inconsistent for us on these Benches to propose another date when the whole point of what we are trying to get across is that we want to give a future Government flexibility.

[Lord Dobbs]

If I can lean on the noble Baroness’s patience, I suggested at the start that I needed a little time to cover these issues and I will—precisely, right now—get to the very point that she raised. We need a date. Why do we need one? For the people. We do not need more empty promises. We need a date not as a straitjacket but as a sensible commitment to the people, one they will trust and that will rebind us in their trust because we have failed them. We need a mechanism for this country to be able to move forward. Simply saying that we will have a referendum at some point is not good enough. Why 2017? It is a specific date. Without a specific date, the mistrust that has built up will never be swept away. I already explained that it is not a straitjacket. It has all sorts of flexibility to it but it is an ambition, target and objective that we can all work towards.

[Lord Kinnock]

Can the noble Lord enlighten us? The undertaking to have a referendum by 31 December 2017 arises precisely out of that given by the Prime Minister in his speech from January last year in saying that it had to be in the first half of the next Parliament. Does the noble Lord realise that he is now trying to argue that we must still have the referendum before 31 December, regardless of whether the absolutely vital negotiations have been completed, the achievements —let us call them that—have been agreed to and all the other processes in the European Union have reached conclusion? We have heard about the implausibility of that kind of time schedule. In other words, he would rather stick to the date than employ any common sense whatever.

[Lord Dobbs]

I beg the noble Lord’s pardon, but I do not think that he heard what I said. I said that the date could be changed, but it would have to be for a darned good reason, a reason that the people would accept.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords—

[Lord Dobbs]

We have made a great deal of progress today in this House, and perhaps I could express the serious wish that we should set the objective of getting through Committee today, which would be hugely helpful. That means that I am reluctant to take any more interventions because I am so very close to concluding my remarks on this point. If the noble Baroness insists, of course I will give way.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that in order to vary the date from before the end of 2017, there would have to be a good reason. I have listened very carefully and have not heard from the noble Lord one very good reason why that particular date has been chosen. While I am on my feet, I ask the noble Lord not to misrepresent those of us who are committed pro-European Union Members who believe that people should, at the appropriate time, be given a chance to express their point of view in a referendum, by sweeping us all aside as people who do not want to listen to the public.

[Lord Dobbs]

Again, if I have given that impression to the noble Baroness, I apologise, but that has never been my intent in this. We know that some in this House have been playing games about this Bill, and I have gone a long way in accepting that the debate we have just had has been serious, sensible and one that I welcome.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dobbs]

No, my Lords, I really wish to stand my ground.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, we had a certain difference about what Sir John Major had said. I now have the quotation. John Major was quoted as saying that the Bill was not worthy of his support and that leaving the European Union would be “folly beyond belief”.

[Lord Dobbs]

I could dig out another quote, but that would take another five minutes, and I think that this debate has gone on long enough and I wish to conclude.

In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for the positive engagement that he has encouraged between us outside the Chamber on the issues; it has been very helpful to me. Of course, we disagree about this matter across the Floor of the House, and I think that it is now time for us to decide. With great respect, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords,

“Half a league, half a league,

Half a league onward,

All in the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred”.

—or 158, I think.

I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and the Earl of Cardigan was not responsible for the loss of the Light Brigade, although he was the commander. Missing was the Earl of Lucan—he is in Davos, I think—and the Earl of Raglan, the commanders of the Army. It has been a very gallant charge and it was probably the case that halfway down the valley of death, the Earl of Cardigan turned to the chap on his left and said, “We have made a lot of very good progress today”.

It is very difficult to answer this debate, because I am supposed to deal with the objections to my amendment; I am still waiting. The most interesting suggestion, which I am rather inclined to follow, was in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Act I of the play was quite nasty, with a lot of talk about people misbehaving—hijacking was a word used from the Front Bench—and plotting. In my view, that was not worthy of the House. Act I is over. As the noble Lords, Lord Higgins, Lord Cormack and Lord Deben pointed out, we are now in Act II and our job is to try to turn the Bill, which a lot of us think is a rather bad Bill, into a good Bill. We need to amend and improve it.

I do not know why the date is here. I thought that I had argued, with a degree of support from around the House, that it does not make sense, because the renegotiation cannot be completed. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, says that we could change the date, but we would need a darn good reason. I thought that we had given two hours and 10 minutes of darn good reasons. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right: in Act II one ought to try to be a bit co-operative. There is a point knocking around here which I have not quite grasped. It is not the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, about distrust, but the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about an enforceable undertaking. Although I do not agree with that point, one needs to think about it because it seems a solid point.

The provision does not need the date of 2017; I am not even sure that it needs a date. Perhaps it should be something about “the term of the next Parliament”, and it may be that an amendment could emerge from the Earl of Raglan and be voiced by the Earl of Cardigan. The question that the noble Lord keeps asking us—if not then, when?—is a question that we are entitled to ask him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle]

Briefly, the Opposition attach a lot of importance to this consideration of alternatives. We would hope that there would be some kind of agreed amendment between my noble friend Lord Anderson and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Turnbull, which we might consider on Report.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, I, too, will be brief. I entirely endorse the sentiment behind these amendments. Of course the alternatives must be spelled out. This historic decision which we wish to put to the people should never be taken blind. It is, however, a question of the best mechanism for those alternatives to be spelled out. We hope that they would be taken care of simply by what is called democracy: by a referendum campaign that would be long, arduous and very detailed. I think the people would demand to know from those who were suggesting that we should not stay within the European Union precisely what the alternative was. If that alternative were not offered, they would come to their own conclusions.

It is also, however, a matter that can be dealt with under the terms of the Bill after it has been passed. It does not need to be—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The noble Lord is most kind to give way but, quite honestly, what he just said does not address the problem. The leaders of the no campaign will not be the Government on the day after they win a referendum: there will still be a British Government, which will not be them. We are now talking about what the Government tell the electorate they would do if the electorate voted no, not what the no campaign would do. If the no campaign is led by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, heaven knows what he would do, but he will not be the Government. I am sorry; the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, does not address the point completely.

[Lord Dobbs]

As I mentioned during the last debate, this is not a black and white, a cut-off, a once-and-for-all decision. This will be a judgment made at the time, on the circumstances—and who can tell what those circumstances will be? People will inevitably have to take into account the fact that tomorrow is another day, and it might be a different day from yesterday, but nothing is going to happen overnight. These things will all have to be dealt with and talked through, both before the referendum campaign and after it. I am entirely in sympathy with the instincts behind this amendment, but it does not need to be in the Bill to get that certainty. The issue could be dealt with at a later stage—in the next Parliament, depending on the circumstances of the day. On those grounds, and for all the other grounds that I pointed out, I request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I speak as a government Minister and, as always, as a member of the Conservative Party. Perhaps I may express the Government’s view in relation to referendums. Their view is that referendum results should be determined by a simple majority, and we do not believe that thresholds apply. This is the approach taken in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 and follows the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution in its 2010 report, Referendums in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, you wait for one amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to come along and then three or four arrive at the same time. I am grateful to him. This is clearly a serious issue and the points that have been made are well taken. Personally, I cannot conceive of circumstances in which, for instance, Amendment 40, which requires a 25% turnout, would ever arise. This is far too important a decision, which I am sure the British people would acknowledge and do justice to. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, correctly pointed out the difficulties around setting a threshold. We would all like a very clear decision in a referendum, and there are dangers in being too prescriptive about the form that that decision should take: turnouts, majorities and so forth.

There is what I think is an important safety valve in the Bill. We are not talking about a binding referendum. It is not like, for instance, the AV referendum we had recently; it is a consultative referendum. Parliament would have to deal with the consequences of an out vote. How they would deal with the difficulties and uncertainties that might then arise would depend entirely upon the circumstances of the time.

[Lord Higgins]

I am very heartened by what my noble friend has just said about this being a consultative referendum, but I am having difficulty in finding where it states that in the Bill.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, I believe that the convention is that if it is not a consultative referendum, it is an obligatory referendum, as was the AV referendum. It is not necessary to put in the fact that it is consultative because it is consultative unless we say otherwise. That, I believe, is the convention.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Following up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I am sure that the noble Lord has taken advice and that what he said is correct. But how many of his fellow citizens are going to understand that? If you read the daily press, you would believe that they think that the Bill is going to provide for a mandatory referendum. They think that the outcome of the Bill will be binding on the Government and on Parliament. If that is not the case, the noble Lord should consider very carefully—in the interests, quite rightly, of this being clear and transparent, and so that people know what they are letting themselves in for beforehand and what they are getting afterwards—whether that needs to be made clear in the Bill in some way or another, whether it is by the tense of the verbs used or something like that. Frankly, I do not believe that we can just sail through this process on the advice that he has been given and that the rest of our countrymen will understand that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, I believe that the Bill is phrased in the traditional and correct way. Of course, there may be other views and I will listen to those very carefully. It is certainly my understanding that, if the Bill goes through, Parliament will have the final say. That is a very important safety valve and deals with many of the issues and thresholds which we have, quite rightly and sensibly, discussed. I believe these amendments to be unnecessary for that reason. Although the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has sent along many of these buses, I do not think it is necessary to climb on any of them and hope he would be so kind as to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I did say that they were probing amendments and, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I unhesitatingly agree to withdraw this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

This debate is in danger of being hijacked by a filibustering gang of Montagnards opposite—the Robespierre and the Danton, the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Higgins. They are behaving disgracefully, leading us away down these alleyways. We are talking about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Whatever the referendum is called, consultative or mandatory, it will be decisive. There is no doubt that if the country voted to leave the European Union, the Government of the day would have to start the Article 50 procedures laid down in the treaty for secession. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

The question is simply, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, says, should the Bill be honest and say that the people are being consulted? The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, says that there is no need to do so because that is all it is: a consultative referendum. I have no idea who is right but if the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, is correct that it is a consultative referendum, then I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Foulkes, that it should say so. But it should also be clear—and we should be in no doubt—that once the people have been consulted and have spoken, that is it.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, would it help us if I made this suggestion? I agree with the passion that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, puts forward on this and with so many comments that have been made by my noble friends. If it is consultative, it is perhaps up to me to find a way to make sure that it is unambiguously consultative. If the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will allow me to engage in some conversation with him at a little later date, I will see what I can do. Certainly, my heart is entirely in line with his on this issue and on that basis, I beg him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

On that very helpful basis—this deadline is working well, as my noble friend Lord Kinnock said earlier on—I very much agree to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, my grasp of Mandarin is as extensive as my grasp of Welsh—I am very sorry to have to admit it. There are some languages I can do, but neither of those. The parity of value expressed by doing it in different languages seems an unanswerable objective. I suggest that the translations, which most of us can only accept on the face of it because we do not speak the languages, are provided by an authorised body, such as the Electoral Commission. In that way, the exactness of what is said is as reliable as it can be for everybody who does not speak the language because it has the assent of a completely outside body rather than one of us trying to translate. I could probably have a go at one or two translations—not of these languages—only to give rise to considerable confusion about my conjugation of German or French.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that brief but culturally colourful debate. I wonder what my Welsh great-great-great-grandfather, who was a coal higgler, would have felt about what we are saying here today. Actually, he would have been astonished, because in those days his language would not have been given any consideration. I wish to confirm that it is absolutely not the intention in this Bill to treat Wales in anything like an inferior or secondary fashion. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale pointed out, Clause 1(5) makes provisions for a question in Welsh, and other provisions very clearly state that the job of making sure that the ballot paper is fair and valid is down to the Electoral Commission.

On that basis, and given the time that we are here, I entirely endorse the spirit of this amendment, but I do not think that it is necessary. I really think that the Bill already has enough provision to satisfy the main requirements, which are, of course, about Welsh, rather than Doric or the other languages that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has been talking about recently. As it relates to Wales, the Bill has enough in it to satisfy all those legitimate demands. On that basis, I ask him, particularly because of the late hour, to accept my apologies for a short summation and to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am not sure that the Bill does actually do what the noble Lord says. It is a very skeletal Bill, as I said at the beginning of the debate this morning. It is a Bill done for a purpose. However, we have time between now and Report to have a look at the questions in relation to Gaelic and Welsh. I hope that that will be done. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Friday 10th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dobbs]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I thank each and every one of your Lordships for being here in such numbers for this important debate. I must apologise for the fact that it is a Friday and it will be a full day. I understand just how difficult that is for many and how much not inconvenience but real sacrifice your presence has entailed. I am grateful. I intend to make a short speech, lasting less than 10 minutes, I hope—if any of your Lordships think that 10 minutes is not showing sufficient respect for such an important Bill, I can only offer a further apology. However, this Bill is short, the principle at its heart is extraordinarily simple and I am conscious of how many others will want to speak.

The principle behind this Bill is that the people have a right to decide their own future. We had a vote of course in 1975, in which we embraced the Common Market by a huge majority. I was one of those voters. However, that vote needs reinforcing. The institutions of Europe have changed beyond imagination since then and no one in this country below the age of 60 has had any say. It has caused great controversy and has resulted in growing scepticism, not just about Europe but about all our political processes. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, who, I am sad to say, is not in his seat today, was entirely right the other day in an interview with the Times when he said that voters’ trust in all sorts of institutions was collapsing, so much so that many people simply were not even bothering to vote. I agree with him entirely.

Sir John Major, in a speech a few weeks ago to the Atlantic Partnership, said that Europe had become a toxic issue:

“Many Britons believe they were misled during the Referendum on entry, and we need to drain that poison out of the system”.

He went on to say:

“Only—only a fresh endorsement of membership can do this. Without that we will never be rid of the turbulent debate that has racked British politics for too long”.

That comes from a man with huge experience who is committed publicly and passionately to Britain remaining within the EU.

I will not bother the House with the details of how many opinion polls show that the British public repeatedly, and by huge margins, insist on a referendum. This Bill, which will give them one, came to us from the House of Commons after many days of debate and a great deal of time spent in the Division Lobbies. It passed its Second Reading there by 304 votes with not a single vote against. The lowest vote for the Bill at any stage was 233 and the highest vote for any amendment was 29.

This Bill is needed and it is also very much wanted. It will give us a referendum before the last day of 2017. Some people have insisted that it is the wrong date. I simply ask them: if not then, when? Others suggest that the uncertainty will be damaging, but why should it be more damaging than the outcome of an election campaign? Right now, the whole of Europe is riddled with uncertainty, although perhaps the greatest uncertainty is felt on the Benches opposite. Having been at one stage desperate to get out of Europe and at other stages desperate to bind themselves more closely to Europe, no one in the current Labour Party seems able to tell us what their policy will be at the next election. I do not mean that to be a criticism. This is a difficult issue. We politicians have made a regular mess of it over decades, which is why we need to get the people to decide. After all, my noble friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, in their last election manifesto, said that they,

“remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU”.

That is precisely what the Prime Minister intends to do, yet apparently my noble friends have changed their minds. I shall be entirely frank: many people out there have not been particularly impressed with the Conservative record either, which is why the people must decide.

The question that the Bill proposes putting to them is:

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

That is what the House of Commons approved. Most of us would think that this is a straightforward question. The Electoral Commission acknowledges that it is,

“brief, uses straightforward language, and is easy to understand”.

However—and it is a significant “however”—the commission believes that there is a possibility of confusion because some voters may not be aware that we are already members of the European Union. No doubt we can, and will, debate the wording with passion and real commitment in this House, although I think it is worth pointing out that when the commission canvassed far and wide for views on this question it received only 19 responses. Most of the 19 were from various politically involved organisations and politicians; five were from members of the public; but not a single Peer expressed any view whatever, although perhaps that is about to change.

I move on to the franchise. The proposal in Clause 2 is very simple. Those entitled to vote would be those who are eligible to vote in parliamentary elections, with the addition of Peers. It is a very generous Bill and it is also pretty standard stuff. Some have suggested that the franchise could be extended to those from other EU countries who are resident in Britain, to all British nationals who live in the EU or to 16 and 17 year- olds. All those cases are arguable and I have a suspicion that they will be argued passionately and eloquently. They are arguable but none of them is overwhelming. Nothing in this Bill is so unfair or so unbalanced that it is sufficient reason for denying the people their referendum. It would be beyond irony, and in some eyes beyond forgiveness, if this House were to pursue attempts to improve the question to the point where the Bill died and no question could be put, or to try to widen the franchise of those entitled to vote to the point where not a single person ended up getting the opportunity to vote.

There are provisions in the Bill to cover the exceptional position of Gibraltar, the conduct of the referendum and its costs. The AV referendum cost £75 million; this referendum might conceivably cost more, but at least people seem to want this one and it could very well be the best money we ever spent. How much longer can we allow, let alone encourage, the issue of Europe to distort our politics and destroy the public’s respect for our institutions?

Sir John Major has said that he will campaign at the referendum for us to stay in Europe. The Prime Minister has declared very publicly that he will campaign for us to stay in Europe. They both support this referendum. Labour figures, by contrast, have suggested that a referendum is like a lottery. It is not. A referendum is about democracy. It is not about being anti-European or pro-European; it is about allowing people to decide their own future. It will be a brave man who denies them that choice, and an even braver unelected Peer.

We are allowed great latitude in this House to indulge our interests and our expertise but never, I hope, to indulge ourselves. What we want individually from Europe or what we feel individually about Europe is not relevant here. The question is what the country wants. I think that the answer is very clear. They want—they demand—this Bill, which I commend to the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, while I cannot congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, on bringing this Bill before us, for reasons that I shall go into in a moment, I commend him on his energy and diligence, both qualities that he will need in Committee, when we deal with all the amendments that will come before us. However, I was slightly surprised to hear him on the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning describe the European Union as a pestilence and a poison. While I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said—

[Lord Dobbs]

I hate to interrupt, and I promise that it will be the last time, if I possibly can, but I did not say that. I was quoting other people and reflecting the mood out there, which I wish to resolve not to emphasise.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Even picking up from other people and repeating that it is a pestilence and a poison gives a certain tenor to the noble Lord’s argument.

I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, in his criticisms of the European Union. However, on the so-called renegotiation, when the Prime Minister was being gently interviewed by Andrew Marr on his programme and was asked what the issues were that he wanted renegotiating, he could not answer the detail of any of them. That is one of the great problems that we have.

As my noble friend Lady Liddell, said in her excellent contribution, the idea that we may have a referendum creates uncertainty. We get that argument in relation to Scotland. I ask this House to contrast and compare the comments made by the Conservative Members opposite and in the other place in relation to the referendum in Scotland with what they are saying in relation to this referendum. They say, rightly, that the referendum in Scotland is causing and will cause uncertainty about the future of the United Kingdom and that people will not invest in Scotland. Exactly the same applies to a referendum on the United Kingdom’s place in the European Union.

I want to deal with the point raised by Members opposite that there is great demand for a referendum. Okay, if you specifically ask the question, “Would you like to be consulted on Britain’s membership of the European Union?”, most people will say yes. But if you ask, “What is the most important issue facing you today?”, the latest Ipsos MORI poll said that only 7% thought it was Europe—24% thought it was the health service. Of course, one reason why the Government want to do this—we have heard the other reasons—is to deflect our attention and that of the public away from the manifest failures that they are having in other areas. It is a distraction.

The main point I want to raise is that a number of Members opposite, almost all the former Ministers who have been lined up—the good old trusties who have been brought in early on to support the Bill—have been saying, “No, no, you must not even consider amendments. You are not allowed to, the House of Commons is supreme”. My noble friend Lord Richard dealt with some of this earlier. “Scrutiny procedures should not be used”, they said. First, I remind the House that we scrutinised the Bill relating to the alternative vote and the boundaries review. If the other place had paid attention to what we said in relation to that, they would have saved a lot of time and money and another referendum would not have taken place, with all the cost that that involved. That was discussed during government time—all that time we took to deal with the amendments.

What has happened now is that by asking the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, to bring forward this Bill, the Government are hijacking Private Members’ time. By doing so, they are imposing an arbitrary deadline on us, an artificial timetable, and saying that if we do not get it through this House by the end of February, it is going to be lost. That is not our decision; we have not imposed that timetable; it is an arbitrary timetable imposed upon us. At the same time, they have hijacked all the time for Private Members’ Bills. Have a look at all the other Private Members’ Bills that are waiting for a Friday to come forward. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that I have kept all my Fridays free for the next few months—just a little indication to him. But look at all the other Private Members’ Bills that are waiting: on mental health services, crime, care—a whole lot of other areas. No, this is a misguided effort, which is why I could not congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, however much I like and admire him. In fairness to this House, this issue and the other Private Members’ Bills, he should think again and perhaps decide to withdraw the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, I congratulate this House on what has been an exceptional day and an exceptional debate. I thank every Member of this House for their patience, their courtesy and their commitment. It has been a long day—nearly seven hours. I have been here for every minute of that.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Dobbs]

I am reminded of the politician who said, “Always speak with a full bladder to be sure that, even if your audience falls asleep, you won’t”. How right he is.

I started off this debate by suggesting that no party has an unblemished record on this European issue and I shall not, at this late hour, follow those who have dashed down the narrow party-political path. Let me deal with some points, starting with that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Turnbull, and others that this Parliament cannot tell future Parliaments what to do. We tell them all the time what to do. We have told them in this very Session of Parliament that they will have their next election in May 2020. The constitutional principle behind all this is very clear: if they do not like it, they change it. That is the way to deal with it, and that is the way in which we will deal with the emotional deficit to which the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, so eloquently referred.

The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, spoke about Gibraltar. Gibraltar is part of the South West England constituency. Gibraltarians have a vote in our European elections. Their relationship with the EU is entirely dependent on our membership of the EU and it is only right that they should be included in this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, mentioned Norway. Its arrangement is not an alternative that I would happen to support. Although I agreed with much of what he said, he will understand that I do not agree with every word.

Let me turn to the franchise, mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott and Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and many others. The points that have been made about the franchise and extending it are of course arguable, and I have some sympathy with some of those representations, but all these matters are a balance—we always have to draw a line somewhere on them. The arrangements in the Bill are not unfair. What would be unfair would be to hide behind this issue to deny everyone a vote. Similarly with the wording of the question, mentioned by so many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Radice, Lord Crisp and Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lord Bowness, and very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the Electoral Commission has not declared that the proposed question is unfair. It says that it is simple and easy to understand. It has concerns that a few might be confused and might not be aware that we are members of the European Union. That is a matter of judgment. Whether that confusion would remain after the lengthy and fiercely fought referendum campaign I happen to doubt. Tellingly, the Electoral Commission was unable to come up with a single alternative but instead has offered two.

I have been struck by how many passionate pro-Europeans are in favour of this Bill, not just Sir John Major, whom I have mentioned, and the Prime Minister but the noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Balfe and Lord Cormack. Many other passionate Europeans, because they are passionate Europeans, oppose the Bill—like the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. Those who truly believe in the European Union should embrace this Bill with every ounce of their energy, because it is the best way, and perhaps the only way, to cement the European Union in the hearts and minds of the people. Of course, I forgive the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for mishearing me this morning while he was splashing about in his morning bath.

The view has been expressed that 2017 is not the right time for a referendum. That was mentioned by many noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Jay, Lord Tomlinson, Lord Roper and Lord Taverne, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Quin and Lady Falkner—but if not then, when? Answer comes there none. We all know that for many the answer is never.

The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about the Bill holding the Prime Minister’s feet to the fire. It is not; it is strengthening his elbow. That is how he sees it. That is why he is a pro-European. He wants reform and has already achieved so much in that regard. It is not a process that has not yet begun; it is already under way. It also shows the public that their disillusion has been noted, their voice has been heard and there will be no more broken electoral promises about Europe, of which we are all guilty.

On the Benches opposite much has been made of how a referendum putting the “in or out” question before the people will cause rampant uncertainty. In fact, listening to some speeches, I thought that it would be the end of civilisation. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Watson, Lord Monks, Lord Inglewood, Lord Lea and Lord Mandelson, all echoed that point. I have nothing more to say on that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has said it all for me. If a referendum were to cause such uncertainty, is it the case, then, that we can never have a referendum and take the risk of asking the people? I do not hear many Members of this House suggesting that, but that is the logic of their case. I am still left wondering why the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats simply did not seek to divide the House of Commons on the Bill.

Much has been made of the role of this House. The noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Bowness, Lord Grenfell, Lord Inglewood and Lord Thomas, all made very eloquent speeches on this. A long list of noble Lords of huge experience have offered their views, and some have warned about the dangers that might be in store for this House if we mishandle this very difficult and delicate matter: for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—no one comes with a longer pedigree than his—the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, Lord MacGregor, Lord King, Lord Wakeham and Lord Spicer, the noble Marquis, Lord Lothian, and, from the Cross Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Kakkar. One of our newer Members, the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein—I enjoyed his words—expressed his views most amusingly and we heard a most powerful speech from my noble friend Lord Cormack.

I do not think I can add to what has been said except to say that it would be a tragedy if we were to find ourselves appearing to adopt a position of Peers versus the people. It would be a desperately uncomfortable and damaging position to be in at a time when the reputation of this House is already under attack almost weekly in parts of the media.

The hour is late. I apologise to those whose views I simply have not had time to mention effectively. I thank all noble Lords who took the time and attention to contribute to this debate. It has all been said by almost everyone, and now by me. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was reminded of Metternich, although I think actually he was talking about Talleyrand. However, I have in mind Mary Tudor: 456 years ago this week, Britain lost its last foothold on the European continent after the siege of Calais. The Queen said that when she died they would find “Calais” engraved on her heart. I think that when my time has come, they might well open me up and find this Bill engraved on my heart. In that spirit, I ask this House to give the Bill its Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

United Kingdom and China

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dobbs]

To move that this House takes note of the recent developments in the relationship between the United Kingdom and China.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I first express my appreciation to the House and its authorities for the opportunity to promote the debate—and, indeed, to all noble Lords who are here today. It is also a very pleasant duty to extend a warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitby, both of whom will be gracing the debate with their maiden speeches. On behalf of us all, I wish them nothing but fulfilment during their time in this place. I also declare my interest as a board member of Conservative Friends of the Chinese, but I do not wish to turn this into a partisan debate. It has been too long since we had the chance to debate these hugely important issues.

China is the world’s most populous country, with one-fifth of all humanity’s children, the second biggest economy on the planet and the largest standing army. We keep talking about Chinas as an emerging nation, but China is not emerging: she has already arrived, an ever-strengthening wind in our world. My own interest in China dates from my doctoral studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in the 1970s when China was in the throes of the Maoist madness that killed, murdered and even starved to death tens of millions of Chinese. China today is unrecognisable as that delta of misery which flooded into the Yellow Sea. The first thing I do, therefore, is offer my unstinting congratulations to the people and the Government of China for the enormous strides that they have taken since then.

Britain’s relations with China are long-standing, although they have not always been good. Our imperial past has left many scars; the Chinese still remember. However, both our worlds have moved on since those inauspicious days. Our economic ties have expanded enormously. In the past three years, British exports to China have doubled, although they are still less than those of France, way behind Germany and only a squeak more than Italy. Our trade deficit with China is far larger than those of our European neighbours. On the other hand, our financial services industry is a world leader. The plans to turn London into a major hub for renminbi dealing are truly exciting. What draws so much attention is the flow of Chinese investment into Britain. It includes investment into Heathrow and Manchester airports, our new nuclear power plants, the Lloyds building, the Royal Albert Dock, Thames Water, good old Weetabix, our next-generation telephone and broadband systems, and even London’s traditional black cabs. It is an arrangement of mutual advantage: they send us cuddly pandas and, in return, we send them Boris.

If we intend to strengthen our economic links with China, as we should, we need to give attention to many areas. I will highlight three. The first is that of visas. In the past three years, the Government have been making it easier for Chinese businessmen and tourists to come to Britain. All the required paperwork is now available in Mandarin, making the process of getting a visa much less onerous. George Osborne, in his remarkable trip to Beijing last month, promised even further improvements. We must, however, put those promises into action. Seven times as many Chinese visitors go to France as to Britain. There is more to be done.

My second point relates to our air links. We are going to have to work a lot harder to make sure we are competitive with the rest of Europe. We wring our hands about whether it should be Boris Island, Heathrow’s third runway, Stansted or Birmingham—yet, while we argue rather than implement, the Chinese just get on with it and increasingly fly to mainland Europe. We have been awful at our planning of airports policy. We need to get much better, and very quickly.

Thirdly, I will say a few words about education—that vital bridge not just between businesses but between cultures. We are by far the most popular destination in Europe for Chinese students and the third most popular in the world after the United States and Australia, yet we do far too little in return. At state-school level, only a tiny fraction of pupils are offered any education in Mandarin. The situation is improving, but far too slowly. At university level, we have only around 400 graduates a year who get any training in Chinese. The situation at postgraduate level is even more challenging. The British Association for Chinese Studies reports that, in the past four years, Britain has produced only 13 doctoral students covering all Asian studies—all Asian studies, not just Chinese studies. Noble Lords might be interested to know that the comparable figure for Celtic studies is 19. As delighted as I am that we rejoice in our Celtic roots, I think we need to dig rather deeper than that.

There are those who are fearful of our growing contacts. They are worried about the extent of Chinese hacking and industrial espionage, the theft of intellectual property, the inadequacies of Chinese commercial law, and the corruption that is endemic. There is no point in pretending that everything is as it should be. We still need to do business with not only our wallets but our eyes open.

Our relations with China stretch far wider than trade and commerce. The continued progress of China is key to the stability of the rest of the world, and she faces huge domestic challenges. China has the most rapidly ageing population in the world. Her workforce is about to start shrinking rapidly. The failures of the one-child policy are coming home to roost. It is said of China that she will be old before she is rich. Like so much of Asia, China is desperately short of energy and raw materials. However, her biggest challenge is perhaps the shortage of water. Much of it is polluted, unsuitable not simply for human use but even for agriculture and industry. I will give one statistic. The water table in Beijing has dropped 300 metres—a full 1,000 feet—since the 1970s. All this matters to us because China is far too large a part of our world to be ignored.

When China sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. We talk glibly about China being monolithic—one country politically, economically and geographically—but that can be hugely misleading. China is confronted by immense internal challenges, and many observers believe that the most significant story of the next 20 years will not be the story of her inexorable rise but of her growing domestic problems. There will be rifts between the generations, the regions, the religions, the haves and have-nots, the literally wets and dries, between opposing ideas and conflicting needs.

The country’s interior is still one of the most backward parts of the planet. Some 400 million Chinese are desperately impoverished and have gained nothing from the great economic awakening. It is said that a rising tide will float every boat, but what happens when the water runs out? There are also ongoing and deep-seated concerns about human rights—of which I suspect we will hear more in this debate.

Of course, there is a new leadership in Beijing. From the speeches of Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang, it is clear that they understand the magnitude of the challenge they face. We should wish them well, for China at discord could be no friend of the West, let alone a partner in our future prosperity. This is where I want to leave my personal mark on this debate. Although in many eyes the rise of China is a threat to the West, I argue that the greatest threat comes not from China’s expansion but from the possibility of her implosion. That would cast a shadow over the world so intense that it would propel us into an ice age that would make our recent economic troubles seem like an outing on an iceberg. To borrow a phrase from Henry Kissinger’s recent book on China,

“no issue preoccupies Chinese leaders more than the preservation of national unity”.

To understand that point is to understand much about current Chinese policy.

If we criticise Chinese inflexibility towards Tibet, for instance, we should at least understand their genuine fear that unrest in Tibet will be followed by upheaval in Xixiang and other border regions, and then perhaps throughout the entire country. To some, it is an extraordinary concept that China could be a vulnerable member of the international community. It is a particularly odd idea when we see China becoming more assertive. She has border disputes with Japan, India, Vietnam and the Philippines. Her army is mighty and she is flexing her muscles. American academics talk of a new cold war as the United States pivots away from Europe and towards Asia, and as China increasingly joins forces with Russia. The seeds for future conflict exist; they could all too easily be sown.

Yet, inevitably, and happily, there is another side to all this. China has shown little appetite for external aggression. Many of these border issues are left over from the centuries of humiliation, and many of the disputes are about rocks and oil and, in the long tradition of Asian politics, about face. Very often the Chinese have found an accommodation. For instance, many feared that Hong Kong would be destroyed after it was handed back, but Beijing has been true to its word and handled our former colony rather like a precious Ming vase. We should not blind ourselves or be complacent; we must realise that the growth of China will inevitably create the need for change. Through that, it will create also the potential for conflict. She is already developing a more assertive foreign policy; she will insist on being involved in a dialogue over the future not just of border regions such as North Korea and Pakistan but of places further afield, such as Syria—as we have seen—the wider Middle East and Africa. The tectonic plates of our world are shifting.

But this is not a zero-sum game in which they win and we lose. We have our differences, but we also both have an overriding interest in stability. We need to develop a strategy of engagement with China—engagement, not appeasement—that is capable of recognising China’s legitimate requirements, making them compatible with our own and finding common purpose in the search for stability. We need to show an open hand rather than a narrow mind.

Britain has a huge amount to offer China in this process of change. It is not simply the economic stuff but our goods and financial services, our expertise in health care and our great creativity. We even have our history to offer. Britain was an exception to the rule that industrial revolution is inevitably followed by political revolution. All across Europe, crowns tumbled and thrones were toppled while, in Britain, we kept our traditions and our political system remained largely intact. China would like to learn from that example. It is perhaps ironic that the reflections of Edmund Burke on the proper order of things are probably read more widely in China than they are in Britain.

There is no need to be overawed on account of our much smaller size. Of course, Beijing had a brilliant Olympics; but, when it came to our turn, it was not just Mo Farah who showed the rest of the world a clean pair of heels; it was our entire country. It was Britain at her best.

Our traditions, our culture, our great British brand, our willingness to be open for business, the recent increase in British diplomatic staff in China, our top-level government visits—all of these, and many more, put us in an exceptional position to form fruitful partnerships with China. There is more to do, of course, but, if a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, the well of happiness starts being filled with the first drop of understanding.

The red eye of the digital dragon is staring at me, so I must wind up. I apologise for trying to cover hundreds of years of history and billions of pounds’ worth of interests in a single gallop. It has been a privilege of introduce this debate; now it will be my pleasure to listen and to learn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

I am delighted and honoured that the debate has been so fruitful; it has overflowed with experience, insight and enthusiasm. I thank every Member of this House who participated. My noble friend Lord Green’s summing up has been most helpful; he has been for so long at the sharp end of things and his time at the coalface has been hugely productive. He deserves his retirement but we shall miss him. I must once again congratulate my noble friends Lord Whitby and Lady Neville-Rolfe who made their first speeches in this House. But my friendly neighbourhood Whip has whispered in my ear—a loud Chinese whisper—that we are out of time. I must apologise, therefore, for being unable to refer to other individual contributions. I hope that noble Lords will understand and forgive me for that. The debate has been a credit to this House. Its messages were put quite superbly and came across loud and clear. The Chinese sometimes say that Britain is a small island, a long way away, which makes a lot of noise. It means at least that they hear us, and that sounds like a pretty good place to start—and also to stop. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Syria and the Middle East

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, it is a privilege but also a little daunting to be the Back-Bench tail-end charlie in this debate, particularly as I lack the colourful upbringing of the noble Lord, Lord Luce.

The first thing to say is that doing nothing in Syria is simply not an option—not with so many dead and with so much at stake. We have a humanitarian interest in seeking a solution and we have a very great self-interest in a solution. We also have a responsibility. We played a direct role in so many of the emerging problems of the region, where the frontiers were drawn with a remarkably unbending ruler in London and Paris. We used to pursue a policy of divide and rule and, in recent years under Prime Minister Blair, we seem to have pursued a policy of meddle and muddle. We armed Saddam Hussain; then we deposed him. We even armed Osama bin Laden, when he was fighting the Soviets. We were great friends once with the Iranians and then we became great enemies. So it went on.

We have a pretty awful track record of picking winners, and we have no more prospect of being able to pick a winner from among the maelstrom of opposition groups in Syria than monkeys have of writing Shakespeare. That is why arming rebels on our own or as part of an exclusively Western coalition is hopeless: blind optimism of an order worthy of Mr Blair. We need a broader coalition with vision broad enough to recognise that although many of us distance ourselves from the former Prime Minister’s fixation with remodelling the Middle East, much of the rest of the world sees no such distinction and simply sees an old imperialist country still up to its wicked tricks, as my noble friend Lord Bates so colourfully illustrated earlier.

We keep drawing lines in the sand—and what do we find when we cross them? Nothing but more sand. Yet past failures—and there have been so many—do not mean that we should do nothing. If there is no solution to be found by entering the lottery of Syrian opposition groups, neither is there any solution in simply washing our hands.

Syria is not an isolated case. This debate is right to set it in the context of the wider Middle East, which inevitably brings us to the issue of Israel and Palestine. Here, I take a slightly different view from the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Anderson. That conflict is connected in as much as it helps to ignite extremism throughout the Middle East and hugely inflames the distrust of the West.

Future generations will look in bewilderment at how we allowed that situation to continue. Let me take just one small example: the Gaza Strip, a territory so small that my noble friend the Minister and I could walk around it in a day. It is 25 miles long and, for most of its length, only three and a half miles wide. We could make every inhabitant rich beyond their wildest dreams for a fraction of the treasure that we have wasted in trying to resolve this problem. However, the situation still grows worse, deliberately made worse by men of evil intent.

On the other side of that equation, Israel is our friend—we support it. However, we watch as Palestinians are beaten and kicked from their homes to enable Israeli settlers illegally to occupy further stretches of Palestinian territory. I read that the new American Secretary of State is optimistic about moving forward on a settlement on that issue, yet I also read that hopes for a two-state settlement are rapidly fading. We shall see—nothing is simple.

We have a right to be involved in such issues. After all, we had a role in causing the problems in the first place. Therefore, while again supporting the absolute and inherent right of Israel to security and peace, can my noble friend in her response assure us that if Israel were to retreat from a two-state to a one-state solution, the British Government would deem it absurd and unacceptable if that solution was sought on any other basis than one man, one vote?

If we are to push for stability and moderation in the Middle East, we must expect our friends in Israel to listen to us, too. We have a right to be involved in such issues, so while once again supporting that inherent right of Israel, we must also expect common sense and balance from her. We will need to talk, not only to Israel but to our other friends in the Middle East and to those who are not our friends—those we dislike and those we openly distrust. We must talk not only to our friends in the Gulf states and elsewhere, to Arab League nations, to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Russia and China—there is such a long list of them—but also to the extremists, and even to some who we regard as terrorists; even, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested, to Assad himself. After all, if we can talk to the Taliban, is anyone off limits?

In these exceptionally challenging circumstances, the Prime Minister is doing an exceptional job. He is clearly cautious about sending arms to Syria, and should remain so. He is increasing our humanitarian aid, travelling far and wide in search of common ground, and I am sure that he will keep a very close eye on developments in Iran. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested in his fascinating remarks, it is time to bring Russia and China in from the cold. I am sure that the Prime Minister will take great note of what the noble Lord said. Most of all, I trust that the Prime Minister will look at security at home in the sobering knowledge that although past Governments’ policy in the Middle East was built on the overriding objective of making this country safe, so far it appears to have failed.

There is so much to say and so little time in which to say it, and I do not want to stretch the patience of the House. I will, therefore, make a closing plea. Syria must not be more of the same. It should mark a new and more mature understanding of what we in this country might achieve. There is no exclusively western solution to this crisis. There might be a regional solution, but that would require the support and understanding of a variety of powers from around the world—a multipolar solution in a multipolar world. In that we might just find not only a formidable and daunting challenge but a liberating opportunity.