European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, played a formidable role in the Scottish referendum and in the discussions of the rules that should surround it. I can just imagine how he would have been appalled had anyone tabled an amendment that the British Government should publish in advance of the referendum the arrangements that they would make if Scotland decided to leave the United Kingdom. It would have been an utterly ridiculous proposition, and there is no way that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, would ever have proposed it.

As my noble friend Lord Lamont has pointed out, there is a golden thread through all the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has tabled. It is all about trying to rig the referendum in favour of the position he favours. That is what this is about. Having worked with the noble Lord and knowing the precision with which he operates, I am amazed that he should suggest that the Secretary of State should report on the relationship with the European Union that the Government envisage in the event of a referendum vote to leave the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Will the noble Lord accept that the Prime Minister has also said that he would not rule out calling for a no vote if he does not get satisfaction in the negotiations? Therefore, what the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is calling for—that the Government set out what they envisage could happen in a scenario that the Prime Minister has not ruled out—is perfectly reasonable. What so shocks him to the core about that idea?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I know that the Liberals find it easy to occupy two opposite positions at the same time on a number of occasions but we cannot ask the Prime Minister to do that. Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by the amendment states that this has got to be done no later than 12 weeks prior to the appointment date of the referendum. I should like to think that 12 weeks before the referendum the Prime Minister will have decided whether he is going to rule anything out. The Prime Minister will have a position, so that point simply falls.

In Committee, I used the analogy of the European Union being like a bear trap. No one in Britain today would want to put their foot in the bear trap and join the European Union as it is. The question is how to get your leg out of the bear trap. People like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, say that it is just going to be too painful to remove our legs from the bear trap and therefore we must just accept the risk that we might be bleeding to death but that is much less painful. In this amendment he has now come up with the proposition that because of Article 50 it is not just one bear trap: if you take your leg out of the bear trap there are 26 others to get through, each one of which could cause enormous grief, so it is better to stay in the one bear trap. This is a ridiculous position. I am deeply shocked that he should put forward an amendment of this kind.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether Ministers are going to be bound by collective responsibility in respect of the Government’s position. If they are, it is asking a lot of them that they not only have to stand up and support something in which they may not believe, but they have also got to go out and explain what would happen if the opposite happened.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My noble friend has just referred to something called “the Government’s position”. Does he accept that if the Government have a position, they owe it to the country to campaign on that position?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

No, I would not accept that. If the Government are people who genuinely have differences of view as to what is right for the country, then those members of the Government should be free to argue their case. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, this is matter for Parliament, not for the Government and not for the Executive. It is for Parliament to decide what is in the best interests of our country. I hope that Parliament, by passing this Bill, will decide that the people should have an opportunity to express their view. That will then be advisory for the Government and I would expect the Government to carry on on the basis of what is suggested.

I shall make one other point. Even if the Government wanted to do it, it would be impossible to report on the relationship with the European Union that the Government envisage in the event of a referendum vote to leave the European Union. We do not even know what the European Union will be like. It is the European Union that is leaving us as it struggles with the disastrous consequences of monetary union. It is the European Union that will have to move towards a more integrated fiscal arrangement if the euro is to survive. The amendment is asking the Government to predict what it will do to maintain the stability of the euro and at the same time to predict what they will do.

In response to my noble friend, I have just thought of another argument. I would like to think that in the referendum campaign the Government will be respectful of the arguments which are put across and the way they are received by the public and that they will acknowledge and respond to these arguments.

I know why the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has put forward this amendment. Of course it would help his case if the Government had to make these points. I have always thought that he was very even-minded and impartial on all these matters, but now he has left his former position he has turned into a politician, and a campaigning politician at that. I hope that my noble friend will not feel able to accept this amendment in any way.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak, not that I intended to do so, because although we have been going over the same ground this evening that we have gone over before, and although no doubt many of these points will be debated passionately during the referendum campaign, I had rather hoped that the effect of these debates would be to separate out a bit the wheat from the chaff in the arguments and that those arguments that were found to be obviously unviable would be dropped by the various parties before the referendum campaign started. Therefore we would have a function here of hoping to clarify some of the essential arguments before the public debate begins in earnest.

In that context, I am quite amazed and very disappointed that two grossly invalid arguments continue to be put forward by the Eurosceptic representatives in your Lordships’ House. I thought that we might have seen the end of them. Those two arguments are so irresponsible and illusory that it amazes me that men or women of the world can seriously want to take them any further, even on an electoral platform, where I know the same qualities of intellectual analysis are not always deployed as they are in other contexts in life.

The first argument is the suggestion that this country might simply walk away from an international treaty in breach of that treaty. We have a long tradition going back over centuries of respecting international agreements, and it would be quite extraordinary for us seriously to propose to do that. We all know that Article 50 of the treaty of accession has a precise procedure to be adopted in the event that a member state wishes to withdraw; therefore withdrawal was properly and reasonably discussed at the time we signed that treaty. There was no material non-disclosure of relevant information or anything of that kind. No one was under any illusion. We signed that treaty with open eyes. Now, 40 years later, or whatever it is, suddenly to turn round and say, “We’re tearing it up and walking away”, is extraordinary.

I am amazed that anybody thinks that this country should behave like that. I would have thought that even those who are not influenced by the element of principle in this matter, which seems very obvious, or who cannot estimate or appreciate the diplomatic value—the soft diplomacy and soft power value—of having the reputation we have had until now of being a nation that takes international agreements and international law seriously might at least from sheer cynical pragmatism have realised that the last and worst thing you want to do when you are about to engage in a difficult negotiation with a group of countries, with whom we would be having a difficult negotiation to try to restore some access to the single market with our former partners in the European Union, would be, on the eve of beginning such a complicated, difficult and important negotiation, to tear up a treaty that we had previously had with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the view outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in suggesting that the amendment proposed by the Government in the last debate, when we addressed this question very briefly, does not go far enough in addressing the issues set out in Committee and again on Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, eloquently addressed the need for the public to know what “leave” looks like. We actually know what the alternative existing models are. In fact, the shadow Minister for Europe, Pat McFadden, has produced a comprehensive report on this which could simply be copied in order to conclude one’s own amendment. We are not asking for the same things as we did on the last amendment, which was more of an objective statement of facts. We are going further here and asking the Government, who we assume will still be holding the reins of power in this country—albeit maybe with a new leader, who knows?—what they would want as an alternative to membership. It is a question that they would be asked the day after any vote to leave the EU.

We understand that it would be ridiculous for us to ask for this to be set out prior to the end of the Prime Minister’s task in trying to renegotiate the position with his EU colleagues, so we would not expect this to be done until the end of that negotiation. I heard the Minister state when she introduced the last amendment that the Government “in due course” will set out what the process of withdrawal will involve. Will the Minister clarify what “in due course” means? When will that happen? Will it happen before the referendum vote? How much before? That would be very useful, because one thing has become clear this afternoon. There is a need for some sort of procedural clarity. It has provoked a debate. I understood the Minister to have suggested earlier that the Government would not want to repeal the 1972 Act, so even if we had absolute clarification on that, we have gone a step further. It would be very useful to the public in this country. At the very least, we need those procedural steps to be set out very clearly for the public.

We still do not know which way the Government will recommend the British public to vote. If the Government were to suggest a “leave” vote, are we seriously expecting the country simply to follow them to some unknown destination with no idea what that would look like? I suggest that the public have a right to know the answer to that question. If the Government were to recommend us to stay, they still have the responsibility to set out what the position would be if the public went against their recommendation. They will still be the people sitting in that seat when those alternative arrangements will have to be made.

If the Government will not set this out, then who will? The leave campaign may have a mandate from the public to ensure that we leave the EU, but it would have no legitimacy in securing or putting in place alternative arrangements. They would not be in the driving seat for subsequent negotiations. So far, I do not believe that the Government have gone far enough in addressing this issue and I hope that the Minister can give us some clarification, at the very least on the procedural steps, but ideally on what the Government would like to see as an alternative to EU membership if we were to vote to leave the EU.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I ask her whether—either on the previous occasion when we had the Scottish referendum or in the event that there is another Scottish referendum—it is the Labour Party’s policy that the Government should in advance set out what the procedures would be and how they would set about breaking up the United Kingdom? The parallel is clear: this is an important policy view that she is taking. Is that the view of the Official Opposition?

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

It is far more complicated. We are talking about 28 member states which will all have a say on our destiny in terms of our relationship with them in future. That is a completely different situation from the situation in Scotland. So no, I do not think there is a parallel here but the Government should come forward with some clarity, in particular on the procedural process.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made important points in his speech earlier this evening about the nature of this referendum and the fact that what the leave scenario will look like will be less clear to the public. That is certainly true by the very nature of this referendum. He has called for the Government to set out the relationship that they envisage for the European Union in the event of a vote to leave the EU, and he rightly highlights that it would be for the Government to negotiate on any future relationship in the event of a vote to leave.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and just now the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, have made it clear that it is the matter of the process which is important for the Government to clarify, and I shall certainly seek to do that among giving other answers to questions that have been posed.

The second part of the government amendment earlier today—Amendment 24B, which the House agreed to—seeks to address the earlier call of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for the Government to set out what some of the alternatives to membership might be. In response to the noble Lord’s amendment, we have proposed a duty that would require the Government to describe some of the existing arrangements that other countries have with the EU, where they are not members. I believe that this is as proportionate and reasonable a response as we can provide.

Noble Lords have called for any government amendment to set out evidence-based and authoritative information in a way that is as useful to the public as possible. However, I do not believe that it would be helpful, or indeed appropriate, for the Government to have a commitment in legislation to confirm at this early point exactly what the UK’s envisaged relationship would be with the EU, should the UK electorate vote to leave. I think that I can be more helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as a result of the conversations that we have been able to have today, and look more deeply at the intention behind the amendment. I hope to come to that fairly shortly.

My noble friend Lord Hamilton correctly referred to the fact that this referendum is advisory not mandatory, but I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said that we will abide by the decision of this referendum, whatever it is. The Prime Minister has said that the Government, of course, are now focused on delivering a successful renegotiation. Therefore, we feel that we cannot speculate on the types of possible arrangement that could be negotiable—not negotiated, but actually achieved—with the EU. In my right honourable friend’s speech at Chatham House, the Prime Minister gave his view on some of the existing alternatives. He made clear that Switzerland has had to negotiate access to the single market sector by sector. He pointed out that Norway is part of the single market but has no say in setting its rules.

What we sought to do, through my earlier Amendment 24B, is to provide the public with useful information about those existing models and others that other countries may have. We sought to meet the aims of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as far as possible at that point. We made it clear then, and we have throughout our discussions at Second Reading and in Committee, that it is the campaigners on both sides of the debate who will have strong views about the arrangements. Any information published by the Government will be heavily scrutinised and interpreted in different ways by the campaign groups to make the strongest arguments for the case for remaining or leaving. One side is likely to argue that the Government have not been ambitious enough and that far more should have been possible, and the other side, I suspect, will argue the opposite.

The result for the public may be confusion—I appreciate that—rather than providing useful information. This would have the exact opposite effect from that which noble Lords have said they wish to support over the course of our debates. Indeed, if we were to set out early and in statute an envisaged relationship in the event of a vote to leave, it would simply invite media headlines because it would be interpreted that the Government were sending a strong signal that we had already prepared to exit the EU. I confess that I do read the Daily Mail and I can see the headline hitting me already. If I were to accept the amendment tonight I would be stepping into that bear trap. I know that that is not the bear trap that the noble Lord intended—that was not his intention.

As I said earlier in the debate, should there be a vote to leave, the Government would then at the appropriate moment need to engage with processes provided under our international obligations, including those under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Of course, processes such as Article 50 have never been used in the past. This would be a precedent if it were to happen and that would make it all the harder to speculate on how such a negotiation might play out. Indeed, there could be unpredictable consequences to entering into a process to leave under any scenario, including that which encompasses the Article 50 process. Much play has been made about Article 50—I said to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, earlier today that I now carry it around with me in my handbag wherever I go. Therefore I know that I also referred to it in some detail at an earlier stage in Committee and set out the processes that it engages. I will not abuse Report stage by reading again from the full text of that.

As I mentioned briefly but will now say more fully to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, before the referendum we will of course lay out what this process would involve. In this scenario, as in any scenario, the Government would seek to protect the interests of the British people. That is exactly what noble Lords would expect us to do. There has been some question about the whole issue of the process being tangled in international law—yes indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, raised an important question about whether the UK would abide by its international obligations. I can reassure him concisely that, of course, the UK will abide by its international obligations. The Government are committed to upholding the rule of law, including under any of the different scenarios for withdrawing from the European Union. I was most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for crystallising so clearly the problem at hand, as he so often does in this Chamber, and making it clear that international law requires the Government to go through the proper procedures if they wish to resile from a treaty obligation. That is certainly the case.

Indeed, my right honourable friend has made it very clear throughout his time as Prime Minister that he holds dear the golden thread. The golden thread means not only that we have government that is not corrupt and is careful of people’s interests, but involves strengthening international law, not weakening it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Given that the Prime Minister said that he rules nothing out, and that the Government will abide by any result in the referendum, surely we must assume that the Government are absolutely confident that they can make the necessary arrangements to enable us to leave the EU, and therefore this is a bit of a red herring.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

12: Schedule 1, page 17, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
“(2) Paragraph 1 of that Schedule (limits in relation to referendums held throughout United Kingdom) has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if for sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) there were substituted—
“(2) The Electoral Commission shall by order set a limit on the total permitted referendum expenses for those campaigning to remain a member of the European Union, and for those campaigning to leave the European Union.(3) The limit set under sub-paragraph (2) shall be the same for both campaigns.(4) For each campaign, the limit set under sub-paragraph (2) shall apply to the sum of—(a) expenditure by the designated organisation for that campaign, and(b) expenditure by any registered party in support of that campaign.(5) An order under sub-paragraph (2) may specify, within the overall limit, a sub-limit for the designated organisation for a campaign, and sub-limits for specified registered parties supporting that campaign.(6) An order under sub-paragraph (2) must be made by statutory instrument, which must not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I raised this issue in Committee, but in the debate it was made pretty clear that my previous effort did not work because it had the effect of preventing political parties from spending any money at all. I do not want to repeat the arguments that we had in Committee, but what this is about is tackling the basic unfairness which the Bill creates for spending limits between the two camps—the leave and the stay camps. As the Bill is currently drafted, it will mean in practice that those who wish to campaign to stay in the European Union will have more than twice the funds to spend of those who wish to campaign to leave. Perhaps I am a bit naive, but I thought that the whole point of having expenditure limits was to ensure fairness so that no party, whichever side it is on, is able to outspend the other unfairly. Yet what the Bill does is to enshrine in legislation as an absolute fact the ability of the stay campaign to spend more than twice what the leave campaign can spend.

This arises because, although the Bill provides for equal expenditure for the two designated campaigns, the political parties are able to spend money at similar levels according to the share of the vote that they got at the last general election. I just do not understand why the amount that the political parties can spend on the referendum campaign should be related to the votes they got at the last general election. In the case of the Conservative Party, many of the people who voted Conservative will have wanted to leave the European Union. To be fair to the Conservative Party, it has decided that it will be neutral during the course of the campaign.

I suppose it could be argued that the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have no money because they have been bankrupted by their efforts in the election campaign and therefore that this is not something to be too concerned about. But that does not stop people giving money to those parties in order to support the campaign that wishes to stay in the European Union. This seems to go to the heart of what these limits are about. My first question for the Minister is: if we cannot devise a way in which the limits ensure that both campaigns are treated fairly and are able to spend the same amount, what is the point of having the limits at all? Further, why should these limits be related to the vote at the last general election?

I noted that the Electoral Commission sent out a missive to us all suggesting that it could not support this amendment. I had a word on the telephone with the nice lady who sent out the press release and asked her to explain why the Electoral Commission was not concerned about the issue of fairness. She said that it was a matter for the political parties and not something that the commission could concern itself with. I asked her to send me a brief indicating what the position of the commission is on these issues, but I have to say that it has not come in time to discuss the amendment—which I suppose could be because the commission is short of resources. It does actually cost as much as half the cost of the Royal Family; it is a very expensive quango indeed, and I would have thought that it would have been able to find the resource to think of a way to ensure that there is fairness in the funding of these campaigns. Rather naively, I thought that the reason we are spending £25 million or £26 million of taxpayers’ money every year on the Electoral Commission is so that it can ensure that elections and referenda are fair. But apparently the commission cannot think of anything and it is not its job to do that, it is up to the Government.

At an earlier stage my noble friend said that it was quite difficult to make this work. I did not draft the legislation and I did not suggest the limits. I cannot for the life of me understand why we should have limits which have the perverse effect of creating a great unfairness. Earlier in our consideration of amendments today, my noble friend Lord Faulks made a really important point. He said that it was very important at the end of the day that everyone accepted the result of the referendum and that no one could cry unfairness. I do not know how, if it turns out that one side is able to spend two and a half times or 2.3 times as much as the other, it will be possible for the Government to avoid the accusation of unfairness.

Some people say, “Actually, how much you spend does not have much of an influence”—in which case, why have spending limits? The perverse effect of this legislation, as it stands, is that it will limit the amount that those of us who wish to leave the European Union can spend, simply because the political parties have taken a particular view. In the case of my own party, where the leadership has a particular view that seems to be towards staying in the European Union, the vast majority of the members would take the opposite view. It could be argued—I do not want to tread into the dangerous territory of suggesting that there is some kind of operation going on here—that the decision to make the Conservative Party neutral was to avoid the embarrassment of finding that the money which it could spend, some £7 million, might have gone to the leave campaign.

I know that my amendment may not be perfect. I know that the Electoral Commission cannot possibly take on this role because it does not have the resources even to explain why it cannot take on the role, or how it could ensure fairness if it did take it on. I think that my noble friend needs to think about this from the point of view of ensuring that we have a fair campaign and that we do not have all kinds of abuses happening. We can see, for example, that people might be tempted to fund the political parties that wish to stay as a way of getting round the limitations that are put on expenditure that would otherwise be available to the campaigns.

I apologise for raising the issue again, but I have produced a different amendment which approaches it in a different way. I am not as clever as my noble friend and I certainly do not have the resources of the Electoral Commission, so I cannot believe that between them they could not devise a way to ensure that we have a limit on expenditure that is fair to all parties. I beg to move.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I very much support my noble friend Lord Forsyth in his amendment. He mentions that, because we have this completely disparate allocation of funds, we may have a rather ridiculous situation. Let us suppose that a Conservative donor wants to donate towards staying in. He cannot donate to the Tory party because it is neutral and is not allocating funds in either direction, so he may end up giving funds to the rather bankrupt Liberal Democrats as a way of getting his funds into supporting the staying-in campaign.

The real problem with all this is that the results of the last election are completely immaterial. Why should somebody who is Labour vote to stay in? I can tell noble Lords that hosts of Labour supporters will vote to come out. Even some members of UKIP will vote to stay in. This will break in every direction. The Liberal Democrats are these fanatical pro-Europeans. Their supporters, who I know well down in the West Country, are not fanatical pro-Europeans. Many of them were extremely tempted to vote for UKIP in the last election. The reasons are: they are chapel, anti-establishment and do not terribly like the major parties either way round. The Liberal Democrats know that well but they have a leadership in the country that is completely unrepresentative of their members and voters all around.

This is the problem: all parties will break in different directions, so what on earth are we doing basing the financing of an in or an out campaign on the results of the last election? It is completely irrelevant because everybody will vote in different directions. They will be influenced by a lot of different factors. It is inconceivable how we could have dreamed up this extraordinary funding system, which allocates a lot more money to the “stay in” campaign than it does to those who want to pull out. We know the figures: £7 million for each— £7 million for the Labour Party because it seems to be pretending that all its members want to stay in. Then the Liberal Democrats get £3 million; the CBI and the SNP will allocate their funds for staying in. That comes to more than £11 million. What have we got on the other side? We have £7 million for the allocated body, then we have £4 million for UKIP, which makes £11 million, so you have £11 million against £18 million. This is supposed to be a fair, level playing field but the financing of it is completely skewed. Everyone will say that money was used to completely skew the result.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

It is £11 million to £18 million only because the Conservative Party is remaining neutral.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My noble friend is absolutely right. If the Conservative Party had decided to support the “staying in” campaign it would have been £25 million to £11 million, which is extraordinarily disproportionate in the circumstances.

I do not know what the thinking is behind this. I cannot understand where everybody is coming from. This is a referendum on whether we stay in the EU or whether we leave. It is nothing to do with how we all voted in the last election. How can the whole basis of financing be based on that? It is quite beyond me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am going to repeat some of the arguments I made in Committee because I think that this amendment is basically doing the same thing.

There is an assumption behind the contributions we have heard so far that we are dealing with a pot of money. We are not. We are dealing with a spending limit. We are not dealing with an allocation of funds that should be distributed fairly. Perhaps we could do that. I have not heard many noble Lords opposite support state funding of political parties, but that is the only way to guarantee fairness.

I am really surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. Let us say the leave campaign got all the money in, spent the upper limit and then it was discovered that UKIP spent more than the limit. UKIP would then have to give all its money back. That is the reality. You are trying to set a limit when you do not even know who is going to be participating in the campaign.

First, it is not a pot of money to be spent. Secondly, this referendum is not going to be fought by just two sides. Political parties, civil society, trade unions, churches and other groups that have an opinion will not keep their mouths shut simply because the Conservative Party is unsure of what position it will take as a whole. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is correct that this whole thing about registration and the Conservative Party not registering is more to do with the state of the Conservative Party than the rights and wrongs of how the referendum campaign should be conducted.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not know whether the noble Lord has had a chance to read my amendment, which is completely different from that which he made a speech about in Committee. But I am following his argument so would I be right in deducing that he would be quite happy to have no limits at all?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

No, I would not because the Electoral Commission is trying to address quite a complex situation. A referendum is not a usual situation. Political activity in this country is predominantly, although not wholly, through political parties, and PPERA sets out all kinds of constraints and limitations on donations. It has created an environment of transparency, and spending limits.

My view is that spending limits are not particularly effective in establishing a level playing field, particularly when they are set so high and no one can ever reach them. That is why we have quite big imbalances in general elections. That is why the Conservative Party regularly outspends the Labour Party: it has at least 300 people who can give more than £50,000 a year to the party, which I suspect is why the party has in the past supported a cap of £50,000 on donations. Personally, I think the smaller the cap the fairer it becomes. You would then have to look at how to replace that money and what mechanisms to use to ensure that there is an allocation of public funds on a fair basis—hence, I suspect, why the Electoral Commission is using that methodology.

The fact is that spending limits are not the whole picture. What the Electoral Commission is trying to say to us is that the “remain” and “leave” campaigns are not the only participants. We are not going to silence everyone else in this referendum. We are not going to say to civil society, “You have no right to speak”, and we are certainly not going to say to UKIP, “By the way, you will have no right to spend money in this campaign unless it is through the official ‘leave’ campaign”. I do not think that it would tolerate that or accept it—I would not—but that would be the effect of the noble Lord’s amendment. We cannot be certain of what other people will be spending and we do not know the number of participants.

The rules should not be used to reduce the number of participants. That would be unfair and not democratic. I do not want to bang on too much about this, as I have given sufficient reasons why we will not be supporting this amendment, but it is clear that the amount of money available will not be determined by rules set out in the Bill. It will be determined by people donating and raising money. I do not think that even the Conservative Party, if it said that it would register, could put its hands on £20 million that easily. I certainly know that the Labour Party cannot put its hands on £9 million that easily. We have to understand that these are mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability but they will not necessarily deliver fairness because the campaign is not designed that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendment 12 would introduce an overall cap on referendum spending by political parties and the designated lead organisations that will campaign for each outcome: either leave or remain. As my noble friend explained, it arises from his concern that the rules as they stand create great unfairness and that the remain side will be able to spend more than the leave side.

Amendment 12 would unpick one of the fundamental principles in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which provides a framework for this as for other referendums since its passage. My noble friend Lord Forsyth asked why we have limits and why are they linked to the results of the general election. My noble friend Lord Hamilton asked how we arrived at the provisions. We arrived at them after an exhaustive and exhausting parliamentary method of having draft legislation scrutinised carefully by Members of both Houses. After draft legislation, a Bill was drawn up that reflected the submissions that had been made. In particular, the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, provided recommendations that led to PPERA being passed. These provisions have been in place for 15 years. I was in the House 15 years ago. I did not take part in discussions on the Bill—at the time I was on the Front Bench carrying another brief—but I recall that much careful attention was paid to the Bill.

Having said that, I appreciate that there are concerns about unfairness. In this particular case, the concern appears to be that particular parties may support particular sides of the referendum. That is as may be. The report produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life considered an overall cap for all campaigners on each side of the argument. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, concluded:

“The administrative apparatus required would resemble one of Heath Robinson’s most outlandish contraptions—and would almost certainly not work”.

Those are his words, not mine. As well as being administratively impractical, the report further noted that such a cap,

“would, or at least might, impose an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech”.

I appreciate that my noble friend has tried to avoid some of the pitfalls of his earlier amendment in devising this one by focusing purely on certain categories of potential campaigners—the political parties and the designated organisations. However, as others, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, said, if one is a Conservative and finds that one’s national party is taking a neutral position, there are still places where one can put one’s money if one wants to bet on the outcome of the referendum. Political parties will not be the only campaigners at the referendum—far from it.

Although I know that my noble friend has tried to take great care to narrow down his amendment and focus it more, it still will not deliver what he might intend. The amendment provides that the Electoral Commission must set an overall spending limit and can then apportion this between the political parties and lead campaigners on each side. We believe that the spending limits are a matter for Parliament. They were decided by Parliament in legislation, on the basis that changes would also be made by legislation. The spending limits which apply to the EU referendum are therefore in the Act and, as I said, have been in operation for 15 years.

There is no guarantee that each of the campaigners within the umbrella cap will be able to raise the funds necessary to hit the spending limits. One or two noble Lords have referred to that, perhaps with some feeling of regret. We will have to see what happens. Perhaps to avoid the risk of restricting freedom of speech, the amendment does not deal with the other committed participants, each of whom will be able to spend up to £700,000. So the referendum will not only feature campaigning by political parties and the lead campaigners; there will be interest, and lots of voices, on both sides. But I would say that it is highly unlikely that exactly the same number of committed participants will register on each side of the argument. One can imagine that it would take an imbalance of only 10 campaigners on one side or the other to create a £7 million difference in overall potential spending.

These are the kind of vagaries with which this House and another place had to struggle when the initial Bill was considered and became an Act. Indeed, I note that when the draft Bill was published, the spending limits for political parties were the same—but it was then challenged during the course of the scrutiny of the Bill, particularly by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which questioned whether it was right that political parties were subject to the same limits regardless of their respective number of MPs. So the sliding scale that we see now in PPERA was introduced in response to consultation on the Bill back in 2000. Therefore, we are not seeking to amend that basic framework.

These matters have been of concern before and I recognise my noble friend’s concerns, but they were considered carefully when the legislation was under consideration here, both in draft form and on the Floor of the House. Certainly, it is the case that the approach taken in this Bill by applying PPERA is that those who seek to spend modest amounts—that is, no more than £10,000, which I know some people reading this debate in Hansard may consider is by no means modest, but in the context of elections it is—can decide not to register and so be subject only to a relatively light-touch regulatory regime. Meanwhile, to prevent wealthy campaigners having an undue influence, there are individual spending caps for those who register.

What we see in the Bill is a well-established approach which is practicable and enforceable and, most importantly, encourages participation. So although I understand my noble friend’s concerns, I hope that, with that explanation, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Oh dear. I have to say to my noble friend that, although I understand the practical difficulties, she has not addressed the point. The reason why we have spending limits is to create fairness. People will be able to provide funding through political parties and other organisations. Some may say that people could set up 10 organisations to compensate for a political party’s spending, but a political party will have an organisation on the ground. It is not about the quantity of money; it is also about how it is spent, the organisation and the machine behind it.

Throughout the conduct of this Bill, my noble friend has been extremely patient and helpful and I pay tribute to the way in which she has handled the Bill, but this just will not do, because the Government’s declared policy is that there should be seen to be a level playing field.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am not trying to address the overall point of fairness. In each and every referendum, the perception of what is fair will vary according to the position taken by the groups, as my noble friend has pointed out in his amendment, and according to the nature of the event. I am saying that these matters were considered carefully by this House and another place in drafting the legislation used for referendums. It is only on that basis that I am explaining that there is statutory provision for how we address the matter of donations. I am not seeking to put the world to rights in this case, in the way that I know my noble friend would like to put it to rights, as he sees it. I am saying that there is a statutory basis on which this system has to rely.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

But my noble friend is the Government. It is not necessary to rely on the provisions in the PPERA legislation. It would be perfectly possible to put in place arrangements with regard to expenditure that ensured fairness. Once this legislation is in place, if it remains as it is, throughout the whole campaign I certainly will be arguing that it has been rigged in a way that gives an advantage to people who wish to stay in the European Union. I can understand why the Labour Party may feel at the moment that it may not be able to get lots of funding from people, but there will be people who will see this as an opportunity to provide more resource for what they believe to be an appropriate decision for the country. If we end up with limits that have the perverse effect of giving one side more funds than the other, it will be a source of grievance throughout the campaign—and if we end up with a close result, as has already been pointed out, people will argue that the result was bought and that it was unfair.

I understand the difficulties from the Government’s point of view, but to argue that legislation that was passed in 2000, which was thinking of referenda where, by their very nature, political parties would be divided, as opposed to this European issue where the first referendum was about sorting out the problems in a divided Labour Party—

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Now it is your turn.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not think the noble Lord is in a very good position to talk about divided political parties at the moment. If I were him, I would keep my head down on that subject.

It is very disappointing that my noble friend is not able to respond, and I hope that she may give further thought to this and that the vastly expensive Electoral Commission with its vast resources may be able to be a little more constructive than saying that it is all a political problem for which it has no responsibility. I will reluctantly withdraw the amendment because I do not think that if I divided the House at present it would be much appreciated by my noble friends or anyone else, but the response is very unsatisfactory and I think it will be a source of grievance unless it is addressed before this Bill reaches the statute book. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has slightly confused things, because he was intervening on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on me. Therefore this adds to the confusion. However, I do not think we will revert to talking about the free press and the fact that different newspapers have different views on things—I am not sure how productive that is. What we were talking about—or what I was talking about—was purdah and the fact that there is a concern, which I hope the Minister will address, that there will be some last-minute intervention, if the polls indicate that the country wants to pull out, to try to swing the vote with some bit of propaganda from the EU. Clearly, business has to continue to be done with the EU, but at the same time we do not want to see the whole referendum slewed by a last-minute intervention where the EU is being inordinately generous with other people’s money and doing something to try to swing the vote. That is what my Amendment 18 is about. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I certainly support my noble friend, but I will speak to Amendment 21 in this group, which is in my name. We have had a lot of discussion, and my noble friend Lord Hamilton has emphasised the importance of having rules on purdah. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that he needs to distinguish the difference between public and private money. The Daily Mail and other newspapers are not spending taxpayers’ money, while the EU is. My noble friend is concerned that money that is provided by the taxpayer should not be used for a political purpose. That is a very important principle. I know that he is so enthusiastic about the European Union that he sometimes finds it difficult to see the distinction, but that is what we are talking about, and that is why we have these rules on purdah.

It was with some dismay and utter disbelief that I discovered that if people break these rules on purdah—the Scottish Government, the British Government or some other public agency—there is no sanction or penalty for doing so. It is true that people can seek judicial review at vast expense and then get a judgment after the event. I think it very unlikely that any court would say, “You’ve got to rerun the referendum because a public body spent money which was prohibited by purdah”. Therefore, with this amendment I am seeking to create some kind of sanction.

In Committee, I suggested that we bring back the old thing that applied in local government. Very spectacularly, Dame Shirley Porter ended up getting a bill for £20 million for having transgressed in terms of her abilities to operate under statute. I understand that that system of surcharging councillors has now disappeared. In Committee, I suggested a system of surcharging but it was dismissed on the grounds that it was inappropriate. My friends in the Electoral Commission said that it would be wrong to hold individuals to account. I do not really understand that. I think that if people are responsible for spending public money in a way that is ultra vires, they should be held responsible for it. If no one is responsible then no one is going to make sure that the rules are obeyed.

Having found that that suggestion did not find favour with my noble friend the Minister, I have had another go. This amendment suggests that we create a system where a fine is imposed on whoever is responsible and that it should be not less than the amount of taxpayers’ money which they have had cause to spend in breach of the purdah rules. This may not be the ideal solution, but in Committee my noble friend was kind enough to indicate that she recognised that there was a problem and she said that she would think about what could be done by way of a sanction. I am hopeful that she might consider Amendment 21 to be the answer to this problem but, if it is not, that she herself will have an answer. If there is no effective sanction, it rather begs the question: what is the point of having the rules on purdah if they can be breached?

I anticipate that somewhere in her file my noble friend will have a note saying that it would be very embarrassing for any public institution to breach the purdah rules and that it would be disadvantageous to it in the campaign. All I can say is that, having experienced the Scottish referendum campaign, I would not put much trust or hope in that limiting the kind of misuse of public funds which my noble friend Lord Hamilton has talked about.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Does my noble friend agree that, if it comes to the difference between winning a referendum and losing it, a bit of embarrassment can be lived with?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sure that, like me, my noble friend would want always to strictly obey the law and the rules and that he would not be tempted to stray from the true path by the prospect of winning or losing. However, I am rather concerned that that might not be true of Governments. Individuals are not held responsible for the actions of Governments, which is why I am proposing this amendment.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, if I am free to talk to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, there is perhaps a way in which we can penalise the European Commission if it cheats in this matter, as I assure your Lordships it will. We could withhold from our contribution to the corrupt coffers of Brussels an amount which would make the Commission think again before it behaved in a manner in which it certainly will. In the background, we have the gross figure that we pay to Brussels every year. According to the 2014 Pink Book, which has just come out, the figure was £19.994 billion, of which Brussels was graciously pleased to give us back £7.66 billion. That leaves £12.329 billion, which we pay net into the coffers of Brussels every year for it to waste on matters which do nothing in our national interest. I suggest to the Minister that the Government think about this. I ventilated this idea in Committee and repeat it now: if it behaves in the way that it certainly will, and if it knows that it is going to suffer a financial penalty, perhaps that will make it not worth its while doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the Government would not be happy with any such move and the European Commission is clearly aware of that. We are not the Irish Government and this is a referendum on a different matter.

I understand and recognise the legitimate concerns about these matters and that is exactly why the Government are putting so much effort into trying to address them. It is not a matter of taking our eye off the ball: we will continue working on these issues.

My noble friend Lord Hamilton has tabled two amendments, Amendments 18 and 19, to Clause 6. The clause provides a power for the Minister to make regulations modifying Section 125 for the purposes of the EU referendum. However, I repeat the assurance that I made in Committee that the Government have no plans to use the regulation-making power under Clause 6. I tried to make that as clear as I could. I appreciate though that my noble friend seeks to limit the power so that Ministers can make regulations only where they have reasonable grounds to consider that regulations are necessary to secure the continuing function of the Government or the safety of the public or a section of the public.

This follows on from our discussion in Committee when noble Lords were trying to get me to posit the future—to look into a crystal ball and say, “This is what may happen”. The very nature of why Clause 6 was inserted in another place was because this would be something that people could not foretell. Not one voice in the other place was raised against Clause 6 going into the Bill. We ought to bear that in mind because, having given the undertaking that we have no plans, we cannot foresee the future. We have to have a care for the safety and security of this country and it would be unfortunate for this House to consider constraining the ability of the Government properly to be able to respond.

The reason, I suspect, why not a voice was raised in another place is that safeguards requested by the other place were put into the use of this power before the amendments were brought forward. These state that regulations would need to be made at least four months ahead of the poll following consultation with the Electoral Commission—and of course that would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses.

As I say, although there are no plans to use the power, there may be exceptional circumstances which would require the Government to lay regulations before Parliament on this issue. No doubt we would all be rather surprised if that were to happen, because, as I say, we have no plans to do so at the moment. However, a responsible Government should be able to keep the power available.

My noble friend also tabled an amendment to remove Clause 6(8) because he is worried that it might ensure that the Government cannot disapply the restrictions in Section 125 under the power in Clause 4. What I hope to be able to do is give my noble friend a reassurance that his concerns are misplaced in this respect. I can assure him that Clause 4(1)(c) as currently drafted simply would not allow the Government to disapply in regulations the restrictions in Section 125 for the EU referendum; we could not do it. Like Clause 6, it could be used to modify aspects of Section 125, although we do not have plans to do so. But we consider that Clause 6(8) is necessary for a rather technical reason. It ensures that the power to amend Section 125 in Clause 6 does not in any way call into question the general regulation-making power in Clause 4 to make modifications to PPERA for the purpose of the EU referendum. The general regulation-making power is essential for aspects of the published conduct rules; it is not about the purdah enshrined in Section 125, about which I know and understand why some noble Lords have concerns. In this case, it could be used if we identify other issues with the PPERA provisions. I can give my noble friend an assurance that, like Clause 6, the power in Clause 4 can be used only following consultation with the Electoral Commission and will of course be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Finally, I come to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, proposing a penalty for a breach of Section 125. Interesting questions have been raised about the whole issue of how one holds people to account. My noble friend is seeking to impose a monetary penalty on a person who breaches the restrictions in Section 125. The Electoral Commission has no role in the enforcement of Section 125, and has said in its response that it is not clear how this significant change to its role and powers would work in practice. That is the issue; it is not what the commission was set up to do and it would change its role.

We believe that the current arrangements are appropriate and that they work. Those within the scope of Section 125 will be legally obliged to comply with it. Like other legal obligations on public authorities across the statute book, it can be enforced through judicial review. That is the purpose of judicial review: to ensure that public authorities comply with the law. I know that my noble friend has concerns that this may be a paper tiger, but he has been an admirable Secretary of State in difficult times. He will know how difficult it is for a Government to face judicial review; he will know about the inconvenience and the cost. I would expect that others would be mindful of that as well. Judicial review is something that this Government seek to avoid having to incur, and I am sure that other public bodies take the same approach.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The point is that judicial review is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, with due respect, given the legal system of this country—in which I should declare an interest because my husband is a barrister—I would say that if a prosecution were to be brought in a civil case, or indeed in a criminal case, I doubt whether it would be resolved before the referendum had taken place. However, my noble friend has raised a justifiable concern about how we deal with these punitive matters. If we had the luxury of a separate piece of legislation to look at how all these matters are to be resolved, consideration could be given in relation to that. However, I think that that is a long way off at the moment. Of course, as a politician at the Dispatch Box, “long” to me can be a matter of just a few weeks because they can seem like a long time, too—particularly if I have breathing down my ear on my right-hand side a Chief Whip who has had an overfull session already, so I shall not try to offer extra legislation. I want to get out alive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 14 is a technical and—as I reassured the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, in advance—neutral amendment, but nevertheless an important one. Its effect would be to clarify that funds from an impermissible source, whenever received, should not be spent on referendum campaigning.

The amendment is supported—indeed, encouraged —by the Electoral Commission, which has identified a clarification that is needed in the provisions designed to stop donations from foreign sources being spent on the referendum. My amendment is designed to address this.

As background, the Electoral Commission has come to the view that the controls in the Bill, which flow from the usual PPERA regime and which prevent campaigners accepting donations from foreign sources, come into effect only at the point the campaigner registers with the commission to be a permitted participant in the referendum. In practice, this means that there may be no control on the sources of funding a campaigner receives before it registers with the Electoral Commission, even if those funds are then used for campaigning during the referendum.

My amendment is designed to make clear that a campaigner cannot use any money for its referendum campaign from a source that would otherwise be impermissible under the PPERA regime. That, of course, includes donations from foreign sources. Without this clarification it would be possible for a campaign organisation to receive significant donations from foreign sources before it registered as a permitted participant. That money could then be spent in its entirety on campaigning during the referendum period. As I said, the amendment is designed to remove that risk.

This is a technical, neutral but important amendment that will help reduce the risk of accusations after the referendum that one side or the other has behaved improperly. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, this seems a very sensible amendment. I was going to try to save time by asking the noble Lord before he sat down whether “foreign sources” includes the European Commission and the European Union. I will give way to the noble Lord so that he can intervene and tell me the answer.

[Lord Jay of Ewelme]

It may do—the Minister will be able to answer that question when she comes to sum up the debate.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Because it seems to me that if it did not include the European Union and the European Commission, it would make something of a nonsense of the argument that he put forward. Perhaps my noble friend could indicate what the position is.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I have one brief question relating to Gibraltar. Political parties currently are not permitted to accept donations from Gibraltar, but when the Bill becomes enforceable they will be if it is for the purposes of the referendum. I want to understand how the amendment will impact in particular on the changes relating to Gibraltar.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, it falls on me to move Amendment 61, which, fortuitously, has my name attached to it. The amendment does what it says: it provides for the result of the referendum to be declared for each of the four constituent nations of these islands. It may well be that this amendment is not necessary to ensure that the people of each of the four nations know the referendum vote in each of their respective territories, but it puts the matter beyond doubt. It recognises the right of each nation to know how it has voted, and for the world to know that as well.

That brings me to the linked amendment in this group, as we come to the end of our Committee Stage debate. Amendment 61C, standing in my name, relates to one aspect on which we have only just touched, and perhaps have deliberately skirted around because of its far-reaching implications. That is the consequence if there were a split vote across the countries of Britain, with one or more of the constituent nations of the UK voting in a different direction from the UK as a whole.

The main focus of attention in this context has been Scotland voting to stay in the EU and the UK voting to leave. However, the arithmetic could equally apply to Wales or—perhaps in a different way—to Northern Ireland. I accept, for better or worse, the constitutional reality that the context of this referendum is the United Kingdom as a whole, for the simple reason that the UK is the member state of the EU which is contemplating leaving the Union. Therefore, it is a decision that has in the first place to be taken by the UK as a whole. If the UK as a whole votes to stay in the EU, even if one constituent nation voted to pull out, it would be extremely difficult for that nation to do so without erecting border controls between itself and the rest of the UK, and between itself and the rest of the European Union. I have not heard that option being seriously argued. If noble Lords feel to the contrary, they are clearly at liberty to put forward their own amendments to deal with that somewhat remote possibility.

However, we are all aware of the very real prospect that Scotland could vote to stay in the European Union and the UK could vote to leave, and that that could reopen the debate about rerunning the independence referendum in Scotland, with the real possibility that this time—for a variety of reasons, of which the EU dimension is just one—Scotland could vote for independence. If it did so, the Scottish Government might well aim, over the same period of time it might take for the UK to negotiate our departure from the EU—heaven forbid—to negotiate their own continuing membership. That road would clearly have its challenges. I do not intend to go down the highways and byways of that possibility at this late stage of the evening.

Incidentally, this is not a question that immediately arises in Wales because at present there is nothing like the same level of support for independence in Wales as there is in Scotland. At present in Wales, there is a widespread desire to secure greater autonomy, some of which is being addressed by the draft Wales Bill, which was recently published. There is certainly a feeling in Wales, and further afield, that the countries of the UK need a new relationship—a balanced partnership, if I can call it that, between the nations of these islands—but that does not manifest itself in the type of momentum towards independence we have seen in Scotland. However, the principle is equally valid in Wales, as it would be in Northern Ireland—or, indeed, in England. If England voted by a very small margin to stay in the EU, and the overall UK result was in favour of pulling out because of the votes of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, I believe that the same question would and should arise in an English context.

That brings us to the heart of the issue: what is to be the future relationship of the four nations of these islands? On 8 September, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave evidence to the panel chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, inquiring into better devolution for the whole of the UK. It was set up by the All-Party Group on Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution, co-chaired by the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Purvis of Tweed. Gordon Brown and I have not often seen eye to eye. I would never imagine myself turning to him for words relevant to my argument in the context that we are debating tonight. However, in his opening remarks before answering questions, he made a statement of immense significance. I quote directly from a transcript that has been cleared by his office:

“The UK is a voluntary association of nations and I would stress that if the UK is to exist in the future, then it has to do so for a clear and stated purpose”.

Those were his words in a Committee Room upstairs here.

I add that one such valid purpose is to work together within the EU. It is an immensely important vision and one on which the future relationships of our four nations should be built, for I believe that there is not a person in this House who does not realise that there must be an evolving relationship if the United Kingdom is to survive as a meaningful constitutional unit. If we are to consider ourselves a family of nations, that has implications for the responsibilities we have, one towards another. All happy, functional families intuitively realise that this is the case. There is give and take. It is not a matter of father laying down the law and everyone else doing what they are told.

There was a good example in our extended family a short while ago. The father wanted to move house. He had seen a property that appealed considerably to him some 15 miles away. His wife was willing to go along with the move, although undoubtedly it would cause her much additional work. However, the two children, who attended primary school in their home village, were horrified. They would have to move school, leave their friends and lose the out-of-school activities that were a key part of their lives. They were beside themselves with grief. The father realised the pain he would be inflicting on them if he imposed his will, as he had the authority to do. He wisely decided to forget his plans, in the interests of the happiness and cohesion of the family as a whole. That is the situation we potentially face in this referendum. If we are indeed a family of nations, we should behave as a family. This is the time to face such questions, not in the acrimonious aftermath of a knife-edge referendum result.

Amendment 61C provides for a quadruple lock that defines the basis on which the outcome of the referendum can be perceived as a vote to quit the EU. It would require a vote to do so not only by way of the aggregate outcome of all the votes cast in the United Kingdom, but also within each of the four nations which make up the United Kingdom. It provides that all four members of this family of nations should concur on such a far-reaching move. I am putting this forward to give the Government an opportunity to tell the House how they would handle the situation in which, for argument’s sake, Scotland had voted to stay within the EU while the total aggregate vote in the UK was in favour of leaving. With respect, it would not be good enough to say, “Well, we will cross that bridge when we come to it”, because by then it may be too late. Events will have gathered their own momentum. We would inevitably be facing another Scottish independence referendum. Is that what the Government, and this Chamber, really want?

There may be other formulations of words that would better achieve my objective in proposing this amendment. If so, let us have an improved wording from the Government at Report. All I say, in conclusion, is that if we are indeed living in a family of nations which is a voluntary association, this issue has to be addressed, and I hope the House can agree with that sentiment. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to move his amendment, and although this late hour is probably not the moment to discuss some of these matters, I am just amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—I apologise as I am criticising him while he is not in his place—has put his name to at least part of this debate in support of having separate results announced in separate parts of the United Kingdom. We had a referendum in Scotland which we were assured by the nationalists would decide the matter for a generation. The Scottish people decided to remain part of the United Kingdom and within days the nationalists broke their word. Now we have the leader of the nationalists in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, talking about another referendum being inevitable.

The polls still show that a majority of people in Scotland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. The issue is for the United Kingdom to decide. It is the United Kingdom that is a member of the European Union. I am appalled at the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and at the Opposition—I hope that the opposition Front Bench will distance themselves from this argument—for embarking on this nationalist language. It is what has destroyed the Labour Party in Scotland. They have talked about the Tories throughout the 1980s as not having a mandate in Scotland. They used the rhetoric of nationalism and they have been surprised to find that they themselves, as unionists, have been destroyed by it. Here we go again, arguing that this is somehow a decision that Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England should have representations on and that there should—as this amendment suggests—have to be a consensus between the four parts of the United Kingdom. It is a nationalist, or regionalist, argument, and should be no part of the consideration of these matters.

I understand why the nationalists in Scotland—and in Wales, it would seem—are scratching around for a reason to justify breaking their word. The Labour Party’s argument has been that we need to have a referendum quickly because of the uncertainty. The damage that is being done to jobs and investment in Scotland because of the uncertainty about the future of Scotland created by this irresponsible nationalist rhetoric, is immense. We took a decision in the referendum and I very much hope that when we have this referendum, whichever way it goes, that is the end of the matter and it is decided and we can get on with the business of creating wealth and jobs in our country. The exploitation of this referendum by the nationalists as a way of trying to create division and dissent in our country is reprehensible.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is a decent and honourable man but he should go to Scotland and look at the division that has been created there by the intimidation that the nationalists were responsible for in the campaign, and the need for healing. The very last thing we need is a further attempt to create divisions between the peoples of this United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

As so often, I wish that we had a Scottish nationalist in this Chamber to respond to the noble Lord’s points, with most of which I agree. I bow to no one in my respect for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. His was a very moving speech and I agree with his description of the difficulties that could arise were different results to occur in the different parts of the kingdom. I think he is correct about that. I think his solution is absolutely wrong. I cannot support his amendment.

The amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Liddle, is probably unnecessary because I suspect that the votes will be counted separately in any case; I would hope so because there will certainly be rumours about what the result has been if it is close and it would be far better that there should be something on the record. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, it is a little harsh to accuse the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, of being a violent Scottish nationalist because he has put his name to that amendment.

There is a fundamental issue with Amendment 61C. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, proposes a quadruple lock in the situation in which, say, England has voted to leave the European Union and Northern Ireland has, by a very narrow majority, voted to stay in. If the noble Lord’s amendment was carried and became the law, we would stay in. That seems an unacceptable situation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: it is a United Kingdom decision.

It is important to note that we have no threshold requirements in this referendum and we have had no amendment in Committee proposing that there should be a threshold. That is constitutionally quite surprising for a decision as big as this. The precedent would lead one to think about a threshold. I would not have wanted a threshold. I would not have wanted a supermajority, as in the precedent in Scotland in the 1970s. I do not like referenda but the essence of a referendum is that you win or lose. It is clean; it is 51% to 49%, for example. If 51% are in favour of our leaving the European Union, we will leave, and we should not create any fudge round that. This is a yes/no decision, and if you decide to go, you go. The double referenda theory attributed to Boris Johnson, which he appears to have come off—that if the decision was to go, there would be another negotiation in which the foreigners, astonished and timorous, would come creeping, offering us far better terms to stay in—is nonsense. If the country votes to leave the Government will be required to invoke Article 50 and start the process of coming out. It has to be clean. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that I think he is correct in his description of the difficulties that would arise, but the difficulties which would arise if his amendment were the law of the land would be much greater.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord said that if the country voted to leave the Government would invoke Article 50, but surely that does not follow. It would be possible for us to remain in negotiations having voted to leave and then subsequently invoke Article 50, would it not? He is the expert.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I do not know what form these negotiations would take. I think that the position of a Government who said, “Okay, we have heard the nation speak, but now we are going to go and negotiate something else with Brussels. We are not acting on the decision the country has taken”—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My point is that if you invoke Article 50 you are then no longer a member and it does not necessarily follow that that would be the most appropriate way of dealing with it. You could remain as a member and negotiate our withdrawal and then use Article 50.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Actually, you are a member while the Article 50 negotiations are proceeding. You are a member of every council. Your MEPs do not leave the European Parliament, your judges do not leave the court and your Commissioners do not go home. The only difference is that in the Article 50 negotiations you do not have a vote on the position of the EU—the position that it has in its negotiation with you. That is all. You remain a member throughout the period of the Article 50 negotiations unless you decide unilaterally to go home. You do not have to do Article 50 at all. If you want you can just stop paying the bills, stop turning up at meeting and in due course it will be recognised that you have gone. It is not the case that once you invoke Article 50 you are no longer a member of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the response and for the interest that this debate has generated among a number of noble Lords. I cannot say that I am entirely surprised at the tenor of the debate or the comments that have been made, but before withdrawing the amendment, I will say just two things. First, I passionately want all four nations of the United Kingdom to stay part of the European Union because I believe that both our local family of nations and the greater family of nations are apposite for such a relationship.

I also ask noble Lords to think, between now and Report and as this campaign goes on, what will be the consequences were that to happen. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that he very much wanted to see the end of debating an independence referendum again. I am sure that he would accept that there is a greater danger of that referendum coming closer if those two results are different and the consequences of the referendum are taken for the UK as a whole.

If that is not the case, it flies in the face of what has been happening in Scottish politics—the fact that 56 out of 59 Members of Parliament are SNP. That surely has a message, and we should be thinking about how we respond to it. I am trying to put forward ideas and grasping at some ideas that Gordon Brown is putting forward about a new association of family members within these islands. We have a commonality of interests in many ways, and we have our distinctive differences as well. There is a need to build on that basis for the future, and the European referendum is one of those contexts.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord is right: 56 out of 59 of the MPs were elected as Scottish nationalists. They stood in the general election on a platform that the referendum had decided the matter and that the election was not about the issue of independence. During the referendum campaign, their party gave an assurance that this was a once-in-a-generation decision. So it is quite wrong to suggest that that result in any way vindicates the idea that you can rerun the referendum if something else happens which you may or may not agree with.

[Lord Wigley]

I understand entirely what the noble Lord is saying; all I am saying is that if the outcome was as I postulated, and as he accepts is a possibility—not a probability, but a possibility—there are consequences which, unless we think our way through them ahead of the referendum, will come back to haunt us. I put the amendment forward in a constructive spirit, not to try to pull things to bits. I am sure that the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will be heard loud and clear in Scotland. I am not trying to pull things to bits; I am trying to feel a way forward so that we can work together. Even if this is not the formula, there needs to be some formula.

On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to move this highly technical amendment. Other Members of the House may have as much difficulty as I do in understanding the precise wording. As very often is the case when we are working with reference to other bits of legislation, it is a bit abstruse. However, rather than subject the House to yet another lengthy dissertation from myself, I shall read from the Constitution Committee’s report on this point. The committee said that the 2000 Act,

“provides for a designated organisation to be appointed by the Electoral Commission as a lead campaign group for each side of the referendum debate. It does not allow the Electoral Commission to designate one organisation only; for there to be any designated organisations in a referendum campaign at least one from each side must apply … This arguably allows one side in a campaign to ‘game’ the system. If they are well funded but do not want the other campaign to receive the financial and other advantages of designation, then they simply fail to apply for designation. Notably, there was no designation in the Welsh referendum in 2011 because the Electoral Commission took the view that there were no lead campaigners that met the statutory test of adequately representing the ‘No’ side. The danger of gaming was also raised in the context of the Scottish independence referendum. The Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 attempted to overcome this potential problem by allowing for the designation of one side only, although in the end two campaigns did indeed apply for recognition … Whilst we consider it likely that there will indeed be applications for designation by each side, the House may wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to avoid a situation where one side could, in effect, prevent the lead campaign group on the other side from being designated”—

and, of course, from getting funds.

My amendment simply uses the wording of the amendment in the Scottish Act, which the Government agreed to put into the Scottish Act; it is replicated here, I hope in the correct place and the correct way, to have exactly the same effect as took place in Scotland.

It will not have escaped your Lordships’ notice that it never had to be used in Scotland. That is the purpose of moving this amendment. If it is accepted by the Government and put on the face of the Bill, there will not be a problem, because the certainty that one side can get itself designated even if the other side does not, and can therefore be a recipient of funds, will mean that the other side has no interest whatever in gaming the system. So I hope that this can be discussed on a totally technical, non-political basis, because I think that the Bill will be improved by the inclusion of this provision—and once we have included it, we can just forget all about it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 37 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and also to say how much I support the amendment just proposed by the noble Lord. I think that this might be a first in consideration of this Bill, but I think that it is a very sensible proposal.

Amendment 37 is following the same theme, which is ensuring that there is fairness in the conduct of the campaign. I was rather shocked this morning to read Hansard from the other place, where Mr Chope asked the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons to,

“confirm that the real reason why three independently minded former Ministers are being purged”,

from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,

“is because we voted in favour of a free and fair EU referendum with a strict 28-day purdah period, as recommended by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission and our Electoral Commission?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/15; col. 887.]

I do not want to get involved in that particular row, except to say that Christopher Chope, Sir Edward Leigh and Cheryl Gillan are three very distinguished former Ministers, and I am very shocked that they should be removed from the Council of Europe, and even more shocked that it should be suggested that that is the reason for their removal.

I emphasise this point because, whatever the outcome of the referendum, it is important that at the end of it people feel that the Government did not abuse their position—whatever their position turns out to be—and that the campaign was conducted in a fair and balanced way. This, presumably, is why we have the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

My amendment seeks to remove from political parties their ability, which arises from the 2000 Act, to spend money on the campaign itself. I thought that the whole point of having an Electoral Commission—which, incidentally, costs half the cost of the entire Royal Family—was to ensure that we had fair and balanced conduct of elections and referenda. That is what I thought it was about. I thought the whole purpose in having a designated campaign on each side with limitations on their expenses was to ensure fairness. But what do I find? I find that the Government have brought into the Bill the ability of the political parties to spend money in addition to the designated campaigns. In the case of the designated “in” campaign, it can spend £7 million; in the case of the “out” campaign, it can spend £7 million. That is fair enough; but then on the inside, the Labour Party can spend £7 million; the Liberal Democrats can spend £3 million; the Greens can spend £700,000 and the CBI and other organisations can spend £700,000.

The Conservatives have said that they will remain neutral—and it is very considerably to the credit of the Conservative board that it took that decision.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Did I not hear the noble Lord say that he thinks the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is fair and reasonable because it is not right that people game certain situations? Political parties have a right to campaign on issues that they feel united about and on which they have had support from the electorate. If there is a problem with the Conservative Party, I do not see why the noble Lord should take that view and extend it to other political parties.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I thought the leader of the Labour Party was a certain Jeremy Corbyn, who wished to leave the European Union, but perhaps I am misinformed. Perhaps he has changed his position. The noble Lord knows perfectly well—

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

The noble Lord should not assert something that is not true.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

What is not true: that Jeremy Corbyn is not leader of the Labour Party or that Jeremy Corbyn was not in favour of leaving the European Union? I will give way to the noble Lord if he tells me which statement is not true.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

The Labour Party’s policy is perfectly clear. The problem we have in this debate is that the Conservative Party does not have a clear policy. I do not see why the noble Lord should impose, through his amendment, his problems on to other political parties, including the Scottish nationalists and other major parties.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord is suffering from the disadvantage of not having listened to what I am going to say. Perhaps when I have said it, he might want to come back on that point. I am simply pointing out that all these political parties have the ability to spend money in addition to the designated campaigns. If you add that up as it is set out in the Bill, those who wish us to remain inside the European Union will be able to spend £25.5 million and those who wish us to leave, together with the political parties—because UKIP will be able to spend £4 million—will be able to spend £11 million. That seems to me to be a tad unbalanced.

As the noble Lord knows, all political parties have people with different views on this matter. That is why we need to have a designated campaign, so that people of all political parties and persuasions can join together and make their case, whatever it is. This Bill, which raises the limits, makes the position even more unfair. Before the Bill, under the rules set out under the 2000 Act, the “in” campaign could have spent £20 million and the “out” campaign £10 million: twice as much for those who wish to maintain the status quo. As a result of this Bill, the figures are £25.4 million and £11 million —2.3 times as much. That simply is not fair. At the end of the day, as we know from American elections and elsewhere, the ability to spend money can have a marked effect on the result. If the campaign to stay in is successful, the last thing we want is people arguing that the referendum result was bought, that it was unfair and that it was led by big business and big money. I am surprised that the Labour Party, of all parties, is seeking to defend this position.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

It is tempting to come back by asking what happened in the 2015 general election. Who had the most money? Do we call that into question? Who paid for it? I know exactly how much the unions gave the Labour Party, and I know how that money was collected. The corporate hedge funds gave money to the Conservative Party and enabled it to outspend every other party. Does the noble Lord not feel that that was unfair?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I know the noble Lord has never stood for election, so perhaps he is unfamiliar with this, but we have strict rules governing how much the parties can spend in general election campaigns. They are designed to ensure that we have fairness. What I am complaining about is that the rules in the Bill give an unfair and disproportionate advantage, and that the amendment to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act makes that even worse. That seems completely unfair, which is why I suggest that we reduce the figures that can be spent by the various political parties. In the 2000 Act, that is done as a percentage of the vote. Originally, it was £5 million if a party exceeded 30% of the vote, £4 million if it exceeded 20% but not 30%, £3 million if it got 10%, £2 million if it got 5% but not more than 10%, and £500,000 if it got not more than 5%. If we reduce all these numbers to zero, we will have a fair and balanced campaign, which is what my amendment seeks to do. I would have thought that everyone in this House would be in favour of that.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

The point is that the Conservative Party, under the PPERA, is able to spend up to £7 million on the referendum if it chooses to, as a registered participant. If it decides not to register, why should its decision impact on other parties which have policies and desires to campaign for in this referendum? That sounds undemocratic.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I agree with the noble Lord, which is why I want to make sure that all parties cannot spend any money at all, and that the people who can spend the money are the designated campaigners, so that there is a fair basis. I beg to move.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has a lot of logic. I was amused, however, when he referred to how difficult it is to understand legislation that refers back to previous legislation. Exactly—and that is what a lot of us complain about with the European Union. The noble Lord may remember that, when the constitutional treaty had to be ratified by national parliaments, no comprehensive single version was available. Everybody had to refer back to previous legislation. In the case of the Czech Republic, the relevant documents had not even been translated into the national language.

That said, I very much agree with the points the noble Lord made, and I support his amendment. I would, however, very much like to support my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I am somewhat bemused by the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who does not seem to take on board that we are talking about funding: about limits laid down by Parliament on the funding of both sides of the referendum. What surprises me—this is the issue I would like my noble friend to address—is that the Government simply decided to consolidate the PPERA into this legislation and did not introduce their own. They have, after all, amended various parts of the PPERA; they do not have to accept what is written into it as if it were tablets of stone.

I followed the debate in the House of Commons, which touched on this issue. The Minister in the Commons said that it is a good thing—that this is the first time we have had such comprehensive and far-reaching limits. Okay, but if you have limits they ought to be fair to the two sides of the referendum. Otherwise, why have limits at all? Would it not be better to let both sides raise what money they can and spend it? It seems to me there is a fundamental flaw in the proposal. The whole point of referenda is to deal with issues that cut across political parties; that is partly why we have them. I very much doubt we would have referenda if there were not constitutional issues that cut across different political parties. It seems perverse to say, just because a political party in a general election some time ago got 30% of the vote, it is entitled to X amount of money; and another party, which came third the time before and second last time, is allowed Y proportion of money. Why?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 58 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Liddle, who apologises that he cannot be present today. Before I address the substance of the amendment, perhaps I may say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his amendment and therefore agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Forsyth, said about it—that is an interesting axis of agreement across the Floor of the Chamber which does not often occur.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked why we should bring in political parties. I was astonished by that. No one is bringing in political parties; political parties are there; political parties are part of our democracy; political parties are part of every sophisticated democracy in the world. Political parties expect to take part in political campaigns, in elections or in referenda. It would be quite extraordinary if a political party was not interested in a major political campaign.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sure that the noble Lord does not mean to misrepresent me. I was not suggesting that political parties should not participate—I defer to his experience of political parties, which is greater than mine—but I was referring to the fact that we should not have to bring in expenses from political parties.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I have an interesting experience of political parties. I have talked for some time about that in the past, but I shall not delay the Committee on that subject today.

I was actually quoting the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who asked, “Why bring in political parties?”. That was an extraordinary thing to say, because political parties are part of the structure of our system and part of our national life. It is inconceivable to me that you could have a body of men and women—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

We could argue this for a very long time but we actually have a consensus. Until this issue arose, there was a general consensus in public life in favour of the 2000 Act. Therefore, it is quite right that we should base ourselves in this campaign on that consensus and on the practice over the last 15 years. With that, I will leave that subject—I will not take any more interventions on anything else—and turn to Amendment 58.

Amendment 58 is very important because it is all about the Government being straight with the public—which I do not think they are planning to be at the moment. They have launched a very complicated negotiation, which many of us have many thoughts about, and they hope that it will result in a deal. If it results in a deal, they intend to call a referendum and to advise the public to vote for that deal. If they do not get the deal, of course none of those things will happen.

I totally understand that while the Government are negotiating they do not want to give a running commentary—that is the Government’s phrase, not mine. I even understand why they are a bit reticent about saying exactly what their aims are in the negotiation. In fact, Eurosceptics will always say that they are not aiming high enough and will always say that whatever they get is not adequate. So they are wasting their time, but I can understand why they have got themselves in this position.

However, I cannot understand any hesitation about the Government’s duty, once they have a deal—if they have a deal—to be absolutely straight with the British public about what that deal is and to make an official, authoritative declaration to the British public of what that deal consists of. We cannot possibly have a situation in which knowledge of the deal comes out through unattributed and deniable press briefings from special advisers and spin doctors and so on. We need a clear government document when the day comes, if that deal arises.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I will not give way for a moment. I will continue and give way later in my remarks. If, as a result of the deal, the Government call a referendum, they should give advice to the British public and the electorate. They owe to the public the duty of their judgment and the duty of declaring the facts. If they do that, it is important that they do that in a public, authoritative document and not by the back-stairs methods or spinning methods that are so beloved of this Government. That is the point of the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. When we come to the referendum campaign, if the Government recommend, as they did in 1975, a yes vote, they should explain to the British public in an authoritative document why they are making that recommendation and set out what they consider to be the essential facts on which that recommendation is based. At this point, I will give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I know how passionately he feels about these matters. But does he feel that his case is so weak that he is arguing that it is necessary to rig the whole thing in favour of his point of view? Looking at Amendment 58, he is suggesting that a statement from the campaign to leave, a statement from the campaign to stay and a statement from the Government, which may be to leave or to stay, should be sent to every household. From the point of view of people receiving this material, it is unbalanced. Why is the noble Lord so concerned about his case that he feels that it is necessary to have an unbalanced position in respect of his own amendment and in his opposition to mine?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

For the first time since I debated on these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I am very surprised at the gaps in his historical knowledge, which normally is extremely extensive and accurate, and often brought to bear very effectively in debates in this House. He seems to have forgotten what happened in 1975, which I am old enough to remember. I had my first political campaign; I was part of the City in Europe campaign, and I am very proud of it. I have not rigged or invented anything. In this amendment, I am following precisely the wording we had in the Act which set out the basis for the 1975 referendum and entirely the practice that was followed. I am being the most rigorous constitutionalist. I hope that the noble Lord will approve of that—I think he normally does. I am following precedent and I am suggesting that precedent lays down the basis for fairness, and is always a good basis for credibility and legitimacy in public life. I will give way again, although I cannot go on giving way or I will be trying the patience of the House with the time that I am taking up.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord will never try the patience of the House. Perhaps he is a little older than me. I can just remember the 1975 campaign and voting in it. But is he suggesting that during that campaign, every household got a leaflet from a campaign to stay in the European Union, a leaflet from a campaign to leave the European Union and a leaflet from the Government saying that we should stay in the European Economic Community, or the Common Market, as it was then, all at public expense? I do not think that that is what happened at all. But that is what his amendment proposes.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

It is very unusual that I am able to answer a quite lengthy intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, more than satisfactorily with a single word—yes. That is exactly what happened in 1975, exactly what my amendment calls for and exactly what I think is required on this occasion. I will give way to the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, I was not going to intervene but I really felt that I had to do so to support the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. He will be surprised at that, perhaps—but he was absolutely right when he said that three documents were issued at the 1975 referendum. One was from the in campaign; one was from the out campaign; and one was from the Government, with a preface by Harold Wilson. The Government recommended that we should remain in and, of course, they gave their reasons for it. Unfortunately, the Government’s reasons turned out to be rather suspect, because one of the claims that they made was that they had ruled out the prospect of economic and monetary union. We now know that that was a false statement because we have got economic and monetary union. Although we are not members of the euro, we are, in fact, members of EMU. I hope that that was a little help to the noble Lord, Lord Davies.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I hesitate to put words into the noble Lord’s mouth, and I freely acknowledge that I was wrong on the matter that, in the 1975 campaign, there were two leaflets that argued the position in favour of remaining in the European Community and only one against. The noble Lord says that he will support the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but he has spent almost a lifetime arguing that the wrong decision was made and that people were misinformed about the position. Was it not wrong, actually, for there to be two leaflets on one side as opposed to one on the other?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Yes, I agree with that. I was only confirming that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was correct in saying that there were three pamphlets. At the time, the Labour Party was in favour of coming out. Unfortunately, the Labour Government were in favour of staying in. We are almost getting into the same situation now, although in reverse, as we approach the next referendum. That is all I wish to say about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. One of the problems with referenda is that they assume there are simply two sides to an argument, when actually there are often lots of different opinions and reasons why people may wish, in the case of the European Union, to stay in or to leave. The interesting thing in this debate is that we have heard that UKIP will wish to argue its case strongly as a political party. We have heard the Conservative Party saying no, we are not going to do that. In effect, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will limit UKIP to £10,000—it will not be able to spend more than that—while if, for example, Unite registered as a participant, it could spend £700,000, as could any other organisation or individual if they registered properly as a participant.

The real issue here is how we have a fair political debate: how we ensure that all the different views in favour of remaining or leaving are properly expressed. It is clear, as we have heard, that there is a problem among those who want to leave. They do not appear able to reconcile their differences and come together as one—perhaps because they have absolutely different views about why Britain should leave. The Conservative Party has clearly not been very keen to sit on platforms with UKIP to argue its case, and certainly individuals within the party have not been keen to join in. The idea that political parties should absent themselves from this campaign is purely ridiculous.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord keeps repeating this. Nobody is suggesting that political parties absent themselves. I am listening carefully to his argument. If you decide to have a cap on expenditure, it has to be fair to both sides. If the noble Lord is arguing that there should be no cap, that is an entirely different position. The Government’s position—arising from the 2000 Act—is that there should be a cap. Therefore, it is not that the political parties cannot participate, but that the vehicle through which they participate consists of the two campaigns. If the noble Lord is arguing that there should be no cap, I can see where he is coming from, but he seems to be arguing that there should be a cap and that the available expenditure should be unbalanced. That is ridiculous.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Actually, I am arguing that all participants in the referendum should properly account for what they raise and what they spend, and that that be recorded and sent to the Electoral Commission. That is what I am arguing for. We have heard in the debate that somehow you can create a level playing field by setting a cap on the total amount spent. What, then, is the noble Lord saying: that the “remain” campaign and the “leave” campaign agree beforehand exactly what they are going to spend and then say that is what they are going to do?

I know what caps do. I, too, have had a debate about political funding, and some dialogue with the Conservative Party about funding election campaigns. The caps on spending were important in trying to stop this continual outbidding of each other, but no political party has ever reached the cap that has been set in general elections. The Conservative Party has consistently outspent the Labour Party in general elections. There certainly has not been a level playing field. There is only one way to achieve a level playing field: by saying that £20 million from the government purse will be provided for this campaign and that it should be divided equally and then spent.

I do not, however, think that that is what noble Lords want. What noble Lords want is a fair and open debate. Political parties have an important role in that and the idea that you can cap the Labour Party’s spending to £10,000 on arguing its policy—and it does and will have a policy—is absolutely ridiculous. It is not right or fair to the democratic process. My opinion is not simply that of my party; it is also that of the Electoral Commission. The commission says, first, that, irrespective of the cap, there can be no certainty that there will be equal resources. This is a bit like a general election, where we have had caps on spending but there has been no level playing field in respect of the money that can be spent.

The other aspect of this is that everybody’s talking as if £7 million, and £5 million, is going to be available. Political parties, however, will have to raise the money. They will have to account for it. This is what all the amendments in the first group were about: transparency. The public will be more interested in transparency than the notional caps that the noble Lords opposite are talking about. People will certainly want to know who is funding the yes campaign, but they will also want to know who is funding the no campaign—who is behind it: perhaps the hedge funds or the businesses that simply see an interest in being outside.

All these things are important, but, as the Electoral Commission has said, the number of participants on each side should not be artificially limited by rules. We have seen that UKIP will want to play its part in the referendum campaign and to put its case, irrespective of whether it participates in a joint campaign. I know that the Labour Party will want to put its case strongly in respect of the social dimension to Europe and how Europe has defended workers’ rights. I do not think that the Prime Minister will necessarily wish to be part of that campaign. We will put our case, and the idea that you simply limit the Labour Party’s spending to £10,000 is not acceptable.

I strongly support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, not least because—this is the strongest case for it—when this was considered previously it was thought appropriate to put it in the Scottish referendum. If it was appropriate for Scotland, why is it unnecessary for this referendum? Clearly, it is.

Regarding my noble friend’s amendment—we raised this issue in Committee on Monday—the Government will come to a decision. They will need to report that decision to the people of this country. It is important that the Government’s decision is not mediated solely through these campaigns, which noble Lords opposite seem to think will have a clear view about the reasons for leaving or staying. It is really important that the Government communicate with the electorate, so they understand what the Government have negotiated and can come to a conclusion. The argument that it can be mediated only through a yes campaign or a no campaign is not acceptable. The Minister may not accept my noble friend’s amendment but I hope the Government will think seriously about how the conclusions of the negotiations are communicated properly to the electorate without being mediated through a third party.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Can the noble Lord explain where he gets this £10,000 figure from?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

If you are not a permitted participant in the referendum, under PPERA you are limited to £10,000. That amount is also recorded in the Electoral Commission’s briefing, and I know that the noble Lord is very keen to support the role of the Electoral Commission.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I would have thought that,

“£500,000 in the case of a person or body falling within section 105(1)(b) but not designated under section 108”,

might apply.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Political parties are treated differently, as the Minister indicated at the outset. The fact is, they are different. They are covered, as she said, by separate elements of PPERA. If political parties do not register as participants in the referendum, they will be limited to spending £10,000. I do not have to answer for the Conservative Party but, in effect, by advocating this amendment noble Lords are saying to local Conservative associations, “You cannot use your office, your staff or your resources in this referendum campaign because if you exceed £10,000, the Conservative Party will be acting illegally”.

--- Later in debate ---

Surely political parties should be able to campaign at a referendum. That was established in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. My noble friend Lord Lamont asked a general question, which I think is fair, which is: why use the Act as the basis for this legislation? Why not have a new piece of legislation? But the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act was introduced following recommendations from the fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. In part it contains a framework for national referendums, which avoids the need to build a new legislative framework every time. Since PPERA was introduced, several referendums, including those on AV and, of course, Scottish independence, have taken place built on PPERA. In this country we seek to use existing law where appropriate and this is exactly what we have done. PPERA does what it says on the tin. It is the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and therefore is appropriate as a model for us to use, with some amendments which make sure that people cannot get round some of the provisions.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is my noble friend not trying to argue two contradictory things at the same time? In rejecting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, she said that it would be wrong to allow funds to create a distorted campaign. The argument was that if you had one side only gaining funds it would create a distorted campaign. My amendment may not be perfect in its drafting, but does the Minister accept that it must be wrong to allow political parties to spend sums such that one side is able to spend 2.3 times what the other can spend? It is not consistent with her principle that we should not allow funds to create a distorted campaign.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I think there is some confusion between the issue of a political party carrying out a campaign and a designated lead campaigner. If my noble friend is saying that there should be a level playing field with regard to the sums of money to be spent on each campaign, that would be saying that the designated lead campaigners, if they were not a political party, would have to have a total sum of not only what they spent but what every single other person in the country who agreed with them spent. I really do not think that that is what he is trying to achieve. I accept that my noble friend is trying to introduce a discussion about apparent unfairness in the funds available to political parties. I think that that is a debate for a wider issue as to what political party funding may comprise.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I will jump to a little later in my speech and just say that the designated lead campaigners are entitled not only to the spending limit which has been the subject of this debate but to a grant from public funds of up to £600,000, free delivery of mailings to every household or every elector, eligibility to make referendum broadcasts and the use of public rooms. I hope that is helpful.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I accept the point that my noble friend is making about there being a certain degree of confusion because of the way in which PPERA intersects with this Bill. However, we are talking not about spending but about a cap on the amount that can be spent. The reason for having that cap is, surely, to ensure fairness. Where is the fairness in having a cap which is 2.3 times higher for one side of the campaign than for the other?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, my noble friend is, again, conflating spending by a political party—which may not end up being a designated lead campaigner—with spending by a designated lead campaigner. To do that, we would have to change the whole nature of how this country allows its elections to be run. All I can say is that before PPERA was put into statute, matters such as this were considered, and the resulting Act tried to come to the fairest conclusion. With regard to the changes my noble friend referred to, the increase in the total amount reflects the fact that the Act received Royal Assent in 2000. The amount has merely been raised in line with inflation. No remarks were made about that in another place.

My noble friend Lord Hamilton cast scorn on his own amendment, Amendment 40. I appreciate that he tabled it because of the concern—expressed firmly here today but also in another place—about the capacity of well-funded individuals and organisations to use their spending power to influence the outcome of the referendum, as indeed might be the case in any election. My noble friend invited me not to go into too much detail on his amendment, and many of his concerns were aired in the debate on my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment, so I am grateful to him for that.

The Bill includes additional controls on campaigners acting in concert, which means that where expenses are incurred as part of a common plan, they will usually count towards the spending limit of each campaigner that is party to the plan. This is supported by the Electoral Commission and aims to prevent groups of individuals or bodies colluding to circumvent spending limits. This is a well-established approach which is practical and enforceable but which also, most importantly, encourages participation.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, spoke to amendments on behalf of his noble friend Lord Liddle. I will explain the import of the amendments, were they to go into the Bill, and then address his pertinent point about how the Government should make their case in a statement and get information to the public. Amendment 58 would provide for every individual elector to receive a statement from each of the official lead campaigns, as well as a statement of the Government’s position through the post, although the amendment does not specify that the Government’s position must be contained within the same document. PPERA already confers a significant number of benefits on the designated lead campaigners. As I mentioned a moment ago when I was invited to list them by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, they include a free mail delivery to every household or every elector. We expect, naturally, that this opportunity will be taken up by the lead campaigners. In that respect, the noble Lord’s amendment duplicates existing provision.

However, I appreciate that the noble Lord perhaps intended his amendment to do something else: to hold the Government to account by requiring them to make a statement about what had happened in the negotiations and what the results were. We had a discussion about this on Monday in Committee in the three or four groups relating to information. The noble Lord’s amendment puts the Government in a position where they would be required to provide the statement during the period of purdah, which is not the Government’s intention. Our discussions on Monday made it very clear that the Committee wanted the Government to consider carefully how we should make a statement about our position. I made a clear commitment on Monday to look at these matters and to see what I could bring forward on Report by way of an amendment that would apply to the information being provided before the essential period of purdah.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth had the lead amendment in the last group we debated on Monday, which I think gave us a very good starting point to have a fair description of what the Government have achieved without using it as a campaigning document. I happily give way to the noble Lord if that does not answer his point on Amendment 58.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments 53, 56, 61A and 61D, in my name. First, I say thank you to my noble friend the Minister for her decision to abandon making regulations under Clause 6(2). That is a fantastic step forward. Many of us expressed concern about that at Second Reading. It makes my Amendment 53, which simply required notice of any change, look a bit feeble, so I am extremely grateful. Given that my noble friend has undertaken not to make any regulations modifying Section 125 for the purposes of the referendum, I wonder whether she might be amenable to removing it from the Bill altogether, so there is no ambiguity about the position, thus ending the concerns which have been expressed. I commend the notes prepared on the PPERA, which makes it clear that Section 125, as my noble friend Lord Lamont pointed out, is concerned with promotional material. Although I have tried very hard to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I do not think it is necessary, given that the Government are not planning to make regulations under Section 125, the fear having been that it would be used as a back-door route to get round purdah. That is a great step forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the Scottish referendum campaign. In considering the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, one thing that I recalled was extremely irritating in the Scottish referendum campaign was how, in the last few days, the Government suddenly published, in concert with the other political parties, a vow, which has caused us endless difficulties subsequently. An amendment such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, would open the door to that kind of activity, which is thoroughly unhelpful. The noble Lord is groaning, but I am sure he takes the point.

At Second Reading, I asked whether the restrictions and purdah imposed under Section 125 would apply to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments and to the European Commission. My noble friend said that, yes, they would apply to any person and there was no cause for concern. As my noble friend will see, I have tabled Amendment 56, which restricts the promotion of promotional material by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the Northern Ireland Executive and the European Commission. That is not because I thought my noble friend was wrong in the assurances she gave, but because it relates to Amendment 61A, which introduces a personal surcharge on anyone who incurs expenditure in breach of these rules. This may not be the best way to do it, but I tabled the amendment because I was astonished to discover that, although Section 125 imposes purdah and restrictions, if anyone chooses to breach that purdah there is absolutely no penalty for doing so. Therefore, we have a paper tiger. All that can be done is to seek judicial review of that action, by which time the train will have left the station. The notion that a referendum could be rerun because there was a breach of purdah is stretching credulity to the point of fantasy. We had this great argument about purdah and Section 125—it has been through the other place and come here—but there is actually no penalty.

The Electoral Commission thinks that my amendment might go a bit far. However, there are precedents; I remember Dame Shirley Porter being personally fined no less than £20 million. The surcharge rules have since been taken out of local government legislation, but they certainly existed—and it would certainly concentrate the minds of the Scottish Government or anyone else tempted to breach purdah if there was some kind of sanction. I propose this in the hope that my noble friend will respond to the concerns expressed by the Electoral Commission—if not by me and others—and consider what sanction could be put in place to ensure that the purdah rules are observed.

Then, of course, we have the European Union and its institutions. It is difficult to see how we could have any sanction as, of course, we are mere vassals of the European Union. How could we possibly punish it for, or indeed prevent it, breaching purdah? Amendment 61D is an attempt to reach a negotiation—an approach that I know the Prime Minister is keen on to deal with the difficulties we have with the European Union. It proposes that there should be a negotiation now to,

“conclude an agreement between the Government and the institutions of the European Union, to the effect that the institutions will … abide by the provisions of section 125”,

and not be tempted to take on a promotional or campaigning role during the referendum.

My noble friend will no doubt tell me that that is very unlikely. However, I happened to read a piece in a newspaper a fortnight ago—I assumed it was some kind of joke—suggesting that in Scotland, the European Union was going to require farmers to put up in their fields posters indicating that they were supported by the European Union, and that the size of the posters would be determined by the amount of subsidy they received. The prospect of all the fields in Scotland being adorned with European flags and messages telling the public how generous the European Union had been in spending the money which we gave them in the first place, while we were in the sensitive period of a referendum campaign, seemed rather chilling. That makes my Amendment 61D rather important, because I would interpret suddenly providing new publicity to mislead the public about the extent of the support provided by the European Union to those farmers as an example of exactly the thing I am concerned about—and, of course, something the Government can do nothing about.

Even if my noble friend does not accept the substance of these amendments, I hope she will take them away and consider how we can strengthen the position in respect of Section 125—and perhaps even consider removing Clause 6(2) from the Bill altogether, or even Clause 6 itself, although she has said that that would be a step too far. I am most grateful to my noble friend, who has responded to the concerns expressed in the other place and delivered what it wanted, and responded to the concerns expressed by many noble Lords on Second Reading.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

The noble Lord referred to the notices that our masters in Brussels have required to be erected all over the countryside. I have an idea for the farmers in question. Alongside the notice that gives the great news that our masters in Brussels have given us so much money, they could put up a notice saying, “PS. Of course, for every pound they give us, we will have given them £2.66”—which I think is the present amount. Perhaps that would put those notices into perspective, because there is no such thing as European aid to this country, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I do not think they would be in a position to do that. If farmers were forced to do that, it would be a very good thing for those of us who wish to leave the European Union.

On Amendment 61D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, he worries about the provision not having enough teeth to ensure that the European Commission behaves itself—which, of course, I forecast it will not. One could add on Report a clause which says that any money the European Union does spend in this regard can be deducted from the £12.5 billion net that we are sending to Brussels at the moment. Perhaps we can get the money back that way.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I was concerned not about the money but about the expenditure taking place within the campaign, which was breaching the rules of purdah—that is, the use of the money, rather than the actual amount.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Of course, in the other place the Opposition resisted strongly the disapplication of purdah provisions and the other place agreed with that. Therefore, our position is quite clear. Obviously, however, Clause 6 was agreed to in the other place. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is saying, but I am not sure that I quite understood his interpretation of the noble Baroness’s remarks. There is clear indication that there is no intention to lay regulations. There may be a risk, but we do not know: there are unforeseen circumstances. I am assuming that Clause 6 will be retained, and we would support that if it enables the Government to respond to something unforeseen. I assume that is what the noble Baroness is saying, and that is why we would support that. I am certainly sympathetic to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Before the noble Lord leaves that point, could he give one example of something that might justify making the regulations?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I fear I might sound like Donald Rumsfeld if I did—talking about the unknown unknowns and the known unknowns—and I will resist the temptation. I will leave it in the capable hands of the Minister to give those examples.

However, this group of amendments gives rise to some issues, including how we define the actions of Ministers and special advisers, and the question of acting in a personal capacity. I fear that all these things are incredibly difficult to prescribe, not least: when is a Minister not a Minister; when is a spad not a spad? What about when they are working at home at weekends? The situation is clear with matters such as having no government transport, or no paid facilities when campaigning.

--- Later in debate ---

Noble Lords have asked why, then, Clause 6 should remain in the Bill. It is our view that any Government who are careful of the security of government and the security of their people should enable themselves to have access to a course of action if something unexpected happens. However, it would have to be something pretty unexpected, and that is why we are not able to forecast it at the moment. Clearly, in something as important as an election campaign for a European referendum, when so many different groups are involved, it would be important that we did not seek to disrupt that unnecessarily. Our position is that we would retain Clause 6, but we have no plans to bring forward regulations with regard to Section 125.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Can my noble friend give us an example of something unexpected that might happen that could justify using these powers?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I just referred to the fact that a Government must have care for the security of their public. I therefore think it would be unwise to venture into any speculation on what that might be.

I ought to say, out of courtesy to my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Hamilton, a word about Amendments 56 and 57—more than a word or two, by the look of this. Both Amendments 56 and 57 provide that the restrictions on publications and certain material in Section 125 also apply to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and to Welsh and Scottish Ministers as well as Ministers in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 61A, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, provides for the Electoral Commission to propose a surcharge. I beg his pardon; my noble friend explained that he tabled his amendment because of Amendment 61A. I will come to his amendment later because it is rather different from that of my noble friend Lord Hamilton.

I can assure my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Hamilton that we do not believe there is a need for clarification because Section 125 already applies to the devolved Administrations and Ministers in those Administrations, because they fall within the definition of persons or bodies whose expenses are met wholly or mainly from public funds. Therefore, Section 160 of the PPERA provides a definition of public funds that includes payments made out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the Welsh Consolidated Fund or the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it really is clear that there is no need for this amendment.

I know that my noble friend Lord Hamilton referred to Amendment 57—which seeks to place restrictions in Section 125 on the Government of Gibraltar—as being for the avoidance of doubt, but Amendment 45 in my name, which refers to the Government of Gibraltar, modifies Section 125 for the purposes of a referendum so that the restrictions apply to the Government of Gibraltar, a government department of Gibraltar or any other body wholly or mainly funded from Gibraltar public funds. Therefore, my Amendment 45 should please my noble friend because it delivers what he wants. I can assure the Committee that the Government of Gibraltar, like the devolved Administrations and their Ministers, will therefore be subject to the restrictions in Section 125.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth also seeks to place restrictions under Section 125 on publications by the European Commission. Amendment 61D, in my noble friend’s name, seeks to achieve a similar end and place a dialogue between the Government and European Union institutions on a statutory basis, rather than the procedure I have already outlined. My noble friend would require the Government to seek a voluntary assurance from the EU institutions that they will comply with the provisions of Section 125.

I am not convinced that it is appropriate to make a statutory provision for voluntary assurance, but I can assure my noble friend that the Government will continue, as I mentioned earlier, to work with the EU institutions to prevent undue influence. Decision on our membership of the EU is rightly a matter for us—for the British public alone. Some of my ministerial colleagues and officials have been engaging with their counterparts in the European Union to explain that this is a question for the British people. The Bill makes that clear by omitting the institutions and foreign Governments from the list of permissible donors. I can say to my noble friend that we have received reassurances that the European Commission understands that this is a matter for the British people, and they will take no active part in the campaign.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble friend said I want to make Amendment 61D statutory. All it says is that the Government should have discussions with the European Union’s institutions—which my noble friend says we are doing—but that the Secretary of State should lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any agreement that could be concluded. Can my noble friend give an undertaking that the terms of the agreement that has been reached with the European Union should be made available to both Houses of Parliament?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The reason I say that my noble friend’s provision was intended to be statutory is in the very nature of an amendment; if it were go to go into the Bill, it would become statutory. My noble friend makes a request about what information may be available from the European Commission. I will look very carefully at that, to see what is already available and what we may achieve over the coming months. It is a reasonable request from my noble friend, and I will see what may be done. Clearly, there are circumstances in which discussions are going ahead from which a public document has not been produced, but if we are in a position where there is a public one, I will certainly do my best to provide that to my noble friend and to other noble Lords who are interested.

I ought to add, in parenthesis, that European officials are clearly aware of how counterproductive an intervention from Brussels might be, whatever it is. They will be taking clear account of that.

Amendment 61A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, provides that the Electoral Commission should impose a surcharge if any body or person to which Section 125 applies breaches the restrictions in that section. I understand entirely what my noble friend seeks to do. He feels that there should be an immediate punishment rather than judicial review, but I say to him that the Electoral Commission has no role in the enforcement of Section 125. The Electoral Commission has made it absolutely clear that it does not welcome such a role. We consider the current arrangements sufficient—that where a breach of Section 125 might happen it should be subject to judicial review—but I certainly hear what my noble friend says. Even if I am not able to come to a conclusion that helps him, I will certainly look at that again to see if there is something that can avoid judicial review.

These matters have already been considered on many occasions, and it has not yet been possible to find a way of doing it succinctly. I can see that my noble friend wishes to intervene.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for that offer. She is being a little selective in quoting the Electoral Commission. It is true that it does not want the task of surcharging elected people, and one can see why it might recoil from that, but it is also true that it has said that the present position, where there is no sanction for people who breach purdah, is unsatisfactory and it has suggested that the Government should consider that. I would be grateful if my noble friend could come back on Report, because, clearly, if the Electoral Commission is saying that this is a paper tiger, it is certainly not acceptable.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, as I have said, we always listen very carefully to the views of noble Lords and consider the results of debates here. I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords that we are trying to deal with the concerns that they have expressed. I know that it has been a long debate but it is one about which noble Lords felt very deeply. I therefore commend Amendment 35, which is in my name, and invite other noble Lords not to move their amendments when they are called.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Amendment 24 is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham—a perfectly balanced ticket.

I begin by saying:

“Those campaigning for Britain to leave the EU and choose the Norwegian way can … correctly claim that a country can retain access to the single market from outside the EU”.

But this means also,

“retaining all the EU’s product standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and substantial contributions to the EU budget. A Britain choosing this track would, in other words, keep paying, it would be ‘run by Brussels’, and … remain committed to the four freedoms, including free movement”,

of persons. It would, however,

“have given up on having a say over EU policies. Like Norway, it would have no vote and no presence when crucial decisions that affect the daily lives of its citizens are made”.

These are not my words but those of Espen Barth Eide, a former Europe Minister in Norway, last week. On his financial point, it is worth noting that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, correctly pointed out that we are now the ninth largest contributor to the EU budget in per capita terms. The 10th largest is Norway.

If noble Lords do not believe Mr Eide, they might try the Norwegian Conservative Party’s current EU spokesman, Mr Nikolai Astrup. His advice is simple: “If you want to run the EU, stay in; if you want to be run by the EU, feel free to join us in the EEA”.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Could the noble Lord tell us on how many occasions in the last five years we have expressed a view in opposition to a particular EU policy and on how many occasions we have been defeated in percentage terms?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I had assumed that the principal interest of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, was making sure that we managed, as some sort of country member or associate, to remain within the single market. The Koreans have no such rights. They have a very good free trade agreement, which is greatly in the UK’s interest, and has produced a considerable increase in UK exports to South Korea.

There is no doubt that the UK could secure a free trade agreement with the EU. That is not an issue. But if we want access to the single market, we need more than a free trade agreement. That is why the Norwegians are in what is known as EFTA and the EEA and why they are complaining about their relations with the EU.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, told us that nobody in Norway wants to join the EU. Actually, the entire Norwegian establishment would like to join the EU but has not, as yet, managed to persuade the Norwegian public of that.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

It sounds just like us. I have read in a newspaper—so it may be wrong—that on the last 77 occasions when Britain has sought to amend a provision that it did not like, it has been defeated. Is the noble Lord aware of that? If that is the case, I question whether, by being in the room, we have influence. We have influence only if we are able to persuade the room. We seem to be singularly unable to do so.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I hope I may leave it to the Minister to deal with the allegation that on the last 77 occasions when we have expressed views and wished to change a piece of legislation we have been overruled. I would be completely astonished if there was any truth in that statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 26, in my name, is of similar import to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. Mine, of course, is a political adviser’s amendment. It is sloppily drafted and not the expert amendment that you would expect of a senior Eurocrat; therefore, I am happy not to move my amendment in favour of that moved by the noble Lord. In my view if we wanted to educate the public about alternatives to EU membership we could do a lot worse than to ask the Government to send a printed copy, suitably amended, of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to every household in the country—I thought it was brilliantly argued. We are going to hear a lot of these arguments in the coming year, and I shall not reiterate them now.

I want to make a couple of observations which I think are relevant. First, on the arguments about Britain’s strength to negotiate its own arrangements, I used to think in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. When I was a young man I am afraid I rather bought into the line of the German Social Democrat leader of the time, who described the Common Market as a conservative, cartelist, capitalist, clerical conspiracy. I was rather of that view but when I learned about it and read its history I realised that the Macmillan Government tried very hard in the 1950s to negotiate the kind of free trade agreement which the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, thinks is the solution to all our problems, but they came to the conclusion that it could not be done. The only possible alternative for Britain was to become a full member alongside the original six. I think that that judgment, which was made around 1959-60, is still sound, even though the European Union has transformed itself. So, too, has our economy. When I listen to some of the arguments of the anti-Europeans here, I think they still think in terms of British companies exporting to Europe.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am not aware that there are any anti-Europeans here. There may be people who are anti the European Union; these are not the same things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle]

The noble Lord is right about that, but it is the result of dissent in an elite and a particular part of the British political elite. People will get worked up about this because of a vigorous argument on one side of the political spectrum; it is not as a result of massive popular demand from below. However, that is not my point, which is that a lot of people are genuinely sceptic and probably dislike the Brussels bureaucracy a great deal but worry about our future outside the EU. That is where I think that the need for objectivity is very important. Clearly, I am not the right person to make an objective case about the European Union but I still believe that we have a public service in Britain which is independent and can be objective and which can help to frame a rational debate about our membership. That is why I think that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is so important.

I hope that the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, and the Government will look favourably on the argument regarding the need for objectivity in this debate and on the argument that the public service can help to bring that to the debate. That is what the public are looking for. I would hate to think that our politics had got to the state of that of the United States, where everything is so polarised that it is impossible to have any kind of meeting of minds or objectivity and rationality in discussions. I think that the senior members of the Government are coming round to a certain view about Britain’s future which I favour, so I hope that they will be prepared to support this call for independent, objective analysis, which is so important for the quality of our politics.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I was tempted to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. As I listened to his speech, he said, “The Commission is there to maintain the EU decision-making autonomy”. What a ghastly phrase. It suggests that an unelected body has autonomy. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, should be circulated as part of the campaign. I agree with that because in summary he said, “Look, we’re stuck with this organisation. They’re in charge. If you try to do anything about it, they’ll all gang up against you and throw your people out of work”. If that is the best argument that we can come up with for staying in this organisation, I despair. If that is the position, the sooner we get out the better, because we are being told that we are part of an EU decision-making autonomy.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

Taking the analogy of Ministers and the UK Civil Service, is the noble Lord saying that if you do not like the word “autonomy” there must be some other word that is not going to be suborned by politicians? With regard to the Office for Budget Responsibility, no one doubts that we are looking for some degree of independence. If the noble Lord does not like the word “autonomy”, how will he handle the problem of not wanting self-interested politicians to give advice—it is people who, in the analogy with Britain, are not politicians?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord must go on because he is making my case for me. He is saying that we do not want politicians and that we need to think of another word for “autonomy”. How about “dictatorship”? If by EU decision-making autonomy you mean, “We don’t want politicians”, then that is dictatorship. Politicians, however much they may be despised or disliked, are accountable to the electorate. These people are accountable to no one, and we are now being told that we cannot possibly go against the EU decision-making autonomy.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is making marvellous campaign speeches; I think that our job is to address the Bill and the amendments. I was trying to give an analytical speech, assessing the various models and the possibility of a sui generis, something-completely-different Stoddart model. When I used the words “decision-making autonomy”, I was using words which are quite common in the Council, in the Parliament and in the court; I was not referring to the Commission.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Yes, you were.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Yes, I said that the Commission would be the spokesman in the negotiation, but its concern would be to preserve the autonomy of EU decision-making—which the European Council regularly insists on and insisted on in relation to the changes to the arrangement with Switzerland. If you are not a member of the club, you do not have a vote on club decisions. That is all it means.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I will come on to address these points, because I took the opportunity of checking a few facts. For example, just before the dinner break, I did not know why when we were supposed to be discussing what is in Britain’s interest we continued to discuss what is in Norway’s or Iceland’s interest—but, as people have raised it and have said they want facts, I have found the following quote from the Icelandic Prime Minister from June this year. The noble Lord has already read this quote, but he did not put it in his speech. The Icelandic Prime Minister said:

“'For us staying outside of the European Union has been very important, even instrumental in getting us out of the economic crisis so it has affected us in positive ways, giving us control over our own natural resources, but also having control over our own legislation and our own currency, which if we had not had that, we would not be in the situation where we are now with a very fast improving economy”.

When I said earlier that nobody in Norway wanted to join the European Union and I was shot down and told by the noble Lord that the establishment wanted to join the EU, I thought that I had better check what the position was. I found that seven out of 10 Norwegians would reject EU membership and just 19% would like to join. Seventy-four per cent would say no to Norway joining the EU, with 17% wanting to join—these figures are from an opinion poll in 2014.

The noble Lord mentioned Switzerland. According to a 2012 poll for the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, just 6% of Swiss voters favoured joining the EU against 63% who want the present bilateral arrangements preserved, and 11% who want to join the EEA. There does not seem to be any great feeling in either of those countries that they have made some dreadful mistake; on the contrary, they seem very happy. The Norwegians are very happy with their fish, their oil and their prosperity.

Then we have the bogus argument that says that if you are outside, you have to accept a huge amount of legislation which you would have no say over. I do not know whether the figures in the Daily Telegraph—the noble Lord tells me that that is where they were from—that say that the last 74 times we have objected to things we have been defeated are correct, but those people who argue that we need to stay in to have a say should tell us how effective that say is because the evidence is that it is not very effective. The noble Lord, I know, has conspired with me and other Ministers to turn defeat into an apparent victory in drafting the press release after one such defeat.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The noble Lord is very kind. He seems to be a glutton for information. May I recommend that he reads two slim volumes produced by an all-party panel, first in 2014 and then 2015, called The British Influence Scorecard? They looked at every part of European policy and concluded that Britain’s influence in the European Union was considerable. I am sure that he would find that a very enlightening read, and it is not as long as some of the documents around.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I would be very happy to read it; what I would be interested in is who has written it. I note, for example, that three of my honourable friends from the other end of the corridor were kicked off the Council of Europe recently because their views did not accord with those of the establishment. But I am certainly happy to read what the noble Lord suggests.

I want to put some more figures into the debate that arise from our earlier discussions and are relevant to the amendment. They relate to the number of EU laws that EEA members such as Norway and Iceland have to accept. The Icelandic Government estimate 10%—5,000 legislative Acts in force, divided by 23,078 legislative Acts in consolidated EU acquis.

There seems to be a debate about the extent to which this applies to these countries, but as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, all of this is completely irrelevant. We are not Iceland; we are not Norway; we are Britain. We are a country with a long history and relationships around the globe in a global marketplace in the Far East and elsewhere. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that we would get into some sort of trade war with the EU and be vetoed by Portugal or Spain. It is a shallow argument that demeans our country, and will be hugely counterproductive if it is deployed, as we discovered when perhaps overenthusiastic unionists tried to deploy the same argument in Scotland when they said that Scotland would not be able to survive on its own.

Iceland has a population that is smaller than that of Edinburgh, for goodness sake, and here we have it on the authority of the Icelandic Prime Minister himself that Iceland is much better off outside the EU. So I do not think that these arguments apply. It has been suggested that the British Government could produce a report on what it would be like if we were outside the EU, and that we should not embark on taking control of our own destiny unless we had such a report, which would by its very nature be speculative and might very well underestimate the opportunities. Thank goodness we did not have this kind of thinking in May 1940.

This United Kingdom has a huge range of relationships and great talent and ability, and it is wrong to suggest that we cannot work with our colleagues in Europe outside the EU. It is not we who are leaving the European Union; it is the European Union that is leaving us. Of course it is. In order to maintain the integrity of the single currency, the euro, which the noble Lord and others would have had us join—what a mess we would be in if we had done that—the EU is having to introduce a more integrated system. Therefore, it is not a matter of whether we are able to have influence and to punch above our weight within this organisation. This organisation is changing; it has to change because countries are so obsessed with maintaining currency union that they are prepared not only to sacrifice the jobs and living standards of young people in the southern European states but to give up their autonomy. We are not prepared to give up our autonomy.

When we joined the EU, we joined the common market, which was a free trade area. That free trade area is being turned into something else. It is being turned into a country with its own currency and the ability to raise taxes and to control its own fiscal issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said that you cannot join a golf club and then not pay your subscription. We did join the golf club—but they want to play tennis now. They want to play a completely different game, which is not what we joined for.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Lord is making a long campaign speech, and I hesitate to interrupt him. I merely remind him that Edward Heath, Harold Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Home and others said as we joined the European Community that it had clear political connotations and that our foreign policy would be affected. I will send him tomorrow the speech by Alec Douglas-Home in 1971.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord may very well be correct that Edward Heath said this and Alec Douglas-Home said this, but most people thought that they were voting to join a common market. Certainly, Scottish fishermen thought that they would keep control of their fish stocks and that their industry would survive, and it has been destroyed—and facts are chiels that winna ding, as they say north of the border. The fact is that what we thought we were joining is not what has come to pass.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Is it not true that Harold Macmillan’s real reason for wanting to join is that he had come to the conclusion that the United Kingdom was ungovernable? That was his reason. However, in the 1971 White Paper issued by Mr Heath, did he not make the assertion that our general sovereignty would not be undermined—or something of that sort—and is it not true that our essential sovereignty is being undermined and has been undermined?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I agree entirely with all the points that the noble Lord has made. In the context of the late Edward Heath—with whom I got on very well personally while not agreeing with many of his views—that is the same Edward Heath who was elected on a Selsdon manifesto but did a U-turn and came to the conclusion that it was not possible to govern our country without the consent of the trade unions. However, a certain Lady Thatcher was elected in 1975 as leader of the Conservative Party on a manifesto which said that Britain is able to govern itself and that it is possible to restore the authority of Parliament. This resulted in her election as Prime Minister in 1979 and all the things that were said to be impossible were turned around. It was her belief in Britain and its ability to stand proud in the world which transformed our economic achievements during the 1980s.

This fatalism, this extraordinary idea that we are trapped in the European Union and that there is nothing we can do to escape it—that we might as well knuckle under and accept that we have got to be a part of it in order to advance what influence we have—is the politics of surrender.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, accuses me of making a campaigning speech. I do not know what he was doing when he wrote his letter to the Sunday Times, signed by other fellow mandarins. I have listened to his amendments and the constant prattling on about Iceland and Norway when they are totally irrelevant to this discussion. Most people in Britain would find it offensive being treated alongside Iceland as an equivalent party. I hope my noble friend will reject this amendment. I do not support it.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, we have been on an extraordinary, lengthy digression which bore not the slightest relationship—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, might like to listen to this as I am referring to his speech—to the amendment we are discussing.

I would like to go back and simply make two points. First, it is not sufficiently recognised that if the electorate were to vote to leave the European Union a decision would have to be taken by the Government—not by the leave campaign—as to what the future relationship they would wish to have should be. The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government what relationship they would envisage in those circumstances. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? I do not think so. Every time that the basic issue about Britain being in or not in the European Union has come up, every government White Paper and document has reviewed the alternatives. That was true in the times of Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath, and it was true in both attempts when Harold Wilson sought to join and when he had a referendum. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Judging from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I have the impression that he would hate what the Government said they would envisage doing if there was a no vote. He would have every right to riddle it through with bullets as he has riddled everything through with bullets this evening. However, surely it is right that the British people, the electorate, should be told what relationship the Government would envisage if they chose to vote to leave. That is a reasonable thing to ask, is it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

These are the figures from the IMF. My understanding is that they refer to the EU. I will check them, but I have not heard the noble Lord’s point made before. We will look at that, but I think these figures make a lot more sense. We will examine that.

Let me talk now about the winning side. How well do we do within the Council? As it happens, an article in today’s Guardian states that,

“the UK voted on the winning side 97.4% of the time in 2004-09 and 86.7% of the time in 2009-15”.

That tells me that this Government are not such good negotiators as the Labour Government were.

We have heard about several models tonight, but I should like to dwell a little on what Article 50 means and on what its implications are. There is a strong likelihood that, were we to vote to leave, we would need transitional measures to cover the period between the notification of the European Council by the UK of its decision to withdraw and the conclusion of the withdrawal treaty that sets out what our future relationship would look like. If that is not concluded within two years, it may be possible to extend it for a short period if both sides so decide. However, if we could not come to a conclusion—and, let us face it, it would be an incredibly complicated negotiation—then we would be out, with no formal relationship whatever. So this is very serious, and we have to understand that we should be discussing it now. We are having the referendum pretty soon and we need some idea of what the alternative might look like.

There a few other things that I should like to touch on. First, we know that the Prime Minister does not like the Norwegian model—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I wonder whether the noble Baroness might comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Rose, said about what would happen. He said:

“Nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five years, probably. There will be absolutely no change. Then, if you look back ten years later, there will have been some change, and if you look back 15 years later there will have been some.

It’s not until you get to 20 years later that there’s probably going to be some movement if we came out which says ‘Please can we come back into Europe again’”.

Would she like to comment on those remarks by the leader of the “stay in” campaign?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

25: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on the outcomes of negotiations between Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union
Not less than four months before the date of the referendum, the Secretary of State shall publish, and lay before each House of Parliament, a report setting out the outcomes of Her Majesty’s Government’s negotiations with the European Union, and any resulting changes in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.”

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I am very conscious that I must not irritate the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, by making a campaigning speech. Having looked at my amendment, Amendment 25, I am at a loss to think how one could turn this into a campaigning speech. It is clearly an amendment that should be acceptable to all noble Lords in the House, including to my noble friend the Minister.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I do not in any way wish to interrupt his flood. I merely wish to tell him that I support his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am now having doubts. I am not surprised that the noble Lord supports the amendment, because it is a very sensible one. All that it does is seek to ensure that when the Prime Minister has finished his negotiations we have some kind of government publication that tells us what they were about, what their outcome was and what the implications would be for our continued membership of the European Union with those changes, if he so recommends, or the alternative.

The amendment is drafted in neutral terms and I hope that my noble friend might be able to accept the principle. I do not think that it is too much to ask. In my noble friend’s Second Reading speech, he hinted as much. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the early part of the summer that there would have to be some sort of paper. There are none of the issues that we have had to discuss earlier this evening arising from the debates that we had on publications of the benefits of being in and out. This is completely straightforward. What did the Prime Minister want? What did he get? What will be the effect on our relationship with the EU and what is the outcome? I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I, too, agree with this amendment. I anticipate that when the negotiations are complete, the Prime Minister will publish a paper and I think it highly likely that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will disagree fundamentally with what the Prime Minister says.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I went to the Public Bill Office and said that I wanted to put down an amendment very similar to this. It would have called for a White Paper, which this amendment does not. When it was pointed out to me that my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment was already tabled, I added my name to it. This smacks very much of Amendment 1, which I put my name to and which was supported very early on by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. The Liberal Democrats supported it, too, and I suspect that the Front Bench of the Labour Party is going to support it. This amendment ties in with everything that the Government have said already. The only worry I have is that my noble friend the Minister may say that the Government have given an undertaking to this and that it does not need to be in the Bill. I have to say that we will all be very reassured if it is.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Before my noble friend sits down, one of the key points is of course the provision:

“Not less than four months before the date of the referendum”.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Yes, indeed, that is a very significant part of it.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we are coming towards the end of a long, thorough and well-considered debate on the issue of public information. As I explained earlier, I agree that the public will expect Ministers to set out the results of the renegotiation, how the relationship with Europe has been changed and if, and how, those changes address their concerns.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment would create a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to publish and lay before both Houses a report on the renegotiation outcome, and any resulting changes in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. He stipulates that this must be done four months before the referendum poll date. I am sympathetic with the aim behind the amendment: to ensure that the British people understand the outcome of the renegotiations. However, because of my earlier comments about deadlines, I do not think my noble friend will be surprised to hear that the four-month period imposed by this amendment between publication of a report and the poll is not necessarily going to be helpful to having a fair and even campaign. As I explained earlier, there could be unnecessary complications with regard to legal challenges if there were a prescriptive date. We need to think very carefully about the most appropriate timeframe for the delivery of public information. I think it would be unwise to commit to an arbitrary deadline at this stage.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not want to introduce any more animals into the debate and would certainly not want to look a gift horse in the mouth. I am most grateful to my noble friend for saying that she is sympathetic. Is her problem with the length of the period? The reason that there is a period in there is so that there is enough time for people to consider the impact of the changes before they cast their vote. It is arbitrary in the sense that it should not be less than four months. It is clearly very important that the White Paper, or whatever you want to call it, should not be published two weeks before polling day, before people have an opportunity to consider its value.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. The important thing, as the Committee has discussed today, is that we are able to have information that it is appropriate and reasonable for the Government to produce, but at a time when it can be considered by those who are to cast their vote.

We need to consider carefully what that timeframe may be, taking into account that the Government will need to ensure that the production of information is done in a reliable, sustainable way. Of course, the Government must not only compile a report but ensure that mechanisms are in place for its widespread distribution. These days, so many of us in this House access reports online, but that is not the only way that information needs to be distributed. I am not saying that I have already made up my mind what the deadline should be. I am saying that we need to consider carefully how there should be an opportunity for information to be produced and presented to the public in time for them to be able to make a decision.

I have listened very carefully to each of the debates, each of which has added something to our consideration. There is clearly an important role for the Government. The public will expect Ministers to set out the results of the negotiation. They will expect the Government to set out how the relationship with Europe is being changed, and if and how those changes address their concerns. That goes to the heart of what my noble friend has just said. The public need to be able to look at that information to answer the question that a voter might ask: what does it mean to me?

As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in June, the Government intend to publish an assessment,

“of the merits of membership and the risks of a lack of reform in the European Union, including the damage that could do to Britain’s interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/15; col 165.]

I have also heard the calls today for an assessment of the implications of a vote to leave the European Union. We will now give careful consideration to what we may be able to bring forward by way of an amendment on Report that would command the support of both Houses. I know that we will continue to discuss this matter with noble Lords who have tabled amendments at this stage. I hope that that is a productive discussion.

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, asked a specific question: would the Government’s commitment be to put something in the Bill? I have been talking about the Government bringing forward an amendment, which means that something would go into the Bill, simply because it would be an amendment.

I urge the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, to withdraw his amendment and to await discussions that I hope will proceed to a constructive conclusion. I am sorry.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

It is very easy to confuse us.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

It must have been a long day for me to confuse the two noble Lords. I offer my humble apologies to my noble friend Lord Forsyth. What a day!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The connection is closer than my noble friend may think. If I look out of my bedroom window, I see Kinlochard. When I arrive in London, I look behind me and I see Kinlochard.

I am most grateful to my noble friend. In the shadow of Halloween, we have had a pretty scary debate listening to some of the speeches about the awful things that will befall us if we leave the European Union. It is very pleasurable that we can conclude our discussions on such a positive note, for which I am very grateful to my noble friend. We look forward to seeing the amendment that will be tabled on Report and being able to sleep soundly in our beds, knowing that the Government will address at least this issue in respect of the Bill. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting and constructive debate.

I will just comment on the “ever closer union” issue, having first studied how the European Union treaties were negotiated as a graduate student. Originally in the treaty it was,

“ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”,

because those who had come through the war, often spending the war in London while their states were occupied, wanted to go beyond the nation state. They left the nation states out because Belgium had failed under occupation, as had France, Germany and Italy. The reinsertion of “states” into “ever closer union” was a later recognition that actually you needed to retain the nation state. It was a shift back, away from the original emotional, enthusiastic, idealistic federalism of those who came through the resistance and the war to a recognition that legitimacy depends on states as well and that there are limits as to how far one can go beyond the state. So while we are looking at the history of the evolution of all of this, that is part of this very wonderful phrase “ever closer union”, which means so many different things to so many different people. That is why it is an ideal phrase; we can interpret it in so many different ways and perhaps we should not get quite so hung up on it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. It is a very interesting theory about this development of the “ever closer union”. Why did the original draft of the Maastricht treaty, before it was amended at the request of John Major, talk about “towards a federal union”?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

It is not a theory; I am actually giving the noble Lord some history. I have great admiration for him and his wonderful interventions —he is the best Commons debater in the Lords, I have to say. There were those of the original generation who really did want to build a United States of Europe and they followed the American lead in this. After the war, the Americans had wanted to press on Europe the idea that the Europeans should follow the American lead and build our own United States on their model, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has hinted. All of us resisted American pressure because we did not want to go anywhere near that degree of integration.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

NATO.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Lord intervenes on NATO. If you go to Washington now, you will discover that they think that NATO is a European organisation, and they argue very strongly that NATO and the European Union should work more closely together, because they see them as parts of the same outfit. There is not a sharp difference between the EU and NATO, and the overwhelming majority of members of NATO are also members of the EU. It is not a contradiction. The two go together; they complement each other.

The argument has also been made throughout this debate that the EU has changed beyond all recognition since 1975. That is partly because of British initiatives and efforts: Margaret Thatcher’s initiative on the single market; national deregulation and European reregulation, which of course meant different regulations as we negotiated some of them, but not an overall increase in regulation; and eastern enlargement, which Margaret Thatcher pushed for, with the unintended effect that of course when Poland came in, as she wanted it to, a large number of Poles decided that they wanted to move here, which was one of the interesting unintended consequences.

The world has also changed enormously since 1975. We are in a different global economy; the national companies that used to exist have become multinational; we have integrated production models in which every Airbus sold by the French has over 30% of British parts in it, and every car built in Britain and Germany has parts from other countries throughout Europe; and similarly, we have cross-border financial services, legal services and the like.

Britain has also changed. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, powerfully, “We want our independence back”. I would like to have back our regional economies. I spent much of my life in the north of England; in Yorkshire you used to have textile mills and building societies. He is from the north-east; we had ICI and Northern Rock. He will remember Northern Rock—it was quite a good building society in his time and did quite a lot for the regional economy. However, these things have all changed. Now Nissan keeps the north-eastern economy going, and I much regret that we no longer have regional banks. The bank that my father used to work for, Barclays, which used to do a lot of useful regional investment, has just chosen an American investment banker as its chief executive. That is rather different from the sort of national economy in which I grew up.

Therefore, we all have to adjust to a global world in which independence and sovereignty have gone. After all, sovereignty goes most easily with protection. Free trade requires international co-operation. Globalisation means global regulation, or regulation by the world’s leading economy, which so far, of course, has been the United States. If we wish to co-operate with others in managing a global economy, we should surely start by co-operating most closely with our neighbours, and if we cannot do that, we should not hold to the illusion that we would find the Chinese, the Russians, the Saudis and the Indians easier partners than the French or the Germans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I always respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Indeed, this is the first time that a country is facing the opportunity to vote to leave the European Union, but it is my understanding, from colleagues across Europe, that they certainly viewed the referendums held there as being of great seriousness for the future of their countries.

I have been asked specific questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked how many British citizens live abroad. There are a number of different estimates, but in 2013 the United Nations estimated that there were 5.2 million British-born migrants abroad, of whom 1.3 million were in other EU member states. There are, however, no figures distinguishing how many have been away for longer than 15 years. I know from visiting our embassies overseas that when British citizens travel or settle, they do not usually let the embassy know—so we do not have the opportunity to gather that information.

Noble Lords asked about removing the 15-year rule for overseas voters. We are committed to doing so; it was in our manifesto; and we are keeping the promises in our manifesto. A Bill will be brought forward, but it will be a Bill to consider the matter of franchise and not something to be rushed through in time for any particular piece of legislation in this Session.

I was also asked about an anomaly by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who commented that Peers overseas can vote if they have been there for more than 15 years and others cannot. What I can say to her is that Peers are in the same position as anybody else. If they are resident overseas and have been for more than 15 years, they are subject to the same 15-year rule, just like any other British citizens resident overseas.

There was very strong debate on public information, with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Jay, Lord Tugendhat, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Cavendish of Furness, and many others very properly saying that it was important that the public should be able to make their decision based on reliable information. It is difficult to know how individuals determine what they believe to be reliable information, but that is something we will have to consider. I listened very carefully indeed to every noble Lord who made points about the publication of material, whether it was by government, whether it was government to commission work from the OBR, whether it was government to provide some statistics that would be in some way scientific and independent, or whether it was a White Paper. I would like to consider further exactly what that material might look like and what kind of information could be produced that is proper and helpful, and noble Lords have a strong role to play in those discussions.

Clearly, there is a role for the Government in all that. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, proposed that there should be a White Paper on the matter of leaving the European Union. Whatever information is produced by the Government should also say very strongly what the implications are of staying in the European Union, because it is a matter of inviting people to make a decision between remaining and leaving. Therefore, the Government’s duty is to look at both those matters.

The Bill is all about putting the question to the British people. It does not make provision about what happens next. I was asked whether the result would be legally binding. Clearly, at the moment, it is not sensible for us to guess about the best way to implement the result, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, this would be the first time that a member state had had the opportunity to vote to leave. If we got to the position where the country decided that it wished to leave, we would then get into the newer territory of working through those procedures.

Perhaps I may deal first with whether the result would be legally binding. I was asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London whether the Government would respect the result of the referendum. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we will respect the result of the referendum even though it is not legally binding. In March 2010, the Constitution Committee of this House considered referendums in the UK and concluded that, because of the sovereignty of Parliament, they could not be truly legally binding—my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth was on the Constitution Committee, so I know that he will appreciate the details of that.

With regard to the process of leaving, I was asked about the Article 50 process by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, I believe. She nods her assent. The Prime Minister, of course, is focused on success, as I mentioned earlier, so we are not going to speculate on might what might happen if there is a vote to leave the European Union. In general terms, and I have certainly had advice on this before from my noble friend Lord Bowness, Article 50 provides a mechanism for states to withdraw from the EU. Once a member state has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw, it would have to negotiate its future relationship with the EU. This is agreed by a qualified majority of the member states, with the consent of the European Parliament. Article 50 gives a limit of two years for these negotiations, which can be extended with unanimous agreement before the treaties cease to apply.

While I am dealing with individual questions, I will refer to one from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who asked about the implications of the lobbying Act. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act does not prevent companies setting out their views on EU membership. That Act amended the rules for third parties campaigning in elections; it did not amend the rules for campaigning in referendums. The Bill applies Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which sets out the rules for campaigning at referendums. These rules do not prevent companies making their views known to workforces and customers.

On campaigning itself, the campaign rules were considered in another place. It has been such a long time since PPERA was passed in 2000 that the House of Commons agreed to uprate the spending figures in line with inflation. Fact sheets are available with information on that. Noble Lords rightly concentrated their fire on the whole issue of Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. This concerns restrictions placed on publicly funded bodies and individuals on publishing certain material in relation to the referendum in the final 28 days of the campaign. The restrictions of this section will apply in full following an amendment made on Report in the other place. The power to which noble Lords referred to set out in regulations any exemptions to those rules was also added to the Bill at the same stage. Clause 6, which stands in the Bill before us, was passed without vote in the other place. There was no dissent. It is only proper that any regulations made using this clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses.

To my noble friend Lord Lamont and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I can say that Section 125 places a restriction on publishing material that deals with,

“any of the issues raised by”,

the referendum question. Publication means to make something available to,

“any section of the public, in whatever form”.

We are now taking stock, as I mentioned earlier, reviewing the implications of living with Section 125 in full and determining whether that is possible or whether we will need to use the power to make regulations.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I was about to come to my noble friend’s questions.

I now come to the questions posed by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Ridley. I was asked about the Government’s commitment to four months’ notice of a campaign that would last for 10 weeks. It was suggested that this should be in the Bill. The four months’ notice applies only when regulations are made under Clause 6. There must then be at least four months between the making of these regulations and the referendum date. We believe it would be wrong to set the referendum period now, while the date of the referendum is itself undecided. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill provides a power for Ministers to set the referendum period in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the Government have indicated that we do not intend to set a referendum period any shorter than the 10 weeks provided for in the PPERA.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth said that he believed Section 125 does not apply to Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Government. Section 125 applies to,

“any other person or body whose expenses are defrayed wholly or mainly out of public funds or by any local authority”.

So, yes, it does indeed apply to the Scottish Government. The activities of the Scottish Government are funded entirely from the Scottish Consolidated Fund.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for that helpful piece of information. Can she just tell me how long it will take her to take stock? I am trying to be helpful but there is a degree of suspicion that perhaps the Government might be tempted to water down the position on purdah. I really do not understand why the Government cannot take stock and produce regulations while we are considering the Bill, so that the House has an opportunity to discuss it. What exactly is the problem? Is it the shortage of manpower in the Foreign Office? What is the difficulty that prevents the Government saying what these regulations should be?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, if it were an easy matter we would have resolved it by now. It is a matter whereby, to ensure that we properly bring forward regulations—if we do at all—before this House, we take full legal advice and take into account all the ramifications of government business. On the position of Members of another place and ourselves, if we are speaking outside parliamentary privilege and all related matters, this is not a matter to be resolved in a way that this House would find unsatisfactory. We are taking care. The debate today and further debates will feed into those decisions. That is the important matter. Noble Lords have that voice, and I know I will listen to it.

My noble friend Lord Ridley referred to John Penrose giving a commitment to a 16-week referendum period which should be on the face of the Bill. All I would say is that my honourable friend John Penrose made it clear that we do not intend to set a referendum period any shorter than the 10 weeks provided for by PPERA and the 16-week—or four-month—period is already in the Bill. If my noble friend has a moment later to look at Clause 6(6), he will see that the provision is there. I have been rescued—I have been giving away too many copies of my Bill; clearly it is too popular a document. Subsection (6) states:

“Any regulations under subsection (2) must be made not less than four months before the date of the referendum”.

I am very grateful for the care, attention and energy displayed by noble Lords today. It is a privilege to stand here and bring forward this Bill for your Lordships’ attention. What we are doing is so important, as many noble Lords have said. It is a chance in a lifetime to give the British people their say on whether the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union or leaves it. I look forward to the vigorous debates to come. I believe that today we have set this Bill on the road to giving the British people the chance to make their decision. I commend the Bill to the House.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, I am privileged to open Second Reading of the EU Referendum Bill. The Bill will enable the Government to deliver our manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union before the end of 2017.

That commitment was rooted in our desire to give the British people the final say on an issue that goes to the heart of the governance of this country—an issue on which we have not directly consulted the people for more than 40 years. Since 1975, the United Kingdom has held referendums on devolution, as well as on our voting system, and in the long years since that vote in 1975, the UK’s relationship with the European Union has changed beyond all recognition. Whether noble Lords believe that this change has been for good or ill, or somewhere inbetween, it is right that the people now get to have their say.

Voters in other member states have had their opportunity. Their Governments have continued to ask for their consent. Indeed, in the past four decades, there have been more than 30 referendums on the EU right across Europe—Ireland alone has had eight—but not one has been held here, to give the British people their say, since 1975.

Of course, the referendum does not stand in isolation. This Government are committed to negotiating a new settlement for the United Kingdom in Europe: a settlement that ensures that the European Union is able to meet the challenges of the 21st century; above all, a settlement that addresses people’s concerns about the European project.

The negotiation will be difficult. There will be noise and possibly setbacks along the way, but the Government are confident that we can negotiate a new deal to put to the British people at the referendum.

I will now briefly set out the provisions of the Bill. The EU Referendum Bill does what it says on the tin. It will enable a robust and fair referendum to take place and, crucially, it will enable a referendum that is also seen to be fair.

The Bill is simply about the mechanics of the referendum, and is based on existing electoral law: particularly the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It sets the end of 2017 as the deadline to hold the referendum. It also rules out 5 May 2016 and 4 May 2017, when local and devolved elections are taking place across the country, as referendum dates. Otherwise, the Bill is silent on timing. As the Prime Minister has made clear, progress on the renegotiation will determine the date of the referendum. Ultimately, Parliament will decide whether to approve the date suggested by the Government. The date will be set by statutory instrument and subject to the affirmative procedure.

The Bill also sets out who is entitled to vote. This is a vote about the future of the United Kingdom in Europe, so it is right that we use the Westminster franchise as our starting point for this referendum, which is of vital importance to this nation’s future. This means that British citizens in the UK, British citizens who have been abroad for less than 15 years and resident Commonwealth and Irish citizens will have a vote. Noble Lords will already be aware that we have added Members of this House to the franchise, in line with our normal practice for referendums.

I am aware of the strong feelings of some noble Lords about extending the franchise. I have heard calls for the enfranchisement of 16 and 17 year-olds. The Government remain firmly convinced that the Westminster franchise should remain the basis for this referendum. Including 16 and 17 year-olds would be a major constitutional change. We do not believe that this Bill, or any other Bill not directly addressing the franchise in general, should be the vehicle for doing this. Any such change should enjoy the support of Parliament and the country as a whole, after a full and proper debate.

I have also heard calls to extend the franchise to EU citizens resident in the UK. The Government recognise the strength of that feeling. Many EU citizens have made the UK their home and have made significant contributions to life in this country. No one would wish to deny that. However, this is a vote about the future of the United Kingdom in Europe so it is right that we use the Westminster franchise as the basis. Using a franchise that does not include other EU nationals is entirely consistent with the practice in other EU member states and with the EU treaties themselves. I suspect that many of the British public would view the inclusion of EU citizens as a crude attempt to fix the result.

In addition, many noble Lords will be aware of the Government’s manifesto commitment to extend the franchise to British citizens resident overseas for more than 15 years. The Government will bring forward a Bill separately to amend the Westminster franchise to enable this, on which noble Lords will be able to engage in due course.

Finally, we have added British, Commonwealth and Irish citizens in Gibraltar. The Government believe it is right that Gibraltar should take part. Broadly speaking, the EU treaties apply to Gibraltar, and Gibraltar votes as part of the South West England region of the UK in European parliamentary elections.

The general election franchise is the right basis for such a crucial referendum, with the modest additions of Commonwealth and Irish citizens in Gibraltar and Members of this House. I am sure that noble Lords will have followed this debate in the House of Commons. Various proposals were made to expand the franchise, including lowering the voting age and adding EU citizens, each of which was firmly rejected. Nevertheless, as always, I look forward to listening to the views of noble Lords on these important issues, both inside and outside the Chamber, in the coming weeks.

I will say a little more about the addition of Gibraltar. The Government have remained in close contact with Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar throughout this process. I know that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and the Minister for Europe are all very grateful to the honourable Fabian Picardo MP and his Government for their engagement. Wherever possible, the Bill leaves it to the Gibraltar legislature to make provision to implement the referendum in Gibraltar. As a result, Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar intend to introduce their own referendum Bill in the Gibraltar Parliament, which will be complementary to the UK legislation. I know that Gibraltar’s inclusion in a referendum was an important point for Members of both Houses during consideration of the Private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Dobbs, who sponsored that Bill in difficult circumstances.

As well as the franchise, the Bill sets out the question to be asked at the referendum. The Electoral Commission carried out detailed research and consultation over the summer. It concluded that the question should be amended to ensure the maximum level of neutrality. The Government brought forward an amendment on Report in the Commons to reflect this recommendation. The question is now settled as: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”. Voters will be able to mark one of two options: “Remain a member of the European Union” or “Leave the European Union”. This departure from a yes/no answer is novel but the Government agree that the change will strengthen the perception that the neutrality of the referendum is beyond doubt.

The Bill also deals with electoral administration rules. Clause 3 and Schedule 3 to the Bill set out the overarching framework for the conduct of the EU referendum, and provide for the appointment of the chief counting officer, regional counting officers and counting officers for the administration of the poll. The framework follows that used for the conduct of the parliamentary voting system referendum in May 2011. The Government have also prepared draft regulations which will eventually be made under powers in the Bill and which will supplement the provisions in Clause 3 and Schedule 3. We published that draft by way of Written Ministerial Statement in this House and the other place in July and we consulted over the summer. We are now taking account of comments from the Electoral Commission and others to produce final draft regulations, which will be subject to Parliament’s approval before being made. This early action will give electoral administrators across the United Kingdom and Gibraltar the certainty they need to begin their preparations.

The Bill also provides for the crucial campaign rules, using the established and well understood framework set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. To that, we have added best practice from the alternative vote and Scottish independence referendums in a range of technical areas as set out in Schedules 1 and 2. Taken together, these will ensure a fair and transparent campaign. I am sure that noble Lords will not have failed to notice that the main focus of Committee and Report in the other place was Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Section 125 concerns restrictions placed on government and public bodies on publishing certain material in relation to the referendum in the final 28 days of the campaign. The other place voted to reapply the Section 125 restrictions in full and to create a power to make exceptions to these restrictions through regulations. As is proper, any regulations made under this new clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. The Government are also bound to consult the Electoral Commission and any regulations must be made at least four months before the referendum date.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Would it be possible for my noble friend to publish those regulations before we consider the later stages of this Bill? Clearly, the Government could by regulation, for instance, reinstate the provisions that abolished purdah. To ensure that we have a proper debate on this, why can the Government not let us know now what these regulations in draft form would contain?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, naturally we will discuss these matters further so I will say briefly, since this is the opening speech, that I have already given an undertaking to cross-party meetings in this House. The Government are not seeking to overturn the vote which they lost in another place. We will keep to that undertaking. On publishing the regulations, we are taking consideration about precisely what the risk will be of coming forward with regulations, with regard not to parliamentary procedure but to whether they would properly reflect the risk to the Government of acting or not acting on, for example, European business. If my noble friend will forgive me, we are at the stage where we are looking very carefully at a decision in another place. I feel sure I will be able to respond in more detail at a later date.

I deeply appreciate the concern felt by noble Lords on all sides of the House on this matter. I was about to say that if the Government propose any exceptions, we will of course be mindful that there will be two designated campaigns leading the debate and that it will be for those campaigns to take the lead, as Ministers have made clear from the start. It is worth dwelling on that point. It is absolutely right that the designated campaigns lead the debate over whether to remain a member of, or leave, the European Union. This is established practice in the United Kingdom, and forms a key plank of the Council of Europe’s best practice guidance on referendums. The campaigns will no doubt put forward their arguments with gusto, and there will be competing claims about the benefits or otherwise of a particular decision. The campaigns will assume primary responsibility for engaging the people of this country and ensuring that they are furnished with enough information to make an informed decision. Clearly, that is the right approach—but, also clearly, there is a role for government. The public will expect Ministers to set out the results of the renegotiation, how the relationship with Europe has been changed and if, and how, those changes address their concerns. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in June, I am sure that the Government will publish an assessment of the merits of membership and the risks of a lack of reform in the European Union, including the damage that that could do to Britain’s interests.

I have no doubt that, once the Prime Minister has announced the results of the renegotiation, there will be a lively and robust debate both in Parliament and in the media, as there should be. I know that this is a particularly important point for noble Lords. Indeed, a number of parliamentary inquiries, in the other place and here, have been launched into the renegotiation, including by the highly influential European Union Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Boswell. He is now, of course, independent, but he will always be a friend. The Government will continue to engage with them actively.

The Government have a clear mandate to hold a referendum on the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union. The EU referendum Bill will enable that to take place before the end of 2017. The Bill takes the best examples of good practice from previous referendums in the United Kingdom, and sets out rules on who can vote, and how they vote, which are reasonable and robust. It ensures a fair campaign so that the deck is not stacked in favour of one outcome or the other. This Bill sets the stage for one of the biggest decisions that the people of these islands have been asked to make in a generation. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is with some regret that I stand here opening for the Liberal Democrat Benches this morning as my noble friend Lady Ludford is not able to be with us for personal reasons. We send her and her husband good wishes.

It is also somewhat with regret that I participate in this debate at all. The Minister said she was delighted to open this debate bringing forward the Government’s proposals to hold a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union. As a committed pro-European who joined a pro-European party more than 30 years ago, and believed that the question of Britain’s membership of the European Union had been resolved while I was still a child, it is somewhat demoralising to think that the question is being reopened, and that somehow a major constitutional issue which should have been resolved in 1975 is back on the drawing board.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Am I wrong in thinking that at the election before last the Liberals had a manifesto commitment to give Britain an in/out referendum? What is the noble Baroness talking about?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I noticed that in her opening remarks on behalf of the Liberal party, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said that we could be Norway or Switzerland. I say to the noble Lord, let us just be Britain and make a success of Britain in a global marketplace.

I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing forward the Bill, which gives the British people the opportunity to decide this question, which has been denied them by the parties opposite for far too long. Her timing is particularly brilliant, for, had she lived, this would have been Baroness Thatcher’s 90th birthday. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Hunt, whom I served as a Minister of State—he was one of the best Secretaries of State I worked for, if not the best; I learned a great deal from him—that I do not think that had Lady Thatcher been here today he would have gone in for the selective quotation that he did in his speech. I am not quite sure how she would have reacted to being described by—what are they called? The BSE campaign, an odd choice of name—Britain Stronger in Europe as a quitter. I am not sure that Margaret Thatcher ever was a quitter.

On the subject of quitters, when the campaign was launched yesterday a number of Members of this House were present—my noble friends Lord Rose and Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—decrying the quitters. Well, they seem to have quit the field today because they are not here to make their case, which is absolutely extraordinary. The noble Lord, Lord Rose, talked about leaving the community being,

“a leap in the dark”.

He certainly knows about big leaps because he has leapt from being involved in Business for Britain to being involved in business for Brussels. A rose by any other name does not smell as sweet in this case.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

But it was nice to see Mr Blair and Mr Brown united on something, was it not? Of course, we all owe Mr Brown a great debt because if Mr Blair and most of the other people who are involved in this campaign to keep us in the Union had had their way, we would be in the euro, our economy would be on its back and millions of people would be unemployed. The euro has proved to be the engine of destruction of the jobs of young people throughout Europe. The extraordinary thing is that it took until last week for the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, to finally admit that he was wrong about the euro, while defending it in the face of all the tragic evidence before us of what a disaster that has been—a disaster because it is a project that has been driven by political expediency rather than the needs of the European peoples.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

Just to have the record straight, it was Gordon Brown who kept us out of the euro.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

That is exactly what I said. The noble Lord will be speaking later in the debate and I urge him to listen to some of these arguments in the hope that he may be converted as a result.

Of course, the other person who was there on display was Danny Alexander. I am told on good authority—I have read it in the newspapers—that Mr Brown and Mr Blair, and indeed John Major and Danny Alexander, have been offered places in this House and have turned them down. Instead, they prefer to argue outside Parliament. Is that because they realise what all of us in this House realise, that Parliament is becoming increasingly marginalised and what we decide here does not matter because it is done by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels? That is the most important point that my noble friend Lord Lawson made. This is an argument about accountability, the authority of Parliament and Britons’ ability to take decisions for themselves.

I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Lawson about the scare stories that came out around the time of joining the single currency. Do your Lordships remember? Frankfurt was going to become the financial centre of Europe if we did not join the single currency. My noble friend Lord Tugendhat talked about the Scottish referendum. In the Scottish referendum we started off with only 28% in favour of independence. We ended up with 45% being in favour of independence because we stupidly ran a campaign in which we told the Scots that they were too small, too wee and too poor to be able to be independent. We threatened them with scare stories. Far be it from me to give advice to those who wish to stay in Europe but if they campaign in this way they will drive people into the other camp. British people are not going to be told that they are too little and too lacking in enterprise and ability to be able to make their way in a global world, where they see a European Union which cannot even manage its own borders, let alone its own money.

Very disappointingly for those who wish us to stay in the European Union, we heard that the Labour Party was unanimous—it is amazing it is unanimous on anything—at its party conference on the idea that it would vote to stay in regardless of the negotiations. We heard the same from the Liberal Back Benches. What kind of negotiation is it that you go into battle waving a white flag? It is extraordinary that they should say, “Whatever you agree to, we are going to vote for it”. I have never heard such nonsense.

Turning to the Bill, my noble friend very kindly agreed that she had given an undertaking in cross-party meetings throughout the House. Might I suggest that those undertakings given by her and Ministers in the other place should be put in the Bill so that there is no doubt whatever about the Government’s commitment? I look forward to hearing the arguments against that in Committee. One of the most important was that we would have four months’ notice of a campaign which would last 10 weeks. I also urge my noble friend to consider producing a White Paper setting out the results of this negotiation, whatever it is about. I know that the ever closer union features in it. I voted for the Maastricht treaty—none of us is perfect. One thing that persuaded me to vote for it was that John Major was able to change the terms and get us various opt-outs, substituting “ever closer union” for “federal union”. So those words were put into the treaty by us to mitigate it, and we are now told that getting those words out of the treaty will somehow deliver a new paradise. It is nonsense.

Clause 6 effectively gives the Government the power by regulation to reinstate purdah; it enables them by regulation to change the rules regarding purdah, which could get us back to a situation where purdah did not apply. In the Bill as it stands, purdah does not apply to Scotland or the European Union. So are we going to have Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond campaigning, using public money in Scotland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom? That loophole needs to be dealt with, as does the loophole that purdah applies only to publications and not to government advice.

Finally, on the subject of Scotland, can we scotch the myth that if Britain votes to leave the European Union, somehow the United Kingdom will dissolve? All the evidence is that the Scots follow the English on this matter. If Britain votes to leave the European Union, Scotland will. Those who say that it will precipitate a referendum should look at what Nicola Sturgeon is saying this very week—that a referendum on Scotland’s independence is inevitable. Once it was “once in a generation”, and then “if there is a change of circumstances”; it is now, “it is inevitable”—and it is inevitable, she says, when she thinks that she can win it. So let us leave Scotland and the United Kingdom out of this and as a United Kingdom work together for Britain’s interests, which do not lie in remaining in this failed state that is the European Union.

EU: Free Movement of Labour

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the Prime Minister was certainly not isolated when he met Prime Ministers at the Northern Future Forum. There was a strong and constructive discussion over dinner about many subjects, with migration clearly being an important one. Although it was a private meeting, the result was that when those present met the next day for their press conference, the Prime Minister was able to say in front of them and with their agreement that:

“I think there was common ground on a number of points”.

Some “problems and issues” had been identified in relation to welfare and benefits but,

“all of the countries around the table last night said that was something that should be looked at”.

He was supported in that by the Finnish Prime Minister, Mr Alexander Stubb, who thanked us for opening our borders in 2004, but also said that we should see what we could all do about the situation to try to alleviate it. In arguing for the interests of this country, the Prime Minister can find those of a like mind who see that a strong Europe addresses the problems that all states are facing. That is because it is to the benefit of all the states of Europe to ensure that we have a system of migration which is not an unqualified right, but is founded in the right to work, contribute to the economy and assimilate into society.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Prime Minister, in seeking to ensure that we have control of our own borders, is not seeking to appease UKIP but is reflecting the views of the vast majority of people in this country? The failure of the Liberals to understand that may explain why their support is evaporating.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My noble friend is always worth listening to.

Berlin Wall

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, of course I celebrate and commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall. It demonstrated a remarkably peaceful revolution and change. I felt that I was part of that as I was active in the politics of the time, working with some of the German political parties. Peace takes more than one country and more than one organisation. We reflect upon the work done by our country over the years, not just in conjunction with the countries across Europe but with NATO and our allies around the Commonwealth: with all of them we should strive to maintain peace.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is thanks to the efforts of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in facing down CND and deploying cruise missiles that the peoples of eastern Europe were freed from the yoke of communism?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My noble friend is right.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

As some commentators have noted, I have tabled one or two amendments, and one or two are included in the first grouping. However, I say first of all that, like the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, I intend to be brief. This Bill is a disgrace; it is not fit for purpose. A senior official of the Law Society of Scotland told me that he had never seen such a badly drafted Bill. It has been hastily got together, and it shows. For example, it has none of the schedules necessary for such a major constitutional Bill. That is why it is only three pages long. We have been accused of having tabled lots of amendments for what is only a three-page Bill, but a normal constitutional Bill would have schedules outlining how the referendum would be conducted and the rules of the referendum. None of that is included in this Bill. It is a government Bill trying to patch over divisions in the Tory party and trying to outflank the UK Independence Party—which deserves to be outflanked, by the way.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

If the Bill is so bad and such a shambles, why did not the noble Lord’s colleagues in the House of Commons vote it down?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Presumably they thought that there was a greater intellect here to be able to examine it in more detail, with such people as the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong and Lord Kerr, and a whole range of people like that. I am sure that they will welcome all the suggestions from this House, as well as the wisdom that we are about to receive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grenfell]

I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord but I was quoting directly from Hansard. That is exactly what he said:

“Let us say that this Bill is imperfect and has got here by a most peculiar route”.—[Official Report, 10/1/14; col. 1808.]

It could not be clearer. In whatever context you wish to put that, it is pretty plain language. It is the sort of language one is used to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. In this case, I do not quite understand his response.

Finally, in support of these amendments, please let us scrutinise this Bill properly. We have a right and a duty to do so. We must not just wave it through, as some would have us do, because that is not what our function is here. This first group of amendments is a very good test for this House. What we are proposing is not party political—it could not be further from party politics. These amendments seek to bring clarity to the people when they have a referendum. I repeat, let us not hear more, please, from the opposite Benches saying that, on our side, this is all a conspiracy to prevent the British people having a referendum. It is not.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, it strikes me as quite extraordinary, following up on the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, where he talked to us about the verb “to be”; the question here is, “To be or not to be” because if this Bill is amended or talked out there will not be a referendum. If the Bill is amended it is going to go back to the House of Commons and it is going to run out of time. Let us be clear what is going on here. All this self-righteous talk about how we have a duty to consider this Bill—

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I will give way to the noble Lord in a moment. The consequence of all this self-righteous talk about how we have a duty to consider this Bill properly will be that the British people will not be guaranteed a say before 2017 on whether they wish to be members of the European Union.

It seems it was not five minutes ago that this House was subject to an attack with it being suggested that we become an elected House. We fought off that battle on the basis that the other place was supreme; that the will of the other House should always be carried forward. The clearly expressed will of the other House was that this Bill should reach the statute book, otherwise it would not have come here. This House has to recognise that of course we have powers and duties—we could exercise our powers and duties in ways that frustrate lots of Bills—but in the end we look down the Corridor and we look at what the intention of the House of Commons was. It may be that this Bill came to this House because the parties opposite did not have the courage to kill it there but the fact is that it has been passed by the House of Commons and the noble Lord, in criticising us for not speaking and for trying to speed its passage, is making the case for frustrating the will of the House of Commons. Even worse, he is denying the British people the opportunity to be sure at the next election that, whatever happens, there will be provision on the statute book for them to have their say on the most important question facing our country’s future.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, if the noble Lord is claiming that if we passed amendments there would never be a referendum for the British people on the EU, are we changing the whole concept of parliamentary democracy? Are we saying that no Government could ever introduce a Bill for a referendum? No. It is untrue. We are saying that this Bill is a wretched Bill. It is not the proper basis on which to have a referendum. That is all we are saying. It must be changed.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord knows perfectly well that we are not having an academic discussion here about whether the British people will have a referendum. What is being considered here is a Bill which—if it is passed unamended by this House and reflects the will of the House of Commons—will result in a referendum. The noble Lord’s views on Europe are perfectly clear and it is no good trying to pretend that the consequences of our actions, if we amend or delay this Bill, will be to deny the people a guarantee that they will get a referendum at the next election. I think that will have very damaging consequences for this House. People will say, “What on earth are these unelected people doing preventing us having our say?”. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendment—after all I made exactly the same case on the Scottish referendum—but I am not going to vote for it because I do not think that as an unelected Peer I have the right to prevent the House of Commons delivering to the British people the opportunity to have their say in a referendum.

[Lord Radice (Lab)]

All the noble Lord is saying would be true but this Bill refers to a referendum in 2017. It is not talking about a referendum in this Parliament. As we know—and the noble Lord knows—we cannot bind our successors. What the noble Lord is saying does not actually apply.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

If the noble Lord read the Bill—it is not a very complicated one—he would find that it says that the referendum must be held before 31 December 2017 and if the House of Commons had thought that it was not appropriate to set a date for a referendum after the date of the general election then it would have voted the Bill down.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am not going to give way again—I intended to interrupt only briefly. The noble Lord was long enough in the other place to understand what is happening here. Liberal and Labour Party supporters do not have the guts to face up to the British people and say, “We want to stop you having a referendum,” and therefore they have dumped this here. Members opposite who vote for amendments—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, we have had 40 minutes on this. It is an important amendment. I respectfully say to the House that it would be helpful to hear speeches on the amendment and then have a vote.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I entirely acknowledge what the noble and learned Baroness says but, of course, if noble Lords vote to amend the Bill they should recognise that they are denying the British people their say in a referendum.

[Lord Giddens (Lab)]

My Lords, I follow up on the comment that the noble and learned Baroness has just made. I speak in this debate as an academic more than as a Labour Party member. If the UK were to leave the European Union, it would be a really wrenching process of readjustment. When a country is contemplating such a profound and consequential decision, it is crucial that the question chosen in the referendum should be as clear and impartial as possible. For that reason I think we should have some academic discussion of it, because, as has been said, questions are crucial in a referendum.

The report of the Electoral Commission is sound, sensible and well researched. For maximum clarity it makes absolute sense to have the formula proposed in this amendment, which is endorsed by the commission. Contrary to all kinds of political babble, I would hope that most Members of the House will support the amendment because it is in the interests of the country. It is not a party-political issue. It is in the interests of the country, if we have a referendum on a decision crucial to the future of the country, that the question asked is impartial and proper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I do not know whether that is an intervention. The trouble with that is that this is not a government Bill. We are in a situation of coalition and the other party in the coalition does not want this, so there is no question of the Government being able to arrange matters in the House of Commons. I defer, of course, to the noble Baroness’s knowledge of the procedure.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Before my noble and learned friend sits down, it is very important that we clear this up. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, is absolutely right. The problem here is that the Government cannot do that because the Liberals are refusing to allow government time. So it is the case that if the Bill is amended, it will be lost.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, the issue immediately before the House is very direct and very simple. It is a choice between the version of wording for the referendum preferred by the Electoral Commission or the one that is contained in the draft. Even if the Electoral Commission had in no way opined on this matter, I would urge the House to accept the version that is in the amendment, for two reasons.

First, it is founded on a factual matrix; in other words, the fact of our current membership of the European Union. Secondly, it shows clearly and concisely what the effect of a negative vote would be. Nothing could be fairer and I suspect that almost any intelligent schoolboy or schoolgirl in this land would say, “Yes, that version is preferable in so far as it is more likely to lead to a clear, understandable and final result in this matter”.

In addition, of course, there is the question of parentage. It comes from the Electoral Commission. It therefore has a quasi-judicial status—I appreciate that one is extending that somewhat but it is a neutral status of high standing. That, I think, makes it all the more obvious that not only would justice be done but would be manifestly seen to be done.

Turning for a moment to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, there is no such animal in the constitutional field as an unamendable Bill so far as this House is concerned. There can be no question at all about that. The argument that is put forward is this: were the House of Lords to intervene, it would do so at its peril. Some persons use that in a blackmailing way—I absolve completely the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, from such an argument, but certain persons put it forward in terrorem. Whether it be in terrorem or as a completely neutral commentary on the situation, of the two circumstances, I would rather belong to a House that risks its own end by doing that which is right and proper than to run away from what is a clear responsibility and right in this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a vital issue and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and others for introducing the amendment. So that there is no doubt about it, let me start by saying that I fully support the amendment. I think it would produce a question that is far fairer. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, described it, it would produce a level playing field. That is extremely important, given the significance of the decision that we are being asked to take.

I received a letter from a sixth-former complaining about the speech that I made at Second Reading. She said that there was no point in us rehearsing the different arguments for and against the European Union, as that was something that would come out in a referendum, and that the real issue, as some noble Lords have characterised it on Second Reading and today, is about democracy itself, the chance for the people to have their say. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, made the point at the very beginning that his amendment would have no impact on that democratic intention.

The fact that we need to address, if I may say so, is what we really mean by “democracy”. It is not just a word, it is a process which we intend to serve—a better and higher purpose than any autocracy could achieve. It is about how we do things to get a result; it is a process that should lead to a decision. That requires clarity on the issue to be decided. The issue should be capable of being decided beyond doubt and beyond ambiguity, and this decision is a very profound one, so we had better make sure that when the country is invited to take the decision, it can get it right.

I do not believe that there is ever a Bill that is so unimpeachable that it cannot or should not be changed. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made the same point a few moments ago. It is not an appeal to democracy to say that we should not try to change the Bill; indeed, I think that that would be a rather disrespectful silence, as far as the people of the United Kingdom are concerned. The role of this House, as several noble Lords have said, is not to embrace expediency in these circumstances but to ensure that we have got the ethics right in providing the people of this country with the decision. It is true that we are not elected, but that does not in these circumstances mean that we are not relevant. I invite the House to embrace its relevance.

In May 2015, any party can say in its manifesto and put it to the people that there will be a referendum in 2017, should it wish. The mechanism to get that legislation through can unquestionably be achieved between May 2015 and 2017, quite aside from the possibility that noble Lords have canvassed of the Government, or at least a part of the Government, making time in the House of Commons to reconsider any amendment that comes from this House. It is very important that there should be a reconsideration, because it is conceivable—just out of prudence, I do not rule out the possibility—that somebody may conclude that it is important to have the referendum well before 2017. A bad set of results this May, with UKIP apparently doing better, may very well persuade a Prime Minister who has regarded this as a moving target all the time, to move the target again, if he believes that it is politically the right thing to do. I understand that these political pressures come on people.

It would be quite wrong for this House not to challenge the Bill. It would be quite wrong because it is not a party point; it is a point about the interests of the people of the United Kingdom being served fully and properly. The eminence of those who have tabled the amendment shows just how significant and broadly spread the support is. It is sometimes a courtesy to refer to colleagues in this House as being very eminent, conjuring that up as a turn of phrase, but if we look at the genuine experience of those who have tabled the amendment and the significance of the roles that they have played in this country, we can see just how important it is to take their views with the greatest seriousness. It is the basis of the Electoral Commission’s view. It is the basis on which the Select Committee on the Constitution has given advice. I know that I have only been here about 10 years, but I cannot recall circumstances in which all the advice of that kind has simply been ignored.

The fact that the Electoral Commission made two suggestions is not a reflection of its inability to decide, but an observation that either would be far better than the proposal in front of us. It invites us to do what we are supposed to do in political life: to take a decision. The one thing that is not in the Electoral Commission’s mind is to fall back on the worst of all the possible solutions, rather than to choose one of the better ones, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, to the great help of this House, has done. Indeed, the Electoral Commission is not entirely disregarded in the Bill. When it is useful to refer to it, in Clause 3(1), lines 6 to 7, and Clause 3(3), lines 14 to 15, those supporting the Bill find it very convenient to rely on the Electoral Commission. Let us rely on it properly for all the advice it gives, if we may.

I will mention Scotland briefly—but not, curiously, in the context of the referendum to be held on a far more sensible question than the one that Alex Salmond originally proposed. I will briefly mention the referendum which led to devolution in Scotland. It was a very big process. There was a constitutional conference, a major campaign and a fair question. It took a long time and it was done very thoroughly. We should reflect for a moment on the reason that was so. I recall the words repeated time and again during that process, because I believe that they are central to a decision as large as the one that this House is being invited to take. What was aimed for was that the people of Scotland should come to what was called a determination of their settled will. They were going to make a change where it was critical that they had fully explored and understood the whole of it and had settled on another solution for the politics of Scotland which would not be challenged or pulled apart in a matter of weeks, after people had decided that it might not have been the right thing to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made the point about encouraging a larger number of people to vote, and I share that view, but even more important—I hope that he will not feel that I am making a contrast here, because I am not trying to—was the fact that the people of Scotland would know precisely what they had decided and whether they wanted to live with it. That was what was most important. This is a fundamental constitutional change and also needs certainty.

A number of comments have been made about the confusing nature of the words, the fact that they are tilted and the fact that they are ambiguous. I will not repeat those arguments; that would be tedious for the House and inappropriate. I know this: often, people ask me whether I think that something is the case. I may think it, but it does not always give rise to a purposive decision to change it. We go through all sorts of ambiguities in the cognitive process before we conclude that something has to be changed in a particular way. This question really will not do in arriving at a settled view. I ask those on the Conservative Benches to think again and to accept the amendment. It is always painful to change a position in politics, but it may none the less be right to change position on this occasion.

Finally, of course, the House of Commons will get its way. The Conservative Party, which is dominant in the House of Commons in this respect, can most certainly make the time for everybody to think again.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

When the noble Lord says that the House of Commons can act accordingly, can he give us an assurance that if the Bill is amended and goes to the House of Commons, the Labour Party in the House of Commons will be pressing for more time to consider the Bill?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, any time that I have control over the affairs of the House of Commons would probably be regarded—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The point that I am trying to make is: because the renegotiation is envisaged to take place before the referendum, the date set for the referendum in 2017 cannot be right. It does not work.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am struggling with this argument because we are going to have a referendum in September on whether Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. The proposition then is that the referendum should be held before the negotiation. I did not think that the noble Lord had any difficulty with the idea of that referendum.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

It depends on where you are starting from. It is not an easy position, but if the position of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is that he wants to get us out anyway and we should not bother with renegotiation, that is fine. Why not? However, the Conservative Party’s position, as clearly explained in the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech—in which, by the way, he was speaking explicitly as leader of the Conservative Party, not as Prime Minister—was that he hoped to renegotiate a different relationship with Europe, put it to a referendum and recommend that we stay in the European Union. I am just saying that that timetable does not work. It does not add up.

At Second Reading, a lot of noble Lords commented on the date. A lot of noble Lords made the point—better than I am making it—of the unwisdom of locking the negotiators’ feet in concrete and putting them under time pressure. That is not a wise idea. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, said the date was arbitrarily picked out of the air. We have not been told in this debate why it has to be 2017, other than that was the date in the Bloomberg speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, because that is exactly the kind of thing that the First Ministers of the devolved Administrations could put into the debate. It is not a veto. It simply provides an opportunity for them to say, “Look, if you do it on this particular date it is going to be unhelpful and difficult because of certain circumstances”. For example, we are having the Commonwealth Games in Scotland and there may be other events in the future during which it would be undesirable to have a referendum, or before or after. The amendment will give the devolved Administrations the opportunity to consult.

This group of amendments provides the opportunity for Euroenthusiasts to have an early date if they want to settle matters once and for all; equally Eurosceptics or Europhobes will have the same opportunity—and here is a Europhobe just to prove it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, from listening to the noble Lord it is obvious that the purpose of his amendments is to give him an opportunity to make a long speech. For example, Amendment 13 suggests that we should have the referendum on 22 May of this year. The Bill will have hardly received Royal Assent. How can that possibly be a realistic expectation? This is a good old-fashioned filibuster for which he is famous.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

I did not suggest any such thing. The noble Lord should keep his cool. He may always have supported Britain’s membership of the European Union, and so have I. I made it plain at Second Reading that I had advocated an “in or out” referendum since the Maastricht negotiations. I felt that the boil needed lancing. I also made it plain that in any such referendum I would campaign enthusiastically for our continued membership. If I had to give a single reason for that, it is that I was in the House of Commons long before he was. I remember when Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and all those Eastern bloc countries were in the Soviet bloc and under the grip of the Soviet Union. I rejoice that they are members of the European Union today. That alone is a reason for keeping the European Union in being.

I have been somewhat chided today by the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Richard, for what I said at Second Reading. I take it in good part, as they meant it in good part. However, in my speech I sought to put a case for giving the Bill a fair wind. I think it was a reasonable case and anyone reading the whole of the speech, and not merely quoting selectively from it, could come to only that conclusion.

I wanted to intervene at this point today because we are now in a rather different place. The advice that I gave was certainly not heeded. It was comprehensively unheeded in the first vote. I say to my noble friend Lord Dobbs—whom I have been very glad to support and will continue to support and who has been doing a valiant and very difficult job—that the Bill has not been ruined by the two amendments that have been passed, and it is now up to the House of Commons to grasp that fact. When the Bill goes before another place on 28 February, all it has to do is to accept our amendments and the Bill will pass into law. I hope that that counsel of pragmatism will prevail and that is what will happen.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

[Lord Cormack]

Perhaps I may just finish and then I will give way. I hope that we will complete Committee stage here today. I hope that we will not have a contentious Report stage. I hope the Bill will go to another place on 28 February, suitably amended and improved, and then it will indeed pass into law.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend, who was a Member of the House of Commons for rather longer than I was—I was a Member for only 14 years. As he said, the Bill has been amended, and my noble friend Lord Higgins argued that we can just add more amendments, but that will require time. I do not understand his point when he says that this can be dealt with by the House of Commons. The reason that we are dealing with a Private Member’s Bill and not a government Bill is because the other half of the coalition—the Liberals—refused to give the Bill time. In the absence of a commitment from the Liberals to do so, and indeed from the Front Bench of the Labour Party, how is it conceivable that this Bill can get through? Is my noble friend not kidding himself?

[Lord Cormack]

No, I do not think so, and I will point out that today I have voted, with a certain lack of enthusiasm I have to admit, in the government Lobby and will continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I do not want to introduce a slightly discordant note on this but we must be very careful if we go down the road of saying that the vote of the people might be overturned. Considerable cynicism could arise from that. I accept entirely that if it is a consultative referendum that should be in the Bill and beyond any misunderstanding. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on the fact that we have a representative democracy and do not send every issue back for a referendum or plebiscite, or weigh how many letters we have had in or all the rest. We must make a judgment on things. In the House of Commons they make a judgment and here in this House we must, too. If we say that the matter is one that we, as representatives of Parliament, cannot come to a conclusion on and give it back to the people, we would seem to cause enormous potential for discord if we then said, once the people had taken that decision, “We don’t like it and will ignore it altogether”.

In the context of Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred to what might have happened had there been a Labour Government in 1979. In 1997 in Wales, there was a very tight result but there was no question of the incoming new Labour Government not accepting it. It had been on a relatively small turnout of about half the people and there was about a 1% majority within that, but accepting that result defused the issue and when the subsequent referendum came on having greater powers there was a 2:1 majority. Even if people did not accept the principle of devolution in the first place they came to accept it because that was the will of the people. All I counsel is that we should be very careful indeed if we set up a mechanism that ignores the will of the people, whatever that will is.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, would it not be extraordinary if we had a referendum on whether we should break up the United Kingdom—which is, as I understand it, a binding referendum, not a consultative one—but did something completely different in respect of our membership of the European Union? Why would there be one rule for deciding the composition of the United Kingdom—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

On what basis does the noble Lord say that the Scottish referendum is binding? My own understanding is that because the Prime Minister has signed the Edinburgh agreement, he has said that he will implement it. However, that does not mean that it is necessarily binding on Parliament. It is still technically a consultative referendum. If there were a yes vote, before it could be implemented there would have to be legislation through this Parliament to do so.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Of course there would have to be legislation through Parliament. The noble Lord is normally very careful in his words but I suggest that he should be careful about what he says here. If he gave the impression in Scotland that the results of the referendum would not be absolutely binding when the Prime Minister has called for a clear question and decision which would be a one-off, he would get into difficulty. This would not be the first time I had rescued him.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am grateful; it is a technicality, but because the Government have said that they will accept the result of the referendum, it is de facto binding, if not de jure.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not want to detain the House, but the position is quite clear in Scotland. If the Scots vote to leave the United Kingdom, that is that and the Government will get on with it, whoever the Government are, because that has been the clear understanding. We very much hope that that will not happen. It would be extraordinary to amend my noble friend’s Bill to say that it is only consultative, because those people who want to have their say will say, “Why is it one rule for the Scots and another for the rest of the United Kingdom?”. The noble Lord is on very dangerous ground.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has got the balance a little wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said that this is a consultative referendum. The question is whether the Bill should say that, to avoid any misunderstanding. If the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, wishes to make it mandatory, my understanding, from what the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said, is that he must move an amendment. There is no amendment on the amendment paper to say that it is mandatory.

We should stick to where we are, which is the debate about whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, should be made to the Bill to remove beyond peradventure any misunderstanding.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but I am sure that what my noble friend meant when he said that it was consultative was that we were consulting the people to get their opinion. When I read the Bill, it seemed quite clear to me that if there was a referendum and people decided to leave or to remain in the European Union, that would be that. If the Bill is amended to say that the referendum is consultative, that is another matter. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Dobbs would also point to the fact that at the end of the day, this will require legislation in Parliament and Parliament will have the last say—of course it will—but I find it difficult to imagine that any Parliament faced with a referendum—

[Lord Higgins]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

In a second, although actually, the noble Lord did not give way to me. I find it difficult to imagine that any Parliament faced with a referendum made on the basis that it was not consultative would not respect the will of the people. I give way to my noble friend.

[Lord Higgins]

I will give way to my noble friend at Question Time next time.

The fact is that we cannot have the matter left in the dark. My noble friend the proposer of the Bill is clear that it is intended to be a consultative referendum. That being so, I think it is right that we should state that in the Bill. It is not a good idea to leave anyone in any doubt of that. As for subsequent legislation, of course, whichever way the referendum goes, it is likely that the House of Commons and this House will have to legislate, but it is important that they do not find themselves in a position where they have no option but to go along with the decision of the referendum.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend; I will sit down having done so. If I may say so, his position is ridiculous. We have spent the whole day arguing that it is necessary to have the Bill so that the people have the assurance that the promise will be carried forward. If you amend the Bill to say that it is consultative, and we will decide what to do then, you have blown up the whole thing—which may be my noble friend’s intention, I do not know. I certainly think that the Bill ought to be, as it states, an opportunity before 2017 for the British people to have a say, for their say to be implemented and for us to be freed of this wretched debate.