European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

34: Schedule 1, page 12, line 8, at end insert—
“Designation of organisation for only one of the possible outcomesSection 108 of the 2000 Act (assistance for designated organisations) has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if—
(a) at the end of subsection (2)(a), for “but” there were substituted “or”; and(b) for subsection (2)(b) there were substituted—“(b) may designate a permitted participant in relation to only one of the possible outcomes.””

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, would allow the Electoral Commission to designate a lead campaigner for one side of the argument at this referendum without having to appoint one for the other. This would override the current rules that apply for designated lead organisations. These provide that the commission must designate a lead campaigner on each side, or not at all. The reason for this is clearly, as noble Lords have argued tonight, that in such matters there should be as fair a playing field as possible.

In the case of multiple applications for designation as a lead campaigner, the Electoral Commission must appoint for each side the applicant which represents “to the greatest extent” those campaigning for a particular outcome. This is intended to ensure the designation of organisations which represent the broad spread of opinion on each side. The benefits then available to the designated lead organisations ensure that each side of the argument has a fair opportunity to put its case to the wider voting public. Taken together, these provisions aim to ensure informed voting after a vibrant debate.

However, the rules for this referendum must also ensure that the referendum is run fairly and that we do not create any perception of bias. The principle that the Electoral Commission cannot designate on just one side is intended to support that objective. The benefits available to the designated lead organisations are significant. I am talking not about political parties per se—they may not end up being designated as lead organisations—but organisations designated by the Electoral Commission as lead organisations.

Allowing public funds to be used to create a distorted campaign with only one designated lead organisation would naturally raise public concern. This would clearly be the case where the commission receives applications from both sides but does not consider that those on one side meet the statutory tests. Under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in this circumstance the arguments of the side that does not get appointed would not get a fair hearing. The administrative failings of those who failed to meet the statutory test should not invalidate the right of both sides to an equal opportunity to make their respective cases.

There is, of course, the view that this amendment may help avoid a circumstance where one side deliberately refuses to apply for designation to prevent the other side receiving its benefits. This could occur, for example, if one side lacks the funding to take advantage of the benefits, particularly the higher spending limits, or wishes to avoid debate on an issue of low public interest. I do not think any noble Lord is going to suggest that this case will be a matter be of low public interest. That is not going to be a feature of this referendum. Given the public interest in the referendum, a more cynical attempt to deprive the other side of the benefits of designation surely would be widely reported and deeply harmful to a campaigner’s own cause—it would be seen as being a cheat.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The noble Baroness seems to have come to the end of a passage which contains no explanation of why the Government legislated in the case of Scotland to deal with this potential problem, and no recognition of the fact that by so legislating they ensured that there was no problem. All her suggestions that this might seem to be unfair will not come about if this amendment is accepted, because there will then be two designated organisations and no interest whatever in gaming.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s amendment does not achieve that. It allows for one-sided designation. The noble Lord referred to Scotland. That was a matter for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, not the UK Government. In respect of the Scottish referendum, the Electoral Commission commented that the approach of having one-sided designation possible was appropriate in the specific circumstances of the independence referendum to reduce the risk of,

“a tactical decision not to apply for designation”.

However, it says that in other circumstances that does not necessarily pertain. So we would certainly argue that having one-sided designation could unduly damage proper and fair treatment of the arguments that need to be put forward.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to withdraw his Amendment 34 and other noble Lords with amendments in this group not to move them when they are called.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The noble Baroness has not made a very persuasive case for me to withdraw my amendment. I am not referring to other amendments in the group. She has spoken, if I understand her rightly, as if Scotland were a faraway, foreign state with which we had nothing to do. When the legislation was passed to enact the referendum in Scotland it was felt that this provision needed to be put in to prevent any possibility of gaming. Our own Constitution Committee has warned the House—and that includes the Minister—that there is a risk of that here, and the Government appear not to wish to take any account of it.

When it is suggested that to put such a provision in would make the playing field less even, that is to ignore the fact that if there were gaming which resulted in there being no single designated organisation on one side, that would mean there would be no funds for the other side and there would be a level playing field: it would be nuclear winter. That would not be, I suggest, a satisfactory playing field on which to play, any more than nuclear winter is satisfactory. If we deprive an organisation that has properly designated itself of any possibility to get funds in the campaign, I do not think the Minister would think that that would be a very fair way to proceed. I do not quite know how we are to move forward on this.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

May I intervene?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Yes, please.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I was trying not to force my way in, as I must sometimes do: I know that noble Lords have been lively today. I sought to point out earlier that the Government have evaluated the risk with regard to the referendum on the European Union, remain or leave, and put it in the category where we feel that there is enough public interest that there will be somebody who will apply—and not just one, perhaps more—to be considered as a designated lead campaigner. So that will not arise. Clearly, I did not make enough of an effort to explain it in full, but I hoped I had set out the dangers there would be if the Electoral Commission appointed only one lead campaigner and the voice of another could be stifled to the benefit of one.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The noble Baroness is ignoring a risk. It may not be a very high risk and if this amendment were accepted it would be a nil risk. She seems to be saying that the Government would prefer to run even a very small risk of this situation occurring than put a provision in the Bill which made it absolutely certain that it would not occur. I feel that that is a little unreasonable.

The noble Baroness will have noticed that my amendment has been supported on all sides of the Committee and both sides of the argument. Is she really unable to say two things? The first is that if the Government’s view on this prevails and the amendment is not accepted, she will give a commitment that if, sometime in the next few months, it becomes clear that there is not going to be a properly designated organisation on both sides, the Government will then legislate, in emergency legislation, to ensure that the other side will not be deprived of any funds. If she gave that undertaking, it would be very helpful. If she cannot give that undertaking, will she at least take this away and look at it a bit longer? We have a space between now and Report and I do not believe that this amendment is open to the suggestion of unfairness. As far as I know, nobody in Scotland complained.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I do not think that the Committee would wish to contemplate even further legislation, but I can certainly contemplate further consideration on the basis of what the noble Lord has said. I have to say that I thought we had considered properly before today, but of course I always listen to the points made by the noble Lord and am prepared to do so before Report.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I have a question for the noble Lord about the potential risk. My understanding is that the risk is not simply gaming on the part of one side to deprive the other of funding. We constantly talk about funding when, actually, it is access to broadcast, access to free mail and all the other things that go with being a designated organisation. In evaluating the risk, does the noble Lord recognise a difficulty? Say, for example, there is no consensus among the leave campaign, so we end up with three, two or four organisations. Is the Electoral Commission, in those circumstances, permitted to decide on the merits of two or three, or does it have to say there is no lead designation?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am not knowledgeable enough to answer the noble Lord’s question. I shall come to the Minister’s last intervention, which was helpful, in a minute, but I think she underestimates the range of possibilities.

Of course, our own Constitution Committee has raised the issue of gaming and that must be one risk, but I think there are other risks. One concerns whatever attempt the Electoral Commission makes to come to a conclusion about the designated organisation on the leave side. I do not think there will be any problem on the remain side—I cannot be certain about that, but I do not think there will be; it does not look as though there will be—but on the other side there is obviously the potential for a really serious problem. There are already two organisations, a third is said to be going to enter the fray, and if these organisations go on slugging it out and the Electoral Commission tries to adjudicate, the matter could then go to judicial review. The decision of the Electoral Commission could be appealed on judicial review. That would mean, as the present law is drafted, that the remain campaign would be deprived of all the advantages that exist for a designated organisation. That is pretty serious, frankly. What I feel is unreasonable about this is that, were this amendment accepted, none of that would happen.

I accept the noble Baroness’s offer to take this away and reflect further; she is always extremely fair in her dealings with the House. She has said she will go away and consider this further and that there will be further contacts with various noble Lords who have tabled amendments. We have a little time before Report, but I honestly think that the risk, even if it is a 1% risk, should be dealt with here and now. The case for that is pretty strong. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, with his vast experience of working within EU institutions, knows better than us how the EU works and what the various alternatives to membership might be. No one here disputes the fact that we would wish to continue in some kind of trade relationship with the EU. To those who ask for figures, I cite IMF figures that state that 51% of our trade in goods is with the EU, as is 41% of our trade in goods and services. We would undoubtedly wish to have some kind of trading relationship with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it is indeed important. Perhaps I did not take enough care to explain the position. The amendment is asking the Government to do something that is impossible because they are barred from knowing what the agreement will be by the text of Article 50, which states:

“A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”.

It then goes on to give the procedure. All I am saying is that the second part of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, asks the Government to leap over that and to say in advance of even notifying the European Council of their intent to withdraw what should be acceptable to the other states within the European Union in the event of a withdrawal. It is hypothetical simply because the Government cannot predict what will be acceptable to other states before there has been a referendum, before this country has taken a decision, and before this Government have been able to notify the European Council in accord with Article 50 if it takes a decision to leave. I am merely pointing out the procedure. I am sorry if I truncated that, thus making it less clear.

The second amendment in this group—Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—would create a similar statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to commission and publish an objective assessment of the alternatives to the UK’s membership of the EU in advance of the referendum.

Amendment 32A, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, calls for the Government to set out the relationship that it envisages with Ireland in the event of a vote to leave the European Union. I appreciate the reasons why she has put this forward and the importance of our relationship with Ireland. Her proposed report would also need to be published by the Government 12 weeks before the date of the referendum. I mentioned when replying to an earlier group of amendments the danger of imposing arbitrary deadlines given the possibility of legal challenge. I hope that I can be a little more helpful in saying that—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Will the noble Baroness kindly address the first part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to which she has not replied? I understand what she is saying about acceptability. I have no doubt that if the Government stated what they envisaged, quite a few people in the other 27 member states would answer the acceptability problem quite promptly. Will she address the problem about what the Government envisage doing if there were a vote to leave the European Union?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, as I said, perhaps I can be more helpful. The noble Lord has been patient. I am now getting to the point that he wishes to hear. Noble Lords may recall the Prime Minister’s words last week in the other place, when he said,

“if we do not get what we need in our renegotiation I rule absolutely nothing out. I think that it is important that as we have this debate as a nation we are very clear about the facts and figures and about the alternatives”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/15; col. 345.]

As I mentioned earlier today, if we are to put an obligation on the Government, the Committee would need to think very carefully about the terminology used. That goes to part of the debate we have just had. I have concerns about some of the wording used in these amendments. I can understand the good will behind some of it but there would be uncertainty about what the objective obligation specifically requires. While the Government acknowledge the importance of providing balanced information, this requirement could be an undue source of criticism, as there can often be a surprising—or, rather, unsurprising, I should say, given what we have heard tonight—level of disagreement about what counts as objective.

I think there has been a very fair reflection tonight of the feelings on all sides of the argument and about how fairness and evenness may not be perceived as such by others. It is a very serious matter to which we all need to address our greatest concentration in considering how we make progress on these issues. As I advised the Committee earlier, the Government will now think carefully about the issue of public information and consider what we may be able to bring forward by way of an amendment on Report. I continue to listen with interest to the arguments put forward by the Committee. Each of these groups of amendments has rounded out the debate more fully and started to crystallise some of the areas where there may be some agreement and those where perhaps there is unlikely ever to be agreement.

In the light of the answer I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, will withdraw his Amendment 24. I urge other noble Lords with amendments in this group not to move them when we reach them.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, whatever one’s view on the value and democratic viability of referendums—my own remains somewhat between the sceptical and negative, rather closer to those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, than to some others: a scepticism that was reinforced by the experience of the recent referendum in Greece—the matter of holding an in/out referendum in this country before the end of 2017 was settled, so far as I am concerned, on 7 May, when a party with a commitment to such a referendum won an overall majority in the House of Commons.

Our constitutional practice means that the Bill enabling such a referendum to be held must go into the statute book without undue delay, leaving the Government some flexibility as to the date in 2016 or 2017 that they choose to hold the vote—a flexibility which I suggest is essential if Britain’s negotiating hand in Brussels is not to be damagingly constrained. I respect that practice, which does not of course preclude amendments to the Bill—and they will not be blocking amendments. The noble Lord who spoke before me seems to have ignored the fact that his own party gave the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland. Are they paying tax? I do not know.

We need to think very long about the possibility of amending the Bill because there are shortcomings in its present form and they are capable of being divided, as most speakers have done, into two categories: franchise and policy. If I have heard the phrase “the people must have their say on our EU membership” once, I have heard it a hundred times and I have no doubt that it will, and has, come up in this debate. But who are the people who are to have their say? That is the question. It surely demands great care and imagination when one considers that the decision being taken will last far longer than a single Parliament and will affect fundamentally far more people than currently get the vote in our parliamentary elections, which is the franchise in the Bill before us.

The essence of democracy is surely that people who will be affected by a decision should have their say on it. Here there are three groups who, in the Government’s Bill, will not have their say on it. First, the 16 and 17 year-olds. This group of young people was given the vote in the Scottish referendum last year and the general view seems to be that they exercised it responsibly and in large numbers. So why are they not to be given the vote in this referendum—which, like last year’s vote, will affect their lives for far longer than the rest of us?

The second group comprises British citizens living elsewhere in the European Union who lose their vote after 15 years outside this country. The manifesto of the party with a majority in the Commons contains a commitment to give them a vote in future parliamentary elections, quite rightly in my view—so why on earth are they to be excluded from the one vote that they are most likely to want to exercise? That does not make much sense, and I regard it as pretty aberrant myself.

There is also the question of EU citizens who have been for a certain time in the UK. They, too, were given the vote in the referendum in Scotland. They, too, will be fundamentally affected by the outcome of this referendum. It is surely anomalous that Irish and Commonwealth citizens should be able to vote—which I personally welcome and support—while French, Dutch, Poles and other EU citizens will not. Do we seriously dispute that the German or Italian citizen living here will have more at stake in the outcome than will a Sri Lankan or a Kenyan?

Switching now to the policy issues raised by this legislation, there is, above all, the need to provide voters with objective information for which no provision is made under the Bill. There will be plenty of advocacy on both sides of the argument—I may be responsible for some of it myself—but it will not be, and will not be intended to be, unbiased. Yet as we know from opinion polling, the public are not much interested in, or knowledgeable about, much of the important technical detail of our EU membership. There is a general lack of the sort of independent analysis from outside government bodies such as the Office for Budget Responsibility, or like the Institute for Fiscal Studies provides on election manifestos before general elections.

Surely we need a statutory requirement on the Government to ensure that objective information is made available in good time. There is also, after all, plenty of recent evidence-based material to draw on in the form of the last Government’s Review of the Balance of Competences. That may be too long and too detailed for the average voter to absorb, but surely a digest of its conclusions could be made available to the electorate. There is the crucial matter of the possible consequences of a no vote. It is a vital requirement that the electorate should know what would happen in those circumstances, however much I hope they will not arise. Otherwise, a no vote will be a simple leap in the dark. That is becoming a little bit of a mantra now, but it is true nevertheless.

We have seen that happen recently in Greece. This is not just about the trading alternatives—EEA, Switzerland, or none of the above—important though the choice in that respect will be. We also need to know what will happen to farm policy, research policy, law and order issues and business regulation—all of which would be fundamentally affected by a decision to withdraw. These consequential issues need to be spelled out by the Government because it will be they, not the no campaign, who will be left holding the baby if a majority of the electorate votes to leave.

In 1975 the Government produced a document called, If We Say No. I suggest that the Minister might like to have a look at it and consider whether the Government should reissue a document of a similar nature. It was sent to all electors. It was clear and well written, and much of it is as relevant today as the day it was written.

A contribution to this debate would not be complete without a word on the implications of an EU referendum for our own union within the United Kingdom. These could be far-reaching and dramatic, particularly in the event of a vote to leave the EU. Who seriously doubts—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, seems to doubt it, but I have not found many people who do—that a vote in the face of a Scottish vote to remain and by the rest of us to leave would trigger another independence referendum in that country, which would be all too likely to prevail? Who seriously doubts that a decision to separate the two parts of the island of Ireland into one part outside and one part inside the EU would be a major factor destabilising the Good Friday agreement, which is already under considerable strain? These issues are critical for our national future and should surely give pause for thought to anyone thinking of leaving.

I conclude by saying that the debate will obviously be pretty sharp. I hope that it will not be dominated by negative clamour. The purposes for which the European Communities were founded more than 60 years ago were noble: to put behind us for ever the appalling history of disastrous conflicts in order to achieve security and prosperity for all Europeans. They remain as true and valid today as they were then.

After a hesitant start, this country has played a significant and influential part in shaping the European Union. Look at the single market, the liberalisation of world trade, development policies and the inclusion of countries in central, eastern and southern Europe. There you will see policy choices and outcomes in which we took part and in which we should now take pride. I believe that it is in our interest to continue along that road and to strengthen the European Union in a flexible and pragmatic way. I sincerely hope that this referendum will do precisely that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I did not say that in the slightest. I was correcting the impression that the Cabinet had made the decision to give the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. I would not wish the accurate facts to be misunderstood: the Cabinet took the decision that the decision should be devolved to Scotland. I think it is right that Scotland made the decision because it was a referendum about the position of Scotland.

The Wales Bill will give to the Welsh Assembly the power to determine the voting age for Welsh Assembly and local elections in Wales. This change will not be made in time for the 2016 elections.

It is a fact that devolution gives rise to inconsistencies. I appreciate that there will be very lively debate on these matters when we get to Committee. Noble Lords have said, in support of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, that we should value their views. We do. Others have said that young people are engaged and politically active, and that they are able to take these decisions. Indeed, this may well be true, but it is also true of many 15 year-olds, and we have not had a thorough debate on where the franchise should extend. One or two noble Lords referred to the fact that political engagement is not necessarily true of all 50 year-olds, but that is another matter. Political engagement, surely, or lack of it, should not be enough justification for giving or denying a vote to someone.

As I set out this morning, we believe that changing the entitlement to vote should be achieved through specific legislation. It should be considered properly; there should be full consultation; it should be considered through both Houses of Parliament in the normal manner; and it should command a consensus. Although I hear very strongly the views of the House today about 16 and 17 year-olds, I say to noble Lords that there is not consensus on this matter at the moment. I shall look forward to hearing further arguments in favour of changes to the franchise when we reach Committee. Apparently, Parliament has not had the time to scrutinise properly the implications of such a change.

The question of EU citizens voting has also been raised and debated. There is nothing in the EU treaties that says that EU citizens should be allowed to vote in referendums or parliamentary elections in other EU member states. This is for member states themselves—meaning this Parliament—to determine. It is the norm across the EU that EU citizens are not able to vote in national polls in other member states. I am not aware of any other member state that would extend such a vote to citizens of other EU states.

British citizens were not enfranchised, for example, in the Dutch or French referendums of 2005. Many EU nationals who have lived here for many years are a valued part of our society, and many of them choose to take UK citizenship. Whatever the cost, they choose to do so. They will, therefore, have the right to vote.

There are also questions about why certain people living overseas cannot vote.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Will the noble Baroness recognise the point made by an earlier speaker that none of the precedents she talks about in the European Union relates to a country voting on whether to leave the European Union? The argument for giving EU citizens here the vote is that their rights are going to be fundamentally affected. They were not fundamentally affected in the same way by these other referendums. I think, therefore, that it would be good if she could recognise that there is a total difference in nature between this referendum and the others that have taken place in the European Union.

[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.

EU and Russia (EUC Report)

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, we owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, for having introduced such a perceptive and timely report on a topic of major significance for our foreign policy and that of the rest of Europe, and for ensuring that it is debated without the sort of delays to which we are all too accustomed.

I would suggest that there are few more futile efforts than that of a number of commentators who pose—and try to answer—the question of whether Ukraine or the Islamic State should have a higher priority in our foreign and security policy formulation. We do not have the luxury of that choice: both pose a fundamental challenge to the rules-based international order, which it is in our interests to sustain. Both pose threats to democracy, human rights, our security and that of our allies, with the risks of mass migration and the destabilisation of whole regions on Europe’s doorstep. I suggest that both need to be countered effectively if we do not wish to find ourselves having to take more costly decisions further down the track.

I doubt whether anyone would contest one of the report’s main findings: that we and the European Union were ill prepared for, and rather misjudged, President Putin’s reaction to the events in the Maidan and the fall of Yanukovych. I would add only that President Putin seems to have been equally ill informed and ill prepared, and equally to have misjudged the European reaction and the effects of the economic sanctions imposed in response to his illegal actions. I enter a modest plea of not guilty, as I recall a conversation in Vilnius in October 2013 with a Lithuanian parliamentarian who was exuding optimism about the future course of events, to which I replied, “Provided that there is not a Putin surprise”. Well, there was a Putin surprise. Europe’s misjudgment has given rise, as is often the case in democracies, to a rather excessive tendency to blame ourselves. Putin’s reaction, as is often the case in authoritarian regimes, consists of blaming absolutely everyone else. Neither of those reactions seen a very useful guide for future policy, so what should our future policy be?

I would certainly argue that any viable European policy needs a clear element of deterrence and containment as part of it. We should be prepared, and make sure we show others that we are prepared, to impose new economic sanctions if Russia does not stick to the letter and spirit of the Minsk agreement. There should be no question of easing sanctions unless every part of Minsk is implemented, in particular the provision for Ukrainian control and international monitoring of the whole Russia-Ukraine border. I would argue that we should also fulfil our 2% of gross national income commitment for defence spending to NATO and press others to do so, too. We should be more active in supporting NATO members closest to Russia and refuse to legitimise Russia’s seizure of the Crimea, from which President Putin has now stripped away the veil of deceit. I feel that it was a pity that Ukraine and Russia never gave any thought to the creation of a sovereign base area for Russia’s Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol. That thought may come forward in some years’ time.

I suggest that we should give no ground to Russia’s demands for a sphere of influence, any more than we ourselves should make any such demands. That includes that we should not be championing the extension of NATO’s membership. However, we also need a positive element to our policy towards Russia to match the deterrence. The report was wise to suggest that the EU should be ready in due course to explore the scope for co-operation with the Eurasian Economic Union. We should take every opportunity to make it clear that the free trade agreements with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia were not intended to constrain—and will not constrain—or damage those countries’ trade relations with Russia. We need a massive and substantial effort to reform Ukraine’s economy and free it of the cronyism and corruption that has hitherto been its bane. Here I pay tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, who knows so much more about these matters than I do and spoke very interestingly on that aspect.

With regard to Russia itself, we obviously persisted too long in nurturing the illusion that we could somehow or other bring about its transformation into a normal European state and economy just like the others. Still, were we wrong to offer help after the collapse of the Soviet Union? I myself do not think so. Clearly we must now deal with Russia as it is, but surely we do not need to leave our values outside the door when we do so.

Then there are the lessons to be learnt for our own diplomacy, on which the report has some justifiably critical things to say. If we go on squeezing the FCO and the Diplomatic Service resources, there will be more unfortunate consequences down the track. I thought that the report was a little less revealing on how on earth we came to be absent from such a key area of policy. I do not understand how we came not to be represented in the key moments in the Ukraine crisis or how we came to subcontract the main decisions to Germany and France. Where was the Foreign Secretary when his colleagues were heading off to Kiev in the crucial period of this crisis? We did not absent ourselves from the Balkans in the 1990s nor from the nuclear negotiations with Iran. As a signatory of the Budapest memorandum, should we not have been playing a more active role?

I am sure that this will not be the last occasion when we debate this range of issues, nor should it be. It is fashionable just now to lament the demise of the post-Cold War settlement in Europe and, more widely, of the overall rules-based structure of our world. However, surely we should not accept that as a given; we should be pushing back against it. To do so, we need to strengthen and increase the credibility of our main international structures of which we are members: the EU, NATO and the UN. I hope very much that the Government who are formed after the election will put that strengthening of those institutions and structures at the heart of their foreign and security policies.

BBC: Russian Language Programming

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I repeat that it is for the BBC World Service board to come to the Government with strategic proposals, but my noble friend asks a very proper question about what happens with regard to balanced and trustworthy information. That is the kind of information that the BBC provides. We are building relationships with and supporting the Ukrainian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and independent Ukrainian journalists. We are funding via a conflict pool BBC Media Action—a charity under the BBC’s auspices—giving £200,000 to train Ukrainian producers and directors, and to produce a drama handling conflict issues sensitively for both Russian and Ukrainian-speaking audiences. That will be broadcast on Ukraine’s state TV channel.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that what she said—I am sure inadvertently—gives the impression that the Foreign Office’s role in this matter is entirely passive and that decisions on broadcasting in Russian are taken on purely commercial grounds, even when circumstances have changed fundamentally? Does she not agree that it is really important that the Foreign Office continues to play a proactive role in responding to foreign policy challenges? One of those now is how to get the truth around in Russia.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, that is exactly the point. We are working to find ways of getting the truth around in Russia that do not in any way undermine trust in the BBC.

Syria

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it is important for all Governments, of whatever party they may be, to try to work for peace across the most troubled areas. Where there is good intent, there is not always an immediate good outcome. There is good intent now, we have agreement across the parties that we should proceed to seek peace, and that is what we shall do.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has already referred to the reports of barrel bombs being dropped recently. Will she confirm that, although it is not illegal under the Chemical Weapons Convention to possess chlorine, it is illegal and a breach of that convention to drop barrel bombs containing chlorine? What are the Government doing to lodge an inquiry under the Chemical Weapons Convention organisation against the Syrian Government?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it will not surprise the House to learn that the noble Lord is right on the first point; he previously asked a question on this matter. With regard to his second point, I can say that on 6 March, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2209, which the UK co-sponsored. That Chapter 7 resolution condemns the continued use of chemical weapons and states that all those carrying out such attacks must be held to account. It is a matter of ensuring that there is no impunity in these matters.

Cyprus: Russian Military Base

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the United Kingdom has led the way in negotiating sanctions against Russia for its illegal activity. We continue to do so; we are not deflected from that course. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he would like an early rollover of sanctions on 20 March. We are doing our best to negotiate with all our colleagues to maintain the resolve of unity within the EU on these matters.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that it might be useful to say to the Government of Cyprus that President Putin’s policy in the south-east of Ukraine bears a striking resemblance to the creation of the TRNC—which, I believe, is not supported by the Russian Government?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, with his long experience of diplomacy, knows where to hit the spot.

Syria

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the Government speak out regularly on these matters and I am delighted to hear my noble friend put them in such a context. Today, President Assad showed that he is divorced from reality if he has ignored the fact that he has not only allowed but clearly encouraged his forces to barrel-bomb his own people. Only he has the capacity to deliver barrel bombs. There has certainly been evidence of the result—literally the impact—on the ground and a spokesman for OCHA, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, has made it clear that there is evidence of barrel-bombing and aerial shelling of populated areas by the regime.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the use of chlorine-filled barrel bombs is, in itself, a breach of international law? If so, what are the Government doing to put in the public domain the evidence that chlorine has been used in this way by the regime, thus contradicting the not very believable remarks made by the President of Syria this morning?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raises an important point about the work that has been done in recent months and years on removing chemical weapons from Assad. His use of these has been documented, and the use of chlorine in barrel bombs would come within that category. Syria’s declared chemical weapons stockpile has now been removed from the country and the bulk of it destroyed. However, it is imperative that Syria now addresses its obligation, under the Chemical Weapons Convention, to destroy its chemical weapons production facilities. If it does not, removing what it did have will not prevent the creation of more in the future.

United Nations Secretary-General: Selection

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I always listen with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. He enables me to answer another of the several questions that my noble friend Lady Falkner asked with regard to candidates. Names are, indeed, beginning to be floated. If I may change my analogy, it is almost like a susurration—but, as with all susurrations, the names change as well. The noble Lord may have the latest names; there is quite a little list, I think. We do, indeed, need not only secretaries but generals, too.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one change which could greatly improve the process and improve its transparency would be if all candidates were asked to set out their ideas for strengthening an organisation which desperately needs strengthening? Will the Government lend their support to that sort of approach, which is a good deal less ambitious than some of the other ideas around but could bring real benefits?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The noble Lord makes a very practical and important proposal. Although, of course, as just one member of the P5, we cannot force and insist on a change in the way that processes go forward, it is clear that from our point of view it would be a great advantage if we were given details by the candidates of how they intended to carry out their leadership skills and, as he indicates, how they would enable the United Nations in these difficult times to get beyond its 70th year, which it celebrates this year, and to go on for another 70. I find his suggestion very helpful indeed.

Ukraine

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I entirely sympathise with the noble Lord’s views. The talks that are expected to take place next week will indeed involve the Russians with Mr Poroshenko, Monsieur Hollande and Chancellor Merkel, and those talks deserve to be given a chance. The Russians are feeling the brunt of sanctions, as they should for their illegal occupation of Crimea and for what they are doing in sending their troops into eastern Ukraine and making the humanitarian situation there worse. Diplomacy can be a strong tool—let us ensure that it is.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that an absolute precondition for any change in sanctions has to be that Russia observes the commitments that it entered into in Minsk and that those commitments are verified by international organisations such as the OSCE? Could she perhaps say how she would characterise the proposition that if we had not been so beastly to Mr Putin, he would be behaving a lot better?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s proposition with regard to the fact that the Minsk protocol must be adhered to by Russia; it must have oversight by the OSCE. It is absolutely clear that being beastly to Mr Putin has been no part of this country’s activity. We have sought to make sure that Russia keeps within its international commitments and international law, to which it has signed up. Nobody is to blame for what is happening to Russia now except Mr Putin.