European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Swynnerton (CB)]

I hope I may be allowed to speak as a euro-Thatcherite, a designation of a very important political party, at the moment rather small but nevertheless eloquent and hopeful, in that we believe that we should carry through the reforms that Lady Thatcher created or inspired in this country, and also carry them through in the European Union. Some wise men have been able to speculate authoritatively about the attitude that Lady Thatcher might have had towards the questions posed about our referendum at the moment. Such foresight has been denied me. All that I can say is that I know that she would have disliked the idea of a referendum intensely, being historically well informed and knowing that a referendum has always been seen, in France and elsewhere, as an aid to dictatorship.

After the tumult of the referendum is over, it would be desirable to investigate why and how the British gave up their love of traditional representative government for all political decisions and adopted this alien plebiscitary procedure. Let us not have another one in our lifetimes, if ever. In this respect at least, let us draw closer to the United States, which has never had a referendum and has never even contemplated one, as far as I know. It would seem strange that the presence of the United States has never been mentioned very much as the alternative by those who wish to withdraw from the European Union. The idea of drawing closer to the United States does not seem the obvious solution.

Incidentally, we know where the British tradition would stand in relation to the referendum. Edmund Burke would have told his electors in Bristol very sharply about the iniquity of the idea, and I suspect that this would have been one occasion when William Pitt the Younger would have agreed with Edmund Burke 100%.

I turn to the specific subject of the debate, on which I have five observations. First, the exclusion that the Prime Minister has arranged from the idea of ever-closer union affecting us may turn out to mean less than it sounds, because it will probably be the motto or frame in which the other 27 countries will continue to work. I think that it is highly likely that we shall see in the next 50 years the creation of a European superstate of which this country will not be part. We shall have a relation with it and perhaps a creative relationship, but it will not be that of membership.

Secondly, somewhere in The Best of Both Worlds, the document that we are discussing, there should be some reference to the fact that, regardless of migration, taxation and other important political preoccupations, we should have some recognition that this country is intellectually, culturally and spiritually a real part of Europe, and has always been so. Thirdly, in relation to ever-closer union, the language of that document leaves much to be desired. Is it actually possible that a government White Paper can speak of a “burden reduction implementation mechanism”? I am afraid it does, twice, in footnote 7 on page 14 and in the last line of paragraph 2.38 on page 19.

Fourthly, it is desirable to recall that the preamble to the 1949 NATO treaty gives us our fundamental security, for it speaks of the alliance which binds us and inspires us being founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. As my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup pointed out in his remarkable speech, these are the essential pillars of our security.

Fifthly, contrary to the often eloquent opinions of noble colleagues, friends who I admire, the document is a remarkable agreement reached by a Britain determined to maintain itself as an independent nation state with a group of friendly allies, some of whom, for diverse reasons, as I rather suggested, will want to pursue a more united destiny. Of course there are weaknesses in the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was quite right to draw attention to the lack of wisdom in using the word “never”. One should never use the word “never” in politics, as was said by the Minister of State who said that we would never leave Cyprus in 1957. It was Henry Hopkinson, later Lord Colyton.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was quite right to draw our attention to the need for further work on the details of the arrangements. With such revisions, we could, in the long run, devise a very good manifesto for a new deal which would live up to the inspiring words of Franklin Roosevelt 60 years ago.

I shall end on a different note: keep your implementation mechanism dry.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Swynnerton]

My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for introducing this debate. I am also grateful to him for his work over many years in elucidating problems of great interest in English politics, particularly his discussion of how the nuclear weapons of this country were developed. He also developed well the idea of how we would manage to survive a nuclear attack in his book The Secret State, to which he alluded.

I have on one or two occasions come up against restrictions on the freedom of information. I remember writing a book and needing the text of the Non-Intervention Committee in Spain in the 1930s. I was told it was an official secret. I argued but I did not get very far until I found out that the Dutch version of these minutes and documents could be available to me if I went to Amsterdam. I discussed this with the Public Record Office, which eventually relaxed its control.

I had another experience once when, already a Member of this House, I tried to get the late Lord Dainton, then chairman of the British Library, to tell me how many people had visited the British Library— the old, noble British Library, which I still regret—the previous year. He told me—this is difficult to believe—that it was an official secret and I could not be informed. Recently, I have come across a different problem—if it is a problem. Letters that I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in the 1980s are now available for scrutiny in Churchill College, Cambridge. I do not mind that: I know that on one occasion I wrote a very important paper about the Ming dynasty in China because she was just about to go to China.

In this debate, we are trying to discuss where the line lies between the need for confidentiality: the need for Ministers, for civil servants and for private persons to have private conversations which are not leaked immediately; and the need which public persons, private persons, historians, journalists and others have for information. The difficulty of deciding this line has been touched upon very well by many noble Lords. I was particularly interested by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong, who pointed out the difficulty of immediate indiscretion, so to speak.

I feel have to sit down in a minute—I can feel a glare upon me. In conclusion, it is essential for public servants and politicians to be able to write down statements of policy and not just commit them to the telephone or to conversation. Dr Kissinger makes that point very strongly in an introduction to one of his volumes of memoirs and I very much agree with him. It is the written document which we need.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, both for securing this debate and for his own role, not just as an historian, but as a constitutional activist who has done a great deal more than most in pushing at the boundaries of official information.

First, I would like to endorse the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for a “Waldegrave 2”. Just as the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, helped historians understand our recent past, so, too, would a reconsideration of the issues now. Secondly, I would also endorse his call for the Pilling and Hamilton reviews on the official history programme to be implemented.

However, my main concern is the Government’s proposal to review the operation of the FOI Act 2000. Although the FOI Act was passed by a Labour Government, this does not of course mean that everything about it is perfect. The wriggling of this Government in relation to the Department of Health’s risk register is clear evidence of that. So we on these Benches—well, my colleague and I—welcome the establishment of a review of the 2000 Act, in the form of a post-legislative scrutiny of the legislation.

There is a continuing need for consideration about whether the Act has got right the balances it seeks to strike: for instance, between disclosure and operation in government; between transparency and the need to reduce regulatory burdens; between, in effect, good government and open government. In that respect, I welcome the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell of Clapham—whom I am delighted to see in his place—in his final remarks as Cabinet Secretary. My own experience in government suggests that there is indeed a need for proper policy-making space in government and also suggests that FOI, as a piece of legislation, has had some negative as well as positive effects. Discussion in government can be less open as a result of FOI. Fewer things are now written down in government as a result of FOI. These are not good outcomes either for good governance or for future historians.

Set against that are the clear and real successes of FOI, as detailed in the Government’s helpful memorandum on the Act, published last month, which will form an important part of the review of that Act. At present, the review is to be carried out by the House of Commons Justice Select Committee, chaired by Sir Alan Beith, the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. The Select Committee is a very fine body and its chairman a very fine chairman, but there is a case—a strong case—for the form of that inquiry to be expanded.

Today’s debate gives me the opportunity to propose that even at this late stage the vehicle for the review of the operation of the FOl Act 2000, first suggested by the Government in January last year, should be extended to a review carried out by a committee of both Houses. That would also be in line with the spirit of the Goodlad report, and the Leader of this House has always said that he is in favour of this House undertaking post-legislative scrutiny. The expertise of your Lordships’ House across a whole range of activities is clear.

A Joint Committee of both Houses might well be the best means of carrying out a review. Or perhaps, given that the work of the Common’s Justice Committee on the matter is already under way, there might be scope for that Committee to co-opt or include in some way as part of its process Members of your Lordships’ House, and this House should explore and pursue this matter further with the House of Commons.

Queen's Speech

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Swynnerton]

My Lords, with this speech, I hope to join a distinguished club—that of people who thought that they had a solution to the problems of the House of Lords. It is now an old club with traditions stretching back at least 100 years. In 1930, Somerset Maugham, brother of a Lord Chancellor, wrote, in a brilliant novel, Cakes and Ale, that:

“now that the House of Lords must inevitably be in a short while abolished”—

those were his words—

“it might be a good plan if the profession of literature were confined by law to the peerage”.

Barons would be responsible for drama and journalism. Fiction would be the domain of Earls, a field where they are already expert. Dukes, thought Maugham, would write poetry. A little later, the poet Auden suggested that all Members of Parliament should be chosen by lot.

My solution is not as imaginative as those schemes. I would ask the Lords reformers to examine the present House and see why, in the last 10 or 20 years, it has essentially done so well. For it has been a success despite the qualifications mentioned very appropriately by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and some remarkable speeches have been made, and some great debates held as rare and worthy of account as any in the past. Surely that is because primarily we have an astonishing diversity of talent, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, put it. We have many Cabinet Ministers. We have ex-chiefs of staff. We have a few historians and biographers. We have doctors and we have had a vet. We have men as brave as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who was tough enough to question the whole idea that the planet is warming up, and we had some policemen. We have the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller.

We have, therefore, heard some astonishing speeches, which probably could not have been made in another place or by a House made up of elected Members in a simple way. Many of us remember that great speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in favour of hunting, not to speak of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, on the same subject. Many of us vividly recall—even if we did not necessarily agree with—the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, when he questioned the need to renew Trident and the insistence of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, that the covenant between the Armed Forces and the nation needed repair.

I also remember the late Lord Kennett questioning whether it was wise to retain NATO in its old Cold War form in the new world order. The late Lord Jenkins of Putney made a compelling speech about Kosovo. I remember, too, how the late eloquent Lord Annan, in his last speech, compared the then Lord Cranborne to Comus as he led his admirers, the surviving hereditary Peers, deep into a pathless forest. I recall the brilliant speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, questioning the need to go to war in Iraq. If I may be forgiven another reminiscence, I also recall the late Lord Sherfield's speech in the Maastricht debate explaining how when he was in the Foreign Office he had been critical of the idea of the European Common market and how he had changed his view afterwards.

Since I have a long memory, I can remember wonderful speeches by the late Lord George Brown and the supreme competence of the late Lord Callaghan. We have had great cricketers in this House, such as Lord Cowdrey, Lord Constantine, and the late Lord Bishop of Liverpool, and I dare say that we should have had footballers. We could do worse than having some singers. Those debates that kept us so long into the early morning about whether it was right to extend the number of days when a suspect could be held without charge were fine parliamentary occasions even if, characteristically, the media seemed more interested in the Peers’ cornflakes at 8 am than their views.

Those are great memories and might not be repeated in a simply elected House. I believe, therefore, that we need a benign, corporate approach to elections to this House. We may have to accept that there has to be an elected House, but who will be elected? It should be stipulated that there would be a certain number of trade union leaders, a few vice-chancellors, some ex-chiefs of staff, ambassadors, two or three poets, certainly, some ex-Cabinet Ministers of course, as well as some historians, please, some bankers, industrialists and publishers, such as the apparently immortal noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld. Each would serve a special time, varying perhaps from profession to profession.

We should continue to have friends of Israel and Arabists. We should have friends of Europe and critics. We could specify a few hereditary Peers who, we have all learnt, are still a far-from-negligible element in our society. All could be elected from wider groupings. Take the vice-chancellors. There may be 100 of them in this country. We might choose five of their number on a regular basis. Let us retain Bishops, although perhaps not so many as now. The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster should be with this and so should the Chief Rabbi as a matter of course, as well as some appropriate Muslim leader. In a sense, I am advocating that all of us learn from how Bishops have come here in the past. We could try and arrange to have the same kind of House as we now have, or better, to ensure, by design, what we now have by chance.