Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. On my return from your Lordships’ House, I will make sure that this issue is raised specifically in the briefing that is prepared.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the Iranian authorities maintain that we owe them a very large sum of money relating to a cancelled contract some years ago? What is the Government’s position on that matter, and does it play a part in these discussions?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, one thing that we have been clear on is that this situation—the debt referred to by my noble friend—is a live issue bilaterally between the United Kingdom and Iran. On the debt itself, as I said last week during the debate on a QSD asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, there has been an adjournment on this case. I cannot go into the details, but the next hearing on this case and its details will be in April 2022. We have been clear what needs to happen is that Nazanin and others who are being held should be returned.

Fly-tipping

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Trefgarne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps the propose to take to reduce the amount of illegal fly-tipping, particularly in rural areas.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, fly-tipping is unacceptable and the Government are committed to tackling this crime. We have given local authorities powers to issue fixed-penalty notices, seize vehicles and investigate and prosecute fly-tippers. Fly-tipping has reportedly increased in some areas and decreased in others during the Covid-19 pandemic. We have worked with local authorities and published guidance to support the reopening of household waste and recycling centres, with more than 90% of local authorities now providing some level of service.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case that, as he said in the Answer, a number of local authority waste disposal facilities have been closed in recent weeks, which has made matters worse? Can he use his influence with local authorities to reopen all the facilities that have been shut?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]]

Based on the limited data we have—there is a not a huge amount—there appears to have been an overall increase in reports of fly-tipping, although, as I said, in some areas it has decreased. It does not necessarily mean that fly-tipping has increased across the country. The good news is that, as a consequence of recent changes, more than 90% of local authorities are now providing some level of HWRC services.

Flooding Update

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am not in a position to pledge any additional funding from this Dispatch Box, but I can tell the noble Lord that my colleague the Secretary of State is looking closely at this issue and is working closely with his colleagues in all the devolved Administrations.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend listed a number of rivers that have been affected in the recent bad weather. I do not think he mentioned the River Wey, in Surrey, which flows through Guildford. Does he have any information about it, and will Guildford be eligible for any of the support to which he referred?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank my noble friend for his question. I cannot provide him with specific information in relation to that river, but I will gladly do so following this exchange. Government support will go where it is needed. There are a number of different supports available centrally and locally for those areas most badly affected.

Falkland Islands: Landmines

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Trefgarne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether landmines laid in the Falkland Islands by the Argentinean forces in 1982 have been removed.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, under the anti-personnel mine ban convention, the UK is obliged to clear the Falkland Islands as its only mined territory. After the conflict in 1982, the UK cleared all known British-laid mines. The remaining mines, spread across 122 minefields, were laid by Argentina. Since 2009, the demining programme has released over 21 million square metres of land and destroyed over 9,700 anti-personnel mines. The current phase of the programme will complete the mine clearance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is it not the case that there was a new international convention on these matters quite recently—certainly since 1982—which was much encouraged by the support of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, and more recently by His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Absolutely, and I am sure I speak for everyone in your Lordships’ House in paying tribute to the late Princess Diana for her incredible leadership on this, drawing attention to the issue of minefields around the world. Of course, we also pay tribute to His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex on his recent trip to Angola to further highlight and continue the good work of his mother.

Saudi Arabia: Executions

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches. I urge noble Lords to allow the Minister to sit down before they stand up to ask the next question.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s preference for private representations in this matter. Would she not agree that megaphone diplomacy is almost always less effective in the long run and is therefore not to be supported? Will she also bear in mind the importance of our commercial relations with Saudi Arabia, not least in the defence field?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, megaphone diplomacy can indeed be counterproductive. One must consider its use in each and every country. Our trade relationship with Saudi Arabia is important from the point of view of security but also complements our work on human rights. Our work on human rights is never in any way diminished by our trade relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Thursday 28th May 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. I start by saying how much I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Helic in a few moments.

Trident was of course referred to in the Conservative manifesto, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig reminded us a few moments ago. Prior to the general election, back in March I think, my right honourable friend Mr Fallon, then as now the Defence Secretary, was able to give some very valuable reassurances as to the future of Trident. I hope that my noble friend Lady Anelay will be able to repeat those this evening. We need to hear clear and unequivocal answers to the following questions.

First, is it the policy of this Government, as I believe it is, that we should remain a truly independent nuclear power? By that, I mean that we have a nuclear deterrent which, while in the first instance assigned to NATO, is available for our own national purposes should our supreme national interest ever so require it, with that to be decided by the Prime Minister of the day, when and if the time should sadly come. I hope to receive assurance that that will be the case.

What more do we need from an independent deterrent? It should be free and exempt from the risk of pre-emptive attack, so that it cannot be put out of order before some other attack is made upon us. That means, I believe, a submarine-based deterrent, not one based on some other form of platform, which has sometimes been suggested. Finally, it needs to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks in the year, without exception. That, I am afraid, means four submarines, not three as has sometimes been suggested. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that when the time comes. These matters will no doubt all be addressed by the SDSR which is now proposed, but I hope that the essential criteria to which I have referred will not be violated.

My next, and quite different, point relates to the European referendum, which it is now proposed will take place no later than 2017. There has been some doubt as to who might be entitled to vote in that referendum. At the early announcement, last week I think, that some immigrant persons would not be entitled to vote, there was reference to voting for the House of Commons. Of course, your Lordships are not entitled to vote for the House of Commons, so I very much hope that my noble friend, when she replies later this evening, can confirm unequivocally that Members of your Lordships’ House will be entitled to vote in the referendum when the time comes. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, referred to that obliquely when he made his remarks a few moments ago.

I end with, again, a different assertion. Are we not the luckiest nation on earth with our Head of State? She came here the day before yesterday—oh, it was yesterday, not the day before; she would not have made that error—and presented her Speech from the Throne in a quite exemplary fashion, as she has done on previous occasions no fewer than 64 times I think now. A number of years ago—it was around the time of her 21st birthday—she pledged her entire life to the service of the nation, the Commonwealth and the Empire. Has she not delivered that undertaking many times in full?

Exports: Government Support

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to make a short intervention at this point and to apologise to your Lordships for not having placed my name on the speakers list earlier.

I want to ask my noble friend about the position of departmental support for defence and security-related exports. As my noble friend will recall, responsibility for this work transferred from the Ministry of Defence to UKTI in 2008, if my memory serves me right. It was not always obvious why that was done. Defence exports need the support of the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces, which I am sure they still have, but it is less easy to do so when it is a cross-departmental matter. The present head of the UKTI Defence & Security Organisation, Sir Richard Paniguian, does a terrific job, but he is in UKTI and not the Ministry of Defence. I hope the possibility of reviewing these arrangements can be kept alive.

I apologise to my noble friend for not having given notice of this matter. If he prefers to write to me with his thoughts, I would be happy to receive them.

Ukraine

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, with your Lordships’ permission I will make a brief intervention at this point. I apologise to your Lordships for not having put down my name on the list in the normal manner.

I start by saying that my knowledge of our relations with the Soviet Union, as it then was, and eastern Europe stems from a very short time as a junior Minister in the Foreign Office responsible for those matters—frankly, I was a very junior Minister. I was instructed by the late Sir Michael Palliser, Sir Rodric Braithwaite and Sir Christopher Mallaby—great people whom I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will know well. Sadly, my training in those matters was brought to a premature halt by the Argentinians in April 1982, which is the reason for any shortcomings that I shall no doubt now reveal.

My preference in these matters is for a diplomatic solution above all. I suggest that the sort of diplomacy that we want is not megaphone diplomacy, which we hear so often these days, not least from across the Atlantic. My noble friend Lord Carrington turned the phrase “megaphone diplomacy” in some other connection. Progress in this regard will not be easily achieved by the kind of shouting at each other that we so often hear at present. One has to have a certain sympathy with the Russian position, but no sympathy at all for any contravention of international law or the norms of international behaviour, which I fear we have witnessed in recent times.

I will make a simple suggestion to the Minister, which I hope will be a partial way forward, if that can be identified. I refer to the possibility of leasing Crimea to the Russians while the Ukrainians retain sovereignty. We have some experience of this matter. Hong Kong, of course, was leased for a 99-year period, which ended successfully and peacefully a few years ago, and we have a sort of lease for the so-called sovereign bases in Cyprus, Akrotiri and Episkopi. I do not know whether a formula of that kind could be a partial solution to the problem, but I suggest that it is worth exploring and I invite the Minister to consider it. Perhaps it has already been considered, in which case I would be happy to hear that. However, in the mean time, if we could stop shouting at each other through megaphones, that would be a way forward.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, a spectre haunts the Conservative Party—the spectre of UKIP. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, must glow with pride about that. He may have heard—as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, said—the speech of the Prime Minister at Bloomberg. That was a damascene conversion. I invite Members of your Lordships’ House to listen to or read the speeches made by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, extremely eloquently, rejecting an “in or out” referendum prior to that Bloomberg speech. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary used phrases, which I will not quote now, saying what a disaster it would be in trade terms. Of course, that sentiment is echoed now by the CBI, the Japanese Government and a whole series of businesses—many Japanese, German and others—that recognise that there would be considerable uncertainty between now and 2017 if this Bill was passed.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, gave as justification for his stance that to pass this Bill would give an assurance to the British public, but an assurance of what? We have said on many occasions that the constitutional principle is clear: no Parliament can bind its successors. Will there be a clear assurance that there will be a referendum before 2017? We know for example that the Prime Minister has said very clearly that he would not intend to start negotiations with our European partners until after the next general election. Anyone who knows anything about the European Union knows that its wheels grind very slowly and there will be long and tortuous negotiations. Some countries that we believe now to be allies may no longer be—for example, the Czech Republic. Its Government have claimed for some time that they would be an ally in terms of reforming the European Union but it recently had a change of Government. The old, very Eurosceptic Government have changed to one far warmer towards Europe and so unlikely to be an ally. Poland, Bulgaria and Romania are, after the recent utterances of the Prime Minister, hardly likely to be particularly supportive. One could go on.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

I wonder if the noble Lord would refresh his memory with paragraph 4.25 of the Companion, which appears on page 65. It says:

“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I invite the noble Lord to read what I am saying. I am replying to points made by other Members of your Lordships’ House during the debate, so if I am not being relevant, nor were they.

As I am sure everyone recognises, the truth is that this would involve a great constitutional change. As a Welshman, I have considerable experience of referenda. The first referendum I was involved in was on Sunday opening in Wales. I went from London, where I was then working, to Wales and voted against Sunday opening. I have campaigned in many referenda since and have reached the conclusion that the result of a referendum depends, first, on who poses the question and whether the Government are popular at the time. Secondly, it depends on when the question is posed. Thirdly, it depends on the question. I end on this point: in my judgment, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, made a highly succinct and powerful speech, inviting us not to allow the Tea Party to—we have used a lot of dog analogies—be the tail wagging the dog, but to follow the body set up specifically for this purpose, namely the Electoral Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the House. This is getting into such a mess that I think we should adjourn now, but that is a different issue. The amendment that has been carried removes subsection (4). All these other amendments seek to insert text on completely different issues after subsection (4). I do not think that the removal of subsection (4) pre-empts text on completely different issues that is sought to be inserted after that subsection. I hesitate to say this when the Clerk is jumping up and down, but just because the relevant measure refers to line 9, and line 9 has been removed, it clearly now refers to where line 9 would have been previously.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am afraid that I think the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is wrong. The plain fact is that these amendments are now pre-empted. That is the advice of the Clerks, and that is that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley]

I am more than delighted to do so. I think that it will be in Hansard anyway as it is an amendment, but it says:

“A ddylai’r Deyrnas Unedig barhau yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd neu adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd?”,

which says exactly the same as the English version.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am ashamed to say that although I have Welsh parents and was born in the Principality, I do not speak Welsh. Can the noble Lord confirm that the words in Welsh on the Marshalled List are the same as the words in English elsewhere in the Bill?

[Lord Wigley]

Yes, the words are the same as the amendment that is linked with this so that the two versions would be the same. I realise that at this stage of the Bill this is no doubt seen as a probing amendment, and it is a matter of how it should be taken on board. I do not think that this is a controversial issue—it certainly would not be in Wales—and I support the initiative with regard to the Gaelic language in Scotland.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 10th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the European Union (Referendum) Bill to which we are invited to give a Second Reading today is a mercifully short one, but it is also exceptionally significant. It puts into play Britain’s role as a member of the European Union—a role that underlies much of the functioning of our economy and our capacity to influence and shape events in a rapidly changing world. To act in this way with our European Union membership is a high-risk strategy that has been ill thought through by its authors and is fraught with possible unintended negative consequences for this country. However, our task, as with every other Bill that comes before us, is to scrutinise the Bill rigorously and, where possible, improve it—not simply denounce it, tempting though that may be.

The Bill is also in many respects an oddity. First, take its proclaimed status as a Private Member’s Bill. That is surely more of a sham than a reality. Just about the only characteristic that fits its proclaimed status is that we are debating it on a Friday and will continue to do so as we work our way through its Committee and Report stages. However, I understand that the Bill was as good as whipped in another place and, if I am not badly informed, it is as good as whipped in this House. It has been openly suggested by Ministers of one of the two coalition parties that the Bill has their full support. That hardly makes it much of a Private Member’s Bill, even if it was introduced in this House by a distinguished Back-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who has, with others, regaled us over the years with the odder aspects of our political life.

The oddities do not stop there. It is generally recognised as a convention of our unwritten constitution that our Parliament cannot and should not aim to bind the hands of its successors, but the sole purpose of this Bill is to do precisely that. It has no other purpose and will have no effect at all during the lifetime of this Parliament. Its object is to ensure that, whatever the outcome of the 2015 election, the die will have been cast. Once a precedent like that has been set, one wonders what there will be to stop any Government that can exercise a majority in the other place from pre-legislating commitments for their successor.

Another oddity is that only two years or so ago, when we dealt with the European Union Act 2011 and its 57 or so varieties of decision in the EU that would trigger a referendum in this country, we were assured with great intensity and certainty by the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that once that Act was passed Britain would be at ease with its membership and there would be no question of needing any referendum outside the scope of that Act. What has happened in the two and a half years since then to justify reversing those assurances? It is not anything in Brussels, where no decision has been taken to trigger that Act. I suppose the answer must be the rise of UKIP and the attitude of a significant number of the Government’s supporters in another place who believe that, because they cannot secure a majority in Parliament for their objective of Britain withdrawing from the EU, some other means must be found.

The finally oddity is that the cry has gone up before we have even given the Bill a Second Reading that this House should not resist the will of the elected Chamber. Yet, if you come to think of it, every Bill that reaches this House from another place falls into that category. Are we therefore not to scrutinise or, where we consider it to be defective, amend this Bill? If so, there is not an awful lot left for us to do and the concept of a bicameral system would be junked.

In addition to these oddities and constitutional imperfections, the Bill has a number of other substantive defects. Does it really make sense to impose an artificial timetable and deadline of 2017 for the holding of an “in or out” referendum, some three years or more ahead of the event? I suggest not. For one thing, 2017 is a singularly poorly chosen year for such an exercise. In the first half of that year, France will hold presidential and parliamentary elections. In the second half, the Germans will hold national elections and, judging by last year’s precedent, it takes some time and much internal negotiation before they form a coalition. That same year, Britain will next hold the presidency of the European Union. These are as suboptimal conditions as one could devise for this choice of year, so there must be doubt that it is really a sensible way to proceed.

But the whole concept of setting a date so far in advance is surely deeply flawed, too. Would it not make more sense for the Government of the day first to secure the reforms they wish for in order to put the question on Britain’s continued membership to a referendum and then set a date? That is what was done in 1974-75. Does it not also make no sense to create such a long period of uncertainty for inward investors, on whose decisions the continued improved of the economy is so dependent?

Then there is the question to be put in the referendum. The authors of this Bill devised a form of words that the Electoral Commission judged to be flawed on the grounds of clarity and objectivity. More than that, the Electoral Commission submitted two formulations which it believed met those criteria, but the authors of the Bill brushed those aside and continued with their own. What on earth do we have an Electoral Commission for if we just ignore its advice? I was glad to see that our own Constitutional Committee shared my bafflement at this cavalier treatment of that advice.

There is also the question of the franchise, which has been referred to by other noble Lords. It is no doubt very welcome that Members of your Lordships’ House are to be allowed to vote on this occasion, but three important and much larger blocks of voters who will be critically affected by the decisions to be taken as a result of the proposed referendum are being excluded, despite the fact that this is not a vote for the duration of a five-year Parliament but a much longer period. The three blocks are: teenagers between the ages of 16 and 18, whose future job prospects and lives will be directly affected; the 1.5 million to 2 million British citizens resident in other member states, many of whom are disfranchised from our parliamentary elections due to the length of their residence but whose rights and status will be directly affected by this decision; and citizens from other EU member states resident in this country who can vote in our local elections and who will also be affected by this. Does the case for giving these categories the vote on this occasion not deserve careful consideration?

We surely need some threshold to be set for a referendum of this sort if its outcome is to be considered legally or politically binding. If either the turnout or majority for the result was to fall short of certain levels, it would be a travesty to argue—as the proposers of referendums are wont to do—that “the people have had their say”.

What, too, about the requirements for the provision of relevant, objective information to the electorate ahead of the vote? On this, the Bill we are considering is completely and astonishingly silent. Is it just to be left to government edict and the protagonists in the campaign to provide information—or perhaps disinformation? Or will a party with the majority in the other place after the 2015 election simply be able to impose its preferences in this respect? That surely would not do. That was certainly the view of our Delegated Powers Committee when it reported. Would it not be far better to set out in this Bill the way in which information should be provided ahead of a referendum vote on the economic impact of the decision, the consequences for individuals’ rights and status, and so on? Nothing is more distorted—

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, and I will do so very briefly. I am listening very carefully to what he has to say—detailed arguments which will no doubt be redeployed in Committee. Could he indicate for how much longer we will have to listen to this?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

This is not a time-limited debate, and I have not the slightest intention of replying to that interruption, but I am in fact getting rather close to the end. That will give pleasure to the noble Lord, and he would have spared us two minutes’ more time if he had not made that intervention.

It is essential that objective information should be provided, and the requirement for the provision of such information would best find its place in the Bill itself.

I apologise for having spoken at some length about the deficiencies of the Bill. I hope that its promoters will reflect carefully on the points that I and others are making before we reach Committee and Report on the Bill. This is far too serious a matter, with profound consequences for the future of this country, to be handled in the rather slap-dash and simplistic way that the legislation does in its present form.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Noble Lords opposite may well think that that is an appalling prospect, and they are entitled to feel that. However, they cannot deny that that is a possible choice. They also cannot deny that that is a choice that many of our partners in the Union—the majority of them—have taken. They cannot fairly deny that there are good theoretical arguments for all those proposals. It might very well be argued that now would be a very good time to join the euro, before interest rates and the parity go up, but we are not having that discussion today. However, that choice is being denied to the British people. Other people have had the choice of doing that, but we have not—our electorate have not.

Clearly, both parties in this rather squalid transaction between the extremist Eurosceptics in the Tory party and the Prime Minister have been at one, I am sure, in wishing to exclude any possibility of going down that road, which they would call the federalist road. So democracy has not reached that far, and democracy will not include giving the opportunity for that particular choice to be expressed in the referendum. There may be practical reasons: people would say, “Well, you can’t have more than two questions in a referendum”—but that is nonsense. If there was an aggregate majority of those who were in favour of our joining the core of the European Union on the one side and those who were in favour of joining the Union with the various derogations negotiated by the Prime Minister on the other, and if those two votes together came to a majority of the vote, clearly you could not argue that there was a majority in favour of our leaving the European Union. So in practical terms this is a very real possibility.

I notice that I have gone beyond 3 pm. Quite disgracefully, no one from the Front Bench and none of the Whips sitting there has interrupted me, which of course they should have done. Therefore, I have no bad conscience at all in delaying the House a little longer. That is their fault, not mine. They are in breach of the rules. What is more, this precedent is something that we should not forget, and one that should be applied in all fairness and in all honesty to all future Private Members’ Bills. Otherwise, this will just be seen as a very underhand procedural trick by the Government. Of course, it also blows the cover completely about this being a Private Member’s Bill. It is nothing of the kind.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

No, I am not going to give way. I know perfectly well what the noble Lord is going to say, and I am not going to give way. I am going to finish my remarks, and I am not going to give way. I make that absolutely plain. There has been scandalous conduct in this House this afternoon, not by me or anyone on my side but on the part of the Members of the government Front Bench sitting opposite, and I am certainly not going to allow them or any of their minions to interrupt me.

What do we do in the squalid circumstances that I have described? We do our duty, and look at this Bill thoroughly, sceptically and responsibly. If we can improve it, we improve it. There are one or two particularly scandalous aspects of the Bill, notably where the Government try to override the decisions of the Electoral Commission on the formulation of the question. That amounts to appointing an umpire and then rejecting the umpire’s decisions. It is a scandalous thing to propose and, obviously, something that this House needs to look at very sceptically, along with many other things. We will not do our duty if we do not do that.