European Union (Referendum) Bill

Baroness D'Souza Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that I can be reasonably brief in moving the amendment. We have a long day ahead of us.

The amendment does not bear on the issue of whether a referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union should be held. Nor does it bear on the date at which or by which such a referendum should be held. Thus it does not call into question the principal purposes of the Bill. It is intended to ensure that when a referendum is held, the right question is put to the electorate.

I and other noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment consider that the question proposed in Clause 1(4) of the Bill is inappropriate, confusing and potentially misleading. The wording might be appropriate if the United Kingdom was not a member of the Union but was now proposing to apply for membership, or if we had applied for membership and the Government and Parliament wanted to ascertain whether the electorate would support a proposal to join the Union on terms that would have been negotiated with the existing membership. Then the question for the electorate would be whether they thought that we should forgo whatever might be the advantages and disadvantages of not being members of the Union in order to enjoy whatever might be the benefits and privileges of membership, and incur whatever might be the liabilities and obligations of becoming members.

However, that is not the situation. We are, and have been for more than 40 years, members of the European Union. Therefore, when a referendum is called, the question we should be asking the electorate to consider is whether we should forgo the benefits and privileges we now enjoy, and be relieved of the liabilities and obligations we now incur as members of the European Union, in order to enjoy whatever might be the benefits and advantages and incur whatever might be the costs and liabilities of ceasing to be members. The question put to the electorate should be clear beyond a peradventure that that is the choice on which they are being asked to vote. The question proposed in Clause 1(4) of the Bill as drafted fails to make clear the nature of the choice. It could thus be confusing, and potentially misleading, to some voters.

The question proposed in the amendment is not designed by me or by other noble Lords who have put their names to it. It has been designed by the Electoral Commission, the business of which is to advise the Government and Parliament on such matters. I cannot see why it should be thought to be necessary or right to second-guess the Electoral Commission on this matter. Only that it might sound disrespectful of the commission, which I do not wish to be, I remind your Lordships of the old adage that a man who keeps a dog does not need to bark himself.

The form of words which the Electoral Commission has recommended, and which is proposed in the amendment, provides a question which defines correctly, clearly and unambiguously the nature of the choice which the voters will be asked to make in the referendum proposed in the Bill. I beg to move.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

I remind your Lordships that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 2 to 7 by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

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

Afghanistan

Baroness D'Souza Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and say how much I welcome these quarterly Statements, which are extraordinarily useful. I underline what has been said previously by the opposition Member and ask the noble Lord to confirm before the next quarterly Statement—even in writing—that the generous amount of aid allocated for development work in Afghanistan will go directly to relevant aid programmes run by the private and NGO sectors, not via the Armed Forces. The question I really want to ask is: is a serious peace process involving discussions with some elements of the Taliban now being considered?

Kabul Conference

Baroness D'Souza Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. May I, on behalf of the Cross Benches, offer profound sympathies to bereaved families and, once again, pay tribute to the courage of the forces fighting in the south of the country?

I would like to ask two very brief questions. First, in view of very recent events—the killing of soldiers—what measures are being taken to prevent and/or weed out any Taliban presence in the Afghan national army? The second question, which the Minister certainly alluded to, is what new measures will now be taken as a result of the Kabul conference to ensure that aid is actually used to build and improve infrastructure in the form of transport, health and education facilities?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness both for her questions and, indeed, for the brevity of her questions.

Of the tragedies which we have seen in recent times, the appalling killing of military personnel, very tragically including three British soldiers, by a member of the Afghan forces was a horror. There have been other incidents of a similar kind, but I think that my answer has to be that there is no question of this being a general problem. It does not in any way deter us from the overriding commitment of moving forward to the transition and enabling a proper, well-trained Afghan force, and indeed Afghan police force, to take over the security of their own country. However, there has to be very careful monitoring and watching to make sure that this kind of tragedy does not occur. It is something that one just has to watch for. There can never be any guarantee that personnel will not somehow be perverted, twisted or lose control of themselves and do terrible things; but the whole system is being very carefully monitored and watched, and we hope and pray and work to ensure that it does not happen again.

As to the destinations of aid, these can be tightened up. Of course there have been criticisms that not all aid is reaching the right points. We have strengthened a number of the monitoring processes, and they will be even more strengthened as a result of the Kabul conference in order that we may continue with the infrastructure development, which has gone on apace. We should not underestimate the fantastic things that have been done in the years since the original invasion. I shall share with your Lordships one figure that quite surprised me when I looked at some of the briefing for today. The Afghan economy is growing incredibly fast—last year it grew at 22.5 per cent. We could do with that kind of growth here.