European Union Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateIan Swales
Main Page: Ian Swales (Liberal Democrat - Redcar)Department Debates - View all Ian Swales's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberMy hon. Friend has put matters on the record. I am content to take the arguments and reasons given by Members of the House of Lords as justification for the amendments in which they believed.
Does the Minister agree that if we accept the amendment, we are setting up a perverse incentive for the Government of the day to seek a low turnout if they wish to get a measure through? That might affect the way they publicise a referendum or engage with the process.
That puts it fairly. The perverse incentive to seek an apathetic reaction from the electorate is one that I would want to avoid.
No, I do not think that that is the case. One thing that has come across clearly in the debates in this House is the sovereignty of Parliament. We are talking about the sovereignty of Parliament in a dualist system, but Parliament nevertheless has the right to determine what legislation has primacy over the people of this country. The ultimate decision rests with this country.
The sovereignty of Parliament is obviously absolutely key. If we passed the sunset clause, sovereignty would in effect pass to the next Government, not the next Parliament. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, a future Parliament has the power to change this legislation. The sunset clause would pass that power to the Government, not to Parliament.