European Union Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Roderigo in “Othello”, Flavius in “Julius Caesar” and Bernardo in “Hamlet”—the House will instantly recognise what these three guys have in common. They get to start the play, they are completely unimportant characters and they have no influence whatever on how the plot subsequently develops. Afterwards will come the captain and the kings—I see that the names of five former Cabinet Ministers are attached to some of the more than 60 amendments that we are to debate—and of the 37 speakers at Second Reading on 22 March, more than 80 per cent were fiercely critical of the Bill. However, Shakespeare knew that, as the house shuffles its feet and settles down, first up should be a very minor character. The Bill has caused considerable concern on all sides of the House and the soliloquies from the stars will be worth waiting for. I hope that the play will not prove a tragedy, but I am merely playing Bernardo.

I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading about why I thought that the scale of the referendum requirements in the Bill was absurd in conception and damaging in effect, given that the requirements are for binding, mandatory referenda with no threshold on issues, many of them very minor and on all of which by definition the Government and Parliament have agreed. Nor will I say anything today about why I fear the chilling effect on our negotiators and on the perceptions of us in other EU member states or about the risk that, if we enact this Bill in this form, we will be repeating the Messina mistake and isolating ourselves from the future development of the European Union—I think that that is a risk, but I will not dwell on it now. Nor will I explain again why I believe that this is a bad Bill, which would damage both parliamentary sovereignty at home and our national influence and standing abroad.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord said that he would not say anything about the potentially damaging effect on our negotiating position or negotiating leverage if this Bill is passed into law. I was disappointed to hear him say that, because there are few people in the world who have greater experience of negotiation in Brussels than he has. Does he agree that, when you are negotiating in any context in life, you have a certain leverage if at the end of the day, when you are persuaded and you have done a deal, you can actually deliver? However, if it is known in advance that you cannot deliver because you need a referendum to deliver—the Government are obviously not going to have a referendum on some subject of tertiary importance—does he agree that you will not really have any negotiating leverage at all, because no one will make concessions to you in the expectation of getting agreement if you cannot give agreement in the first place?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble Lord exaggerates my experience, but I think that he is quite right in his point. It is the case, I believe, that this Bill, if enacted, would oblige British Governments to oppose in Brussels reforms that were acknowledged to be in the UK interest, because they would not wish to have to face a referendum on the issue in this country. We are talking here not about big issues but about relatively minor reforms that most people in this House would find useful.

However, I do not want to be drawn any further down that track for the moment. What Bernardo actually says at the beginning of the play are words to the effect, “Midnight has struck; fly home to your bed”. We were after midnight when we finished Second Reading and I was rebuked fiercely from the government Front Bench for contributing to the length of our debate. Therefore, rather than going back over ground that I touched on then, I will concentrate on the amendment that stands in my name.

The amendment would delete the first reference in the Bill to Article 48(6), which concerns treaty revision procedures. I am sure that I do not need to refresh your Lordships’ memory of Article 48(6), which we could probably all recite—and perhaps should have recited before we began considering this amendment—but let me just recap for a second. We are dealing with two treaties: the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The first, the TEU, is about principles, values and institutions; the second, the TFEU, is about the competences and, in its Part 3, the policies of the European Union, how those are to be determined and how they are to be implemented.

There are also two amending procedures. The first, the traditional procedure, involves an intergovernmental conference, which is now to be preceded by a convention of the kind on which the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Maclennan of Rogart, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, served in 2002-03. That is the principal means of reforming the treaty. The second procedure is a simplified means—this is what we are talking about in Article 48(6)—which allows the European Council, or heads of Government, to decide without a prior convention or intergovernmental conference. Both means of course require absolute unanimity among the heads of Government of the member states and both means require ratification by member states by whatever means they choose. Since the treaty is a treaty and does not purport to lay down how we handle our domestic affairs, it says nothing about how we or anyone else goes about ratification.

So why are there two methods? The difference between the two methods is that the simplified procedure cannot be used to amend the Treaty on European Union—the treaty about principles—nor can it be used to amend the part of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that is about the competences of the Union. It follows that Article 48(6), reference to which is what my amendment suggests be removed from Clause 1, cannot be used to effect any transfer of competences or powers from the member states to the Union. Adding belt to braces, it actually says that. Article 48(6), after referring to the previous steps in the process, says in its last sentence that the decision referred to in the previous paragraph,

“shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties”.

This article is not about the famous or infamous passerelle; that is something completely different, dealt with in Clause 7. We are talking about Article 48(6), which is covered in Clause 3. The question for me is: why is it there? This is the question that my amendment is designed to probe.

I may have misunderstood something, as the Bill is extremely densely drafted and hard to construe, but I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said in his elegant and thoughtful speech at Second Reading and I confess that I am still puzzled. I am also now a little worried. In introducing the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, described its primary purpose. He said that,

“where a treaty change is deemed to transfer competence or power from the UK to the EU, it will in principle require the approval of the British people in a referendum”.

After explaining very helpfully how Clauses 2 and 3 are concerned with the ordinary treaty revision procedure and the simplified revision procedure, the noble Lord went on to say:

“Both clauses also provide that, where a treaty change of either type would also transfer power or competence from the United Kingdom to the EU, such a change should also be approved by the British people in a referendum”.—[Official Report, 22/03/11; cols. 600-02.]

That is, indeed, an accurate description of the Bill, but it seems to me to reflect a misreading of the treaty. Article 48(6) cannot be used in a way that would transfer any competence or power from the UK to the EU. Therefore, it seems to me that the references to Article 48(6) and simplified revision procedure in the Bill are otiose. The only other explanation for them could be that the Government envisage referenda on EU issues where no transfer of powers or sovereignty is envisaged.

What did the Minister mean by a treaty amendment “of either type”? A treaty amendment is a treaty amendment is a treaty amendment. You amend the treaty whatever the process that leads you to the amendment, so what are we talking about? Why are we distinguishing a subset of treaty amendments? There are lots of other things with which I disagree in the Bill, but on this minor technical point I see no reason for any specific provisions in relation to Article 48(6) other than, possibly, the parliamentary ratification procedures. However, that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was talking about.

It follows that I see no need for Clause 3 or for the specific reference in Clause 1, which is the subject of the amendment standing in my name. In moving the amendment, I seek enlightenment. I apologise for troubling the House with these arcana; they are arcana, but the arcana are in the Bill and that is very troubling. Exit stage left.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I have a great many objections to this Bill under three broad headings. The first is the constitutional damage this Bill would do if it was enacted. I totally agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, has said but, as he said himself, this is not the moment to go into that as we shall have other opportunities on amendments relating to referenda in Clause 18.

Secondly, I am concerned about the honesty of the Bill. I made the point at Second Reading that although it purports to offer referenda on a vast range of potential subjects, it seemed quite clear that there would in practice be no chance of referenda ever taking place on some of these secondary or tertiary issues and that the Bill is therefore something of a fraud on the public. I am quite concerned that there is another fraud going on here, which I will come to in a moment.

Thirdly, I am concerned about the practical implications of the Bill and there I agree again with what the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, just said. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made it absolutely clear in moving his amendment that there is a serious discrepancy between the way that the Bill was presented as protecting the British public against any further concessions of power to the European Union—the entire rhetoric was that there will now be this block with a referendum—and the inclusion of decisions made under Article 48(6), which quite clearly and explicitly excludes any extensions of the powers of the European Union.

In fact, we have been offered a Bill with so-called protection for the public against a threat but which includes a provision that, by definition, could not form part of that threat. One has to ask why that has been done. Is it a matter of drafting carelessness? Surely not; the references to Article 48(6) are absolutely clear and deliberate. There are several of them throughout the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his co-signatories to the amendment have gone through the Bill and addressed them wherever they arise. There is clearly a deliberate intention here to go beyond what is in my view—I know it is a value judgment, but it is my view—the already extreme rhetoric with which this Bill was presented. The reality is even more extreme and one has to ask: why is that? Why is there an intention to have a referendum on matters which, by definition, cannot involve increasing the powers of or conceding capabilities to the European Union? I hope that the Minister will address this issue, as I cannot imagine that we could have an honest debate on this subject without it being explicitly addressed.

I also hope that there might be more contributions from the Lib Dems in the course of debate on this set of amendments. I suspect that a lot of Lib Dems were dragged, kicking and screaming, into supporting the notion of the Bill on the basis that all it did was to provide for a referendum in the event that further powers were being conceded to the European Union. In fact, the Bill that has come up is much more restrictive and goes far further. I do not know whether every member of the Lib Dem party has appreciated the significance of explicitly including Article 48(6) as it is being done, or of what that means. It puts much more of a brake on the European Union’s day-to-day activities, which I will come on to in a moment, than was ever suggested in announcing the intention to move forward with this legislation. It is particularly important that the Lib Dems, both in this Committee and in the country as a whole, have an opportunity to think really carefully about Article 48(6) before they decide what their ultimate attitude is towards the Bill. It would be artificial if we did not hear from more Lib Dems in the course of our proceedings, including on this amendment.

The third issue that concerns me about the Bill in general—I come particularly to the issues covered by this amendment—is its practical consequences. Before we pass any legislation, it is terribly important for this House to think through what its practical consequences will be. If you are sitting on a board of directors at a business and deciding whether to take a particular decision, you think pretty carefully about its practical consequences. You may ask your support staff and so forth, or you may ask legal advisers or other outside advisers such as management consultants, “What would be the consequences of our doing X, Y and Z”? You ask people, come up with as many possible answers as you can and weigh them carefully before you decide on the balance of advantage or disadvantage in going forward or not. It is important to look at particular cases.

Since the Government have set out for us in Schedule 1 the sort of issues which would require a referendum under the Bill, at least by way of an illustration which is not exhaustive and does not exclude other issues, we should think through in the course of the Committee’s proceedings what would happen if this Bill became an Act and was now on the statute book, and practical decisions needed to be taken in any of these categories. I shall take a few at random, without taking up too much time. Take, for example, Article 77(3) on,

“provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits etc.”.

Some people would say, “We’re not part of Schengen so that doesn’t concern us at all”. If that were the case, why would we need a referendum on the subject? It baffles me. One can well imagine a situation in which we could not cut ourselves off from, let us say, immigration issues in the Schengen area. We remember the problems that we had with Sangatte, with a large number of illegal immigrants from France concentrating themselves in Calais with a view to trying to steal through the Channel tunnel in one form or another or on to ferries and come into this country. It was a serious practical problem for us. There was no point in using philosophical arguments to deal with it; it needed to be dealt with in a practical way. There are many possible scenarios that one can imagine where we will need to sit around a table with our partners and come to a sensible agreed solution to deal with, let us say, a massive and difficult immigration issue or threat that has suddenly arisen.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Surely the noble Lord would agree that if we had not pooled our sovereignty, as noble Lords like to call it, in the matter of immigration, which he has raised, if we had kept control of our borders and if the previous Government had not deliberately lowered our borders and our immigration, particularly to people from the European Union, the problem would not have arisen. Surely the answer is simply not to have been in the EU, not to be in the EU in future and to control our own borders. It is a no-brainer, isn’t it?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I think that by a “no-brainer” the noble Lord means giving the same answer to any question that is asked in any context whatsoever: that we should never have gone into the European Union. The noble Lord is fundamentally flawed in his analysis of the national interest in this area, but if I actually addressed his comments I should be making a speech about the reasons why we are in the EU. All I will say is that we have kept control of our borders. We have not joined Schengen although—and we should never forget this—we have a common travel zone with the Republic of Ireland, so we have a mini-Schengen. That is another reason why we cannot simply suppose that we can draw up the moat here and do what the devil we like; we need to discuss with the Republic of Ireland what it is doing in relation to Schengen at any one time, otherwise we should have to set up a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic or something of that sort, which would have all kinds of consequences that we would not want to contemplate.

I mention this to the noble Lord merely because, while I was not very optimistic that I would persuade him about anything, these matters are extremely complex and we cannot act as if we are in isolation in this world. There is a whole range of interdependencies—I was going to say “interdependabilities”—that we have with countries that surround us. That is a natural part of things and we should not reject it. We should be prepared to come to sensible, common-sensical, mutually advantageous arrangements with our partners on a pragmatic basis and we should not cut ourselves off from the possibility of reaching agreement with them—but that is exactly what the Bill does.

What would happen if there were a pragmatic, sensible solution of this kind dealing with, say, provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits and so forth? The British Minister would be paralysed and would not be able to take part in the discussion at all. If the British Minister even started entering the discussion, he would immediately be guilty of bad faith. Everyone around the table would say, “This guy’s not serious; he’s not for real. Il n’est pas sérieux. He’s not going to have a referendum on this but he can’t agree it without a referendum, so why’s he sitting in the room at all? What’s this guy doing wasting our time?”. No one would be so rude and undiplomatic as to say that out loud, but that would be the effect. We would be sending Ministers to Brussels to find themselves in that extremely embarrassing situation. Do we really want to conduct our international relations, let alone those with such important partners and neighbours as our fellow members of the EU, on that basis? It is extraordinary.

Let us look at police co-operation, covered by Article 87(3). It does not need very much imagination, for people who have had some experience of public life like ourselves, to know that out of the blue you can suddenly have a very nasty threat. It can be something to do with terrorism, and clearly we are all concerned about that; there is a Bill going through the House at the moment. I sit on a Joint Committee with the House of Commons examining the contingent terrorist detention Bill, as noble Lords will know. We are rightly concerned that something will happen out of the blue. I will give way to the noble Baroness; I am just finishing my sentence.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. As a very interested observer in this debate, I would just like to know what the noble Lord’s latest comments have to do with the amendment. Surely we need just to get through this and see how we feel about it rather than have a great long diatribe about what might happen if we did not do anything else. His comments have nothing at all to do with this amendment.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am afraid that the noble Baroness is completely mistaken, as they have very much to do with the amendment. The amendment would have the effect of taking out of the scope of the Bill decisions falling under Article 48(6). If such decisions were no longer subject to a subsequent referendum, which would be the effect if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was agreed to, the practical damage done to our country would be less. I hope that the noble Baroness can follow the logic of that. Perhaps she would like me to repeat the point. She is shaking her head, but I would be happy to do so if she does not understand the point because it is extremely important.

I repeat to the noble Baroness that the effect of the Bill as currently drafted is not merely, as she might have supposed from hearing the declarations of her Prime Minister and her Foreign Secretary, to ensure that there is a referendum if ever we have treaty changes or grant increased competence to the European Union. The Bill would have the effect of requiring a referendum on decisions such as those that I have enumerated, including, for example, on police collaboration. The effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his colleagues would be that we would not need a referendum on those other matters, which are decisions not involving a transfer of powers. That is an important distinction to consider.

I do not say that I would be happy with the Bill if it was simply amended in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his colleagues propose—I would still be very unhappy—but I would be less unhappy with it and the damage done to the national interest would be less, because the kinds of decisions that I am enumerating would be able to be reached. We would be able to take part in those decisions if this amendment went through. It is very important indeed that the noble Baroness understands that important distinction, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to go through it with her.

Let me carry on with the next example in Schedule 1, which is,

“Article 89 (cross-border operation by competent authorities)”.

Again, it is very possible to imagine scenarios in which some sensible, pragmatic arrangement needs to be reached with our European partners on cross-border issues, such as drugs, racketeering or human trafficking, which we are assured is a major problem. Under the Bill as currently drafted, such decisions could not be reached without a referendum, but they could be reached without a referendum if the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his colleagues was adopted. Perhaps the noble Baroness appreciates that point now.

Another example is,

“adoption of certain environmental measures”.

I totally agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said about that. It seems to me that it may very well be necessary, if we are to take any practical measures at all in defence of the environment, for us to reach agreement with our continental—and, indeed, Irish—neighbours. Once again, if we are half-serious about the European Union, that is an issue on which we should be able to do business without having to resort to a referendum the whole time.

Another example that is quite interesting—I will come on to “enhanced co-operation” in a second—is,

“changes to list of military products exempt from internal market provisions”.

Perhaps the coalition has not recognised this as yet, but we actually have a very major and successful defence industry—I know something about that—so it is very important indeed that, in so far as possible, our defence industry is able to sell its products within the European Union, where there are no problems of international conflict or anything of that sort. For that purpose, it could be a very good thing if the areas in which we are currently protected against single market legislation in the matter of defence goods should be reduced. That is something on which we may need to come to an agreement with others, so it would be absurd to have a referendum on a matter like that. Of course, once again, we all know that there never would be a referendum; if we enacted this Bill, we would simply be ensuring that, in practice, the Minister could never be party to an agreement.

As I said on Second Reading, it is clear to me that the consequence of enacting this Bill, including its present provisions whereby Article 48(6) decisions would be covered by the requirement for a referendum, would be not to bring the European Union to a halt or to stop the EU doing any business; the consequence would be that we would be de facto excluded from any decisions that were taken. We would simply find that we had a Minister present who had become an embarrassment to us and a joke to others. The Minister would be completely paralysed and unable not only to take part in a decision but to have any influence on that decision. We all know that you can influence discussion, negotiation or the exchange of views only if you can contribute something. I made that point in an earlier intervention. If it is known from the outset that whatever is agreed you will not be a party to it, by definition you have no leverage on the result.

The practical consequences of the Bill as drafted would be appalling. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his co-signatories on coming up with an amendment which would seriously mitigate the damage done by the Bill, though it would certainly not by any means remove all of it. However, it would at least reduce that damage, and in that sense is extremely welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I must say that I read the constitution and the Lisbon treaty and could find no fundamental difference between the two. That is why the people of this country believe that they were cheated when a referendum was not given to them.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

If the noble Lord reads the constitution and the Lisbon treaty, he will find that the whole of Part 3 of the draft constitution is not in the treaty.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I cannot confirm that now, but I will certainly check on it. However, there is little if any difference between what the constitution proposed and what was agreed in the Lisbon treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

How does that help to address the disaffection which the Government believe is the trigger at the heart of the Bill and the fundamental basis for bringing it forward? I am not suggesting that a degree of disaffection does not exist—although it can be exaggerated—but question whether the measures do anything to address that disaffection. Will a measure that hinders rather than helps transparency and accessibility in the law worsen that disaffection rather than ameliorate it? I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My noble friend’s amendment addresses a situation that I regard as a nightmare, in which not merely ministerial decisions in an executive capacity are open to judicial review—something that we have been used to in our constitutional practice for the last generation or so—but also a decision by Parliament. As I understand the present situation and as I read the Bill, were it to become an Act a ministerial decision to approve a treaty change under the significance rule without going to a referendum would nevertheless be a decision by Parliament, because Parliament would have to approve and ratify that treaty change. Parliament would decide that it was able to do that without a referendum. It would not be a ministerial decision. Quite clearly, if there was a ministerial decision to go the referendum route and not use the significance rule, that would be a ministerial decision, but it would immediately be ratified by Parliament, as I read Clause 2 of the Bill.

Clause 2(2) says:

“The referendum condition is that … the Act providing for the approval of the treaty provides that the provision approving the treaty is not to come into force until a referendum about whether the treaty should be ratified has been held”.

It is quite clear that the first decision of a Minister would be not to use the significance clause but to go to Parliament. Parliament would pass a Bill, which would come into force as an Act only when a referendum had been held. It would again be Parliament’s decision to have the referendum. As I understand it, it would be Parliament’s decision either to have or not to have a referendum. As is the present position, in all cases Parliament would have to endorse or ratify an agreement that we in some way change the treaty or add to the competencies of the Union. That is the position under the Bill at present and the position if it were amended as we tried to amend it earlier this afternoon.

That means that my noble friend’s Amendment 3 would apply in a situation in which Parliament had taken a decision. What was justiciable—the subject of a judicial review—would be a parliamentary decision. Surely that would be quite contrary to the Bill of Rights. To me, it would be a nightmare prospect and I imagine that that would be the case for many noble Lords on both sides of the House. It would be an almost inconceivable extension of judicial authority, way beyond anything that has ever been foreseen by the judiciary at present. Does the Minister agree with my interpretation and think that there is a prospect of a judicial review of what would be a parliamentary decision? Does he agree with me that we should do everything possible to exclude a priori any such possibility?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I am happy to do so. I recognise that there are a number of complex judicial as well as parliamentary sovereignty issues at stake, some of which we will return to later, but I offer that assurance to the noble Lord and I hope that I have answered some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I would have preferred the previous Government to have taken an even more robust line on the Stuart Wheeler case and to have in no way taken account of the judicial review in proceeding with the ratification process or depositing the instruments of ratification. It seems intolerable that there should be any judicial oversight of the proceedings in Parliament. That seems to be explicitly excluded by the Bill of Rights. I would be particularly worried if the present Government went in for a process of slippage, going even beyond the insufficiently robust approach of the last Government and allowing the timetable for the parliamentary consideration of a particular Bill to be affected by proceedings in a court of law.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I foresee that when we get to the debate on Clause 18 we shall have a great many discussions on the exact relationship between the judiciary and Parliament and parliamentary sovereignty. The time for that debate is not now but then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

It was years ago, as the noble Lord says, but every time that I questioned it in opposition I was referred back to that statement. It says that on a number of occasions, there are a number of blurred edges to the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and these islands. I have scars on my back about this. On a visit to Jersey two years ago, I questioned whether the current constitutional relationship was sustainable in the light of globalisation in financial and other arrangements. I was subjected to attacks for a week in the local press, the best of which suggested that both my wife and I were French spies, so attempting to clarify the relationship can get one into deep trouble. I do not recommend that we go too far down that road.

If a treaty were to affect Gibraltar alone, we would certainly have some interesting questions but it is difficult to imagine a situation in which such a treaty change might happen. As the noble Baroness rightly suggests, there is a range of issues where the different, semi-independent entities around the European Union are affected. Monaco, Andorra and the départements and territoires d'outre-mer, or DOM-TOM, have a rather different relationship with the European Union from ours. As the noble Baroness will recall, we chose to encourage our overseas territories to fund themselves through becoming offshore financial centres rather than getting them to a closer association with the EU so that others could fund them. That might possibly have been a mistake but it is where we are.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I think that I heard the Minister say that if an issue affected Gibraltar alone, some very interesting questions would arise. That implies that the Minister wants to leave the legislation as it is currently drafted without those interesting questions, as he describes them, being addressed. Surely he would agree that it would be completely barmy for the people of the United Kingdom to have to vote on a referendum on a matter that affected Gibraltar alone. So why can we not simply change the text of the Bill in a common-sensical way so as to exclude that possibility completely? It would be very easy to do.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I think that this is the point where I should refer to Protocol 3 to the 1972 treaty of accession to the European Union under which Gibraltar chose to become a member of the EU and the other Crown Dependencies chose to become non-members of the EU but with a number of associated areas. That is another complex area. I find it impossible to envisage a situation in which there would be a treaty change that applied to Gibraltar alone. Ultimately, this is a hypothetical question, but I see that the noble Lord wishes to pursue it further.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I ought not to be satisfied by that; when we are drafting legislation in this place, we should try to make it as complete as possible, just as one should with any legal document. We are after all talking about the laws of the land. The Minister may be brave enough to say that he himself cannot anticipate this possibility, but we know that possibilities can arise that were never anticipated even by the most brilliant minds. Surely we should just have legislation that makes it clear that there would never be the absurdity of the people of the United Kingdom having to vote in a referendum on a matter that affected Gibraltar alone.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have scars on my back from the extent clause. I have tried on previous occasions to raise the question of the extent clause and the conditions under which UK legislation applies to the Crown dependencies. This is a very arcane area.