European Union Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I beg to continue, because although the noble Lord’s reasoning is always crystal clear—I often disagree with him entirely but I always respect the way in which he puts forward his views—in this case, I am not quite clear what his point is. I therefore conclude by asking the Government to assure us that if and when this Bill goes through without the sunset clauses, as I hope it will, Ministers will offer other openings through which the Parliament and the British public can be given a greater opportunity to be involved in all the EU debates that are reflected in our legislation. In other words, I see these referenda mechanisms as one step towards reconnecting the British public but not the final step. I am against the sunset clauses.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I, too, would like to address the question of sunset clauses, but first I will pick up on one or two comments by my noble friend Lord Taverne. He seemed to suggest that we would be put at enormous disadvantage, because there would be negotiations in the EU on certain things that were to the United Kingdom’s advantage but which the referendum lock would somehow stop us agreeing to. This suggests that it is impossible to win a referendum on an issue that is to the advantage of the United Kingdom. I do not quite understand the logic of that. It suggests either that the British people are extraordinarily stupid or that somehow there are no powers of persuasion to tell the people of this country that when things are to their advantage they should vote for them—a rather depressing attitude.

To return to the sunset clauses, and indeed to the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I voted in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that introduced a sunset clause for the five-year fixed Parliament. I did that because it struck me that it was a matter of convenience to the coalition to have a five-year fixed Parliament. If that is what was wanted, and if the Liberal Democrats wanted somehow to organise life so that they would not be tipped out of bed by Prime Minister Cameron, who would then call an early election, that was up to them and it was surely something pertinent to this coalition Government and for their duration. I did not quite see why that should tie future Parliaments to adhering to the timescale of a five-year fixed Parliament. That was entirely different.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I imagine that since the noble Lord sees the Liberal Democrats behind attempts to tie anyone’s hands through the use of sunset clauses, he has forgotten that it was the late Lord Kingsland who moved, for the Conservatives, a strong Motion for a sunset clause when we debated the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2005.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I was coming on to counterterrorism. Those sunset clauses were designed because the Government had taken an enormous power to themselves. It therefore seemed right that there should be sunset clauses allowing those powers to lapse automatically. As my noble friend Lady Nicholson mentioned, we are now talking about giving power to the people in referenda, then saying, “No, no, we should have a sunset clause so that those powers are then taken back by government”. That is a totally different concept, which was the point raised by my erstwhile noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch.

There would be enormous problems in the country if we had to explain that we were passing legislation that gave referenda to the people and that those powers would then lapse and come back to their Government. The people of the country would not understand that in any way whatever. There is a very clear difference between giving the power to the people and having the Government, as in the counterterrorism legislation, taking powers to themselves that can be seen to be excessive. It is in those cases that the sunset clauses should allow those powers to lapse.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The noble Lord has perhaps misunderstood the effect of the sunset clause. If it operated and nothing replaced it—although in one amendment before us there is a system that would replace it—we would revert to the Bill in which we ratified Lisbon. This required a resolution of both Houses. It is a case of returning power not to the Government but to Parliament.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Of course—but the noble Lord will know well that the late Lord Hailsham described government as an elective dictatorship. I view what will happen as being very much more in the hands of the Government than of Parliament. I take the point that we are talking about Parliament rather than the Government. However, it is an entirely different matter when you give powers to people in the form of a referendum, because if you then take them back you are taking them from the people. That is different from all the other sunset clauses that we have in our legislation.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I put forward five simple propositions. Many of them will be regarded by noble Lords as entirely unexceptionable. The first is something that most people would regard almost as a platitude; every human institution must be able, in order to survive, to adapt to changing circumstances, and to change from time to time its decisions, procedures and way of doing business. I think people would accept that proposition for the private and public sectors, and for any realm of life. The Government have not attempted to argue that this principle does not apply, for some extraordinary and miraculous reason, to the institution known as the European Union, and no such argument could cogently, coherently or credibly be made. I will leave the proposition there in the hope that it will not be challenged; I shall be fascinated if any noble Lord chooses to.

My second proposition is one that I have already put forward in these debates, and about which the Government have not succeeded in persuading me that I am wrong. It would not be credible, or possible in practical politics, to have a referendum on 90 per cent of the issues listed in Schedule 1, such as the appointment of judges or the prosecutor general or something of that sort. The British public would consider these matters to be of tertiary importance and interest. We all know how difficult it is to get a respectable turnout in general elections, even when they are the high point of political controversy in a five-year parliamentary period.

The Government have not attempted to argue that I am wrong about that. They have said that, in practice, referenda issues would be bunched. There would be a referendum on six or 12 issues—they have not come up with a figure—at one time. That is not practical politics, either. You cannot ask the British public to answer yes or no to a dozen different questions; you would have to ask for a dozen different considered responses, which would mean that you would have to have a campaign running in parallel on a dozen separate questions, many of which will have a complex technical background. That is not a practical proposition at all.

That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I often agree with the noble Lord in this Chamber and always appreciate his interventions. He asked why noble Lords on this side should be worried about referenda, because if we think that something is in the national interest, the public will vote for it. That was the noble Lord's argument; there will be a referendum and it will be won, and the result will be in favour of, for example, greater integration in a particular area. My response is that those referenda will not occur, because it would not be practical politics to have a referendum on at least 90 per cent—or some such very high figure—of the issues set out so conveniently in Schedule 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he suggesting to me that it is in the national interest that we should integrate more greatly with Europe?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am suggesting that sometimes it may be and sometimes it may not be. We need to be pragmatic about these things. I believe that the noble Lord is in favour of our membership of the European Union and of the single market. I believe that he voted for the Single European Act, so he is in favour of qualified majority voting. He therefore considered that it was very much in the national interest to integrate policies in those areas. It may be that he is on record as having been in favour of other forms of integration on equally respectable pragmatic grounds. I think the noble Lord’s record would be quite inconsistent with any suggestion that it is never in the interests of this country to integrate our policies with the rest of the European Union.

I have a third proposition to put forward. Most noble Lords have had some experience of decision-making bodies in the private sector, company boards and so forth, or in the public sector. Anybody with any background in affairs of any kind will agree with this proposition as well. It is a very simple proposition. They might also think it is a platitude. In normal circumstances, it might not have been necessary to put it forward. Often in life, in order to make substantive progress in any human institution or to achieve a particular substantive decision, it is sensible and expedient to move via a procedural change. If you want to get members of your board to come to a particular agreement on a particular matter, you might suggest that you do not take the decision then but set up a committee to take it, or you have some other arrangement that will lead in the right direction.

That applies to the way the European Union works. It works as a horse-trading body. I do not think that is a disparaging comment. Human life is like that. People have different views about different questions and sometimes take some time to realise that they might have an interest in concerting and integrating their policies. It is sometimes quite difficult for Governments to change publicly the way they vote on an issue. It may be that declarations have been made in the past, in their Parliaments and so forth, saying, “We will never agree to vote this way”. We all find ourselves with that kind of commitment on our backs, in our luggage, and it is very embarrassing and trying. Sometimes when you are doing business with somebody who has this kind of problem, he would quite like to agree with you, but finds that he cannot because of some prior commitment of that kind. The way round that often is to change the procedure and say, “Let’s have qualified majority voting”. Then your counterparty may well say, “That’s fine. Nothing wrong with qualified majority voting in my Parliament. Maybe the British Parliament has neuralgia about it, but our people don’t, so we will agree to have QMV on this matter from now on”. Then you can make progress and achieve your common purposes. The single market, of which I know the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is a strong supporter, was achieved in precisely that way. That is why Margaret Thatcher came out with qualified majority voting in the first place. That is my third proposition. It is often sensible, if one wants to make substantive progress, to have available to one the opportunity for procedural change and for changing the method of decision-making. It therefore makes no sense to block off that possibility altogether in the way that is often suggested.

You would think that my fourth proposition would be a platitude as well, and I hope it will not be challenged. It is that it is sometimes in our interest to change things. It is sometimes in our interest to get a new decision. It would be very odd if there was a systematic and entirely symmetrical position in which the British national interest always coincided with no, if whatever the question was, it was always in the British national interest to say no. We could save a lot of money if that was the case. We would not need highly paid, highly talented people such as the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, living in Brussels. It would be very simple because the answer would always be no. That could be delivered electronically with no expense at all whenever it was required.