Referendums: Constitution Committee Report

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank]

My Lords, as other speakers have said, the Constitution Committee was guided through this inquiry by my noble friend Lord Goodlad. As a member of the committee, I too pay tribute to his calm chairmanship, as on other occasions, and I enjoyed his anecdotes today. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who spoke earlier, who persuaded the committee to look into the role of referendums. It was prescient, given the outcome of the general election, but inevitably, on the eve of the dissolution, few future Ministers kept the report by their pillow when it was published on 7 April. The Government's response appeared six months later, only 10 days ago.

In paragraph 226, the committee said—and I repeat what others have said today:

“Referendums are not a panacea”.

It continued:

“We note the arguments for their use as a way of strengthening the democratic process. The drawbacks and difficulties of their use are serious”.

Here I follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

In his letter of 30 September covering the response, Mark Harper, the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, said:

“Referendums are an important part of our package of reforms”.

He added that the Government,

“does not share the Committee's general concerns”.

So there is a significant difference of emphasis and style between the report and the response. For my part, I stand firm to the report.

I am not easily persuaded to welcome referendums. I did not like the decision to make what became the 1975 Common Market referendum—so far, the only nationwide referendum in the United Kingdom—although once settled, I campaigned for yes. The referendum was clearly a device to hold the Labour Party together and to stay in what became the European Community and then the European Union. The report says it regrets,

“the ad hoc manner in which referendums have been used, often as a tactical device”.

The response snaps back that the Government “does not share” that description, but that was precisely what happened in 1975.

While it emphasises that there are “significant drawbacks”, the report says that if referendums are adopted, they would be,

“most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues”.

It then names seven, although it is not a definitive list. The response is a cautious agreement.

The Government are pressing ahead for an elected or partially elected House of Lords. This is certainty a constitutional issue, as it would abolish the House as we have known it, and a referendum would be appropriate. I hope Ministers will confirm that they are considering it for the Bill we expect by the end of the year, although there was no hint of it in yesterday’s short debate. We shall listen carefully to what my noble friend says in his closing speech.

The response says that the use of any major ratchet clauses of the Lisbon treaty will be subject to a referendum, as the Foreign Secretary confirmed last week. I will not pursue further European matters—I listened very closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said—except to say that in 1975 the turnout was 64.6 per cent. If the Government were faced by ratchet clauses, I would hope to choose a referendum only if the public believed that they were major issues that should override Parliament.

Let me turn to paragraphs 214 and 215 in chapter 7, “Summary of Recommendations”; and the earlier chapter 4. Despite the need to encourage greater citizen engagement, the committee was not convinced by arguments in favour of citizens' initiatives and local referendums. I think the committee tried hard to give them the benefit of the doubt, but when it came to the point, the oral witnesses were not particularly keen. The government response is disturbing. In the current fashion and language, the Government make the point that local referendums can play a role,

“empowering residents to make localism and the Big Society part of everyday life”.

They continue:

“'This is why we are committed to giving residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue”.

I repeat, “on any local issue”. In taking oral evidence, we discussed the possible outcome if there was a local referendum on whether to close a hospital. The witness, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said that,

“where a much-loved hospital is in danger of being closed … the result will be … overwhelming”.

The committee knew, as noble Lords know, that the answer to closing would always be no.

There have been recent campaigns against the closure of A&E and maternity departments. Localism may be attractive, but I am far from happy if the future of the NHS is now to be determined by unrestrained citizen initiatives. New major trauma and stroke services have been developing in London. I am impressed by their progress as it has meant high-quality centres, rather than preserving some very average hospital departments. Inevitably there have been critics, but if the Government are to encourage local initiatives they could mean a set-back to reform.

The July White Paper on liberating the NHS is also about choice and control, sharing decision-making, democratic legitimacy, public engagement, effective dialogue and partnership, and more. But if we are to have referendums on any local issue, I am far from clear that the National Health Service would be better managed and resources more effectively employed. The White Paper states:

“We will give the NHS a coherent, stable, enduring framework for quality and service improvement”.

I hope so.

In their response to the report, the Government say that they are,

“committed to renewal of our political system”,

and that:

“A fundamental concept … is the transfer of power from the Executive to Parliament, and from Parliament to people”.

That is fine, but I am yet to be convinced that our freedoms and our security would be better protected by an endless series of referendums rather than by established elected institutions.