European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Roger Gale and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers are responsible for making available their own documentation. It may be a courtesy, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I think I am fairly confident in saying that the starting point of this debate is that every Member of the House—from the Prime Minister and Ministers to the acting Leader of the Opposition and shadow Ministers to the most newly elected Back Bencher—agrees that if we are to have a referendum it must be perceived to be fair. The most balanced position possible must be taken vis à vis those who wish to advocate yes or no, for a variety of reasons, so that the public hear the broadest possible range of views and can make a reasonably objective judgment.

I have never known a referendum settle any question. It certainly has not settled questions of Scottish independence, elected mayors, proportional representation or AV, and does not seem to have settled the European question either. However, I think that those who believe that a referendum is a valuable way forward agree with me that we should bend over backwards to make sure that all those who feel strongly either way on this subject are treated as fairly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Before we proceed, in case there was any implied criticism, I have to say that, although the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) might be rambling around the European Union, this is a broad-ranging set of amendments. I have listened to him very carefully and he is, in fact, in order.

[Mr Clarke]

I hope I am not being too light-hearted, but this has been a long debate. I have already confessed that the issues have not engaged me as passionate issues of great principle to the same extent as they have engaged others. I was genuinely surprised to hear Eurosceptics take off and pronounce that there was a monstrous conspiracy in all the details. I am trying to reassure them that if there was any risk of a conspiracy, it could be laid to one side. I will treat the arguments with every due solemnity.

I am not saying that every Minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change—although this might apply to them—or the Scotland Office would necessarily find that they could not do anything. It is not like during an election, when they would not be allowed to go into the office or take any decision of any kind, but the proposal could be very wide-embracing indeed. It is all very well for people to dismiss light-heartedly—though perhaps they are not speaking in the same tone as I am—the Prime Minister’s warnings that there would be a serious impact on the conduct of business, but I think that that is what would happen.

To repeat the point I made earlier: strict purdah stems from long before the statute was passed. It stems from the rules for a general election, and they are right. Once we get into the campaigning stage of a general election, the Minister is the Minister only if he or she is required to sign something that has to be signed. When an election comes, the party political Minister is prevented from taking any decisions. Nothing can be changed. The civil service goes into its totally non-political mode because the whole point of that election is to decide which political masters are going to return to the Department, so that eventually we again have a Government who are able to act.

What we are discussing is a referendum being held by a Government. It is part of the Government’s policy to hold the referendum. The Government have been negotiating a deal as part of their policy on reform to supplement the arguments in the referendum. The Government will continue to be the Government for the next three or four years and will have to live with the consequences of the referendum, so what is being argued is that these men and women and the civil servants who support them should all switch off for four weeks, stop having an opinion on these issues and, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and myself, the day after the election pretend that they now agree with the enlightened view of the electorate and that they are going ahead and taking all the decisions on whatever is now the position.

I am sure there is a balance to be struck. I would deplore it if the Government were to spend taxpayers’ money on sending out ridiculous pamphlets and so on. That would misfire. I expect the Government to be in favour of a yes vote. I will be campaigning for a yes vote. I do not want the Government to squander taxpayers’ money and plainly abusing their position by putting out material that I might not wholly agree with anyway. The electorate would react if it was obvious that the Government were resorting to using the machinery of government for campaigning. But the statute is too severe. I hope we will not all get carried away and that we will allow my right hon. and hon. Friends the chance to come back with a sensible compromise.

Let me move on. I am sure the Whips will be very happy, but I am taking rather longer than I intended. I am attracted by the Opposition amendments, although I am not going to support them, as I shall explain in a moment. The shadow Minister, with unusual naiveté, seems to believe in evidence-based politics. He obviously believes that the more rational information is produced objectively and placed before the public, the more certain one can be that the correct result will be arrived at.

But this is politics. This is the European issue. Nothing of that sort has intruded into the debate on the European Union for the past 30 or 40 years, and it will not do so now. The Government have tried to move in that direction. The Foreign Office carried out the most objective study of the division of powers—the division of competences, in the jargon—[Interruption.] Precisely. I hear colleagues behind me shouting out, “Whitewash!”, by which they mean that the study came to the wrong conclusion, in their opinion. Evidence-based politics was rejected the moment it emerged. It could not find that the balance of competences, as negotiated by successive Ministers of all political persuasions over the previous 40 years, contained anything that was to the disadvantage of the British public.

The reaction was not to try to challenge any of these arguments with any new facts, but to try to bury the document, which most members of the public were never allowed to hear about. I suspect that it has not been picked up—it is pretty voluminous stuff—by very many Members of this House, let alone people outside, but it is a noble aspiration.

I have one serious reservation about what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) proposes. He suggests that those pre-eminently independent bodies, the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility, should be, as it were, enjoined by this Bill to produce those reports, which is quite attractive. I have the highest regard for the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility. We should all vigorously continue to ensure that their independence is maintained in every possible way, but there is a danger of politicising them. The Bank gives its opinions all the time, as most central Banks do, about the outlook for the economy, the latest statistics and the way things are unfolding. Central bank governors become notorious for talking a kind of obscure, slightly ambiguous mandarin language. That is precisely to try to avoid getting themselves immersed, which the Bank and the OBR would do if they seemed to be leaping into something that is a partisan opinion or appears to be a position of strong partisan support for one question or another.