European Union
Debate between Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will now hear the second verse of “Auld Lang Syne”. Before I remark on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, on his appointment as Chairman of Committees and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on his as Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. However, I support the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in the amendment that he has put before the House. He has been very persistent in doing so. It is right that the House should hear some alternative views about the European Union. It often does not and should do so more often.
The Select Committee has six sub-committees; it used to have seven but now it has six. However, their very existence shows the power of the European Union over matters relating to this country and how it has encroached on our national life and into the very nooks and crannies of our country.
The Select Committee on the European Union costs £2 million a year, which is not a mean sum. It is absolutely true that the benefits from its discussions, although they are erudite and make easy reading, are nevertheless not influential, so far as this House and Parliament can see, in altering the views and policies of the European Union itself. Decisions are taken in secret so that we do not even know what views are being put forward by the Government, so again we cannot see what influence our own Select Committee has on our own Government.
We spend £2 million on this committee. There is another Select Committee in the House of Commons. It does not do quite the same thing, but I wonder whether it might be worth considering a joint Select Committee of both Houses to scrutinise EU legislation and regulations. That is a matter that might be taken up by the House and the other place at some point in the future. I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I would like to say a few words on this, having been a member of your Lordships’ European Union Committee on two occasions and still currently so. There are many errors of fact in what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and others. Our job is to make recommendations to the British Government, and the point about the British Government not telling us what account they have taken of our recommendations is untrue. They are required to do so within two months and they always do so. They state their reaction to every single one of the recommendations. It is also untrue that the Commission does not say what it has done in reply to the recommendations. Every one of the reports is now replied to by the vice-president of the Commission responsible for relations with the national parliaments, and they are all on the website. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, good reading because there are probably several thousand replies from the Commission that he could usefully read. He might then understand a little better what is done.
My penultimate point is that we have not yet reduced the number of sub-committees to six. We are waiting for the Chairman of Committees to be allowed to put his proposal to us in order to reduce them from seven to six, but we have not yet done so. The last point that I want to make about this is that it does not always seem to be very well understood that the job done by the EU Committee and its sub-committees is that of scrutiny of EU legislation, a job that is done by the whole House on UK legislation. If it is not done properly through the EU Select Committee and its sub-committees, it will not be done at all, and that would be a real loss of influence for this country.
European Union Bill
Debate between Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Yes, it was in 1979. There, the 40 per cent threshold was introduced by a few people who were not very much in favour of Scottish devolution, and the proposal did not pass because of the 40 per cent. That was accepted by people. Of course, eventually, the campaign for Scottish devolution won on a reasonable and substantial majority. I am afraid that I would be against Amendment 5, but I would be very happy to support Amendment 6.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with half of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said and the very usual position of agreeing with absolutely everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said, which is not surprising because I have been doing that for a long time. I should like to make two or three points. First, the Government owe us a clearer reaction to the views of the Constitution Committee of this House on referendums in relation to this Bill. At Second Reading, we heard nothing about it whatever. We have not heard a single response from the Government to the report of 17 March. I really think that we must now ask that the Government state their position clearly. Of course, they stated their position on the Constitution Committee’s report of last October when we had a debate. It was rather a long time ago, so perhaps they could refresh our views on that.
This matter is important because the 17 March report stated that referendums should be used only for major constitutional issues. In the view of the Constitution Committee, a large number of the issues put into this Bill as having the potential for a referendum did not fulfil that criterion. I really think that the Government need to state why they are rejecting the advice of the Constitution Committee in that respect. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would say something about that.
Secondly, I am not sure how well it has sunk into everyone’s minds that this Bill in its approach to referendums is totally different from any legislation that has provided for a referendum in this country before now. Up to now, we have had referendums on the European Community in 1975, on Scotland, on Wales, on Northern Ireland and now on AV. Every one of those was a separate piece of primary legislation that laid down the precise conditions and circumstances in which the referendum was to be taken. However, this is a blank cheque for referendums—referendums a-go-go. Some of them are no doubt on matters of considerable importance and some of them on matters of lesser importance. The point is that if we pass this Bill in the form that the Government have proposed, we are taking a major step towards plebiscitary democracy and away from representative parliamentary democracy. We should have absolutely no illusions about that. It is completely different from the situation with the other referendums, and they cannot be quoted in any way to defend the Bill because this situation is quite different.
I would like to make a further point to the Minister and to his colleague, who is now unwell. I feel very bad about that because we gave him a rather hard time before the dinner break. Now that I know he was not well, I wish that we had not. However, he used this argument again and again, as did the noble Lord at Second Reading. I do not doubt the sincerity with which they say that the purpose of the legislation is to reconcile the British people with the European Union better than they are currently. Their analysis of the problem in this country is absolutely correct, but their prescription for a solution is completely incredible. It is just not believable that holding a series of referendums on the European Union is going to make the people feel more favourable about the European Union than they do now.
In fact, the exact contrary is likely to be the consequence. I know that it is not the consequence that the Government wish to see or which they are aiming for, but having lived through the saga of Britain’s relationship with the European Union for about the past 40 years, that is what is going to happen. We saw it in 1975 when the protagonists of the referendum, Tony Benn and others, assured us that once the referendum was over it would all be finished and we would be happy kittens in a basket. Two days after the referendum, they were campaigning for another one to reject any further integration into the European Union, or whatever it was. Frankly, this is not credible. The Government’s story does not hold water.
I accept that the solution put forward by my noble friend Lord Williamson is only a palliative, but it is an important one. It would meet the point that we were not slipping down the hill towards a plebiscitary democracy because we would leave Parliament in charge from the beginning of the process to the end. I am sure that, if there was a large majority from a large vote against something, there is no way in which the Government of the day would then ram the thing through. That is just not credible. But if the vote was small, it would be quite right for Parliament to take the final decision, and that is what the amendments tabled by my noble friend would achieve. I think that some combination of the thrust of his two amendments, to make the referendums advisory and to set a 40 per cent threshold, would be the best way of limiting what otherwise could be a serious attack on the way in which this country has been governed for several hundred years.
European Union Bill
Debate between Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Hannay of Chiswick(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I am glad that the noble Lord has clarified that because I well remember that when the Lisbon treaty was going through the House of Commons an amendment was moved by the Liberal Democrats to the effect that we should have a referendum on whether we should stay in or get out of the European Union. If I am not mistaken, the Liberal Democrats walked out of a Sitting of Parliament on that very issue. Therefore, we have to get this into perspective. I know that some people are against referendums.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The noble Lord raised two issues that he will recognise, after listening to the debate, are not very apposite. First, it is slightly ironic that he is nailing himself to the mast of the Conservative manifesto. Still, I suppose that there have been stranger bedfellows. The point that we are discussing in the amendment moved by my noble friend is about an article in the treaty that precludes the transfer of powers. The noble Lord’s argument is therefore irrelevant. Secondly, the noble Lord joined together everyone who spoke in favour of the amendment as people who are resisting the giving of powers to Parliament or a referendum. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am, as regards the amendments that I shall move, entirely content to give more powers to Parliament in this matter than were given at the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. There is no question of some of us opposing the giving of powers to Parliament. The difficulty is over giving powers through a referendum on matters that are pretty trivial and, frankly, on which it will be very difficult to carry out a reasonable consultation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I hear what the noble Lord says. His career and mine have been perfectly different. I am in favour of a certain number of referendums on very important issues. He says that the Bill will allow referendums on trivialities. I do not see that in the Bill at all and I am quite sure that any referendums would be on major matters that would involve the transfer of significant powers to the European Union.
EU: Financial Assistance to Member States
Debate between Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Members of the House can speak from any Bench they wish? Does he recall that until 1985 the Labour Party was in favour of complete withdrawal from the European Union?
On the Question, should not the Government ensure that the European Commission and European authorities obey their own laws and not expect member countries to obey laws on pain of a fine?