European Union (Amendment) Bill

My Lords, my first important and pleasant task is to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester on an exceedingly good maiden speech. We were delighted to hear about his distinguished predecessor, George Bell. How apposite it was that he should have made his maiden speech in a debate on Europe, when he was himself Bishop of the Diocese in Europe and Bishop of Gibraltar. As I understand it, he was responsible for Anglican congregations in over 30 different countries. We enjoyed his contribution and look forward to many similar speeches in future. I do not think that there can be anywhere else in Europe where we could have had a debate of this quality. I pay tribute to all those who participated. I have struggled to find the necessary collective nouns to describe those who have contributed and to picture the full expertise and eminence on which this House has been drawing. We have heard from a red box of former Ministers and from a gang not of four but of five of the original Labour rebels who defied the Whips in October 1971 to endorse the EEC application. It has been like a journey to the past. Looking to the future, we have also had a bureau of former European commissioners, and I pay tribute to the excellent contributions of my noble friends Lord Tugendhat and Lord Brittan and to those of the noble Lords, Lord Kinnock and Lord Clinton-Davis. We have also had former civil servants and MEPs. This strength in depth is what makes this House so special. It also enables us to perform our crucial constitutional role. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and all his colleagues on the European Union Committee, to my noble friend Lord Goodlad and his colleagues on the Constitution Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and his colleagues on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They supplied us with some detailed reports that will be enormously useful to us as we proceed to the Committee stage. In his outstanding speech, my noble friend Lord Howell set the agenda for the debate. He staked out the intellectual and political ground not only for this debate but for the debates that will follow in Committee and on Report on this legislation. As my noble friend rightly observed in what seems, at this late hour, to have been several lifetimes ago, it is the function of this Chamber to scrutinise and improve legislation and, in the context of this Bill, to ensure that an intergovernmental treaty is imported into our domestic law sensitively, appropriately and with as many parliamentary safeguards built into it as possible. It is a well worn canard and a travesty of the truth to describe the Conservative Party as being in any sense anti-European. It is not true now, and it is certainly not true historically, despite what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said at the outset of the debate about how the Conservatives were whipping up anti-European sentiment. I did not like the way he looked at me when he said ““Every twitch of his body is hostile””. It is not; of course it is not, and he should know that. I have a solid record of being a Euro-enthusiast. I never deviate from that, and I will not. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that the Conservative Party blew hot and cold. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said that the Conservatives were not a credible alternative Government, as if in some way we could not be trusted on Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the Conservatives had played ducks and drakes with Europe, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, said that the Tories must decide where they stand. We stand on our record. It was Sir Winston Churchill who first called for European unity; it was Harold Macmillan who first applied to join the EEC; and it was Ted Heath who signed the treaty of accession. All the party’s senior figures in opposition—Ted Heath himself, my noble friend Lady Thatcher, Willie Whitelaw and Reggie Maudling—put their shoulders to the wheel on behalf of the ““Yes”” campaign in 1975, and both the previous amending treaties—the Single European Act and Maastricht—were carried through by Conservative Governments. As my noble friend Lord Astor pointed out, the only major party ever to call for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union was the Labour Party, back in its dark days of the 1980s. I happily and readily describe myself as a pro-European, and I know that that goes for many of my colleagues both here and in another place. The question now is not: in or out? The question is: what sort of Europe do we want, and how do we best engage with it in pursuit of our national best interest? For better or for worse, this treaty has been negotiated and signed. As my noble friend Lord Howell pointed out, this House does not have the power to change the terms of the treaty. What we can and must do is ensure that the treaty of Lisbon is embodied in UK law in the best possible way. That means that we must avoid any gold-plating. We must also ensure that every possible device for accountability is put in place. That is of particular concern to this House. We had some important contributions on aid programmes, including that from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich; and my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, made a stirring speech about how Europe could help the third world through those programmes. How right my noble friend Lady Hanham was to seek to disentangle the Home Office from the Ministry of Justice. My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever raised crucial issues on defence. We must also reflect on some ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford. Important contributions have also been made on some vital provisions that we must now spend time considering in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, gave a fascinating analysis of the charter, and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, made a thoughtful speech including a lot of points about which we need to think carefully, as did the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay. With all their experience, what they said merits closer scrutiny. As the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said, we can in this House substantially improve the legislation. Like him, I sincerely hope that Ministers will approach the amendments to be tabled in the House with an open mind, particularly on the passerelle provisions, especially in the light of the persuasive comments of my noble friend Lord Goodlad. I have worked with the Minister on several occasions, and I hope that I do not again blight her career by saying that I have always found her to be constructive, open-minded and fair-minded when a convincing and honest argument is made for improving legislation. Unless we are very much on our guard, this legislation will make it possible for changes in European law to be imported into UK statute without any requirement for primary legislation. Perhaps more to the point, there would be no opportunity for debate in this House. That would be unacceptable and, arguably, against the spirit of how we have traditionally conducted ourselves in this country within the rule of law and within a bicameral system. As Peter Riddell pointed out in an article in the Times this morning, your Lordships’, "““treaty amendments make sense. Ministers should take note””." Well, we have amendments to make. I do not know how Peter Riddell heard about them, but we will be tabling them. The point is not about being pro-European or anti-European, it is all about accountability, due process and the rule of law. The one issue that has overhung this debate is the question of a referendum. I cannot avoid dealing with that, especially as the noble Baroness the Lord President said that she was going to deal with it in her speech when she was interrupted—rightly, I think—for clarification by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. As I said, this has been a marvellous debate, drawing on that breadth and depth of experience and wisdom that could not be bettered anywhere. That is all very well, but this should be a debate for everyone, not just for the sage heads who populate the Benches in this House. The referendum is certainly no longer an abstruse constitutional question. I particularly commend the speeches of my noble friends, Lord Forsyth, Lord Leach of Fairford and Lord Waddington. My noble friend Lord Leach had it right when he said that surely the Government could not go back on a pledge that helped to win them the election. In essence, it is a matter of trust. The outstanding speech for me was that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who pointed out why it was a question of trust. I just say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that that was the speech that should have motivated and moved him. I found it very persuasive. Sir Winston Churchill famously said, ““Trust the people””. As ever, he was highly prescient. My noble friend Lord Howell may grieve, but, as my noble friend Lord Liverpool and others pointed out, all the parties at the last election promised a referendum on a document that was substantially similar to the treaty of Lisbon, a document that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said in the debate was a treaty of real significance. What matters is that it is surely sophistry, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, to claim that differences between this treaty and the former constitutional treaty are so great that its constitutional significance has somehow been stripped away. The analysis of my noble friend Lord Blackwell proved that. This is the treaty formerly known as the constitutional treaty. As the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, said, it should never have been called a constitutional treaty, a point echoed by my noble friend Lord Brittan of Spennithorne. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, called it a dead parrot—I am still trying to work out the significance of that remark—and my noble friend Lord Bowness said that it never was a constitution. As my noble friend Lord Ryder said, it was a populist pledge. It was this Government who let the referendum genie well and truly out of the bottle, and what an unworthy and demeaning sight it is now as the very same Ministers try to coax it back inside the bottle. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that this was all Tony Blair’s fault. This was a surprising theme in the debate: that it was somehow all the fault of one person called Tony Blair who somehow thought up the idea of a referendum. It was not Tony Blair; it was someone called Mr Clegg. According to the Guardian in 2003, the present leader of the Liberal party said that if there were to be changes as a result of the discussions in Europe, Tony Blair should stop refusing a referendum and embrace it. It was Mr Nick Clegg who thought up the idea and persuaded Tony Blair, so how the noble Baroness can now turn on Tony Blair and blame him for what her own party did, I simply cannot understand. Anyway, that is the Liberal party. It was all over the place in this debate. Having pledged a referendum and then abstained in the other place, it decided to adopt the third way—to oppose a referendum. My goodness, we are still trying to work out exactly where it stands. This latest breach of trust will be significant indeed for the Labour Party. As my noble friend Lord Lawson said, it is a question of political integrity. What a telling question was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton: whether the Government’s commitment to hold a referendum, if they were to recommend entry into the eurozone and the adoption of the euro, still stands. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also asked that question. I hope that the Lord President will answer it. It is alas too characteristic of this Government that they should choose to arrogate to themselves every decision possible. Everything must be micro-managed and controlled from the centre. They seem to say, ““Don’t let the voters trouble their little heads about matters that are far too complicated for them””. The Government constantly ask the people to trust them. On this crucially important issue, why will they not trust the people? If they do not, the people will never trust them again.