European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for introducing this debate on the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU. It was actually a debate about that, and I appreciate the contributions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lords, Lord Watson of Richmond, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Lord Vinson, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Lord Monson, Lord Willoughby de Broke, Lord Moran, Lord Dykes and Lord Howell of Guildford, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. I always enjoy speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as he knows. In particular, I enjoy the vehemence of his hostility to Europe because it has a colourful quality that enlivens what would otherwise be a gloomier debate. However, I say to him—and I shall make the point in more detail as I go on—that I cannot always recognise the sources of the facts that he adduces. I regret to say that I agree with point made by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Dykes, about the language that he chooses to use. I fear that certain kinds of language and rhetoric get in the way of the debate rather than help it. The noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Willoughby de Broke, started by saying that the Bill is not about withdrawal but about an investigation. I looked at the transcript of the entertaining discussion that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, had with Dr MacShane on the ““Today”” programme this morning. If he has drawn support from Dr MacShane’s words, I must say that he may, in retrospect, detect a certain playfulness on Dr MacShane’s part. That bears on what this legislation is about. It is not called the Let’s Get the Facts Right Bill; it is called the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill. One does not have to be Einstein to understand from the speeches what those words mean. They are so neutral, so fact-finding and so impartial that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was able to tell Carolyn Quinn this morning that the effect on our economy of EU membership is clearly pretty disastrous. I regret that I did not hear the programme, but I read the transcript, and I suspect that the investigation may, at least in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, have come to an end. We should be honest about this. On all sides of the House there is a great deal of judgment about where we already are. That has been expressed, so I am not saying anything unfair. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, at least supports involvement in the European market, if little else. Between her and the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, I detect serious confusion in the position of Conservative speakers in this debate. The balance in what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said is plainly not reflected elsewhere in his party. I hope that on Thursday, when I think we will see much more systematic intervention from all the Benches, we may get greater balance. I want to take on the issue of what we should think about the research in Switzerland, which has been used as an argument in favour of the Bill, because the argument does not appeal to me. The United Kingdom’s GDP is 7.5 times greater than that of Switzerland and the United Kingdom’s labour force is approximately eight times greater. The very efficient Swiss economy is highly dependent on a number of niche production areas and niche markets. By contrast, we have a much larger domestic market and export a far wider range of goods. I make the point as an economist more than anything else, but the idea that a serious comparison can be made does little service to the argument as a whole. We have transformed Britain’s standing within the EU and have played a central role in all the key debates in recent years. We have also played a major part in promoting enlargement and reform—the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Dykes, emphasised the enlargement factor. There are strong reasons why continued active engagement in Europe is essential for Britain. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I suspect that while this country will always have a healthy scepticism about almost any international entity beyond its island shores, most of its people are pragmatic—thank goodness. They see benefits and disadvantages, but, on balance, I think that they will be unwilling to throw away those advantages. I can quickly illustrate the point. There are things that it is not wise to be afraid of. Universities were mentioned in this context. Almost all universities are chartered. They are governed and were brought into creation by Acts of Parliament with an absolutely inflexible independence. I do not believe that they are about to be corralled by anyone. I would advise anyone who even thinks of spending time trying to do so to use their time more effectively. I know the university world well. It is not biddable; let me put it that way. Of the many great challenges that we face in today’s globalised world—and these are the pragmatic points—we need to work with partners, including EU partners. By doing so, we can achieve much more than we can on our own on some—not all—important issues. I shall not over claim. We can do more on climate change, energy, cross-border crime, counterterrorism and the development of assistance to developing countries. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that our own aid programme for developing countries is not trammelled by any EU decisions taken on aid. There are some differences in the nuancing of how the aid arrangements go. Our aid is increasing and we take the decisions on it. That is why we put the issues I have described at the top of the EU’s agenda during our presidency of the EU in 2005. We are working successfully with partners to drive forward practical change.