Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I have heard a number of winding-up speeches by Government Ministers in the time I have been in this House, but tonight the only person who was being wound up was the Minister himself. That was not a summary of the Government's position—it was an incoherent rant. Nevertheless, let me do my best to reply to the debate. This has been an enlightening debate, not least because it has highlighted the clear reluctance of the Government and Liberal Democrats to back the introduction of a referendum lock on future treaties that pass powers from Britain to the European Union. If such a power were on the statute book, it could strengthen the hand of a future British Minister in negotiations with our European partners, because it could be cited in those negotiations and all our European partners would be aware of it. It would strengthen the hand of a future Government in dealing with our partners in the EU; perhaps that is one of the reasons why some of the other parties in this House are so reluctant to see it introduced. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) made a robust and, in many ways, very witty speech in defence of our amendment. Several of the points that he made were unanswered by the Minister in his summing-up rant, so let me put a few points to the Minister. Of course, several of these treaties have transferred competences from this Parliament to the European Union. He knows full well that the effect of those treaties was to do that; to attempt to deny it, as he did in the opening sentences of his rant, was completely and utterly fallacious. He knows full well that those powers were potentially transferred from here to the EU, and he should not attempt to deny it in the same way that the Government constantly attempted to downplay it when we had the debates on the Lisbon treaty. The Minister put some questions to me. No, we would not propose to have a referendum on the establishment of a radio communications agency, any more than we would propose to have one on the establishment of an open-plan office, as the previous Prime Minister once put it when he was trying to explain away the Lisbon treaty as something that no one should be in the least bit concerned about. Our referendum lock would not automatically mean that there was always a referendum on an accession treaty—that would depend on whether the treaty included the transfer of further powers from Britain to the EU. However, if this referendum lock had been on the statute book at the time of the Nice treaty or the Amsterdam treaty, it would have guaranteed that the British people were asked to give their consent, or not, in a referendum. If it had been on the statute book at the time of the Lisbon treaty, it would have guaranteed that the British people had a chance to indicate their support, or not, in a referendum. That is the kind of amendment that we are talking about, and it utterly undermines the Government's case to try to belittle it because they are desperate to find a reason for people not to vote for it in the Lobby tonight.