European Union Bill

My Lords, I am entirely in disagreement with what my noble friend has been saying. This Bill is full of absurdities, and the most absurd of those is that referendums will have to be held for changes in 56 sets of EU rules, even if they are minor changes that are of no particular interest to members of the public. There is a large number of these possible proceedings, listed especially in Clause 6 and Schedule 1. Of these, only one—the decision to make the euro the currency of the United Kingdom—would clearly justify a referendum. In practice, it is inconceivable that there will be any decision to seek to make our currency the euro. It is arguable that a decision under the Schengen protocol to remove UK border controls would also justify a referendum, but none of the other matters in the Bill does so. Let me give an example. There are references in Clause 6 and Schedule 1 to a body called the ““European Public Prosecutor’s Office””. That is the subject of my Amendments 36 and 42, which are in this group. The EPPO does not yet exist and may never exist, but under Article 86 of TFEU it could be created. The EPPO would then be responsible for, "““investigating, prosecuting and bring to judgment … offences against the Union’s financial interests … in the … courts of the Member States””." The powers of the EPPO could be extended to include, "““serious crime having a cross-border dimension””." I do not at present wish to support the extension of an EPPO to the United Kingdom but it may be accepted by other member states, provided that at least nine states join in. It is possible that the EPPO might prove to be a useful and effective organisation and a future Government might wish to join it. The powers of an EPPO are not unimportant and an Act of Parliament would be justified, but why go on to a referendum? How many citizens of the United Kingdom would be affected, as individuals, by the EPPO? How many might be charged with, "““offences against the Union’s financial interests””?" Hardly any; if anyone is prosecuted by the EPPO, it will probably be bankers or fraudsters. How many might be prosecuted for, "““serious crime having a cross-border dimension””?" Again, it would be only a few corporate bodies or fraudsters. A referendum on the EPPO would be of far less interest to the public than any on a Bill to, let us say, reconstruct the National Health Service, which is not going to be the subject of a referendum. Referendums are also expensive. The cost of the AV referendum will be large but a referendum under this Bill will cost even more because it will be harder to couple it with parliamentary or local government elections, unless it is decided that it must be delayed for up to a year until we have the next electoral event. Not just one on the EPPO but any referendum under this Bill, except for those on joining the euro or opening the borders, would frankly attract very few votes. It would be a waste of time and money and attract a minimum of people. Almost all the other provisions in Clause 6 do no more than refer to the possibility of qualified majority voting or the substituting of the ordinary legislative procedure for a special legislative procedure—that is, that the special procedure will be replaced by the ordinary procedure. These matters are suitable for decision by Parliament but are patently inappropriate for referendums. I finish with a statement contained in a government hymn-sheet which was circulated among my Liberal Democrat colleagues a few days ago. Referring to the group which we are now debating, it says: "““This goes against the whole purpose and philosophy of the Bill. It only—cynically—leaves the referendum provisions for the euro, and so returns to the dreadful political status quo””." There is nothing whatever that is cynical in those of us who object to referendums when they would be inappropriate, or who believe that it is not the status quo but the proposals in the Bill which would be dreadful.