European Union Bill

My Lords, this is a probing amendment. At the end of the Committee stage it is time to see where we are and to review the overall effects of the Bill, which is highly relevant to my amendment for a sunset clause. The Bill is of course a compromise. In the election the Conservatives argued for the repatriation of powers from Brussels to the United Kingdom. This was always, in my view, an impossible promise, as well as a mistaken one, but it was in effect abandoned under the coalition agreement. The Liberal Democrats had to concede that any treaty amendment would require a referendum. The agreement also provided that passerelle changes would require primary legislation, which we all welcomed. What has the compromise produced? At Second Reading and in the earlier stages of the Committee proceedings, some very powerful arguments were advanced that the detailed referendum requirements and the referendum lock would seriously damage our influence in Europe. In 56, or probably more, cases, the referendum trigger applies, and many of these triggers are minor. In many of these cases Britain would benefit from a change, yet the referendum lock will, in practice, make it impossible in negotiations for our representatives to support a proposed change, even if it benefits this country. If our partners favour a change, but our negotiators can do nothing but sit on their hands, it is likely that we will be bypassed under the enhanced co-operation procedure. These arguments were advanced by Members of this House who, with great respect, have far more experience of proceedings and negotiations in Europe than members of the present Government. The noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Hannay and Lord Williamson, on the Cross Benches, have unequalled knowledge of how negotiations in the European Union work. We have also heard contributions from four ex-commissioners; from the formidable noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon; the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who has worked in the Commission; and from the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Triesman, who both have experience of negotiating in Brussels—long experience in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Those who worry about the effect of the Bill on our influence in Europe present a formidable array of cross-party and non-party expertise and talent. I humbly suggest that the Government should take their worries very seriously. In any case, it is a very odd Bill. In effect, many of the Government’s arguments have led to the conclusion that the Bill is not needed at all. First, major treaty changes under the ordinary procedure will be subject to referenda. The Government have made it clear that they will use their veto to oppose such changes, so there can be no referendum for any major treaty changes. Next, treaty changes under the simplified procedure will be subject to a referendum, unless they are announced by the Government to be insignificant—an announcement that is subject to challenge in the courts. These changes are also subject to our veto and the Government will veto them, as they have said. There can be no referendum for treaty changes under the simplified procedure. Passerelle changes that are subject to veto are now to be subject to a referendum as well. Since the Government will veto any transfer of powers, there can be no referendum in this case. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 set out in detail how and when the referendum lock will apply. Schedule 6 provides a long list of decisions where we cannot give up our veto and change to qualified majority voting without a referendum. However, there will be no referendum since we do not intend to give up our veto. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has said, this is a no-referendum Bill. In the words of Professor Vernon Bogdanor, it is also an Alice in Wonderland Bill. We were assured by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in the course of his patient and eloquent defence of the Bill, that in any case no one else in Europe would want to transfer any major new powers to the European Union due to Lisbon fatigue, and because the European Union after Lisbon has all the powers that it would need in practice. If minor changes were envisaged they would be delayed and become part of a single passage that might be served up in many years’ time; although how such a package could be suitable for a yes or no answer in a referendum is not entirely clear. So what on earth is the point of the Bill? It will not, it seems, apply to the present Parliament. Now there is one argument, which has been advanced on several occasions, which does seem to apply. It is the argument that the existence of the numerous referendum blocks will restore trust and will reconnect and re-engage the British people because it will assure them that, in future, they will have a say. This really is a preposterous argument. Imagine the scene: a conversation between two locals in their favourite pub. One reads out the latest scare in the Daily Mail about the latest plan in Brussels to ban a sausage or two, to free all sex offenders or to deprive our Parliament of any powers to make our own laws. It is all right, says his companion, put away your Daily Mail because we have this European Union Act—we can now stop them by voting in a referendum. We can vote against appointing an extra judge to the European Court of Justice, on replacing the protocol in the excessive deficit procedure or any decision about laying down the multiannual financial framework. So you can now sleep easy at night because you will now be able to regard the Brussels bureaucrats as your friends. So there will be an end to mistrust, an end to alienation. Do the Government really believe that a law of which few will be aware, which provides for a possible referendum some time in the future in 56 or more cases of changes in European laws, can act as an effective antidote to the stream of anti-European propaganda poured out almost daily by the Daily Mail and the Murdoch press? The basic purpose of this Bill is not to affect the current Parliament because it applies to transfers of powers and there will be no transfers of powers. It is to tie the hands of a future Parliament that might want to support change. I cannot recall any precedent for such a law and I believe it is a constitutional outrage. It says, ““This Bill will not affect this Parliament. We don’t need it (except perhaps to appease our Europhobe Back-Benchers, although it can hardly be successful) but we want to stop the next Government from doing what they choose to do””. There is one further point. Suppose the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is wrong. He may well be right that other countries do not want to make any important changes, but we cannot be sure. We cannot predict. Circumstances may well arise that demand major changes, and pressures may also increase on our Government for us to support changes that are in our national interest. We have had in our debates some very persuasive examples of this. Our defence equipment industry may want changes to stop others from protecting their relatively inefficient companies against our more efficient ones. We may want changes in intellectual property laws, or measures that will overcome obstacles to the full realisation of the single market. Our financial industry may get increasingly worried that referendum locks that mobilise our negotiators leave us isolated; and that enhanced co-operation by our European partners will lead to new regulations that affect us, even though we will have no say in their formulation. They have told the Government only yesterday that they are very concerned about the possible impact of EU regulations on our financial industry. Indeed, the Government themselves may want to change their mind. Governments do and parties do. The Conservatives were once the pro-European party. The Government may even find that they themselves will suffer most from the straitjacket that this Bill imposes on our negotiators. They may even begin to see that a flurry of referendums undermines the essence of our parliamentary democracy. If they want this Bill, okay. However, I hope they will think again and realise that it will be a mistake to foist it on the next Parliament as well. I beg to move.