European Union Bill

I was attempting to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to give way during his very impassioned defence of this particular Motion. I merely wish to tease him a bit for one moment by saying that it is clear that he does not understand the readership of the Daily Mail—and I am sure that that is the case, as it does not appear to be his favourite reading, from what he said on an earlier intervention. But I do not think that he absolutely understands the Liberal Democrats either. Indeed, I am not actually sure that he listens to the Liberal Democrats. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made it absolutely plain in his statement that he was a Liberal Democrat, and I too, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, knows, belong to that party. None the less, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made a very serious and profound point, which was reflected in his signature to the important letter to the Times today, which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other immensely eminent noble Lords have signed also. The point, of course, is that the issues reflected in the EU Bill for referendums are of ““fundamental constitutional importance””, to quote the letter. The statement made in the letter, which he reflected again today in his speech, is that: "““The Parliamentary Constitution Scrutiny Committee recommends that referendums should be confined to changes of fundamental constitutional importance””." Of course, economy of the truth is something that others, maybe even Secretaries to the Cabinet, have used to great effect. While I personally disagree profoundly with him on losing a national veto over key areas outlined in the Bill being regarded as of ““fundamental constitutional importance””—I think they should be—none the less, I take issue with the noble Lord for the way in which he has clipped the important statements made by the Constitution Committee in its report on referendums in the UK. The report goes on to say: "““There are difficulties in defining what constitutes a ‘fundamental constitutional issue’. Although some constitutional issues clearly are of fundamental importance, and others not, there is a grey area where the importance of issues is a matter of political judgment””." The committee did, "““not believe that it is possible to provide a precise definition of what constitutes a ‘fundamental constitutional issue’””." While it is, "““possible to set out in legislation specific issues which should be subject to a referendum””—"