| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Liberal Democrats’ extraordinary flip-flopping on policy is unbelievable. I am not sure that it is doing them much good. It follows their approach to the constitution. They started off by promising a referendum in their manifesto. Next, they said that everybody in this Chamber and the other place should abstain. Not everybody did, and those who did not voted for a referendum. Now, they are going to vote against a referendum on the constitution. It is extremely difficult to keep up with Liberal policy because it changes so quickly. The Liberal Democrats certainly do not allow principle to weigh too heavily on their shoulders.
The trouble about all this is that the Liberal Democrats treat policies as other people treat clothes: they put them on and take them off as it suits the changing patterns of the political weather. Moreover, they are famous for policies which vary across the country. They have certain policies to woo voters in Labour constituencies in the north—
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: May I just ask the honourable Member—
20 May 2008 : Column 1443
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: I am sorry. May I ask the noble Lord which Conservative Party conference passed a resolution in favour of a referendum on Europe?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom: I do not know whether it was put to a party conference, but it is in our manifesto that we would have a referendum on the constitution.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: May I therefore take it that the Conservative Party has no acknowledged national policy on a referendum?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom: If it was in our manifesto to have one on the constitution then I think that it is our policy. I do not understand the noble Lord’s point.
Let us look at other areas. I was referring to the problem that Liberals say one thing to Labour constituencies in the north while quite different messages seem to come over in Conservative areas in the south-west. It suggests that the Liberals have got political opportunism down to a fine art.
Lord Sewel: The noble Lord makes quite proper play of the importance of principle and consistency in policy on Europe. I suppose that some of us do have to blush from time to time when that is mentioned. But will he confirm, in terms of consistency and principle, that the Conservative Party’s policy is still to withdraw from the common fisheries policy while remaining a member of the European Union? Does he not recognise that that is a complete contradiction in terms?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom: I do not speak for the party on the common fisheries policy or anything else. I cannot claim to be a confidant of David Cameron. All I know is that the EU has promised—though not many people believe it—that there will not be another treaty for another 10 years. I think that we are going to get another one far earlier than that. I suspect that at the next election the Conservative Party will make a commitment—the Labour Party may do as well—that there will be a referendum on the next treaty. If that comes down the line in about five years’ time, I am confident that at that point there will be a Conservative Government. I am also confident that at that point no treaty would get through the House of Commons, even with a referendum in the country. Something has got to snap somewhere. You will have to watch this space to see where the strain tells. I believe that we are on the threshold of change and am enormously encouraged by the fact.
All I would say to the Liberal Democrats is that if they could settle on a policy, it would do an awful lot for their credibility if they could actually keep with it and not change it biweekly.
Lord Williamson of Horton: As I am a Cross-Bench Peer, I am privileged not to have to intervene in the matter of the party policies on Europe, which have existed since time immemorial and continue to exist in one form or another, according to what I have heard from those on the Benches on the other side of the Chamber. I just wish to make a couple of points, which I make because they have been raised in the debate, and I shall do so very briefly.
20 May 2008 : Column 1444
First, there is an assumption that because we are in the European Community we are disadvantaged in our trade with China, India and other countries. There is nothing inconsistent in being present in a single market of considerable importance—although that is not often referred to by opponents of that market—in the European Union, and at the same time being capable of exploiting the possibilities in new markets in India, China—
Lord Leach of Fairford: I do not think that I have heard that argument being advanced by anyone, and I have been in the Chamber most of the time. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, advance the argument that Asia is the continent of the 21st century, which is a very strong argument, but I do not think that I have heard anybody say that this country would be disadvantaged in its trade with Asia by its ties with the European Union. Maybe somebody has said that but, if so, it has passed me by.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I suggest that the noble Lord looks at Hansard. He will see that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—and I was trying not to mention him by name, because I wanted to make my point in general—made that point. He referred very disparagingly to the internal market by comparison with the other markets. As I say, they are not inconsistent; it is perfectly possible to trade worldwide from the United Kingdom within the European Union.
My second point is that it is very frequently said that the United Kingdom makes huge budget contributions to the European Union. The implication is that we are paying for most or a very large part of it. This argument is often advanced. I have a long reputation, I think, of being very averse to spending the taxpayer’s money, which is why I feel that it is useful for me to intervene briefly on this point.
The budget of the European Union is 2.1 per cent of public expenditure in the European Union member states, which is a very low figure. The division of contributions, as they are called, between the member states, is certainly not in line with the impression that is often given. I have the budget report for 2006; the figures indicate the operating budgetary balances—that is, the difference between the operating expenditure, which goes into a member state, such as the agricultural fund, the regional fund and so on, and the own resources payments, which is what a member state pays in, in the form of a VAT contribution, and so on. That takes account, as it should, of the budget rebate, which is part of the system that was brilliantly negotiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. The UK operating budgetary balance on this basis is €2,143 million. We are 10th in the list of countries expressed as a percentage of gross national income. France, for example, contributes €3,017.8 million, which is 0.17 per cent of gross national income.
I do not make much of this point. I would much prefer it if the expenditure on the European Union budget was lower and if what we put in was less. That would suit me extremely well. But I do not want the impression to be left that somehow we are bailing out the rest of the European Union and that others are
20 May 2008 : Column 1445
9.15 pm
Viscount Astor: This amendment has merit only because of the Government’s response to the previous amendment on whether there should be a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. If the Government had accepted that there should be a referendum then this amendment would be entirely irrelevant. So in a way it really is the Government’s fault for not standing up to their manifesto commitments to allow a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I assure the noble Lord that this debate is not my fault.
Viscount Astor: Of course it is not the noble Baroness’s fault. But I believe that the Government, of whom she is part, must take some responsibility.
I spoke on Second Reading though I have not spoken so far in Committee. But I feel compelled to rise to my feet on this amendment. I have listened to many of the debates and read with great care the ones that I have not listened to. It is fascinating that, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us, the Labour Party is the only party that has actually wanted to withdraw from Europe since I have been a Member of this House. I have heard senior members of that party—they were in another place at the time but are now in this House—standing up and giving us their European credentials. But never once did they explain how they managed to stay within that party in 1983 or give any excuses why they did so.
Lord Radice: The noble Lord has asked me a question. I wrote my own manifesto. That is how I stayed in the Labour Party.
Viscount Astor: Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Radice, had the courage of his convictions. Unfortunately, many of his colleagues did not.
Of course the Lib Dems really are in a difficult position. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that they were not going to be pushed into a pit. Unfortunately, their leader has put them in a pit. They are there already and we watch them slowly trying to clamber out of it, with a certain amount of glee and slight sorrow that they have such a muddled policy.
If there was a referendum, I believe that there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of staying in the European Union. I firmly believe in staying in the European Union. My noble friend Lord Hamilton was absolutely right that if there was a referendum, that would be the end of UKIP. If that happened, I am sure that we would consider whether we should welcome the two noble Lords back into our party. Of course they might wish to join the Lib Dems if the Lib Dems change their policy sufficiently by then. You never know; the Lib Dems have always been very welcoming to noble Lords of other parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made the point that he did not understand the Conservative policy. I listened to the speeches of my noble friend Lord Howell. I thoroughly understand the Conservative policy, and I
20 May 2008 : Column 1446
Lord Tomlinson: I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who, contrary to the views opposite, did visualise circumstances in which a Great Britain outside the European Union was going to build this massive trade with China and replace what he saw as our £40 billion trade imbalance into surplus with such trade. That is a formidable achievement, if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, can actually find plans to create that set of circumstances.
I merely suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that if we were ever to come to the circumstances—and I hope it does not happen—in which the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, were to leave the Government, then perhaps in order to augment the Government of all the talents, she should at least keep the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on her reserve list.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am most obliged to the noble Lord for giving me such a good reference to join the Government as a non-Labour Labour Minister.
Viscount Trenchard: I would nearly like to support the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson, Lord Stoddart and Lord Willoughby de Broke, and my noble friend Lord Hamilton. However, on balance, I disagree with them all slightly for different reasons. There is a strong majority in this country in favour of remaining within the EU, as my noble friends Lord Astor and Lord Hamilton said, but that majority is becoming increasingly worried that the EU is moving towards becoming a kind of federal state. That is not the EU that it originally wanted to join. There is therefore an overwhelming and growing feeling in the country that we have had enough Europe. It may be all right, but we do not want any more.
It is often said that Britain should be at the heart of Europe. Well, we are more able to influence developments at the heart of Europe now than we will be if the Lisbon treaty is ratified. With the move towards more qualified majority voting in so many areas, we pool a much greater amount of our sovereignty whether we admit it or not. It is difficult to see how we can get it back. We currently have the influence and ability to persuade our European partners to do it a bit differently. Our influence to achieve that after the treaty is ratified will be diminished.
The noble Lord, Lord Radice, rightly pointed out that the European Union has been very good in many ways for many of its members. However, having worked outside the United Kingdom and in Asia for half my working life, I am not sure that the United Kingdom has gained as much from it as some of the other members. The United Kingdom could have made a
20 May 2008 : Column 1447
I worry particularly about financial services. Having spent 2006 working in Brussels, as the director-general of the European Fund and Asset Management Association, I know very well that many of our continental competitors are quite jealous of London’s success. They are more concerned with harmonisation than with the continuing success of London, the United Kingdom’s financial services capital. Although we try to say that London is Europe’s and the United Kingdom’s financial services capital, London will nevertheless suffer as a result of pressure towards harmonisation of financial regulation. MFID has had some undesirable consequences. The financial services action plan is expensive. We must be careful in this area. The more we surrender our ability to decide our own regulation and financial legislation, the more threatened London’s position will be.
Lord Dykes: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way and I apologise for interrupting, but is that not a misunderstanding? All the people whom one talks to in the City of London are very keen on all these entities getting together and creating greater strength from the collectivity as well from the success of London as the primordial financial centre. This country has a low manufacturing base, unfortunately, and therefore we tend to have a trade deficit with most other advanced countries, including within the EU, but we make up for it with the surplus from financial and other services and from Stock Exchange transactions and all the rest of the City’s financial transactions. That is a huge asset, and there is no fear in the City that that will be taken away by greater co-operation with other Europeans.
Viscount Trenchard: I do not know whom the noble Lord talks to in the City but I assure him that there is very great concern in the City about MFID and about European intervention in our own financial services regulation. London has been a huge success, and I have worked for a British financial services organisation for most of my working life. I now work for a Japanese one but at least it has a London subsidiary.
We have to be very careful. I believe that the United Kingdom punches above its weight in the world and that we are in danger of transferring too much of our decision-making to Brussels when we can do better by retaining our own ability to deal with the emerging and expanding powers in Europe, Asia and the Americas and around the world.
I believe that the majority of people think that we have had enough Europe. Therefore, I would strongly support a double referendum asking, “Do you want the Lisbon treaty or not?”, to which I think the majority of the people of this country would say,
20 May 2008 : Column 1448
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: I speak in favour of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I greatly admire his knowledge and persistence in pursuing a course in which he passionately believes. We are all familiar with the arguments for and against further integration into the European Union. As we know, more than 70 per cent of our laws come from Brussels and we scrutinise thousands of regulations from it each year. We have no power to alter any of them and no evidence has been given to this House that we have done so.
If employees of Brussels speak out against the corruption that occurs, they are dismissed. You can lose your pension if you speak out against the Union. Do we want to belong to an organisation which is so unsure of its own authority? As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others have said, we have a trade deficit with the EU. It needs us more than we need it. We are integrating further with an area with static, declining and ageing populations and with no adequate pension provisions. This country has a growing population, although sadly, thanks to the Government, one of the finest pension provision systems in the world has been virtually destroyed. None the less, we remain demographically much better off than our European neighbours.
The constitution—sorry, treaty—is yet another direct and creeping takeover of British sovereignty. We discuss it as though it is a static document. It is, as history indicates, yet another way for the EU to take over the running of more of our lives. Even though it is not yet passed, some decisions are already being pre-empted, such as the setting up of diplomatic missions. Health and safety, which we blithely entered into, extended its tentacles into areas we had never foreseen. Indeed, some Members have already indicated that further integration is on the agenda. An example of health and safety is the draft proposal that golf courses should have toilets at regular intervals all round them. My source is a toilet manufacturer in the UK. Is that sort of interference in our daily lives really necessary? The country has failed to renegotiate any major areas of conflict—the fisheries policy for one. We are barely supported by the EU in Afghanistan. The endless bureaucracy, the levelling down and desire to lower UK standards to EU ones, and the wish to make the City less competitive are all reasons why the time has come to review our whole relationship.
20 May 2008 : Column 1449
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |