HL Deb 23 January 1975 vol 356 cc229-44

3.46 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat the Statement about the means by which the British people will decide the issue of our membership of the European Community, just made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. His words were as follows:

"It is the declared policy of the Government that, once the outcome of our renegotiation of the terms of membership is known, the British people should have the right to decide, through the ballot box, by means either of a General Election or of a Referendum, whether Britain should continue in membership of the European Community or should withdraw.

"The Government have decided that this should be done by means of a Referendum. Prolonged uncertainty and delay on the decision of the British people are in the interests neither of Britain nor of other members of the Community. After fifteen years of discussion and negotiation, it is an issue which all of us in this House and in the country want to see settled; and uncertainty about the future of British membership is inhibiting the work of the Community.

"The Government are committed to putting the issue to the people before 10th October this year. Provided that the outcome of renegotiation is known in time, we intend to hold the Referendum before the summer holidays, which means in practice not later than the end of June. We shall therefore propose to the House arrangements which would make it possible to hold the Referendum on that timetable, tight though it will be.

"When the outcome of renegotiation is known, the Government will decide upon their own recommendation to the country, whether for continued membership of the Community on the basis of the renegotiated terms, or for withdrawal, and will announce their decision to the House in due course. That announcement will provide an opportunity for the House to debate the question of substance. That does not of course preclude debates at any earlier time, subject to the convenience of the House.

"The circumstances of this Referendum are unique; and the issue to be decided is one on which strong views have long been held which cross Party lines. The Cabinet has therefore decided that, if, when the time comes, there are members of the Government (including members of the Cabinet) who do not feel able to accept and support the Government's recommendation, whatever it may be, they will, once the recommendation has been announced, be free to support and speak in favour of a different conclusion in the Referendum campaign.

"As to the arrangements for the Referendum, I told the House on Tuesday that the rules for the test of public opinion must be made by this House. The Government propose within a very few weeks to publish a White Paper on the rules and arrangements for conducting the Referendum.

"The White paper will set out the various possible courses and the Government's proposals on such matters as the information policy of the Government during the Referendum campaign, broadcasting arrangements during the campaign, the question of expenditure by campaigning groups, the form in which the question is to be put to the British people, and arrangements for conducting the poll, the counting of the votes and the announcement of the result. The Government will find time for a debate on the White Paper on Referendum procedure in this House before the Easter recess. That debate will of course be separate from, and will precede, the Parliamentary debate which will be necessary on the outcome of the negotiations.

"The debate on the Referendum White Paper will enable the Government to take full account of the views expressed by right honourable and honourable Members of this House"—and, of course, in your Lordships' House here—

"and by public opinion generally in drafting the necessary legislation for the Referendum. The Government propose to introduce the legislation around Easter-time. We shall of course propose that all stages should be taken on the Floor of the House. If we are able to hold the Referendum before the summer holiday, the Bill will need to complete its passage through both Houses and to receive Royal Assent by the end of May."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement. Perhaps I might add that arrangements for debates will be made here through the usual channels to meet the convenience of your Lordships.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Carrington, who is temporarily indisposed, and of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I have been asked to comment upon this Statement. I am sure that the House would wish me to begin by thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating here this most important Statement, in order to give your Lordships the opportunity of a brief comment. I have not had an opportunity of consulting fully with my Party, but I think that what I say will commend itself to, at any rate, a substantial majority of it. I must say that I regret the decision of the Government to proceed by Referendum rather than by General Election. I believe that a Referendum is incompatible with the doctrine of Government responsibility and collective responsibility, and I think it substitutes demagogy for responsible constitutional Government. Should there be—I do not know whether there will be—any members of the Government who choose to speak or campaign in public against the recommendation of the Government, we on this side of the House will demand that they should resign in order to vindicate the correct doctrine of collective responsibility.

Secondly, I regret the Statement on the grounds that I believe that a Referendum on a Treaty which has been endorsed by Parliament is contrary to the honour and interests of this country. The Treaty was passed by the same method that all Treaties in the past have been passed, including those which led us into two World Wars and into NATO, and the idea that Treaties can be treated ex post facto as scraps of paper is not one which I believe conduces to the honour of Great Britain. I can conceive of no greater disaster that could befall this country than that its reputation for reliability and its economic interests should be subjected to an ordeal of this kind. I say that as a member of a Party which is as deeply committed to a negotiation of changes in the structure and policy of the Economic Community as any other Party in the land.

May I also make this comment? The Statement which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has given us this afternoon is totally silent upon a matter which greatly disturbed me when I heard it canvassed on the radio this morning; that is, the question whether votes will be counted by constituencies, or by the country as a whole. I was gravely disturbed to find there were elements in the Government which were going to demand it on a constituency basis; in other words, that one vote should count in one constituency for more than one vote in another constituency. My Lords, I think we will demand that the votes should be counted on a national and not on a constituency basis, as we would regard the latter as wholly contrary to democracy. Needless to say, we shall not obstruct, in either House of Parliament, the need for legislation, because if we are to have this, to my mind, wholly discreditable procedure, we had better get it over and done with quickly, and the Party to which I belong, at any rate, will campaign vigorously in the country if and when the Referendum is held. That is what I say at first blush on hearing the Statement.

Lord BYERS

My Lords, I must make clear to the Government that I and many of my noble friends deplore the introduction of the Referendum into our Constitution. In that we are fully supported by the present Prime Minister who described it as an "alien introduction" in 1970, and I think it is regrettable that we should have gone back on that. I want to put two questions to the Government. First, how is it proposed to avoid a series of possibly, and almost probably, conflicting and irreconcilable decisions by the House of Commons on a free vote—and I hope by this House on a free vote—by the Cabinet and the Government, the National Executive of the Labour Party, the special conference of the Labour Party and the national Referendum in the country? What chance is there of all those six decisions being exactly in agreement with one another? I should like to ask, in the event of conflict among any of those, which decision takes precedence—that of the Cabinet, Parliament or the country?

My second point—I want to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and put a straight question to the Government—is this. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House explain the Statement that: … members of the Cabinet who do not feel able to accept … the Government's recommendation … will … be free to support and speak in favour of a different conclusion in the Referendum campaign. Does this mean that they can do so while remaining members of the Cabinet? This is a vitally important principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. We, too, shall campaign against this and demand their resignations, but, in my view, it is up to the noble Lord to tell us what is the policy of the Government and the Prime Minister on this vital constitutional principle.

3.58 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I am not certain when the noble Lord is not blushing. First of all, in regard to the question of a Referendum or a General Election, the Government, in two Election campaigns last year stated in their Manifesto that they would consult the British people through the ballot box. There have been two General Elections in one year and, taking the general state of the country as we inherited it, I would not have thought it in the interests of the country to have called a General Election on this specific point. Therefore, that leaves us the Referendum. In regard to the Treaty and the honour of this country, the Labour Party both in Opposition and in Government have made it quite clear that we intended to renegotiate, in the hope that we would achieve terms which we could commend to the British people, and could remain in. But it has always been accepted—also among the other eight countries of the EEC—that the Government would refer this matter to the British people, and so I do not believe that there is any question of honour.

In regard to collective responsibility in the Cabinet—this is a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred—the Referendum, as has been mentioned in the Statement, is unique. It is a matter of great issue that has cut across not only the Labour Party but all the political Parties of this country. We felt that it was right to recognise this point. Once the Cabinet has made up its mind on what recommendation to make to the country—since it is a Referendum cutting across Party lines—members of the Cabinet should be in no different position from that of any other member of the community.

The noble Lord may grunt; but he asked a question and I should have thought I was entitled to reply. We felt it right that they should have the same opportunity as any of putting their own personal views to the country. Unless they are able to do so it is very difficult to see how a fair Referendum, a fair judgment, could be taken by the electorate on an important issue. There is no intention of asking any colleague in the Cabinet or Government to resign on this issue over the matter of putting forward his personal view on this important subject.

The noble Lord, Lord Byers, then asked what was the position of the House of Commons, the Cabinet, the National Executive of the Labour Party and the Labour Party Conference, and whose voice, whose judgment, in the end will count. My understanding is this. All the various bodies—Parliament, the Cabinet, the Parliamentary Parties, the Labour Party Conference—will be making recommendations to the country as to what in their view should be the conclusion of the Referendum. The final decision, as we have made clear on many occasions, is that this Government will be bound by the decision of the British people, the British electorate, through the Referendum. That will be the decision.

Lord BYERS

My Lords, in the event of the country deciding not to accept the recommendations of the Cabinet, will the Cabinet resign?

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I would suggest that that is a hypothetical question.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, Leader of the Liberal Party—whose sincerity is not in question and whose remarks one could hardly agree were objective in character, because they obviously indicated their point of view and how they would vote in a Referendum, if such were to take place—is my noble friend aware that when Mr. Heath was Prime Minister he made a declaration which made it quite clear to the ordinary people in our country, the general body of electors, that the full consent of the people was essential before a decision could be taken; and that that was not interpreted as meaning that the decision should be left to the Members of Parliament in another place? Is he also aware that I have in my possession a letter which was signed by Mr. Heath and sent to a particular constituency Party which had returned a Conservative to Parliament? In this letter he made it abundantly clear that there can be no other possible interpretation than that what he meant by leaving it to the consent of the people of this country was a free vote by the electors of this country irrespective of the views of the Members of Parliament in another place? In those circumstances does he not consider that a Referendum should be interpreted as meaning that a free vote is essential?

My Lords, may I make a further point. Is my noble friend aware that some of us are not altogether satisfied with what was contained in his observations which came from the other place, a Statement made by the Prime Minister, that a recommendation would be made by the Government themselves? How does he reconcile the interpretation and definition of a free vote by the people of this country voting as they please with a decision taken by the Government in advance? Surely, in order to avoid the difficulties which have been mentioned by the two noble Lords who have already addressed the House on this matter and in order to avoid any difficulties that might take place in the Government—a split as between this member and that member in the Cabinet—it is better that the Government should not make a recommendation but should merely submit a question, a simple question, to the electors of this country and ask them to vote accordingly.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I am well aware of the pledge Mr. Heath gave which was very quickly forgotten by the noble Lords opposite. In regard to the free vote, my understanding of a free vote is that which we normally see in this country, an opportunity to vote freely through the ballot box. I do not see that a Government decision in any way infringes a free vote. This is a question of supreme importance to this country whichever way the decision is made. I should have thought that the British public, in exercising their democratic rights, were entitled to receive the fullest possible information upon the Common Market itself and upon the consequences of renegotiation. I believe, too, that they are entitled to, and would expect, the considered view of the Government of the day or the Cabinet of the day. That is what we intend to do.

A Noble Lord: A split Cabinet!

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Lord is merely speculating, if I may say so. We have not yet completed our renegotiations. It may be that there is a full and united Cabinet. All that we are doing is anticipating, as a consequence of long and hard discussions on this issue, that there still may be those who may not be able to go along with the majority of their colleagues.

Lord GLADWYN

My Lords, are we to understand that it is the proposal of the Government that the renegotiation terms will be put before Parliament, presumably some time in April; that Parliament will then take a decision one way or the other and that then, presumably in the light of this decision, the question will be put in a Referendum to the people who will decide? Will it be by a simple majority or by, say, 20 per cent. of the total vote to accept or reject? Will the result of that Referendum be binding on Parliament and on the Government, or must it not be, whatever the results of the Referendum, that the final decision will come back to be made by Parliament?

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, Parliament is sovereign; but, so far as the Government are concerned, the decision taken by the British people will be binding on the Government. In regard to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, of whether it will by simple majority or whether there will be a fixed percentage before a Referendum has effect—this is similar to the three questions that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, put to me and which I am sorry I did not answer. These are matters of detail which will be considered in the White Paper. It will be for Parliament to discuss and decide these matters both in connection with the White Paper and when legislation is before the House.

Lord ROBBINS

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Cabinet in coming to this decision have fully considered what will be its possible effects on the economic position of this country at the time when the Referendum takes place? Your Lordships will surely be unanimous in the view that with regard to the economic position we are passing through a period of anxiety without parallel since the war, and in some respects without parallel in our history. I say in all seriousness that it seems to me that the uncertainly which will prevail in the world at large while these matters are being debated in this way will certainly not improve our chances of being supported in our present standard of life by a continued inward flow of finance.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether we had considered the economic situation. Of course it is always in our minds. There is only one firm date to which the Government are committed in regard to the Referendum and that is 10th October. It is hoped that the renegotiation will be completed early in the spring. If that matter is completed I should have thought it is very much to the advantage of the Common Market countries and of ourselves that a decision is taken on this matter once and for all, so that our friends in the EEC will know what our position is, and we ourselves will know what steps are necessary to take as a consequence of the decision taken by the Referendum.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether it is likely that the question to be put in the Referendum will be part of the Bill and therefore amenable to amendment in either House?

Lord SHEPHERD

Yes, my Lords.

Lord WINDLESHAM

My Lords, may I put this point to the noble Lord? I think he will accept that if there is a departure from the principle of collective responsibility, we then enter into very deep water indeed. Would he comment on the proposal advocated in The Times this morning that the arrangements for a Referendum—if there is to be one— should be conducted by a Royal Commission, or a Commission which would deal with the very difficult issues that are going to arise of broadcasting coverage; of finance; how much money is to be spent; on whose account, and the technical arrangements for the counting of votes and how they are to be declared, whether by constituency or nationally. Normally, these matters can be left to the Government of the day, because it is accepted as a fair, impartial instrument of the public will, but if the Government are to be divided is there not a great deal to be said for appointing a Royal Commission?

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will go to the Library and read the history of 1932 when he will see that there was a divided Cabinet on the question of tariffs. The campaign was fought, and the Cabinet, or any part of it, did not resign. Therefore I would suggest that there is a precedent for what we are putting to Parliament. The noble Lord spoke of the difficulties that are bound to arise in setting up the Referendum procedure and also in making sure that it is as impartial as possible. I would say to the noble Lord that I do not believe that the fact that there is possible disagreement in the Cabinet on what decision may be taken will in any way affect the impartiality of the Government service.

My Lords, of course we could set up, through a Royal Commission or some other body, methods for conducting this Referendum, but I come back to the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins—we expect and hope that renegotiation will have been completed in the spring. I should have thought that it was in the interests of all, whether they are supporters of Britain remaining in the EEC or whether they feel that we should leave, that Parliament and the British people should reach a decision on this matter as soon as possible. I have no doubt that when the legislation is before the House, when we have looked at it and have been able to discuss it in Committee, Parliament will be satisfied that it is a fair form of machinery set up solely for the purpose of giving the British people an opportunity for exercising their voice fairly and impartially through the ballot box.

Lord AIREDALE

My Lords, would the noble Lord give an assurance that any Referendum form will contain the preliminary question: "Do you wish this issue to be decided (a) by referendum or (b) by Parliament?" Surely the Government do not want to foist upon the British people a Referendum which they do not want, having decided by a majority of themselves that they want to leave the matter to be decided by Parliament.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Lord will have an opportunity to raise this matter when the legislation is before the House and I would refer him to the answer I gave to my noble friend.

Lord GORE-BOOTH

My Lords, while I do not feel justified as an individual in making many remarks on this Statement, I cannot avoid saying that in our history there have been many decisions of supreme importance which have been entrusted to Parliament. May I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he can assure us that in considering the rules for a Referendum—assuming that there is to be a Referendum—the Government will seriously consider ending the disenfranchisement at least for the purpose of an important section of the community; namely, the Members of your Lordships' House.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, again this may be a matter for legislation. Your Lordships are debarred from voting in Parliamentary Elections. This will not be a Parliamentary Election; this will be a Referendum. A new situation has arisen and if, as I said earlier, I were to express a personal view, I should have thought that this would be the right opportunity for your Lordships to mix with the commoners and to express a view and vote on a national issue.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE

My Lords, could the noble Lord take us a little further into his thinking about the new doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility? He has referred to the case of, I think, the National Government in 1932 or thereabouts, which was known at the time as "an agreement to disagree". As we understand the noble Lord's Statement, it is that the Cabinet will make up its mind, but dissenters—presumably a minority in the Cabinet—will be allowed to express a contrary view in public. What happens if the dissenters and the conformists are in equal numbers and the Cabinet is completely divided?

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I suggest that that is a very hypothetical question and not one that I am anticipating since there is an odd number, if my memory is right, in the Cabinet.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

One might abstain!

Lord SHEPHERD

Collective responsibility. The noble Lord referred to the definition of 1932, and I would suggest that on this occasion it will be to differ.

Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE

My Lords, could the noble Lord the Leader of the House tell us whether he appreciates what the Government mean by the word "campaign". Under the present system, so far as I know, television time is allocated by Party. To what Party will the dissident members of the Cabinet belong? Further, are we now going to come to the American system where people can buy time on television? The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, touched on this. It is a most important part, as I see it, of a "campaign".

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, but I think he is wrong—as have been so many in questioning me—in assuming automatically that there will be those who disagree. It is possible. I am glad noble Lords are laughing and enjoying themselves, but it is still hypothetical. This is a matter which we shall have an opportunity to discuss when we have the White Paper before us. This is a matter to which we are giving careful consideration. It involves one's relationship with the media; the freedom of the Press. We need to strike a right balance here and I think this is something we may be able to discuss a little more frankly and easily when the proposals are before the House.

The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER

I hope the noble Leader will forgive me if I have missed the point of the discussion. May I ask him whether, in addition to discussing the methods of conducting the Referendum, both Houses of Parliament will be given an opportunity to express their views on the principal subject—in other words, the view the Government will eventually put before the nation—before the Government's decision is taken?

Lord SHEPHERD

Yes, my Lords, What we have in mind is that when the negotiations have been completed the terms should be made available for the widest possible discussion. Certainly, it would then be the intention of the Government to have debates in both Houses of Parliament before coming to their own final decision of substance.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, it is obvious that we shall want to debate this question and therefore I do not want to prolong this discussion. I think perhaps the House would agree with that sentiment. I do not wish to embarrass the noble Lord the Leader of the House personally, because I believe that his heart, although perhaps not his voice, is in the right place in this matter. The voice may have been the voice of Jacob, but I suspect that what he was reaching out was the hand of Esau. I prefer the silver-tongued voice of Jacob to the horrible hairy hand of Esau!

But I cannot forbear saying two things which have arisen out of the points which have been raised. Perhaps the noble Leader will take it on board that, in our view, this is a recipe for constitutional and economic chaos, done in order to satisfy not merely the unreconciled but the irreconcilable differences inside the Cabinet; and I should just like him to concentrate on this short point in this connection. How can it be honourable, in a matter which he has conceded to be of supreme importance for this country from the point of view of policy, for Ministers who do not agree with the decision of their colleagues on a matter of supreme importance to remain in the Government at all? He deliberately recalled the 1932 "agreement to differ"—which incidentally, without I hope being thought guilty of filial impiety, was at that time attributed to my father—so may I ask this? Is he aware that almost every constitutional theorist since then has condemned that as a departure from desirable policy?

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I did not know that the 1932 reference had any connection with the noble and learned Lord. The date was, in fact, slipped into my hand by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who was hoping to be helpful. Of course we shall have an opportunity of debating this matter in depth when we have the White Paper. I would only say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Maryle-bone, that I can see there is a case for arguing that, in a Cabinet where there is disagreement on an issue, those who disagree should resign, in normal circumstances. But a Referendum is of a different order. It is of a unique character and, perhaps for the first and last time, it is the only method by which we can obtain the views of the British people on a subject of this importance.

I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the difference is that we have reached this decision to disagree or to differ before the decision has been taken by the Cabinet. We have recognised that there may be differences, and I myself do not believe, taking the sense of the Cabinet as I have done, that in this instance there is any question of the Government's not being united on all the other issues which are of very great importance to this country.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, leaving aside that one question of personal honour, it seems a little odd that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, should find it dishonourable for people who hold different views from his own to utter those views as and when they can, when the Leader of his Party gave the most honourable undertaking that before we entered the Common Market the fullhearted consent of the British people would be gained, when obviously he meant not a single word of that. Furthermore, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, talks about irreconcilable differences, has he not noticed that it is Mrs. Shirley Williams and Mr. Roy Jenkins who have laid down the formula that they must have control of bat and ball, keep the wicket, take the money at the gate, keep the score card and then, if they do not get the answer they want, they take the bat out? Whereas all the people I know (and I know most of them) who are actively associated with the determination that the British people are sovereign and should exercise that sovereignty until defeated in war, have always said that if the decision went against them they would accept it?

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I have no criticism of the intervention of my noble friend, and I agree with him that "honour" is an emotive word, because I believe we are all honourable people and to refer to "honour" tends to reduce the position and standing of the rest. However, we have now discussed this matter for some 40 minutes and perhaps this is now the time when we should move to the next Business. Does the noble and learned Lord wish to intervene?

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, I should like to say that I endorse what the noble Lord has been saying; but since an attack has been made on Mr. Heath perhaps I may put this point interrogatively to the noble Lord. Is he not aware that on the only occasion when both Houses of Parliament had a free vote in another place the Ayes had it by 136, and the Contents in this House had it by, I believe, 8 to 1? Is that not wholly in accord with what Mr. Heath has always said?

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I go very much by cricket scores and suggest that I should now declare the innings closed and move to the next Business.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

Follow on for the Government!