HL Deb 12 May 2000 vol 612 cc1904-28
Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pearson of Rannoch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Committee of Inquiry into withdrawal from the European Union]:

Lord Monson

moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 6, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a"). The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12, which is consequential. The purpose of the amendment is simple. The use of the definite article unwittingly implies that withdrawal from the European Union is, if not a foregone conclusion, at least a strong possibility. In so far as it gives that wholly unintended impression, it obviously irritates those who not only maintain that the EU ranks alongside motherhood and sliced bread in terms of sanctity, but that the EU is beneficial to the United Kingdom in every conceivable respect.

That, in a sense, understandable irritation must prejudice them against the Bill as a whole. That would be unfortunate, because the only purpose of the Bill is to elicit facts, shorn of emotional baggage, upon which a dispassionate and informed decision can be made if it come to that point. Therefore, the substitution of the indefinite article makes the issue more neutral and impartial, so to speak. It makes it clear that the Bill is designed to assess the effect of a possible, rather than a probable, course of action. I beg to move.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

I rise briefly to support the amendments moved and spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I quite understand his feeling that the use of the definite article in the Title of the Bill and in Clause 1 is perhaps a little too definite for the spirit and purpose of the Bill. Therefore, he proposes to replace it with the indefinite article and, as I say, I see his point. Without that change, the Bill could be held to be drafted to set up a committee of inquiry to consider the implications of our definite withdrawal from the EU, whereas we are considering such a pleasant prospect only in theory.

The committee of inquiry's report is designed to inform public debate about what life might be like outside the EU so that, as the noble Lord said, the debate may take place against an informed background. As Members of the Committee will have gathered from Second Reading, many of us believe that the United Kingdom would be very much better off outside the EU, while of course maintaining free trade with its single market. Indeed, I would claim that since Second Reading on 17th March the four current horses of the EU superstate—tax harmonisation, the defence initiative, corpus juris and the charter of fundamental rights—have all kept on galloping straight at their apocalyptic goal. That is not to mention the Nice IGC, at which the Government are committed to handing over yet more of our remaining sovereignty to the octopus in Brussels.

I do not want to make another Second Reading speech now. However, I would have thought that it is obvious that our so-called partners are indeed determined to press on to the superstate which both the Government and the Conservative Party say they do not want. I am not entirely clear where the Liberal Democrats stand on this vital question, but I believe that they say that they do not want to be part of a European superstate either.

So before long, the British people will have to choose whether they want to live in a subservient region of that superstate or whether they want to keep their hard-earned right to govern themselves. The proposed committee's report would merely help them to make up their minds. Therefore, I agree with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Withdrawal is, alas, far from certain at the moment. The indefinite article is more appropriate.

Baroness Rawlings

As with most of the other amendments today, in speaking to the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I wish to make clear from the start that I shall say very little during the Committee stage of this Bill. No doubt, that will be a relief to noble Lords and to Members of the Committee at this stage on a Friday afternoon.

As we on these Benches fully support Conservative Party policy, which does not include withdrawal from the European Union, we are all united on this matter. Therefore, we feel that the Bill is taking up valuable time, especially as the IGC to be held later this year will review and make many changes to the European Union. For that reason, despite having had Europe Day this week, which probably went unnoticed by many people, as did the proliferation of all the other named days, we feel that the Bill is probably ill-timed.

With regard to Amendments Nos. 1 and 12, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who spoke so eloquently at Second Reading of the Bill. I fully support what he said on that occasion: The European Union is a work in progress which must constantly debate its directions, its speed and its geometry, and which must soon change its rules to accommodate the applicants at its door. Its political and economic order are by no means settled. Throughout its history it has constantly outgrown its old treaties as it has added new members and new functions. The model of enlargement for a reformed and reunited Europe is one such legitimate question".—[Official Report, 17/3/00: col. 1871] After all, enlargement of the European Union is undoubtedly the most important task facing us, not only now but in the future. We ignore this at our peril.

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the amendments for which there may be some arcane reason. But despite his explanation, it seems not immediately obvious to me.

4 p.m.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

When I saw the amendments, I was tempted to wonder whether substituting the indefinite article for the definite meant that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was recognising that withdrawal can be no more than a very remote, hypothetical possibility. But I shall resist going down that line.

I make my remarks in very much the same spirit as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. The Government's position on this Bill was made clear. We think that it is completely unnecessary and highly undesirable. These amendments in no way affect that judgment. Indeed, I am pleased to hear again from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, confirmation of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said on Second Reading; namely, that withdrawal from Europe is not the official policy of a single mainstream political party in this country. And so the Government's position remains absolutely unchanged. They are opposed to the Bill and these amendments do nothing to change that.

Lord Monson

I am grateful to all those who have spoken. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for his support: I spoke to him extremely briefly about the amendment. He has correctly interpreted my reasoning. I am sorry that my explanation was not clear enough for the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and that she finds the reason to be arcane.

The Minister interpreted the proposal correctly. I do agree that it is a remote possibility but it is a remote possibility for which it would be wise to provide. We are not taking up very much time, certainly compared with the mass of government legislation with which we have been dealing recently. I think that it is worth while pursuing matters and I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bruce of Donington

moved Amendment No. 2: Page1, line 11, at end insert (", and (d) the impact costs and other public expenditure in the United Kingdom as a result of its membership of the European Union"). The noble Lord said: In view of the lateness of the hour and, indeed, the lateness of the day, I do not wish to detain the Committee very long on these quite obviously clear amendments which are in the whole spirit of the Bill as accepted by the House on 17th March.

Perhaps the Government are not entirely free from blame for the necessity for this debate to take place at all, let alone on a Friday. Momentous events have been taking place in Europe over the past 10 years and there has been an increasing intensity in relation to the effects of the arrangements which this country has been making with Europe.

Over the years—and I have been interested in this European adventure since 1963—there has been a tendency for successive governments to endeavour to keep both Houses of Parliament out of the picture until after they have already acted. In other words, they have not sought the opinion of the country in any detail prior to taking some of the drastic steps which are beginning profoundly to affect our country in many ways, not only economically but also, indeed, politically and, above all, democratically. That is perhaps unfortunate. The entry of the UK into the European Union—then called the Common Market—was slightly unfortunate in that people were not fully aware of the Government's intended actions in a way that would normally commend itself to people accustomed to straight talking. We had the deliberate concealment of the fisheries concession.

Lord Clinton-Davis

There was no official whip in the House of Commons, so at that time I voted against the entry into the Common Market because that was my view. I was wrong. The House of Commons considered the matter in the light of numerous amendments to the Bill and in the light of the consideration that was given to it at the time, at Second Reading, in Committee and in all the other stages. So, with great respect, how can my noble friend argue that the House of Commons and this place did not consider the Bill? That is absolute nonsense.

Lord Bruce of Donington

I am obliged to my noble friend for his intervention. However, the existence of an undertaking by the then Prime Minister, the right honourable gentleman the Member for Bexley, was not disclosed to the House of Commons. A letter that gave substantial fisheries concessions that Parliament never had an opportunity to consider was not disclosed to Parliament and was not, as far as I am aware, disclosed to the Government.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

The point made by the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was not whether the House of Commons was kept in the dark—I agree that it was not—but whether the British people were kept in the dark. From what was said at Second Reading on 17th March and the letter that the Prime Minister of the day sent through every letterbox in the land, it must be absolutely clear now that the British people were not fully kept in the picture and were misled when we voted to stay in the Common Market—not to join it.

Lord Bruce of Donington

I am obliged to the noble Lord. I did not intend to enlarge on that point but just to mention it. That happens to be factual. In any case, it was unfortunate. Over the years there has been a tendency to relegate these European matters. Both Houses of Parliament have rated them as some kind of second-class discussion that can take place only after other presumably much more important business has been dealt with. The Government would have assisted the position by treating these important European matters with due parliamentary priority, which, with hindsight, should have been given by both Houses of Parliament. There is still plenty of time to correct these matters.

The amendment that I propose to your Lordships is non-controversial. On the assumption that the exponents are those who believe most profoundly in the further development of the European Community, as long as the facts are revealed, which is all that the clause amounts to, they will be fully in support. It is in their interests. In connection with their future conduct in relation to the European Community, people can be fortified only by the facts being revealed. After all, everyone who supports these schemes, as they indeed are at the moment, should be fortified by the facts. This amendment simply extends further the clause in the Bill by which the facts can be examined and evaluated. It should be to the benefit of all, whatever view they may hold on the future of the Community, to have the facts revealed. That is because if they resist the facts being disclosed and resist a proper and impartial evaluation being made, that does not say much for the validity of their strongly held convictions. For that reason, I sincerely hope that this amendment will be agreed to.

The only reason why I have ventured to put down an addition to this clause is because developments have been taking place which might conceivably be missed by the three present implications:

  1. "(a) the economy of the United Kingdom,
  2. (b) the national security of the United Kingdom, and
  3. (c) the constitution of the United Kingdom".
Other matters also need to be considered. No doubt, over the years and for good or ill—I am not saying one or the other—there have been profound changes in the United Kingdom itself that are not necessarily covered by the three implications dealt with in the Bill.

In particular I refer to the extremely large establishment of unofficial task forces, which are quite costly. For example, at the European level there are over 300 committees the members of which are not known, whose terms of remuneration are not known, whose terms of reference are not known, whose contracts are not known and whose business connections are not known. The committee members are performing functions on behalf of our government.

Similarly, in the UK there are now numerous task forces composed of individuals, including many businessmen and so forth, who are presuming to examine and to act on behalf of the Government in many spheres. This may be inevitable and I am not necessarily criticising the results, but they should be known and out in the open. All that I am seeking in my amendment—

Lord Clinton-Davis

Perhaps I may—

Lord Bruce of Donington

I hope that my noble friend will forgive me. I am coming to the end of my remarks.

All I ask is that the facts, in so far as they are ascertainable and capable of yielding to rational judgment, should be become known and available for discussion. Those who would resist making further information known to the public and to Parliament betray an uncertainty in their own minds as to the validity of their case. I beg to move.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

I rise briefly to support the amendment of the noble Lord. I had thought when the Bill was drafted that the impact costs and other public expenditure might be included within "economy", but I see that the noble .Lord has a point.

There is endless detail into which one could now enter. There are endless examples of the colossal expenditure which this country has incurred over the years as a result of our membership of the European Union, but I shall not now trouble noble Lords with most of it.

However, matters like the water directives come to mind. It must be extremely doubtful that we would have spent, or have committed to spend, some £40,000 million over the past 10 years on water purification, in accordance with the diktats of Brussels. I believe that we are committed to spending only some £14,000 million on infrastructure and supply. One mentions water in particular against the background that our water was pure enough—certainly among the purest in Europe—to drink before we started on that kind of extraordinarily expensive exercise.

Only last week in your Lordships' House the Government had to admit that they had "failed to persuade the others"—to use the jargon (in other words, they had been outvoted)—in their attempt to save our small farmers and other people obliged to use incinerators, in particular small incinerators, for waste disposal.

I could go on: our slaughterhouses, working week, herbal medicines, bridges, lorries, dairy farmers, whisky distillers, pheasant shooting, market gardeners, Civil Service, condoms, taxis, cheesemakers, paper rounds, hedgerows, boatbuilders, hallmarks, oak trees, duty-free shopping, ponies, the roast beef of old England, the London bus and the excellent lavatory designed by Thomas Crapper are all among the British interests which have been damaged by our good partners' in Brussels mad rush for harmonisation.

I imagine that the noble Lord's amendment would force the Government to examine the fact that at the moment the United Kingdom would he some £2,000 million a year better off if we exported to the single market from outside the European Union because our contributions to the European Union outweigh our tariff advantages by that amount. I shall not trouble your Lordships with the common agricultural policy, which costs us some £8,600 million per annum—£250 per capita in extra food costs every year; the well-known scandal of the common fisheries policy or, indeed, the amount of taxpayers' money which goes in European fraud.

Perhaps the committee of inquiry might care to look at the fact that there really is no such thing as EU aid, because we pay £11 billion annually to the European Union of which it is graciously pleased to give back only some £5.5 billion on projects designed always to improve its own image. Of course, we could spend the £11 billion much better ourselves on other matters, as we could spend our contribution to the European aid budget, which is corrupt and misdirected and to which we contribute £700 million per annum. Noble Lords may be amused by that statement, but it is the Foreign Minister who said that the foreign aid budget is corrupt and misdirected; it is not a figment of the imagination of some crazy Euro-sceptic.

Our contributions to European pension funds loom—£20,000 per person in the United Kingdom over the next 40 years or so. And so the list goes on. Those are some of the issues which I had thought would be included under the consideration of the economic effects of our being outside the European Union. But I am happy to see the noble Lords s amendment on the face of the Bill to make it absolutely clear. I support the amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I have not made a speech in this place since I had a stroke on 3rd December, and I reserve anything I have to say to matters which are serious. This is no exception. This is a silly Bill.

First, this Bill has no application at all. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and from my noble friend Lord Bruce, who said that he has been interested in this issue since 1963. Well, my noble friend is listened to with great respect on this side of the Chamber. But I do not suggest for one moment that he is ever capable of persuading a single Member of this Chamber to his point of view, nor is the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.

This Bill is designed to exclude the United Kingdom from the European adventure. It is still an adventure because there are many things that we cannot foresee in relation to enlargement. But, in reality, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will have nothing to do with enlargement. He will have nothing to do with the success of the European Union. As I say, he will have nothing to do with reality because the EU exists. It does not enjoy all the features that we would like it to have and it does not entertain all the policies that we would like it to pursue but, nevertheless, it exists. Indeed, it will continue to exist because I do not think that the Conservative Party has the remotest chance of success in the next election. The British people will endorse the principles of the European Union when they are put to them.

My noble friend Lord Bruce has never for one moment hidden his objections. I see the noble Baroness rising. Does she wish to speak?

Baroness Rawlings

No.

Lord Clinton-Davis

No, she does not. She merely wishes to introduce the beverage of water to her diet. No one, for one moment, wishes to prevent her from doing so.

The European Union has many features—

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

The noble Lord has been making a Second Reading speech for the past five minutes. Is he, or is he not, going to speak to the amendment?

Lord Clinton-Davis

I thought that I had spoken to the amendment. I had to introduce my remarks in that way because I think that the amendment is flippant.

As far as concerns the amendment, we are entitled to know, the impact costs and other public expenditure", of not going into the European Union, but we have not heard a word about that from my noble friend this afternoon. We are entitled to know what that cost will be. People can make their assumptions on the basis of the three principles set out in the Bill. No doubt the noble Lord who spoke in favour of the amendment has his own views in that respect.

However, there are five, six or seven considerations that could be included—and I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head in agreement. I do not think that the amendment improves the Bill one iota. I speak with some hesitation because, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I suffered a stroke some five months ago. But, regardless of the three, four or seven amendments that need to be made to the Bill, that does not mean that I have lost the enthusiasm with which I approached the whole subject when I first became a European Commissioner. The "adventure" is one that the present Government are entitled to pursue. However, I would wish them to pursue it a little more diligently than they do. Nevertheless, the present Government are in favour of the European Union as it stands; they do not need the help of this Bill.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

As I said when we first discussed this matter, I do not believe that we should withdraw from the European Union but I strongly believe that it needs very serious improvement. I cannot see the difficulty in considering the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has made, because to know the facts, particularly if we are to have a referendum, cannot but be useful.

We all know, sadly, that because of the pressure of business, both in the European Union and in national parliaments, we only too frequently do not get information until it is too late to do anything about it. That was the position with regard to scrutiny for a long time. As regards the Amsterdam Treaty, we had a little more time to consider and to scrutinise, but not enough. I cannot see why it would not be extremely valuable to any national parliament to be able to have a practical assessment of what everything has cost. We do not have that. We do not debate the budget and, because of the delays in scrutiny, we often do not consider the probable costs of something until we have accepted it in principle.

Water—which my noble friend mentioned—is a good example of that. When I sat on European Communities Sub-Committee C we recognised that the proposal which the Union was making could not be costed by it. However, it had to be costed by someone and it proved to be extremely expensive. We were not able to ascertain why a comitology committee of the kind that the noble Lord has described recommended a different level of quality from what had been perfectly acceptable to the World Health Organisation for many years. We could not get any answer to that; we could have no peer scrutiny. We realised that the cost would fall on the consumer, not the state.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I was responsible for the costs of water. No one could have prevented the House of Lords or the House of Commons from making a protest about the costs of water. However, they chose not to do so. The reason the government of the day advanced against the proposals made with regard to water had nothing whatsoever to do with costs. That being the case, why is the noble Baroness so much opposed to the opportunity which the government of the day had?

Baroness Park of Monmouth

I find that information interesting; I was not aware of it. It is clearly relevant. However, I do not think that it alters my contention that we do not know enough, and in sufficient time, about what is going to happen. I am not saying that that is not our Government's fault; it often is. Nevertheless the fact remains that I believe it would be for the good of the British public to be told what everything has cost over several years so that they can make a judgment. That seems to me to be wholly neutral and factual and in the interests of good government.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

I hope that I may add to what my noble friend Lady Park has just said. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was extremely honourable in revealing to the Committee the fact that he has been a European Commissioner. It is unfortunately a fact of these debates in this Chamber that those who have been commissioners—some of whom may still be in receipt of a European pension—never declare that particular interest. Therefore I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for that.

On the technicality of the point that he raised with my noble friend, I believe that the water directives come under the environmental sections of the treaties. The noble Lord will know that the water directives, like other environmental and indeed all single market directives, are subject to the qualified majority vote. It is, of course, true that on the occasion we are discussing the British government did not put the matter to a vote and agreed with the directives. However, as regards the cost point that the noble Lord made, if the British Government do not put into law something which has been agreed under the competence of the treaties in Brussels, I trust he will agree that we would be subject to unlimited fines in the Luxembourg Court under the treaties.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davies

But qualified majority voting did not come into operation until 1987—I cannot remember when in 1987—but the ideas put forward by the Commission operated before 1987. Afterwards the Government had every opportunity—which they chose to ignore—to put forward proposals which would be subject to qualified majority voting. They chose not to do so.

The Earl of Erroll

Perhaps I may quickly say something from the Cross Benches. I have been listening to this great debate on Europe; it is quite fascinating. I think that the amendment is a very good idea. I do not see the problem. It is not a Bill about withdrawing from the European Union. The implications may indicate that we should stay in; they may indicate that we should stay out, but it is sensible to have an evaluation.

It is something which should be evaluated. It would be very nice to have documents which put in one place the implications, both ways round, so that one can see whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. That is how management makes up its mind, and that is what we are meant to be doing here.

We should not be having a debate on the cost of water and who should have done what many years ago—otherwise I could bang on about how we were misled on the Single European Act, which I sat through here.

Baroness Rawlings

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his explanation. I feel that the amendment covers an area which should be left to the committee which we are about to discuss in future amendments, and that the scope should be left open.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

As ever, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has eloquently demonstrated his long and detailed interest in this subject. I say straightaway that the Government are very much in favour of the fullest possible dissemination of information about the European Union. I had a certain sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, at Second Reading when he said that he thought that the EU was an area not of no debate, but of intense and active debate.

In our view, Britain's future lies inside the European Union. As I said before, we consider the setting up of the committee suggested in this Bill to be completely unnecessary and undesirable. I do not propose to argue the point in any detail. My noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal pointed out at Second Reading that we opposed this Bill in its entirety and, with great skill, vigour and detail, gave the reasons why.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, does nothing to change our view.

Lord Bruce of Donington

It had not been my intention to embark in any way on a continuation of Second Reading speeches. I shall therefore Craw a veil over the remarks that unfortunately fell from the lips of my noble friend who sits alongside me. He did not seem to address himself to the amendment but rather to the Second Reading debate, which he was unfortunately prevented from attending.

The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, put his finger on the matter. The amendment seeks only to institute, if possible, a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union. What objection can there possibly be to that? It may well be, I readily concede, that a cost-benefit analysis will show that, on balance, membership did not favour the United Kingdom. But the circumstances obtaining when the report came out and showed that result might not be all that inimical to the further development of the European Union. It would depend on how one regarded the future in the light of the implications that had been determined in relation to the past. All we want to do is to put ourselves in a position where we can make a definitive judgment in which we can believe.

I repeat: successive governments have been very coy about this. When I last sat on the Opposition Benches in another capacity I remember asking the noble Lord, Lord Henley, whether he could give us some indication. His reply was laconic and short. He said that the benefits were so self-evident that it was not worth while going into them. That, in essence, has been the attitude of successive governments. They will not discuss progress. They will not discuss cost-benefits so that one can get an idea. All we are trying to do as I see it—all the promoter of the Bill is trying to do—is to establish the facts as distinct from vapourings—they are little more than that—based upon nostalgia about past events that only partially happened. There surely can be no objection to that. As I say, those who resist it and oppose the results of the facts immediately imply that they are not confident in their own beliefs.

I am sorry about the attitude of my noble friend on the Front Bench. She knows—and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, ought to know—that not only have I been interested in these affairs since 1963 but I have played some, if only minor, part in the unearthing of fraud on massive scale not only in the European Union as a whole but in the Commission as well, of which he possibly ought to have been aware when he was there.

In order to cut short the discussion, perhaps I may say formally, taking due account of the excellent contributions, particularly from my noble friend—I still call her my noble friend—Lady Park of Monmouth, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

moved Amendment No. 3: Page1, line 14, leave out ("three") and insert ("two"). The noble Lord said: In proposing Amendment No. 3, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8, with which it is grouped.

I take as my text for this group of amendments some of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, during the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 17th March. There was much in the noble Baroness's eloquent contribution with which I am unable to agree, such as her suggestion that the North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA—is a single currency area. In fact the United States and Canadian dollars and the Mexican peso float freely in NAFTA, with the Mexican peso going into crisis straight after NAFTA's launch in 1994 and with the Canadian dollar fluctuating between 72 and 65 US cents since then. So I certainly could not agree with that part of what the noble Baroness said.

But what did strike me as helpful in what she had to say was when she commented on the proposed committee of inquiry as follows: The Bill is a recipe for what one might describe as 'total stalemate'. I am not against a committee to consider the implications of withdrawal. That will largely benefit those of us who strongly argue for staying in the EU". That is another of the noble Baroness's views with which I am unable to agree, although I respect her for holding it. She concluded as follows: I fear that the Bill as it stands would introduce a procedure which could go no further".—[Official Report, 17/3/00; col. 1813.] There, I think the noble Baroness is right. Indeed, I indicated as much in my reply to the Second Reading debate—at col. 1884 of the Official Report.

The Bill as drafted requires the committee of inquiry to consist of three people who could be presumed to favour staying in the European Union and three who favour leaving it. It is true that the Bill foresees an independent chairman, but the noble Baroness was probably right when she indicated that he might have an impossible task in getting such a committee to agree its report.

So these amendments re-cast the committee into two members who favour staying in the European Union, two who favour withdrawal and two who do not appear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold an opinion either way. They also require the Chancellor to choose a seventh member as chairman, again to be someone who has not made up his mind as to whether we should stay or whether we should leave.

Finally, in order to make sure that the committee is as balanced—

Lord Clinton-Davis

Will the noble Lord give way? How can he suggest that no one has any views about withdrawal or entry into the Common Market? How does he suggest that noble Lords should be adjudged about that? Let us say that subsequently they form a view in favour of or against the issues of the Common Market and they shift their opinion. Does he then disqualify them or entertain them?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. It would in fact be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make that judgment. The Bill requires him to appoint two people who will have been nominated by organisations appearing to the Chancellor to be in favour of the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Union. That might include the Labour Party. I regret to say that it might include the Conservative Party. It could include the Britain in Europe organisation for instance. Then there should be two people nominated by organisations which appear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be in favour of withdrawal. That might be the UK Independence Party or the Campaign for an Independent Britain, which is chaired by his noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who unfortunately cannot be present.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

Or the Green Party.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

Or, indeed, I am advised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the Green Party, with whose position I was not entirely familiar. I am most grateful to the noble Lord.

Then, it would be up to the Chancellor to use his judgment to appoint two people who had not made up their minds and a chairman who had not made up his mind. The Chancellor might get that wrong, but I am sure that he would do it in good faith. All opinion polls indicate that quite a lot of people have not made up their minds. We are, after all, talking about whether we want to stay in the European Union; we are not talking about economic and monetary union, as the noble Lord suggested.

Finally, in order to make sure that the committee is as balanced, open-minded and harmonious as possible, the independent chairman would have to be agreed by five of the six other members. So one person on each side of the divide who already had firm views could object to the chairman, but no more than that. I am sure that that would make for a much more harmonious committee than under the terms of the Bill as originally drafted.

I appreciate that some of your Lordships may feel that this sort of definition of the committee of inquiry is unusual and, therefore, perhaps unnecessary. I feel that it is important that the committee's report should be regarded by the public at large as being the product of balanced judgment. I say that because the British people appear to be more sceptical about our relationship with the European Union than do our political classes and political media. So it would not be helpful if the committee's report were regarded as yet another sleight of hand from the goldfish bowl of Westminster.

I put forward some evidence from opinion polls of the people's Euro-realism at Second Reading on 17th March (col. 1806 of Hansard. Since then, there has been at least one other poll, this time conducted by the British Marketing Research Board, or BMRB International, as it is often known, which claims to be one of the UK's largest market research agencies. This more recent poll indicated that 61 per cent wanted to leave the European Union completely. That included 45 per cent who also wanted to enter a free trade agreement with the European Union and with the Commonwealth. Only 24 per cent wanted to give up the pound and join the single currency, and 15 per cent were "don't knows". Of those who expressed an opinion, therefore, no less than 71 per cent wanted to leave the European Union.

I know that this is only one more opinion poll, but I trust that it serves to underline what I said at Second Reading, to the effect that there is a large body of British opinion which wants either to withdraw completely from the European Union or to reduce our membership of it to that of a free trade area, which comes to much the same thing.

In these circumstances, I trust that the Committee will agree that the report of the proposed committee of inquiry should be regarded as fair to both sides of the debate and that these amendments will give it a better chance to achieve that goal. I beg to move.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Carlile of Berriew

As a relatively new arrival in this House, I hope that I may assist the Committee by giving a beginner's impression of the debate on this amendment. After years in the other place I am bound to reflect that proceedings on amendments and clauses like these remind me of the declining years of debates on capital punishment in another place. They came to have decreasing relevance and support and attracted a minority of debaters who had a hobby-horse but nothing much better to ride.

The proponents sound ever more like the rusting needle of a collectable gramophone. I do not believe that to debate in this Chamber whether the White Rabbit or March Hare should be a member of a bizarre quango conceived by a few people in private is a great contribution to the government of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, proposes that there should be people of no opinion on the committee to be appointed by the Chancellor. I suppose that we must rule out Martians because they have not yet landed. The American legal philosopher Hohfeld invented something called the "no right". Perhaps we shall have something called the "no opinion" as a major plank in our political debates. Spin doctors will be employed by them. However, they will be called "inner-spin doctors" because they will not know when to stop.

Imagine the job interviews for these appointments. One question may be, "What are your hobbies?" If the response is, "Food and wine", we could not have that because it would involve eating French prawns or drinking French wine. "Where do you go for your holidays?" Like most of the Government Front Bench, it may be that the candidate's response is, "Tuscany". That would rule out any candidate. Torquay or perhaps somewhere in the United States would be all right. The next question might be, "What films do you like?" If the answer was, "Death in Venice", it would be an absolute killer for the purposes of appointment. A book written by a German about an Italian city would not count as "no opinion". "What car do you drive?" If the person said that he drove a Daihatsu that would be all right. If one drove a Japanese car that would qualify one for this committee because i1 would indicate that perhaps one did not have an opinion.

This group of amendments specifically excludes the very people who know most about the subject which the committee must consider. For example, I refer to former Members of the European Parliament. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is a former Commissioner. I respectfully suggest to the Committee that the issue deserves much more serious treatment than the Bill and the absurd idea of a committee offered in this Friday distraction. The noble Lord seems to want to put on a statutory footing the meandering thoughts of second-rate think tanks that are available in the columns of every Sunday newspaper, every week of the year.

I was the child of refugees from totalitarianism. Let us talk about the European Union, and remind ourselves that for my generation the European Union has guaranteed comity between this country and Germany. That is perhaps the most important benefit that it has given us in addition to a degree of co-operation in trade. Let us learn the lesson that we hear from all young business people and industrialists, with the exception of a few controversialists who choose to differ, that the future of this country's economy lies in the European Union. Let us reflect on the message of the past week or so, when the London and Frankfurt stock exchanges demonstrated that European partnership is the future. Let us understand why Rover and Dagenham have suffered such troubles. Let us do what has been done in Ireland by regenerating rural areas with the assistance of the European Union and getting people back to work in those areas.

Those are the European issues that we should be debating, not absurd trivia such as these proposals.

The Earl of Erroll

As one who has sat in the House for 22 years, I find it difficult when I hear sarcasm used as a method of argument. It was amusing because, yes, sarcasm is a form of wit. But the concept of someone having no opinion is quite common in British law. We have 12 good men and true—or good people now—who sit on juries, and who are supposed to have no opinion about the person's guilt at the beginning of the trial. We have judges who are supposed to be independent. The concept of someone being independent is about as difficult as the concept of someone rising from these Cross-Benches.

It is interesting to note that a committee is being put together along similar lines, with two partisan people who can appoint independent Peers in the future. The only people who do not have a say on the committee as to who is to join them are the current independent Peers. The concept of someone with an independent mind is enshrined in law, and I am afraid that sarcasm does not remove that requirement for independence of thought.

The amendment goes to the heart of the matter. I bothered to attend the debate because the one useful thing is to have something that is seen as a non-partisan, independent opinion of the implications and cost benefits—put so well by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—of our time in Europe. As an independent, who is not of a strong frame of mind one way or another, I have a general feeling that we have lost sovereignty to Europe and so on, but I could not put my finger on any non-partisan figures if I wanted to know the cost benefits.

The Bill might be useful in providing a body that is not unduly influenced by the government of the day or by a "Get out of Europe" group, and which might come up with figures that we could all agree would allow sensible debate instead of sarcasm or opinion. That is all that I get at the moment. People are biased one way or the other. It is virtually impossible to obtain genuine, unbiased figures from anyone. An alternative route might be to table Written Questions but could I trust the answers, or would it be argued that the Government was just putting their view? That is why this Bill is useful. It may produce figures that we can debate seriously instead of taking swings at those who are anti-Europe.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I shall not spend much time on this matter, or enter the argument about sarcasm. It is impossible for noble Lords to say that they have no opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union.

The Earl of Erroll

The Bill is not about whether or not we should stay in. It is merely trying to achieve some figures, which are felt to be non-partisan, about the implications. It is not a Bill about withdrawing from the European Union. Noble Lords seem to be changing the debate into that issue.

Lord Clinton-Davis

The amendment refers to people giving their opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should stay in or leave the European Union. That being so, it is palpably absurd to rule out everyone who has spoken in the debate. I believe that the whole argument is absurd.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

No one who has spoken in the debate would be ruled out from sitting on the committee either by the provisions of the Bill as originally drafted or now. No one, as far as I know, who has spoken on the Bill is an employee or otherwise in the pay of the European Union, give or take perhaps the odd pension. Therefore, I am afraid these amendments do not do what the noble Lord suggests.

Lord Clinton-Davis

The noble Earl should read the amendment he has tabled. It provides that two members shall be nominated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as persons having no opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should stay in or leave the EU. I know of no such eunuchs. Perhaps they exist somewhere but they do not exist in this Chamber as regards this debate.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

There are many people outside who have not made up their mind whether or not we should be in the European Union. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has just indicated that he may be one of them.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I shall not give way again because the quality of the interventions do not add to the debate.

The fact of the matter is that no one who has spoken in the debate so far has revealed an intention to have no views on the matter. It is quite absurd. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot agree the amendment because then no one would believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer for one moment in the future.

The fact of the matter is that the amendment is in line with the Bill itself. It is absurd. It remains absurd. We should not be debating it.

Baroness Rawlings

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for his explanation of the amendments, but I, too, should like further clarification.

The gist of his amendments, as I understand, are to balance the committee so as not to be biased for or against the European Union. His revised committee of seven members would be as follows: two members in favour of the European Union; two members against the European Union; two members who are neutral on the issue; plus one chairman who is neutral too.

The amendments introduced by the noble Lord do need to be clarified. I wondered whether he would accept that the relevant subsection (3) could read as follows, which would be far simpler and less confusing: The Committee shall consist of seven members appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of whom—

  1. (a) two shall be nominated by organisations appearing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be in favour of the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Union,
  2. (b) two shall be nominated by organisations appearing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be opposed to the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Union, and
  3. (c) two shall be nominated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as persons appearing to him to hold no opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should stay in or leave the European Union,
  4. (d) one shall be nominated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the chairman of the Committee.
(4) The person nominated under subsection (3)(d) shall not act in any capacity as chairman or as a member of the Committee unless at least five members of the Committee approve his appointment". The issue which springs to mind as a potential minefield, and it has already been mentioned today, is that of trying to find impartial members to fill the two places. Is there really anybody in the United Kingdom who is politically interested or otherwise who has no views on such a big issue?

While we do not doubt the integrity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps, in order to help the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, a better solution to the impartiality angle would be for the chairman to be nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons. That way there would be less chance of claims of bias. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, might consider that for his amendment.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

I do not propose to deal in detail with the composition of the committee because, as I hope is clear to the Committee, our objection to it is fundamental. Any amendment to its composition does not affect that judgment.

5 p.m.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken, most especially to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who enlivened our proceedings. It is a long time since I have been accused of being a rusty needle, a White Rabbit and perhaps the March Hare all in one go!

However, I must take some issue with him for describing the Institute of Economic Affairs as a second-rate think tank. I should have thought that it was one of the most prestigious think tanks in the country. Five years ago, it produced a publication entitled Better Off Out?. At the time, I regretted the question mark, but it is a serious work and has been taken as an Oxford and Cambridge A-level text. It is now in the process of being updated. I should imagine that the noble Lord would want to withdraw his accusation about the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Lord Carlile of Berriew

Would the noble Lord agree that during the past five years there have been just a few changes in this country and in Europe? Would he not further agree that the question mark is an important part of the title?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

Being an academic work, the question mark is important. Of course, the same question mark exists in the aims of the Bill. We are merely asking to set up an inquiry which might go some way towards answering that question mark, but it exists. Yes, I agree with the noble Lord that during the past four or five years things have moved on in the European Union. I would say that they have moved on only in one direction; the ratchet has proceeded to click in favour of ever greater control from the centre and ever weaker national sovereignty.

I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would describe the International Trade Commission in Washington as a second rate think tank. It is one of the most prestigious bodies in the world. Indeed, at the time of our Second Reading debate the members of the commission were in London at the request of Congress to see what NAFTA might look like were it to be supplemented by the United Kingdom having left the EU.

I saw members of the International Trade Commission the day before our debate and they asked me not to politicise their visit—so I did not. However, I have to put it to the noble Lord that if the International Trade Commission in Washington comes to London to examine the kind of questions that the Bill poses, it is not the product of a few crazy lunatics, think tanks and Right-wing columnists on this side of the Atlantic.

I would also refer the noble Lord to the organisation Business for Sterling if he really believes that the only people in business who are against economic and monetary union and the single currency are a few old dinosaurs. That is certainly not the case. However, all these matters would be for consideration by the committee of inquiry which the Bill proposes to set up. Therefore, nothing that the noble Lord has said has detracted from the purpose of the Bill or, indeed, from these amendments.

I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for his contribution and, of course, I agree with what he says. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the Bill is designed to exclude the United Kingdom from the European Union. That is not what it says. We simply want to talk about it. I find it very disturbing if one is not allowed even to talk about talking about the wretched thing.

My noble friend Lady Rawlings followed through very accurately the requirements of the Bill. If she would prefer to see the chairman of the committee nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons rather than by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that is of course something that your Lordships could consider. She may wish to table an amendment on Report.

However, when she asks whether anyone is indifferent to whether or not we stay in the European Union, that is not quite the question. I imagine that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country—academics and others—who, at the moment, are indifferent as to whether or not we stay in the European Union. They may not be politicians but, certainly, many people have not yet made up their minds. In any case, it would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to choose those people and for the committee to accept them.

Therefore, the proposal is that two people should be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from nominations put forward to him by those who favour staying in; two should be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from organisations which would prefer to come out; and there are three more—the two further members of the committee and the chairman chosen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and accepted by the committee. That way might lie harmony. However, as I say, if my noble friend wishes to table an amendment on Report, I am sure that the House will be very happy to consider it. In the meantime, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 6: Page1, line 17, leave out ("three") and insert ("two"). Page1, line 19, after ("Union,") insert— ("() two shall be nominated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as persons appearing to him to hold no opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should stay in or leave the European Union,"). Page1. line 21, at end insert (", being a person appearing to him to hold no opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should stay in or leave the European Union"). On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

moved Amendment No. 7: Page1, line 22, leave out ("(2)(c)") and insert ("(3)(c)"). The noble Lord said: I shall be uncontroversial and brief. There was simply a typographical error in the Bill as drafted. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

moved Amendment No. 8: Page1, line 23, leave out ("four") and insert ("five"). On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Report of the Committee]:

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

moved Amendment No. 9: Paget2, line 10, leave out ("November 2000") and insert ("February 2001"). The noble Lord said: This amendment would have the effect of postponing the date by which the proposed committee of inquiry should report from 1st November this year to 1st February next year.

I put forward this amendment because a number of noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, at col. 1819 of the report of our Second Reading proceedings, suggested that 1st November this year is too tight a timetable. I had originally thought of 1st November this year because that would have allowed some public attention and debate before the Government's final negotiations at the proposed intergovernmental conference in Nice in December and before they take the drastic step of agreeing to the proposed European defence initiative, the charter of fundamental rights, corpus juris and elements of tax harmonisation, if that is what they will eventually be persuaded to do, as I fear they will be. However, if that timetable is too tight, the new date of 1st February next year should allow the committee's report to see the light of the day before the next General Election, which is, perhaps, a greater priority.

So if the Government have signed up to all the further surrenders of our national sovereignty to Brussels, to which I have referred, and, I fear, maybe others, then at least the electorate would be able to consider these further surrenders in the context of our membership of the European Union generally and have the chance of delivering their verdict at the ballot box.

I am painfully aware that none of our main political parties seems at present likely to fight the next General Election on a manifesto which includes leaving the European Union. Indeed, I spend quite a bit of my time trying to persuade my Conservative colleagues to get ready to do just that, but so far without success.

However, the next election is perhaps a year away, perhaps more, and a year is a very long time in politics. By the time the manifestos are drawn up, we shall probably know what has happened at the Nice IGC in December and what has happened to the other initiatives to which I have referred. We shall also know rather more about the progress, or lack of it, of the euro than we do at the moment. And if this Bill has been enacted, there will be a balanced report before the people and available to the political classes.

Of course, I believe that the report will come down strongly in favour of leaving the European Union and hope that even the Conservative Party would then see the goal which already stands open in front of it. But I could be wrong. I could be wrong because, if it continues in its present frame of mind, I fear that the Conservative Party may, even then, fail to see the open goal.

If that happens, I imagine that the UK Independence Party will give the people the chance to express their feelings about our membership of the European Union and that UKIP will therefore do even better than it did at last year's European elections. But at least the people will have been able to express their view about this most important issue of our time in a General Election which, I may say, they have never been able to do until now or in the past.

And, of course, I could be wrong because the report might conclude, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, felt confident at Second Reading, that our continued membership of the European Union is, indeed, in the national interest. I could also be wrong because the apocalyptic horses which are galloping towards the final extinction of our national independence in Brussels and at Nice in December may just turn round and trot away, although they have not been that sort of animal in the past. Or, I suppose, the Government might veto all these initiatives. But, alas, this seems unlikely too, given their doomed charm offensive in Brussels.

The ratchet of ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe, ordained in the Treaty of Rome, has never been reversed. The slices have never been picked up off the floor and put back on the salami. And I do not see why our friends in Brussels should abandon their obvious plans to complete their superstate just to please the United Kingdom, which is getting a little difficult for them—a bit of a bother-boy, even under the present Government.

Finally, I hope that Members of the Committee will not advance the objection that the subject of the inquiry is too vast and complex for it to complete its report, even by 1st February. As I said on Second Reading, much of the economic, constitutional and defence work has already been done. There is a solid body of serious academic study which reveals the true state of our relationship with the European Union. The debate which we have just heard in your Lordships' House no doubt would also be required reading for the proposed committee of inquiry on defence matters.

It is just that no British government have dared to confront all this evidence and draw the obvious conclusions. My fellow Conservatives do not dare to do so because they got us into the mess in the first place; they led us into this quicksand; and, being politicians, they are not very good at confession.

As far as I can tell, the Liberal Democrats have always supported the venture, but it is often difficult to know exactly what they think, especially when they do not pay full attention to debates on the subject in your Lordships' House.

Presumably the Labour Government support Europe because the Prime Minister wants to be emperor of Europe. I can think of no other reason why they want to carry on down the European road. I am not sure how well the Prime Minister's ambitions go down now with the French and the Germans.

I hope I have explained why this amendment suggests postponing the date for the committee of inquiry's report to 1st February next year. I beg to move.

5.15 p.m.

Baroness Rawlings

The Committee is grateful for that explanation. I understand the noble Lord wanting more time, as the progress of his Bill may not be as rapid as he would desire. Timing is all important.

Europe is at a fork in the road of its development. As we approach the Nice IGC, it is surely right that we follow the direction of a flexible Europe of nation states. That is not a new concept but one of common sense. However, we need to beware, remembering in Edward Clodd's story of creation: The fabled ship of Theseus, which remained the same although repaired so often that not an original plank was left".

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

I do not intend to go into the detail of the amendment, which concerns the timescale of the report of the committee. That fact may have been obscured by some of the general points that have been made. We do not believe that there should be such a committee in the first place.

However, 1 noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in explaining one of the reasons why he was extending the timescale, quoted a comment by his noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, as is his privilege. I prefer another quotation from the noble and learned Lord which I believe sums up the spirit of his intervention at Second Reading. He said: I would argue against the wisdom of putting even a modest amount of public money into the pursuit of my noble friend's well argued private prejudice".—[Official Report. 17/3/00; col. 1 S10.]

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

I am grateful to both noble Baronesses. To my noble friend Lady Rawlings I say that the Conservative Party, and indeed the British Government, may wish to follow the road that leads to a Europe of nation states. However, that is not on offer in Brussels; that is not what is written in the treaties: it is not what our partners want to pursue; and it is not the road that will be taken as we proceed towards the Nice IGC and beyond. What makes this Bill ever more important is that, as the crossroads to which my noble friend referred come nearer and nearer, we shall have to go one way or the other. We shall have to go on to become the subservient region of a bureaucratic, corporatist, inward-looking, sclerotic economy, or we shall have to reclaim our independence, govern ourselves and stand on our own in the world.

Of course, I accept that the Minister prefers other parts of the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe at Second Reading. The part that I quoted is just about the only part with which I could bring myself to agree. I believe that my noble and learned friend was Foreign Secretary at the time that he advised my noble friend Lady Thatcher to sign the Single European Act 1985. Alas, she is not with us today, although she was at Second Reading. In retrospect that Act perhaps has done more damage to our independence than anything else.

Again, I am grateful for the interventions of the two noble Baronesses. I hope that I have answered their points in a balanced fashion.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bruce of Donington

moved Amendment No. 10: Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("who will provide forthwith a copy to the National Audit Office with a request for the views of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon"). The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 10, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 11, which is grouped with it.

I intend to offer only one explanation of the reason for tabling this amendment. There are occasions in our affairs, and indeed it always used to be the case for ordinary industry and commerce, when the term "true and fair" had some significance. Unhappily, in many areas of our public life, this is no longer the case. My desire to involve the National Audit Office in taking a final look at what emerges from the inquiry is to endeavour—modestly, in view of my own profession which is that of an accountant—to re-establish that sound principle; namely, bringing forward a true and fair account of what has occurred. I beg to move.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

I should like to support this amendment on the grounds that I cannot understand why either Front Bench should have any difficulty in considering the possibility of a dispassionate examination of an important issue on which a referendum is to be held. No decision is asked for here. I cannot see why this House in particular could consider rejecting it out of hand without wishing to hear what the committee says. The committee may say exactly what my noble friend Lord Pearson does not want to hear. However, I see nothing wrong and everything right in examining the facts dispassionately and reporting those facts for consideration.

The Earl of Erroll

I, too, rise to support the amendment. I said earlier that the reason that I may not hold a strong opinion on this matter is that so far we may have spent so much money on capital up front that it may no longer be worth withdrawing. I have no idea. However, what I do not have is the right information on which to base that kind of decision.

If I were managing a company, I would not manage it on the kind of inadequate information that I am given as a parliamentarian here. Very often I cannot trust information if it has emanated from certain sources.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, I support the general thrust of this amendment because I support the principle of a "true and fair" account of the facts. One can then form an opinion. All too often, decisions are based on opinions held by both sides. Indeed, in some ways, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has introduced a preconceived notion of what the Bill will do—that is laid down in Clause 1 where it implies withdrawal. I believe that that may have clouded many people's judgment.

I support the amendment because I would like to see a true and fair accounting and I want to see the figures. That would allow me to form an opinion.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I can put on record that neither at Second Reading nor at any time have we ever gone into any reasoned argument as to why we should stay in the European Union or why we should leave it. There has never been any cost benefit analysis in the Treasury or elsewhere in government of our membership of the European Union. In fact, I can tell the Committee that when an acquaintance of mine was a Minister in the Treasury under the last government, he managed to get a cost benefit analysis going. Unfortunately, the result which was emerging was not to the satisfaction of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right honourable friend Mr Kenneth Clarke, and the cost benefit analysis was squashed.

So there never has been an official cost benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union. There has certainly never been any analysis of the constitutional and defence implications of our membership in the past and of our continued membership in the future. At Second Reading on this Bill all the Government did was repeat that they believed that our membership of the European Union was in the national interest, but could give no reason why that should be so. That is what this Bill is designed to put straight and I hope that the Minister will not mind if I put those facts on the record.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bruce of Donington

moved Amendment No. 11: Page 2, line 11, at end insert ("together with the views of the Comptroller and Auditor General").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

In the Title:

Lord Monsonmoved Amendment No. 12: Line I, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past five o'clock.