UNITED KINGDOM
second day of Committee was held on 31 January. Because of the amendments passed on the first day and the conventions of the House regarding intervals between stages, the Bill would have to complete its Committee Stage on that day in order to have any realistic chance of further progress. By 3pm on the second day
The U.K. Prime Minister, Rt Hon. David Cameron, MP, speaking about the country’s future with Europe
second reading before rising at 4.50pm. Two weeks later, on 24 January,
the Bill returned to the Floor of the House for its Committee Stage. Peers had tabled nearly 80 amendments to the six-clause Bill. The first debate was on a group of amendments led by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster’s (CB) amendment to change the question in a referendum. The question proposed in the Bill was: “Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?” Lord Armstrong’s amendment would have replaced it with “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” Moving his amendment,
Lord Ilminster argued that the existing question implied that the United Kingdom was seeking to join a body of which it was not yet a member, rather than asking whether it should leave one of which it had been a member of for over 40 years. He proposed instead, “[a] form of words which the Electoral Commission has recommended […] [that] provides a question which defines correctly, clearly and unambiguously the nature of the choice which the voters will be asked to make”. Lord Ilminster spoke for only
a few minutes, but the debate on the group took over two hours. Supporters of the Bill, such as Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con), dwelt on the fact that amending the Bill would probably lead to it running out of debating time. He argued that for the unelected House of Lords to prevent the Bill becoming law would damage the reputation of the House and obstruct the will of the elected House of Commons. Supporters of the amendment,
such as Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB), drew heavily on the Electoral Commission’s report and noted that the Scottish Government had agreed to change the question for the referendum on Scottish independence on the advice of the Electoral Commission. Peers also punctuated the
debate with debate over the procedure. For example, Lord Foulkes (Lab) accused the Chief Whip of unfairly privileging this Private Members’ Bill over others. Baroness Anelay responded by saying she had followed the same procedures as her predecessors. She asked that the Labour
Chief Whip, Lord Bassam, give an assurance that he did not leak a private letter regarding the matter to the Daily Telegraph. Lord Bassam gave that assurance, provoking claims from Labour
Peers that she should apologize for making the suggestion. Winding up the debate on the amendment, Lord Dobbs, said “I believe that the commission’s concern that some voters might be confused, because they are unaware that we are already members of the European Union, is a little oversensitive”. He noted that the Electoral Commission’s role was advisory and that there was “a very large and unreasonable elephant” in the room, that opponents of the Bill would use any opportunity to try to kill it. He said that if the Bill were to become law it would need to get through the House very quickly and asked that Lord Ilminster withdraw his amendment. Lord Ilminster did not withdraw
the amendment. His view was “we should not shirk our duty to scrutinize the Bill and, if we can, improve it, and that, with the greatest respect to the House of Commons, if that House feels that the Bill is so important, it should then adjust its procedures in order to deal with it”. The House passed the amendment by 245 votes to 158.
By the end of the first day in Committee (just before 6pm), the House had considered 49 of the amendments tabled to the Bill and agreed to two of them. The
of Committee, the House had debated less than ten further amendments and made one of them. Lord Lipsey (Labour) observed that the Companion to the Standing Orders says “it is a firm convention that the House normally rises…by about 3pm on Fridays”. He argued that there was no prospect of the Bill completing Committee Stage until two or three in the morning and that the House should not be expected to sit that long. He therefore moved a motion that the House resume, which would lead to its adjournment. Responding to Lord Lipsey,
Baroness Anelay said that if the motion passed “I will not be able to offer my noble friend Lord Dobbs more time for the Bill because the House itself will have collectively indicated that it no longer wishes to consider the Committee stage. If the House disagrees the Motion, I will take that as a desirable, clear indication that we should complete the remainder of the Committee stage today”. She then moved that the Question be put – ending further debate on Lord Lipsey’s motion. The House voted for Lord
Lipsey’s motion by 180 votes to 130, ending debate for the day and effectively killing off the Bill for the remainder of the Session. Following the debate the Prime Minister, Rt Hon. David Cameron, MP, (Con), said the Conservative Party would look to bring the Bill back in the next Session and would look to use the Parliament Act to bring it into law.
The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue One | 67
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72