Britain could be bounced into an in-out referendum on EU membership with just four weeks' notice, the Lords heard.
Tory peer Lord Hamilton of Epsom demanded changes to the European Union Referendum Bill to ensure that at least ten weeks' warning is given to voters ahead of the national poll which is set to be held by the end of 2017.
Lord Hamilton told fellow peers that if Prime Minister David Cameron decided to "bounce" the country into a vote with four weeks' warning it would mean there could not be a "level playing field" in the campaign.
The Conservative peer said that his proposal had been backed by the Electoral Commission.
"People do need time, they don't really want to be bounced into a referendum with only 28 days' notice," Lord Hamilton said.
The Tory peer said that despite Government assurances there would be a longer lead-in to the referendum, the Bill allowed for the possibility of just four weeks' notice being given.
Labour's Lord Liddle said he was putting down a "tongue in check" amendment to have the referendum put back until 2019 because there was little chance of achieving any significant concessions by 2017 as that year would be dominated in Europe by French and German national elections.
Foreign Office Minister Baroness Anelay said the Government does want a referendum period shorter than ten weeks.
She also stressed that David Cameron would have to seek approval from both Houses of Parliament before setting a date and lay down regulations in the law.
The Tory minister also said Lord Hamilton's amendment as it is drafted would not guarantee a ten week period.
She said: "The amendment doesn't actually achieve the change he wants to achieve because it doesn't actually refer to the part of the Bill that he wants.
"What it does, it simply builds in a delay between the process of laying and agreeing regulations but not the regulations to which he was referring, laying and agreeing regulations to the referendum.
"It doesn't actually provide, make for any provision at all, for the length of the referendum period itself which is I think what he is trying to do, it doesn't do that.
"Of course the Government has always been clear that we do intend to impose a referendum period shorter than ten weeks."
Lady Anelay added that the official In and Out campaigns could be designated more than ten weeks before a vote.
She said: "What we have tried to do is provide more flexibility in this Bill by saying that that can happen before a ten week period, then of course you are extending the whole period to which you were referring."
Lord Hamilton withdrew his amendment.
Tory former cabinet minister Lord Tebbit clashed with opposition peers who called for 16 and 17-year-olds to be given the vote in the EU referendum.
Lib Dem peer Lord Tyler urged the change as he insisted the move had proved a success during the Scottish independence referendum.
Former minister Lord Tebbit said that the reform would create the impression that the views of the young were more important than those of the old.
"Old people never get younger, young people, granted reasonable luck, get older, the older they get the more they get like old people, it is a very curious thing, so what he is saying is that their views as young people should be counted, but those of us in our advanced years are silly old fools who really shouldn't be trusted with the future of the country at all," Lord Tebbit said.
Lord Tyler insisted that there would be no upper age limit on taking part in the referendum, and he hoped the Tory peer would vote "the right way".
"I have more confidence in some of the 16 and 17-year-olds' judgment on this issue than in Lord Tebbit's," Lord Tyler said.
Lord Tebbit then left the chamber.
Plaid Cymru peer Lord Wigley expressed concern at the Welsh wording of the referendum question, stating that the word "aros" was not the best equivalent of the English word "remain".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel