European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I had better explain briefly the opposition Front Bench position on this amendment and some of the speeches we have heard. It was a great pity that my noble friend Lord Foulkes could not make Second Reading, because he would have made a strong pro-European speech in that debate. He was right that my noble friend Lord Radice made an excellent speech as well. However, from our perspective I do not think that we can support the thrust of his amendment. I see the logic of his position. In the European Union Act, which we debated over many hours last year, we got ourselves in a situation where, if it was decided to establish a European office of paperclips, we would have to have a referendum on it, because it would involve a transfer of sovereignty to Brussels.
For our part, we believe that referenda should take place only on issues of major constitutional significance, as the Lords Constitution Committee recommended, and that we should be consistent with that principle. As far as the Labour position in the Commons is concerned—and I say this with some trepidation because my dear noble friend Lord McAvoy has a great record as a party loyalist and defender of party discipline in the other place—the shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, in the Commons debate last autumn on the question of a referendum, said:
“I urge opposition to the motion because I do not believe that Britain’s national interest would be served by spending the coming months and years debating the case for Britain leaving the world’s largest single market”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/11; col. 60.]
The leader of the Labour Party made it clear only last week or the week before that Labour’s position had not changed from that view in the mean time.
That is where we stand. The EU Act is a contradictory piece of legislation. The measure is not defined under the terms of that Act as a transfer of powers to Brussels, and we therefore do not have a referendum—but there is no point in reiterating our debates on that Act. Our view is that this is an emergency situation in Europe; the stability mechanism is a necessary part of tackling the problems of the eurozone, which is very much in the British national interest. Therefore, this legislation should go through in the speediest possible time.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we all admire the lone role that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has cast for himself in bringing forward these amendments, and his boldness in bringing forward an amendment with which he does not, in fact, agree. This is bravery on a high scale in this debating Chamber.
The amendment, as he pointed out, seeks to insert into the Bill a requirement for a favourable vote in a national referendum before the UK could approve the European Council decision amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council decision amends Article 136 of the TFEU. It was adopted in accordance with the simplified revision procedure in Article 48(6) of the Treaty on European Union. The decision added a paragraph to Article 136 which confirms that EU members whose currency is the euro may establish a financial stability mechanism. The provisions of Article 136 and the proposed new paragraph apply only—I repeat, only—to member states whose currency is the euro. They do not, therefore, apply to the United Kingdom.
The Bill is required under Section 3 of the 2011 Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred, to give parliamentary approval to the decision. The other two requirements of that Act were, as noble Lords will recall, a statement by the Minister giving his opinion as to whether a referendum is required—I will come to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on that in a moment—and compliance with the so-called referendum condition, exemption condition or significance condition which we debated when we considered that Bill some time ago.
The 2011 Act makes it clear that decisions adopted under Article 48(6) of the TEU are not subject to a referendum under that Act if its provisions do not apply to the United Kingdom. The 2011 Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, rightly drew attention, provides:
“A treaty or Article 48(6) decision does not fall within this section merely”—
I come to that word—
“because it involves ... the making of any provision that applies only to member States other than the United Kingdom”.
The “merely” is intended to indicate that other conditions are also taken into account—for example, the exemption condition or the significance condition. It is not only the fact that it does not apply to the United Kingdom and is outside the application of the United Kingdom; it involves other conditions as well. The decision amending Article 136 therefore clearly falls within the exemption set out in Section 4(4)(b) of the 2011 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raised again the doubts of his own party and colleagues about that Act, which was vigorously debated. I do not think that it would be in order to debate the Act again, although I am always happy to reopen these great issues. I happen to think that it was an immensely important Act which has been a considerable reinforcement to the concerns of the British people that there will be no further transfer of competence to the European Union without a referendum. It is an important safeguard, and my right honourable and noble friends have drawn attention to its importance.
The Government have been clear that a referendum is not required under the 2011 Act right from the very beginning. On 13 October 2011, the Foreign Secretary laid a Statement before Parliament in accordance with Section 5 of the Act, in which he confirmed that in his opinion a referendum was not required under the Act. The Statement was open to judicial review but, as my right honourable friend pointed out, in the intervening eight months, no one has sought to challenge it in the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, whose position is consistent and which he has put with admirable consistency over the years, said that in his view there was some practical implication of transfer of competence— although he did not put it in quite those words. But no judicial review to make that point has been launched. The noble Lord referred to the aspect, to which I will refer again in a moment, that in exchange for this going forward, the British liability to be exposed under the European financial stability mechanism is released, and the mechanism falls and is no longer in use. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was concerned that that was just a political decision and not enshrined in law. He is perfectly correct, but it is a decision by all 27 members, and it is a firm commitment. To unravel the whole of that would be to throw the entire arrangement of the EFSM into complete chaos. It would be a total reversal of a firm commitment made in good faith by 27 members. We believe that it is a substantial and supported condition.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I am most obliged to the Minister. Can he deal with the point that I made concerning the article in the Times? I have given it to Hansard so I cannot quote from it again. The Times queried whether the European Court of Justice could interpret our passing of this Bill as an agreement to future financing within the European stability mechanism. The point being made by the Times was that perhaps the European Court could interpret what we are doing as being consistent with having to make future contributions.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The European Court proceeds in ways which some of us do not always understand, but it is required to interpret the law. There is no issue with the European financial stability mechanism in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. When this Bill is passed—I can boldly say when—and the amendment of Article 136 is ratified by all 27 member states, that will be the law, and the Court will interpret it. I do not see how the noble Lord could argue that this political decision, which is immensely valuable to the United Kingdom, could be somehow embroiled in the legal interpretations of the Court. I do not see how it comes into the interpretations of the law as embodied in the treaties.
When we debated the provisions of the EU Bill, as it then was, in this House last year, many Members were concerned that we might be bringing referenda into disrepute by requiring them for small changes to EU treaties and by being explicit about when a referendum was and was not required. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made a proposition that something to do with paper clips, I think it was, could cause a referendum.
I spent a lot of time at this Dispatch Box explaining why we felt the provisions for referenda were not trivial. I explained that one of the reasons the European Union Bill was so long was so that it could be crystal clear about when a referendum was not required, and why issues which appeared small in the schedules to some of your Lordships were in fact the core of red-line considerations involving transfers of competence which we believed were not desirable and would certainly require a referendum.
The way in which the European Union Act 2011 applies to the treaty change we are considering today is clear. The provisions of this decision, amending Article 136 of the TFEU, do not apply to the United Kingdom, so the decision simply does not attract a referendum. What is more, there is no transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU involved. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart may feel that that is questionable; if that was his determined view and he thought he could mobilise the evidence for it, there would have been an opportunity for a judicial review, but no such review was brought forward.
The amendment to Article 136 simply recognises the ability of eurozone member states to establish a permanent stability mechanism—the European stability mechanism—by means of an intergovernmental agreement. The ESM is established by an agreement. This is not the ESM treaty. This is a treaty merely noting the amendment to the existing treaties, to Article 136.
I have listened very carefully, and I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for which I am grateful. I hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—who is a considerable expert on these things—that his party does not stand against this Bill, but believes it will make a contribution. We can have a debate on what sort of contribution it makes to a rapidly changing scene where there are many issues that cannot be resolved at this stage, but holding a referendum on this decision would contradict the clear provisions of the European Union Act 2011. It would introduce confusion about the circumstances in which a referendum would be required in the UK, and that is, to my mind, the reason, above all, why it should be—and, I hope, will be—resisted by your Lordships’ House.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, while I agree with the Minister that I enjoyed the speech of my noble friend, Lord McAvoy, I can honestly say that it did not contain any words with which I agreed. I was very pleased that my noble friend from the Front Bench gave what might almost be described as a muffled, mild rebuke to my noble friend Lord McAvoy about the importance of loyalty. I think that my noble friend is only too aware of that, because he has managed to follow the party line on many occasions when he did not agree with it, and has been an inspiration to all of us.
I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend—because he is my friend—Lord Stoddart. We are not on the same Benches now, but we were for many years and we agreed on almost everything except Europe. I agreed with everything that my noble friend on the Front Bench said, including his remarks quoting our shadow Foreign Secretary and our party leader on the question of a wider referendum. It would be unnecessary and wasteful. It is not covered in the amendment and not something that I dealt with, but I will say that I agreed with my noble friend completely.
If I had not already intended not to press my amendment, the speeches of the Minister and my noble friend Lord Liddle would have convinced me. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I will not detain the House on this for more than a couple of minutes. As I found out, trying to devise amendments for the Bill is not easy. It is very tightly drawn and cleverly done by the usual draftspersons. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said in relation to the ESM:
“The intention is that it will replace both the EFSM and EFSF”.—[Official Report, 23/5/12; col. 802.]
I wanted to devise an amendment that would make that clear. It would have said that by agreeing to the ESM we would have replaced the EFSM and the EFSF. However, I was told that that was not competent within the terms of reference of the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister—this is the only point I shall raise on the clause stand part debate—will give an assurance that it is the understanding of Her Majesty’s Government that those two mechanisms will be replaced. There is a tendency in my beloved European Union to keep things going when they are not necessary—actually, there is such a tendency in successive Governments. I hope that we will have a clear assurance on that.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, briefly, I will give a clear assurance that it is our intention to replace the EFSM and the European Financial Stability Facility. That has been the aim all along. The Bill does not do either of those things but merely amends Article 136. However, those intentions were stated absolutely clearly and supported by all members of the European Community. That is what is proposed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I see some puzzled faces around the Chamber and I think that others agree with me that this is rather wide of the amendment under discussion. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that we are at the Committee stage when we should address directly the amendments concerned.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I have noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has been up on his feet regularly in recent days and weeks keeping colleagues in order, so I know that he is not picking on me in any way. I accept that I had moved just a little wide of the amendment.
I was trying to say that if Greece were no longer a member of the eurozone, having been forced out because of all these speculators, the question would arise whether the treaty should go ahead as originally planned. That is the amendment and that is a valid point. People are concerned that countries such as Greece, Ireland and now Spain, which are in difficulties and suffering, might have to leave the eurozone because of the speculation taking place. If those countries were no longer members of the eurozone, why should a treaty which was drawn up at a time when they were members continue on that basis? I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would reconsider his suggestion that Greece might be forced to leave the eurozone purely because of the action of the speculators. Is the real reason why Greece is in trouble not because it has been spending money it does not have, it has been borrowing money that it cannot pay back, and it is basically bust?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, recount how he was accidentally drawn into the adventure of currency speculation. I hope that that is all in order, and I am sure that it is. However, having heard my noble friend Lord Sassoon say earlier, rightly and correctly, that he was not prepared to be drawn by the noble Lord into a discussion of Rangers’ tax affairs, I have equally to recognise that I am not prepared to be drawn into a discussion about the noble Lord’s own tax affairs either.
The purpose of these amendments is, first and obviously, to delay the entry into force of this Act until January of next year. Secondly, they would stop the Act coming into force at all if the membership of the euro area were to change between now and 1 January 2013. This Bill gives parliamentary approval to a European Council decision amending Article 136, as I am afraid I repeated ad nauseam in my earlier comments. This, in Her Majesty’s Government’s view, is firmly in the UK’s best interests. Once the European stability mechanism is established, the UK will not be exposed to any future programmes of financial assistance for the eurozone through the EU budget, specifically through the European financial stability mechanism. The mechanism will contribute to helping our neighbours in the eurozone in the continuing search for financial stability in the currency area. Delaying the coming into force of this Bill until 1 January is therefore not in our interests. It would create uncertainty about the UK’s intentions in relation to ratification of the decision.
In turn, as a knock-on effect, a delay would destabilise the European stability mechanism, which may or may not come into use in the times ahead depending on what occurs. It is not for me to speculate on any of the points that have been raised about whether there will be exits from the eurozone or whether there will be banking unions, insurance unions, fiscal pacts and so on. This move on the part of the House and this Parliament is intended to be a contribution to a very complex jigsaw of requirements. If the Bill were not to come into force at all, that would be even more damaging to what is without doubt a very difficult and challenging situation with many complex and component parts to it, which is what the eurozone states are presently confronting. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to speculate further on that aspect of what is going to happen. However, what is certain is that, regardless of whether there is a change in member states whose currency is the euro, having a permanent stability mechanism, which is the decision of the eurozone states, is essential for those that remain.
If the Bill were not to be enacted and come into force, the UK would not be able to ratify the treaty change —the Article 136 amendment—and that amendment would not be able to enter into force. This instrument is the change that will provide eurozone members with the legal certainty they want in relation to the ESM, and it is very much in our interests that that at least should be in place.
We want the euro to sort out its problems, of course, as a strong and stable euro area is in the UK’s national interests because of our close economic links. I think that everyone realises that now. Setting up a permanent stability mechanism is part of the solution to the current crisis and this Bill confirms the ability of eurozone members to do that. Failing to approve or delaying the approval of the treaty amendment decision would further contribute to instability across the eurozone, of which there is plenty around already, and have a negative impact on the UK economy. As my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Chancellor have all repeatedly made clear, a stable eurozone is directly in the UK’s interests. It is a major market for our trade, and some would argue that its stability is key to unlocking the prospects for recovery and expansion in all the European and, indeed, global economies, and certainly including this one. Accepting these amendments would risk undermining that prospect of stability and growth further.