European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I am sorry to intrude further on the time of the House. I shall be brief. I took part in proceedings on the Bill, speaking at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. The matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, today go far beyond what is contained in the Bill. I should very much like to answer the points that he made but, in deference to the next Bill and the time of the House, I will not do so.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, I am rather in the same state of mind as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on these matters. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his first words confirming the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition for this Bill, although his later remarks, while interesting, seem to be spectacularly out of order; but never mind about that.

In his intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, raised extremely important and wider issues, which I think all in this House would wish to discuss at the appropriate time. However, this Bill is simply concerned with approval to amend Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and it would be inappropriate, perhaps even out of order, for me to stray into a debate on these matters now.

I would emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that, as I think he knows, I would be very happy to discuss his ideas on the future of the European Union, the eurozone and the single market—as, if I may say so, set out in his recent book on this subject, which is full of very interesting ideas—and I hope that we will have the opportunity to do that. If he would like to put down a Question, it will be possible to answer in even more detail the specific points that he has raised today. I think that that is the best way forward. However, as there are no amendments to this Bill on Third Reading —although amendments were excellently advanced earlier with great precision by a certain Member of this House—there will be no further amendments. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[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.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, the House is indeed fortunate to have present in this debate two former Chancellors of the Exchequer, who were able to impart their considerable experience over a wide area of matters, particularly in regard to the setting up of the eurozone. I am grateful to them for their speeches today.

Why are we hurrying this Bill? Why are we introducing it just a couple of weeks after the Queen’s Speech? There is no rush for it. Unless I am mistaken, the Irish are to have a referendum on the matter at the end of this month. The Germans will not ratify this policy until the autumn. I even noticed in today’s Financial Times that Geert Wilders has applied for an injunction to block ratification until after the September elections.

I heard the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others that a,

“healthy eurozone is important for the UK’s long-term growth”.

I put in there that that does not hold water, but that clearly was not robust enough because the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, described it, in much more stark terms, as “nonsense”. I think that that is a better description of it.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The issue of whether I was talking nonsense or not seems to have rattled through the debate. I think that we will all listen with fascination to the noble Lord’s speech, just as we listened to the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Lawson. However, there was an error in that perhaps they did not hear my actual speech. I made it absolutely clear that stable progress in the eurozone states is vital to stable progress in the United Kingdom. That is not quite what the noble Lord seems to be accusing me of saying.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

It was not an accusation because I thought that I was quoting him. I am most obliged to the Minister for clarifying what he did say. I really do not like getting across the noble Lord, Lord Howell, because I respect him very much and think that he is perhaps the only statesman that the Government have among their ranks.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

For the sake of clarification, I was not quoting what my noble friend said in his opening remarks, which were rather more careful. What I explicitly quoted is what appeared under his name on the Foreign Office website, and I quoted that correctly.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I appreciate that he was relying on a press release, but I had hoped that, as he is sitting here, he might also have listened to my speech.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Now that we have that out of the way, perhaps I can get on with my speech. There is no doubt, as other noble Lords have said, that the eurozone was a political construct, not a financial one, to create a single European state. Because it was made up of nations with diverse economies, it was bound to fail, as it now has. The noble Lord, Lord Radice, accused those of us who gave pause when the project was starting up of gloating because it has now patently failed. I do not gloat, and I do not think that others who warned of the consequences do so because the eurozone is now in difficulties. We believed that it was always going to be in difficulties; and for trying to point that out, we were derided and insulted. Indeed, the former Prime Minister, Mr Blair, said that we were unpatriotic. There is no gloating about this. We are extremely sad that the present situation has arisen.

As I understand it, the Bill allows the eurozone to further integrate and consolidate a failed system by attempting to shore it up through fiscal, economic and political union under central control by the large countries. I believe that the claim that the ESM cannot and never will apply to the United Kingdom is spurious and quite untenable. Article 16 expresses the aim that within the five years the treaty will be incorporated into the EU treaty framework, which presumably will include this country. Furthermore, we have heard all this before. Let us remember the famous Blair “red lines” over the EU constitution. All of them were eventually crossed and incorporated into the Lisbon treaty. We have to be careful when we are given assurances that certain things will not apply to this country.

I really must comment on the behaviour of the Prime Minister. He does not inspire confidence that the United Kingdom will not be sucked into this system. He seems to be suffering from EU schizophrenia. On the one hand, he opposed the setting up of the eurozone and has said that the UK will never join it; but on the other hand, he wants to dictate policy from the outside and has threatened the Greeks that if they do not vote in the right way, they will be thrown out of the euro. No wonder he is seen by the eurozone countries as a bully-boy shouting from the sidelines. He claims to be a Eurosceptic, yet demands more power for the centre.

I would like the Prime Minister to understand that the influential and decisive voices of the EU—for example, Mr Jose Manuel Barroso; Mr Herman Van Rompuy; Mr Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German Finance Minister; and Mr Olli Rehn, Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs—and the shadowy group of Foreign Ministers and many others are calling for complete political integration under a European Government and the destruction or the sidelining of the nation states.

Why is the Prime Minister not shouting that very famous, “No, no, no”? Perhaps he is afraid of being stabbed in the back by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says that we will never join, but I remind him that others want the whole system to be extended into a single European state. This Bill will help those who wish to create a country called Europe, in spite of some voices this afternoon and in other debates who do not wish to see that happen.

Hungary

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Monday 30th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The sanctions are those that are available to the European Union as an organisation which requires certain standards that we adhere to very strongly—standards of behaviour, and moral, legal and social standards—throughout the European Union. That is the sanction available on that side. The Council of Europe also has powers to censure, and, indeed, challenge the continued membership of organisations within it. These are powerful pressures that need to be used in a balanced way and with the right approach. That is the situation which we are now grappling with.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, is there not a problem here which has to be resolved? On the one hand, the people of Hungary have decided to have a Government and a new constitution that do not fit in with the rest of Europe. On the other hand, the European Union cannot possibly accept a Government of Hungary who have a constitution that is not in accordance with its views and background. How do we resolve the problem? Who is going to win in this—the electorate of Hungary or the European Union?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not quite see it in that sort of Manichean analysis between the European Union and Hungary. I see that there are certain objective standards of good government and free government, and the freedoms that we all fought for during all our lifetimes, and that these should be upheld. The European Union is a repository of those freedoms, as is the Council of Europe. When those standards are being departed from or flouted in any member state—indeed, we can extend this to organisations outside Europe, such as the Commonwealth—then all pressure should be brought to bear. It is not just a question of the European Union versus Hungary; it is a question of the proper rule of law, good governance, democracy and the core values and principles that we stand for and have fought for being adhered to in every possible way.

Lockerbie

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

On the second point about WPC Yvonne Fletcher, that is most certainly so. We are in touch with the Metropolitan Police about reopening their investigations into the perpetrators of that hideous crime. On the former question, the decision was made by the devolved Scottish Government and it is a matter for them to pursue. We have indicated that the Government in London will give full assistance to the devolved Government in pursuing their inquiries.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us about the state of health of Mr Al Megrahi, who was released by the Scottish authorities on the grounds that he had only six months to live?

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I will make the point of order whether there are interruptions from other parts of the House or not. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said that we had had enough of this debate and that, when he got up, no other noble Lord would be able to speak. This is not in accordance with the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords. If noble Lords turn to paragraph 8.139, on page 152, they will see that, as long as the House accepts that they should do so, noble Lords may speak until the Minister gets up. After this, there shall be no speeches. However, before the Minister or spokesman gets to his or her feet, with the permission of the House, any Member of the House may speak

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is correct, as I have got up, this debate now comes to a close.

As always, it has been a fascinating debate with many profound remarks. It has predominantly been a debate about referenda, but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that the debate has been entirely separate from the Bill. Speaking as one of the, I suspect, rather few ex-Ministers who have taken a referendum Act through the other place in the distant past—the Northern Ireland referendum Bill—I suppose that, in the eyes of my noble friends Lord Deben and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, I am damned before I start.

Nevertheless, let me set out one or two of the arguments that have perhaps not been exposed as clearly as they should. We know that the purpose of these amendments is to include a minimum turnout threshold for any referendums arising as a result of the Bill. If the threshold is not met, regardless of the result, hey presto, the referendum would become advisory and not mandatory. This proposition has a whole string of disadvantages, which are not all obvious but become clear if you think about them. First, as many of your noble Lords have pointed out, instead of it being mandatory on the Government, it leaves the British people in real doubt about what the effect of their vote will be. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is incidentally entirely wrong that it will be mandatory on Parliaments; it will be mandatory on Governments, though it is true that Governments often, but not always, control Parliaments. However, this goes by the board if we pass the amendment. It will be the end of the British people’s mandatory certainty and they will be back where they started, passing the ball back to Parliament and the party and Government controlling Parliament. This is where the record has, frankly, not been brilliant or reassuring. This is one of the reasons why we are facing these problems.

We have the glorious assertions of excellent and eloquent spokesmen like the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Triesman, that the only need is for the Government to say no. However, they have not said no. They have said yes, when many people have felt that this yes was the wrong and inappropriate proposition. The fear is that, now that we have said yes to Lisbon, we have said yes about handing many important powers to the European Union. We work with the European Union and believe that they should have powers. However, will it be a no or yes in future? The doubt remains. The doubt must be removed. The reassurance is not there. For the vast majority of the people, the call is for the reassurance to be there. Though the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will not agree with me, I suspect that the vast majority in this country want us to be good Europeans and to be effective in Europe and effective in allowing Europe to use—and not have us unravel—its vast range of existing competences. They are, however, worried as to whether it will be a yes or a no in future. The noble Lords do not seem to have grasped this central point. It is simply not right to lead people in doubt about what their role will be. It leaves them with a doubt—a dangerous doubt—about whether they will be listened to, about the lack of clarity and about whether their views will count.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, brought us back to Edmund Burke. I love Burke. He is one of my favourites. However, he is not particularly my favourite when he warned that democracy only works if, as he put it, there is a policeman within each one of us. It is slightly different from the proposition about parliamentary democracy. We all know perfectly well that Burke was not operating in today’s situation. He perhaps did not foresee the iron discipline of party politics, where some parties get a complete grip on Parliament. Has the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, recently read—or ever read—Lord Hailsham on elected dictatorship? In it he would find a heavy antidote to the glorious idealism of the Burkean age, in which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and Mr Burke could speak out to their conscience freely unaware of any party restraints. I have spent 31 years in the other place and I am afraid that every day I was aware of party restraints.

I cannot see that this 40 per cent threshold would reconnect the British people with the decisions being taken in their name at the EU level; it certainly would not do so. These devices do not serve to solve the problem, as astutely identified by a great many commentators day after day on the radio or in the newspapers. I see that my brief refers to the BBC’s Europe editor, who said the other day that,

“Across Europe voters feel insecure, suspicious of an elite with its own vision of an ever closer union but which doesn't necessarily address their hopes or fears”.

I would hope that this wise House of Lords, where we wear our party allegiances somewhat more lightly, would support efforts to resolve this concern and to see the European Union on a more solid basis than, frankly, it is today, not only for lack of popular support but because it is facing very serious policy issues as well. For those of us who want to build a better relationship between the British people and the EU and, indeed, people generally and the EU right across the 27 countries—soon to be 28 or more—I would have thought that this is the way to go.

By the same token, the amendment before us undermines that whole aim of the Bill. That is the first point which must be taken into account and cannot be dismissed, unless those who do so think that popular support and consensus are irrelevant, do not arise and that parliamentary wisdom is so entrenched and admired that anything decreed by Governments in Parliament will be immediately accepted—it will not. Secondly, the point has rightly been made that thresholds of this type encourage game playing during a referendum campaign rather than a proper presentation of the arguments to achieve a desired result. For example, if supporters of the yes campaign know that Parliament supports the treaty change in question, they have a huge incentive to keep the vote down below 40 per cent rather than going out and making the case for change.

Thirdly, the Government believe that we should encourage public participation rather than providing reasons for keeping that down. We could wish that the internet age had never occurred and that the days of massive and wide public consultation had not developed, but they have. As my noble friend Lady Nicholson rightly pointed out, are we saying that local elections are not legitimate? We can wave a hand and say that they are different but that is just an assertion. I do not think that they are all that different. Are we saying that the European parliamentary elections are not legitimate? What does it do to the trust in the body politic if a majority have voted no in the referendum but Parliament decided, because it has the power to do so, to go ahead anyway? That would be extremely damaging.

Fourthly, the Lords Constitution Committee, to which some of my noble friends referred, in its wisdom—it is a very wise committee—shares opposition to thresholds. Its report on referendums in the UK concluded that,

“there should be a general presumption against the use of voter turnout thresholds and supermajorities”.

Thresholds are bound to distance voters from the issues on which the British people want to have their say. Incentives to campaign to abstain would be vastly increased.

There is a further question. During our first days in Committee on the Bill, the wise noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that during the debates on the EEC Referendum Act 1975, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—then Margaret Thatcher—had objected to the possibility of the referendum being mandatory. She also said:

“The Government might regard themselves as bound, but the result could not fetter the decision of Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/1975; col. 315.]

That, of course, is exactly our point. That is why I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is wrong. These referenda, or the referendum that might occur—I think that it will occur only once every few years, but I will come to that in a moment—are mandatory on government. That is the whole point of the Bill. However, they are not mandatory on Parliament. They cannot be. Parliament’s view of the treaty will be taken during the passage of legislation for the referendum. If Parliament did not support the treaty, it would not pass the legislation, so Parliament has its say and remains supreme in every sense.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am not sure I agree with the picture of decisions having to be taken instantly. On the contrary, it seems to me to be much more likely that there would be all kinds of negotiation, not least because it would result in one or more member states being outvoted. I do not think these are. This is a very complex matter, and I have sought to try to explain as best I can how we see it working but, of course, I will write to the noble Lord in more detail about his precise concerns. I am not sure that he has really satisfied me about the cutting edge of his amendment, and I have clearly not satisfied him. We will just go on boxing and coxing while other noble Lords have to listened, so I think it is better if I write to him and try to clarify the Government’s understanding of the reasoning and the reason why primary legislation would be justified against his clearly very strongly held view that it would not be justified and might hold things up.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Will the Minister ensure that all Members of the Committee who have taken part in our debates so far also receive the letter that he is going to send to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, of course I will.

I want now to turn to the next point that the noble Lord raised, which is to do with Article 64(3) of the TFEU on the reverse of liberalisation of capital movements to or from third countries. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated he did not fully understand what the Bill means. He interpreted it as allowing a move back from QMV to unanimity. Article 64(3) allows for unanimity for the adoption of,

“measures which constitute a step backwards in Union law as regards the liberalisation of the movement of capital to or from third countries”.

I do not know where this phrase “step back” originally emerged from. I do not know whether it was way back in the original draft of the European constitution. It may have been. It is used to do that which we believe should be subject to an Act of Parliament. Once again, I will obviously look at it very closely, but that is why we believe it is in the Bill in the form that it is and why we think an Act of Parliament is the right way forward.

Those are the detailed points that were raised. As I said about the phraseology that comes down to us from legislation under a previous Government, there is matter for further reflection. I fully accept that just because it was there before does not automatically mean that it is the right way forward now, although the previous Government undoubtedly thought that there were good reasons for it, otherwise they would not have put it there.

Clause 7 covers four categories of passerelles—I do not want to detain the Committee by listing them all now—that cover a wide range of different passerelle devices with which we are concerned. I like to think that Clause 7 represents a clear step, which in principle although maybe not in detail has the support of noble Lords generally, towards enhancing parliamentary control over the Government’s participation in a range of important passerelle decisions at EU level. The result ought to be—indeed, the coalition Government believe it will be—an increase in Parliament’s, and ultimately the British public’s, sense of ownership of and engagement with the future direction of the EU.

Of course, in the highly sensitive areas listed in Schedule 1, as we know and have debated endlessly in Committee, the referendum lock would apply on top of parliamentary approval. However, an Act of Parliament is required in the other areas listed in the clause, which surely can only be a bonus for the public trust and accountability that we are all working towards in this legislation and in our work on the European Union generally.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It does not alter the fact that the United Kingdom will continue to have a veto, as other countries will, unless we surrender positions of unanimity by abandoning our veto. That would be the position. It is perfectly true that there would be very marginal and small changes in the pattern of weighting, but there is no particular reason why they should involve a loss of power or a transfer of competence. They do not do so. The noble Lord, who is very experienced in these things, was talking about patterns in which all sorts of alliances are formed or not formed. All sorts of gatherings and countings of votes take place when Ministers go into these negotiations. That will continue as before. The accession of another country does not alter that pattern in any way.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked about the ways in which immigration or financial regulations might be affected by the arrival in the European Union of a new member state. He will recall that when Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, we put transitional arrangements in place. We had the perfect power and legislative opportunity to do so, and we can do so again. Nothing in the treaty of accession prevents us from doing so and nothing has prevented us from doing so in the past.

I emphasise, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and other noble Lords have asked me to, that, as with all previous Governments regardless of their political composition, we are strong supporters of future enlargement. Like some noble Lords, I remember the considerable uplift in spirits when first there was the fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet empire and then when the processes of enlargement embraced one after another of its former satellite countries. We all worked, planned and hoped for these things. Some of us thought that we would never see them in our lifetime, but they did occur.

EU enlargement helps to create stability, security and prosperity across Europe—we have never disputed that—and serves to spread democracy, human rights, the rule of law and fair rules for workers and businesses. These standards are high although they are not always achieved. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for reminding us of a joke—which, frankly, I had heard before—about the standards of the EU itself. The EU is not, of course, a country; it is a vast confederal structure. It is a unique institution in the 20th and 21st centuries but it is not a country, and perhaps it is a little distorting to suggest that it should be judged in the same way as a nation state. However, that we favour enlargement in the way in which it has come about so far—and in the way in which it might come about in the future—should not raise one iota of doubt for a single minute.

Whenever a candidate country meets the EU accession criteria and it is decided that it is ready to join the EU, we will support its entry. The Government will present its case to Parliament through the introduction of a Bill that will be debated in both Houses and passed or not passed into an Act according to the will of Parliament.

I have little to add to the strong points that have been put by a number of noble Lords as to the fact that transfers of powers and competencies do not arise in the precise form in which we are dealing with them in the Bill; there is no competence or power transfer. The commitment in the coalition government programme for government is to have a referendum on treaties that change a power or competence from the UK to the EU. Treaties that merely allow a new country to accede do not meet this requirement. On that basis, I urge noble Lords to consider what I have said on this matter and to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly those who supported the amendment—the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Willoughby de Broke. I confess that I did not think there would be a debate of nearly an hour and a half on my amendments; I thought they would be dealt with very swiftly. I am pleased that I tabled the amendments because we have had a well considered and authoritative debate on the subject, whatever opinion we hold. That has been altogether good. I would like to reply to all the points that have been made but, including my own speech, there have been 15 speakers—the equivalent of the number of speakers in normal short debates that are two and a half hours long—and I am sure that the House would not welcome a long speech from me in these concluding remarks.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that I was interested in the way in which the Estonians were bribed, so to speak, to vote in the referendum with whisky and chocolates. I am sure that the Scots would be pleased that their product was being used in that way. I visited Estonia shortly after the referendum. It seemed, from the general view of the population, that they regretted the decision that they had made and wished that they could go back on it. That is by the by.

It has been a good debate with some important issues raised. Although the noble Lord, Lord Richard, does not support the amendment, he made a valid point that if we are going to have referendums on some rather less important things—public prosecutors and what have you—there is little merit in raising the question of having referendums on more major matters. That was taken up by several other noble Lords. It is clearly important that we realise that the Bill is deficient in many respects.

On the question of referendums, there appears to be a lot of opposition to referendums per se. That opposition is perhaps on the basis that those who do not want them believe that they cannot win them. That is a big mistake. We have referendums on all sorts of things such as mayors. The objective of having them is to give people a say on major items. I stress that it is on major items. We should not rule them out of our decision-making process.

Another point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. I, too, welcome him to his new post on the opposition Front Bench. He may well be right to claim that the European Union has given us nothing but benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and I have asked repeatedly for a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, might support the next Bill which asks for a referendum.

Another point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who suggested that we should not have referendums on the accession of new members because there are no new competencies. As I pointed out in my opening speech, the accession of new members has often if not mostly been the reason for new treaties transferring competencies to the European Union. In that respect, new accessions may well result in new competencies being given to the European Union and its institutions.

I again thank noble Lords for contributing to a good and essential debate. I do not intend to press the matter to a Division this afternoon but, after reading all the contributions to the debate, I might wish to bring the matter forward again on Report and perhaps even put it to a vote. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

EU: Hungarian Presidency

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords—

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, it is the turn of a Cross-Bencher—and independent thinker. As noble Lords are aware, our net contribution to the EU this year will be some £8.3 billion. However, I noted from the Minister’s Answer yesterday to a Written Question that we are also paying about £3 billion to accession countries. Bearing in mind what is happening in Hungary, I would have thought that we could ensure that all those countries that are allowed to join the EU will be democratic at least after they have joined if not before.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am sure that that is right. One of the core principles of the European Union is a commitment to democratic values, good governance, human rights and the rule of law. That is obviously in the minds of all those considering accession countries, and in the minds of those who govern the accession fund to which I think the noble Lord refers. I have no disagreement with the desire to see democracy spread in the best possible ways throughout the eurozone, and indeed in the wider world.