European Union Bill

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to underline what my noble friend Lord Stoddart has said and to put it as a precise question for the Minister. The only point on which I do not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is that I think that Clause 18 as it stands is better than nothing, and no doubt especially once the Minister has explained it in a few minutes’ time. But I will speak against Amendments 57, 58 and 59, and particularly Amendment 59 for the reason that it appears to get rid of Clause 18.

My question for the Minister is this: does he actually agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that one parliament cannot bind another, even in the whole matter of our EU membership? Will he confirm that if Parliament—your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons—repeals the original 1972 Act, particularly Section 2 with which I include all the amendments that have been added, those arising from the Single European Act 1986, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and so on, are we then in effect out of the European Union? Will we no longer be subject to the diktats of Brussels and the jurisdiction of the Luxembourg court? Of course I understand that a lot of British law did come from Brussels and is sewn into our own law. I also understand that that can be repealed at our leisure as we go forward. However, I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that Clause 18 means that it is only if we repeal the 1972 Act that European law would no longer take precedence over the law of this country, and that that can be reversed by repealing the Act?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, what has come through in the debate is that it is hard to see a strong purpose for Clause 18. It is not the best drafted clause I have ever read in legislation, and I understand why—or at least I think I understand why, which I will come to in a moment. But it is also true to say that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill do the clause no favours. They do not set out why it is compelling or why any of us who think that it is obscurely drafted should feel that we can put our hand on our heart and say that we know exactly why it is written as it is. I certainly do not feel that way. I am not a lawyer. I am not learned in the law, which is the expression that has gone around the Chamber. I am a humble mathematician and I am trying hard to understand the considerable obscurities of law when compared with mathematics.

It is important to ask, as did the noble Lord, Lord Deben, only a short while ago, what the clause as it is written is for—I shall come on to the alternatives in a moment. Everybody agrees that it is declaratory in its reference to the 1972 Act. It looks as though it is attempting to balance a number of arguments which plainly have gone on in the background between those who are uncomfortable with the idea that Europe has any bearing on the way we conduct our legal lives, and may continue to do so, and those who recognise that that is a fixed reality because of the processes that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, described in a very helpful speech. It is hard to understand the necessity of Clause 18 and it is reasonable to say that, as drafted, it is open to very wide interpretation. As a couple of noble Lords have said, that would probably make it open to judicial review.

I find myself in strong agreement—I hope that it will do her no harm—with the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who said that the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee’s report gave not the most glowing reference which anybody has written to a piece of legislation. The report is written with the niceness that parliamentarians occasionally reserve for a description of something they think is very poor, but, none the less, it says, in terms pretty much, that it is very poor. The Government in their response almost give up the ghost after a very short period of trying to defend it, because there is no certainty, I think, even on their part, that this was the right way to do it.

I cannot see the point of the clause or that it is at all helpful. I have real sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that parliaments cannot bind their successors. That view at least, about the character of parliamentary Government, must be common ground among us. In those circumstances, it must be common ground that Parliament is supreme, and it must be common ground that, should Parliament wish to stand down the 1972 Act, it would be within its competence to do so. It is extremely unlikely that it would, but that is neither here nor there in the terms in which the noble Lord put that proposition to the Committee. The supremacy argument is very powerful. One of the reasons that I have great difficulty with much of this legislation is that it seems to reduce the role of Parliament and the supremacy that it should enjoy. The points that have been made ad nauseam in your Lordships' House about multiple referenda do nothing for the objective of propping up the supremacy of Parliament, but the general proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, must be right.

If the Government feel that it is essential to have in place a clause that is declaratory, it might as well have the following characteristics. First, it should be so clear that even those of us who are not learned in the law understand it. Secondly, it should be sufficiently clear that it does not give rise to frequent legal challenge. Thirdly, it should make reference to—if I may put it this way—the core code that is involved in European legislation and not gloss over that. For those reasons, Amendment 57 offers greater clarification. It may well have been written with people who are used to dealing with sovereignty issues somewhere in the background, but it is none the less a straightforward clarification. Beyond that, Amendment 59 does that by a very direct reference to what I described as the core code—to the central proposition about why the status of our relationship to Europe is as it is.

If we did not have this clause at all, which would be my preference, much of what I said in the past few moments would not be particularly relevant. But if there is to be a declaratory cause it should at least have the characteristics that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, introduced in his speech this evening. It is impossible to misinterpret or misunderstand it. That has great merit and I hope that he will not mind my saying so from the opposition Benches. It does not alter my view that, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said, the clause is not really necessary, but Amendment 59 has a convincing pedigree and that is what recommends it to me.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I will look first at Amendments 57 and 58 and then come to the vagueness charges embodied in Amendment 59. I will seek to explain why the words are in the Bill. Whether the explanation is acceptable to the Committee is another matter at the moment. I will explain that the words that are in the Bill work the other way: they add to the precision of the legislation rather than to the vagueness of it. I will come to that in a moment.

As noble Lords have recognised, Amendment 57 would include on the face of the Bill that Clause 18 does not alter the rights and obligations that the UK signed up to on becoming a member state of the European Union. It also seeks to legislate explicitly that Clause 18 does not alter the primacy of EU law. I am grateful to your Lordships for drawing attention to these two important principles: that the EU law has primacy and that the UK must honour its obligations as an EU member state. I assure the Committee and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lea, with his Amendment 58, that the Bill supports both those principles. Indeed, the Bill has to support them. It is not a question of choice. The Bill has to support those principles because to do otherwise would put us in breach of our obligations as EU members.

I have serious concerns about Amendment 57. It does not reflect accurately the legal position regarding the UK's membership of the European Union. I say that because the UK follows the dualist constitutional model. Giving treaties effect in the UK is always a two-stage process. That did not seem to feature in the debate that we just had. The first stage—the signing of the treaty during which the UK may take on rights and obligations—is governed by public international law. The rights and obligations assumed by the UK on becoming an EU member state are governed by public, international law rather than domestic law. Those rights and obligations are binding on the United Kingdom under international law irrespective of the existence of the European Communities Act or any other Act of Parliament and will continue to be so as long as the UK continues to be a member state of the European Union. It follows that the EU Bill does not and cannot change the rights and obligations assumed by the United Kingdom on becoming a member of the European Union. It would be misleading to suggest in this or in any Bill that any Act of Parliament could do this. Such a change could only be done by the UK renegotiating the terms of its membership of the European Union.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that Governments can of course seek to bind future Governments. Most Governments whom I know, and whom many of your Lordships know, have sought to bring in great legislation. Let us take, for instance, some of the privatisation provisions under the earlier Thatcher Government. Our hope was that those would endure. We hoped that a future Government would feel bound by privatisation visions, not renationalise the whole of the then privatised sector—indeed, our hopes were in fact borne out. However, a Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament; that is a completely different proposition. It is of course possible that a future Parliament could repeal the 1972 Act although, interestingly, that would not remove the United Kingdom from the European Union. It could only be done by negotiation through Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union but those things are possible. Parliament can do anything and is supreme.

Noble Lords have asked what the point of Clause 18 is and why it is in the Bill. It confirms that the second stage of the dualist system, whereby the rights and obligations taken on by the UK are given effect in UK law and can therefore be enforced through the UK courts, must always be done by an Act of Parliament. Any suggestion that EU law constitutes a new, higher autonomous legal order and has or can develop into part of the UK’s legal system independent of statute are thereby refuted. That is very important indeed. Noble Lords may say: “So what? That is what the courts have always upheld”. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, acutely observed, it has been challenged. I think that the prosecution in the metric martyrs case tried to float the idea in the counter case that EU law had some autonomous existence independent of our own statute law. It has been raised and to say that it is not in question is simply factually wrong when people have questioned it.

It is therefore the view of the coalition that it is right and valuable that this declaratory clause should be in the Bill. Even if it can be said that the courts have so far upheld that position, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe is well aware—having been, as he said, the father, godfather and grandfather of the 1972 Act and much of the legislation that flows from it—and as I know and we all know, these matters are challenged. They are, from time to time, challenged by learned legal minds and there is dispute about them. Far from this clause being unnecessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, ventured to argue with great clarity, I maintain that on the basis of our own experience—what we hear, read and see in the public debate—it is necessary that it should be in place. That is my view on Clause 57 but I will obviously think hard about the views that were put forward by extremely acute and expert minds on this matter. However, I said that I would set out how the Government see the matter and that is how we see it.

Amendment 59 was a very important part of the argument put forward by a number of noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Let me explain why we have in there “an Act of Parliament” rather than “by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972”. I reassure my noble and learned friend that we have thought about this very carefully because it is a complex balance of issues and we wanted very much to get it right.

The Government accept that Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act is commonly identified as the primary way in which EU law takes effect in the UK, but unfortunately that is not quite right. There are other Acts which can be interpreted as giving effect to EU law within the UK; for example, there are some provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 2006, the Northern Ireland Act 1998—and I believe there were other earlier Northern Ireland Acts as well, as I remember taking part in some myself. Then there are the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Equality Act 2006. They all put Ministers under an obligation to act in accordance with EU law without reference to the European Communities Act—and there may be other such Acts in future. Who knows? We have to prepare for these things. It was to address this concern and those facts that Clause 18 was deliberately drafted to refer to Acts in the plural, or an Act of Parliament, rather than solely referring to Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972.

I reassure my noble friends that having carefully thought about it and come down on that side of the argument, which we believe to be the comprehensive and effective one, there was no sinister purpose. It was simply a design to ensure that all the means by which directly effective or applicable EU law could be given an effect in the UK legal order are addressed. That is the raison d’etre and the underlying argument why the clause is there, why it is necessary and why it is so worded.

I would like to say a final word, or semi-final word—or penultimate word—about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, at Second Reading, which he touched on again today. He queried what on earth paragraph 113 was doing in the Explanatory Notes, which refers to the,

“UK subordinate legislation … and … Acts and Measures of the devolved legislatures”.

The answer is that EU law can be given effect in the UK legal order, not only directly through primary legislation but through means of delegated legislation adopted under primary legislation. The obvious example of this is the secondary legislation giving effect to EU measures adopted under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act, and the reference in Clause 18 to,

“by virtue of an Act of Parliament”,

covers that aspect.

I said that was my penultimate comment. My noble and extremely learned friend Lord Howe did that dangerous thing of mentioning the Commonwealth, which has not really come into this Bill at all. I cannot resist making the point that if we are to promote the interests of this nation as a positive member of the European Union, and to do so fit in to this extraordinary new world in which all the wealth and accumulated savings and first the economic and now the political power have shifted to a degree away from the Atlantic nations and the West to the new emerging worlds of Asia, Africa and Latin America, these are the new networks in which we must also involve ourselves. We must work to ensure that our European membership enables us to take our full part in these things to reinforce each other.

I had to get that in, only because my noble and learned friend tempted me. It has very little to do with the amendment, but I think that I have explained why the two points raised by noble Lords with great learning and authority fit in to the fact that the clause is necessary; it may be declaratory but it does a job, and that is why it is there, and it is drafted as an Act of Parliament rather than the European Communities Act 1972 but deliberately and carefully.

I think I said a word about the amendment intended to help proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lea. I assure him that there is no way in which Clause 18 alters the commitment or position of the primacy of European Union law, which in turn rests as it always must on the will and Act of Parliament supported by the courts. That is why I would ask noble Lords and the noble and learned Lords to consider what they have put forward and withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I would like to spend a little time ruminating on something that the Minister said. He said that if this Parliament repealed the 1972 Act and the relevant parts of the other Acts that he mentioned, we would still be bound by Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. Article 50 is of course the laborious and expensive process that Lisbon allows for a member state to leave the European Union over a period of some two years. Why is that so? Surely if we have repealed the 1972 Act, have we not repealed everything that flows from it, including Article 50. Could we not then get out much quicker and rather more cheaply?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am proceeding on this subject on the close advice of lawyers. I am advised that even if we repealed the Act, under international law we would remain a member of the European Union until such time as we negotiated our way out of it under Article 50. That is the point that I was making.

European Union Bill

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

41: Clause 6, page 5, line 16, at end insert—
“( ) a decision under Article 311 of TEU which would result in the net contribution of the United Kingdom to the European Union’s own resources exceeding £10 billion;”

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

This amendment gives the British people a referendum on the economic cost of our EU membership. This would discover whether they want to go on paying through the nose to be bossed around by an organisation which is of absolutely no use to them. The amendment is targeted on the net cash we send to Brussels every year. It does not address the gross cash we send, which is roughly double, although many Eurosceptics argue that we should concentrate on that gross amount because so much of what Brussels sends back to us of our own money goes on projects designed to enhance the EU’s image which we could certainly spend more fruitfully elsewhere.

This amendment requires that when our net contribution reaches £10 billion per annum, or nearly half the current spending cuts of £21 billion, there must be a referendum to see whether the British people want to go on paying such tribute. For clarity, and to show how reasonable this amendment is when set against some of the wider costs of our EU membership which are more difficult to define, it is worth spelling out some of those other costs.

This amendment does not include the huge liabilities to which we are now exposed from bailing out that cruel failure, the euro. At the moment, these include the £3.25 billion we have underwritten for Ireland and the further £7 billion to which we have been illegally signed up under the financial stability mechanism. I suppose there may be more on the way for Greece, Portugal and even Spain, but so far that is £10.25 billion, which we are unlikely to get back. Again, I would point out that that is nearly half our current spending cuts.

Nor does the amendment cover the billions we have thrown away by surrendering control of our fishing industry to Brussels and its iniquitous common fisheries policy—a cost that seems to be estimated at about £2 billion annually. Beyond its financial cost, whatever it is, it is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships of the EU’s own recent estimate that some 800,000 tonnes of fish are thrown back dead into the North Sea every year. To get this statistic into everyday proportion, I invite your Lordships to imagine a 40-tonne articulated lorry that fills most of your Lordships’ Chamber from the Throne to the Bar, although it is not quite as high. Then I ask your Lordships to stretch your imagination further and to think of 20,000 such lorries, all full of dead fish. Some environmental bodies put the annual discarded fish at 2 million tonnes, which comes to 50,000 articulated lorries. To get all these lorries into understandable perspective, it perhaps helps to think that their contents would fill the Palace of Westminster and Whitehall several times over with dead fish every year.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I am sure we are all fascinated, but is the noble Lord not in favour of any sort of conservation policy in the seas around Europe or is he just saying that we have been robbed?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

We were not robbed because we voluntarily signed our fishing away before we signed up to the 1972 Act. We gave it away. We Eurosceptics would like our fishing back. We would like our waters back. We would like to control them entirely ourselves, as do the Icelanders, the Norwegians and the Faroe Islanders, to their great national benefit. When we have re-established our fishing stocks by not discarding any fish, we will then let out any surplus not required by our industry, once we have re-established that, to foreigners. That is what we would like to do.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I am going to the Faroe Islands in a couple of weeks’ time, and I point out that the issue with the Faroe Islands at the moment is that our mackerel, if we like to call them that, are going their way, the Faroe Islanders catch them, and we do not want them to be landed in this country. I do not know whether we will ever solve those problems without some sort of common regime.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I am sure we could collaborate with other nations that control their own waters. What we do not want to do is to go on with a common fisheries policy that ensures that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish are thrown back dead every year and which has removed a very valuable industry. I hope that is clear to the noble Lord. While on my statistics the fish that are thrown back dead every year would fill this Palace of Westminster and Whitehall several times over, I have to tell your Lordships that there are those outside the political class who think that that might be a rather better use for them than being thrown overboard to pollute the seabed.

This amendment does not require a referendum if we are so foolish as to stay in the common agricultural policy, which is estimated to cost each family in the land around £1,000 per annum in higher food costs, or some £26 billion. On the environment, this amendment does not address the £18 billion per annum which the Government say we are going to spend on their climate change initiative inspired by the European Union, complete with all those useless and ugly windmills, not to mention the closure of our coal-fired power stations. The amendment does not include the cost to our economy when the lights go out, nor does it cover the billion or so we send to Brussels for it to misspend on foreign aid.

Finally, the amendment does not include the huge costs of overregulation which the EU imposes on our whole economy. I dealt with this in minimal detail on 3 May at cols. 398 to 400, so I will not repeat it now, but we are talking about anything between 4 per cent and 10 per cent of GDP by most estimates. Our GDP now stands at around £1.5 trillion, so we are talking about anything between £60 billion and £150 billion. If any noble Lords want to challenge these figures, they can, of course, do so, but I trust they will join me in pressing the Government for an official cost-benefit analysis of our membership if they do.

This amendment is not triggered by any of the £100 billion or so per annum of waste which I have just mentioned that is notched up by these and other EU follies. The joy under this amendment is that a referendum would be triggered only when our net cash thrown down the drain in Brussels equals £10 billion per annum according to the Government’s own figures. Mark you, the Office for National Statistics has recently put our net contribution at around £9 billion already this year, and most people seem to agree that we are looking at £10 billion for next year, so we are nearly there. I can point out that the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, in his Answer to my noble friend Lord Vinson yesterday put our net contribution as low as £4.7 billion, so there is room for clarity here. I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, was mentioning the figures put forward by the Treasury, which are very much lower than the figures put forward by the Pink Book, but that is perhaps an argument for the cost-benefit analysis when we get there.

We are talking about £10 billion per annum. This may not sound much to our Europhile political class, but it is an awful lot of money to real British people. Ten billion pounds per annum comes to some £27.39 million every day. That would pay for 900 nurses every day at a salary of £30,000 per year each—or teachers, or policemen, or other public servants. The amendment requires a referendum when the net cash that we send to Brussels would pay the annual salaries for 900 nurses every day, or for 328,500 nurses every year.

There is another way to understand the importance of £10 billion per annum, which comes to £400 per annum for each of our 26 million families. All these costs have to be seen against the perilous state of our economy and the sacrifices and difficulties in which many of our people now find themselves through no fault of their own. Current spending cuts, as I have mentioned, appear to be around £21 billion. Which would the British people prefer?

I am sure that the Government and your Europhile Lordships will say that the benefits of our EU membership are so wondrous and obvious and that they go far beyond its mere vulgar cost to our long-suffering taxpayers. I have never understood what those benefits really are; what benefits we get from our EU membership, which we could not get from free trade and friendly collaboration with our European friends; what benefits we get, for instance, that the Swiss do not enjoy from outside the EU.

Perhaps the Minister could be more precise today about these great benefits. This Government and the previous Government—and previous Governments for some time—have said that a cost-benefit analysis would be a waste of money. The Stern report on climate change, however, cost only £1.272 million on a subject at least as complex as our EU membership. Surely that tiny sum would be well worth spending to discover whether the colossal costs of our EU membership are justified or not.

We, of course, are told that we stand taller as a sovereign nation in meetings of the international conferencariat all over the planet—because we have diluted our sovereignty into the new form of supranational government in Brussels run by bureaucrats. If the Minister is going to advance this line again today, could he give some concrete examples of the great advantages and the successes? Does he think, for instance, that the EU did a good job when the lid came off Yugoslavia, or that it is doing a good job in north Africa? What confidence does he have in the EU’s new External Action Service?

I conclude by asking the Government, yet again, to settle these matters by ordering an objective, unbiased cost-benefit analysis of our EU membership. In the mean time, this amendment asks that the British people be given a referendum when our cash payments to Brussels exceed £10 billion to decide whether they want to go on paying it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords, I am a little dazzled by the complexity of the millions and billions and almost trillions of pounds and euros that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has laid in front of us. Indeed, while I was listening to him most closely, I recalled a moment of great happiness when I was begging for charity recently and I received a cheque with so many zeros that they fell off the end of the cheque. I ran around saying to someone else who could add up more closely in the charity, “Look, look, look, we have done exactly what we want to do”. He pulled me down to earth and he said, “Do be careful—this is a cheque from Burkina Faso”. When it was added up, it came to about $5.

The arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, while in no way impugning, by this comment, his grasp of finance and passionate loyalty to the European Union’s holding on to her old funds, make me wonder whether in fact this amendment does not belong in the Bill at all. In other words, is he offering us the king with no clothes? Surely this Bill is about the transfer of powers and competencies. It is not about the transfer of finance, which should enable the European Union to carry out the powers and competencies it already has. In other words, this is not a Bill that enables us successfully to argue various different figures about financing of the European Union. My suggestion is that this most interesting amendment does not in fact belong here at all. It is correct and proper, incidentally, that the European Union should be suitably funded for the competencies that the member states have authorised it to carry out.

There is also the problem that this figure simply does not take into account our contribution from the United Kingdom to the EU budget in terms of inflation. How would the noble Lord react if, for example, the UK goes over the £10 billion mark, but proportionately our contribution is in fact smaller? That could be the case with the growth of Germany and other economies: our proportion—our net contribution—could be proportionately smaller but might be larger than £10 billion. In the calculation of our UK contribution—the net versus the gross—the timing of the UK’s actual contribution needs to be taken into account. This amendment is impractical on timing grounds alone, because our contribution generally comes in after the event.

It is, of course, natural that I would be likely to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on his comments that we have diluted sovereignty from the United Kingdom in joining the European Union. I will disregard the temptation to go down that channel, otherwise we will not make any progress on this amendment—save to say that in foreign affairs and defence and security, if I could dare tempt him with that wicked phrase, we have greater strength, power, and a wider outreach with our European Union member state partners than we could possibly ever have standing, talking and trying to influence alone.

In fact, I suggest that this matter is in complete contrast to the measures that we, and other member states, have already introduced to make significant savings in domestic budgets. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord profoundly that we should empower our Ministers, our civil servants and our diplomats to argue as forcefully as possible against the sorts of increases that, sadly, the European Commission and the European Parliament have recently demonstrated that they want. That argument is, without question, right and proper, but to do that we need to empower our Ministers and diplomats. We cannot do that if we bring this type of amendment forward and claim that the mere transfer of money transfers competencies to the EU. It does not. That is why I suggest this amendment should be discussed in another Bill, at another time and in another place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grenfell]

Perhaps we could finish on that point. It would be very interesting, if we made just a little more publicity about the value that we derive from the assessments that we pay to many international institutions. The noble Lord has talked about the importance of trade. If we were not paying our way with many of the international institutions that are enabling developing countries to develop their ability to trade with us, we would be the losers. There is always a benefit to be had from this, but what I find extraordinary is that the noble Lords should limit this to one institution, and our membership in it, which they do not happen to like. It does not make a great deal of sense.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, perhaps I could try to make it make sense for the noble Lord. There are some huge differences between the money we pay to the European Union and the money we pay to the other institutions that he has mentioned. There is, of course, the question of quantum; without a cost-benefit analysis, we will not agree the figures, but from what I said today and on 3 May, we are looking at a cost of EU membership possibly in the region of £100 billion a year.

There is also another very important point. These other institutions that the noble Lord has mentioned do not make our law. They do not make the majority of our national law—it may be—in secret. They do not have laws proposed by the unelected Commission in secret, negotiated in secret by COREPER, passed in secret by the Council and imposed on the people and this Parliament by the European Union. These other institutions certainly are not in the same class. If we are having referendums, I do not think that it would be a bad idea to have one on NATO and other institutions. The British people would probably agree them, for the reasons that the noble Lord gave. The one that they will not agree is the one on the European Union.

[Lord Tomlinson]

The noble Lord referred yet again to this question of a cost-benefit analysis. How is he proposing to define “benefit”? He wants to have the cost-benefit analysis, but he has told us we get no benefit. Will he give us a clue about what definition of “benefit” would satisfy his demand?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, if the noble Lord would be good enough to read my Bill, which is now top of the waiting list and is sitting in the Printed Paper Office not very far away, he would understand how we propose to go about a cost-benefit analysis, with a truly independent committee of inquiry reporting to Parliament and the people. However, the noble Lord makes a very good point. Although I am often asked this question, I cannot think of a single advantage or benefit that we have had from our membership of the European Union that we could not have had by friendly collaboration and free trade with our good neighbours in Europe.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, this amendment is not the correct vehicle to address what desperately needs to be addressed, which is the EU budget. It is completely unaccountable. I recollect that in the other place, for several years in the early 2000s, I had the task of going through the EU budget and debating it in the committee that existed for that purpose. It was extremely frustrating that there was no power to do anything about it. I am sure that this is somewhat out of date, but at that time roughly half of the budget went on the CAP, a quarter went on structural funds—the one area that seemed to be very positive and to have done useful work—and something like a quarter went on all sorts of strange pet projects. I remember discovering that £500 million, I think, had been allocated for the advancement of democracy in Africa, and only some £20 million had actually been identified as to where it had gone. Candidly, I think the EU budget has risen considerably more in the last decade than even out-of-control UK government expenditure. Therefore I am wholly sympathetic to the principle, and the EU budget will need to be properly democratically accountable and reined in. However, I do not feel that this amendment is the right way to address that problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I shall resist going down that great sideline. We have a certain amount of time remaining in this Committee stage if we manage to keep to the subject and avoid talking about great trucks, fish, rifles, minarets and Britain standing alone in 1940 before the United States and the Soviet Union came in—and I think those countries had a little to do with the United Kingdom’s victory over Nazism. I want to address myself to the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, suggested that the total cost may amount to £100 billion a year. I thought that was rather modest. Daniel Hannan MEP, who I know the noble Lord knows well, suggested in his blog the other week—I had heard him say it previously—that withholding our contribution to the EU would enable us to cancel every spending cut and still knock a third off council tax. That must be an estimate of around £160 billion a year. The Treasury estimate is that the UK’s net contribution to the EU budget will be £7.7 billion in 2012-13, rising to £8.9 billion in 2014-15, and then falling to £8.2 billion in 2015-16. These are unavoidably estimates, partly because, as noble Lords will be aware, a surplus is routinely entered into the EU budget each year that serves to reduce member states’ contributions the following year. The initial estimate of the British contribution might therefore be rather higher than the net result declared the following year. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, demonstrated in the figures that he so dazzlingly threw out, the exact calculation of how much each member state gives is itself a matter of some controversy.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I intervened. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, there seems to be quite a difference between the Treasury figures and the Pink Book figures, which include items that are not included by the Treasury. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, yesterday gave a figure of £4.7 billion for the current year, whereas the Pink Book puts it at £8.3 billion. I agree that there is considerable confusion in this area. The Office for National Statistics, for instance, has suggested that the figure is £9 billion already. I come back to the same boring old point: we would solve all this if we had a proper cost-benefit analysis. We would know where we were.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I recognise the familiar themes of the noble Lord’s argument. I will say just a little about the EU budget, which remains in many ways unbalanced to the disadvantage of the United Kingdom. It was, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a very sore issue in the United Kingdom’s relations with the other member states of the EEC. Things have changed a good deal since then. I was encouraged to see that agriculture spending has now fallen to 40 per cent of the EU budget. I was appalled to note that, in terms of net contributors and net beneficiaries, Luxembourg and Belgium are still listed among very substantial net recipients, while the UK has now been joined by Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany—the largest single contributor—France and Italy as a net contributor. We now find ourselves as part of a bloc that is pushing for economy and a restrained approach to EU spending.

We contribute to EU spending for shared purposes. The Foreign Secretary made a speech in which he talked about increased European contributions to democratic transition across the Mediterranean. The most useful dimension of the EU budget in many ways has gone to that investment in security and development in eastern Europe through the structural funds which has helped to consolidate democracy and build a market economy in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and elsewhere. We want to achieve a decade of spending restraint in Europe and we have partners—France, Germany, Sweden and others—that are also committed to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Lord is, of course, correct. One trades the purity of complete sovereignty for the lack of influence over shared decisions. I was about to close by saying that this seems to us to be outside the purposes of the Bill. Indeed, much of the discussion has been outside the theme of this amendment. I encourage the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the amendment and to those who have been good enough to speak to it. I said right at the start of my remarks that the amendment was designed to give the British people a referendum on the economic cost of our EU membership. That may not be strictly within the terms of the Bill, as some noble Lords who find that prospect uncomfortable might wish. However, I merely say that I was advised on the amendment by the staff at the Public Bill Office, and they were content with it. If it is not perfect, I apologise, but it has served its purpose.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for some of whose remarks I was very grateful, suggested that money is not a power. It may not be technically a power within the terms of this Bill, but money is energy and power and is something that the British people mind about very much. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, also chided my noble friend Lord Stoddart about Churchill’s position in these matters. One can cite many sayings of Churchill, but the one that I and other Eurosceptics prefer is:

“We are with Europe, but not of it”.

I think he said that rather more often than he said some of the other more ambivalent things about the European Union.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, was good enough to query some of my figures. I think he said that I got one of them 400 per cent wrong. We do not need to go through that now but I will read Hansard and, if necessary, come back to that. An overall cost—however you come at it—to the United Kingdom from our EU membership of around £100 billion is probably not far out.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

We need to get to the bottom of this. Is the noble Lord implying that that is an annual figure, because it bears no relation to reality?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

As a matter of fact, it is real. We have £10 billion that are only loans at the moment; we have £10 billion for the cash we hand over, going up; we have £26 billion for food; we have £18 billion for climate change; and we have £60 billion for overregulation. These are the figures.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I hesitate to intrude into the noble Lord’s game of tiddlywinks with statistics, which he has been playing for the past hour or so. Can he settle on one set of measurements, rather than playing around between net contributions, gross contributions—both to the budget—trade effects, and loans to the investment bank? He plays around with these all the time. Would it not be a bit simpler if he stuck to the net contribution per capita in each country? We would then come to quite startling results, one of which is that Britain is by no means the highest net contributor per capita to the EU budget any longer, and that other countries are more so. It would be simpler if he stuck to one lot of statistics and stopped playing tiddlywinks at this late hour of the evening.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I do not know whether the British people would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the figures I have mentioned are tiddlywinks. I am aware that Holland pays a greater per capita ransom to the European Union than we do, but that is not the point. I am trying to look at this from the point of view of the United Kingdom. I am not looking at it from the point of view of the corrupt octopus in Brussels.

I was about to conclude by commenting on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, when he mentioned the figures paid into the budget by these other countries which are in the European economic area. I should just mention that the countries in the European economic area are not afflicted with the common fisheries and agricultural policies. They are not part of the customs union; they are not afflicted by the common trade policy; they are not in the common foreign and security policy. They are not worried about justice and home affairs being overtaken by Brussels, and of course they are not in EMU, so they are in a very different position from us. They can negotiate all their own foreign trade arrangements. There is a recent report from the Swiss Government comparing their present bilateral arrangements from outside the European Union with what the costs would have been had they been in the European Union. It is not a wild Eurosceptic making these suggestions; it is the Swiss Government who said that membership of the European Union would have cost eight times what their bilateral arrangements cost.

As to the IMF, I did not bring it in. Of course, I agree that we are also supporting problems in the European Union—the eurozone—through the IMF. I think that the tally, if we take it through the financial facility, the loans to Ireland and others, comes to around £4 billion a year. I was good enough not to mention that because I was not suggesting that we leave the International Monetary Fund. I was merely trying to concentrate on our costs as members of the European Union. This was a probing amendment, as I wanted to discuss the prospect of the British people getting a say on the cost of European Union membership. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 41 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I support what my noble friend has said, and I promise to keep entirely within order. My speech will be directed to why Clause 6 should not stand part of the Bill.

As my noble friend said, we have had a string of amendments trying to limit the scope of Clause 6. I shall not go through them all. We all know them and they have been tabled by various Members of the Committee. We now have another group of such amendments relating to Schedule 1. Again, they cover a very wide range of issues which at least some Members of the Committee feel should not be subject to the referendum lock procedure. I want to draw the Committee’s attention for a moment or two to one particular aspect of this, as it goes far to show how difficult the Bill will be to carry out in practice.

Earlier today, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Marland, about a carbon emissions programme. At the very beginning of his Statement, he said—I wrote it down—that we would need to keep in line with the targets of the European Union. Why, some Eurosceptic might ask? I am not currently addressing the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch or Lord Stoddart of Swindon, because I do not have the eloquence of a Pericles and, even if I had, I do not suppose that I would persuade them. However, the reasons why we want to stay aligned with the European Union environment targets are quite straightforward: if we do not, others will compete with us and override us by cheating on those targets. Therefore, we have a profound national interest in ensuring that the targets are maintained by all our European Union partners. The UK is trying—and I think that most of us feel very pleased that she is—to be the greenest state in Europe. If there were no such EU understanding, the UK, instead of carrying others with her, would simply be competed into the ground by other countries which decided that they would not be bound by such targets, and, not being bound by them, they would be more competitive in energy-intensive industries. This is the most central national interest. If we are to address the single most troubling problem that confronts us—that of climate change and greenhouse gases—we desperately need to have agreed targets that the whole EU will buy into.

However, what do we find when we look at the list of Schedule 1 proposals? We find the amazing proposal under Clause 6(5)(g) that a decision that would replace the ordinary legislative procedure with a special legislative procedure would be subject to the referendum lock. I ask Members of the Committee to consider for a moment a referendum question which asked, “Do you agree that if the special legislative procedure replaces the ordinary legislative procedure, there should be a veto on this?”. Frankly, I do not think that one person in a thousand, however intelligent or thoughtful they might be, would have the faintest idea about the difference between the ordinary and the special legislative procedures. However, in Clause 6(5)(g) we find that that is subject to the lock. It would not be in our interests if that were agreed because, as I have already explained, on issues such as the environment we have a profound interest in finding common ground for the basis of our targets and practice.

I will not speak much longer in Committee, in which, if I might say so, some Members have spoken at very considerable length, except to draw the attention of the Committee to two things. First, I commend the noble Lords, Lord Triesman and Liddle, for attempting in our discussions yesterday to put forward a genuine compromise that might enable both sides, probably excluding the more extreme Eurosceptics but including most people of a middle and moderate position, to find common ground. That proposal was for a special legislative committee of the two Houses of Parliaments, which was a serious attempt to narrow down the scope of the referendum and to do it entirely within the spirit of the involvement of Parliament. It received no response of an understanding kind from the Government so that one begins to wonder whether there is any room at all for a meeting of minds over this Bill or whether we are simply wasting time because nobody was persuaded of anything.

This is not good for the United Kingdom. The more that we have a common position in the European Union, the more notable our influence is bound to be. The last election showed that this country is not united on this issue or even on the issue of who should be the majority Government. We do not want to weaken our position in Europe by exemplifying divisions that are not absolutely necessary. I fully understand the Government’s commitment to the referendum lock on the treaty issues. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and his colleagues have conceded the need for a referendum on the euro as a currency as a gesture to show that they understand the necessity for some tougher turns before agreements are reached. However, it is high time that the Government began to think about whether they could not meet at least part of the way the Members who put this position in Committee. That would mean limiting and narrowing down the number of the issues on which the referendum lock applies, to make sure that it goes in relationship to the most serious issues and to move toward the idea of a stronger parliamentary contribution to what is done over the rest of the exercise.

I say this with due feeling. I do not think that, if what comes out of this Committee is a failure to agree on anything, we will do ourselves or the cause of our position in Europe any good at all.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, there are a growing number of us who know that the planet’s climate has been changing for millions of years—and will doubtless go on changing for as long as the planet has left—but have the very gravest doubts as to whether it is changing as a result of man-made emissions or activity. In view of the noble Baroness’s powerful peroration that we have to be in the European Union seriously fighting for these environmental targets and so on, what chance does she think there is of our European partners meeting these targets? Are they not already quite a long way behind? Are they not likely to slip even further behind as time goes on?

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I will not be lured very far by the noble Lord, who is always very polite in the way that he attempts to broaden out the debate in Committee. I do not think that is what most people want to do. I will simply say that we have clean beaches in Britain. We have clean rivers. We have cleaner air. The first two of these owe a very great deal to the European Union’s requirements, which we should meet.

European Union Bill

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I concur with everything that has been said by the three previous speakers—an unusual event in itself, I think. Perhaps I may press the Government on a rumour that another so-called day in Committee may be offered next Wednesday, 25 May, when the President of the United States will be paying a visit. I cannot believe that that is a suitable time to hold another half-day or whatever on the Bill, and I look forward to the Government’s reply.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, all noble Lords know that business is organised by the usual channels. I agree that the House is working very hard at present and I can think of few noble Lords who work harder than the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. However, we have plenty of time to undertake valuable work on the Bill. In fact, we still have an hour and three-quarters, and it is not an unusual time of day to be considering such legislation. I do not believe that the House or the general public would understand if we went home an hour and 45 minutes early, especially if they worked out the cost of doing so. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will agree to go into Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

The noble Lord seems to be saying that referendums should be held only on really important issues, such as whether we join the euro. Would he therefore agree that we should hold a referendum on something even more important: whether we stay in the European Union at all?

[Lord Liddle]

We all know the noble Lord’s views on this matter. The experience of the 1975 referendum was that it did not resolve the issue of whether we stayed in the European Union. We won a yes vote, but it did not resolve the fundamental issue. However, on issues such as the euro, there is a fundamental constitutional principle at stake, and it is right to have a referendum, so there are circumstances in which referenda are the right thing to do.

In the light of the AV referendum result, which I regard as the betrayal of the Liberal Democrats in the AV referendum by their partners, when I looked at the coalition agreement I was surprised by what it said. We are now told that the Liberal Democrats are going to adopt a much more muscular, robust relationship with their coalition partners. Well, on this Bill, let us have a look at what the coalition agreement says. It says:

“We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that treaty”.

In other words, you would have a referendum on a big treaty, but the agreement continues:

“We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation”.

Yet every page of this Bill fully and directly contradicts that coalition agreement where the agreement says that passerelles and other matters should be subject to referenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I wish to intervene briefly on these matters. Although the amendments have been described as probing, I hope that the Government will be able to give a considered response to this interesting set of ideas, particularly the second amendment, which needs attention from the Government. On the most recent Committee day, hopes were expressed that the Government would respond to the constructive suggestions made in a raft of amendments. I hope that the Government will respond in that way today.

Ministers are definitely responding in the sense of having discussions outside the Chamber about what might be parts of the Bill in future. I hope that that will continue and people would be grateful for that. Any answers that could be given in the Chamber to take us further forward to make the Bill more sensible, more proportional—to use that important adjective—and more balanced would be very welcome.

As an example of messages sent by my noble friends the Ministers, I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, kindly sent me a copy of the Daily Express attack that was mounted on his correct and sensible words in the previous Committee session. This is relevant to these amendments as well. I will not quote every word that Mr Patrick O’Flynn wrote in the Daily Express on Saturday 14 May because it would take too long, but he said that perhaps Mr Clegg’s ambition of changing the House of Lords would be justified after all. Although the Daily Express would not normally support that kind of thing—I am paraphrasing—on this occasion he was attracted to Mr Clegg’s ideas because he had just discovered that,

“the current way of selecting peers—appointing establishment time-servers—has turned it into a hotbed of European federalists”,

referring to the debates in the most recent couple of Committee sessions. He continued:

“The Lords is now full of people I have always regarded as ghastly pro-EU creatures … turncoats such as Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Dykes”,

Ministers,

“such as Lib Dem Lord Wallace and returnees from the Eurogravy train such as Labour’s Lord Tomlinson. Much of the time they spout rubbish about paying homage to Brussels. They were at it again on Monday”—

that was 9 May—

“turning their guns on this newspaper’s crusade to get Britain out of the EU. Lord Wallace complained about the opposition of the Daily Express to the flying of the EU flag from British public buildings … Pearson reminded the pro-Brussels coven: ‘Millions of people in this country actually welcome the campaign to leave the EU which the Daily Express has started’”.

I think that the total number of people who supported the Daily Express’s dodgy little campaign was 370,000, which is one and half times the average size of a London borough, representing the whole nation. That shows how few people actually read the Daily Express. Mr O’Flynn then concluded that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson,

“challenged Dykes to admit ‘that the absence of the European flag on most of our public buildings reflects the wishes of the British people’”.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, before the noble Lord continues with his line on the Daily Express, when he mentions those 370,000 people, does he realise that that is the most successful newspaper campaign of this kind that there has been? Each one of those people took the trouble to take a pair of scissors, fill in the form, cut it out, put it in an envelope with their own stamp on it and send it to the Daily Express. He should not dismiss this campaign so easily. It is growing, it is going to go on and it is going to win.

[Lord Dykes]

I think that there have been examples of much larger figures when money has been offered by newspapers, although on this occasion the Daily Express at least had the grace not to offer any money. We know that the whole thing is got up by the British press, a small number of headbangers in the parliamentary Conservative Party in the Commons, UKIP, the BNP and other entities like that—not many people. I am returning to the amendment as quickly as I can, but I am quoting the Daily Express’s remarks to show the background to the whole campaign. Clause 6 would directly affect the status of all the provisions in it and make them subject to referendums. It has nothing to do with the common sense or logic of it.

Another letter, to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, on his points, was sent from my noble friend Lord Howell, who has kindly sent copies to other participants on these debates. The very acceptable reply gives ample intellectual and practical cover for the notion of the Government now having the imagination to remove some of the other sub-subsection areas from the classification of being subject to a referendum. We therefore concentrated on the three, four or five areas which could be retained—we differ on those, although some people say we differ only on the euro—starting with euro inclusion, which is generally regarded as the most important, as already supported widely in the Chamber in recent debates. We will therefore reduce the future nightmare for hapless Ministers suffering agonies of confusion in the Council of Ministers and receiving the wrath of their counterparts for paralysing the Union on literal trivialities.

When a Bill is complex and incomprehensible, and far too verbose and heavy because it has to cover so many points, I feel sorry for the government draftsmen who have to assemble it—in quite a short time, I imagine. They would probably regret it, and wish to look at it again. When you feel it is complex and incomprehensible, you turn to the Explanatory Memorandum, but that does not help at all. In respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was saying when he was particularly concerned about subjection (5)(i) and (j) of Clause 6, paragraphs 78 and 80 on page 18 of the Explanatory Memorandum show once again how obnoxious Clause 6 is compared to the earlier clauses. I will not go into detail, or I will take too long. However, the last part of paragraph 80 refers to moving from unanimity to qualified majority voting:

“This is in line with the provisions of subsection (5)(b) above. Such a move would not require a referendum, however, if a referendum had already been held to approve a decision to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in accordance with subsection (5)(i) in the same area of enhanced co-operation. To do so would in effect mean holding a referendum on whether to change the role of the European Parliament or not, and would not be a transfer of power or competence”.

I suppose that you might say that that would be literally true, subject to carefully re-reading it again. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, talks about throwing the key through the window. That would not, of course, be a good idea because some sensible pro-European pragmatists would pick up the key. They would find it in the street, come back in and unlock the secrets. You have to put it down a hole to ensure that the whole thing is abandoned. An explanation like that shows the bad quality of a badly drafted Bill, particularly this clause.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I have a feeling that we have reached the stage in the debate when we could leave the press and the Daily Express, and move to the precise issues and amendments in the debate.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

No, my Lords—

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord does not.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I wanted to press the mover and supporters of the amendment on one or two points. We have heard a lot during these debates about how inconvenient it is in the Council of Ministers if things get held up by the British people being consulted and the whole of that process in the United Kingdom. I ask those who support the amendment: what is their timeline for the independent review committee? It has to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Surely it will take a long time to be appointed, to meet, to deliberate, to report and all the rest of it. Are they not extending the inconvenience which they see as putting a spoke in the wheels of the European juggernaut?

Secondly, they seem to have great faith in the scrutiny of Parliament. I must repeat to them the figures given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on 7 February, when he told me in a Written Answer that in the years from 2004 to 2010 inclusive, the scrutiny reserve had been overridden no fewer than 347 times in your Lordships' House and 364 times in the House of Commons. Those figures, apart from being almost unbelievable and, I should have thought, destroying any pretence that parliamentary scrutiny was worth anything in the process of European legislation, must remove some of the confidence that the noble Lord has in his amendment.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Those are interesting and important points. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who was the father of the amendments, or one of the fathers—anyway, he has some paternity—will no doubt comment on them after me, but I thought that I should address some of the serious points. Not everyone has been sharply focused, but we have heard some extremely interesting observations and responses to them. I would like to express the Government's view.

Just to be clear, I say that the two amendments would make the question of whether to seek the consent of the British people in respect of the big 12 decisions in Clause 6—that is the big five or six decisions and then the whole section in Clause 6 which governs the surrender of the veto—subject to a small committee of either both Houses of Parliament or an independent review committee. The assessment of the committee, via the composition, would then be validated by a short debate and a single vote of each House of Parliament. That is what the amendment states.

That design—which, as the noble Lord said, was proposed only as a probe—would frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill. Why would it do that? I will make the general point; I will come to the detailed ones in a moment. The amendments would, in effect, replay the history to which my noble friend Lord Waddington referred, because they would hint at referendums being held with the prospect that people would once again be denied their say because, in this case, some small committee of experts—or a committee of two Houses of Parliament—had made decisions. That undermines the whole intent and thrust underlying the Bill, which is designed to rebuild trust by ensuring that the British people can decide on the key decisions affecting the future course or expansion, if that is what is required, of the competences and powers of the European Union. By going into the detail—and I can see that the detail is considerable, because the legislative patterns of the European Union are very complex and detailed—the Bill makes clear the transfers of power and competence on which the British electorate would have the right to be consulted. However, the amendments would seek to unpick that by making recommendations in small committees.

Therefore, in effect, the British people would be denied the say that they want when EU powers are to be expanded. Very few seem to want that anyway and I am very puzzled by the sudden passion of the Front Bench opposite for an expansion of powers. The British people would miss yet another opportunity to regain trust, further exacerbating the electorate’s disconnection with, and cynicism towards, the European Union. That is what the amendments would do and that is why I am glad they are only probing amendments and not a serious intention to undermine the whole purpose and spirit of the Bill.

European Union Bill

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

Noble Lords on all sides of the House must now surely recognise that this amendment is a mistake. I feel absolutely sure that it is an honest mistake, but it is a mistake based on a misunderstanding of the rules in the European Union. In order to work well in the European Union, you have to recognise that members come from many different states—as they have always done. In order to draw the members together so that they come to the meetings and all the rest of it, the European Union has different sorts of rules that are designed to attract them, to make absolutely sure that they come to the meetings. There are some very tough rules indeed if you do not turn up, and that is why this amendment is such a mistake. We cannot pass it because it would so gravely handicap United Kingdom Ministers in the Council of Ministers.

This way of working is commonplace throughout the European Union. If you do not turn up when it is a unanimous vote—and many votes are unanimous in different European Union institutions—you will be deemed to have agreed. That is what forces people to come from so many different nations. It is an enormous effort and very expensive for the Union and so on, so there are a number of rules that act like a magnet. This is one of them. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I suggest to noble Lords opposite—to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, for example, and others—that they should rapidly withdraw this amendment. It is a little embarrassing. If it were to go through, we would be the laughing-stock of the Council of Ministers.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I have a slightly more general question to put about a thread which is running through all our amendments and proceedings. It concerns the Government’s attitude to enhanced co-operation. We have heard much about the general position of Ministers who would find themselves isolated in the Council of Ministers because, although they might support a proposal, they would have to take it to a referendum that they might lose. That is why I ask: how serious is that, really? If nine or more countries wanted to go ahead with a proposal—it used to be eight, but I think it is now nine under the Lisbon treaty—what would be the Government’s attitude to it? How worrying is enhanced co-operation? I imagine that the Government may say that they do not particularly want a two-speed Europe. Of course, some of us would prefer a third speed or gear—a reverse gear. But it would be nice at some point during our proceedings to understand how the Government view enhanced co-operation generally.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I shall respond to the spirit of the probing amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, rightly moved. It is useful to probe on this. I do not think that I can respond to all the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, raised, because they seem to me to stem from a deep conspiratorial assumption about the implicit plot behind the Bill, and I suspect that reasoned argument cannot reach that deep.

I should point out that Articles 235(1) and 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union make it clear that abstaining in a decision requiring unanimity is effectively counted as a supportive vote, and so an abstention could be classed as supporting a decision. Those of us who have been involved in any way in Brussels decisions will know that formal voting is not the most common form of decision-making in Brussels. A great many are taken by consensus and the chair taking the sense of the meeting. That is no doubt part of the reason why the previous Government, in their wisdom—I am not saying that they were always wrong, let alone that they pursued conspiracies of their own—put in this phrase “or otherwise support”. That does not mean that a Minister cannot indicate support in principle for a decision if the Minister also gives notice that a vote in favour is subject to approval by Act of Parliament and to the referendum condition being met, if that is required by the decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was determined to get enhanced co-operation into the discussion even though we are not discussing that amendment. Enhanced co-operation is under way. The British Government are indeed involved in the process of enhanced co-operation on patent law. We do not believe that Britain will become more marginal because enhanced co-operation takes place among others. After all, if one looks at what is happening with European co-operation in defence, one will see that the United Kingdom and France are, in effect, leading in defining practical co-operation in that regard. The myth behind the Bill—that we will somehow be pushed to the margin, which the noble Lord thinks is a good thing but the noble Lord, Lord Davies, thinks is a wicked thing—is not the case. In an EU of 27, which is about to be an EU of 28, 29 or 30, it is likely that there will be a number of issues on which smaller groups—which will often including the United Kingdom, though sometimes not—will move ahead on their own through enhanced co-operation. In most cases that will not require treaty change. They will merely be moving ahead because it is not possible for all 27, 28, 29 or 30 to agree. Therefore, that will not be caught by the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord for making that so wonderfully clear.

I hope I have managed to persuade your Lordships that there is no sinister intent behind these words. They are not part of a dreadful right-wing Conservative plot, so there is no need to add the qualification that Amendment 32A would require. May I also say, since the Daily Express has been running a range of quite absurd stories—the latest being that government buildings are being forced to fly the EU flag—that we must recognise that we are operating in a world in which, for many years, previous Governments have failed to stand up to some of the complete nonsense that has spread through the British press. Unfortunately, we now find more and more nonsense spreading, and part of what this coalition Government intend to do is to spell out the advantages to Britain of being in the European Union in order to get back at some of the nonsense put out by the Daily Express, which unfortunately, as noble Lords will know, is no longer part of the Press Complaints Commission process and so the commission has very few controls over what it puts out, but that is another matter.

We will take this matter away and look at it again. However, as I say, the words used in the Lisbon treaty amendment Act were there for a good reason, and the words used here are also here for a good reason. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Before the Minister sits down, may I be allowed to put in a word on behalf of the Daily Express, about which he has not been wholly polite? Millions of people in this country actually welcome the campaign to leave the European Union which the Daily Express has started—it is the first national newspaper to have done so. Whatever noble and Europhile Lords might feel about the Daily Express, I would at least like to put in a word on behalf of the rest of us.

[Lord Tomlinson]

Before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that these millions of people who follow the Daily Express campaign with such avidity brought such success to UKIP in the local elections?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I should like to start by offering an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for something I misheard on our second day in Committee. I was not here on the third day and this is my first opportunity to correct that which I misheard. After I had spoken, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said:

“Is it not true that none”,

of the judges of the Court of Justice,

“would pass muster as a judge in even the lowest and least distinguished of British courts?”.

I thought that that was an assertion and I did not reply because I did not think that it deserved a reply. But on looking in Hansard I see that it was a question. I apologise for mishearing the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and for not answering his question. Clearly, the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, are better than mine and he spotted that it was a question. He began his subsequent remarks by saying that,

“the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is not going to answer”.—[Official Report, 26/4/11; col. 90.]

As a result of what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said and that reply, I feel that it is necessary for me to say that my silence did not in any way imply assent. I feel that it is important to put into the record what I think about the judges of the court, of whom I have known about 12 or 14. In this House, there will be some who remember with respect and affection Lord Mackenzie-Stuart. There will be many of us who would wish that Sir David Edward was here with us. The present judge from the UK, Judge Schiemann, is an immensely distinguished jurist with, behind him, I think, nine years in the High Court, eight years in the Appeal Court and seven in the Court of Justice. And all of us will remember the contributions that Lord Slynn of Hadley used to make from these Benches to our debate. These four men have been British justices in the Court of Justice and to none of them, by any stretch of the imagination, could the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, apply.

I greatly admire the imaginative and irrepressible verve that the noble Lord brings to our debates but it is really important that we should not make absurd allegations about a serious institution and serious people. I thought that it was important to set the record straight and to say what I would have said had I not misheard the noble Lord at the time. I hope that the Government Front Bench will confirm now, as I am sure that it would have done had I not misheard, that it agrees with me and not with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on the quality of the judges of the Court of Justice.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I do not know how many of the legal luminaries to which the noble Lord has just referred are present members of the Luxembourg court. I would merely say that those of us of a Eurosceptic bent do not really regard the Luxembourg court as a court of law at all. We regard it as the engine of the treaties, endlessly pursuing, in its judgment, the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe.

I do not think it was the Luxembourg court, but we owe it to the Daily Express, which recently ran a two-page spread complete with colour photographs, to see a summary of the members of the Strasbourg court. I do not think that they pass muster either. Of course, if there is a judge in the Luxembourg court who would pass the muster which I have suggested he may not, then I am happy to apologise to him, or indeed to several of them. But that does not alter my strictures and the strictures of the Eurosceptic movement in this country regarding the Luxembourg court and its proposals over the years. One thinks again of Article 308 as it then was, and other flexibility clauses in the treaty, which it has used and adapted relentlessly to pursue the project of European integration.

Those are my comments and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his apology.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Unless I misheard again, the noble Lord did not end his remarks with a question, so I am not going to respond except to say that the Strasbourg court is, of course, elected by parliamentarians. I do not think that the Strasbourg court has anything to do with this discussion, which is about the European Court of Justice, but I am grateful for the words of apology from the noble Lord.

I turn to Amendment 30. Here in Clause 6 we are in a different part of the forest. We have abandoned treaty land and treaty amendment by any form, and now we are into decisions of various kinds and the mandatory referendum requirements for those decisions. By definition we have therefore left coalition agreement territory because we are not talking about treaties any more. We are now dealing with the 56 categories of decision on which a mandatory referendum could overturn an Act of Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out at the start of the Committee, that would be unprecedented. These referenda are entirely unnecessary because a Government, if they wished, could always choose to say no in the Council. The law requiring referenda is particularly unnecessary because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out during the third day of debate, not having a reference in the Bill to a particular requirement for a referendum does not mean that a Government could not, on the day, choose to say that they wanted to have one. All this does is tie the Government’s hands, which of course some would want to do.

Why have we got into this curious mess in these extraordinarily detailed thickets—and we have not yet looked at Schedule 1 where mandatory requirements are to be imposed? I can think of only two rationales. The first was the one that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, talked about in a different context during the third Committee day. It might be called the Odysseus rationale. We would have a British Minister, let us say the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, sailing past Brussels and insisting that he be tied to the mast so that he cannot be lured by the siren voices with their seductive song. He wants to be able to say, “Look, guys, I have nothing against what you are saying, but I can’t possibly agree with you. If I did, we would have to have a referendum back home”. It is the wax in the ears and tied to the mast provision—the Odysseus provision. I think that it is very pusillanimous. I would have found it very hard to brief Mrs Thatcher, as Prime Minister, on this point. Mrs Thatcher thought that if you disagreed with something, you disagreed with it. You said no. You did not say, “I am terribly sorry. There is nothing much we can do about this because we would have to have a referendum and we do not want one”.

It is insulting to our negotiating partners to turn up tied to the mast. They expect to do serious business, but the Brits cannot do so because of this Act on the statute book. The Brits therefore cannot take part in negotiations. It will feed the temptation and tendency for people to do things in smaller groups without consulting us because we are such a bore.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dykes]

I entirely accept that. Indeed, no member state is forced to fly the flag. It is interesting that in Germany, France, Italy and other countries, routinely, all or most government buildings fly the European flag as well as the national flag. We know that President Sarkozy, when he has a television interview, always has, alongside the tricolour, the European flag.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Will the noble Lord admit that the absence of the European flag on most of our public buildings reflects the wishes of the British people, if not the wishes of our Europhile political class?

[Lord Dykes]

The British people have not been consulted on that in any way. If they were, they would probably be very much in favour of it. I think that the younger generation, in particular, would like to see the European flag flying alongside the national flag. You can be a patriotic Britisher and a keen European as well, and there are plenty of them.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Dykes]

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not give way again at this stage.

The feeling about Clause 6 is mounting that it will have a worse effect than the previous clauses. Yet again, I do not believe that the Government have thought out the dangerous subsections. Any British Government of whatever colour or, in the case of a coalition, whatever combination of parties, could find to their dismay that the communitarian habit of working together by positive and constructive consensus for the greater European benefit and that of the national member states would be stymied by a sudden, brutal UK stop-all on routine matters of state business in the Council of Ministers. We would therefore paralyse ourselves for no good reason other than the propagandistic appeasement of the Daily Mail, the Sun, my noble friend Lord Hamilton and a few other headbangers in the Commons on the Conservative side. I did not mean to say that my noble friend Lord Hamilton was a headbanger; far from it, he is a very respected Peer who succeeded me as chairman of the European Atlantic group, so he must be a very good bloke indeed. We would also bring the whole European Council process to a stop. We recall that in the first section of the coalition agreement on Europe the Government wanted to play a leading role and to be a positive participant in the EU, but this amazingly stupid clause is a funny way of dealing with our aspirations. If it were passed, the Government would henceforth face regular clashes with their partners for no good reason other than to have a clash, and this would come from the member state that insisted on no artificial hurdles and, quite rightly, full QMV for the single market—indeed, full integration in all aspects of the single market.

Lisbon went wider on the machinery of collective decision-making than previous treaties. It included similar techniques to the ones first introduced by the Single European Act, when huge new powers were agreed for the Union without the UK authorities and indeed Mrs Thatcher, in particular, running away, as was alluded to earlier. Why were we so surprised to see other member Governments appreciating our zeal for the Single European Act and wishing to apply its mechanisms to other areas as respectable normative integration between friendly, like-minded and patriotic member countries? Why are we so insecure that we have to agree with Bill Cash and John Redwood on these issues? If the Government were sensibly to accept all or some of the original main amendments in this rather unwieldy and elaborate cluster, they would be doing themselves and Parliament a big favour in sparing us from the agonies that will surely arise under this dotty clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord really means to say that we gave away our parliamentary sovereignty. Surely we have been paying Brussels billions a year to take it from us. We did not give it; we are paying them to take it.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I am afraid that that was by parliamentary decision. That is precisely what I am trying to say. We gave decision-making in relation to Europe to the European Union which has the last word. We talk about parliamentary democracy but when it comes to the push and we discuss the various amendments that have been made through treaty making, we are told that Parliament cannot make amendments to the treaty. All we can do as a Parliament is accept or not accept the treaty. We are not allowed to alter the treaties because they are made by Governments. The treaty they make is the treaty that matters and Parliament has no power at all to amend any provision of the treaties that have been passed since the European Communities Act 1972. That cannot be denied.

In relation to the transfer of power in each and every treaty, particularly in the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty and eventually the Lisbon treaty, we have given powers to Europe without Parliament being able to say yea or nay. That is why we are in this position. It is because Parliament has not been able to make decisions about individual matters and the powers that have been transferred. That is why we have reached this decision. Ultimately, because a referendum was promised on the Lisbon treaty and it was not granted, the people are so outraged that they have demanded that something should be done. Let us make no mistake about it. This issue of sovereignty, this issue of who governs Britain, is not a party political matter. It transcends party politics. It is about who governs Britain. Unless that is realised and the people are considered and given the opportunity of speaking, the European Union will sink further into public disapproval than it already has.

I just want to add that we are told all the time that if we do this or that which does not suit the European elite we will be marginalised. Why on earth should a country of 60 million and the fourth—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

I suspect that the noble Lord has a slightly different experience of political life to mine, if that is the conclusion that he draws. My conclusion is that you can fight either side in a referendum and find that within a short period you did not like the result, whether things have changed or not, and the opportunity to fight it again will occur. It may very well be, for example, that some of those people who thought that the proposal to change the electoral system should not have been defeated as heavily as it fortunately was last Thursday will come back and conclude that they should have another go on another occasion. I shall not be wholly surprised if they decide that that is what they are going to do, even at the cost of having the experience repeated.

The point about reconnecting with the electorate is very critical. The electorate is dismayed with Parliament and parliamentarians on occasions, for a raft of reasons, and I shall not bore your Lordships by going through all those reasons in the recent past. As I said earlier, I do not think that a feeling of greater warmth towards parliamentarians will be achieved by parliamentarians giving up work in some of the areas that would be regarded as being the nitty gritty, not the big constitutional issues at all. I have looked through the list in Clause 6(5)—paragraphs (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h). I mention those because I am an inveterate campaigner on behalf of all sorts of causes, including those of the party I have the privilege to represent. I have thought hard about having any one of those paragraphs, let alone any combination of them, about how the campaign on them would be fought and what the doorstep would be like as you went around trying to do that kind of political work. It is not because of the ignorance or foolishness of the electorate; that is not the reason at all. Yet there is an expectation that many of those issues will have so much fine-grained detail within them that the electorate expects someone to have done a lot of this work, especially if they have elected those people to come here and do it. In our case, we are not elected but they nonetheless have a healthy respect for the work that this House can do because of the knowledge and expertise that we know is in it.

I suspect that, on most of those issues, you would get far greater traction on the doorstep by discussing the Eurovision Song Contest than you would ever get by a serious attempt to discuss some of these issues in detail. As most noble Lords who have campaigned in politics will know, I know that the kinds of discussions you have on the doorstep are real ones: about wider economic issues and a wide variety of issues. However, it is not typically the case that people want to get into a large number of sub-clauses under the arrangements of Article 312(2) of the European constitution. In fact, to my dismay, I have never had that raised with me anywhere. I look forward to the occasion when it might be.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Tomlinson]

If you went to Rannoch Moor, they talk of nothing else.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Is the noble Lord not making the mistake commonly made by the political class in this country, which contains many distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House—

[Lord Tomlinson]

Including yourself.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Including myself? That is very generous. The mistake is in taking the line, “Really, the people won’t be interested in this. They shouldn’t be troubled with this as they won’t understand it”. Yet if you take almost any referendum on anything to do with the European public prosecutor's office, that will be of considerable interest to the British people. They do not like it and do not want it in any form whatever. The turnout on the most supremely boring of any imaginable subject—the recent AV referendum—was 43 per cent, which really surprised people. I have to put it to the noble Lord that the British people may not only be fed up with their political class but be beginning to have doubt in our system of representative parliamentary democracy. They may want a much greater say on matters in future, like the Swiss have, for example. What is wrong with that system to reconnect the people? That is the system to reconnect them and not, I am afraid, the approach of the noble Lord.

[Lord Triesman]

It is terribly tempting to go into experiences of Swiss referenda in the cantons. Sadly for the House, I have some experience of them. That is what tells me that I should not retell it here because it is not exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, thinks it might be. I hope that the House is not misunderstanding my point, which is not that people are unable to grasp complex ideas or are uninterested in them. It is that, in general, I believe they have a sentiment which suggests that the really critical things should be put before them but that there is also a responsibility on parliamentarians to do a high level of detailed work and to get some of that work done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, that makes the point that I wished to make about the character of the alliances, even in an area that is as sensitive for us as defence. I suspect that most people would conclude that our membership of those alliances has been absolutely fundamental to the security of our country and would not wish to see them shaken. Were there to be some absolutely massive change in the architecture of defence, it might be so substantive as to require a mechanism that is contained in an amendment and has been in past undertakings that we have made. However, it would be a fairly extraordinary event that looked as though it were even more significant than the arrangements that we have under the provisions of the NATO treaty.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Surely the noble Lord must agree that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, said, these other organisations do not make our law. We can leave them tomorrow if we want, with far greater ease than we can leave the European Union. The EU makes our law, which is a difference. We would be in a very different position with an EU army from the one we are in with NATO.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made the point that the arrangements made under the NATO treaty, about its command structure and the obligations on members, have the effect, whether described as law or not, of determining how we behave in the defence of this country. It is impossible to argue that that is not substantively the case.

As I said earlier, this clause provides, more than anything else, the opportunity for continuous internal division and splits—not harmonisation or bringing people back to political activism and political understanding but rather the alternative. If the argument flows in the other direction—that we will never use it, or that the process of being bound to the mast is not really there and we will sail by without anybody noticing that it is happening—the Government should, out of courtesy to the House, simply make a statement that this is a form of dressing up a political proposal for people who feel disenfranchised in any respect by what has happened in the development of the European Union. They should say that that is what it is for; it is not at all for anything practical. That is really the status of this clause.

European Union Bill

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I fundamentally disagree with that point. The key point here, which we have come back to day after day on this Bill, is that this is about the process not the policy. The process has been absolutely clear and I still wait to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on where these are not covered by existing treaties.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was good enough to mention me in his few remarks and to accuse me of what I think was the impossible and most undesirable dream of the United Kingdom being altogether free of the European Union in all these matters. He is of course correct. However, he then mentioned the common fisheries policy as though that has to be solved by the European Union and as though the EU will not solve the acknowledged disaster which the policy is, environmentally and in every other way, if it is prevented from doing so. Surely, from our point of view, as I have mentioned before, the answer is terribly simple. We simply leave the European common fisheries policy and take back our international waters. Seventy five per cent of the fish which swim in European waters all the year round swim in waters that used to belong entirely to the United Kingdom before we made the mistake of joining the European Union. We then manage our own waters, re-establish our fish stocks and let out any surplus to foreigners.

On energy, the noble Lord again believes that the European Union is essential to solve our energy problems but, surely—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am afraid that the noble Lord is yet again misleading the House. The waters did not belong to Britain before we joined the European Union. We had 12-mile limits in those days and the areas beyond those limits were high seas. The decision to go out to 250 miles was taken by the European Union collectively when we were a member.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Yes, but we should not have gone along with that decision because we should not have been in the policy in the first place. I therefore insist that most of the fish which swim now in European waters and are fished by European boats used to belong to us and they could and should belong to us again. I do not wish to detain the House—

[Lord Deben]

The noble Lord really must not say that. It is not true. Most of our fishing grounds have always been shared with our neighbours—the French, the Belgians and the Germans—and we have always had to come to terms with them. All that the European common fisheries policy does is to have a sensible mechanism. It is not that the policy being common is wrong but that the policy is wrong. You have to have a common policy; otherwise you can only make these decisions with the marlinspike. It is just not true that we had 75 per cent of it before.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

The noble Lord and those of his view have been saying this now for 30 years. It has not happened and it is not going to happen. The solution for this country is to leave the common fisheries policy and take back our waters to the median line and whatever we had before in territorial waters into our own control. Then, when our own fishing industry, which has been decimated by the common fisheries policy, has been rebuilt, we can share any surplus and lease it out to people who want to buy it.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I do not know in which amendment the common fisheries policy arises, but I have to tell the noble Lord that if he is interested in that policy, he will rapidly find that the only explanation consistent with the facts is that the common fisheries policy suffered from an excess of member state sovereignty and an insufficiency of federalism. At every stage the European Commission, being the regulatory agency, has proposed quotas that, if they had been accepted, would have preserved the stocks. It is the member states pursuing their own individual interests that have always resisted those proposals on the part of the European Commission. As a result, the quotas have never been sufficiently tight and all these waters have been overfished. Under all circumstances, whether we had our own fisheries policy or not, it would be necessary for us to have regulation, quotas and some effective enforcement mechanism. If we disbanded the European Union, the next day we would need to set up a new common fisheries policy by agreement with a set of quotas and a common enforcement policy.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, when we leave the European Union, we will not do as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggests. We will take back those waters that were our waters, take back those fish that were our fish and re-establish our national fishing industry. That is what we will do. As the noble Lord has mentioned, this was not actually in the amendments but as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned it in connection with me, I thought that I would just touch on it in closing.

The noble Lord assumes, again, that some form of European common energy policy is in any way necessary for this country. We simply rebuild our own energy supplies. We do not let the European Union close down our coal-fired stations, as my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has mentioned, but build new ones. We might even consider incineration of landfill. We certainly consider nuclear power. We therefore supply our own energy. If we then wish to go on buying Russian gas through France, which is what we have to do at the moment, then we may be able to, but I entirely agree with my noble friend that this pursuit of wind power is madness of a dimension that only the political class could be guilty of. I think that that covers everything that I had to say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and I shall sit down.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Perhaps your Lordships would welcome it if we began to come to the end of this enormous debate. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lamont that the effect of this debate has been to clarify our differences, particularly the concerns of noble Lords opposite, about the Bill, and the worries that lie at the centre of their anxieties.

I do not want to parody what the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Triesman, have said again and again. They wish for more flexibility, and by “flexibility” they mean the readiness to agree to or even initiate treaty changes. They further argue that in some of its provisions—notably Article 48(6), but in others as well—the Lisbon treaty provided this flexibility, which somehow the Bill is reversing and putting back in the box. I think that that is a fair summary of where they stand. I question straight away whether they have got the Lisbon treaty quite right. We know that using the passerelle provisions requires a treaty change, and in a life experiment, not a laboratory experiment, we have seen how that is conducted. It is conducted through some very elaborate negotiations on an urgent issue that will not be solved by any immediate policies to hand—namely, the stability of the European financial and monetary system—and, to meet that, a treaty change is winding its way through the system and will take one year and three-quarters to come to fruition and be agreed. So that structure, that passerelle arrangement—which, incidentally, was as noble Lords know very well, an agonising compromise between several other suggestions at the Lisbon treaty negotiations—is certainly not a quick solution, a flexibility device, an emergency provision, which somehow the Bill is negativing. That is not the pattern.

Then we come to the broader question of whether treaty changes generally are synonymous with flexibility. I have considerable difficulty with the line taken by the Opposition. Not only does it take 18 months to two years to work up and elaborate treaty changes and get them agreed between the 27 members, which all have their own procedures for handling these matters, going through their own legislatures and constitutional arrangements and, in many cases their own referenda arrangements as well, but this seems to be a very poor response, a very poor kind of flexibility and a very poor pattern of responding to emergency and difficult issues.

As I understand it, the implication of the amendments, which extend the exemptions to a very wide range of issues, is that it would be nice to be ready to have treaty changes in an enormous list of things. We dealt with banking and financial regulation in the previous group of amendments, and I would be testing the patience of the Committee if I went through that again. However, these amendments deal with climate change, pollution, energy security, migration, cross-border crime, neighbourhood policy, maritime law, piracy and human trafficking, about which my noble friend Lady Williams spoke with such precision, knowledge and telling appeal. In all those areas, as I understand it, the amendments would like to see treaty change. I wonder whether the Opposition realise quite what they are asking for; it seems extremely doubtful that treaty change is the way to solve crises or problems in any of those areas. The amendments appear to have been drafted on the assumption that the Bill is trying to impair the UK’s role and participation in all these areas. They take no account of the fact—and it is a fact—that the existing treaties which extend enormous areas of competence to the EU already afford the European Union ample scope—I shall show in detail why this is so—to legislate in all the specific areas referred to in all the amendments.

If I were to go through that vast list now, we would be here till well after midnight and probably the early hours of the morning, so I cannot do justice to every aspect. But let me try to show how, in many of these areas, the competences are there. The need to plunge into this complicated area of treaty change is minimal; the opportunities for creating a highly effective European posture and policy are available within the existing competences and the existing absolute competence in particular is available to the EU in trade questions. Let me explain some of the points where this is so.

Perhaps I should begin with referenda generally and the concern that a multiple stream of referenda lies ahead if the Bill gets on to the statute book. That, I think we have established, is nonsense. Far ahead, a great new treaty could touch on a number of the issues we are looking at tonight. But the idea of a stream of referenda, which I know noble Lords in many cases dislike intensely, is unrealistic. In two highly eloquent pieces of oratory in two debates, my noble friend Lord Deben has let us know that he does not like referenda at all. That is my impression from listening to his words. He is perfectly entitled not to like referenda at all. However, he must face it: they increasingly creep into modern government, particularly in this internet age when 2 billion people, out of 6 billion on this planet, are on the web every morning. This obviously empowers people and leads to more consultation of public opinion than ever before in many democracies. It goes with parliamentary representative government; it does not undermine it, provided it is handled in a sensible way.

European Union Bill

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Radice]

Before my noble friend gets up, I rise to oppose both the tone and the principle of Amendment 20A. I oppose the tone because, as several noble Lords have pointed out, enlargement has been exceptionally good not only for the European Union but for Britain’s interests. As my noble friend Lord Tomlinson pointed out, some jolly rich countries have joined and have been our allies in some of our negotiations over such issues as the budget and the reform of the CAP. The so-called poorer countries are mostly former members of the Soviet bloc, nearly all of which have joined. They have become more prosperous as a result of being members of the European Union, particularly Poland, which is one of the great success stories. This is not just about Polish plumbers coming to France and Britain; it is also about the standard of living and growth rate in Poland increasing considerably. It is a big success story. Let us hear more about it from the Ministers. I hope to hear the Minister say something about enlargement, as it is a good thing.

Enlargement also buttresses democracy in these countries. To be a member of the European Union a country must be a democracy. This is a tremendous weapon that we and the European Union have in changing and underwriting the whole issue of democracy in Europe. Therefore, I oppose the tone of what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I also oppose this amendment.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I wonder whether—

[Lord Radice]

I am going to say something nice about the noble Lords if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will be quiet. I oppose the principle of the amendment because I do not believe that it should be written in the Bill that we ought to have referendums when countries join. That is not only a question of practicality; Parliament should decide this issue. The French have referendums if the Government and Parliament decide that something is not part of their constitution. Here I come to my compliment. In an odd way the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Pearson, have done the House a service as they have once again highlighted the very curious nature of this Bill. On the one hand we have 56 policy areas that trigger referendums, and we have all had great fun pointing out that some of them are rather minor issues. On the other hand, on the big European issues of enlargement and membership of the European Union itself it is not written in the Bill that if we want to leave the European Union we have to have a referendum. I would have thought that a Eurosceptic Government might be interested in that but the Government have very sensibly not gone down that road, perhaps because they are in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. I do not support this amendment, but its movers, my old friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, have done the House a service as they have reminded us once again of the gross inadequacy of this Bill.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Radice]

I am sorry, I have sat down.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

We are in Committee and I do not think that I even have to say, “Before the noble Lord sits down”. I was going to thank the noble Lord for the compliment that he paid my noble friend and me, but is he aware of one of the very few jokes about the European Union that is going about in Eurosceptic circles? I ask this given that he extolled the virtues of democracy which the EU brings to its new members. The joke is that if the EU were to apply to itself to join the EU it would fail on the grounds of its total lack of democracy, its bureaucracy with its monopoly on proposing new legislation—what body that pretends to be vaguely democratic can do that?—and, as we know, the secret process with COREPER, the Council and so on. How can he extol the virtues of the EU’s democracy, given that background?

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I frequently agree with some, but not all, the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. However, on this occasion I agree more with some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Radice and Lord Richard. I agree that enlargement has been a positive development. Indeed, if you have an organisation called the European Union, it is unthinkable that you should exclude from it countries that before the advent of communism in Europe were part of the European family of nations, many of which had living standards and political systems similar to those in western Europe.

Some years ago I took part in a debate on the European Union with my noble friend Lord Brittan, who I am pleased to see sitting beside me. I think that the debate took place in 1993 or 1994, and I remember that my noble friend attacked me because I had not said a single positive thing about the European Union in my speech. I could not think of a single positive thing to say about the European Union at that time. However, if I took part in another such debate with my noble friend, I would say that enlargement is a considerable development that has been advantageous to the countries that have joined and to Europe generally.

If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made a good point that slightly bothered me. I support the Bill, but he said that within the logic of what he called this “crazy Bill” there surely ought to be a referendum on enlargement, given that we might have a referendum on altering the procedures for the appointment of a public prosecutor and other matters that the noble Lord regards as rather marginal. I was bothered about that question, and I have been sitting here for 20 minutes trying to think of an answer. It is that in those areas where they say there should be a referendum—including matters such as altering the procedures or powers on the appointment of a public prosecutor—the Government do not actually intend there to be a referendum, because they do not intend that such propositions should advance further at all. The Government are trying to put a lock on the issue and to stop it happening. They are drawing a red line on legislation for the immediate future, whereas they are in favour of enlargement, and that is why they have not applied the lock or the referendum provision to enlargement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the observation is completely accurate and adds weight to the point that I make, namely that it is in these areas where people are trying to work through the provision of stable legal systems and better democratic systems that we have seen the replacement in many cases of conflict between those states. That is a huge success.

Of course, we have supported accessions from their initiation through to full EU membership. Major parties on all sides of the House have done so, despite the inconveniences that have sometimes occurred but which were minor in the overall context. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that not all these gains can be washed away by tales of cynicism, whisky, chocolates or anything else. By and large, in my experience, people have sought the gains because they have wanted a better and more peaceful life, and have wanted their children to enjoy a better future.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, can the noble Lord name a single European country that would have gone to war with another since 1945 in the absence of the project of European integration?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I was going to go through one or two. Certainly Serbia will serve the purpose. A number of countries in the region, for one reason or another, went to war. It was only when a different kind of future was offered to them that they began to think about the alternative future that their children might enjoy which did not involve shooting each other.

I understand, in debating the amendment, that the issues that I have raised are not supported everywhere or by everyone. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart: I regard the movement of labour in a free market as broadly beneficial, but I know that not everybody thinks so. Many people have expressed anxieties about it. This has been one issue that has come out of part of the accession. I believe that, broadly speaking, it has been economically advantageous to Europe rather than the contrary. However, I accept that many people who expressed anxieties were dismissed in a trivial way or saw their anxieties given grudging attention. Probably that did not serve the argument well.

Some people may have felt that changes of that kind were sufficiently profound that they wanted a say in the decision through a referendum. More than that, I suspect that they felt the need for some sort of shout about the overall size of the EU. For all that, were they to contrast the prospect of having a referendum on those questions with the ideas in the Bill about having a referendum on many minute, technocratic and in many instances unintelligible provisions, probably they would think that some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, were more important than others. It would be foolish of us not to recognise that.

I suspect that some of the same arguments could happen with the Turkish accession. Let me be clear that we—certainly I do—totally support it. I welcome the dynamism that it represents. I also have no hankering for a Europe that is built around a single religious tradition—a view which has been expressed by many of the Eurosceptics and, indeed, in some European capitals. It would be a huge gain to see Turkey as a full member of Europe. It is absolutely right, as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said, that it has always played a fundamental role in the Council of Europe. This would be a huge gain for Europe in a much more profound sense—a Europe that is welcoming and able not only to cope with, which is probably too derisory a way to put it, but to embrace a major secular but also Islamic nation with a capability of bridging the interests of Europe, the Middle East and the Caucasus and bringing a great deal to stabilising the discussion right around the southern and eastern flank of Europe.

Whatever the merits that I might express about it, I know that those merits have been accepted by all recent United Kingdom Governments. However, there remain people—it has been something of a cause in France and Poland, for example—who believe that Turkish accession would have a major impact on the style and culture of the European Union. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, described it as the ethos of the European Union. I look forward to these evolutionary changes regardless of whether others have expressed doubts. However, among those who have expressed doubts, some will probably feel that there will be an impact on them—a greater impact than some of the things that will be subject to referenda under the Bill’s provisions—and that they are not being asked their opinion.

The Minister will probably want to explain to the House the difference in approach and the apparent irrationality of the circumstances in which people will be asked for their view as between the different kinds of categories of issues at stake. The amendment draws the wrong conclusion. However, it cannot be said that the issue that it raises is inconsequential. Nevertheless, as I said at the beginning, we are opposed in principle, and we are. It would be better to remove the requirements for so many of these trigger clauses for referenda without providing any compelling definitions of issues of major constitutional importance and without an independent means of confirming the compelling nature of the decision.

It would be very helpful if the Minister could also comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, about what would happen were there to be a number of countries seeking accession at the same time. I will not invite him, however, to develop a new theory of AV which might allow for multiple voting—an outcome which probably everybody would fail to understand.

I can also see one other great risk in the kind of referenda that this amendment calls for, and that is in the area of producing campaigns which could very well be xenophobic and draw out the worst in relations between those seeking entry to the European Union and the domestic community of the United Kingdom, not least because many of those communities already in the United Kingdom are dynamic and vigorous parts of the society of the United Kingdom. The tensions that could be produced by that kind of approach would be quite unacceptable.

I also believe that accession does not transfer powers from the United Kingdom and that the House would do itself a considerable favour by recognising the beneficial characteristics of the growth that we have seen, a benefit which will unquestionably continue. As we look across the whole of the achievement of a peaceful European Union, I suspect that that will be seen historically to be one of the better departing points in our history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I seek some clarification on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It seems to wish to get rid of three emergency brakes but leave in place the one that includes the common foreign and security policy. That seems somewhat inconsistent; the noble Lord has mentioned several areas of co-operation where he believes it would be important, if the EU were to proceed in a manner that would be conducive to our interests, for us to do so. I suggest that the common foreign and security policy would be one area in which we have rather more expansive interests than in those of social security, judicial co-operation and cross-border crime.

Since the noble Lord gave a few examples, may I caution him on, for example, judicial co-operation? He thought that it may well be essential to have improved judicial co-operation if we are to tackle terrorist threats. That is an important point, but I also urge caution regarding the other direction. It is not that long ago that in this House the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, my noble friend Lord Carlile, warned us regarding the proposals for 60 days’ detention without charge that the previous Government wished to introduce. We must not go in the direction of the French legal system, for example, under which people have been interned for several years without charge. It cuts both ways: we may want enhanced co-operation but we may well not want it.

The previous Government negotiated the treaty and put in the emergency brakes. It is unclear what these moves would achieve and why that change of position has come about. Will the noble Lord reassure me on my understanding, which is that the Bill does not require a referendum before the EU can act in areas where the emergency brake exists? Co-operation is a good thing which can benefit the UK, but I thought that this was about making it clear to the British people that a referendum would be required if there is a move to abandon these important safeguards. Can the noble Lord explain what has caused this quite significant change in thinking?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

There has been much support in our debates so far against referendums for all but the most important issues such as the euro, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, echoed that in his speech. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, comes to mind, and many others. As this is a theme running through so much of our debate, I felt that I should make just one comment.

To put it mildly, we, the political class, are not particularly popular. I fear I detect a feeling out there among the people, in many discussions and in many fora, that our system of representative parliamentary democracy has, to some extent, broken down, or at least that it is not the great instrument it was before, the one which was exported all over the world. I think that there is now greater support for more of a plebiscitary democracy. Our system of representative parliamentary democracy worked very well in the 17th, 18th, 19th and even early 20th centuries, when many, if not most, people could not read and often led lives of endless drudgery and when better educated people were elected to Parliament to take their decisions for them. But now the people can read and, on the whole, are just as good and capable as their politicians. I believe that something like the Swiss democratic system, with its referendums—not, perhaps, going quite as far as the Californian system, with its difficulties over tax and the rest of it—really is now the only way in which to restore their democracy to the people. To those of the political class who laugh at this and decry such a prospect, I merely say, “They would, wouldn’t they?”.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, it seems to me that the three areas where the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is suggesting the lock-in of the referendum should be removed are fundamental to the argument about needing to have the requirement for referenda to lock in the position as it now is. They are about our common law system, our criminal justice system and our social security provisions. These are crucial areas and, as others have pointed out, because of their importance we negotiated, and were satisfied to get, the emergency brakes at Lisbon.

Some may not agree or be comfortable with the use of required referenda to act as a lock-in to the position that we are in; that is their view. But the whole point of the Bill is to protect citizens against UK Governments, as they have done over the past 20 years, gradually ceding more and more powers without any form of consent from the electorate or from changes in Europe to which the Government are not necessarily a party having the same effect. It would be completely illogical for the Government, having decided to embark upon this Bill, suddenly to say, “We are quite happy after all not to have the lock-in on the crucial area where we have emergency brakes”. The amendment is rather, dare I say, a waste of time, because it goes to the heart of what the Bill is about.

--- Later in debate ---

In due course, I suspect that there will come a time when the European Union wants major reform and perhaps, in a few years’ time, a major treaty will lie ahead, but I do not know. It may be one that transfers competences or it may be one that reassesses certain distribution of powers and competences. That is in the future, but in the mean time, this continually depicted pattern of a multiple series of referenda is a complete fantasy and does not relate to what will happen. However, with the passing of the Bill, we are reminded that the dangers of a smaller trickle of competences and powers unnecessarily creeping to the European Union, against the wishes of the British people, would be checked. There would be great reassurance and a strengthening to the European Union and what we have tried to do over the years would be achieved. That is why I advise my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, can the Minister give us any idea of the quantum at stake in this amendment, given the European Union’s well known capacity to take power by whatever method it can? He mentioned the use of former Article 308 and the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, mentioned how we were deceived in the Maastricht negotiations over the working time directive which, in the end, turned out to be part of the social policy. How many existing competences are being practised which might require codification? Is this a big area or is it something that will not happen very often because there is not much left to codify or to put in the treaty or to agree?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not think it is possible to quantify what will happen, what is happening or what has happened. Codification has occurred from time to time and I described one or two instances where it has occurred. There have been more. I would love to be able to say to the noble Lord that it has happened 15 times and it will happen 15 more times, but that would be completely unrealistic. I have no idea how it will occur, but it is important to ensure that we understand what genuine codification is. It will occur again and, as my noble friend Lord Brittan said, it is an objective legal concept but it is a bit like an Omega wrist watch that seems to be genuine but turns out to have nothing inside. There are non-genuine codifications and we have to watch very carefully to see that they do not join the genuine move towards competence creep, which is a phrase that people do not like. The phrase that people like in relation to the European Union is “knowing where they stand”, believing, as I think the majority of people in this country do, in the value of the European Union but feeling thoroughly uneasy about it continuing to take too many powers away from the nation states. Most nation states in Europe do not want that and we do not want it either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I apologise if what I have said is not clear enough. My point at the very beginning of my comments was that when you begin to talk about the latitude to move in any of these areas, you can guarantee that one set of people will say that it is a new arrangement and demand the conditions which the Bill establishes for a referendum, while others will say that it is simply in the areas of competence: they can do it with a degree of codification, were that to be necessary, or they can do it under the rubric of the codified arrangements. It will always be the subject of conflict between those who believe that it is a subterfuge to extend the powers of the EU and those who believe that it can be done legitimately. I am saying that you cannot run a proper political process that way, with that much obscurity and that many arguments and with the prospect of many things not only going through our Parliament but through judicial review, and with fierce arguments around the country about the need for a referendum in those circumstances. It just strikes me as being a way of tying the hands of those who you hope and expect will be competent to conduct the discussions in the European environment to a successful conclusion in the interests of this country.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I speak against these amendments. Amendment 23B assumes that the EU single market is a good thing for this country. That is a common misconception among the political class upon which I should like to cast a little doubt. This is a big and detailed subject and I recommend that any serious student should consult the briefing notes on the globalbritain.org website, which demolish the whole myth of the EU's economic usefulness and that of its single market.

The background point, which is not generally understood, is that the single market is more than a free trade area, it is a customs union. This means that a single customs barrier surrounds all the countries in the Union, whose international tariffs and trading arrangements are negotiated and decided centrally by the European Commission. In a free trade area, on the other hand, the countries concerned enjoy free trade among each other, but they remain able to make their own tariff arrangements with countries outside that area. They have their own seats on the World Trade Organisation and they are also able to make their own domestic law in areas such as working time, health and safety at work, part-time workers and so on.

So a country does not need to belong to the EU to enjoy free trade with it. According to a recent government Answer to me, the EU and its single market already have free trade agreements with some 63 countries outside the EU and are on their way to having similar agreements with another 75 countries, or roughly 80 per cent of the other countries in the world. It is perhaps worth noting that both Switzerland and Norway, not in the EU or its single market, both export more per capita to the single market than we do; Switzerland three times as much and Norway five times.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I fear that he is in danger of misleading the House fairly elaborately in this matter. He is talking about three things, not two: the first is a free trade area, the second is a customs union and the third is the single market. Norway, he has just stated categorically, is not part of the single market. I am afraid that he is in error. It is part of the single market, and it applies single market legislation by receiving fax messages from Brussels telling it what it has to do. The members of the European economic area are in the single market but are not in a customs union. However, I am not totally sure that this line of argument is going to get us very far—but it would be useful.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I do not want to delay the House, but that is why I made the distinction between a customs union and a free trade area.

The worst aspect of our membership of the EU single market is its sheer cost. Like their predecessors, this Government are determined to avoid an official cost-benefit analysis, and so we are left with the eight analyses that have been produced since the turn of the century, four of which are pretty much official, and which put the cost of our single market membership at anything between 4 per cent and 10 per cent of GDP. Indeed, the highest cost estimate came in 2005 from the Treasury itself in a paper entitled Global Europe: Full-Employment Europe under the signature of Mr Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It put the cost of EU regulation at 6 per cent of GDP and of EU protectionism at 7 per cent. In March 2006, the French Conseil d'Analyse Economique, which is attached to their Prime Minister’s office, found that France had gained nothing from the single market or, indeed, the euro. In June 2006, the Swiss Government published their finding that joining the EU and its single market would be nine times more expensive than staying with their current sectoral free trade agreements with Brussels. Later in 2006, the EU Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry, Mr Günter Verheugen, said that EU regulation was costing its members some €600 billion a year, or around 6 per cent of GDP at the time.

One of the troubles with being in the single market is that this EU overregulation, whatever it costs, applies to the whole of our economy, not just to the 9 per cent that trades with clients in the rest of the EU. So the 11 per cent of our GDP that goes in trade with the rest of the world and the 80 per cent that stays in our domestic economy—91 per cent of our GDP—has to carry the burdens of Brussels’s overregulation. There are, of course, those who fear that were we to leave the EU and its single market our trade would somehow suffer and that, to quote the propaganda, 3 million jobs would be lost. The truth appears to be the opposite: trade would expand and jobs would be created. It is, of course, true that we have 3 million jobs exporting goods and services to clients in the EU, but they have 4.5 million jobs exporting goods and services to us. We are, in fact, the EU’s largest client. Would the French stop selling us their wine or the Germans their cars just because we had left the single market and were no longer bossed around by Brussels? Of course not. There are also the points that the World Trade Organisation would prevent any form of retaliation were we to leave and that the EU’s average external tariff is now below 1 per cent. Our trade is going up faster with the rest of the world than with the EU, both inwards and outwards. Our exports to the EU single market are declining. The single market is sclerotic and overregulated and its demographic trend is against it. It is the “Titanic”.

It is also hard to think of any other customs unions along the lines of the EU. There was the Soviet Union, and there may be something similar in the Caribbean, but nowhere else. Mercosur in South America does not count because its members are free to agree their trading relationships with non-members. Can the Government advise us of any other customs unions like the EU? If not, does that not suggest that it may not be such a great idea?

As to Amendment 23F, I do not think we need the EU getting more involved in financial regulation. Commissioner Barnier has openly said that he does not favour what he calls the Anglo-Saxon model, and we have yet to feel the damage done to the City of London and its ability to pay tax by the new EU supervisory bodies. When the movers of the amendment say that they do not want it to interfere with the UK’s general approach to financial regulation, I ask whether they have Monsieur Barnier’s agreement? The deed is done. Overall financial supervision has passed to Brussels. No provisions in this Bill will prevent that.

As to Amendment 23H, I fear that those of us who come from the Eurorealistic perspective would rather that the unelected Commission did not continue to negotiate on our behalf in a new global trade round. As the world’s fifth-largest economy, we would rather do it for ourselves.

Finally, is it not really grotesque that an organisation that has so dismally failed to look after the vast sums entrusted to it by the taxpayers of Europe should have its powers strengthened, or made more effective, as the amendments have it? More will certainly mean even worse, and I oppose the amendments.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I think we are straying back to a Second Reading debate, because we seem to have moved somewhat from the amendments. I shall return to what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said about emergencies and new technical developments that could arise and that are reasons that he is using to justify his amendment.

Of course emergencies will always arise—they are part of life’s rich panoply—and there will always be new developments, but even if they did require changes to treaties and so on, we know that that will take a considerable time. Emergencies can be dealt with by multilateral agreements, bilateral agreements or in a range of other ways, and we deal with them that way all the time. I have worked with an international treaty: the Belfast agreement. We had specific arrangements with the Irish Republic. They were codified. I suspect that people on the streets of Britain talk of little else but codification from what I have been listening to this afternoon.

The debate is so complicated that it causes the eyes to glaze over. We had specific areas of co-operation set out in an international treaty and discovered that an emergency arose. It was the prospect that we would not have enough gas on both sides of the Irish border. What did we do? Because we did not have it codified and it was not part of a treaty, the two Ministers—I was one of them—reached a bilateral agreement that we had ratified through our existing processes. We were able to do the job and get the pipeline built in a fraction of the time that it would have taken had we taken it through a formal process. I believe Governments will always be able to find a way to work together in an emergency and that when things are part of an elaborate process, that does not guarantee speed.

The amendments talk about the effectiveness of the single market, effectiveness in mitigating climate change and effective financial regulations. Effectiveness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If you talk about all these issues, you are talking about pretty well everything in modern life and policy. Not an awful lot is left if you include all these issues.

A fundamental underlying mistake is being made here; nations that require referendums as part of their existing constitutions are not rendered useless negotiators in Brussels. A number of our fellow members of the European Union have referendums as an integral part of their constitutions. Do we mean that the Danes or the Irish are unable to negotiate? Of course not. They are able to do it, and they sit down with fellow Ministers who might not have that requirement. Does that mean that the Danes, the Irish and others are hogtied and unable to negotiate? Over the years, they have sometimes done a jolly good deal. The recent referendum in the Irish Republic on the Lisbon treaty was initially rejected. They went back to the table and got a better deal, and then it was passed. I do not believe that that indicates in any sense that, just because a referendum might be required, a Minister, or a Government, is paralysed. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. Of course, if it gets far too detailed and concerns trivial matters, I would agree, but I do not think that we are facing that.

In any event, this Bill is about the future. It is not about the past. I believe that there is sufficient wriggle room in the existing treaties and that you would be a pretty bad Government or a pretty weak Minister if you could not find something on which to hang a hook to move a particular measure forward. I am not confident that this Bill will be a showstopper for the European Union. Of course it will not. The European Union will continue. We have many treaty obligations in it, which I believe will be honoured, but this Bill is about preventing expansion and trying to restore public confidence. It is precisely because people do not believe politicians any more that this sort of Bill is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I defer to the noble Lord’s deep knowledge of history, but he will accept that metaphors and similes are sometimes rather broader than a deep knowledge of history would insist on them being. I insist on keeping my metaphor going for a few more minutes. The point that I want to make strongly is that issues are coming up that clearly will require a degree of competence on the part of the European Union that is not embraced in the present treaties. Unless we exclude some of these issues from the elaborate procedure of the referendum lock, we will find ourselves hobbled in trying to deal with them.

I shall give two illustrations. I particularly urge my noble friends in the Conservative Party to consider one of them very carefully. In the past couple of months we have seen some of the consequences of the Arab spring. One of those consequences has been the placing of substantial sums of money within the structures of the European Union because there is very little control over how the European Union at present deals with inflows of money from other quarters. Members of the European Parliament have shown a great deal of sense about this and have urged the European Union to take additional action, which, as I understand the Bill, will probably require the referendum lock procedure to be met.

One of the most vociferous and articulate Members of the European Parliament on this issue of how one deals with what one might believe to be illegitimate funds—funds that have been stolen from a nation by its leader or funds that have been deliberately laundered through Europe—was the spokesman of legal affairs in the European Parliament. Mr Karim is a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, and I will quote what he said because it is extremely relevant to this debate. He said:

“I would … invite Baroness Ashton, as a key architect of the EU’s new plan for north Africa, to implement strong anti-money laundering provisions as an important part of the future EU strategy in the region. More broadly, the … Commission must act to urgently address the deficiencies in the current arrangements regarding funds originating overseas. The EU cannot continue to be a savings account in which leaders of developing countries deposit their ill-gotten funds”.

Mr Karim went on to call for urgent action by the European Union, which under this Bill will of course be caught by the referendum lock.

I think that my second example will stir a number of Members of this Committee as it certainly stirs me: namely, the relative unwillingness of the United Kingdom to address the issue of human trafficking. According to the International Labour Organisation, human trafficking has now become the third largest common illicit business in the world. It is valued by the ILO at approximately €32 billion in the past year. It is third after the drug trade and the arms trade. It has burgeoned and mushroomed in the past few years.

The United Kingdom was unwilling to sign and agree to an EU directive on the trafficking of children. It refused to do so on the grounds that the United Kingdom had its own measures and did not require a European Union directive on the issue. As many will know, the argument went on month after month, with only Denmark and the United Kingdom refusing to agree to the proposed directive. In this country, the official figures are said by the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police and the UK Border Agency to be far higher than the official figures that are given. Recently, the Home Office said that the official figure for child and human trafficking was around 250 cases a year. One area of the borough of Westminster alone has found something like 1,120 children who are being trafficked. It has announced that it is having to strengthen its own steps strongly to try to deal with the issues.

I will not bore the House with telling it—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I will not give way at the moment. I am in the middle of an argument. I will gladly give way to the noble Lord afterwards. I will not bore the House by going on about some of the unspeakably awful cases. For example, a boy from the middle of Africa was brought to this country at the age of 16 by a man who pretended to befriend him. Day after day, he was locked up in a house with just one meal a day being served to him and was repeatedly sexually abused by older men. A young mother of several children was trafficked to this country and used by up to 15 men a day against her own will. That was the price of the people who trafficked her in order not to reveal that she was an illegal immigrant.

I will not go on about this, but the cases are bloodcurdling, frightening, terrible. People are trafficked for three purposes: first, sexual exploitation; secondly, direct slavery, often in domestic work; and, thirdly—this is not unfamiliar to those of us who, like me, live in East Anglia—fruit and vegetable picking; young men and women, often children, are used in fruit and vegetable fields, often with almost no wages at all, in conditions of near slavery. We do not like to observe these issues. We like to think that that does not happen here and we reject the concept that such things can happen in an orderly and well policed state, but we are wrong. Unless we can get some international agreement, or at least a European-wide agreement, we will not be able to stop the sources that are being dealt with in other European countries in such a way as to bring this kind of thing to an end. It took 10 months for the British Government and the Prime Minister, under pressure from a group of women who organised visits and petitions to No. 10 Downing Street, finally to agree to this directive a couple of weeks ago. The Prime Minister did not want to do it because he did not want to agree that this extension of the competence of the European Union was essential to deal with this disgusting trend.

I have mentioned these things, and I shall now stop arguing them, to point out that there are what I call—I am sorry, but I shall repeat it—Canute cases, where we try to pretend that the massive structure of organised crime, ranging from the drug trade to human trafficking to money laundering, is not there. When you weigh these issues in the balance, it is right for the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench to press for certain issues not to be subject to the referendum or to the inevitable delays that follow it. These issues affect our fellow human beings, many of them British, in ways that we should never accept as a country. They require at least a reasoned reaction; they can no longer be dealt with on a purely national basis.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Without wishing to detract in any way from the terrible situation to which the noble Baroness has so brilliantly spoken, does she have any statistics on how many of these people come here from Europe through the European open border? Would it not be easier for this country—which is, after all, an island—to police its borders more effectively if we had control of those borders? I suspect that the majority of these people come through from other countries in the European Union.

EU and NATO: Peace in Europe

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the contribution by the European Union and its predecessors to peace in Europe compared with that of NATO.

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

My Lords, both the European Union and NATO have made invaluable and complementary contributions to peace in Europe. We do not consider it appropriate to compare the two as they serve different functions. While NATO has ensured, and continues to ensure, our security, there is more to peace than just security. It requires stability, shared values, economic development and political co-operation. The European Union has contributed that. We firmly intend to remain an active and committed member of both.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s compliment about NATO, but I am afraid that the rest of his Answer merely repeats the EU’s standard propaganda to justify its existence. Is it not true that democracy is the best guarantor of peace and that the EU is a deeply undemocratic institution? Secondly, is it not also true that the EU is failing on every other front as well so that it has become an emperor without clothes?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that democracy is a many-layered concept. It requires the rule of law, good judicial standards, effective policing, fighting corruption, good and free business enterprise and freedom of the press. All those are areas where EU operations are effective. No one is saying that everything in the European Union is perfect at the moment. It obviously has major problems, particularly for those who are members of the eurozone, but it is unrealistic to dismiss all those very important elements of peace and democracy to which the EU contributes alongside the harder power that NATO can deliver.

European Union Bill

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

That is precisely what I did not say. I said that the Select Committee was performing its function and doing it very well but—whether it is a case of what the Government will accept or what the European Union will accept—in the last analysis, its recommendations have not been accepted, which is a great pity. Some of the changed arrangements for the Select Committee might make it more effective, but I very much doubt it.

I remind the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who would not allow me to intervene in his speech, that the peace in Europe has had nothing to do with the European Community or the European Union but has been kept by NATO. The greatest threat to Europe occurred in 1949 with the Berlin blockade. The treaty of Rome was not signed until 1957 although I think that it was thought of before then. The United States and Britain ensured that the Russian blockade was broken; it had nothing to do with any other European state, with the exception perhaps of France which gave a little help. Therefore, it is about time that we stopped talking about the European Community or the European Union being responsible for keeping the peace in Europe—NATO has kept the peace in Europe. I do not know what would have happened without NATO and the American deterrent, so please let us give credit where it is due.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, while the noble Lord is on this subject, would he care to comment on the European Union’s record in Yugoslavia?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

That would take rather a long time. I think that perhaps Germany rather than the European Union had some strategic purpose in regard to the break-up of Yugoslavia, but I had better not go into that at this time. Time is getting on and I have no doubt that noble Lords want to get to dinner, so I shall sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mandelson]

My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships so near to the dinner break; I shall make only three observations in relation to Clause 3 and whether it should stand part of the Bill. What we have seen during the course of this debate is a series of false assumptions and non sequiturs advanced to justify the Bill, and in particular this clause, which the Government are bringing forward.

My first observation is that we must be absolutely clear that there is no intention on the part of any Government or any member state in the European Union to claim further powers for the institutions of the European Union at the expense of member states. If anyone can jump up and point to a position, a policy, a statement, a direction of thinking on the part of any member state that would suggest otherwise, I would be perfectly prepared to hear it. Instead, what you have among the 27 member states of the European Union is not a determination to claim more powers—on the contrary. You have a determination, rightly, to better use the existing powers for the EU and its institutions, with a better sense of strategic direction for the European Union, a better set of priorities which really support our long-term economic and other interests in Europe and a better quality of decision-making on the part of the institutions, including the Commission and the European Parliament, as well as the European Council.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Mandelson]

If I may persist, I am not going to make very extensive remarks and we have heard a lot from the noble Lord.

On the basis of my first observation there is really no need for this Bill.

Secondly, if there were a move by one or more member states or institutions in the European Union to secure the transfer of more powers to the EU, the Government would not win their case or prevail against this argument or mood or sentiment by picking up the blunderbuss weapon that such a referendum would represent. For the Government to persuade others to their point of view, they need to use argument, they need to use persuasion and negotiation. If we were proposing something and another member state said that it was having nothing to do with this and was, indeed, going to put us over a barrel and blackmail us into submission by holding a referendum in its country that would bring the whole thing to a grinding halt, do you think that we would give in to that sort of blackmail or pressure? Of course not. We would want to hear the argument, we would want to be persuaded, there would have to be negotiation. That would be the case if the opposite situation arose.

I slightly hesitate to make my third point as I always fear I might go too far in conceding too much to the Government, but judging by their record to date as far as Europe is concerned, they are in reality and in practice adopting a largely pragmatic and common-sense approach. Why on earth would they allow themselves to be diverted in this ridiculous way by an absurd Bill, simply to console and accommodate the extreme Europhobic views of a portion of the Tory party? Much better, in my view, to go back to what the Prime Minister said in an earlier incarnation when he was leader of the Opposition. David Cameron used to say that what we need is a strong, determined, focused European Union with all the combined strength that it can bring to address the really great global problems and challenges that we face in the world. I remember him writing an article in the Sunday Telegraph where he talked about the needs of global growth and tackling global poverty; the great challenge of global warming, the insidiousness of global terrorism for which, he said, we need a strong European Union in order to combine our strength to address these great issues. How right he was.

I wish only that the Government would revert, in time and in rhetoric, to those words and that sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister in an earlier incarnation. Instead, we are grinding through the Committee stage of the Bill, trying desperately to put the equivalent of lipstick on a pig. Let us be honest, these amendments will make the mildest and most modest difference to a pathetic and inadequate Bill. I hope that the Government will recognise this, see sense before it is too late, and resolve to get on with following their largely pragmatic and common-sense approach to Europe that has, in the main, characterised their policy since the election.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, did not take my brief intervention, which is slightly against our school rules—he is something of a new boy, so I of course forgive him—I would just comment that it is of course true that if the corrupt octopus in Brussels does not want or try to take any more powers, it is because it does not need any. As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, pointed out today, and as I have often pointed out in the past, you have to look only at the European Union’s use and abuse of Article 308 to see how it takes powers, even when they are not clearly sanctioned by the treaties.

My main point is to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who extolled the virtues of governmental collaboration. We all agree with governmental collaboration, but I am afraid that that leads me to the question I put to the Minister in our earlier debate. I do not expect him to answer now, but I would like to keep it on the agenda, because he moved magnificently from the proceedings on the Bill to the Statement, and then straight back to these proceedings. Perhaps he therefore has not had time to consider my point, which was echoed by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. It was that the idea behind the European Union—the object of the exercise—is precisely that the nation states should lose their national democracies. It is precisely that the nation states were responsible for two world wars and all the rest of it, and they therefore had to be emasculated and diluted into this new form of supranational government, which is not working.

The euro—a subject that noble and Europhile Lords are going out of their way to avoid—was never an economic project, as I have pointed out many times over the years since its conception. The euro was designed as a cement to hold the emerging mega-state together. The euro is in deep trouble. With any luck it will not be with us in its present form for much longer. However, that does not get us away from the original project of European integration, which remains highly dangerous and is finally being rumbled by the people of Europe. Quite frankly, the sooner the whole thing collapses and we go back to intergovernmental collaboration, as extolled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others, with democratic nations freely trading and collaborating together, the better. It is impossible to think of any so-called achievement of the European Union that could not have been achieved by friendly intergovernmental collaboration among the consenting democratic nations that the countries of Europe, thankfully, are. I want to keep that deep question on the Minister’s agenda, and I trust that we can address it before we conclude on the Question that the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I should like to talk about Clause 3 standing part of the Bill, if that is agreeable to your Lordships.

The EU factsheet that the Government put out stated that the Bill is designed to strengthen the connection between the British people and the European Union. Actually, Clause 3 seems to be almost perversely designed to do the exact opposite of that perfectly reasonable ambition. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who, sadly, is not in his place, said that those of us who had supported the amendments to Clause 3 were in denial about the lack of popularity of the European Union. I am afraid that that is simply not true. I agree with much of the diagnosis about the EU’s lack of popularity, but I absolutely disagree with the treatment that the Government are putting forward by means of Clause 3.

The exceptions to the referendum lock are very limited. On most issues, that lock is unbreakable, as was pointed out earlier. It is enormously strict, and the purpose of the amendments has been to give Parliament greater flexibility in respect of whether or not a referendum is necessary. The Government are on record as saying that referendums should be kept for exceptional issues and important decisions that ought to be taken on a nationwide basis.

In an earlier debate in your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, described this as a “watershed” Bill. The measures in Clause 3 are watershed measures that need to be tempered by greater flexibility—the sort of flexibility that the amendments provided for—that will maintain the authority of this Parliament, which would otherwise be hugely undermined. We are a parliamentary democracy; that is the basis of our government. This Bill drives a coach and horses through that concept.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said that it cannot be denied that the frequent use of referendums will seriously damage the legitimacy of Parliament. I think that the situation is much worse than that. The measures in Clause 3 will engender enormous cynicism among the British people if they are asked to take part in referendum after referendum, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said. Worse, there will be not just cynicism, but ridicule—the worst of all possible weapons that can be used.

In time, Parliament will recognise that that is the case and will probably, therefore, avoid using referendums. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said earlier that he would welcome avoiding such referendums, because it would mean that a block on EU decision-making could be made. Of course we may be able to block EU decisions in order to avoid a referendum, but other countries may have decided to go ahead under the enhanced co-operation provided for in the Lisbon treaty. The Minister has not answered that point. There is no such thing as an absolute block in many areas because of the provisions of the Lisbon treaty in allowing for that enhanced co-operation, and I should be grateful if the Minister said a little more about those provisions and the likelihood—indeed, some would say, the inevitability—of them being used. If that is the case, this country would be pushed to the margins of Europe again—as a result, distancing the British people even further from Europe and even further from the objectives that the Minister so passionately espoused when putting forward the Bill.

The amendments that we discussed today have been designed to provide that greater flexibility and to give Parliament the ability to look at what really merits a referendum and consider the serious issues on which the people of this country, on a nationwide basis, should be called upon to take decisions. Somehow the impression has been given—notably by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—that if the United Kingdom blocks a measure, that is the end of it. Those of us who went through the Lisbon treaty know that that simply is not true. On this issue I look particularly at the Liberal Democrat Benches. They are good Europeans. I regret to say that in many ways they have been better Europeans than my own party. That is the truth of the matter, and that they can go along with these sorts of measures in Clause 3 frankly beggars belief.

European Union Bill

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Waddington]

The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to pick on what I said about salaries but, of course, it goes very much further than that. I could quote umpteen examples of things that have caused enormous annoyance. There is also enormous annoyance at the salary paid to the new EU Foreign Minister, and goodness knows how much will be paid for the European External Action Service. It is worth remembering at this stage where we are. Mr Blair was not going to have an EU Foreign Minister at any cost and was totally opposed to an external action service, but of course at the end he gave way, rolled over and agreed to it.

Of course, both posts were created by the constitution/Lisbon. I venture to suggest that if the people had had a say, not about the constitution or Lisbon but in the matter of either of those posts, they would have said, “Certainly not. Why should we pay for pointless EU aggrandisement?”. There have been some terrible betrayals by the Government of this country. Take, for instance, the surrender by Mr Blair of a large part of our hard-won rebate. It was supposed to be for reform of the agricultural policy, but no reform has taken place. There were all the carryings-on over the constitution/Lisbon. Some insist that there was enough difference between the two to justify Mr Blair ditching his promise of a referendum, but surely there is one thing on which we can all agree. With all the parties promising a referendum in 2005, and with the main changes proposed in the constitution reappearing in Lisbon, it was not at all strange that a lot of people felt that they were entitled to have a say in what was afoot, but they were told to mind their own business. They did: they went off in large numbers to vote for UKIP.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I did not want interrupt the excellent speech of my noble friend, if I may refer to him as that, except to ask him about the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, sitting beside me. Surely the difference is that the British people can do something about what happens in Westminster. They can elect and dismiss the people who make their laws, who defraud their expenses and all the rest of it. In what goes on in Brussels, the British people and the Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament are completely powerless. That is the difference. I apologise again for interrupting the noble Lord’s very important speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tomlinson]

If that is the moderate centre, I wonder why I gave way so easily to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when he seemed somewhat reluctant to do so himself when he was on his feet. The intervention was not really worth the anticipated value.

Many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, during his speech were rather inaccurate, so just for the sake of making the record clear—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, on making the record clear, is the noble Lord referring to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, or to me?

[A noble Lord]

I think he means to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and to welcome both him and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, back to the debate. However, I intend to follow neither of their arguments and to set a dangerous and reprehensible precedent by speaking to Clause 3. I wish to speak in support of Amendments 16A and 16B, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It might be convenient if I were also to explain why I have given notice of my intention to oppose Clause 3.

I started our discussion in Committee by asking why we needed Clause 3.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, are we not still on Amendments 16A and 16B? We have not come to the Question whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am open to correction. I thought that it might be convenient if I made now the points which I have on Clause 3. Most of them are in relation to Amendments 16A and 16B, but they are also on the general question of Clause 3. I will do as the Committee wishes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dykes]

That is an improvement, then. The noble Lord is now saying that this country should sign lots of treaties with other countries for all sorts of arrangements. Why can they not include the most sensible treaties of all—the treaties of European union and the two treaties listed in the Bill, which enable us to increase our own intrinsic sovereignty rather than reduce it?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Because those other organisations do not make our law without the consent of this Parliament or our people. That is the difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I can promise my noble friend one thing: if such a referendum were to take place, the turnout would be absolutely minimal. I do not understand how in those circumstances anybody could conceivably rely on that result as providing balance vis-à-vis the argument that the European Community is at the moment unpopular and deserves to become more popular.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Richard]

With respect, I have given way a great deal. If the noble Lord will let me make progress, I will give way later.

Part 2 of Schedule 1 is even better. There is a whole page of it—35 lines—referring to, for example,

“police co-operation … cross-border operation by competent authorities … harmonisation of indirect taxes … broad guidelines of economic policies … conferral on European Central Bank of specific tasks … measures on working conditions”.

All these issues are there for the purpose of achieving balance, according to the two noble Lords who spoke. Is it conceivable that you can have referenda on any of these issues and properly consult the people of the United Kingdom? You cannot. To pretend that you can is, frankly, dishonest.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord because I would have thought that it was perfectly possible to hold a referendum on whether we wanted a European public prosecutor’s office or an extension of its powers, and certainly on the indirect taxes that he mentioned. All these subjects are much closer to the British people’s heart than the referendum that we are about to have on the method by which we send people to Parliament, given that those people cannot do much when they get there, as the powers have been passed to Brussels. I would be perfectly happy to run a campaign against the noble Lord and I can tell him that there would be a big turnout and I would win it.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, all I can say in answer to that—

--- Later in debate ---

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

The answer is yes.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, to come back to Amendments 16A and 16B, I oppose them because they make it possible for the Government of the day to avoid a referendum if they think that some new EU power grab, whatever it happens to be, is sufficiently urgent or if they think that it is in the national interest. I fear that the supporters of these amendments have not yet grasped the point that the British people do not want any more powers passed to Brussels, period, as the saying goes—full stop. In fact, a growing majority of the British people want all their powers back; they want to be a democracy again with the power to elect and dismiss those who make all their laws.

I am afraid that the amendments do not work in detail, either. Who is to decide the urgency of the decision or whether it is in the national interest? The octopus in Brussels of course, not the British Government or Parliament. To be certain of this, we have only to look at the way in which Brussels has treated both our Government and Parliament over many years. I refer of course to its constant indifference to our scrutiny reserve. I remind your Lordships for the record, and for those outside your Lordships’ House who may not know, what the scrutiny reserve is. It is a promise made to Parliament—to the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House—by Governments of all persuasions over many years that they will not sign up to any new law or initiative in Brussels if the Select Committee of either House is still considering it. If the Select Committees have finished looking at it or have agreed it, or if it has been debated in Parliament, the Government of the day are free to sign up in the Council of Ministers in Brussels to whatever initiative is concerned. That is the promise or scrutiny reserve.

A Written Answer to me from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on 7 February this year reveals that in the past five years alone the scrutiny reserve has been overridden—in other words, the Government’s promise has been broken—no fewer than 267 times in the House of Commons and 248 times in your Lordships’ House. That means that in the past five years more than 500 proposals from Brussels, which the Select Committee of either House thought sufficiently important to examine and to advise the Government on, became law anyway. The juggernaut rolled on regardless. It is worth adding that the situation does not appear to be improving, despite regular complaints from the Select Committees to the Government. In 2010, 151 overrides were notched up between the two Houses—79 in the House of Commons and 72 in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Sewel]

Would the noble Lord be good enough to inform us how many of these—I forget the numbers, so could I be reminded?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

It is over 100 a year; 515 in the past five years.

[Lord Sewel]

Of those 500, how many would have been subject to a referendum?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, that is not the point. The point is that it will not be the British Government or this Parliament that makes the decisions covered by these amendments; Brussels will go on doing it.

It is partly this situation, together with the fact that Brussels pays almost no attention to what our Select Committees and Parliament manage to say when they are not being completely ignored, that has led me to suggest that perhaps we do not need quite the number of Select Committees that we have, although that is perhaps a debate for another day.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am not quite sure of the relevance of this discussion to the amendment that we are debating. The noble Lord does not reveal how much of this is double-counting. He has given a number for the Commons and a number for the Lords, but perhaps he could enlighten us as to how many are for the same measure. Secondly, he gave figures for 2010, which was a general election year here. During that lengthy election period, the House of Commons in particular did not have a European Scrutiny Committee. It has always been recognised that there are overrides during such a period. Thirdly, I wish that the noble Lord would recognise that the scrutiny reserve is a matter for consideration between the two Houses of this Parliament and the Government. It is not a matter for the European institutions and it never has been. That has always been clear. It would therefore be good if we could get back to discussing the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to ameliorate an intolerable situation. It is a fact that the scrutiny reserve is a promise given by the Government of the day to Parliament that has been broken more than 500 times in the past five years. Therefore, it will not be the British Government who make the decisions covered by Amendment 16B, but Brussels—as it always has been. No British Government can therefore be trusted to decide on these issues, as set out in the amendments, because Brussels will simply go ahead, even if the British Government of the day could be trusted. If necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, reminded us, the Commission will simply bring forward the EU’s new powers under treaty clauses that were not designed for that purpose. However, that has never stopped the Commission, as I also pointed out in our Committee proceedings on 5 April at col. 1640.

In conclusion, and without wishing to go anywhere near making a Second Reading speech, a number of noble Lords today—the noble Lords, Lord Risby and Lord Hannay, among others—as well as the Minister in Committee and at Second Reading, lamented the disconnect, as they put it, between the British people and their Government and the European Union. I should like to put to the Minister a point that I have not yet put to him; I should be grateful if he would answer it either on this occasion or at some future point in our proceedings.

The reason for the disconnect between the British people and the European Union—and, indeed, the Finnish people and the European Union, and a growing number of people in France, Germany and elsewhere—is that the big idea that gave birth to the project of European integration, honourable though it was at the time after the last war, has, in fact, gone horribly wrong. I need hardly remind the Minister of what that big idea was. It was that the nation states, with their unreliable democracies, had been responsible for the carnage of two world wars and the long history of bloodshed in Europe. Those nation states, therefore, had to be emasculated and diluted into a new form of supranational government run by technocrats. That is where the Commission gets its monopoly to propose in secret all our European legislation. That is where COREPER comes in. That is why the Council votes in secret on what is becoming the majority of our law, if that is not the case already. Surely that is what has gone wrong. Until we address it, realise and confess that the whole project has failed—not just the currency, which has clearly failed—and get out of it as soon as possible, we are all barking up the wrong tree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Yes, and perhaps my noble friend would like to remind himself why William Hague fought the election on European issues. It was because he had done so incredibly well in the European elections not much before, and it seemed at that point that the country did not want to have anything to do with Europe.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Perhaps I may also remind the noble Lord that Mr Hague did not fight that election on the issue of Europe; he fought it on the issue of the euro, the currency. He said that the election was, in effect, a referendum on the currency. That was not wise, because a referendum on the currency had already been promised by all parties. That election was not fought on the issue of Europe.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, perhaps your Lordships might find it useful if I were to intervene at this stage, because one or two noble Lords have had a bite at the cherry, as it were, and it might be helpful if I were to answer some of the many questions that have been put to this Bench and comment on all the amendments, although I should like first to address the two original amendments, Amendments 16A and 16B, which have a particular element to them which is very important and needs to be addressed. Then I will come to the broader issues raised by the broader amendments, of which the central theme is whether the significance condition should be enlarged or extended. It is interesting to note that in the other place, all the pressure was for them to be reduced, so there is a certain contrast between your Lordships’ views and those of the other place. Often that is healthy.

I say at the beginning that I strongly agree with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that proper leadership in Europe best comes through using the powers that the EU already has. That is a strong statement and highly relevant to what we are debating in the Bill. I ask noble Lords to reflect on it, because I think that many of the worries about what the effect of the Bill might be in checking the expansion, development, changes of treaty, new ideas and proposals for the EU stand in contrast to the wisdom of that remark. An enormous amount can be achieved in our neighbourhood, in relations with the rest of Europe and in the reform of the EU itself to make it suitable to meet the totally changed international landscape which we now all confront, by existing powers rather than further changes in the treaty or transfers of power from member states to the European institutions.

I turn to the first two amendments, which would insert into Clause 3 a new type of exemption from the referendum lock in respect of Article 48(6) decisions, otherwise known as the simplified revision procedure. Perhaps I can deal right at the beginning with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, whom I very much respect for his vast experience in this area. He asked me—he said that I did not answer him very well before, but I will try to do better now—why we needed Clause 3 as well as Clause 2. The answer is simple. Clause 2 deals with ordinary revision procedures for changing the treaties; Clause 3 deals with the special revision procedure for transferring powers from the nation state—the UK in this case—to the European Union. It is the desire of many, not just in this country—I shall give examples from other countries—that changes, whether of the treaty or in powers, should be dealt with in the same way, regardless of whether they are dealt with under the ordinary revision procedure for treaty change or under the special revision procedure, otherwise known as the passerelle procedure. That is why we need Clause 3. I hope that that clarifies that aspect. Of course I shall come to the detail much more extensively in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, we have had a long debate on a series of relatively small amendments designed to improve the Bill, but it has been a very interesting one. Three weeks ago, when we had our first day in Committee, I have to say that I felt a bit sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Howell. He cut a rather lonely figure, with no one on the Benches behind him coming to his defence. I thought that he was having difficulty persuading the House that the Bill before us is essentially as he described it: a pro-European measure. In the mean time, the Government have called in their reinforcements. We have heard speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Waddington, Lord Flight, Lord Risby and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, all defending the Government’s position. I wonder if the Minister feels any better as a result of the people who have come to his aid, because my reaction to what they said is that if they—the noble Lords, Lord Waddington, Lord Flight, Lord Risby and Lord Hamilton of Epsom—truly represent balance and the moderate centre on these issues, then God help us and particularly God help Britain in Europe. The only reason that they see their position as balanced is that this Bill essentially does not contain what they really wanted. What they really wanted was an in-or-out referendum on Britain’s European membership and the repatriation of powers. I hope that the scales are beginning to fall from the eyes of some of their Lib Dem coalition partners about what really lies behind the motive for this piece of legislation. It is to appease anti-Europeanism—I was going to say Euroscepticism, but it is not scepticism, it is anti-Europeanism in this country.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that those of us who are described as Eurosceptic are not anti-European? We are against the project of European integration. We love the real Europe, the Europe of separate nations each with its glorious and distinctive past and future, if it could get out of this ill-founded and unfortunate project.

[Lord Liddle]

I certainly do not want to contradict what the noble Lord has said, but he ought to remember that, loving Europe’s history as I do, I know that it is also a history of bloody conflict, of massacre and genocide, which the European Union has played a major part in bringing to an end. I listened to the Minister’s supporters speaking from his Benches, and it seems that they all think that the history of the European Union is essentially one of betrayal. So when Winston Churchill called for Europe to unite, that was a betrayal, and when Harold Macmillan decided to take us into the Common Market, that was a betrayal.

European Union Bill

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

Well, we could go into the referendum and opinion poll mechanism of running government, which of course means the Daily Mail running government—let us be clear what the purpose of this is. If we ran government by opinion poll, we would exempt from the Bill anything to do with the environment, because an overwhelming majority of people believe that the environment is better protected on a European basis. They understand that half the emissions we create we give to the rest of Europe, and half the pollution in this country comes from the rest of Europe. One cannot have an air pollution policy unless it is European, and that is true of most of the issues about which we talk.

I will give my noble friend Lord Howell the second reason why we need to be very careful about this; it is for his own protection. If this is in the Bill, the head-bangers, of whom there are some in both Houses, will say, every time there is any decision in the European Union, “What about this?”. We all know who they are; it would be quite wrong of me to mention any names, but they will rise to their feet again and again because they are utterly committed to doing anything to stop—I give way to the noble Lord, whom I have not named.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I think we all know whom the noble Lord is talking about. Does he agree that the head-bangers now include a growing majority of the British people?

[Lord Deben]

I would say that a large number of people spend a great deal of time misleading as many people as possible on the European Union and it is not surprising that some of it has rubbed off. However, I named no names and I will not do so now. That intervention shows us exactly that what I have said is true. Any Government proposing anything in Europe will come to this part of Europe and present it to the House of Commons, and someone will say, “Why are you not moving for a referendum to be held under this part of the Bill?”. There is no subject which would not come under it. I say to the noble Lord that this is a serious issue for any future Government because, if this part of the Bill goes through, no Government will be free of it in any decision they make. What will be the result of that in the Council?

Of course, I yield to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in negotiations but I think that my experience as a Minister is at least as long as that of anyone else in the country. Sixteen years of that experience was spent in the European Union, much of it in agriculture dealing with the detail of tiny issues that really mattered and much of it in environmental matters. However, I do not see how I could have negotiated, because any bit of this part of the Bill could have been brought up. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord that, if there is something of an argument here, can we please present it in a different way which does not bring all this baggage with it? If there is nothing here, it should be his devout wish that the Committee divides and he loses on this amendment, because it will damage Governments of all kinds. However, what it will damage most is the country that I love—the United Kingdom. It will mean that no Minister will be able to negotiate with the freedom of any other Minister in the European Union. We will be like the Belgians, who, for any decision, have to go back to three Ministers, all of whom have different views, and, as a result, they decide and contribute to nothing.

Therefore, I simply say to the noble Lord that, if he can move on this, he will give me confidence in the claim of my Government that this provision is intended merely to prevent huge changes being carried out without the consent of the British people. If he can move on this, he will protect this and other Governments from the effect of the provision, and I think he will find much of the rest of the debate very much easier. However, if he does not, I fear that many of us will have to vote again and again against a Bill which, for me, is the Conservative version of the Hunting Bill. It has been brought forward to look after a particular group of atavistic individuals and it is not in any way sensible. Everyone else knows that it is not sensible and that it is there for a purpose, and I am ashamed of the Liberal Democrats for not making sure that it was never there at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved with such charming and disarming modesty by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. Only someone with a highland title could be so disarming and modest as well as eloquent in moving such an amendment.

I speak with reluctance because I was waiting to see who was going to spring up to defend the Bill and speak against the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Kinnock says from a sedentary position, “There won't be many of them”. I have been trying to find out over the past few days and weeks who is behind the Bill, who is the architect of it, who is the genesis of it, who is pushing it, who is keen to see it go through. I even had a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and he certainly did not claim any responsibility for the Bill. At Second Reading, we had a number of contributions, almost none of them in favour of the Bill. Even those who were in favour were somewhat embarrassed and reluctant.

I wonder why we are taking up so much time in this House and in Parliament when there are so many other things that should be occupying our attention. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made a very eloquent Shakespearian beginning to his speech. If I can get a little bit of Shakespeare right, it made me think:

“Why should we, in the compass of a pale,

Keep law and form and due proportion …

When our sea-walled garden, the whole land,

Is full of weeds, her fairest flowers choked up,

Her fruit-trees all unpruned”.

A lot of things are happening outside in our land, this sea-walled garden, that need our attention, but we are being asked to spend so much time on this, it is really quite unbelievable.

I did not speak on Second Reading because I was at my first meeting of the European Union Select Committee. Excellent work is being done there scrutinising legislation that comes from the European Union. It is generally acknowledged that this House, in this Parliament, in this country scrutinises European legislation better than any other house of any other parliament in the European Union, something of which we should be proud. That makes it even more ridiculous that we are being asked to consider this Bill.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, can I test the noble Lord’s pride? Can he give us any examples of any proposals or changes to European legislation, put forward either by your Lordships’ Select Committee or the Select Committee in the other place, that have been accepted in Brussels in, shall we say, the past 10 years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am really grateful to my noble friend. That is exactly the kind of thing that I was seeking. I know this House, and I have the greatest of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who I have known for many years and who has been very helpful to me on many occasions. I really feel sorry for him that he has been asked to pilot this Bill through the House. I think it says a great deal for his dedication and his commitment that he is willing and able to do so.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, perhaps it is time to have the smallest voice against these amendments. I shall do so by commenting on what noble Lords who have spoken so far have said. Can the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, tell us of any treaty changes so far that have not actually conferred power? I do not much like the word “competence” because it implies someone doing something competent, whereas we know that the European use of the word “competence” means power, which is nearly always exercised with great incompetence.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The answer is “legion”. The appointment of judges to the European Court of Justice requires an intergovernmental conference, as does a change in the number in the European Parliament, and a treaty change is required in both cases. The answer is “legion”, I promise the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, these are not examples of powers being returned to a country that enjoyed them before 1972.

[Lord Kinnock]

To assist the noble Lord, I point out to him the very explicit provision that ensures that powers are not transferred to the Union from member states. There is a provision in the treaty of Lisbon enabling states to leave the European Union. That rather contradicts the noble Lord’s view.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

There is also, of course, the ability to repeal the 1972 Act, which means that we would probably not need to go down the tortuous route proposed by the Lisbon treaty. Noble Lords have not quite got the question I was asking. I was asking whether they can tell us of any treaty changes that have not transferred powers to Brussels. Can they tell us of any treaty changes, those powers once having been transferred, that have returned them to this Parliament? I can tell them that the present Government were unable to answer that question in a Question for Written Answer very recently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Another example is that, in the protocol to the treaty of Lisbon, there is a provision giving power to national parliaments to be able to refer to the Luxembourg court issues where the national parliament considers that the principle of proportionality is being breached by legislative proposals emanating from Brussels. That is an example of where the treaty of Lisbon enhances the powers of national parliaments.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the noble and Europhile Lords are struggling to find examples.

[A noble Lord]

We are not struggling at all.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I am afraid that I do not find them very convincing. The drift of all treaty changes, starting in 1972, has been to remove power from the nation states and to pass it to Brussels. Therefore, when we assume that under this clause provisions will come forward that do not transfer power from this country to Brussels, that really is the triumph of hope over experience.

[Lord Grenfell]

The noble Lord keeps referring to removing powers. Would he not accept that there is a principle of pooling powers, which is very different? It means that we share authority so that we can find results for the common good of Europe. Of course, when you pool powers you are not simply saying, “I give up all authority”; you are saying, “Together we will use our individual powers to find a means of pooling it for the common good”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

No. I am afraid that I am among those who regard sovereignty as being rather like virginity; you either have it or you do not. Certainly, in all those parts of the treaty that are now subject to qualified majority voting, where we have some 9 per cent of the votes, we have in effect given up power. I really do not think that there is any doubt about that.

[Lord Deben]

Perhaps I may talk about the question of virginity. In the matter of air pollution, we do not have sovereignty over half the air pollution that affects my former constituents and the noble Lord’s neighbours. By pooling our sovereignty, we now share the sovereignty over all the air pollution and we can do something about it. By doing that, we have increased our sovereignty. If I may say so, the noble Lord really misleads people when he talks about sovereignty as if it is something that in the modern world means keeping everything. I remind him of the biblical concept that if you want to gain something, you share it, which surely is the point of the European Union.

[Lord Taverne]

Perhaps I may put two further examples to the noble Lord. He is very conscientious and I am sure that he read carefully every word that was spoken at Second Reading. What about the examples that have been given? The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, previously referred to defence equipment, an area in which we would have an enormous amount to gain if we shared sovereignty. Presently, we do not.

My second example, patents, was given by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. Are these not perfect examples of where we gain enormously from sharing a certain amount of authority instead of keeping it entirely in a narrow sense?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I cannot accept those points from the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Taverne. Why could we not have done these great things by intergovernmental collaboration? Why did we need to pool our sovereignty to achieve them? On the environment, if the noble Lord, Lord Deben, as he did in his speech, is going to extol his 16 years in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as an Agriculture Minister, is he really going to tell your Lordships that he is all that proud of that? What about the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy? These are also examples of the EU’s environmental control over what used to be our sovereign territory.

[Lord Deben]

I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would like to say the same about the last 16 years of the Houses of Parliament. It would be quite possible to say that a lot of things were done here in a way that he does not like, but would he suggest that we should leave the parliamentary system because he does not like some of the things that are done? All we are saying to him is that sharing sovereignty gains and does not lose, and that this particular clause has nothing to do with sharing sovereignty because it actually excludes anything that does share sovereignty. Why is he talking about sharing sovereignty in relation to this particular amendment when it refers specifically to internal housekeeping decisions that have nothing to do with sharing or transferring sovereignty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

The noble Lord brings me nicely on to my next point, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, when he said that we ought to have confidence in the other member states. Of course I accept that under Article 48(6) the Government of the day have the power of veto, but as I understand it, that is not what we are envisaging here. We are envisaging a Government of the day that have not used the power of veto and something has come forward which the British people might not like. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that pretty much anything put in front of the British people on matters European will be voted down in a referendum, and that the supporters of these amendments seem to be very fearful of the judgment of the British people.

When I say that the other member states, Brussels and the whole machine simply cannot be trusted to follow the treaties, I speak with history behind me. I would mention, for instance, Article 308, about which I have regaled your Lordships over many years. This article was put into the treaty to allow the Council of Ministers, by unanimity, to make small adjustments to the original Common Market and so on. I could take noble Lords through the abuse of Article 308 and all the powers that have been passed to Brussels under it, but I will not do so.

Let us take the abuse of Article 122 as recently as June before last. That article, which clearly allows member states to help each other in times of natural disaster, was taken under qualified majority voting—the British Government did not have a hope of stopping it—to force us to sign up to some 14 per cent of £50 billion for the European financial stability mechanism.

I really do not think that those of us on the Eurosceptic spectrum, of whom there are a few in your Lordships’ House, can accept that all this is going to follow properly in the Council of Ministers. I will not respond now to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, about roaming charges, but I think there was another one that had something to do with audio-visual equipment. That was in response to a long line of Questions for Written Answer from my noble friends Lord Tebbit and Lord Vinson. I am afraid I have to stick to my guns. With all due respect to noble Lords who sit on our European Union committees, I really do not think that they have made enough difference over the years to justify their existence.

So there it is. I think that this part of the Bill is reasonable if we envisage a British Government after this Government are no longer with us—this Government can veto anything, and they have said that they are going to, so this is not going to happen for five years —who have agreed to something in the Council of Ministers that ought to be put in front of the British people. I simply do not accept that the treaty will be obeyed, as it has never been obeyed in the past.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that the European Union Committee has never made any difference—I declare an interest as I was its chairman for some years. Perhaps I may quote to him one fact. Many years ago, when Mario Monti, the Commissioner, set about a big review of the competition regulation, we got off the mark very quickly. We got hold of the Green Paper and did an extensive inquiry into it. We interviewed the Commissioner and presented our conclusions to Her Majesty's Government before they went in to negotiate in the Council. They said that they thought that what we said was extremely useful. They advanced their arguments, and it had an impact on the final result. So it is a little unfair to say that those 90 Members of your Lordships' House who work week in, week out on those committees do not make an impact—they certainly do.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I really do not mean to offend the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, or any of the other 90 noble Lords who sit on those committees. I merely point out—for instance, on the scrutiny reserve—that successive British Governments have over many years given an undertaking, which unfortunately is not legally binding, that they will not agree to any new piece of Euro-power-grabbing in Brussels if either the Select Committee in your Lordships' House or in the other place is still considering it and if it has not been debated. The latest Written Answer to me on this—I may not have got the statistic quite right—indicates that the scrutiny reserve has been broken no fewer than 434 times in the past five years. That is 434 pieces of European legislation that were under scrutiny by our scrutiny committees when the Government went ahead and signed up to them, because there was not time or because Brussels had moved ahead—all sorts of excuses.

My final word on your Lordships’ European Union Select Committee should be that perhaps one committee and a couple of sub-committees would do the job very well, and the resources could be freed up to do the work in committee which your Lordships' House does extraordinarily well. That is pretty well everything else apart from its European work. I oppose the amendments.

[Lord Kinnock]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, says that he wants to stick to his guns, I am inclined to hope that he goes very near to the muzzle of those guns—indeed, just in front—because that would be a suitable location. However, his courtesy prevents me taking up such a stance. I cannot, however, avoid straying just a little bit into his assessment of the consequences of our membership of the European Union and that of 26 other democracies. His conclusion—indeed, his starting point—is always that we are subject to what he calls a power grab and that powers have been given up, taken, removed and transferred. No concession is made by the noble Lord or those who agree with him to the reality that, in the modern world—where so few significant decisions can be taken by single states, no matter how big, how strong or how rich—it is sensible, strictly and literally in the national interest, to pool some power in order to extend the power of a democratic state. The illustration was given perfectly by the noble Lord, Lord Gummer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kinnock]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I will show him this piece of paper afterwards.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

That is the point that I was attempting to make. As unanimity applies in this clause, we could have a British Government who say that the change, whatever it was, met the terms of this clause, whereas in fact—as we have often seen in matters European—it did not. That is the point that I was trying to make.

[Lord Kinnock]

As the conduit between two noble Lords of polar opposite opinions—and, as usual, in my role of gentle arbitrator, dispassionate and non-partisan—I could show this piece of paper to the noble Lord opposite at the end of this discussion. He will see, foolishly written down by me, “Gummer”, because that is the very point that I was going not only to make but to attribute to the noble Lord.

Reference was made earlier to a great Shakespearean tragedy, “Othello”. We have quickly moved from Shakespearean references to tragedy to the Bill’s references to farce. It is farcical for a provision to be made which would ensure that this member state and 26 others unanimously have to adopt a position, make it subject—rightly—to the constitutional requirements of each member state and then, because they have introduced a particular additional constitutional requirement of making a judgment on the significance of what has been before the Council, come back and either take the risk of saying—in accordance with what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would prefer—that they do not think that this change should be subject to a referendum, or make complete fools of themselves nationally and internationally by saying that they think that it should be subject to a referendum despite the fact that they have not only voted for it in the Council but come back and proposed it to this sovereign Parliament. What could be more idiotic or inane than that? I wonder why sensible people in both parties in the Government have allowed themselves to be subjected to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I have a great many objections to this Bill under three broad headings. The first is the constitutional damage this Bill would do if it was enacted. I totally agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, has said but, as he said himself, this is not the moment to go into that as we shall have other opportunities on amendments relating to referenda in Clause 18.

Secondly, I am concerned about the honesty of the Bill. I made the point at Second Reading that although it purports to offer referenda on a vast range of potential subjects, it seemed quite clear that there would in practice be no chance of referenda ever taking place on some of these secondary or tertiary issues and that the Bill is therefore something of a fraud on the public. I am quite concerned that there is another fraud going on here, which I will come to in a moment.

Thirdly, I am concerned about the practical implications of the Bill and there I agree again with what the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, just said. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made it absolutely clear in moving his amendment that there is a serious discrepancy between the way that the Bill was presented as protecting the British public against any further concessions of power to the European Union—the entire rhetoric was that there will now be this block with a referendum—and the inclusion of decisions made under Article 48(6), which quite clearly and explicitly excludes any extensions of the powers of the European Union.

In fact, we have been offered a Bill with so-called protection for the public against a threat but which includes a provision that, by definition, could not form part of that threat. One has to ask why that has been done. Is it a matter of drafting carelessness? Surely not; the references to Article 48(6) are absolutely clear and deliberate. There are several of them throughout the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his co-signatories to the amendment have gone through the Bill and addressed them wherever they arise. There is clearly a deliberate intention here to go beyond what is in my view—I know it is a value judgment, but it is my view—the already extreme rhetoric with which this Bill was presented. The reality is even more extreme and one has to ask: why is that? Why is there an intention to have a referendum on matters which, by definition, cannot involve increasing the powers of or conceding capabilities to the European Union? I hope that the Minister will address this issue, as I cannot imagine that we could have an honest debate on this subject without it being explicitly addressed.

I also hope that there might be more contributions from the Lib Dems in the course of debate on this set of amendments. I suspect that a lot of Lib Dems were dragged, kicking and screaming, into supporting the notion of the Bill on the basis that all it did was to provide for a referendum in the event that further powers were being conceded to the European Union. In fact, the Bill that has come up is much more restrictive and goes far further. I do not know whether every member of the Lib Dem party has appreciated the significance of explicitly including Article 48(6) as it is being done, or of what that means. It puts much more of a brake on the European Union’s day-to-day activities, which I will come on to in a moment, than was ever suggested in announcing the intention to move forward with this legislation. It is particularly important that the Lib Dems, both in this Committee and in the country as a whole, have an opportunity to think really carefully about Article 48(6) before they decide what their ultimate attitude is towards the Bill. It would be artificial if we did not hear from more Lib Dems in the course of our proceedings, including on this amendment.

The third issue that concerns me about the Bill in general—I come particularly to the issues covered by this amendment—is its practical consequences. Before we pass any legislation, it is terribly important for this House to think through what its practical consequences will be. If you are sitting on a board of directors at a business and deciding whether to take a particular decision, you think pretty carefully about its practical consequences. You may ask your support staff and so forth, or you may ask legal advisers or other outside advisers such as management consultants, “What would be the consequences of our doing X, Y and Z”? You ask people, come up with as many possible answers as you can and weigh them carefully before you decide on the balance of advantage or disadvantage in going forward or not. It is important to look at particular cases.

Since the Government have set out for us in Schedule 1 the sort of issues which would require a referendum under the Bill, at least by way of an illustration which is not exhaustive and does not exclude other issues, we should think through in the course of the Committee’s proceedings what would happen if this Bill became an Act and was now on the statute book, and practical decisions needed to be taken in any of these categories. I shall take a few at random, without taking up too much time. Take, for example, Article 77(3) on,

“provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits etc.”.

Some people would say, “We’re not part of Schengen so that doesn’t concern us at all”. If that were the case, why would we need a referendum on the subject? It baffles me. One can well imagine a situation in which we could not cut ourselves off from, let us say, immigration issues in the Schengen area. We remember the problems that we had with Sangatte, with a large number of illegal immigrants from France concentrating themselves in Calais with a view to trying to steal through the Channel tunnel in one form or another or on to ferries and come into this country. It was a serious practical problem for us. There was no point in using philosophical arguments to deal with it; it needed to be dealt with in a practical way. There are many possible scenarios that one can imagine where we will need to sit around a table with our partners and come to a sensible agreed solution to deal with, let us say, a massive and difficult immigration issue or threat that has suddenly arisen.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Surely the noble Lord would agree that if we had not pooled our sovereignty, as noble Lords like to call it, in the matter of immigration, which he has raised, if we had kept control of our borders and if the previous Government had not deliberately lowered our borders and our immigration, particularly to people from the European Union, the problem would not have arisen. Surely the answer is simply not to have been in the EU, not to be in the EU in future and to control our own borders. It is a no-brainer, isn’t it?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I think that by a “no-brainer” the noble Lord means giving the same answer to any question that is asked in any context whatsoever: that we should never have gone into the European Union. The noble Lord is fundamentally flawed in his analysis of the national interest in this area, but if I actually addressed his comments I should be making a speech about the reasons why we are in the EU. All I will say is that we have kept control of our borders. We have not joined Schengen although—and we should never forget this—we have a common travel zone with the Republic of Ireland, so we have a mini-Schengen. That is another reason why we cannot simply suppose that we can draw up the moat here and do what the devil we like; we need to discuss with the Republic of Ireland what it is doing in relation to Schengen at any one time, otherwise we should have to set up a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic or something of that sort, which would have all kinds of consequences that we would not want to contemplate.

I mention this to the noble Lord merely because, while I was not very optimistic that I would persuade him about anything, these matters are extremely complex and we cannot act as if we are in isolation in this world. There is a whole range of interdependencies—I was going to say “interdependabilities”—that we have with countries that surround us. That is a natural part of things and we should not reject it. We should be prepared to come to sensible, common-sensical, mutually advantageous arrangements with our partners on a pragmatic basis and we should not cut ourselves off from the possibility of reaching agreement with them—but that is exactly what the Bill does.

What would happen if there were a pragmatic, sensible solution of this kind dealing with, say, provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits and so forth? The British Minister would be paralysed and would not be able to take part in the discussion at all. If the British Minister even started entering the discussion, he would immediately be guilty of bad faith. Everyone around the table would say, “This guy’s not serious; he’s not for real. Il n’est pas sérieux. He’s not going to have a referendum on this but he can’t agree it without a referendum, so why’s he sitting in the room at all? What’s this guy doing wasting our time?”. No one would be so rude and undiplomatic as to say that out loud, but that would be the effect. We would be sending Ministers to Brussels to find themselves in that extremely embarrassing situation. Do we really want to conduct our international relations, let alone those with such important partners and neighbours as our fellow members of the EU, on that basis? It is extraordinary.

Let us look at police co-operation, covered by Article 87(3). It does not need very much imagination, for people who have had some experience of public life like ourselves, to know that out of the blue you can suddenly have a very nasty threat. It can be something to do with terrorism, and clearly we are all concerned about that; there is a Bill going through the House at the moment. I sit on a Joint Committee with the House of Commons examining the contingent terrorist detention Bill, as noble Lords will know. We are rightly concerned that something will happen out of the blue. I will give way to the noble Baroness; I am just finishing my sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

These amendments are extremely important. We on this side of the House believe that the provisions of the Bill are not at all realistic or practical. They are from the world of Eurosceptic fantasies. They raise difficult legal issues and difficult political issues. Worst of all, they just do not make practical sense.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I wonder whether I could press the noble Lord to give an answer to a question that I put to other noble Lords but which they did not answer. Why does he think that the European Union, Brussels and so on, will stay within the legal confines of the treaty? Of course, Article 48(6) says that it shall not be used to increase the competences conferred on the Union in the treaties. The two examples that I gave, to which I would like the noble Lord to reply, are the European Union’s abuse of what was Article 308, which is now Article 352. I did not weary your Lordships with all the examples of where that abuse was manifest, but I shall give the reference if anybody wants to find it. In future, students of these matters may want to consult Hansard for 18 June 2008 at col. 1074. That is a clear example of where a clause designed to allow the Council to take action,

“in the course of the operation of the Common Market”,

was used to do all sorts of other things. When it came before the Luxembourg Court for judgment in 1996, those words were simply ignored by the Court. I gave noble Lords the example of Article 308 in the past. I also give noble Lords the example of Article 122, which was used in the interregnum between one Government and another. Can the noble Lord answer those points and set your Lordships’ mind at rest that Article 48(6) will be followed, unlike the way in which those articles—and there are more flexibility clauses—have not been obeyed in the past?

[Lord Liddle]

With the greatest respect, I think that the noble Lord is confusing two things. I am looking in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I think that Article 48(6) deals with cases where there is a clear competence—for instance, in the case that I was talking about of the single market in financial services and in the previous case about the euro, the establishment of economic and monetary union and of a single currency. I think that the noble Lord is talking about the general clauses which are now subject, under the Lisbon treaty, to considerable constraints. I will look into that and perhaps we can have a discussion.