European Union: Recent Developments

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I shall also concentrate on one issue—justice and home affairs. What are the Government’s reasons for exercising the block opt-out? Two reasons were given at a recent Law Society conference. The first was that the European Court of Justice will impose a Europe-wide criminal justice system and will erode our common law. This was also an argument advanced by the chairman of the Conservative Party and Mr Raab’s paper. The second argument presented by Mr Booth, who wrote the definitive paper for Open Europe on the subject, was that the present arrangements—as far as the police and crime questions were concerned—promoted an unnecessary supranational approach to cross-border police co-operation when bilateral arrangements could do just as well.

At this meeting, the view of the Law Society on the first point was unanimous: fears of the European Court of Justice were unjustified. The idea of a Brussels plot to impose a single common justice system on the whole of the European Union was a Euro-myth, rather like the stories that appeared in the Eurosceptic press that Brussels would ban corgi dogs, double-decker buses, barristers’ wigs and the burial of pets in gardens unless they had been pressure-cooked beforehand.

On the second question, the police were unanimous in their opposition to the opt-out. Britain has played a leading role in the development of EU police and crime institutions and initiatives and in developing—something very important—EU-wide databases. The British police and their methods are greatly admired and respected on the continent. A British policeman is the head of Europol. Britain hosts the training college for Europol at Bramshill. Britain has led many major transnational criminal investigations and has played a major role in the institution of the joint investigation teams.

Serious crime has increasingly become a cross-border activity and can be dealt with effectively only by cross-border policing, Europe-wide, not just through bilateral national co-operation. That is surely so obvious that it is unarguable. It is true of the porn trade, paedophilia rings, people trafficking—of children and prostitutes—drug dealing, money laundering, terrorist financing, cybercrime and a lot of financial fraud. There are any number of activities in which criminals are becoming ever more sophisticated and operate ever more across national borders.

Look at the successes of Europol and Europe-wide police activities. Paedophile rings have been broken up; people managing the smuggling of thousands of illegal immigrants have been stopped; a crime ring smuggling children into Britain has been broken; and people promoting the cross-border trade in prostitutes have been stopped. The list is much longer than that.

The European arrest warrant has proved a considerable benefit. It has dramatically reduced the time and cost of bringing back criminal suspects who have fled to different parts of Europe and of sending back from Britain those wanted for crimes committed abroad who would otherwise be committing their crimes here. There were some serious flaws in the warrant, that is perfectly true, but these have been addressed and, according to the Baker review, are being remedied. If we are to play a part in seeing that the reforms are the right ones, the last thing that we should do is opt out.

The opt-outers say that we can opt back into the anticrime activities. That would be much less simple than is claimed. There will be objections, and there will certainly be delays during which British staff will have to leave the agencies. How stupid we will look if we withdraw from activities of which we have been one of the main promoters. If we seek to opt back in to them once we have withdrawn, it will destroy our reputation in an important area where it is now high. If we do opt back into these activities and institutions, what happens then? They will once again come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. So much for one of the main objections to the justice and home affairs provisions, and for the opt-out from them.

The Government would be wise to take note of two normally conservative institutions: the Law Society and the police. Both are against the opt-out. Neither is notable for euro-fanaticism. The police in particular take a very pragmatic line. Who would benefit from the opt-out? Those who benefit would be the paedophiles, the porn merchants, the people traffickers, the child exploiters, the drug dealers, the clever fraudsters, the money launderers and, indeed, the terrorists. One of the prime duties of a Government is to protect their citizens from crime. How will the opt-out help? Who knows better about that than the police? The opt-out would prejudice the safety of the British people.

I hope that my noble friends on the Conservative Benches will note what the current head of Europol, Rob Wainwright, wrote in a paper in May:

“in my world, the EU works”.

I end with a quotation from that well-known Eurofanatic, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. She said in her Bruges speech:

“I want to see us work more closely on the things we can do better together than alone. Europe is stronger when we do so”.

Government of France: Meetings

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

On the second point, there has been a signal that they wish to enhance co-operation in a number of areas. On the question of welcoming opposition candidates to London, my right honourable friend is not physically in a position to be able to meet every opposition candidate. Other leaders such as Chancellor Merkel and Mr Monti in Italy did not meet Monsieur Hollande before he became President, but that was not taken as a snub or an offence; it was a perfectly normal procedure. Now they have met and have got on very well.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, will the Government discuss with the French President the problem that the present programme of imposed austerity offers no prospect whatever to either Greece or possibly Spain of ever recovering from depression?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

There is emerging an understanding, not least from the contribution of the new French President but also from discussions with Germany—and, indeed, from the latest moves in relation to the banking union and the proposals for bank recapitalisation for Spain—that some balance has to be struck. Whether that will mean some easing of the conditions for Greece or not, I do not know. These matters are now being discussed between the eurozone countries. There is a sensible way forward and obviously my noble friend makes the perfectly valid point that if the cure is so violent that it kills the patient, it is not much of a cure.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I want to speak about our relations with our partners in the European Union. The eurozone crisis is the worst problem we have faced for many decades. As a non-member, Britain has little direct influence. However, our reaction has been to lecture our colleagues, the eurozone Governments, and more often than not to insist that whatever happens we will resist any infringement of our sovereignty. The first is uncalled for and merely serves to irritate our partners. The second increases Britain’s isolation and gravely damages our national interests.

It is worth looking back at why Europe has achieved what it has achieved. The European Union is based on sharing a degree of sovereignty for the common benefit. It replaces national rivalries with a mutual interest in co-operation. This benefits all members in a number of ways. First, it benefits us economically, through the single market. Even the most sceptical anti-Europeans agree that the single market increases our prosperity. However, there would be no effective single market without qualified majority voting—that is, without a degree of shared sovereignty, which we originally supported. Incidentally, we have never been outvoted on qualified majority voting.

Secondly, the EU benefits us through promoting free trade. Without a common European position in trade negotiations, world trade barriers would be much higher than they are. Protectionism is a constant danger, especially at a time of recession, and even some EU countries would like to bring back a degree of protection, but the EU treaty and competition law stop them. Thirdly, it benefits the environment. The European Union, as a group, is the strongest force in the world for action on manmade climate change.

On the political front, co-operation has made least progress, but even here there are huge achievements. The democratic values that the EU stands for have spread to the ex-communist countries and former dictatorships. Enlargement has been one of the EU’s historic achievements, in which we have played a major part. Incidentally, if Greece is forced out of the eurozone—and possibly out of the European Union—it is quite possible that it will return to the dictatorship that ruled before it became a member.

The European Union could act more effectively as a counterweight to the United States and China, which would greatly benefit the world. Both those large countries want a more united Europe with a stronger voice; they are not interested in a Britain which becomes more and more isolated from the Union. We could play a much more effective part in the Middle East, for example, where America’s role as a mediator is hampered by the influence of the Zionist lobby in Congress.

However, successive British Governments have refused to recognise the advantages and importance of sharing a degree of sovereignty. They have talked constantly of red lines; they boast about the battles won against the dastardly continentals trying to do us down. What has been the result? It has been a constant erosion of our influence. Gradually, we are edging more and more into the sidelines. The European Union Act of last year stopped any further moves to more effective sharing of sovereignty, even in cases where it is in our interests. The so-called veto of last December achieved nothing except to exasperate our partners, including our closest allies, and isolate us further.

Soon, we will face crucial decisions for our future. Will we contribute extra funds to the IMF? It seems that the Government are disposed to do so. Will they stand firm against the anti-European lobby, which has proved a very powerful influence in the past? It is likely that, next month, there will be a European Union growth pact, separate from the new treaty. Will we back it? It is vital that this should be a pact of 27, not of 17, and certainly not one of 25 or 26.

We will face decisions on the future of banking in the European Union, crucial to the future of the City. What will happen to the fourth capital requirements directive and the plans for a banking union, with its system for shared guarantees? What will our position be? Of course we have some special interests that we cannot ignore, but they must be considered in perspective. They must take account of our common interests with the rest of the European Union and, above all, the grave danger and damages that would be a consequence of our isolation.

Outside the eurozone, we are already without a voice in the measures to save it. In other areas, the eurozone will take decisions that affect us in important ways. We have placed our negotiators at a huge disadvantage by virtue of last year’s European Union Act, but we still have important cards to play. Germany does not want to be left alone to fight protectionism and dirigisme. France and Britain together can still provide a basis for a European Union defence policy, despite recent divisions about aircraft for our carriers. However, what we badly need is a sense of direction and vision, not a self-defeating obsession to preserve every inch of sovereignty.

EU: Recent Developments

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Thursday 16th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I challenge the conventional wisdom that prevails in much of the media, and most of the Conservative Party, that the eurozone is a disaster; that it was always bound to be a disaster; and that we are wonderfully fortunate not to be part of it. Certainly, at its inception, the eurozone made very important mistakes. There was a lack of fiscal co-ordination. I always thought that Pisani-Ferry was right in advocating an economic directorate not dissimilar to what is now proposed.

There is also no doubt that a European monetary union faces considerable disadvantages. Having one interest rate to fit all is a disadvantage; it cannot be denied that it creates problems. There is a problem, too, as many have acknowledged, with peripheral countries competing without the ability to devalue. It has been said that this makes convergence impossible. However, there was convergence within the European monetary union involving many peripheral states until there was a complete breakdown in fiscal discipline and a failure to achieve structural reform.

I do not think it is possible to say that Poland could not possibly join a monetary union because it is on the periphery. I think Poland, with its fiscal discipline, is in a good position to join a monetary union. Nobody talks about Ireland. Ireland suffered severely from the recent crisis, but it is interesting that there is no call within any of the three major parties there to leave the monetary union. Their view is that, overall, they have benefited from the euro.

It is part of this official story that we have done brilliantly by staying out. I am not advocating at this particular moment that we should join the euro, but there is a general view that we are so much better off because we stayed out. The main question is: have we really done so well by staying out? That certainly was the implication of the Prime Minister’s lecture to his partners at Davos, to which my noble friend Lord Newby referred. Have we had faster growth since the euro was first introduced? No, we have not. Have we had lower inflation than the eurozone during this period? No, we have not. Our inflation rate has been about double the eurozone average. In fact, inflation in Germany was lower than it was before the euro when it was still being governed by the Bundesbank. Have we achieved higher productivity? No, we have not. Have we achieved trade surpluses? No, we have not. When did we last have a current account surplus? Have we achieved lower budget deficits than most of the eurozone? Our budget deficit was about the same as that of Greece.

Of course the eurozone needs reform, but was it really appropriate for the Prime Minister to lecture his partners and suggest that they should follow our brilliant example? Also—I do not think he has much feel for Europe—was it wise for him at Mansion House to start by boasting that he was a Eurosceptic? That is not exactly the way to achieve the maximum co-operation from his partners.

A further boast is that the Anglo-Saxon model—this again was the implication of the Prime Minister’s Davos lecture—is infinitely superior to the social capitalism model in Europe. Of course, the Anglo-Saxon model has virtues and advantages, but today the disadvantages are rather more obvious. Our official declared principle is to maximise shareholder value, making assets sweat. What is the result? It is short-termism. In hard times, we reduce the labour force and seek to maintain dividends, even at the expense of investment. In Germany, in hard times, the tendency is to reduce dividends, minimise dismissals and maintain investment. Top pay as a ratio of the pay of the average employee is many times higher in the UK than it is Germany. Companies in Britain are for sale to the highest bidder, and employees’ views do not count. In Germany, through Mitbestimmung, employees have more say. They feel more secure in their jobs, they are more committed to companies and they are more inclined to increase the efficiency of their company because through security they make suggestions for innovation. This is part of the reason that German companies are so efficient at exporting and are so competitive.

Then there is the other question to which many speakers have referred: our influence in the world. After the veto, some sections of the Conservative Party seemed to glory in our splendid isolation, but we have become less influential. In the past, the talk in Europe was about what would be the attitude of Germany, Britain and France; now it is only a question of what will be the views of Germany and France. As the eurozone will grow closer and more unified—that is certainly likely to be the trend—we will become more marginalised. We will have no voice, no influence and no votes in the summits of the eurozone.

Do we really want a stronger voice for Europe in the outside world? China is a very important case in point. China would like to see a more effective European Union. It wants more co-operation with the EU, but that depends very much on closer unity, both economic and in foreign affairs. A recent, very interesting paper for the Schuman Foundation by Karine Lisbonne-de Vergeron points out what the attitudes in China are. We are now in great danger that we will decline as a voice of influence inside the European Union, that our influence will decline in relation to Asia, and, if we move away from the European centre, that our influence will also decline in the United States.

The Government are now trying to move away from the heady days of the veto, when the Prime Minister was greeted with cheers from his Back-Benchers. I hope that the Government—as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Howell, indicated—are firm now in their apparent view that we must maximise our influence. This is no time for myopic little Englanders.

EU: Treaties

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think that the noble Lord, in his enthusiasm for these matters, is getting a bit confused. This is an intergovernmental treaty; it is not going forward inside the European Union. The British Government are anxious that there should be orderly development of the eurozone and that obviously it should not collapse into chaos. Nevertheless, as I think the noble Lord himself has written, it has “design flaws” in it—I think those were his words—and therefore there has to be caution and care about the whole way in which it is carried forward. Certainly, the UK does not want to be involved in a treaty that supports a flawed system. We want to be supportive of a design for the future which is sustainable and which brings prosperity, not division, to Europe. That is the position. What is the role of the European Union institutions? We do not want to throw sand in the machine. If some of them can usefully be used in the aim of building a better euro system, we will support them, but we are reserving our position on exactly which institutions should be used and how they should be used. Our general attitude is supportive and constructive, and we are involved, as ever, in the machinery of building a prosperous and competitive Europe and a good single market. These remain our aims and we are taking a leading position on them.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, is the report in the Financial Times correct that the Government are giving a measure of support—it seems somewhat conditional—to the idea that those who signed the intergovernmental treaty can use the institutions of the community, including the Court of Justice? Does this have the support of the whole Cabinet, including the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? Secondly, in his evidence before the House of Commons Select Committee on 11 January, the Chancellor said that the Government, in December, would have preferred to sign the proposed treaty had it included safeguards to protect the proper regulation of the City. Since the new treaty now includes safeguards that prevent it applying to the single market, what prevents the Government taking further steps towards re-engagement in Europe and signing the treaty?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

There are two points there. As I said earlier, we have reserved our position as to which institutions of the EU as a whole should be usefully deployed in supporting the policing of this intergovernmental treaty. We have reserved our position on that. The report in the Times sounded a bit further forward than that and is not correct.

As to the Chancellor’s views, he has made it clear all along that a treaty that was going to reinforce a eurozone that was sustainable and which met a whole range of conditions, including full implementation of the October agreements, solving the Greek debt problem, recapitalisation of the banks and a proper liquidity structure throughout Europe, was the kind of thing that we would have supported, but that is not on the table at the moment. We will have to see how the intergovernmental treaty works, which of the existing 26 agree to it—not all of them may—and, as it proceeds, we will be supportive. But we do not want to sign up to the eurozone as it is because, as the noble Lord opposite said, and as all observers now recognise, despite their views to the contrary many years ago, the system is design-flawed.

European Union Bill

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I support the amendment. The main consideration is that if the Government do not relent on this question they will be in denial on issues to do with the workability of the scheme. I will give some examples.

First, it is proposed that these referenda be mandatory on the Government. Secondly, it was said by the noble Lord in a previous session that it might be rather inconvenient if there were a whole string of different referendums and so they could be grouped together in some way for the purpose of having them on a certain date. The issue of EU energy taxation being extended or some other legal question on an industrial matter might be put together for the purpose of the referendum day. This taxes the imagination. I have tried to imagine that I am sitting listening to a conversation in a pub in Burton-on-Trent. After all, this is the demotic that we are all being asked to say is so much more important than parliamentary democracy. So, I am sitting in a pub in Burton-on-Trent, and after a discussion on what is running in the 2.30 at Newmarket, Fred says to his mate Alec, “What are you doing on this thing that they want us to vote on tomorrow?”. “No idea, Fred, it’s all Greek to me”, replies Alec.

How do we know that the people want all these referendums? How much time would elapse in Brussels if we simply, as the awkward squad, sat for several months on a whole string of items until the famous day when they could be brought together? That looks so totally unreasonable that people in Europe—they are friends of ours, presumably; we are in a Community—might say, “If you are a member of a club, you ought to be more co-operative than that. If you carry on as you are, you might as well get out”. If we held a referendum on staying in or getting out, I am pretty confident that the staying in vote would win. There might be consensus on that, but it is not the subject of this amendment. This is a vicious circle. If you want to be a member of a club, you have to co-operate. If I carried on like this in my tennis club, it might be suggested that I joined another club more suited to my temperament. The Government do not have the candour to say what they want to do because I do not think that some of their members would agree with that position. However, they want to go as near as they can to implying what they want to do.

In practice, this amendment meets the test set by the Constitution Committee. I think that there is consensus in the House on it.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I do not think that it can be disputed that the Bill in its present form makes it infinitely more difficult to stick to the constitutional principle announced by the Scrutiny Committee that referenda should be restricted to matters of fundamental constitutional significance. Why would a spread of more plebiscites be so dangerous? It is because the system of parliamentary government has been far superior in preserving certain rights, particularly minority rights, than would be the case with referenda and plebiscites. For example, one can imagine the populist propaganda that would pour out further to restrict asylum seekers and make this a less civilised country. That would apply also to those suspected of committing terrorist offences. We have heard some examples of that. However, this goes beyond minority rights and individual rights. What about protectionism? “British jobs for British people” was Mr Brown’s ill advised slogan. If protectionism had spread throughout Europe or throughout the world after the crash, we would be in an infinitely worse position. As regards tax, is not the example of California, which is now a bankrupt state, a very good reason for not allowing the spread of referenda?

Europe Day

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that what he has just recounted is quite different from the kind of major speech that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has called for? Is it not true that the Minister has given the impression that we are wonderfully clear of any problems because the eurozone crisis is a matter for the Europeans and that all we are concerned about is not paying any money?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I seem to be finding difficulty in communicating today because I have just given the opposite impression in great detail. I quoted my right honourable friend; I quote many other Ministers and I could quote myself ad nauseam. We are all extremely concerned with the stability of the eurozone. Going back 10 years, I admit it is perfectly true that some of us might not have thought that the idea of the eurozone was going to be perfect sweetness and roses all the way and there has been some proof of that. However, now it is here we have to make this work and see that the southern countries of Europe can overcome their terrible economic difficulties. It is utterly in our interests to do so, as my right honourable friends have said again and again. There is no such alternative impression.

European Union Bill

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am not advocating that at all. It would be a matter for the House of Commons to decide. The House of Commons and this House would have to take account of the nature of the campaign and the strength of the vote and the arguments that are put forward. The pressure of a referendum in itself, however big the turnout, will be a major factor in the considerations which are taken by the elected Members. I am not comfortable with the idea of cutting Parliament out when there may have been a low turnout. By the way, I was also not comfortable with accepting these arguments when I rejected them not many weeks ago in the context of having a threshold on the AV referendum.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I want to make three short points. First, I refer to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who always argues his case with great force and effectiveness. However, on this occasion, it seemed rather strange. He said that if there is a low vote, it simply proves the lack of enthusiasm for the European Community, and the fact that people will not vote is equivalent to a no vote. The circumstances, as has just been pointed out, will be whether the Government support a change in the law. Suppose the next Government are a Conservative Government. They are not likely to make a major transfer of powers to Brussels. On some of these minor matters in Schedule 1, they might see the advantage in not having a veto and make that part of their case. If there is a very low vote, it is a toss-up as to which way it will go, but a 10 per cent vote in favour of a transfer of power and 9 per cent against is a quite a likely result. In effect, the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is that it makes a transfer of power more likely.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says that it is not likely that there would be an individual vote on some of the minor matters set out in Schedule 1 because they would be packaged, which is also what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, has told us on a number of occasions. But a package is particularly unsuitable to the referendum process. Let us suppose that some people in the country are passionately concerned about joining the European public prosecutor’s office, while others are passionately concerned not to have an extra judge in the European Court of Justice. Yet others may be very concerned about not having a new protocol for the deficit procedure. All those issues may be part of a package. Which way should people vote if they are in favour of one and against another? What should they do? It makes a nonsense of any sort of referendum.

The second point I want to make is that if this amendment is not passed, we are likely to be left with referendums on some of these minor matters. Are they really going to bind this country closer to Europe and reconnect the public with Brussels? Are they going to make Brussels more popular? Of course it is a result that I do not necessarily approve of, but would it not make referenda less and less popular with the public?

That brings me to my last point. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to Burke. I should like to comment on that since I was the first person to bring Burke into the argument. In his doctrine, Burke says that the will of the people should always prevail; it is the anti-Rousseau argument. What is interesting is that while there have been some tests of it, although only a very few, they suggest that Burke is actually quite popular. I shall give two examples. In my speech at Second Reading, I referred to a by-election in which I resigned on an issue over which I was unpopular in the sense that a local poll showed a majority of three to two against our joining the European Community. But I argued for the principle of Burke that I was entitled to exercise my judgment, and Burke prevailed by a substantial majority. I can give another example. One of my neighbours where I lived until recently was a Conservative MP I greatly respected. He was the late Norman Miscampbell, who was a Member for Blackpool. Many people will remember that a police superintendent was murdered in that town, and a campaign was launched by his widow to restore the death penalty for the murder of a policeman. It had overwhelming support in Blackpool, but Norman Miscampbell, on principle and very bravely taking the Burke view, voted against the restoration of the death penalty. His fellow Conservative MP in Blackpool, the late Peter Blaker, supported the petition and voted in favour of it. At the next election, Norman Miscampbell’s vote increased by somewhat more than that of Peter Blaker. Burke is not unpopular. When they reflect on it, people think it very reasonable that Members of Parliament should exercise their own judgment and not act as puppets.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, perhaps I may make a few remarks in support of this amendment. I find some of the arguments that have been used against it quite bizarre. The noble Lord, Lord Risby, said that the vast majority of people in this country want these referendums. If so, he has nothing to fear from the amendment. If the vast majority of people in this country want referendums, more than 40 per cent of them will vote when a referendum question is put, and this Bill, as amended, will then provide mandatory outcomes. It has been suggested that this is all about engaging with the British people, but if we cannot get 40 per cent of the people to vote, is that not a failure to engage with the British people? Surely that is precisely what it is, which is why having a threshold makes sense.

I argue that we should not go down the primrose path of thinking that the referendum fashion is sweeping across Europe. First, we are not talking about Europe; we are talking about Britain. I do not see why we should accept that argument as valid in our case. In any case, I have a strong feeling that most people who have supported referendums around Europe now bitterly regret it. In the most recent one, last weekend, the Slovenians voted against raising the pensionable age to something quite a long way below the pensionable age in this country; not, I would have thought, a very sensible thing to have happened—something rather like the incinerator case, I suspect. I am very much in the same group as the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Forsyth. It is not a very good idea to have these referendums. The Government could quite easily have avoided most of the petty referendums by drawing up a much simpler Bill, but they chose to throw in the kitchen sink. Given that, the case for a threshold is really rather compelling and I therefore support the amendment.

European Union Bill

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taverne]

61: After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—
“Duration of Part 1 and Schedule 1
Part 1 and Schedule 1 shall expire on the day on which the Parliament in which this Act is passed dissolves.”

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment. At the end of the Committee stage it is time to see where we are and to review the overall effects of the Bill, which is highly relevant to my amendment for a sunset clause. The Bill is of course a compromise. In the election the Conservatives argued for the repatriation of powers from Brussels to the United Kingdom. This was always, in my view, an impossible promise, as well as a mistaken one, but it was in effect abandoned under the coalition agreement. The Liberal Democrats had to concede that any treaty amendment would require a referendum. The agreement also provided that passerelle changes would require primary legislation, which we all welcomed.

What has the compromise produced? At Second Reading and in the earlier stages of the Committee proceedings, some very powerful arguments were advanced that the detailed referendum requirements and the referendum lock would seriously damage our influence in Europe. In 56, or probably more, cases, the referendum trigger applies, and many of these triggers are minor. In many of these cases Britain would benefit from a change, yet the referendum lock will, in practice, make it impossible in negotiations for our representatives to support a proposed change, even if it benefits this country. If our partners favour a change, but our negotiators can do nothing but sit on their hands, it is likely that we will be bypassed under the enhanced co-operation procedure.

These arguments were advanced by Members of this House who, with great respect, have far more experience of proceedings and negotiations in Europe than members of the present Government. The noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Hannay and Lord Williamson, on the Cross Benches, have unequalled knowledge of how negotiations in the European Union work. We have also heard contributions from four ex-commissioners; from the formidable noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon; the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who has worked in the Commission; and from the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Triesman, who both have experience of negotiating in Brussels—long experience in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Those who worry about the effect of the Bill on our influence in Europe present a formidable array of cross-party and non-party expertise and talent. I humbly suggest that the Government should take their worries very seriously.

In any case, it is a very odd Bill. In effect, many of the Government’s arguments have led to the conclusion that the Bill is not needed at all. First, major treaty changes under the ordinary procedure will be subject to referenda. The Government have made it clear that they will use their veto to oppose such changes, so there can be no referendum for any major treaty changes. Next, treaty changes under the simplified procedure will be subject to a referendum, unless they are announced by the Government to be insignificant—an announcement that is subject to challenge in the courts. These changes are also subject to our veto and the Government will veto them, as they have said. There can be no referendum for treaty changes under the simplified procedure.

Passerelle changes that are subject to veto are now to be subject to a referendum as well. Since the Government will veto any transfer of powers, there can be no referendum in this case. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 set out in detail how and when the referendum lock will apply. Schedule 6 provides a long list of decisions where we cannot give up our veto and change to qualified majority voting without a referendum. However, there will be no referendum since we do not intend to give up our veto. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has said, this is a no-referendum Bill. In the words of Professor Vernon Bogdanor, it is also an Alice in Wonderland Bill.

We were assured by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in the course of his patient and eloquent defence of the Bill, that in any case no one else in Europe would want to transfer any major new powers to the European Union due to Lisbon fatigue, and because the European Union after Lisbon has all the powers that it would need in practice. If minor changes were envisaged they would be delayed and become part of a single passage that might be served up in many years’ time; although how such a package could be suitable for a yes or no answer in a referendum is not entirely clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Like him, I welcome the speech to be made by Mr Lidington. I do not wish the United Kingdom to be isolated in Europe—not for one minute. I believe that the Bill should help the United Kingdom to participate in decision-making in the European Union in matters where it is appropriate that we should do things together. It is necessary that we should make it clear where this country and this Parliament stand. We need this in order to define again the relationship of this country with the European Union. The people do not want to see more powers transferred to Brussels without their agreement.

[Lord Taverne]

Does the noble Viscount not see that if, as a result of the Bill and the difficulties placed on our negotiators, a procedure of enhanced co-operation was introduced for these regulations, it would not be to the City’s advantage?

Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I have spent some time in Brussels, Paris and the Netherlands, talking to regulators. It is very important that we continue to engage, and that our national regulators continue to engage, with those regulators. However, it is not at all to the City’s advantage to duplicate regulation. It is not to this country’s advantage to duplicate diplomatic representation. We cannot afford to have two sets of regulators—one at the European level and one at the national level—doing the same thing.

We cannot afford two Foreign Offices. When I was in Tokyo for the first time, in the 1980s, I used to visit the office of the European Commission in Japan. It was the precursor to what is now to be called the EU embassy. What was there at that time already seemed fit for purpose; a large number of officials were doing their jobs. The other representatives of various countries used to gather in the office of the EC delegation, as it then was. Now I hear that the European Union, in pursuing the development of the European External Action Service, wishes to have ever larger embassies in major countries. This costs a huge amount of money. In Tokyo it will be very difficult because the British embassy already occupies number one, Ichiban-cho—that is, number one in the number one district. It faces the imperial palace across the moat. I am not sure where the European Union can establish its own embassy, if the only way it could be more grandly located would be to replace the Emperor himself.

On the sunset clause, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hamilton and others that, in the case of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill, there is a very good reason to have a sunset clause. Like him, I do not wish to see fixed-term Parliaments become a regular feature of our constitution. I do see that in these circumstances, where we have a coalition Government who have inherited a terrible fiscal situation, there are perfectly good reasons why this Parliament should be given a fair wind to continue for its full five years. However, I should be happy to see a sunset clause because that should not necessarily be the way for all time in the future.

In the case of this Bill, we cannot argue that the circumstances will be different from what they are now in three or five years’ time. What message does it send to the people if we enact a Bill, but say that it will cease to apply in three years, when we or a Minister of the Crown will decide whether to extend it? I see no logic whatever in attaching a sunset clause. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, I believe that either it is a good Bill, in which case Parliament should pass it, or it is a bad Bill, in which case Parliament should not pass it. I would certainly vote against the amendments.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: There seems to be a general will in your Lordships’ House that we should complete this debate by 1.30 pm, rather than come back at 5 pm. Therefore, I suggest that noble Lords try to keep their comments brief and relevant to the sunset clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, a number of very important points have been made on both sides in this Bill. I would like to discuss many of them further, but we will return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 61 withdrawn.

European Union Bill

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords, Amendments 42, 43 and 44 have already been debated. I remind the Committee that the three amendments relate to Clause 6, and would delete successively paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k). That is why I have given notice of my intention to oppose Clause 6 standing part of the Bill. I merely rise to say those few words now, and do not propose to press the matter now, but it is something to which we might return later.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I have taken part only occasionally in this debate. I have been fascinated by the display of knowledge manifest in this House of the workings and procedures of the EU. However, regarding the clause as a whole, at least three important points have emerged. The first applies very much to the Liberal Democrats. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was absolutely right when he pointed out that the coalition agreement does not in any way countenance our support for, or compel us to support, referenda on passerelles or non-treaty changes that transfer power. The agreement is explicit on this and talks about transfer by treaty amendments.

That concession was made during the coalition negotiations. It is something that we have to put up with. Personally, I deeply regret it, because we have heard time after time from government spokesmen that it is necessary to have these referenda in order to restore trust. There is no evidence whatever that having referenda improves trust. The Netherlands had a referendum on the constitution, and trust has not increased since then, but anti-EU sentiment has grown. France had a referendum on the constitution. Again, since the referendum, there have been no demands for more referenda, and opposition in France to the European Union has grown. It may grow even more after events in the Sofitel hotel. It is very important that on the Liberal Democrat Benches we recognise that we are not in any way compelled to support Clause 6, with its stream of referenda.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Before my noble friend leaves that point, is it not true, however, that Euroscepticism is increasing in places such as Finland and Germany, and right across Europe, whether or not referenda are held?

[Lord Taverne]

That is perfectly true, but it is not as if having a referendum suddenly changes the mood and makes people pro-European—especially not if they will have to vote on all sorts of minutiae. That brings me to my second point. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his very eloquent defences of, in many cases, the indefensible, kept on telling us that there will not be a stream of referenda—or referendums; on the whole, I prefer “referendums”—because particular changes will be postponed and we will then have a package of referendums all in one, which will lead to a new treaty amendment. If, as has been pointed out by many people, that kind of package is to be put to a referendum, how can you possibly have a simple yes or no vote? It makes an absolute nonsense of the question. There may well be some good changes that one would want to support, while others would be bad and one would want to oppose them.

The third point I want to make was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The Bill refers to the next Parliament. It was made clear in the coalition agreement that there would be no transfers of powers during this Parliament. The Bill is only for future Parliaments. It is unheard of to put forward legislation that would not have an effect in the current Parliament and is solely designed to bind future Parliaments. This provides an overwhelming case for the flexibility that was argued for in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. We need flexibility because in the next Parliament we may have a different Government. If the Conservatives are in power—whether or not as part of a coalition—their attitudes may have changed. Attitudes to Europe can change fairly fundamentally. In 1973, I was an independent Social Democrat and was appointed as an MEP—that was before elections for MEPs—because the Labour Party boycotted the democratic processes of the Union. There was not a single Labour Party representative, which meant that the socialist group had far less power than it would otherwise have had, and I was invited to join the socialist group.

Of course, the Labour Party changed completely. I remember the noble Lord, Kinnock, being a very strong opponent of our joining the European Community, as it then was, and he then became a very strong proponent of the European Union. Therefore, Labour changed fundamentally and there is no reason why the Conservatives should not do so too. The experience of power can often have a very important effect when Governments have to face reality.

I think that the Government should look again at Clause 6. There is a very strong case for greater flexibility and, indeed, the whole rationale behind it is based on a fallacy.