Court of Justice of the European Union

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7013/13, the draft Council Decision increasing the number of Advocates-General of the Court of Justice of the European Union and, in accordance with Section 10 of the European Union Act 2011, approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of that draft Council Decision.

As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, this proposal is subject to the European Act 2011, which means that before Ministers can take a position in the Council on the proposed appointment of three additional advocates-general to the European Court of Justice, parliamentary approval must be secured for the United Kingdom’s position. That is the reason for today’s debate.

I believe that it is in the interests of this country for justice in the European Union to be delivered through the Court promptly and effectively. It is particularly important for British businesses with pan-European interests whose opportunities for business may well depend on clarity on the impact of European law.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way so early. I would just question whether we get justice from the European Court.

[Mr Lidington]

As with any other court here in the United Kingdom, I am sure there will be judgments with which my hon. Friend and I might have quarrels and wish that learned judges had come to other opinions. Where I would respond robustly to him is to say that, as far as I can tell, in coming to their decisions the justices of the European Union Courts take very seriously their duty to apply the law as it is found in the treaties and in secondary European legislation. The appointment of judges at the EU Courts is subject to approval by an expert panel. Indeed, to be eligible to serve as a justice in the European Court, the man or woman in question must either have served in a senior judicial office in their home country or be of sufficient standing in the law to be regarded as capable of exercising that kind of responsibility.

I believe that the measure we are discussing will provide quicker and more efficient justice within the European Union. The proposal is to increase the number of advocates-general to nine from 1 July 2013 and to 11 from 7 October 2015. The first advocate-general would be a permanent Polish advocate-general. Under declaration 38 in article 252 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, member states agreed in 2007 that if there were an increase in advocates-general, Poland would have a permanent advocate-general and no longer take part in the rotation of advocates-general. This step would bring Poland into line with the other big six member states, including the United Kingdom, which all already have a permanent advocate-general. An additional two advocates-general would increase the existing rotation system from three to five. Under current arrangements, we would expect the first two additional advocates-general appointed in October 2015 to be Czech and Danish.

In the 2011 report on the work load of the European Court of Justice, the House of Lords recommended that the number of advocates-general be increased. Since 2011, the Lords have repeated that recommendation several times, including in their follow-up report this year, and called for the increase to be implemented without delay. Last night, in its section 10 debate on this matter, the House of Lords approved the draft Council decision and Members of their lordships’ House spoke positively about the impact that additional advocates-general would have on the efficient functioning of the courts.

The role of advocates-general is to produce non-legally binding opinions for the Court of Justice to assist it in reaching its judgments.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. In reference to the House of Lords, the 2011 report questioned whether the quality of the advocates-general would be high enough. I wonder, therefore, what evidence has encouraged them to change their minds to be confident in the quality of the people who may be appointed.

[Mr Lidington]

I want to come on to the question of quality and the article 255 panel later. If my hon. Friend is dissatisfied at that point, then by all means I invite him to seek to intervene again. However, I think perhaps that it is best if I come to that passage at the appropriate time.

I was talking about the role of advocates-general. They produce their non-legally binding opinions in about half of all cases, particularly in those that raise a new point of law. There is no appeals process, of course, so the additional reasoned submissions help the Court to provide effective justice. Given that the number of cases before it continues to rise, the Government are satisfied that there is a need for additional advocates-general to process better the Court’s work load.

The opinions that advocates-general issue are a key element in the efficiency of the Court. As Sir Konrad Schiemann stated in his evidence to the House of Lords this year, advocate-general opinions significantly shorten the time occupied by judges in agreeing a judgment and improve the quality of the Court’s judgments. The opinions assist the Court with its own deliberations, because the Court can then test its own views against the detailed reasoning of the advocate-general conclusions. It is particularly useful in the EU Court because, unlike the practice in our own Supreme Court or Court of Appeal, it has to reach a consensus for its ruling—the possibility of separate dissenting opinions from different judges does not exist at the European level.

As well as contributing to the speed of judgments, advocates-general also improve the quality of justice dispensed by the Court. The opinions are detailed and so provide a greater insight into the approach ultimately taken by the Court, regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees in the final decision with the recommendation of the advocate-general. That means that those opinions are valuable in maintaining the consistency of the Court’s case law.

It is important that the Court is efficient, because of the impact that its judgments can have on British citizens and businesses operating in the European single market in particular. A classic example was the case brought by the National Farmers Union in the context of the BSE crisis—NFU v. Secrétariat Général du Gouvernement—against France’s refusal to lift the beef ban on UK imports. The Court ruled that since EU legislation laid down the necessary rules for the protection of public health, France was not entitled to rely on the public health exception in then article 30 of the treaty establishing the European Community to prevent the resumption of beef and veal imports from the UK. I am sure that the House needs no reminder that the beef industry was worth more than £430 million in exports to the British economy in 2011—the last year for which we have figures. Another recent example was the ruling of the Court in 2011 in the case of DHL v. Chronopost, which provides certainty for trademark owners on the extent to which a Community trademark owner could secure EU-wide relief based on action in only one member state.

The impact of the EU Courts is not limited to cases in which UK businesses are directly involved. The outcome of other cases can have significant benefits for the UK, directly or indirectly. For example, there was a case on whether EU legislation allowed for prescribing incentive schemes—arrangements to encourage doctors to prescribe cheaper generic medicines. Adopting the approach suggested by the British Government in their recommendations, the decision of the Court resulted in an estimated saving to our Department of Health of nearly £400 million.

Given the current number of advocates-general and the increasing work load of the Court, the individual advocates-general have been under pressure. There is no single reason why the Court’s work load has been increasing over the years. In 2012, 632 new cases were brought before it and it completed only 527. In 2011, 688 new cases were brought before it and it completed 554. These were the two busiest years so far recorded in the Court’s history. In 2012, the backlog of cases had risen to 886—up from 849 12 months before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) applies to Mr Speaker for an Adjournment debate, he and I might have the opportunity to explore those matters in the detail that he so ardently desires.

Let me return to the issue we are debating and the criticisms the European Scrutiny Committee has raised. Let me turn first to the important issue of funding. Although broadly supporting the proposal, the Government are clear that any additional advocates-general should not and need not result in an increase in the Court’s budget. The appointment of the new post holders and their support staff should lead to a relatively small additional cost of about €4 million a year, which the Court can meet from within its existing budget. Its budget was more than €354 million for 2013, and the Court has underspent by more than the cost of the additional advocates-general in each of the last three years. In the current economic climate, there is an imperative on all the EU’s institutions, including the Court, to find ways to reduce their administrative costs.

As I set out in paragraph 12 of my explanatory memorandum to the European Scrutiny Committee, the UK is prepared to submit a minute statement in Council to set out our expectation that the increase is cost-neutral. If necessary, we will do that during voting on the Council decision. As I know the House understands, a minute statement in itself will not be enough to guarantee cost-neutrality, but would be a clear statement of the United Kingdom’s position ahead of the separate financial negotiations next year on the annual budget. Indeed, the minute statement is not intended to secure budget neutrality at this stage, but is intended to signal clearly the beginning of our negotiating position for next year.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. The agreement on the advocates-general is by unanimity whereas the agreement on the budget is by qualified majority vote. Are we therefore not getting it the wrong way round by agreeing to the increase in one before the debate on the other? Should we not delay our agreement by unanimity until we have the budget that we want?

[Mr Lidington]

These are two separate decisions that have two different processes. We are indeed talking about a decision that is taken by unanimity. Annual budgets are what will determine the total budget of the Court for 2014 and subsequent years. Those annual budgets will have to be agreed within the ceilings to commitments and payments that are set out in the multi-annual financial framework that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Heads of Government negotiated in February this year, and which I hope is approaching the final stages of negotiation with the European Parliament.

Delay of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) suggests would not get us very far. The Government’s view is that there is a persuasive case for the extra appointments to be made. The way in which EU finances are organised means that the negotiations on the annual budget will determine the total budget available to the Court. From that budget, the Court will have to meet its costs under various headings of expenditure, including this small one.

I point out to my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is not alone in expecting the Court to absorb the costs of the additional advocates-general. We are one of a blocking minority of budget-disciplined net-contributor member states that routinely votes against increases to the EU budget. We anticipate that that like-minded group will take the same view on any request to increase the Court’s budget to accommodate the new advocates-general. The Prime Minister’s recent success at the multi-annual framework negotiations should be an indication of how strongly the Government feel about budgetary savings.

The European Scrutiny Committee also asked me to outline the Government’s view of the manner of appointing advocates-general and my view of the calibre of the likely appointees. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset made a point about this in an earlier intervention. The article 255 panel gives an opinion on candidates’ suitability to perform the role of advocate-general. The Government consider that the panel plays a key role in making the judicial appointments process more transparent and helping to ensure that the chosen candidates are of a high quality. The UK was a key supporter of the creation of such a panel, and we have consistently supported the application of rigour in the judicial selection process. The article 255 panel is effective in its role of assessing the suitability of nominees to serve as judges and as advocates-general. To date, the panel has delivered 43 opinions, of which five were unfavourable. In each case, the opinions delivered by the panel have been followed by the Governments of member states. When the panel has been unhappy about the calibre of a particular nominee, that nominee has subsequently been withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with a list of the members of the article 255 panel and their qualifications and experience. I would rather not venture an opinion from memory, but they do have to be people who would be employed in their member states in selecting very senior judicial office holders.

It might be helpful if I now set out for the House the likely next steps for this draft Council decision, if it is approved by Parliament. The Court would like to have the first additional advocate-general, the Polish one, in post from 1 July this year and the other two from October 2015, when there will be a partial replacement of the members of the Court.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If the Court hopes to have the Polish advocate-general appointed by 1 July, is there time for that person to be properly vetted by the article 255 panel?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on the Bill he brought forward a year ago that allows us to hold this debate, which is crucial in ensuring that European matters are properly discussed. As I understand it, we are the only member state of the European Union that will have this type of debate to make this important decision.

Beyond that, I diverge from the Minister. I diverge from him particularly in his admiration for this Court. I do not believe it to be a just Court. We must always remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it was this Court that ruled in its own favour to increase its own pay, against one of the fundamental principles of justice—that a judge should not rule to his own advantage. So it is not a proper, just Court like the noble courts that we have in this land; it is a Court with a political agenda, which is always pushing for more integration, for more Europe, towards the federal superstate, which we in this House who value the sovereignty of Parliament and of the British people should treat with the greatest suspicion.

The Minister spoke of the rulings that have come down occasionally in our favour, and the costs that we have been saved; I think BSE and pharmaceuticals were the two specific examples that he gave. I hope he might consider doing a cost-benefit analysis of all the judgments delivered by the European Court of Justice, to decide whether it has saved us money, or whether overall it has cost the British taxpayer money, since we joined the European Union in 1972.

But let us come particularly to the increase in the number of advocates-general and what is being achieved by that. What we are really doing is contributing to the growth of the power, the bureaucracy, the size, of the superstate that the European Union has become. By making the European Court bigger and stronger and able to take on more cases, powers are more centred at the European level. They will have a greater ability to determine the law in this country. The efficiency of the European Court of Justice is something that should make people who are concerned about parliamentary sovereignty nervous, because the more efficient it can be, the more it can interfere with our laws and the more it can take power away from Westminster.

And then we look at the cost: the €4 million cost that will be added to the total cost of the European Court—the extraordinarily high cost that the European Court has to start with of over €350 million. I looked up briefly the cost of our own Supreme Court. It was estimated in 2009 to cost £13.5 million to run. Perhaps this is a case for privatisation to a British court, because if we can get justice in this country with our highest court for £13.5 million, I wonder what it is that requires €350 million to be spent at the European level.

In a letter, the Minister explained some of the extra costs. These grand panjandrums—these advocates-general —do not just get their pay and their staff; they have to have cars as well. It is all part of the great European gravy train, with cost being piled on cost. When unanimity is the issue, the British Government, rather than taking the opportunity to use their power to delay or stop something that the European Parliament, Commission and Court want, give in at an early stage, so the negotiating strength that we would have had when setting the budget is frittered away. I ask the Minister: what are we hoping to get in return for not using our veto?

In our relationship with Europe, when we are in a position of strength and we hold the good cards, do we play the ace of trumps? No, we do not; we play some lesser card that I would know more about if I were a better gambler. That is the error of our European relationship. We talk in this House about repatriating powers, but when we negotiate in Europe, we continue to give them away to allow the European centre to become stronger.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am most apologetic for the fact that I was not here in the earlier part of the debate, but I did hurry into the Chamber. Has the hon. Gentleman ever read a reasoned submission by an advocate-general? Knowing him slightly as I do, and knowing the quality of his contributions to the House, I am convinced that he would be most impressed by the logic, intellect and reasoning in some of those submissions. I think that if he took the time to peruse them, he would support the motion.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but she misses the point that I am trying to make, and evidently not making clearly enough. It is not an efficient, smooth-running European Court that I want, because that is at the heart of the political expansion and centralising power of the European Union. If we look at what the European Union has done, and how it has become an increasingly federalised system, we see that it has done so through the judgments of the European Court, which has increasingly ruled in favour of more Europe. It is a political Court, much as the United States Supreme Court was in the early 19th century. It is about bringing federalism to the peoples of Europe. I accept that it has some of the highest intellects as members; I would not begin to deny that. We have sent some very fine judges there, with prodigious brains, ability and intellect, but what they have done after getting there is take power away from the United Kingdom and this Parliament. That is what I most strongly object to, and I object to the Government not using their negotiating position to get something in return.

The Conservative part of this coalition is looking to a renegotiation, to repatriate powers, but at the same time, it is doing things that increase the power and authority of the European Court. That seems to me to be fundamentally a mistake.

[Lady Hermon]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him a second time. I listened carefully to his reply to my first intervention. May I ask him for a reply to the question that I asked: has he ever read a reasoned submission of an advocate-general?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady asked me a question that went into sub-paragraphs on whether I was denying the great intellect of the advocates-general, which I think was at the heart of the matter, and I was saying that I admire their great intellect, but I do not want their great intellect deciding the rules of this country. I want the intellects of the British people, sending Members of Parliament to this House, to decide the laws of this country. I do not want rule by the cleverest continentals; I want rule by the good, honest, British—English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish—people, ensuring that this country is properly governed.

I want the Government to do what they said they were going to do in relation to increasing the number of judges when, in a letter of 27 July 2012, they said that the increase in judges should be part

“of a wider discussion on improving the efficiency of the Court and containing its cost.”

But now, less than a year later, we roll over and say, “Have a few more advocates-general because it will make you more efficient.” This cannot be the right negotiating stance to take. Again and again, it is more Europe, more advocates-general, more smart cars for them to drive round in, more cost to the British taxpayer—a very high cost—and instead of saying, “This must change; we will change it; powers must be repatriated,” we roll over and wait for our tummies to be tickled. I do not want my tummy tickled and I do not want more advocates-general.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), as indeed it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—two of the most eloquent Members in this place. I agree almost entirely with everything the right hon. Member for Leicester East said, and I disagree to the same extent with everything the hon. Member for North East Somerset said. In my view he says the wrong thing, but he says it very well.

I agree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset on one point, however: he is quite right to emphasise the importance of the fact that the debate is taking place at all, which is a realisation of the intentions we had when we passed the European Union Act 2011. Whatever differences might have emerged since between the two coalition parties over our attitude to European scrutiny, take-note debates and debates on approvals of Government actions in relation to Europe, such as this one, are important procedures that we agreed in the 2011 Act. It set out the terms and conditions under which referendums would be held and under which votes of this Parliament would have an impact on European decision making, which is an entirely good thing.

We have occasionally complained about the lack of thoroughness of European scrutiny in this place—for example, over the recent review of the EU arms embargo and its timeliness—but on this occasion I think that the belt-and-braces approach is working rather well. The fact that there is a rather thin turnout suggests that we might even be overdoing the level of scrutiny on this occasion. We do not seem to have a very high turnout, even on the ultramontane Conservative Benches.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think that my hon. Friend would be more charitable to the Conservative Benches if he knew that there was the alternative attraction of a meeting with the Prime Minister and Mr Lynton Crosby.

[Martin Horwood]

They are obviously discussing Australian affairs, rather than European ones, but I am sure they are having a productive time.

It seems to me that Conservative Members, having argued so strongly for such an inordinate amount of parliamentary time to be devoted to Europe, should turn up and exercise their right to pass comment.

A strong European Court of Justice has to be a good thing for the UK. It is the ultimate court in which matters of EU law are determined within the European Union. That is a good thing for Britain because it ensures not only, on occasion, that we are compliant with EU law but, most importantly, that all the other 27 member states are too. As the Minister rightly pointed out, that frequently benefits British companies. Given the value of our relationship with Europe, it is crucial that the single market operates properly and is seen to be properly enforceable. If we argue for weakening that process, we are not only arguing for Britain to have a greater say over our interpretation of European law but for the French to have a greater say over its interpretation in France and for the Germans to have a greater say in Germany, and so on. Ultimately, the system becomes unworkable and unfair.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset was wrong to object to a smooth-running and efficient Court almost on principle, as I understood his remarks. It is wrong to use a court of justice as a negotiating tool and a lever for a political agenda. This is about the fair application of European law to British businesses and to the institutions of the European Union. In that respect, he should strongly support this, because the European Court of Justice has the right to tell EU institutions that they have overstepped the mark and exceeded their powers.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I apologise for not making myself clear. The reason I do not want it to be efficient is that I do not believe it is just.

[Martin Horwood]

We have sent some of our best quality advocates and lawyers to take part in the European Court of Justice, and other states have done likewise. It is rather insulting to the advocates-general and, indeed, judges who are in place to say to that it is not capable of passing a just judgment.

I am very pleased that the position of the British Government is that the additional cost of the extra advocates-general should be met from within the existing Court budget. I gather that that will be an additional €4 million or so, of which Britain’s share is probably €500,000, or some £400,000, a year. I would entirely support any measures that we can take to impose further austerity on these judges. That would be a useful thing to consider if they really are getting free cars. There is a need for the European Union collectively to realise that European finances are in a parlous state. That applies as much to the EU level of government as it does to the British level or to local or regional governments. In a time of austerity, it is absolutely right to look at the costs involved in such positions. It is a good discipline for us to be saying that the additional three advocates-general should be paid for from within the existing European Court budget.

That money could be well spent on behalf of British businesses, because the benefits of a freely and efficiently operating single market could be enormously greater. After all, we have £300 billion-worth of trade with other members of the European Union, we get £365 billion a year in foreign direct investment from other member states, some 3.5 million jobs are associated with trade with the EU, and some 200,000 British businesses trade with other member states. The single market is enormously important for jobs. We need it to operate fairly and efficiently in order to benefit British jobs, and that means that the European Court of Justice must operate smoothly and efficiently. That justifies the appointment of additional advocates-general to try to clear the enormous backlog of cases that now exists. I care very much about jobs in Cheltenham, and Liberal Democrats care about British jobs, so on this occasion we are four-square behind the Government in supporting the expansion of the European Court to allow for the extra advocates-general.