Court of Justice of the European Union

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and shall attempt to respond briefly, with the leave of the House, to the various points and questions that have been posed.

I turn first to the characteristically eloquent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He and I have debated in the past and I am sure we will have opportunities to debate again the extent to which there should be European Union-level competence over particular areas of policy. He and I may agree on some parts of that debate, and we will certainly have different views on others. The point of principle in the context of today’s debate seems to be that if European-level rules and laws have been established and legislated for at the EU level—most obviously to govern a single market in goods and services—we need some kind of supranational EU tribunal or arbiter to decide on the interpretation of those laws and rules and to resolve any conflicting assertions as to the correct interpretation of them.

[Lady Hermon]

On the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, I am sure that it has not gone unnoticed that it always wishes to promote equality between men and women. Have the Minister and his colleagues pressed the ECJ to ensure that the new advocate-general will make the existing advocates-general representative of men and women across Europe?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady is right that, on jurisprudence, the Court has treated this issue as one of great importance. Of course, it is for individual member states to nominate men or women to serve as advocates-general, and it will then be for the article 255 panel to consider whether those nominees meet the strict criteria and standard required under the treaties. I would hope that there is fair representation. It is important that the ablest men and women are willing to be considered as potential candidates.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention. I hope that, aided and abetted by his lovely team, he will now be able to throw some light on the current composition of the Court’s advocates-general.

[Mr Lidington]

I will write to the hon. Lady with that information, but I can tell her now that, as I am sure she already knows, the United Kingdom’s advocate-general is indeed a woman who, whether one agrees or disagrees with her particular opinions, is an extremely able lawyer who contributes a great deal to the work of the Court.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset argued that the Government should carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the Court’s impact on the United Kingdom. The Government, as the House will know, have launched a review of the current balance of competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The 32 calls for evidence and reports on different aspects of policy will give ample opportunity to businesses and others to argue where ECJ decisions have been of benefit to this country and where they have been harmful. Without revealing too much, I can tell the House that the forthcoming report on taxation policy—it is as yet unpublished—will make specific reference to leading cases in the European courts and how they have had an impact on the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend also said that he wished that the Government had demonstrated a willingness to exercise a veto over the measure for the appointment of three new advocates-general. I say to him that a veto should not be brandished if we think that the measure concerned will be to our overall advantage. I also say to him that the Prime Minister has shown that he is willing to exercise a veto and to block measures that he believes would harm the interests of this country. We must use our negotiating capital skilfully and be prepared to be cussed and awkward if necessary about the things that really matter to the interests of the British people. The Government have been right to play hardball on issues such as the multi-annual financial framework and the long overdue reform of the common fisheries policy, and in our refusal last year to accept the proposal to set up an operational headquarters for the EU’s common security and defence policy.

I was asked a number of questions by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and others about Court reform and how we were seeking to promote greater efficiency, and about financing. I will deal with those two central questions before concluding my remarks.

On Court reform, a key point to emphasise is that the treaties give the Court of Justice the prime role in initiating proposals for its reform. Under article 281 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, changes to the Court’s statute can be proposed by the Court on its own initiative after consulting the Commission or by the Commission after consultation with the Court. The Court can propose amendments to its rules of procedure, but they need the approval of the Council. There is a Council lock on proposals, but the proposals must in the main come forward from the Court. The House will readily understand why the treaties were written in a way that protects the Court to some extent from political pressures. Within that context, we have been consistent in urging the Court to take seriously its duty to look hard at the possibility of internal administrative and procedural reform, as well as looking for other ways to enhance its efficiency and deal more promptly with the growing backlog of cases.

The reforms that have been agreed over the past two years, with the support of the United Kingdom, have included establishing the new office of the vice-president of the European Court of Justice and General Court. The quorum in the Grand Chamber has been changed to allow greater flexibility. We have seen the abolition of the requirement for a report for hearing and for the reading of that report. That has saved a lot of time when one adds up the savings accumulated over a large number of cases. We have seen the agreement to create a pool of temporary judges for the civil service tribunal. We have also seen changes to the ECJ’s rules of procedure to provide greater efficiency.

Other ideas are still being discussed. One to which the UK Government are quite sympathetic is the creation of specialist chambers within the Court. However, that is for the Court to propose if it is persuaded that it is the right course on which to embark. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and other Members will know, the House of Lords Sub-Committee that is considering these matters has produced detailed reports on Court reform and efficiency.

Finally, let me turn to finance. The UK is one of a group of like-minded, budget-disciplined member states that work together routinely to push down the EU’s annual budget costs. The group includes Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Austria as well as us, and we have no reason to believe it will be less focused on budget discipline this year. It is fair to say to the House that the €4 million needed for the advocates-general cannot be negotiated in isolation and would be one part of an annual budget negotiation of roughly €130 billion in total. The bill for the advocates-general and their staff would be less than one 100th of a percentage of the EU’s total annual budget for 2013.

To respond to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East, I say that the Court can request funds, but funding is for co-decision by the Council and the European Parliament. If we look at what has been happening in the EU’s annual budget for 2013, we see that the Court requested an increase to its budget of 8.4%—€29.2 million—which in percentage terms was the biggest requested increase for any EU institution that year. In practice, the UK and its allies worked together to reduce that increase to just 1.9% in 2013—slightly below the level of inflation. There is no reason to believe that the same could not be achieved on budget neutrality for the advocates-general, particularly given the underspend in the Court’s budget in each of the past three years.

Clearly this matter is one component of a much bigger negotiation, and the Court’s total budget forms just one part of the overall annual EU budget. There is, however, no doubt about the Government’s determination to ensure that those small additional costs are met from within the Court’s existing budget, and in particular its publicly known underspending. We will continue to work assiduously for the best possible efficiency and the greatest possible value for money, not just in the affairs of the European Courts but in every institution of the European Union.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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.