EU: UK Opt-in Protocol (EUC Report)

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for securing this debate. I thank her for her very clear and elegant opening of the debate, and indeed I thank all noble Lords who have participated in it. Protocol 21 plays an important role in protecting the United Kingdom’s interests in Europe. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and her committee for the comprehensive work that she undertook as part of the inquiry into how the Government have applied it.

Before I try to respond to the various points made in the debate, perhaps I may say something about the protocol and its significance. I appreciate from the debate that there is not unanimity about the desirability of the protocol in the first instance—a difference between the Liberal Democrat position and—

[Baroness Ludford]

I apologise for interrupting, but I want to make it clear that I was expressing a personal opinion.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful for that clarification—a difference between the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and that expressed on the part of the Labour Party by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.

The United Kingdom’s and Ireland’s justice and home affairs opt-in has been in existence for civil justice, asylum and immigration measures since 1997. It was extended to policing and criminal matters with the Lisbon treaty, which came into force in 2009. The intention was to allow the United Kingdom to protect its specific interests, such as the common law legal system and border controls, while retaining the ability to take part in EU justice and home affairs measures where that was in the national interest.

The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, asked whether the JHA opt-in has proved an effective safeguard. I note that her committee expressed no view as to its desirability—expressly so—but she posed that question and asked whether it was an important or even an essential safeguard. I can tell the Committee that it has been used on numerous occasions to protect the United Kingdom from being required to participate in measures which might adversely affect our border controls or our fundamental legal principles. However, the debate with which we are concerned is essentially about the scope rather than the utility of Protocol 21.

The areas covered by Title V of Part Three of the treaty include some of the most sensitive for us as a nation: immigration and border controls, policing and criminal law. The United Kingdom also retains an ability to opt out of measures that build on the Schengen acquis. The UK takes part in police co-operation and judicial co-operation aspects of Schengen but does not participate in any aspects of the acquis relating to border controls. The Government have not applied to join the Schengen provisions on visas and border controls and have no intention of doing so. Any such move by a future Government will require a referendum, thanks to the 2011 Act. I know that that measure was opposed during its progress through this House, but I now understand that it is part of Labour Party policy that there should be a referendum in those circumstances. I shall not go into more detail on the Schengen opt-out, as that has not been the focus of today’s debate.

Protocol 21 was included in the treaties to make sure that any new proposal that was presented “pursuant to” Title V would not bind the United Kingdom unless it chose to be so bound. However, it is the Government’s view that the drafting of the treaty has created a lack of agreement about when the United Kingdom is able to exercise these rights—whether it is necessary for there to be a Title V legal base cited on the face of a proposal or whether it is where the EU’s competence to act flows from Title V, regardless of the legal base cited.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, rightly focused on “pursuant to” and what he said was a pretty unambiguous interpretation of those words. Of course, the treaty could have said “under” rather than “pursuant to”. As he and the Committee will know, in the government lawyers’ view, “pursuant to” is capable of interpretation rather more broadly than many, or even most, of the academic lawyers who were called before the committee said.

I recognise that the approach of the previous Government—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, distanced herself from the previous Government, although it was a coalition Government—is not shared by others, and that it created some challenges. But it is important to recognise that we do not have a definitive legal view on which interpretation is correct. While I accept that the European Court of Justice has taken some decisions on what is or is not JHA content, it has not set out definitively whether the opt-in applies in the absence of a legal base. Unless and until it does, the Government and others must work according to their interpretation of the treaty. I respectfully suggest that describing the Government’s approach as capricious is a little harsh.

The report on which today’s debate has centred helpfully sets out some of the issues flowing from this lack of agreement. These can be very complex and challenging, and the Government must decide on the basis of the evidence before them—

[Lord Richard]

Before the Minister leaves “pursuant to”, if he looks at the French version—“en application de ce titre”—it is impossible to claim that those words mean merely “following on from” without a definitive link. It is quite clear that the French text, which I imagine expresses the substance of the argument, refers to the application of Title V. In those circumstances, how can he claim that “pursuant to” means something totally different?

[Lord Faulks]

The French and German interpretations are also referred to in the committee’s report. Of course, the protocol has to be read as a whole on what its intention was. While I do not want to weary the Committee with the evidence that was given by government lawyers, the noble Lord will recall, no doubt, the fact that Article 1 should be read in the context of Articles 2 and 3. Indeed, I remind him of what John Ward said in his evidence to the committee, when the then Secretary of State for Justice and the Home Secretary gave evidence. He said, in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that,

“I think it is important that the words ‘pursuant to’ need to be read in the context of Protocol 21. Protocol 21, we say, is different because of the particularly sensitive nature of justice and home affairs matters. But it is clear, looking at the context of the rest of the treaty, that it is fully recognised that justice and home affairs matters are difficult and sensitive, which helps to interpret Protocol 21”.

[Baroness Quin]

I would like to pursue this further. The phrase “pursuant to”, which my noble friend Lord Richard referred to, generally has an accepted meaning, both in English and in the other language versions, which applies throughout EU legislation, and it is simply the Government who have one view and everyone else has another view. Is that not the case?

[Lord Faulks]

Of course, I do not dispute the evidence that the committee heard. The argument that was used in the course of the questioning by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, was that we should be looking at the natural, ordinary meaning, which is the traditional way of interpreting a statute in British law. A purposive interpretation would admit a rather broader interpretation of what the protocol was intended to achieve in terms of the opt-in and opt-out.

These are deep legal waters, and we could spend a great deal of time debating this. I accept that the preponderance of legal opinion was against the government interpretation, but I respectfully refer the Committee to the fact some of the difficulties were acknowledged by the committee in the course of its evidence—not, I accept, specifically to deal with the “pursuant to” aspect, but to do with the choice of legal basis. Paragraph 119 of the committee’s report states:

“Dr Bradshaw said that the Law Society had no insight into the Commission’s thinking, but noted that the choice of legal basis was ‘a matter of profound disagreement on occasion, not just between the EU institutions and the member states, but also within and among the EU institutions’”.

Indeed, the conclusions of the committee at paragraphs 184 and 185 were:

“We agree with witnesses who have suggested that the CJEU’s approach to determining the legal base of international agreements means that the complexity of an agreement is not always reflected in the resulting choice: it renders somewhat invisible the ancillary or secondary objective, including ancillary or secondary JHA objectives. We understand why this would cause concern to the Government”.

[Lord Richard]

Will you read the next paragraph?

[Lord Faulks]

I was going to do that very thing.

“Nevertheless, this does not, in our view, amount to a deliberate undermining of the safeguards in the opt-in Protocol. We note that for internal EU measures on JHA policy, the opt-in Protocol is a very effective safeguard for the UK”.

I note that in the course of the debate there has been a very firm disavowal that there was any deliberate intention by the Commission to, as it were, get round the Title V question, but there is an acknowledgement that it may not always be easy to choose the correct title.

The most recent annual report on the application of the JHA opt-in and the Schengen opt-out, which was published in February 2015, shows that the previous Government took 33 decisions under the two protocols during the period between December 2013 and the end of November 2014. Thirty-one of them were taken under the JHA opt-in. Of those 31 decisions, 18 applied to proposals which did not cite a Title V JHA legal base. They included a directive on customs infringements and sanctions, a decision establishing a European platform to enhance co-operation in the prevention and deterrence of undeclared work and several third-country agreements which created legal obligations in the JHA field.

These are all examples of legislation with a JHA impact on the UK that did not cite a Title V legal base. If unsuccessful in changing the legal base, these are the types of cases where a change of approach might mean that the UK cannot exercise its right not to be bound.

The Government are committed to considering carefully any changes to their approach to the opt-in to ensure that we can lawfully exercise the UK’s right under the treaty to protect our national interests by retaining control of our policing, justice and immigration systems. The committee’s detailed report has given the Government a great deal to consider. We do not believe it is in anyone’s interest to rush the process of responding to it, although of course I take on board the criticism that has been made of the delays.

The Government have sought to ensure that the committee and Parliament are kept updated and sighted on developments in individual cases and the policy as a whole. As was acknowledged in the debate, the Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary wrote recently to the committee to let it know that this subject is still under consideration and that the Government would provide a response to the committee shortly. That raises the question of what “shortly” means. I am afraid that the answer is that it will not be until after the Recess. I know that there has been regret about that, but it is important that the content of this detailed report, and indeed of the debate, are fully taken on board by the new Government.

The noble Baroness asked about one particular issue which also forms part of the conclusions—whether we should be thinking of an inter-institutional agreement. I think the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, asked questions about that in the course of the evidence. It is something that will certainly be considered. When the Government have concluded our consideration of the policy as a whole we will take forward such engagement as is appropriate.

The issues relating to the protocol are complex and technical, and go, as I am sure the Committee will accept, to issues of sovereignty in the very sensitive areas that JHA co-operation deals with—policing, criminal and civil law, and immigration and asylum. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, the JHA opt-in is extremely important to us.

We note what has been suggested about the litigation strategy. That is something that will be taken very carefully into account.

The Government are concerned, of course, to reflect the protection that the opt-in gives the United Kingdom on these important areas. We will consider carefully our approach to that. The process is not yet complete and we believe, as I have indicated, that we should take time to get it right.

The debate as to the proper approach and whether it should vary from that taken by the coalition Government will be influenced very much by the careful consideration by the committee and the evidence that it called for, which is well summarised by the report. I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate.

[Baroness Ludford]

Before the Minister sits down, I want to clarify that, although he said that I distanced myself from the previous Government, I did not. I distanced myself only from the attitude exemplified in the report. I am, in fact, very proud of the heavy lifting done, in particular, by the former deputy Prime Minister which ensured that the UK stayed in the 35 policing and criminal justice measures. It is no secret that there was disagreement between the coalition partners on these matters. While I am at it, let me say that I was expressing a personal view on Protocol 21, but that does not, of course, extend to the Schengen protocol, which governs border issues.

[Lord Faulks]

I am not going to go into the detail of who was or was not in favour of particular matters that were opted into or opted out of. The noble Baroness referred in the course of her speech to the rule of law, Magna Carta and “pacta sunt servanda”. I assure her that this Government take the rule of law and the desirability of honouring agreements extremely seriously. The commitment of this Government to those remains extremely profound.