European Union Bill

Lord Stoddart of Swindon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I have read the amendment, which would restrict the operation of the Bill to matters of urgency. That is what it is about. I thought that the Bill was about major transfers of power, not just little changes to ongoing, day-to-day matters in the EU; it is about major transfers of competence or powers. Whenever you are transferring powers from this country to another institution, it ought not to be done in haste. There should not be urgency about it.

Those sort of matters, those great matters, should be decided only once all the issues concerned have been examined by the Government and by Parliament; and then by referendum. Why do we want an urgency clause? We cannot afford to have an urgency clause when we are transferring powers from our country to another organisation. I cannot support the amendment, although I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, feels that it would be helpful to the Bill. I do not think that it would be helpful to the Bill, because it would undermine its whole purpose, which is to ensure that when this country transfers major powers elsewhere, there has been proper consideration over a proper period by the proper authorities, including the Government, Parliament and the people.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I need to make a rather nerdish point.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Oh no!

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will be very upset. I accuse myself of being nerdish, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree that I can be considered in the same class as Mr William Cash.

We are talking about an amendment to Clause 3. Clause 3 is about the accelerated, simplified procedure. I do not know why we have Clause 3 separate from Clause 2, but we do, and we are debating it. The simplified procedure cannot be used for the transfer of competences. That is what the treaty states. Article 48(6) states that the decisions referred to in the second paragraph,

“shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties”.

We are talking about urgency and the use of the competences that the treaties have conferred. We are talking about urgency because that is the nature of the simplified procedure. It was invented to move fast in situations where we might want to. It avoids the convention, it avoids the full paraphernalia after Parliament—you still have to consult Parliament under Article 48(6), but that can be quite quick.

This is a modest amendment, unlike the previous amendment on which we voted, which was bigger. This is a modest amendment because it simply suggests that the urgency condition might be written into Clause 3, on the simplified treaty revision procedure, which is about urgent treaty revision and not about competence. It cannot be used to confer competences on the Union from the member states.

It seems to me appropriate and modest to say that, when we are dealing with treaty revisions or decisions taken under Article 48(6)—which, by definition, will happen only in a hurry—we should be able to have an accelerated procedure here in this country. We might accept that the general view was correct: this was an emergency and we needed to move fast. Of course, if you did not accept that, you would have said “No” in Brussels and the accelerated procedure would have stopped, because it still requires unanimity. By definition, you are in a situation where people have thought, “We haven’t got the time to do the whole shooting match”. This is important. The Government think it is in the UK interest—they voted for it. Who would decide whether the urgency consideration applied? It is a question asked in this debate. The House would decide. Parliament would decide. If this provision was in the Bill, the Government would have to explain whether the urgency procedure, in their view, applied. Parliament would vote on that. This is a parliamentary democracy—that is where the decision should be made.

I do not see anything wrong with this amendment. It seems to me that it is appropriate—particularly appropriate—to this clause. I supported the previous amendment—the bigger amendment—which would have written it also into Clause 2, alongside the significance condition, which sadly is still missing in Clause 2, for reasons that I do not understand. Putting it in Clause 3, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, proposes, is absolutely appropriate and I support the amendment.

The Minister commented with approval, as would I, on the evidence that Sir John Grant gave to the Commons committee. Sir John Grant made two points that the Minister quoted with approval. I approve of them too—although, as the Minister delicately pointed out, Sir John is a more recent permanent representative in Brussels than me. There may have been a faint connotation in the Minister’s remark that I might be a bit fuddy-duddy or out of date. I accept that; it is perfectly possible, and Sir John Grant is a very brilliant man.

Sir John said that he saw no chance of serious treaty amendment in the next few years. I agree with him for a whole lot of reasons. Nobody in Brussels wants it; the UK Government have said that they are not going to have it; and it is in a coalition agreement. That seems to me to be fairly conclusive, so I think Sir John Grant was on pretty safe ground with that prediction. He also spoke of the unlikelihood—and the Minister quoted him—of the passerelles being used in the near future. I agree. That seems to me to be implausible too.

What the Minister did not mention—I cannot remember whether Sir John Grant did—is the much more likely scenario in which, some time in the next decade, something will cause people to say, “Jeepers, we are going to have to change something. This is clearly a case for the accelerated procedure”. Things do happen in the world, things change, and the chances are—I do not think this is very likely in the near future, though the monetary example is fresh in our minds—that some time in the next decade there will be a need seen by most people, possibly by us as well, for a change, and if it is to be done quickly then the chances are that people will use Article 48(6) procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

I come to the conclusion that I put to the House, but it relates to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, which, again, I understand. Of course, it would be great in all circumstances if we had sufficient notice of anything that happened to be able to go through every single process and feel that we had interrogated it to the nth degree. Of course that would be desirable. I understand that, but we do not live in a world which affords us that luxury on every occasion.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

What I was talking about was the transfer of great powers, which would be permanent; what the noble Lord has been discussing is matters of emergency. Those are quite different because, for example, on the financial crisis that has blown up in the European Union, it is perfectly possible for the Government—indeed, the Government alone, backed later by Parliament—to make decisions that might last for five years, but would nevertheless not be permanent transfers of power. That was what I was trying to get at.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, if I misunderstood the point, I of course apologise.

I conclude my remarks by saying that this does not involve the same sort of transfer of powers as under Article 48(6). It is not intended to do so. We have all acknowledged that it has a different standing.

My key point is this, and I address it to the government Front Bench to think about—even though they obviously cannot respond to it this evening in this particular debate. The G20 was as good an attempt as anybody could make in the circumstances to try to find some way of codifying the responses to the financial crisis across the world. Thinking of it professionally almost—as an economist—I think that it was a pretty poor outcome and the G20 did not do what it was supposed to do. The key players did not play the roles. It may be that a number of people, including eminent politicians from this country, talked up what the G20 was capable of doing and what its successes might be, but when we look at it in the cold light of day, we do not have in the international financial system the protections that some pretended there would be as a consequence of that meeting. There is no doubt in my mind that one of the reasons for that is that a number of coherent economies in Europe that were used to mature financial operation found themselves without the tools to respond together, and that had a profound effect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.