House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Apr 1993

Mr. Hurd : I was not present at the time, but I have read the exchanges, because they were rather important. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) seems to have become a master at putting words into other people's mouths, and he is at it again.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd : No, let me deal with this point, because it is important.

Mr. Gill : I could be helpful on this point.

Mr. Hurd : I am sure that my hon. Friend intends to be helpful. I intend to be helpful too.

The European Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the treaty. It applies the treaty. Of course it has regard to what is going on around it--all courts do that--but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State refuted the argument that inevitably, at all times present and future, the European Court of Justice would be bound to be a centralising influence. He cited examples--two or three, I believe--of recent cases in which that proved not to be true. He was not calling the court a political court and he was predicting how it would operate in the future.

If, despite the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, the treaty is ratified and

Column 544

subsidiarity becomes part of the law rather than being simply part of the political practice of the Community, that would be more than a nudge ; subsidiarity would be one of the basic treaty articles of which the European Court would have to take account, case by case. That is what my right hon. Friend was saying, and that is part of the reply that I give to the questions that I have been asked. Mr. Gill rose--

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) rose--

Mr. Budgen : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd : No, but I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin).

Mr. Jenkin : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I can remind the Committee exactly of what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said :

So the basis of the security of the authority of this House, by which the Foreign Secretary set such great store in yesterday's debate on the referendum, is dependent on the European Court's interpretation of the mood in the Community.

The Foreign Secretary suggested that the argument on the social chapter was like saying that if the burglar gets into the house once, he will always get in. My right hon. Friend can check the record if he likes, but following his analogy about the burglar's repeated attempts to get into the house, in our arrangements for setting up the opt-out from the social chapter we are letting the burglars into every other room in the house and expecting to maintain sovereignty in our front room. That is not a realistic prospect.

Mr. Hurd : What we are doing in the treaty--to pursue my analogy--is to raise the height of the garden fence through the article on subsidiarity that we have discussed.

What the Labour party wants to do--it cannot possibly appeal to any Conservatives--is say, "No, we actually want to leave the front door open and a welcome sign on the mat", so that all these provisions, however damaging and expensive, can be imposed by the Community. 5.30 pm

I will give an example. The agreement of the 11 on the social protocol allows for a wide range of legislation on social affairs, by qualified majority voting, which is far wider than in the present treaties. That is the whole point for Labour. In particular, it allows improvements in the working environment to protect workers' health and safety, working conditions, worker participation in decisions on working conditions, workplace facilities, atypical work, working patterns, employment rights, redundancy payments and unfair dismissal rights. There is a very long list. This is what I mean about leaving the door open and a welcome sign on the mat. It is a welcome sign for Community backing and validity to proposals along these lines, which go much wider than those in the existing treaties.

Column 545

Mr. Marlow : May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a statistical fact? If you have a high garden fence, you are more likely to be robbed than if you have a low one.

Mr. Hurd : I do not know what the burglars are like in Northampton, but I will study my hon. Friend's proposition and change my metaphor, if necessary, to something to do with locks.

Mr. Budgen : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. Before the hon. Gentleman makes his intervention, let me say that, by and large, interventions have been increasingly long during the short time that I have been in the Chair today--with the exception of the last one. I ask that they be short and snappy.

Mr. Budgen : On 27 January, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said :

"the court is sensitive to the change of mood in the Community"--[ Official Report, 27 January 1993 ; Vol. 217, c. 1057.]

A non-political court is bound by precedent and law, but not by the mood of the Community. What my right hon. Friend was saying is that this is a political court because it is, in his words,

"sensitive to the mood in the Community."

Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend is a lawyer. Does he know of a court, in this country or elsewhere, which is not sensitive to the mood of the community? My hon. Friend should not wriggle in this way. He said that my right hon. Friend described the Court of Justice as a political court : that means that the court is either composed of politicians, or acting on the basis of political consideration. He now seeks to justify that on quite a different basis by saying that the court is sensitive to what goes on.

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. We cannot have semi-private conversations.

Mr. Hurd : I think I have made my point. My hon. Friend has moved his position substantially in the last 15 minutes, and he is now making the grave accusation against the European Court of Justice that it is actually sensitive to the world in which it lives, an accusation which is made--and should be made--against any court of law. I do not think that he has sustained his point at all.

Mr. Spearing : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd : I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I shall bring my speech to an end on new clause 74.

Mr. Spearing : I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his characteristic courtesy and thoroughness. May I take him back to what he has called the "social chapter", although really it is the "protocol agreement" in the treaty? He said that there were three views on it. I suggest that there is a fourth--the exaggeration as to the damage on the one hand and the benefits on the other. The "damage", as understood by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), is greatly exaggerated. Article 2.2 says : "Such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings".

Column 546

Does not that requirement mean that the vast number of employed persons will not be within the requirements of the social agreement, and therefore the exaggerations of both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will not be so great as they suppose?

Mr. Hurd : I am not sure what case the hon. Gentleman is making. He is speaking from the Opposition Back Bench. He--perhaps less than his Front Bench--has devoted himself, night after night, to forcing this change upon the House and the country. Now he is saying that the damage is negligible. What is all this about? Why is the Labour party subordinating everything to this cause if it is really of no importance? The hon. Gentleman has a wise influence over these proceedings, and yet he is contradicting and completely destroying the case made by his own Front Bench.

Mr. Spearing : So is the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hurd : The hon. Gentleman says that we are both exaggerating. I have made the case based on the competitive threats to this country and to Europe, based on the policy of the open door and the welcome mat that the social chapter would create for dangerous propositions for this country. In response to the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, I have given examples of what might occur.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd : I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Randall : I apologise, first of all, for missing the beginning of the Foreign Secretary's speech. In relation to the burden to which he has referred, I had a meeting the other day with a number of directors of a large multinational company. They told me that they thought that the burden to which the Foreign Secretary refers does not really apply, because most of the companies with a modern management outlook actually did a lot of these things. They felt--this is an example of the attitude of that particular business--that we were making an awful lot out of nothing, and that it was nothing more than a political totem pole.

Mr. Hurd : That is not the view here or the view of the Confederation of British Industry, or that of people to whom I listened in Japan, Korea and Indonesia when I was there a couple of weeks ago. There is great anxiety there among European business men about the social costs that Europe is heaping upon itself. There is a considerable realisation among would-be investors and manufacturers in those countries as to where the costs lie and do not lie. I hope that I have said enough on the substance to show that we are not afraid of this argument. We are not hoisting a white flag of surrender. We have no difficulty in accepting the challenge with which the proposers of new clause 74 present us. It is reasonable that the House should want the opportunity to vote on the principle of the social protocol. New clause 74, which we are debating today, offers such an opportunity. That is why we came to the conclusion that we should accept the new clause, as I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to do.

We are talking--I think the hon. Member for Hamilton was accurate on this point, although I shall have to study exactly what he said in Hansard -- about a vote after the passage of the Bill but before ratification. That will enable

Column 547

the House to vote on the merits of the social protocol itself. We believe in the opt-out, for the reasons that I have explained. Obviously, we have not drafted the motion that new clause 74 would require a Minister to introduce if the new clause were accepted. I do not know what the terms of the motion would be, but the Opposition and the Committee would expect the motion to reflect what I have been saying today and what my colleagues have been saying for a long time. The motion will reflect our view and we believe that that view will prevail.

I will not answer hypothetical questions about what we would do if the motion does not prevail, any more than a party leader on the edge of an election would answer the inevitable questions, "Are you going to resign, give up the leadership or throw yourself under a bus if you don't win?" No, we shall take this one step at a time, as we are doing. If new clause 74 is accepted, we shall abide by it. We shall move a motion connected with the question and we shall put our views robustly to the House between Royal Assent and ratification.

Mr. Michael Spicer : On a point of order, Dame Janet. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was kind enough to say at the beginning of his speech that he would answer my question about the legal effect or impact of the amendment which the Opposition have said that they will table. Inadvertently, I am sure, my right hon. Friend did not answer my question. May he have an opportunity to answer it?

Mr. Hurd : I think that I did so--

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I should make it clear that that was not a point of order for the Chair. Each member of the Committee is responsible for what he says or does not say. No doubt it may be possible for further information to be given at some stage. However, that is not a matter for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Salmond : On a point of order, Dame Janet. The Foreign Secretary is in danger of misleading the Committee. We all heard him say that he was not answering hypothetical questions about the passage of clauses. I do not know whether you were in the Chair at the time, Dame Janet, but we all heard the Foreign Secretary deal with and elaborate upon the same hypothetical point in relation to amendment No. 27. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary does not want to mislead the Committee by saying that he does not follow hypothetical arguments when he did so only a short time ago in respect of another amendment.

The Second Deputy Chairman : The same considerations apply as I gave in response to the previous point of order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Michael Spicer : On a point of order, Dame Janet.

The Second Deputy Chairman : Not the same point of order, I hope.

Mr. Spicer : No. My point of order is whether the Chair will give my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the opportunity to respond. It was not so much the content of my right hon. Friend's speech or what he was going to say

Column 548

as a question of whether the Chair would allow him the opportunity to answer my question. That is a matter for the Chair.

The Second Deputy Chairman : I am quite sure that if the Foreign Secretary wants to intervene at some stage during another speech, he will be able to do so. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of that convention.

Mr. Robertson : On a point of order, Dame Janet. I crave your indulgence because I have an extremely important point to make. The Foreign Secretary has concluded his preliminary remarks. Although he is not prevented from participating again in the Committee, he concluded without answering one of the key questions to which the Committee wanted an answer and which it seems that the Foreign Secretary is now willing to answer.

In addition, earlier in this Committee the Prime Minister sent a letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition in which he made it clear that the Attorney-General would attend our debates to help the Committee on matters, for example, in respect of the issue about which the Ministenister has said that the Attorney-General can advise the Committee. My question, which is an issue of order, is this: how can the Committee receive the information from the Attorney-General--or from the Foreign Secretary--in response to the crucial question whether the Government are going to accept the outcome of the vote that is consequent on new clause 74?

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck. He knows very well that that is not a point of order for the Chair. He has made his point and I suggest that he now resumes his seat and allows the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) to have the Floor.

Mr. Stephen Byers (Wallsend) : May I give notice to the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General that there will probably be an appropriate point during my contribution when an intervention could be made to address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not want to delay the Committee too long in its final hours of deliberations, but I believe that certain things have been said about new clauses 74 and 75 which have been misleading and inaccurate, and they need to be clarified. I hope to clarify some of those outstanding issues in a few minutes.

The Committee must recognise that the Government's acceptance of new clause 74 does not come about as an act of generosity. It comes about as a result of the political reality the Government face. Had they not accepted new clause 74, they would have suffered another defeat in Committee.

5.45 pm

The acceptance of new clause 74 is a humiliating climbdown for the Government. We know that the Prime Minister wants to put the Maastricht Bill behind him and to look forward to a new future at the heart of Europe. However, new clause 74 ensures that, as the Maastricht

Column 549

Bill leaves Committee, it has a very important item of unfinished business which the House and the Government will have to address at some point.

As the Prime Minister looks towards the horizon, he will see a dark cloud. That is the vote that the House will have on the protocol on social policy as part of the Maastricht treaty. The Prime Minister and the Government will not be able to escape that vote. As each day passes, that vote will get nearer. The acceptance of new clause 74 means that the Government have paid a high price in their endeavour to avoid a defeat on that clause.

As the Committee completes its deliberations, we know that there will be a Report stage, during which we hope to press amendment No. 27. I want to consider the relationship between amendment No. 27 and new clause 74, because I believe that that relationship is very positive and complementary. I hope that the House will have an opportunity to discuss amendment No. 27 at a later stage. I am conscious that, when hon. Members and commentators have examined new clause 74, they have said that it does not mean very much, because the Bill will have become an Act and will be on the statute book. Therefore, what is the purpose of new clause 74? It is significant, because it means that the Act will not come into force until the House has had an opportunity to debate and vote on the desirability of the United Kingdom's incorporation into the protocol on social policy.

The Act will be a dead duck until we have that vote. The Act on the statute book will be full of fine words and good intentions, but it will have no practical purpose or effect. In many ways, that is a very fitting testimony to the Government's mismanagement of the whole Maastricht process. It will say everything, but do nothing. That is why new clause 74 is so important. It restricts the Government's ability to move forward to the final act of enforcement of ratification of the Maastricht treaty.

A number of Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends wanted to know why new clauses 74 and 75 were tabled in the first place. They believe that the new clauses are not necessary, and that they in some way weaken our arguments about amendment No. 27. I believe that the reality is quite different, and I want to take this opportunity to lead hon. Members through the reasons behind the tabling of new clauses 74 and 75. Hon. Members know that, if amendment No. 27 is carried by the House, it will remove the United Kingdom's opt-out from the protocol on social policy.

Amendment No. 27 removes the protocol on social policy but puts nothing in its place. In the words of the Attorney-General, it is a double negative and therefore has limited legal effect. We disagree with aspects of that interpretation. We accept that, because of the procedures and rules of debate in Committee, we were able to take things out of the treaty and were unable to put things in. That was the ruling given by the Chairman. If amendment No. 27 is carried on Report--if we have the opportunity to vote on it--there will be nothing left in the Bill which addresses the issue of the protocol on social policy.

A number of hon. Members tabled amendments requiring the insertion of an opt-in--if one likes--to the protocol on social policy. New clauses 9, 68 and 69 sought to do that, but the Chairman did not select them. He did not give any reasons for that, but I understand that the main reason was that he agreed with the precedent that it

Column 550

is not for a national Parliament to insert additional provisions into an international treaty agreed by a number of countries. For that reason, the Chairman felt unable to select and debate any of those proposals.

We were unable to insert an opt-in provision in the Bill, so we had to find another device. New clauses 74 and 75 provide such a device. They are effectively procedural resolutions. Within the rules of procedure, all that we are able to discuss today is the question whether the Committee should have the opportunity to vote on the desirability of the social policy protocol. We will have a vote which will provide the Committee with an opportunity to express its view one way or the other on that desirability. We will then move to a third stage, at which, hopefully, the Government will reflect the views expressed by the Committee in the vote.

Instead of simply a two-stage process, we effectively have a three-stage process. We will have amendment No. 27, which deletes the opt-out ; we will have a vote on new clause 74 and a motion tabled by a Minister--we hope that the motion will show that we do not want ratification to proceed without the social chapter ; and then the Government will have to decide what they intend to do. In the third stage, the Government will decide how to react to the vote.

Mr. Hurd : I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about amendment No. 27, for the reasons that I have given. However, I agree with the rest of what he said. He has given me the opportunity--he kindly said that I could take it--to answer a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who is no longer here. They both put the question in a legal form, but it is not a legal question, as the analysis of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) is showing.

The question related to what we would do in certain circumstances after the debate on the substance, which new clause 74 provides for. I said that we would table a motion reflecting our views on the social chapter, as would be required on this hypothesis by new clause 74. We would debate that motion robustly and we would hope--as Governments do--that it will prevail.

The question is a political one. I am not prepared to answer hypothetically a question about what we would do after that. The hon. Gentleman has listed the sequence of events and has rightly said that, after the debate provided for in new clause 74, the Government should reflect on what they will do. That is correct, and that is what we will do.

Mr. Byers : I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his comments. He will be aware that the failure to clarify the position--he has been given the opportunity to do so--will create great difficulties. The worry that many of us have about the position in which we will be put is the potential conflict between the will of the majority of the Committee and the total determination of the Government to ratify the treaty at almost any cost.

There is a danger of a constitutional crisis arising if the Government fail to reflect the view of the majority of the Committee. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will use the opportunity, some time during the final few hours in Committee, to say that the Government will abide by the majority view of hon. Members on this issue. His failure to do so up to now is regrettable. Hopefully, he will reflect on

Column 551

the position and set out in a more positive way the attitude that the Government are likely to take if a vote adverse to the Government's position is carried when the House has the opportunity to vote on the motion. A motion will be provided if new clause 74 becomes part of the Bill.

There is no hiding the fact that, for Labour Members, the Maastricht treaty and the social chapter should go together. The importance of that has been stressed time and again. There are political reasons why we want to see that. It will benefit workers by giving them advantages and protection-- that point has been well argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton. There are legal reasons why we need to adopt the social protocol. If we fail to do so, there will be real difficulties. As a nation, we will be open to challenge on constitutional grounds. Our failure to adopt the social protocol will result in discrimination against workers and will infringe the European Community's competition policy.

The Government will be put in a farcical position if we do not adopt the social protocol. At the Council of Ministers, they will have to leave the proceedings when the protocol on social policy is debated : they will not be able to take part or vote. They will go back in when the Council moves off the protocol on social policy, and have to leave again when it is debated again. It will be a case of in and out--it will be a European version of the hokey-cokey. It will be a Brussels benefit for lawyers. Brussels will be able to challenge legally the fact that we are not part of the protocol on social policy. For those legal reasons, it is important that we subscribe to the protocol. There are overwhelming political reasons as well. Earlier, I said that many hon. Members--and certainly members of the public--found the proceedings complex and difficult to follow during 23 days in Committee. One reason for those difficulties is the complex legal position that is involved in the ratification of international treaties. Governments and Parliaments have distinct roles in the ratification process. The different roles and responsibilities have often been difficult for hon. Members to follow. Article R of the treaty clearly states that it is for each high contracting party to ratify after going through its own constitutional requirements.

That then raises the question : what exactly are the constitutional requirements for the United Kingdom in these matters? The formal and legal position is that all international treaties are ratified by a Minister of the Crown : it is technically done by the Crown acting on behalf of the Government. Constitutionally over the years, the system has arisen by which the whole process is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, when the treaty amends our domestic law, that must be provided for in legislation. Different responsibilities are contained in the legal relationship on the question of the ratification of international treaties.

The best and clearest explanation of the differing roles is expressed by Oppenheim in the leading work on international law. On page 1,227 of the ninth edition, it states :

"the expression Parliament has ratified' a certain treaty, though occasionally met with, is objectionable when used of a British treaty. Parliament, if invited to do so, may authorise the Government to ratify a treaty, but it is the Crown, upon the advice of ministers responsible, which ratifies a treaty. Legislation may be necessary to give effect to the treaty, but that is not ratification."

Column 552

The crucial point is that Parliament, if invited to do so, may authorise the Government to ratify. But it is the Crown which ratifies a treaty. That is why the Secretary of State must clarify this evening exactly what the Government's response would be to an adverse vote--as they would see it--on a motion tabled by a Minister. The Crown will act on the advice of Ministers. The Committee should be told exactly what advice the Crown will receive from Ministers if they are defeated when the substance of new clause 74 comes before the House.

6 pm

Mr. Marlow : The position is clear. Hon. Members have already referred to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government are a seamless web. They will have no truck with the social chapter. It is clear that, if the social chapter was imposed by means of a motion and an Opposition amendment at a future date, the Government would not be able to ratify the treaty. That is why it is a mystery to Conservative Members why the Opposition are pressing the amendment. We are happy for the new clause to go through, but the Opposition must realise that there is a real risk that, if it does, it will prevent the ratification of the treaty, and it will be their fault.

Mr. Byers : I obviously have not explained sufficiently fully and clearly the legal position on ratification of international treaties. It will be for the Government to ratify. That is the position. The Government could ratify the treaty and ignore the will of Parliament, if they chose to do so.

Indeed, it is interesting to note that the Bill before the Committee does not seek the view of Parliament on ratification. The Government could have worded the Bill to seek the view of Parliament. They have not done so. They have not allowed Parliament to express its view on ratification or any conditions which the House may want to impose on ratification. The Government have failed to do that. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said from the Labour Front Bench, the Labour party will provide the House with such an opportunity, because an amendment to the motion moved by a Minister will allow the House to express a view. As I understand it, it will be worded in such a way as to disallow ratification unless the social chapter is included in the provisions before the House. That is the position as we see it.

We are aware that the Government have sought legal advice on many occasions. Many of us are genuinely worried that they may seek to defy the will of the majority of the House by arguing narrowly and legalistically that ratification is solely a matter for the Government and not subject to the will of Parliament or its approval. That is why we seek clarification. We seek the views of Ministers this evening on whether the Government will abide by the wishes of the majority of the House of Commons.

The Foreign Secretary failed to answer that question earlier this evening. There is a real worry that, if the Government are prepared to ratify the treaty at any cost, they will create a constitutional crisis. The Government will advise the Crown on whether ratification should take place. What advice will they give the Crown if they have just lost a vote on a Labour amendment which says that

Column 553

ratification should not go ahead without the social chapter? The Government are not prepared to answer one way or the other this evening.

The Crown would be put in an impossible position, with the Government of the day perhaps advising one way and a majority of the House of Commons expressing a view the other way. That must be clarified. The Government are condemned by their silence on the matter. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said, the new clause is a time bomb ticking away. On a motion tabled by a Minister, the Government will allow the House a debate, but the Leader of the Opposition will table an amendment on which hon. Members will be able to vote seeking to place a condition on ratification.

We believe that the Government will be constitutionally bound by a vote in favour of such an amendment. They may argue that, legally, they can still proceed to ratification. That is the constitutional conflict and dilemma. We face a potential constitutional crisis if the Government ignore the will of the House on the matter. It has been said that the way in which new clause 74 is worded deals an ace to the Government, because they will be allowed to word the motion that the House will consider. That ace has been trumped this evening, because we have been told how the Labour amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition will be worded. The House will have an opportunity at long last of voting on the social chapter. The Government have sought to run away from a vote on that key issue. There will be no hiding place for the Government on that issue, because the Labour party will table an amendment which will allow Members of Parliament to express a view. The Opposition are prepared to ensure that, in the interests of the British people, the House of Commons will hold the Government accountable.

Mr. Budgen : I hope that I may be able to persuade the Committee that the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself touched on a matter of grave importance. Many Conservative Members have made an argument based on the writings of Mr. Martin Howe and others who have examined the treaty with great care. They have said that, sadly, we are likely to have the social chapter by other means whatever happens.

We have then asked the Government to look at the way in which previous treaties have been dealt with by the European Court of Justice. We can anticipate that, when the mood of the court changes back to its previous federalist stance, we shall be caught. Therefore, I am unrepentant in saying that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State admitted on 27 January this year that the European Court of Justice was a political court.

Mr. Garel-Jones : My hon. Friend is an extremely distinguished lawyer--I should say my hon. and learned Friend. [Hon. Members :-- "No."] He is not "learned", but he is an extremely distinguished lawyer. I hesitate to intervene on a lawyer of his distinction. He is what is known as a jobbing lawyer, so he is accustomed to the use of a certain amount of hyperbole.

I did not say at any point that the European Court of Justice was a political court. I observed--my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General happened to be on the Front Bench at the time--that the European Court, like our own courts, is part of the society in which we live.

Column 554

It takes into account the society in which it operates. My hon. Friend seeks to build an edifice that fits in with his fantasies.

Mr. Budgen : Sometimes jobbing lawyers have to cross-examine the accused by reference to the statement that he has made to the police. Jobbing lawyers are quite good at using the pompous phrases of the court. I would respectfully suggest that what the accused said on that occasion amounted to an admission of guilt in that he said it was a political court. In his extensive statement to the police he said :

"The European Court has, perhaps, traditionally been a centralising institution, expanding the powers and scope of the Community with what I might call purposive interpretations of the treaty. I contend, however, that there have recently been clear signs that the court is sensitive to the change of mood in the Community--even in advance of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty, which itself sends out a clear signal through article 3b ; that article concerns subsidiarity, which we shall discuss later. The court is showing itself to be increasingly sensitive to states' rights, and is giving increasing weight to the national arrangements."-- [ Official Report, 27 January 1993 ; Vol. 217, c. 1057.]

Mr. Garel-Jones rose--

Next Section

Home Page