Mr.
Cash: The hon. Gentleman is developing his argument
extremely articulately, but I remind him that he said earlier that he
thought it was very important to remember that in this House, we have
the right to call the Government to account and, if necessary, to put
them in a box, turn the key and throw it away. Does he accept that that
is actually the fundamental issue? It is about what kind of rights
there should be, and the fact that they should be adjudicated and
determined by this
sovereign Parliament and not by a conglomeration of other bodies, which
will create rights and will do so with the sustenance of the European
Court of Justice, which imposes such rights on us through the European
Communities Act 1972. Furthermore, such an arrangement would undermine
the right of Parliament to make its own
decisions.
Simon
Hughes: The hon. Gentleman tempts me down a road that is
familiar territory for him and that I am very happy to go down. I am
resisting not because I am not happy to have a debate, but because it
is a wide set of issues that he raised—they are to do with our
adherence to European Union treaties and other matters—and I do
not think that you would think it in order, Mr. Chope, for
me to go down that road. I will be happy to have a debate in another
place at another time.
My colleagues in the European
Parliament would argue that there should be an ability to adjudicate or
have an oversight of third pillar issues. I understand the
Government’s position on that. For as long as third pillar
issues are not yet within the general European Union majority voting or
unanimous decision-making process, the Government have a perfectly
reasonable argument for saying that such matters should not be under
the purview of the fundamental rights agency. It would be inconsistent
to argue on the one hand that third pillar issues are not inside the
system and on the other that the agency should have oversight. I share
and understand the Government’s view about that.
As it happens, there should be
nothing to fear. If our police and justice co-operation systems are
compliant with human rights, we would not have anything to fear from an
agency. I hope we have good standards, but I can see the argument of
principle. I therefore hope that there will be an understanding of that
at the Minister’s meeting next
week. I
have two other points. First, there is still some concern about the
vagueness of much of the language. I appreciate that it is late in the
day to revise the script, given how many circuits it goes round, but it
is important that the definition of the agency’s job be drawn as
precisely as possible. We are talking not only about substantial sums
of money—there is an argument in favour of ensuring that the
agency gives value for money—but about the fact that the
definition should be precisely drawn. More importantly, there is a
danger of an overlap between the work of the programme and that of the
agency. There is a danger that information and analysis to do with
human rights in Europe and the European Union will be looked at both by
the agency and as part of the programme. We do not need two lots of
people collecting the information and disseminating the data on which
everybody else will proceed. I ask Ministers to try to ensure
absolutely no overlap. Overlap is the word that has appeared most
frequently in the reading that I have done on the issue—overlap
with other institutions, such as the Council of Europe, the
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United
Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, and overlap between the
existing programme, the new programme and the agency. If we go
ahead—which, on balance, I think we should—I am keen that
the overlap should be reduced.
My final point is that the test
of such bodies is whether EU citizens, who pay money for the agency,
get value for money for a body that can assist in ensuring that EU
institutions and the processes for passing EU legislation are human
rights-compatible, and which can educate people about their rights in
the EU under the treaties to, for example, equality of pay, equality of
pension and gender equality. The test will be whether the agency does
that job. It will be worth while only if it is seen to deliver not only
a greater understanding of human rights across Europe, but a greater
opportunity for the EU institutions to be human rights-complaint all
the time, in terms of racism, xenophobia and all the other undesirable
issues to be coped with early on, and for fewer cases to be taken to
court because of non-compliance. We cannot judge the agency now, but I
hope that we can proceed with a degree of cautiousness. Like others, I
will be keen to ensure that the agency is reviewed at the end of its
first period of existence. If it justifies itself, it should continue;
if it does not, we should not spend the money on its continued
existence. 3.58
pm
Mr.
Cash: Obviously I have grave concerns, as do my hon.
Friends. I should like to develop the thoughts to which I alluded in
some of my questions, because some extremely important issues lie
embedded at the heart of the arrangements, and they need to be brought
out more. I have
mentioned my concerns about the use of article 308, as has the European
Scrutiny Committee, on which I sit. Article 308 used to be known as
article 235, even under the Treaty of Rome, so it is not quite as new
an arrangement as some people have come to believe. It is a rolling-up
provision, and for that very reason it should not be misused.
It is perfectly clear that the
arrangements for the passerelle, as it is now called—it is
otherwise known as a footbridge or by some other name—function
as a stepping stone for what, by any reasonable standards, would be
regarded as ultra vires; that is, beyond the powers of the existing
body of a treaty or legislation. That passerelle is now being employed
to invade areas that must be regarded as fundamental—for
example, whether a provision of a European Union treaty, regulation or
decision should be subject to unanimity of by majority
voting. It so
happens that on the very day when the establishment of the fundamental
rights agency is considered, a monumental decision will be taken about
the extension of majority voting to questions of justice, home affairs
and all the other related matters. I do not happen to know which will
come first. To some, it might seem purely academic, but if the majority
voting arrangements go through, we will be in a position. I am not
stretching the ambit of the documents before us in any way when I say
that that issue, which relates not merely to the fundamental rights
agency but to the question of the extension to title 6, is a matter of
fundamental sovereignty. At the moment it is open to the Government to
veto an arrangement.
I have great respect for those
who are genuine federalists who believe that it is right to extend the
whole of this remit to Europe, whatever that means,
and to endorse the European Union constitution. After all, the
Government proposed the treaty, signed it and introduced a Bill to
implement it, which is all part and parcel of what is contained in the
documents. Fundamental rights were part of that European arrangement.
They were incorporated into the European Union Bill. It is a question of the
sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Why have the Government
not introduced before Parliament, under the Queen’s Speech, a
European Union Bill incorporating the provisions before us? I have
tabled a motion drawing attention to this bizarre, grotesque state of
affairs. As I asked when the Prime Minister said in answer to me,
“We can’t implement part of a treaty,” why can we
not do so? We know that the French and the Dutch have vetoed it, and
that the German constitutional court has severe reservations about the
European constitution. For that reason, the proposal ought not to be on
the Order Paper at all or included in Council of Ministers
discussions. I speak
as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee: why are we here
considering arrangements introduced on the spurious grounds that
somehow there is a shading or tipping point between the European
Community, the European Union, and the European constitution, which is
being rejected in Europe and which the Government do not dare to
introduce during this Session in the form of a European Union Bill
because they know perfectly well that it is completely
unjustified? The
arrangements, which are embedded in the European Union constitution and
would remove the British people’s right to make decisions for
themselves about vital matters, are being discussed here because the
Council of Ministers will consider those vital questions on 4 and 5
December without any regard to the absurdity that will arise because
the whole thing has now been put in the dustbin by the voters of
Europe. On crime, legal questions and immigration, I have already said
that in the most recent opinion poll, 72 per cent. of British people
say that they do not want the measures. When will the British
Parliament hear a wake-up
call? It does not
make any sense, even on the basis of the Government’s own
behaviour. If they believe in this nonsense, they should be introducing
a European Union Bill, but they are not. I have grave, fundamental
objections to the whole procedure. I cannot understand how it is that
we find ourselves considering a document that states, among its other
preambles, and even allowing for the fact that it does not refer to the
European Union, but to the Community, that the
“Community and its Member States
must respect Fundamental Rights when implementing Community
law.” The Minister made
what I think was a slightly silly point about the fact that I came in a
tiny bit late—I think that I was 30 seconds late. In any case,
she knows that I clearly heard her say that the question
of—[Interruption.] I have been thrown by a note from a
Whip—a most unusual event in my life. However, the question of
where the fundamental rights take us goes to the heart of control
orders and the issue of the rights that should be given to persons
allegedly connected with terrorist acts.
I abstained when that
prevention of terrorism provision was going through. It might be known
that in a report this month by the European Scrutiny Committee
regarding justice and home affairs, the Committee
stated: “In
our view, the proposal for the use of the passerelle is of
constitutional importance. Decisions on, for example, what constitutes
a crime, what sanctions there should be for offences, procedural rights
and other matters covered by Title VI of the EU Treaty concern national
sovereignty.” It
continued: “We
note with alarm that, for example, the UK might not be
able”— I note
that the former Home Secretary who is responsible for a lot of this
nonsense is sitting here in complete silence and has not muttered a
word, despite the fact that he is the genesis of most of
it— “to make
bi-lateral agreements with third countries for the extradition of
terrorists.” Control
orders, the application of the 28-day rule, the statements by the
Attorney-General, the question of fundamental rights which bears on the
issue of whether we should adopt this legislation in the United
Kingdom, and the contradictions between the Government and the Prime
Minister asking for 90 days and the Attorney-General for 28—by
all appearances, my own colleagues are prepared to go for 28
days—seem to raise a very serious question about whether such
provisions should be allowed
through. I am not
going to elaborate further other than to say this in conclusion: this
is a travesty. Even if we vote against it, as my hon. Friend the Member
for North-West Norfolk said rightly that we will, in reality it will
not add up to a row of beans. Even if we were to win the vote in this
Committee, it would be reversed on the Floor of the House. That shows
the extent to which this House is being diminished in its right to
legislate on behalf of the people who have elected us to it. When 72
per cent. say that they do not want this to go through, what the
Dickens is the Government doing ensuring that it
will? 6.8
pm
Bridget
Prentice: I am very pleased that the Committee has pressed
the Government to explain their position. However, in response to the
question from the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, and for the sake
of clarity, I shall reiterate that we are very firm on the position of
the charter and that the proposals will not extend to the third
pillar. I shall not
be able to reassure the hon. Member for Stone, for whom I have I have a
soft spot because I believe that his wife shares her Christian name
with me. I have always felt a certain affinity for someone who has had
the good sense to marry someone with that name. However, that has to be
as far as any meeting of minds with him goes. I will not follow the
path that he tried to lead us down at the end of his remarks, because,
as I have said, this is not a third pillar issue and we intend it to
remain that way.
I apologise to the hon. Member
for North-West Norfolk as I should have made it absolutely clear that
the network will be subsumed into the agency but the gender institute
will not.
I strongly
agree with what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said
about the importance of ensuring that there is no overlap between the
agency and the other organisations. The decision establishing the
programme mandates the Commission to ensure that there is no
duplication between the activities of the agency and the programme. It
is also important that hon. Members recognise that the agency is a body
that is set up to gather information on fundamental rights and to give
advice to EU institutions and member states. There is no existing EU
organisation that will check that the EU itself is compliant with
fundamental rights. The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia has no remit to check fundamental rights as such.
I reassure the Committee that
we will ensure that all references to the charter are accompanied by
references to its legal status and accompanying explanations. It has
been a long-established practice under international human rights law
that the United Nations system co-exists with regional systems for the
protection of human rights, such as the Council of Europe, to which I
reiterate our gratitude for the excellent work that it does. There is
no reason why the Council of Europe and the European Union cannot
co-exist and reinforce each other to protect fundamental rights in
Europe. On that basis, I commend this to proposal the
Committee.
Question
put:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
4.
Division
No.
1] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee takes note
of European Union Documents No. 10755/06, draft Council Regulation
establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and draft
Council Decision empowering the European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights to pursue its activities in areas referred to in Title VI of the
Treaty of the European Union, and No. 13104/06, draft Council Decision
establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme
'Fundamental Rights and Citizenship' as part of the general programme
'Fundamental Rights and Justice'; notes that the proposals aim at
promoting knowledge of and respect for fundamental rights in the
European Union; and endorses the Government's policy of support for the
measures, taking account of its reservations on the references to the
Charter in the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme and the
extension of the Fundamental Rights Agency's remit to the third
pillar. Committee
rose at thirteen minutes past Six
o’clock.
| 
