| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, under the environmental issues we discussed what is termed the precautionary principle and also labelling. The labelling issues were a matter of particular concern to the European Union countries. There was also consideration of where the multilateral environmental agreements come up against the WTO. Any of those three important areas might comprehend the issues relating to GMO food. They are covered, but they will be a matter for discussions. I would not want the noble Lord to go away with the view that these will be easy matters. We know that they will be extremely difficult to negotiate. The European Union is very pleased at least to have secured their appearance on the agenda for further discussion.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned reforming the CAP on a number of occasions. I declare an interest. How does she reconcile the billions of dollars of increased farming subsidies in the United States this autumn with the Government's obvious intention to reduce subsidies in this country, to the damage of the rural economy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is the great strength of the WTO. We have not just agreed to a reduction in the subsidies within the European Union. This is a matter for all WTO countries, including the United States of America. This comes back to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The importance of this trade round cannot be overestimated. We have all signed up to it, including the United States. The Americans will similarly be obliged to negotiate on these matters.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that concern has been expressed at the Inter-Parliamentary Union that trade negotiations on the whole take place outside the scope of parliaments? Will the Government co-operate with a system of greater scrutiny within Parliament of what is happening in the WTO and multilateral negotiations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if I may say so gently to the noble Earl, your Lordships' House, through the usual channels, was offered a pre-Doha Statement by the Government. That Statement
was accepted in another place and was a matter of parliamentary discussion. It was not accepted in your Lordships' House.I am very pleased that today we have had an opportunity to discuss these matters. However, I am afraid that, as is normal, it is for the usual channels to discuss what opportunities are provided for noble Lords to make their views known before the negotiations take place. But I am bound to say that I believe that your Lordships have been able to discuss a number of issues of great concern. Your Lordships frequently discuss, and rightly so, the issues of developing countries. This House frequently debates issues concerning agriculture and, in particular, the common agricultural policy. Therefore, although we may not have discussed this matter in a comprehensive form, bringing all the strands together, none the less I believe that your Lordships have some very wide opportunities to deal with the matters discussed at Doha.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my question does not arise from a globophobic position. In fact, if the agenda which is outlined could be enacted, I should become a strong globophile. I want to ask my noble friend about the facilities which are available to the poorer of the 144 members of the World Trade Organisation. At the ongoing discussions which continue all year round in Geneva, the better-off countries have a strong secretariat to provide backing and perhaps a team of people to present their case. However, many poorer countries often cannot afford even to send a representative, let alone to have the back-up that the better-off countries have. Therefore, the playing field is totally against those who are trying to obtain a good bargain for the developing world. Can my noble friend say whether assistance can be given by the richer nations to enable the poorer nations to present their case fairly?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have enormous sympathy for what my noble friend Lord Rea says. He is quite right. Many small countries which are members of the WTO do not have permanent representation in Geneva. They arrive at WTO negotiations and marvel at the number of people in the delegations of other countries, including experts—economists, lawyers, and so on.
That is why the United Kingdom has placed so much emphasis on the importance of capacity building for the poorer countries. I have raised the subject on a number of occasions with my European colleagues during the course of European Union discussions. I am very pleased to say that, before we went to Doha, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development was able to announce a package of measures being taken in relation to capacity building. I believe that I am right in saying that in the past couple of years or so my right honourable friend has pledged more than £35 million in relation to capacity building for poorer countries.
However, we are not stopping there. I hope that my noble friend noted the part of the Statement which referred to this matter and also the fact that other developed countries must now play a more active part in following the United Kingdom's lead on this important issue. We should actively encourage them so to do.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, can the Minister give more detail about the procedures and timescales that might be involved in the reform of the agricultural trading subsidies that she mentioned and in the consequent reforms of the CAP? How might those timescales fit against the proposed timescale for the enlargement of the European Union and the necessary reforms of the CAP that would be involved?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I understand the fact that your Lordships concentrate on this matter in relation to the CAP. However, I must suggest that what we have agreed in relation to agriculture is a matter of concern across all WTO members. In that respect, resumed negotiations will begin as soon as possible with our colleagues from all the countries concerned—that is, all 142 countries. The accession process for the last two countries has still to be completed, although it has been agreed in principle. Therefore, it is important to separate the two issues. There is a WTO process and, as the noble Lord's noble friend pointed out earlier—somewhat tangentially but, none the less, it is the case—it is important that we move in concert with other developed countries which also have issues concerning subsidies.
I turn to the timescale for CAP reform. As the noble Lord may know, the chapters on agriculture with the accession countries will be opened at the beginning of next year—that is, 2002. We hope that discussions will be completed during the course of next year. That timetable is perhaps extremely ambitious. However, I believe that it is important that we in the European Union, having now secured this not insignificant step through the auspices of the WTO, take the timetable forward during the course of the next year.
Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill
Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Incorporation of provisions of the Treaty of Nice]:
Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 1:
- Page 1, line 9, at beginning insert "Article 1 (other than paragraph 1, subsection 1, revising Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union),".
The noble Lord said: At the outset of our Committee stage, and in moving this amendment, I hope that I shall be permitted to say a few words about our approach to this and coming amendments in the Committee stage before coming specifically to the detail of this collection of amendments and the new clause which is added to them.
We on these Benches believe that our role and proper duty is to scrutinise and, if possible, improve legislation. We believe that that applies, in particular, to this legislation because, although some days of discussion took place in Committee in another place, a number of issues were not discussed there. A number of issues have clear constitutional implications.
We are very concerned, as are other noble Lords in other parties—they have said so very eloquently; I think in particular of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, the other day—that matters are not fully debated and that they arrive on the statute book without having been fully discussed. This is a very serious question and it applies nowhere more acutely, I suspect, than to the matter of European legislation and to the consequences of changes that we make or approve through our legislation; that is, in the application of changes in the treaties to our legislative structure.
In this Bill, and in the treaties to which it relates, are issues that could change the whole face of Europe and, indeed, our own procedures inside this kingdom. We shall of course, in later amendments, discuss the whole matter of enlargement. That is certainly related to this Bill, although the nature of the relationship is a matter on which there is more than one view. We shall no doubt have healthy debates on that and on the treaty which, in the view of my noble friends on this Bench, might have made rather more progress than the present one appears to be making.
In this and other amendments we shall argue that much of the conventional thinking about the European Union and the future shape of Europe needs to be jettisoned. We believe that that jettisoning process, which might have begun at Nice, clearly has not begun in the minds of some policy makers and their supporters.
In discussions on future amendments we shall also want to know what "Plan B" is should the Nice treaty not make the progress that it needs to make in all the member states' legislatures and should there be difficulties with our Irish friends in rejigging the
situation so that they can unblock their own position. There are other highly political aspects to the treaty's progress, such as the issue of Cyprus, which we shall doubtless examine before we are through.My final preliminary point is that the treaties are horribly inaccessible. They are couched in terms that are largely unintelligible, except to the expert few. Of course, this point does not relate only to the treaty; it is widely agreed that the Bill is very unsatisfactory. Only yesterday, the Financial Times described it as "feeble"; that is the kindest word that has been used about it. The experts in the Committee—there are many—may be familiar with the fact that we are dealing with two treaties, not with one, but I suspect that that is widely unknown outside. We are dealing with the Treaty on European Union (the first block of amendments relate to it) and with the treaty establishing the European Community (later amendments relate to that separate document). No wonder people long for all the treaties to be consolidated into one document, which we could discuss and amend, and which might begin to be translatable into a language that ordinary citizens could understand. That would give them some inkling of the way in which changes in the law affect their lives.
I am grateful to Members of the Committee for letting me make those preliminary points, which relate to the amendment but also to the many other amendments that we shall discuss in coming days.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 relate to Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union; they do not relate to the treaty establishing the European Community. The provisions seek to upgrade—to beef up, if I may use that phrase—the article that was previously in the treaty. This time, the concern is about the misbehaviour of an EU state. Such misbehaviour involves not so much a breach of fundamental principles but the clear risk of a serious breach of fundamental principles and rights. The proposal would allow the powers that be in the EU to intervene in a state's internal affairs on the grounds of speculation; the old article did not have that speculative element. That makes some of us uneasy. I very much want the Minister to explain the justification for making the article a more speculative weapon.
I believe that that weapon has never been used, but it could be used on the basis of speculation and of a majority of four-fifths in the Council of Ministers. It might intercede in a situation and could be empowered to remove the voting powers of a member state that was deemed to have offended against fundamental principles.
I make it absolutely clear that the fundamental principles, which are set out in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, cannot be challenged. Those admirable principles are broad—they relate to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and other matters that we regard as natural and central to our way of life. To what extent it is good that they should be embodied in EU documentation is an important question.
We shall later debate the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which appears not in the treaty but in a declaration that is attached to the treaty on
page 78 of that document. However, I shall not now go into that or the status of the charter. The proposition that there should be a system of judgment relating to member states about whether they have conformed to broad assertions of very important and basic rights raises questions about the extent to which the rights of European citizens should be centralised. Perhaps one can distinguish between the basic rights, which are, as I said, fundamental to the way in which our free societies work, and the string of rights that we shall discuss later and which appear in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights; in many cases, they involve important social priorities, and they might be better handled at national level rather than at the supranational level or at the level of EU institutions.Those questions are raised in this context, and we shall later have relevant debates on the charter. They are raised by the amendment by the Treaty of Nice of the previous treaty documentation and by the introduction of the speculative element, which is about whether there is a clear risk, whatever that may be; I do not know how one defines it.
This article has been given another name, which indicates its intended purpose or, at least, its inspiration; it has been called the Austrian article and it raises the Austrian question. What do we mean by that? We refer to the most unfortunate circumstances that emerged a year or so ago when, as a result of elections in Austria, which is a member state, politicians who had apparently appealed to the most undesirable and unhealthy political antecedents and traditions came to power. Many people who heard what was being said by Mr Haider were repelled.
The matter does not stop there. The situation led member states of the EU and, finally and collectively, the EU as a whole, to adopt various positions. They involved sanctions, not being on speaking terms and not appearing in the same photograph with Austrian leaders. Most Members of the Committee will agree that that led to one of the most undignified and unhappy episodes in the EU's recent history. It certainly did enormous damage to the EU's reputation and dignity. None of us wishes to see that repeated.
I suspect—the Minister may make it clear that I am wrong—that the desire to strengthen the censure provisions in Article 7 arose from the hope that there was a role for the EU in such situations and that the next time the situation arose the response would be more co-ordinated and not so undignified. It would be desirable if one could get down on paper an article and procedures about how the full force and fury of the EU could be brought to bear on an offending member state. My view and that of some of my noble friends is that that arrangement might be worse. I do not say that in a particularly challenging way; we are seeking information.
The endeavour during the early months of 2000 to put pressure on the Austrians led to unhappy results and the general withdrawal of many assertions. That was done without in any way endorsing or approving the views of the relevant individuals in Austria. There was a strong feeling that such matters were for the
nation state—for Austria. If one mobilised the great institutions of the EU and the EU itself to try to stamp out, change or push a nation into another line of behaviour, the effort would end in tears—indeed, it did.Those issues are raised by the article and our amendments to the Bill, which cannot change the treaty—that is done by Royal Prerogative. However, that is another debate for another time. We can change the way in which the provisions apply in our legislation.
The article touches on another issue that we will debate on another occasion; namely, the four-fifths voting requirement, which involves a sort of qualified majority vote arrangement. At Second Reading, the Minister asked about the attitude of noble Lords on these Benches towards QMV in general. My answer—I shall give a more detailed answer later—is to quote the words of Evelyn Waugh:
- "Up to a point, Lord Copper".
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |