| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The sum of money that has gone missing is the same.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: There may still be much wrong with the way in which the European Union is run. I have no difficulty in agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that some procedures still need to be tightened up. There are not necessarily questions of corruption or fraud to be answered—we have been over this before—but there are certainly questions in relation to the way in which the Commission ought to be run; that is, that it should be run more along the lines of accountability under which our own Civil Service operates.
Those are the sorts of things for which Her Majesty's Government have been pressing. So I freely acknowledge that we would wish to see many improvements in the way the Commission is run. But we ought at least to look to the improvements that have taken place, part of which is in the recognition that there are still some parts of the Commission which need to be considerably tightened up.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This has been a good and wide-ranging debate and I thank all those Members of the Committee who contributed to it. I thank the Minister for her firm and detailed reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned co-decision. Of course he approves of co-decision—the Liberal Democrats believe in federalism anyway.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was not aware that I had mentioned co-decision. If he wishes to bring it up of course I cannot stop him. But among the many things I said, that was certainly not one of them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It may well be that I thought the noble Lord mentioned co-decision, because I certainly wrote it down.
Let me explain that co-decision is about taking real power away from this Parliament. What happens is that Ministers go across to Europe and, by QMV and after consultation with the European Parliament, they come to decisions which are made into law whether or not this Parliament agrees. If this Parliament objects, then the reply comes that this is European law and there is nothing we can do about it. That is why many of us are concerned about the extension of co-decision. It takes away from this Parliament the opportunity to have a full discussion and full examination of what is happening in Europe, very often behind closed doors.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also mentioned the quadrupling of the movement of people since 1973 when we entered the Common Market, as it then was. He brings that forward as a reason why we should have more co-operation. Nobody is concerned about voluntary co-operation. We are concerned about the imposition of laws upon this country without our own Parliament agreeing to them. We want co-operation, yes; but a country called Europe, no.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that the Conservative Party was closely examining the possibility of returning to Westminster some of the powers that we lost. I welcome that. Indeed, I shall look forward to hearing from the noble Lord and the Conservative Party what powers they intend to ensure are returned to Westminster if they are voted back into government. Most of the powers which we lost were lost under previous Conservative governments. So I am pleased that the sinners are repenting and hope that they will repent so far that virtually all the powers that we lost to the European Union are returned. Then we can get back to a real Europe of voluntary co-operation between nation states, which we lost.
The Minister mentioned the Prime Minister's Warsaw speech. In that speech he envisaged a new organisation—a senate—which would be elected by the national parliaments. But that is what we had before 1978. In 1978 it was said that that structure did not work because the members of the national parliaments did not have time to do both jobs properly. Now we have come full circle and are told that what we had before 1978 is a perfectly workable system and that it is a pity we altered it. I note the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, shaking his head. But that was the previous system and is the system the Prime Minister wants to re-impose. That is what he appeared to be saying in his speech.
The Prime Minister also referred in his Warsaw speech to a super power in Europe but not to a super state. I do not quite see how one can have a super power without also having a super state. If he is going to develop that instead of having more integration, as he appeared to be advocating last Friday, then I am pleased that he has been converted. However, we shall have to wait and see.
We have had a good debate on this subject. I believe that it is probably the first one we have had on the 1978 Act and it has been worthwhile. Having heard the debate, I do not wish to continue to oppose the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. However, after having read the excellent contributions that have been made to the debate, I may wish to return to the matter on Report.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Blackwell moved Amendment No. 39:
- After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 39 proposes that the treaty should be approved in a referendum before it becomes part of UK law. I raised the question of whether a referendum was appropriate on Second Reading. I do not believe that we received an adequate response from the Government. I should like to pursue the issue again tonight in the hope of receiving a better response.
So far as I can tell, the Government's argument as to why they believe that a referendum would be inappropriate is as follows. First, they say that the treaty is vital to enlargement. Secondly, they say that, nevertheless, none of the individual measures is important. The over-used example of QMV on appointments to the Court of Auditors is trotted out as an example of what I believe the Minister referred to as the modest and sensible adjustments of which the treaty is full. Therefore, a referendum is inappropriate for what is largely a technical measure in the Government's eyes. I argue that the discussion in this Chamber, including the excellent discussion we have just had, demonstrate exactly the opposite.
First, I argue that the treaty, as we discussed at earlier stages in Committee, is not essential for enlargement, at least in the early stages, as Romano Prodi has been frequently quoted as admitting. I favour enlargement as a community of nation states within a single market, but not as a political union. I believe that most of the measures needed to enlarge a single market were already enacted in treaties in the 1980s.
Secondly, even if one concedes that some measures are needed to facilitate enlargement, the truth is—as has again been demonstrated over and over again in the debate—that most of the treaty is not about enlargement. A whole Christmas tree of measures is hanging on the coat-tails of a Bill which is advanced as being about enlargement but is primarily about other matters.
Thirdly, I argue that far from being modest and sensible adjustments that do not merit significant debate, the treaty contains a number of significant measures, including the removal of 39 national vetoes which individually and collectively amount to a significant further shift towards stronger governmental and institutional power at the centre of Europe versus the nation state. This is a treaty that is primarily about deepening, not enlarging, the European Union.
Therefore, fourthly, I argue that a referendum that requires the Government to explain and get approval for those policies, as opposed to proceeding by stealth, is fully justified. The fact that the Irish people rejected the treaty in a referendum shows that, when put to a national electorate, its acceptance is not a foregone conclusion.
Let me briefly expand on one or two of those points. On Second Reading and in subsequent debate I and others highlighted many examples of transfer of power in the treaty which have nothing to do with enlargement. I mentioned Article 137, for example, which extends the powers of the European Union to intervene by QMV to impose European Union policies
On Second Reading I asked why those measures were in the treaty and what intentions lay behind the new powers. I do not believe that we were given a response to those questions. Either the Government do not know why those measures are in the Bill, in which case how can they advocate them, or they will not explain what the measures will be used for for fear that we and the country will not like that. Nor can they explain why these and countless other extensions of power are part of a treaty that masquerades as a treaty primarily about enlargement.
The debate in this Chamber has raised many other fears, for example, as regards the extension of European judicial powers over our judicial system and the drive towards European authority over a common foreign and defence policy which is enabled by the treaty. Last week we discussed the charter of fundamental rights which is referenced in the presidency conclusions and the declaration on the future of the Union attached to the treaty. The Minister told us that on the one hand the charter of fundamental rights had no legal standing and then agreed that it would, of course, be taken into account by European courts as evidence of the political intent behind legislation. That, presumably, is what is intended by the presidency conclusions when they state:
Therefore, significant issues are raised by the treaty and by some of the words and declarations around it. Even the proposals which are directly justified by reference to enlargement—for example, majority voting on senior Commission appointments; the proposal to hold all European Council meetings in the European capital of Brussels rather than in the host country; and the strengthening of the European Parliament—could equally well be seen as part of a progressive plan to turn the European Union from a coalition of nations within a free market into a single political state and government structure. They fit that pattern. Indeed, we have just discussed the future of European national parliaments. The declaration on the future of the Union states, somewhat condescendingly I feel, that,
But there are two sides to the debate; one can view the glass through opposite angles. There are those who regard people who raise concerns about the agenda for European integration as raising needless or exaggerated fears. The Prime Minister assures us that the nation state is secure and that we just need to pool a little sovereignty. Those on the other side of the argument regard those who view these developments with equanimity as hopelessly naive, who have not learnt the lessons of history and who fail to hear or heed the rhetoric of those on the Continent who consistently call for the pace of political integration to be speeded up towards its ultimate goal. Both views are valid but a genuine debate needs to take place.
Those arguments and the treaty cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential. That is why I believe that there is a strong case for a referendum before the Bill is enacted—a referendum as provided under Part VII of the Government's own Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We passed that Act in order to provide for referendums on issues of significance. What is the provision intended for, if not for significant constitutional developments such as intergovernmental treaties? As my noble friend Lord Pearson has commented, once these treaties are ratified, they can be changed only by unanimity. They are not measures to be entered into lightly when there are significant differences of views about the significance of the treaties themselves and their implications.
If there is a view that this treaty represents a significant shift in powers, surely that should be explained and debated in the country at large. I hope that democrats on all sides of the Committee, whether for or against the proposals in the treaty, will agree that a healthier national view of Europe would pertain if these arguments were conducted openly rather than being brushed aside. Frankly, it is an insult for the Government to describe this treaty as nothing more important than procedures for electing members of the Court of Auditors.
If, having introduced the practice of referendums to the UK in their recent legislation, the Government oppose this amendment, I fear that I and other noble Lords will conclude that they do so not on principle, but because they fear that they may fail to win the support of the British people for changes that they do not want to explain and cannot defend. The Irish electorate—probably one of the most pro-European in the European Union—has already had the chance to vote on this issue, and they rejected it. I believe that the British people deserve that opportunity too. I beg to move.
XREFERENDUM
This Act shall only come into force after the provisions of the Treaty of Nice have been approved in a referendum by the people of the United Kingdom, conducted under procedures approved by the United Kingdom Parliament."
XThe European Council would like to see the Charter disseminated as widely as possible amongst the Union's citizens . . . the question of the Charter's force will be considered later".
XThe next European conference will need to address the role of national parliaments in the European architecture".
It will consider what role we might be allowed to play. If there ever was a wake-up call that our destiny was being taken out of our hands, that sentence provides it.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page