| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do remember the demonstration, which was a very moving one. However, it was not a demonstration against the legal
system; it was a demonstration focusing on the alleged—and perhaps the real—defects in the way in which the police had investigated, or failed to investigate, those particular gross criminal acts against young children. I think that the noble Lord will forgive me if I suggest that he puts it a little too high to say that one would contemplate extradition only if one had 1,000 per cent confidence in the other country's judicial system. I do not think that that is so. Indeed, the European arrest warrant was agreed in principle at Laeken. However, it will have to come before your Lordships for legislative scrutiny. It is likely to be included in primary legislation to be introduced next year. It will not comprise a sole item but will be part of a wider review of extradition in legislative terms.I do not think that one can claim that extradition works perfectly at the moment; there are substantial delays. In the increasingly globalised world in which we live, one wonders whether one ought to be too limited in considering the European arrest warrant. In the past the noble Lord has raised legitimate questions of public interest. There will be an opportunity for this House to scrutinise the concerns that the noble Lord and others have.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend agree that securing a concerted approach to outstanding problems is to be welcomed to the somewhat carping attitude on such matters of the Leader of the Opposition in this House? Is it not important indeed that 10 new members of the European Union are closer to membership than they have ever been? Finally, will my noble and learned friend make it abundantly plain that Israel will continue to exist and that genuine attempts will be made to get a real solution to all outstanding problems? In that regard I hope that he will agree that President Arafat has an important part to play. But, equally, he must be genuinely committed to the whole peace process, including the right of Israel to exist.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right; there can be no question at all of any doubt about Israel's right to continued existence. Indeed, I do not think that any government in this country since the birth of the state of Israel has ever questioned that. I put it as plainly as I can: the continued existence of Israel as an independent state is a given. There is no question of derogating from that in any circumstance. Equally, it is important to bear in mind that the Statement refers to the,
- "full recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state".
The noble Lord referred to the 10 new members. That is an extraordinary achievement. I shall be selective for a purpose which will emerge. I refer to Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. If we remember for a second their history since 1945, to witness the day when they may join us will be quite extraordinary. I repeat what I said to the noble Lord,
Lord Strathclyde; namely, that if you visit these different countries in Europe, you are humbled when bearing in mind how greatly they admire the traditions and institutions of this country. If, subject to the tests and preconditions to which the noble Baroness referred, they are able to join us, that will be so much the better for us and infinitely the better for them.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, although I welcome many of the points in the presidency conclusions and the declaration, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that the declaration raises an extraordinary number of questions for the convention? On a quick count there are 50 question marks in the relatively short text on the convention. Will the Minister invite his colleagues to give particular attention to two points in order to reduce citizens' discontent, which is one of the main purposes of this operation? The first is to concentrate on reducing secondary legislation. Primary legislation in the European Union is well monitored; secondary legislation is not well monitored, nor is the control which should reduce the amount of secondary legislation fully in effect. That is an extremely important point as regards citizens' reactions. Secondly, in order to improve the openness of procedures, will the Minister support the idea that meetings of the Council when it is legislating should in future be held in public, thus bringing the Council into line with legislative bodies in all democratic states?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. My predisposition is always towards openness as most central authorities that pray in aid secrecy do so for reasons which are not sustainable, legitimate or capable of being rationally defended. In respect of secondary legislation, again I rather sympathise with the noble Lord's sentiments. With regard to the proper scrutiny of secondary legislation, often I question whether we do our duty sufficiently in this House, let alone anywhere else. But perhaps when we improve the way we work we may better be able to discharge our duty.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, did the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House really mean to imply that my noble friend Lady Thatcher had been faint-hearted in relation to Europe? Does he consider that the Prime Minister would agree with that adjective, given that he seems to spend much of his political life seeking to model himself on my noble friend Lady Thatcher?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps both the adjective and the noun are wrong—not faint-hearted, but rather wrong-headed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I certainly welcome the rousing statement by the noble and learned lord the Leader of the House in reply to Opposition questions and statements. But, unfortunately, I cannot reconcile that statement with what appeared in the EU declaration at Laeken. The
whole document seems to me to be integrationist. It talks about a greater role in foreign affairs and security and in police and judicial matters. It also talks of economic co-ordination, a European constitution, a directly elected president and European parliamentary constituencies. What is more—apparently with the support of our own Prime Minister—the chairman and two vice-chairmen of the convention are well known rampant zealots for a single European state. That seems to underline the real purpose of the convention; that is, to provide and promote a single European state.Finally, how is the forum for organisations representing civil society to work, given that a large percentage of people who are very sceptical of the whole exercise will not be represented at all at the convention? How will their representations be considered? How will the forum that is referred to, presumably under the "etcetera" part of the institutions, be consulted? Will it mean, for example, that organisations such as the one I chair, Campaign for an Independent Britain, will be able to make proposals and suggestions and that they will be taken seriously by the convention?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly organisations such as the organisation that my noble friend chairs will be able to make submissions and proposals. Indeed, I do not believe that there is any value in a forum unless it is inclusive in its remit; that is, willing to consider alternative points of view in all circumstances.
I do not think that one can look at this declaration in the over-simplistic way in which some noble Lords have done in seeking to attach adjectives to it. I do not believe that there is a true opposition between the label "integrationist" and the label "subsidiarity". What we are looking for in the constitutional changes, or, I ought to say, the mechanical changes, to which the noble Lord referred, is efficient, effective, transparent, accountable institutions. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would have favoured that. He has often been, rightly, a critic of the inefficiency, secrecy and non-accountability of some European Union institutions. At the same time, it is being suggested that framework legislation should be passed in Europe with a good deal more individual margin of appreciation for member states. I should have thought that those went happily together and that one without the other would not be agreeable.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord tells us that certain competences may be returned to the component nation states of the union as a consequence of Laeken. Does that mean that the acquis communautaire—we have always been told that it is completely sacrosanct and cannot be eroded—is considered no longer sacrosanct?
On Cyprus, the noble and learned Lord said that there had been a great deal of unhappiness and bloodshed in recent years. He may be partly right about the unhappiness but, on reflection, does he agree that in the 25 years since partition became effective
there has been little bloodshed, with no more than half a dozen people killed? That is in enormous contrast to the previous 15 years.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord takes a shorter historical perspective than I do. In many ways the history of Cyprus over the past 25 or 30 years has not been happy. The noble Lord speaks of only six deaths—he may be right—but I should have thought that those were six too many.
On competencies, the conclusions are designed to bring about this situation. When national institutions, national legislative bodies and national governments are able to deal with matters which otherwise would be dealt with centrally they should be dealt with locally.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page