---

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, this is a difficult argument which is often produced by the Government to justify their stance on the European Union. Surely the noble Baroness will agree that the manifesto contained nearly 200 commitments, of which this was only one; that the people voted for it en bloc; and that only 59 per cent of the public bothered to vote of which a minority voted for the Labour Government. I cannot envisage how one can take the general election as a justification for the Government's europhile stance.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that it was his party, not mine, which sought to put Europe at the top of the general election. That is the nature of democracy. It is a fine debating point but the noble Lord knows that in this country we publish election manifestos. It was clear and unequivocal that this Government would take forward the Nice treaty. Yes, it was one of many commitments made and honoured by this Government. That is the nature of democracy, difficult as the noble Lord may find it.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I cannot allow the noble Baroness to say that the Conservative Party put "Europe" on the agenda at the last election. We did not. We put the currency on the agenda which the people knew was to be subject to a referendum. Therefore, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, stands; I tried to underline it. In this convention we are talking about the future of Europe. We are not talking about the currency. There is a big difference.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my other point on Nice: that this takes forward the agenda. The noble Lord and I have had interesting and sometimes extremely

28 Jan 2002 : Column 25

lengthy exchanges on the Nice Bill. The noble Lord may toss the matter to one side, saying that the outcome of the general election on the basis of a clearly articulated promise to the British people is neither here nor there. I take a somewhat different view.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, was entirely right to say that the representatives from your Lordships' House will be independent. I agree that they are independent not only on their standing with regard to the convention but also by the nature of the noble Lords concerned.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked whether we would go back to first principles. The noble Lord will not like the answer which I gave in the recent exchange. We said that we shall take Nice forward. We have taken Nice forward. I hope that we shall get through Third Reading. I do not think that the Government's position could have been made clearer.

We are where we are on this. I did my best genuinely to obtain representations from your Lordships' House. I do not believe that the argument is between the Government and Parliament. The arguments adduced have been more about the balance between the two Houses. As I urged noble Lords last week to do, it was the responsibility of us all to take forward that argument through our party political channels. I say gently to the Cross-Benchers, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, that if their arguments were so pressing they could have been put some time ago. They had the opportunity for amendments.

I understand that there is still a little unhappiness. However, we shall have the opportunity to discuss the convention. We shall get our views over through the usual means: questions, debates and our own excellent committee on the European Union. With that assurance, and with the assurance that the Government will do everything they can to facilitate—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she answer the important question on whether the invitation to send delegates from Parliament was sent to the Government or the Clerk of Parliaments and the Speakers of both Houses?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry. I thought that I had answered that point in my opening remarks. It was for the Government, as all other governments, to decide the process for determining parliamentary representatives. The noble Lord should not be under the misapprehension that invitations were sent to Parliament. We discussed this matter when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, first raised the question. I said that it was a matter ultimately for the Government to decide: that the Government would do so on the basis of as wide a consultation as possible. I believe that our tabling today of this Motion on the Order Paper fully fulfils that commitment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

28 Jan 2002 : Column 26

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

3.58 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 1 [Incorporation of provisions of the Treaty of Nice]:

Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 9, at beginning insert "Article 1 (other than paragraphs 7 and 8, revising Articles 29 and 31 of the Treaty on European Union),"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during our debate on 17th January at the Report stage of the Bill, I raised the question at col. 1219 of the Official Report as to whether the new European police force, Europol, was to have immunity for its actions. When I did not detect an answer in the reply of the Minister, I repeated the question at cols. 1222 and 1223. The noble Baroness still did not quite answer my question but was generous enough to say:

"Nothing in the establishing of Eurojust trespasses on the Europol issues which the noble Lord has raised. I shall do my best to put some more flesh on the bones for him, if that is possible at this stage. I understand why the noble Lord is so concerned".—[Official Report, 17/1/02; col.1223.]

In the absence of any flesh on those bones, I am bringing forward the question again today as a specific amendment.

In the meantime I have done more homework and regret to say that it looks as though Europol's officers are indeed to have almost total immunity for their actions. I say that because I have discovered a Statutory Instrument, No. 2973, dated 17th December 1997, which appears to confirm just such immunity. The whole document is available in your Lordships' Library, but I believe it is worth placing on the record what are perhaps the two most worrying paragraphs.

The first is paragraph 6 which concerns Europol as an organisation. It states,

"Europol shall have immunity from suit and legal process, except to the extent that the Director shall have waived such immunity in a particular case, in respect of any damage caused to an individual as a result of legal or factual errors in data stored or processed at Europol".

I believe that your Lordships will agree that this could be a very wide ranging immunity indeed because,

"damage caused to an individual as a result of legal or factual errors in data stored or processed at Europol"

could presumably be very substantial damage. I trust that your Lordships will agree that it is not much comfort for the director of Europol to be given the sole power to waive the immunity granted because that leaves the organisation subject to no outside constraint in that regard at all. I shall be interested to learn from the Government how they justify having agreed to this in December 1997.

Paragraph 15 of the statutory instrument is even more worrying. It is worth placing on the record. It refers to the officers of Europol and states:

"Except in so far as in any particular case any privilege or immunity is waived by the Board, in the case of the Director, Financial Controller and members of the Financial Committee,

28 Jan 2002 : Column 27

by the Director, in the case of staff members of Europol, or, in the case of the members of the Board, by the Member State of the European Union of which the member is representative"—

I trust that noble Lords can catch up on all that in Hansard. Now we come to the crunch—

"such persons"—

that is the officers of Europol—

"shall enjoy immunity from suit and legal process in respect of acts, including words written or spoken, done by them in the exercise of their official functions, except in respect of civil liability in the case of damage arising from a road traffic accident caused by them".

I suppose it is good news that these new Europol officers will remain liable for civil liability—I do not know if that includes accidental damage—if they cause a road accident. Otherwise, they are to enjoy what looks like blanket immunity. Once again, I shall be interested to learn how the Government justify having agreed to this state of affairs in December 1997.

At least one other question needs an answer from the Government today. It is generally believed that Europol has been given the green light to form its own so-called anti-terrorist squad with the right to demand intelligence from MI5 and MI6. I ask the Government whether that is true. If so, it is not reassuring to remember that EU officials were caught selling intelligence information from the Schengen information system only three years ago.

As far as I know, the instrument and the immunity it confers were not even debated in either House of Parliament: it went through on the nod. Therefore, I believe that we should let in a little light today.

I have one last question for the Minister which I also asked on 17th January, at col. 1219, and to which I did not receive a reply. Do the Government agree that Europol and Eurojust, the EU's fledgling prosecution agency which will be working under the new European judicial network, and all these new creations, when taken together with the infamous European arrest warrant, are indeed the first steps towards corpus juris or the common EU legal order? I believe that we should clarify the issue before we leave consideration of the Treaty of Nice.

If the answer to my question is yes—and it seems pretty clear that it must be—then should we not have a specific debate before long so that we can at least express a view and inform the British people of what is being done in their name with their legal system? I beg to move.

---