---

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, in accordance with custom, I should like to say a few words before the Bill passes from your Lordships' House after our fairly protracted debates on it during the past few months. I hope that the fact that I have tabled no amendments on Third Reading will not lead anyone to think that we have any particular fondness or liking for this Bill about the Nice treaty or, as it was described in the newspapers this morning, the Nice debacle, as it is now widely agreed to have been. However, at Third Reading, we must recognise that there was a massive majority in favour of the Bill in another place. At the moment, we are still an advisory Chamber, a monitoring and long-term thinking Chamber. We do not yet have an elected element; when and if we do, the view from an elected Chamber would be very different, in the interests of the country and of parliamentary democracy. The Bill adds little to either of those causes.

There are large parts of the Bill—or of the treaty, if not the Bill—that could happily have been left out. As it says in Hymns Ancient and Modern, in which verses are sometimes starred, there are large sections that could have been omitted without injury to the general sense and purpose of the hymn, or, in this case, the Bill. It does not help particularly with enlargement, although we have been told again and again that that is its purpose. In fact, the enlargement mechanisms could probably have been handled differently and have been slowed down by the attachment of all sorts of extra commitments, devices and decorations on the treaty. So far, that has had a fatal effect. The treaty has been blocked by the decision in the Irish referendum.

All along, we have sought to ask what plan B was, and we have not really had an answer. What happens if the Irish cannot somehow turn opinion around in time? The treaty cannot be ratified. We can sign—the former Foreign Secretary has already signed us up—and both Houses of Parliament can pass it, as seems likely to happen. However, that is no good; the treaty must be ratified by all existing members, and there has been little assurance of that.

We are passing a Bill that will not lead immediately to any particular changes. I am not sure that, when it does, the changes will be at all beneficial. The issue of the future shape of the European Union moves now to the so-called Convention on the Future of Europe, which your Lordships discussed earlier this afternoon. I view the whole approach with unease born of past experience. It looks as though, once again, the nomination aspect of the operation has been hijacked by the executive. It certainly appears to have been hijacked by the Euro-élite and the pro-integration political parties.

That is exactly what happened when we had an assise in the late 1980s, in order to try to determine the future shape of Europe. Some said that more

28 Jan 2002 : Column 32

democracy was needed, that matters should be returned to national parliaments, that subsidiarity should be made a reality, that repatriation of certain vital powers was overdue and that the European Union's methods belonged to the previous century—that is, we can now say, the 20th century—and were hopelessly centralised. Those views never had a chance. I hope that they will have now and that there may be at least one robust voice in our very small grouping going to the convention. My hopes are not high that that voice will be properly heard.

I remain bemused by the fact that the two Chambers of this ancient Parliament, which has a democratic legitimacy that goes back for hundreds of years, should have its voice narrowed down to so few Members in a convention at which, I understand, there will be 16 from the European Parliament, the democratic credentials of which have yet to be fully established in a way in which even its members would like. We look forward not to a more flexible pattern for a modern European Union, but to something that repeats what the traditional Europe-builders want. One need not be a Euro-sceptic, just a Euro-realist, to see the dangers of that.

The Bill fails to touch the huge, immediate and dangerous issue of the legitimacy and democratic structure of the European Union. Even its most ardent proponents and supporters realise that that is a great danger. On this side of the House, we say, "Good-bye" to the Bill without any enthusiasm. We hope that it will lead to wiser counsels but fear that it will not.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Government for their co-operation in passing the Bill. We do not share the sentiments of the Conservatives, who seem to see conspiracies in every aspect of European legislation.

I shall repeat what I said in Committee. There is, in the House, a Gresham's law of European debate. A certain tone of discussion of European legislation tends to drive out informed discussion of where we are going. I find that unfortunate. It is extremely important that from now on, as we move from this rather modest and disappointing Bill amending the EU treaty, we should have a more constructive debate about what is proposed for the next inter-governmental conference. We hope that the Chamber will find a means of following the progress of the convention that will be equally constructive. I hope that the Government will lead in that and that they will keep the House regularly informed, through Statements and publications, of how the debates are moving forward.

From these Benches, we will give every assistance in making sure that the debate is constructive and intelligent and does not treat all foreigners as if they were threats to this kingdom.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in my view, the Bill should not have been brought before Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, the Irish people have rejected the treaty. Because of that, the treaty is, effectively, dead.

28 Jan 2002 : Column 33

There is no need, therefore, for us to discuss the treaty, except, of course, to pressure the Irish people into voting differently in a future referendum, assuming that a future referendum is possible under the Republic's constitution. It is improper for Britain—in particular, Parliament—to be party to such pressure.

The treaty has been described as essential to enlargement, but, clearly, it is not. I wish that people would stop talking about it as if it were. Enlargement can proceed with or without the treaty. The Bill was rushed through the House of Commons in three days. That is a disgrace. That was completely unnecessary and completely undemocratic. I am glad that the House has been able to spend more time on the Bill, but it is farcical that the unelected Chamber should be able to discuss the Bill properly, while the elected Chamber was limited by guillotine to only three days. That cannot be right. I wish that the House of Commons would give some attention to that.

The treaty is important. There is no doubt about that. I shall not go into detail, but it takes important steps towards further European integration, including laying the foundations of a European government, foreshadowing a written constitution and setting up the nucleus of a military high command. There are some important things in it, and those are very important and vital matters.

I thank the Ministers and government spokesmen for their attention to the views of those taking part in debate for giving detailed replies to the many questions raised. I thank them also for their courtesy, good humour and tolerance. That was noted by the House and welcomed and appreciated by it. I am sure that, on that point at least, I speak for all Members of the House.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I, too, say farewell to the Bill with some fear and trepidation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell that the Treaty of Nice is entirely bogus if it was intended to help with enlargement. Clearly it does not do that. Enlargement was merely taken as the excuse to strengthen the power of Brussels—of the European Union—against the sovereignty of the member states. It is extremely depressing that the acquis communautaire, the ratchet, has gone on grinding relentlessly towards the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe, as the treaties demand that it must.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that the acquis communautaire was frozen for enlargement and that no additional directives have been put in? Because of the Treaty of Nice, enlargement can progress without further directives on the book.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was not referring to the aspects of the acquis communautaire to which the noble Baroness refers so much as the way in which the ratchet towards an EU megastate has moved

28 Jan 2002 : Column 34

forward, in particular in the areas of a common legal framework, corpus juris, and other aspects of the treaty.

It is very simple: the European Union is dangerous for peace and irrelevant to trade. I would maintain that all those who support the European Union and the European dream do so from the basis of a fundamental belief that it is obviously good. They even dare to claim that it has had something to do with producing peace in Europe. They certainly believe that it will solidify and guarantee peace in the future, whereas I and others believe it to be a forced or premature conglomeration of different nations. Such conglomerations always end in disaster.

The Union is irrelevant to trade. European Union trade barriers are now down below 1 per cent and therefore leave us only with the Union's very dangerous political ambitions. For myself, I think that the best quotation of our debates came from the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He pointed out that the European Union would not qualify for membership of the European Union if it applied to itself for that honour. Nor indeed would it.

I fear that we must leave it there. I should also like to offer my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and her team for their unfailing courtesy in answering most of our questions. Very often those questions have been extremely detailed and I am afraid that they have also been boring questions. However, the devil is often in the detail—boring, but very important for the future of this country. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness.

---