---

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, when jurors are asked whether they will be able to sit for two, three, six months or even longer, many say that they will not be able to give up that amount of time. However, as I hinted earlier, I am very happy to hold a briefing open to all noble Lords and present material which I hope will help noble Lords to reach a decision when the orders are brought forward. I hope that the noble Lord will find that helpful.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General accept that the Lord Chief Justice's recent protocol clearly recognised that there had been a serious failure to have a well informed and robust management plan in past cases—hence the protocol which he provided? I urge the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to allow that to be tried to see whether it works. It may do. To rush in before one knows the extent to which that contributes to the unsatisfactory situation is ill advised.

Does the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General recognise that there is a public perception in regard to the criminal law which views trial by jury as providing a better quality of justice? That may be right or wrong but it is strongly felt. A perception exists that the judges are case hardened—that they have heard the excuse many times in the past. There is the perception that the judges know that the DPP and the Attorney-General, where he is involved, must have gone to a great deal of thought in bringing the case and accordingly there must be something in it. The perception exists that the judges, perhaps subconsciously, are motivated in favour of the prosecution because of their appreciation of the care and thought that have gone into bringing the case. That is why I urge the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to allow the protocol introduced by the Lord Chief Justice to have a chance to operate to see how effective it can be rather than run the risk of causing a loss of public confidence in the administration of justice.

I have one final point. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General told us that there is to be no general assault on jury trial. He says that between 15 and 20 cases may be involved annually. My recollection of the representative of the Serious Fraud Office who spoke in the "Today" programme on the
 
21 Jun 2005 : Column 1532
 
radio is that only a couple of cases may be involved. Can the noble and learned Lord account for that marked difference?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord makes three points. First, the view of the senior judiciary present at the seminar was that firm case management was highly desirable, had its limits, and should not be regarded as likely to be sufficient. As I have indicated, if it turns out that it is, that will affect whether the applications are allowed.

Secondly, I am not sure that I agree with the noble and learned Lord about what the public think. I would rather hope that the public thought that the judges of this country were independent, objective, professional and highly competent. What we have done to increase the independence of the judiciary, noted for example by the appointment of a new Lord Chief Justice and the new arrangements, would only reinforce that.

Thirdly, I have given an estimate of the number of cases that I think this may affect. We will have to see whether it is 15, or 20, or two, or a little bit more. What really matters is that the vast majority of cases will remain trial by jury.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, how confident is the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that a judge, as a single person, will be able to deal with the complexity of those sorts of fraud trials? I have over 21 years of experience of dealing with audit committees of various companies, and it is not easy. That is not part of the training for judges. Secondly, is there any suggestion that there should be an independent group of highly skilled financial people behind the judge in some sort of independent area who would be able to advise him? Otherwise, a huge onus is being put on the judge.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am absolutely confident that the judges will be able to deal with it. They deal with exactly the same sort of subject matter in civil cases at the moment. Secondly, it will be for the judiciary to decide whether they use any of the powers that they have to use expert assessors in cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, there was a general view that people did not want to see trial by judge and experts.

European Union Developments

4.1 pm

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos) rose to move, That this House takes note of developments in the European Union.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an opportune moment for a debate on future developments in the European Union. Yesterday, we discussed the outcome of last weekend's European Council meeting, and in particular the consequences of the "No" votes in the referenda in France and the Netherlands and the budget ceilings for the European Union for the period
 
21 Jun 2005 : Column 1533
 
2007–13. We did not have an opportunity to look at the wider context in which we are having that debate, and that is what I hope we will do today.

Let me go back to first principles. There are many things that European nations do best when they work together, which bring added value. That is why Britain joined the European Union in the first place and why we remain a member today. Since its inception, the European Union has removed trade barriers to boost growth and create jobs; improved our environment; raised standards and rights for consumers; fought international crime and illegal immigration; brought peace and stability and given Europe a more powerful voice in the world.

There is no doubt that the European Union has achieved a great deal in its relatively short lifespan. As a pro-European government, we want to see a continuation of those achievements, but we can do that only if economic stability remains at the heart of the European project. On current trends, people in the United States will be almost 50 per cent richer than those in the European Union by 2025. China's industrial production is growing at an amazing 17 per cent per year, and its share of our imports increased tenfold between 1985 and 2003. India is now producing a quarter of a million science and IT graduates every year and is competing with European economies not just at the lower end of the market but in every area, including cutting-edge industries such as software and biotechnology.

The European Union cannot afford to be left behind. We owe it to our citizens and to the future prosperity of our countries. We have to do more to make a reality of the ambitious targets for economic reform, training and employment in the European Union, which were set by its leaders at the Lisbon summit in March 2000. EU regulation needs to be reviewed to ensure that it benefits business, not harms it. We also have to strengthen the EU's ability to act globally against threats to our security, while building on its strength as a force for good in international affairs in areas such as trade and aid. That is why we are so committed to a reform agenda.

In seeking reform, we have to recognise the benefits of the European Union and the importance of the UK's engagement within it. When we have engaged, the United Kingdom has been able to shape the rules that allow British citizens to travel, work and live freely anywhere in Europe and get welfare benefits, healthcare and fair legal protection. We have secured European liberalisation, which has slashed airfares and brought the cost of telephone calls down by half. United Kingdom and other European businesses once had to fill in 60 million customs forms a year simply to trade within Europe, with all the attendant bureaucracy and delay. Today, they can trade directly to the same standards and rules as local firms in a market of more than 450 million consumers. EU police and justice co-operation is helping to bring drug smugglers, people traffickers and fraudsters to book.
 
21 Jun 2005 : Column 1534
 

Alongside those practical benefits, our position as a leading power in Europe makes the United Kingdom stronger and more influential in the world; we are speaking as part of a community that accounts for a quarter of world wealth and trade and more than half of all development aid. European governments have not necessarily got those positive messages over to our citizens. One issue raised by the "No" votes in France and the Netherlands is whether enlargement commitments to Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Croatia and other western Balkans countries should be honoured. Our answer is "Yes". Enlargement benefits everyone—both the countries joining and existing member states. Today, democracy and stability exist across a wider area of Europe than ever before. Everyone benefits from participation in the biggest multinational single market in the world, but we need to work much harder to demonstrate to all EU citizens that enlargement is good for the EU and good for all member states.

Today, the European Union faces a critical period in its evolution. The rejection of the EU constitutional treaty by French and Dutch voters was a big disappointment for everyone who took part in the Convention on the Future of Europe and in the negotiations on the treaty. It was a disappointment too for everyone who believes that reforms to the way in which the EU does its business are needed in the enlarged EU of 25. After an exceptionally difficult European Council meeting last weekend, EU leaders agreed on the need for a period of reflection in which the critical questions as to Europe's future directions are debated.

We have always said that the treaty is a good treaty, both for the Union and for Britain. We argued strongly for key reforms such as the creation of a full-time chair of the European Council and increased rights for national Parliaments to have a say on proposed EU legislation. However, the treaty's decisive rejection by the electorates of two founder member states of the EU has profound implications not only for how the treaty might come into force but for the future development of the European Union. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, the EU's institutions and policies need to reflect the priorities and concerns of Europe's citizens, and so do the EU's budget and spending.

The European Council failed to reach agreement on the future financial perspective for the period 2007–13, and that issue remains to be resolved. Under the Luxembourg presidency proposals, the United Kingdom was asked to agree to reform of its abatement without any reform to the agricultural policies that made the abatement necessary in the first place. It is simply not acceptable in the 21st century that more than 40 per cent of the EU budget is directed towards agriculture, which represents only 5 per cent of the population and accounts for less that 2 per cent of the EU's output. That is seven times the amount budgeted for science, technology, research and development, skills and education put together. We would be failing in our responsibilities to both the United Kingdom and the wider Union if we allowed such distortions to continue. We need to grasp
 
21 Jun 2005 : Column 1535
 
the nettle of the EU budget now, and ensure that it properly reflects the challenges of an enlarged EU in the 21st century.

Five member states found the deal unacceptable and several others expressed concerns. We believe that there is appetite for change. We fully understand, however, the interests of the 10 new member states in securing a deal. The United Kingdom Government have been a champion of enlargement and that will continue to be the case. We want to ensure that any deal struck meets the needs of those states.

Negotiations over the EU's budget are rarely resolved quickly—nor should they be for such a profound issue. It now falls to the UK presidency, in partnership with all member states and the EU institutions, to begin the process of finding a way forward for the European Union. We are determined that the lessons of the widespread scepticism across the EU about the treaty and the future direction of the Union are learnt. The fundamental lesson is that the EU needs to reconnect with its citizens. It must be relevant to people's lives, and must show that it is relevant. Above all, it must deliver both the prosperity and the social justice that people want.

Notwithstanding the headlines, the European Union is working, and we will take forward the essential EU business which falls to our presidency. The EU must show that it can rise to the challenges of the age and that it can deliver practical benefits to its citizens. Of course the current political situation creates greater uncertainty among member states and the EU institutions over how the EU agenda will be taken forward, and how quickly. We will have to work within that constraint, of course, but we will do so.

We cannot turn around the tide of globalisation or put up barriers against it. Rapid technological change, global capital flows and global sourcing of products and services mean that economies need to be highly competitive in order to thrive. Globalisation provides unrivalled opportunities for high-skill knowledge economies. Europeans should be ideally placed to take advantage of those opportunities. Europe currently has 19 million people unemployed. That is not delivering a "social Europe" for our citizens.

During our presidency, we will make a priority of advancing the economic reform agenda. We will take forward the better regulation initiative, for example, by ensuring that assessments are made of how far new EU legislation will impact on the EU's international economic competitiveness. We will also take forward work on the services directive, which extends the single market in a hugely important part of the modern economy. It also falls to our presidency to consider the post-financial services action plan agenda.

We will make sure that we use our G8 and EU presidencies together to reinforce our priorities on climate change and Africa. We will, for example, co-ordinate EU strategy for the Montreal UN climate change conference, and ensure that the EU increases dialogue with China and India on climate change. We will take forward work on the higher EU aid target at the
 
21 Jun 2005 : Column 1536
 
UN millennium review summit in September. We will also look for better trade terms for African nations from the WTO ministerial conference in Hong Kong in December.

On security for Europe's citizens, we will follow up the commitments in the counter-terrorism action plan and take forward the EU drugs action plan. We want a businesslike, effective and efficient presidency focused on our priorities—economic reform, security, climate change and Africa. However, we are realistic about what the six months of our presidency can do. It can make progress on Europe's shared agenda for change, but we know that we cannot transform those issues overnight.

We have worked closely with the preceding presidency, those who succeed us and the Barroso Commission to ensure continuity in progressing the agenda. At the same time, we are clear on what our presidency is not about. It is not about imposing our agenda on the rest of the EU. The priorities of our presidency are shared priorities. As with all other presidencies, we are expected to be impartial. It is not about getting a deal on each and every issue. It is not realistic to solve every problem in six months. On much of the work programme, we will take forward issues as far and as effectively as we can before handing over to Austria. It is not about ratifying the EU constitutional treaty. Ratification is a matter for each member state, and the European Council has agreed to revisit that in 2006.

The EU of 25 is quite different from the EU of the past. The dynamic is one of liberalisation, not integration. Our job in the presidency is to take forward the agenda that we inherit in a businesslike and effective way. On 30 June, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will set out the detailed presidency agenda as part of his Statement about the White Paper on developments in the EU. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will also set out the general approach to the current European debate and to the presidency at the European Parliament on Thursday.

It was striking that, in both France and the Netherlands, exit polls showed that a majority of older voters supported the treaty while younger voters were opposed. In the United Kingdom, the situation is reversed, with polls showing that younger people are more favourable towards the European Union. The lesson from those two different patterns of opinion is the same—if the European Union is to remain relevant, it cannot simply rely on the achievements of the past, but must continue to deliver practical benefits for the future. It must show that Europe can deliver results on the issues which most matter to people's lives—jobs, prosperity, security and social justice.

To maintain prosperity and social justice in a more competitive and fast-changing world, the EU must adapt. We need to look at how diverse social models, from Scandinavia and Spain to the United Kingdom, have delivered growth and social justice around Europe, and discuss how we can build on those successes. This European Council marked the start of a debate about the
 
21 Jun 2005 : Column 1537
 
EU's future priorities and direction. That debate is of vital importance to us all—to everyone who lives, works, travels or trades in the European Union. The United Kingdom has a clear interest in shaping that debate and leading reform in Europe. Under this Government, and during our presidency of the EU, we shall play that role to the full.

---