| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Last week, we had a visit from the French President, Mr Sarkozy. He had the effrontery to urge the Prime Minister to get rid of all his red lines, give up our rebate, agree to a European army, stop moaning about the CAP and scrap the pound in favour of the euro.
A noble Lord: It was a great speech.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I would expect the Liberals to think that that was a great speech. They would sell this country down the river tomorrow if they could, so that is quite expected. However, I sincerely trust that Mr Brown will tell or has told Mr Sarkozy in no uncertain terms that he has no intention of agreeing to any of those demands.
At this point, like the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, I ask for a firm assurance that the promise to hold a referendum on the scrapping of the pound is sacrosanct, that there will be no trickery or backsliding on that promise—a promise made by all Governments so far—and that we shall, before joining another currency, have that referendum.
1 Apr 2008 : Column 1006
Finally, the Select Committee report rightly says that Parliament will have to look at its procedures following the implementation of the Lisbon treaty. I agree, but the only way in which Parliament can have any real influence is if it is able to mandate Ministers before they cast their votes on legislative proposals in Brussels. I hope that the Select Committee will pursue that political line.
I shall of course oppose the treaty, as noble Lords would expect, and vote for a referendum.
10.17 pm
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is always refreshing to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. He speaks clearly and he is not pessimistic like so many Eurosceptics in the corners of this House. He speaks with great confidence and originality. But they have nothing to fear. This is not an ambush from Brussels; it is a realistic response to the more complicated needs of a growing community. It is certainly not a matter for a referendum. That would be absurd. That is a political football, mainly in the Conservative Party. I look forward to hearing how the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, receives the ball in a moment.
However, we should be proud that our country owes thanks to those on both sides of this House, to both Administrations, because it has been able to retain its influence in Europe without subscribing to all the rules, which is surely the overriding consideration. The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Tugendhat, and my noble friend Lord Jay of Ewelme all demonstrated what this country has done for Europe. Mr Sarkozy has come and done that again.
This Government also take credit for placing international development firmly on Europe's agenda. That is why I am standing here now and is partly why poverty eradication is so well enshrined in the new treaty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned. As the noble Baroness said, more than half of all aid to the developing world—some £32 billion—comes from Europe. Our Prime Minister has a particular interest after years of advocacy, and with his recommitment in Davos and his determination to raise aid nearer to the UN target, I expect him to outshine Tony Blair in taking Africa and the millennium development goals even more seriously. I therefore welcome in principle new Article 208, which sets out the EU’s new legal framework for development policy, and the admittedly ambitious concept of the coherence of all EU policies with development objectives. We should, however, face the fact that much of the treaty is rhetoric. We must be realistic and recognise that the poorest are not the first to be invited to the European feast. They are well down the table, and sometimes they are not even invited.
When it comes to foreign policy, security, trade or the continuing demands of eastern Europe, the EU’s priorities will not necessarily coincide with those of Ghana or even India. It is therefore unsurprising that the development agencies are expressing concern at the downgrading of development in some areas of the treaty which the Leader of the House may not be able to sweep away at a stroke. Some of the concern
1 Apr 2008 : Column 1007
In the words of BOND, the group in Brussels that represents the NGOs, the new post,
- “may be an opportunity to strengthen EU external action and strategic vision, but it must not lead to sidelining commitments on development”.
There is genuine concern that the high representative will be an advocate for foreign affairs and security and not for international development, which will be in second or third place. Mr Tony Baldry knows a bit about foreign affairs and development. He says that it will be “subsumed” into other priorities. In the Commission, there will not be the same division of responsibility or the creative tension that exist in our Cabinet and which allow for healthy debate and even disagreement where something like Iraq is concerned. Incorporating a whole range of external actions, including development, and therefore the entire budget and staff into one External Action Service will surely blur the lines further and put aid programmes at risk of politicisation. The Select Committee report noted this rather dryly in paragraph 7.57:
“The implementation of the Lisbon Treaty might have implications for the internal organisation of the Commission services dealing with these policy areas and their corresponding budget lines, as well as for the overall coherence of the EU’s aid policy”.
I should be grateful if the Leader of the House could at least acknowledge the NGOs’ concerns, or better still, convey them to the Prime Minister, who may well share them. The Foreign Affairs Committee must be right that it is unclear how the new arrangements will work in practice, and the Government’s response appears to accept that. Will the Leader of the House therefore say what will happen to EuropeAid and ECHO, which have been among the most successful EU aid programmes? I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who spoke very warmly from his experience of the EU’s humanitarian work, and my noble friend Lord Renwick was quite right to mention much firmer auditing. This applies especially to larger aid programmes such as the European Development Fund, although the Commission has its regular independent evaluations.
Aid agencies broadly welcome the fact that the treaty will identify humanitarian assistance as a specific competence of the Commission for the first time, ensuring that humanitarian aid is independent and not used for political purposes. They are not, however, keen on the introduction of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps as set out in Chapter III of Title III. Only experienced professionals should take part in a humanitarian response in situations of conflict. This is not a theatre for volunteers, although they are active in many other areas of development.
Finally, on trade, Article 208 speaks of coherence. Yet, other articles dealing with trade policy and the customs union emphasise liberalisation over other objectives. The principle of reciprocity in European partnership agreements, for example, inevitably
1 Apr 2008 : Column 1008
10.25 pm
Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for, in his own words, passing such a clean ball to me. My principal points have been more than adequately made by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, my noble friends Lord Brittan, Lord Tugendhat, Lord Plumb and others. At this late hour I do not intend to burden the House by repeating them.
We have here an interesting spectacle. Her Majesty’s Government are doing the right thing, for reasons that are reprehensible. Her Majesty’s Opposition are doing the wrong thing, for reasons that are, in general, sincerely held. Sadly, this spectacle has almost become a tradition in British politics for EU matters. The rule seems to be, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, observed, that the Official Opposition, with varying degrees of sincerity, do the wrong thing, while British Governments, with varying degrees of ducking and weaving, generally do the right thing.
I thought that the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was rather “Euroer than thou”, to coin a phrase. With respect, I say to him and to those who sit on the Benches with him that the difficulties and compromises of being the Government or the Official Opposition are unlikely to trouble the Liberal Party in the near future. My hope is that today’s Opposition, fulfilling as they are their traditional role in these matters, will not give sufficient hostages to fortune as to inhibit their ability to take the right decisions in the national interest when in government.
This places those of us who served in previous Administrations in a rather awkward position. I served as a minor functionary in the Governments led by my noble friend Lady Thatcher and Sir John Major. We offered no referendum on the Single European Act or on Maastricht, which were the right decisions. Referenda, pace purely local issues such as licensing in Wales, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Howe referred, are always something of a challenge to the principle of representative parliamentary democracy. I am opposed to them on principle.
In this case, whatever quibbles there may be about whether the Lisbon treaty is or is not substantially the same as the originally proposed constitution, the fact is that the Government gave an undertaking to hold a referendum. They are reneging on that simply because they think that they would lose. I am not sure that they would lose, but I am sure that their performance on this matter will seriously damage their reputation. Others favour a referendum because they think that they would win and, in doing so, would advance a position that is at best hostile to the Union and is frequently a flimsy cover for an eventual move to withdrawal.
1 Apr 2008 : Column 1009
On the parliamentary process, I am pleased to note that the Government in another place follow the example of previous Conservative Administrations; they use a strong three-line Whip. In your Lordships’ House, such matters are dealt with in a more restrained manner. Traditional loyalties notwithstanding, in this House, as my noble friend Lord Howell pointed out in his opening remarks, each of us has a duty to do what we personally believe to be right. I propose to do just that.
10.30 pm
Lord Teverson: My Lords, one of the things that saddens me about this treaty is that we end the life of a body called the European Community. I always thought that that name was a good description of what Europe was. It was not a state, a federation or a confederation but a community of nations and a community of citizens. “Union” is a word that sometimes suggests unity and sometimes uniformity, which is clearly not and never will be the intention of the European Union. However, I regret the passing of the word “Community”.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, said about all the problems in relation to Britain and the single market and the things that have not happened in the other member states. I was a Member of the European Parliament when there were only 15 member states. Early on in my mandate, someone very wise said to me, “There is one thing that all the 15 member states agree on, which is that the other 14 states always cheat”. Not just the United Kingdom but every member state perceives the others as not implementing the burdens that they have to take on. I recall the European Court of Justice and the Commission having to take the then Conservative Government to task for not having implemented a number of water directives. At the time we were one of the lacklustre members in environmental matters and we did not implement legislation that had been activated elsewhere. One of the outcomes of that was that the costs of raising our environmental standards were so high that the Government had to privatise the water industry. I am sure that that is why Devon and Cornwall now have the highest water rates not just in the UK but across Europe.
I want to look in particular at the democratic deficit in Europe and whether this treaty will make it better or worse. It is a legitimate area to consider. Sometimes we conveniently forget that, even when we first joined not the Common Market but the European Economic Community in 1973, we did so knowing that it was a legislative organisation. It produced directives and regulations, and laws were passed that Britain had to implement. We understood that; that was how it was. But the democratic deficit was huge and, as someone who is very concerned about citizens’ rights and democracy—as I am sure every noble Lord is—I wanted to test these proposals against that.
We can see a number of improvements in relation to the European Parliament. A fundamental of democracy is an ability to understand the organisation that makes laws and expects its citizens to adhere to them. Anyone trying to comprehend the European Union has a great
1 Apr 2008 : Column 1010
Noble Lords have already mentioned budgets. It is quite unacceptable under the principles that we accept in this Parliament—no taxation without representation—that elected Members of the European Parliament have little control over around half the EU budget, that relating to agriculture and fisheries. At last the problem has been dealt with and we can move forward to where we shall have full accountability in budgetary control.
As to whether national parliaments will be in a better position under this reform treaty, it is up to them to take responsibility for controlling their Ministers in the Council of Ministers. That is a key way in which national parliaments can control the European Union and it is a very powerful way if they do it properly. If they are subservient to their Executives, that is their problem to a large degree. In this country we are somewhere in the middle—way behind Scandinavian parliaments and a long way ahead of some of the southern members. The yellow and orange card procedures are incorporated into the treaty. They do not make me feel excited about parliamentary control in European institutions but, again, it is up to national parliaments to make of them what they will and to use them. I see them as a plus.
It is often repeated in this House and in the newspapers that the Commission is an area of ultimate secrecy. However, as a Member of the European Parliament, I could phone up members of the Commission and I could go and see them. I had easy access to some Members of this House and I was helped by other Members through their cabinets. It worked very well. My business constituents who had problems could get on the phone directly to Commission staff to sort out their problem. There is not a chance of doing that with Whitehall.
One area that was a fortress of secrecy was the Council of Ministers, a legislative chamber that, with the European Parliament, formed a bicameral system within Europe. I am delighted to see that, at last, the treaty demands that when the Council of Ministers is in legislative mode it has to operate in public. I hope that there will be an equivalent of Hansard and that we can bring it to account.
It is to be hoped that citizen issues will be improved through the European Parliament. However, I have a suspicion that citizens initiatives are more about spin than substance but, again, it is something that will, over the years, become significant.
I would like to have seen a right for the European Parliament to initiate legislation. It is strange that the Commission should have a monopoly on that, even more so now that the third pillar is to disappear.
1 Apr 2008 : Column 1011
The referendum has been the big issue in today’s debate. I have a different take on it. To me, if an organisation such as the EU or the intergovernmental conference is so arrogant as to call a treaty a “constitution for a continent”, it is right that there should be a referendum. But that is not what this treaty is. Certainly we should have had a referendum if it had been called a constitution, but it is clearly a treaty of far less importance than Maastricht or the Single European Act. Under those circumstances, therefore, it would be quite inconsistent to have a referendum.
My noble friend Lord Burnett wants European citizens to play a much greater part in Europe. When the European constitution was debated, there should have been one referendum of all European citizens, in which they could have said whether the decisions that their heads of government within the European Council had come to were right or wrong. I believe that the people of Europe would have rejected that constitution. There would have been a crisis, which would have meant that Europe would have had to go down the route of seriously consulting its citizens for the first time in its history.
10.39 pm
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the hour is late and nearly everything has been said, so I shall not detain your Lordships very long. I think that we should proceed with this Bill in our usual, careful way, ratify the treaty, and then move on to other important work that is waiting for us in Europe. There are substantive points and it is an amending treaty, but not one that requires a referendum.
I shall deal with the matter of the referendum. I am speaker number 60 and my conclusion after listening to the early speakers is that the dispute with some noble Lords over a referendum is a separate matter. Some noble Lords are asking for it either for party-political purposes or to diminish the EU. In the end, it will do none of us any good. In reaching this conclusion, I was strongly influenced by the European Union Committee’s report, and I join other noble Lords in congratulating the committee on its impact assessment. I am not the only person who finds the treaty document difficult to follow and the committee’s report is a very useful guide. The opening section on objectives and values reflects the objectives and values that inspired me 30 years ago. As the committee points out, the treaty codifies current practice in finance and trade policy as well as foreign, defence and development policies—and all this is very helpful.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, the EU has increased its membership from 15 countries in 2004 to 27 today. Any organisation would undergo a process of internal reform after such an increase. Does the Bill result in the EU becoming more efficient and effective, more fit for purpose? Do we still retain our freedoms?
1 Apr 2008 : Column 1012
Many noble Lords are concerned, quite rightly, about the public. The logic is simple: we live in an interconnected world and at this dangerous time who knows what the unexpected consequences will be? The message that I am getting is that this is a time not for legal minutiae but for more engagement with Europe, not less. It is a time when our membership matters socially and economically to our population, to help them to secure the consistency and stability that we need as hard and difficult times approach—especially as at this time it looks as if Europe will withstand the credit crunch in much better shape than the United States. We need to be part of Europe’s capacity to hold things together. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the United States may be our most important ally but we are part of Europe and, as such, Europe is an indispensable ally in facing up to the challenges about which many noble Lords have spoken, such as globalisation, terrorism, climate change, conflict prevention, and the need for strong international institutions. All those demand a co-operation within the EU, and these are the concerns of the people as I understand them. If I may mix my metaphors, with these storms approaching this is not a time to rock the boat—so let us proceed with this Bill, ratify the treaty and move on.
10.44 pm
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, it is very late and I shall not detain you very long. I want to discuss two linked subjects, one of which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I refer to the Laeken declaration and Europe’s democratic deficit. The Lisbon treaty is the fruit of the Laeken process. If the Lisbon treaty is not effective in carrying out the policy that the heads of government adopted at Laeken, it is not likely to work for any purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Leach of Fairford, referred to Laeken in his excellent speech as the starting point of the whole process. He also discussed it in his evidence to the European Union Committee. Other than that, it has received rather less attention in this debate—interesting as though it has been—than it properly deserves.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |