Report stage in the Lords
- Speaker
Lord Hunt of WirralConservative- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 31A:
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Wallace of SaltaireLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord. I just wish to ask who the “we” are in this respect. Does the “we” include the Conservative Party, or just some members of that party?
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I have a long track record, of which I am very proud, of being positive about our membership of the European Union. I joined the party that was the party of Europe, which it still is—it is just that Europe has developed in a way that many of us criticise. We would far prefer Europe to be developed in a way that made Britain feel “at ease with itself”, to quote the previous Prime Minister, John Major. We need a Britain at ease with its membership of the European Union. How do we do that? As I say, I have found that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in referring to the fact that we are always on the back foot, had an important point. How do we ensure that we are able to get across the positive case? In 2004 Tony Blair decided to publish a leaflet. This speech was triggered by a warm hearted gesture on the part of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. When she saw this amendment on the Marshalled List, she sent a large package round to my office containing the many documents that the Government have produced. In many ways she triggered quite a bit of what I am about to say, because she included the Guide to the European Union. I think that by including this she wanted to demonstrate that the Government were getting across a positive case for Europe. When I saw that document—which has a beautiful photograph of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, on the front cover and says that he wishes to explain how the treaty of Lisbon will allow, “the enlarged European Union to work more effectively and efficiently”, I said, “I wonder whether a previous leaflet was issued?”. I found a leaflet that was published in 2004, which my noble friend Lord Howell referred to. We have compared the two documents, and they are virtually identical.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Ashton of UphollandLabour- Quote
- It is the same leaflet.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I realise the noble Baroness is anxious to intervene, but let me just explain. The 2004 leaflet explains how the constitutional treaty will allow the enlarged European Union to work more effectively and efficiently. The marvellous Foreign and Commonwealth Office produced these two documents. There was probably a very overworked, overstretched individual there who simply took most of the text of the leaflet to explain the European constitution and transposed it into the leaflet explaining the treaty of Lisbon. Let those who say that they are completely different documents compare these two explanatory leaflets.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Jay of EwelmeCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, I have just one question for the noble Lord. I did a little research on the two documents during the dinner break, having been at least indirectly responsible for the first of them. Are they not guides to the European Union and not to the Lisbon or the constitutional treaty? Since the European Union has not changed fundamentally since 2004, would one not expect the majority of the leaflet to be the same in 2008 as in 2004? As I understand it, there are references in the document to the Lisbon treaty rather than to the constitutional treaty.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
- Quote
- I hope that the noble Lord will continue to participate in the debate, because it is very helpful to have one of the authors of the document with us. I dare say that what has happened on this occasion used to happen regularly to him when he served as one of our leading officials; that is, his text has been taken by Ministers and turned into a ministerial document. Gordon Brown has introduced his Guide to the European Union, which contains many references to the constitutional treaty, and turned it into a document which explains the treaty of Lisbon. I have been through the two documents carefully—I obtained the former document from the House of Lords Library and am very happy to pass my copy to the Minister as she searches for further evidence. One sees that huge tranches have been taken word for word, with the treaty of Lisbon inserted where the constitutional treaty was. I do not seek to rehearse all the arguments about the differences. The amendment would ensure that we explained in simple, understandable terms what the treaty of Lisbon meant. A huge bundle of documents was delivered to my office—I do not know whether it was delivered by a fork-lift truck, but it was of a massive weight. One of the problems with converting a constitutional treaty into the treaty of Lisbon and rewriting it is that if one wants to understand the treaty of Lisbon a massive amount of documentation is now necessary. I urge the Government to look again at all this material and convert it into a readily understandable document which can answer and knock on the head some of the myths and scare stories which, sadly, are often put around by those who wish us to withdraw from the European Union. I shall give one example, because I treasure giving as much time as possible for the noble Baroness the Lord President to be briefed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. One of the documents that I treasure is the no document that went to every household at the time of the referendum in 1975. I know that some Members—I do not see them here—will say that all we ever agreed to in the 1975 referendum was a free trade association. I remember being on many platforms vigorously supporting our membership of the European Community and saying that it was a step in the right direction towards a more prosperous and peaceful Europe because we gave up sovereignty in key areas and, by pooling it, made ourselves stronger. At that stage, we had a very vigorous argument. I remember that the no document was headed “The right to rule ourselves”. In 1975, it said that: “The fundamental question is whether or not we remain free to rule ourselves in our own way”, and that the Common Market has set out, “by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation”. That, of course, was not the case, but I fear that by allowing the anti-European lobby continually to peddle myths and misunderstandings, we have begun to lose the argument. In the last debate, when we were talking about the referendum, I sensed that one reason why a lot of people who supported a referendum no longer do so is that they feel that the argument about our membership of the European Union would be lost. That argument would not be at all positive, but be all about what the Government have or have not done. In many ways, that is a reflection on our failure in our duty to present the positive facts about Europe that are agreed by all parties, particularly the one I regard as the European party—my own. I have seen the party opposite move from being one entertaining the idea of entry into one that, in its election manifesto, wanted to withdraw; that caused a number of people to leave the Labour Party at that time. My party has never adopted any such posture, and as far as I am concerned it never will. However, we want to see a much more positive attitude, so I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity given to her by this amendment to spell out for us all exactly what she and her colleagues will now be doing to present the positive case. I beg to move.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord DykesCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who has just moved this amendment will not necessarily feel offended if I say that in Committee and on Report he has, to some extent, been under a sort of test after the declaration of being a good European that he made right at the beginning, after Second Reading. I remember it vividly and rather agreed with it, but I nonetheless felt cautious about agreeing totally with that judgment that he is still a good European—for he was in the past, and I remember that vividly—because of the subsequent changes that had happened in the Conservative Party. It was not right for him just to gloss over that today in his concluding remarks, or to say that the Conservative Party had not really changed on Europe. I do not want to be repetitive tonight, and I shall be very brief, but when I sat in on the Committee stage of the Bill in the Commons a number of others, including people who were sitting and listening in the Gallery, but who were not really political—for I deliberately made a point of asking them if they knew the Conservative Party’s history on Europe—were shocked by the intense hostility of the remarks made. They were made not just by the Back Benchers—mainly Mr William Cash and Mr David Heathcoat-Amory—but by the Front-Bench spokesmen and particularly the foreign affairs spokesman. There was a deep-seated hostility and antipathetic remarks, which were not just a marginal detail on the current attitude. Years ago when we were campaigning together, I remember vividly that the noble Lord followed me as chairman of the Conservative group for Europe when I was a member of the Conservative Party. We remember those days, when the party was a strong European force: the whole ethos was strong, thanks to the leadership of Edward Heath when following Harold Macmillan. Those days are no longer here, so in the spirit in which the noble Lord is not suggesting in any way that there should be a formal vote on the amendment but pressing for a good idea—to have more information, leaflets and so on on our membership of the European Union, the Lisbon treaty and the rest of it—then one would welcome that. In fact, the noble Lord has redeemed himself in the course of these proceedings, if that does not sound condescending, because he conveys his enthusiasm for Europe in his remarks and when he wants more information from the Government that is, understandably, part of that. So much information is provided already, both through official channels from Her Majesty's Government and through all the other things. I can quote an interesting pamphlet—a guide to the Lisbon treaty—from the forum group, which I am sure that the noble Lord has read as well. It says some very good things about the Lisbon treaty. One can quote the Foreign Office’s recent pamphlet on the Slovenian presidency period, which on page 13 sums up just what the Lisbon treaty means to everybody. Also, the noble Lord has to bear in mind one very significant point. What if there had been lots of argy-bargy in the other member states, particularly the older members, or what they call the more mature members of the European Union? What if there had been a lot of sturm and drang in the German Parliament about the Lisbon treaty—apart from the constitutional court point, which is the only one that has come out of the German scene. In France, too, which the British press has always described as a very bloody-minded nationalistic country and extremely difficult, what if there had been lots of anti-European people around, apart from just the National Front and the Communist Party? What if there had been those manifestations of disaffection for the Lisbon treaty? And then in the 10 new countries—or the eight plus the two islands in the Mediterranean and Bulgaria and Romania—what if there had been huge hesitations in that regard, as there were in Poland for a short period, although not for very long? After that, it went back to the equilibrium state of a massive amount of parliamentary enthusiasm for the Lisbon treaty and the opportunity that it provided.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I am really very pleased at the noble Lord’s support for this amendment, but is there a simple, easy-to-understand leaflet which he and I could use when we go knocking on doors, as we do from time to time, and somebody says, “Now what is all this about the treaty of Lisbon?”? I have not been able to put my hands on something so as to be able to say, “Here is a leaflet, it’s all explained in here”. I remember Mr Vaz saying, “All we want is a simple card with five points saying what the benefits are”.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord DykesCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I have never heard anyone ask that kind of question on the doorstep. I have never heard anyone ask why we should apply a stiffer test to the European Union than to other international institutions. I have never heard anybody say, “What is all this about the latest NATO treaty proposals?”. People do not talk like that on the doorstep. They are thinking about their own homespun, direct, local and wider issues. I could not hear the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, from a sedentary position.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord TomlinsonLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I was merely pointing out that the noble Lord has obviously never been to Walsall.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord DykesCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to invite me, we could go together and test this on the doorstep. I will not proceed with this interesting debate tonight, other than to say that my support is for the idea, rather than anything else. The noble Lord needs to think again about persuading his colleagues not to be so hesitant about the EU in the future, and to copy what he is saying now. Equilibrium will then come back to the Conservative Party.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Hannay of ChiswickCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to rise and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his extremely gracious remarks about our exchange. In the 50 or 60 hours of debate on this matter that I have attended in this House, I have been called far worse things than a bureaucrat. I can probably survive. It was very nice of the noble Lord to say what he did. In some ways I am extremely sympathetic to the thoughts that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but I am not at all convinced by the method advocated in the amendment in the Marshalled List. A government document on these points will not change public opinion in a helpful way, particularly if—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes—a number of the noble Lord’s colleagues, here and in another place, rapidly rubbish said government document. It is pretty certain that they would do so, starting up again the whole debate about whether the Lisbon treaty is really as helpful, positive and harmless as the Government say. I fear that such a government document would simply not do the trick. I hate to return the ball to the other side of the net, but before we can start to turn opinion around in this country—and heaven knows it needs turning around—it is crucial that the Official Opposition tell us that they accept the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, and are going to live with it. That is absolutely crucial. If they do not say that, and the thought hovers around that in the next manifesto there will be some commitment to deconstructing the Lisbon treaty, there is no hope of taking this out of partisan politics. It will remain in partisan politics. The best thing that could possibly happen is for all three large parties to join in an information campaign. That would not then be open to the same problems as a campaign run simply by the Government. They should also agree not to score points off each other on European issues in the next election campaign, which must come by 2010. The Irish can do it. Every single party in Ireland, except Sinn Fein, is today campaigning for a “yes” vote. In every other European Union country, the norm at election time is for parties not to disagree fundamentally on European issues. They disagree about a whole lot of other things, and have a very good election. The winners become the Government and introduce the policies that they have been elected for. Europe is not greatly affected because it is a bi, tri or quadripartisan issue in those countries. If we could get to that situation, we would have some chance of turning the position around, even in the teeth of the Murdoch, Rothermere et al press. That is a terrible handicap to all of us, including noble Lords on the other side who take the same pro-European view as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This is honestly not the right way to do it, but the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord are admirable and I share them totally.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Archbishop of YorkCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, I have always admired the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, particularly when he was in the other place as a Minister. I encountered him over a difficult educational question in Brixton. I came across somebody who was interested in informing people because he believed that knowledge and information brought power. Having said that, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right to do things in this way. I associate my words with those of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who said that this is not the best way. In an earlier debate on Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, the whole question of trust was seen as a Trojan horse—you are breaking trust because it was in the manifesto. If our Prime Minister has broken trust, how can you persuade the public, as in paragraph (d) of the amendment, which states that, “a letter from the Prime Minister is set out with every leaflet”.? If trust has already been broken, how does that square up? It does not. There is a sense that you have had your argument and defeated the very reasons that you are advancing. I said to myself, why is the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is the most reasonable person I have ever encountered, using this tactic? He wants to explain why the referendum is not necessary. That is not information: it is regurgitating what we have heard. There is an unfortunate phrase; the dog has returned to its vomit. Why should we go back there? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has my respect and what he suggests is utter common sense. If Parliament is to inform the public, it needs to do something like this, but we do not need it on the face of the Bill. That is not the way to do it, so I will be one of those who says that I hope Hansard reports correctly what the noble Lord is after. Let us do that. Let us do it from our primary schools and secondary schools and have everywhere in the community engaging with everyone, if I understand how the whole new world we are living in is turning out. We should then deal with it, support it and encourage it, but we do not need it on the face of the Bill. I would rather the Bill stayed as it is, without any more additions because it is clear. I hope that those who follow after us will say that there was one gentleman who spoke a lot of common sense, but common sense does not always need to be included in legislation. For those reasons, I for one say, “We have heard you, Sir. We do not need to go any further”. Thank you.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Watson of RichmondLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, I also welcome the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but the strategy—or more accurately its tactics—are wrong. We do not need this on the face of the Bill. It would simply re‘open the issue of the legitimacy of the Lisbon treaty. One of the depressing things about the whole European debate in this country is that it is seen as a zero-sum game. It is perceived as being the concession of sovereignty and a concession that is lost. It is never seen as a win-win situation; namely, that we are sharing sovereignty not to do the same things, but to do more things and do them better. The Lisbon treaty, as has been pointed out several times during the course of today's debate, is essentially a facilitation treaty. It is enabling us to do rather better what we are already empowered to do. It is to manage shared sovereignty, as it has already been agreed, more effectively. To come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about what sort of information effort we need in order to embed in the British consciousness a greater awareness of the benefits of European co-operation and integration, surely the essence is to move the agenda on. The whole point of this treaty is to move the agenda on. I urge the Government Benches: instead of endlessly going round this course talking about the red lines and trying to confirm to people that no sovereignty or the very least amount of sovereignty has been shared, start to make the case for what you can do with shared sovereignty about the problems which everybody now acknowledges are at the centre of our public life, such as climate change and other problems. That shift of gear would be crucial. I should like to make one other point which has been made from our Benches tonight. The challenge for the Conservative Party is quite straightforward. It can either pretend that this is an unresolved issue, that it will not accept the parliamentary verdict at the end of the day on the Lisbon treaty and will wish to reopen this if and when they have the opportunity. If they do that they defer the whole ability of this country to move forward in Europe. They have got to accept what has now happened. They have got to tell us what their forward agenda is. If their forward agenda is to return to a European free trade area they had better forget it because that is nobody else’s agenda. The agenda is now quite different. I look forward to a new realism from the Conservative Party on the future of Europe and a new willingness to co-operate on discussing what the future agenda is and how we make use of the management enablement of Lisbon to take the whole thing forward.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Quote
- My Lords, this has been an interesting albeit shorter debate than our previous debate, but an important one. While listening intently to what noble Lords were saying, I was musing to myself on where the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, might be were we to be having a referendum. It is a rhetorical question; I am not going to ask the noble Lord to answer it.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Ashton of UphollandLabour
- Quote
- Okay then, my Lords, I will. If there had been a vote for a referendum, it having been agreed in another place, would the noble Lord have been campaigning yes or no? Sparing his blushes, I know that the noble Lord has for many years been a strong proponent of Europe and a strong leader in his party on the values and benefits of the European Union. I take this amendment in that spirit. I will take a lesson from the noble Lord here because his track record on this is second to none in his own party. That has probably ruined his career for the rest of his life, but I do not care because it is well worth saying. I apologise to the most reverend Prelate for referring to him incorrectly as the right reverend Prelate, and although the most reverend Prelate does not mind—
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
- Quote
- The most reverend Primate.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Ashton of UphollandLabour
- Quote
- Thank you. It is even in front of me and I get it wrong. In my position I should have got that right and I apologise because it is important. I agreed with a great deal of what the most reverend Primate said because the focus of this amendment above anything is for us to have a short debate about the importance of promoting what we are doing in the European Union. I am not going to get into the arguments about this or another booklet. Both booklets were primarily about explaining the European Union and both referred to what was, at that point, where we were in our deliberations—one on the constitution, one on the Lisbon treaty. Let us leave that aside. It would perhaps have been relevant in the previous debate but it is not now. What matters is what we do. I am not going to apologise for putting a lot of information before the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, because I keep being criticised for not doing that. Today I made sure that the noble Lord had it. Equally, the noble Lord has an important point about making sure that the information is available in a form that people can understand.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness LudfordLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way and apologise that I have not heard all of the debate on this amendment because I was at something interesting elsewhere. She talks about information. I am constantly amazed when I go as Member of the European Parliament to address school children. I was under the impression that as part of citizenship education they now learnt about the European Union. I am afraid the results do not seem to be evident. As part of this exercise, will she ensure that she feeds in to her ministerial colleagues the fact that citizenship education is meant to include knowledge of the European Union but does not seem to be doing so? It is vital that young people grow up aware of just the basics about the EU. It is really not that complicated and it is crucial.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Ashton of UphollandLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness completely. It is important that young people, indeed all citizens, learn about the European Union and I accept that we need to do more. Yet the noble Baroness will not be surprised by the criticism that I, as an education Minister responsible for citizenship, would get were it suggested that we should do more to promote the European Union—it would be “propaganda”. The noble Baroness will not be surprised at all by that but that is indeed an issue and a problem the Government face all the time when people suggest it. It was particularly true when the euro was brought in across many parts of the European Union. I for one was keen to—and did—produce something for young people to make sure that they knew what the euro looked like, that they understood what it meant. That was not least because teenagers have a habit of travelling across the European Union and not knowing what the money looks like could lead them into some difficulty. We did, therefore, produce a lot of information, but this is an issue that we always have to deal with. I am very grateful that the noble Baroness raised the importance of making sure that young people are educated, because I agree completely with that. I could go into a list, which I have, of all the different aspects of information that we produce. I will not do so, for I sense the weariness of the House even before I begin. We do make sure that we have on the website all of the available information, which is particularly relevant for young people. That is available at www.europe.gov.uk, where anyone is able to obtain as much information as possible. Where I join with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in his amendment is in my commitment to ensure that people get as much information as possible in the appropriate manner to enable them to understand the European Union. When we held the presidency, I tried extremely hard to get media attention on some of our work on civil justice which was relevant to people’s everyday lives, and I found that almost impossible. If, as a result of this discussion, all noble Lords would join me in trying to find ways to promote the European Union in our media, in the broadest sense, I would be more than delighted. The amendment is not necessary because we already produce a lot of information. We seek to circulate it as widely as possible. We want members of the public to look at the Foreign Office and No. 10 websites, and we have blogs from the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe, which are run weekly and, I gather, attract a great deal of interest and comment from members of the public. I am sure that noble Lords will support them in that.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, this has been an interesting and helpful debate. I would say to the Minister that when I suggested that the Government should publish an explanatory leaflet on the Lisbon treaty, she sent me the leaflet that I have in my hand. I was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for saying that it explained the Lisbon treaty. He said, “No, it’s a guide to the European Union”. It has been sent to me by the noble Baroness to demonstrate that information has been published about the Lisbon treaty. We have to decide which is which. An explanation of the treaty of Lisbon is very much a part of this leaflet, but the noble Lord is quite right that it contains a lot of information that is nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. We do not have a leaflet that explains the treaty of Lisbon. My point was that we ought to have one. I say to the most reverend Primate that I do not think anyone has ever been as complimentary about me as he was tonight. I much appreciate that, because I have enormous respect for him and the courage that he shows in giving his views. He is a prime example of someone who I look up to in the whole area of communicating with people. I would also say to him that someone has to explain the Government’s position on not having a referendum because, according to the latest poll, 64 per cent of the public believe that there should be a referendum. That could be ignored, but by ignoring the issue, it festers and inhibits the positive case that can be put forward for making sure that Britain is right at the heart of Europe, which is what I have always believed. We have to begin to tackle these problems of people believing, as we said in the previous debate, that there was a bargain between all the main political parties and the British people that they would have a referendum. Therefore, it is important to say that there has to be some explanation in simple and easy-to-understand terms of why we will not get the opportunity that the Republic of Ireland will have tomorrow. The noble Baroness has not referred to what happens if Ireland votes no. That is the great unknown, or the known unknown. If the Republic of Ireland votes no, what happens? Do we go on regardless? Do we still have Third Reading; or do we do what the Conservative Government did over the treaty of Maastricht, which was to suspend parliamentary scrutiny for a considerable period until the heads of state had met and discovered what would happen next. All those are questions that we should be addressing.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- The Archbishop of YorkCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, if the public were correctly to read Hansard, which is recorded accurately, of our earlier debates, they would see that there are very clear reasons why some of us went through the Not-Content doors. What about the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in which she clearly argued that the treaty is a very different thing? I am one of those who believe that a name is important. I am Sentamu; I am not Hind. The moment that they say Hind is going to be Archbishop of York and then put in Sentamu, everyone would be quite angry—and quite rightly so. For me, “constitution” and “treaty” are therefore quite important. If you really think that our public read Hansard and know what has gone on in Parliament, which is always on television, and are not persuaded why there is no need for a referendum, we have a job that is far more serious than I thought. I believe that in York, where I am, they know. They listen to the debates, and they will say, “Oh, Wirral, he comes from the same place as York; they are part of the North. They disagreed but, in the end, the vote was probably right”.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I really enjoy listening to the most reverend Primate. He takes us on journeys that are fascinating to behold, but the one description that he gave of queues of the public at the Printed Paper Office waiting to read Hansard is not a picture that I can believe. He assists me enormously in my case. I disagree with him and agree with my noble friend Lord Howell in his response to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who, together with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and I, are fellow governors of the English-Speaking Union, where we debate these issues all the time. I do not agree with his assessment, but I hope that he agrees that if we were to try to encapsulate the arguments in clear and simple terms, we would begin to win again. The public must be persuaded. If individual political parties break their bargain with the British people—the majority think that that bargain has been broken—you cannot just leave it and move on, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that of course we have to move on. I do not know exactly what will happen; there are a lot of hypothetical questions in this debate; but my argument has always been that we have to win the public's hearts and minds on the issue of Europe. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dykes; he and I have fought hard in the past to try to get across to people the positive side of our membership of the European Union. We have neglected all that too much; I especially point my finger at the Government. If we are to make progress, we need a Government who strongly believe that Britain's place is at the heart of Europe and who get out there to communicate to people and knock the scare stories on the head.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TomlinsonLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am sorry to intervene; I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but he has now led us twice into this argument about being at the heart of Europe. It is one on which I strongly agree with him, but does he agree that he could make a singular contribution to this if he held a physiology lesson for some of his colleagues to show them that you are best being at the heart of Europe by not trying to take Europe by the jugular?
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I do not belong to a political party which once campaigned to withdraw from the European Union, but the noble Lord does. I will take no lessons from the noble Lord about what others in my political party, the Conservative Party, do. I have always thought of myself as a Christian democrat, a national liberal. My predecessor, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, stood as a national liberal and Conservative. I represent that part of the Liberal Party which joined the Conservative Party and I strongly believe in Europe. It is what brought me into politics. I will not take any lessons from him on how I have to rein in members of my own party when he allowed his party to campaign to withdraw. We have had a good debate—
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Ashton of UphollandLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a direct question. He has not answered my direct question, but I shall answer his on the Irish referendum. I wish to make it clear that I intend to complete this legislation at Third Reading. It will be for the Council of Ministers, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will attend, to make any decisions about what happens there. It is my intention to complete this.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Howell of GuildfordConservative- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 31B:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Watson of RichmondLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I rise only because the noble Lord has spent so much time talking about my alleged position. Behind what a lot of the noble Lord has said is a sort of assumption that Europe’s relationship with a wider non-European world is an alternative relationship to the ones that we have. If you look, for example, at the level of trade and investment between the Federal Republic of Germany and China, you will find that it is quite as great as our own. If you were explaining this position in Germany, the Germans would find it almost incomprehensible. They do not see their relationship within the European Union as an alternative to their relationship with China. They see them both as being essential. Frankly—this is my question for the noble Lord—why pose these things as alternatives? Within the European Union we have a pivot which is vital to our relationship with the Commonwealth, the United States and China. These are not alternatives. They all converge and relate to each other. To pose it as black and white alternatives is deeply misleading.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Howell of GuildfordConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, this is turning into a fascinating debate but I must get to the core of the amendment. However, I must say in response to that lovely intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that that is precisely the point: I am not talking about alternatives. I am talking about the proposition that I would like to resist. I sometimes hear advancing towards me the argument that the European relationship with China is a substitute for our own bilateral relations. None of my German or French friends would accept that for a moment. They would laugh at us. They are developing their own bilateral, as well as their European relations with China and Japan. We arrived in China and found that it is not the EU propositions or EU trade policy that have arrived, it is German concessions, French contracts and German franchises—they have got the advantage of us. It is about time that we realise we must act in this network world bilaterally as well as through various organisations, of which the EU is only one. Unless we understand that, we are going to be outwitted at every point. That is why one feels very deeply about this constant distortion of the argument, as though we are proposing either Europe or something else. That is nonsense. Let us turn now to—
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord KinnockLabour- Quote
- My Lords, for clarity, can the noble Lord, Lord Howell, say what significance he attaches to the reality that the European Union negotiates trade terms with China as an entity and is therefore able to deploy much greater strength and influence than even the strongest individual economy can do inside the European Union? Can we have his view on what he thinks the future of the trade mandate of the European Union, given by its democracies, really is?
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Howell of GuildfordConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I would love to answer that question and the noble Lord speaks from authority. I hope that we will not promote yet another wide debate but I will just say that the trade mandate, which is very interesting, important and lies in the hands of the European Union, should be pursued, but the noble Lord must not be deluded by economists or other advisers into thinking that the world’s economic and global system is dominated only by the kind of issues covered by the trade mandate. Investment, capital movements, trade between affiliates, which is not even covered by EU trade agreements, and a vast range of contracts and politico-economic and politico-business arrangements happen well out of the sight of the trade mandate that the noble Lord mentions. A lot goes on in the world which is not covered by that. I beg your Lordships to let me turn to the amendment where my proposition—what we have discussed is related to it—is simply that this is a Bill and a treaty that leaves an enormous number of unanswered questions. It was the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who I think talked about a further agenda. Everyone has talked about treaties ahead and a number of European integrationists in the European capitals are ready to talk about the next treaty and another IGC. So the idea that this is a settled matter is unlikely. I am fully aware that I am treading an ambiguous path in the sense that we have argued that this treaty is self amending—as it is. Some of my noble friends, and others, have argued that that means there will not be any more treaties because this one can expand the powers of the European Union and remove the vetoes of nation states on European Union activity to an almost unlimited degree, barring only the areas of CFSP and so on, where we have debated how far they can get into those areas. Those who talk as thought this treaty and its ratification is somehow the end of matters and that they have all been settled and tidied up—the language that the officialdom of the world loves so much—are on a completely erroneous path. We are dealing with the distribution of power and the argument will go on for ever. There will constantly be new pressures for nation states re-acquiring powers and for things to be done in common in the European region. There will be other pressures to link up and share our sovereignty with other bodies outside the European region. That will go on and those who think that they can tidy it up and tie it down are living in a fool’s paradise because that is not the way it will be. Future Governments, including ours—everyone seems to assume that there will be another Conservative Government although I think we should be a little more cautious—will be facing this relatively fluid situation. The distribution of power will not all be settled. I recall, many years ago in the other place, dealing with budgetary legislation coming forward from the then Labour Government. We had to christen it “liquid legislation” because as it came forward, although things were stated on paper, hardly had they been set down than they were constantly being changed—they were evolving all the time. There is a sort of liquid legislation aspect to this Bill as well in a way that I think did not exist in the previous treaty Bills relating to Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam. I believe, incidentally, that some of my colleagues in the House of Commons when encountering current budgetary legislation from the present Government find it takes rather a liquid form in the sense that an announcement one week tends rather frequently to be modified, or amended, the next week.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Wallace of SaltaireLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, we are now in the 16th minute of this interesting speech, but in the past 10 minutes I have not heard the noble Lord refer to anything in the amendment and I suggest that we return to it. The amendment is extremely familiar to me because I cannot find anything in there that we have not already discussed, and I am very surprised that the Public Bill Office has accepted it. However, we might at least discuss what is in the amendment, rather than the very large number of issues that the noble Lord has raised in the past 10 minutes.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Howell of GuildfordConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, the noble Lord is a good listener but in this case he has not been a listener, because I have been talking about the proposed role of the President and the European External Action Service. Did he not hear those words? He must have done, yet he says that he has not heard anything about those matters. Would he like to withdraw what he said, as it was inaccurate? I take a lot of inaccuracies from his Bench but that was so wild that I think that he should unscramble that particular proposition. Would he like to do so?
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Wallace of SaltaireLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, if the noble Lord can point out to me where the common energy policy and oil stocks are in the amendment, I shall be very grateful.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Howell of GuildfordConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I did not say that they were but it is not accurate, correct, fair or true to say that I had not mentioned anything in the amendment. I had, and the noble Lord should accept that in good faith. He must remember that we used to be the nasty party but we are now the nice party and we like to do things nicely.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Howell of GuildfordConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I mentioned the timetable and method for the implementation of any other treaty provisions as well. I do not think anyone could criticise me for that. I have gone on much too long because I had a most engaging exchange with the noble Lord’s noble friend Lord Watson, with whom I always enjoy exchanging views. I have a further list of domestic issues arising from parliamentary scrutiny being utterly confused with parliamentary control. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has rightly written to the noble Baroness, pointing out the difference between the two. I have a lot of questions on the very unfinished business arising from the new powers the Government hope to take in order to fulfil this scrutiny-plus arrangement, which we debated at length on Monday. I will not go into that again but there are new powers and consequences from how they will be used. The methods by which they will be used will require very careful examination. They, too, are known unknowns. I beg to move.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Wallace of SaltaireLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I was very surprised to see this amendment put down late last night because I can find very little in it which has not already exhaustively been discussed in Committee and on Report. I am rather surprised that the Public Bill Office accepted it. The arguments about Network World and why Britain’s relationship with Australia, Fiji, Tonga and Kiribati is more important than its relationship with France, Germany and everywhere else are familiar to us. We have enjoyed listening, even after dinner this evening, to the good cop/bad cop routine on the Conservative Front Bench, with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, telling us that he loves the European Union and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, telling us that he hates the European Union. We should not have what is a Second or Third Reading speech in the final stages of Report, but here we are, so let us grasp what we have. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, wants to have an end to politics. He says he wants to have all the questions completely answered. My understanding of democratic politics, let alone international politics and diplomacy, is that politics never stops. You never get a final answer and if you ask to stop the world and get off, you will never achieve that. Of course we will continue to cope with new problems by negotiating new solutions. That is the nature of the world in which we live. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, mentioned canvassing how often we hear the issue of the EU raised on the doorstep. I have been trying to remember if there has been any occasion in the past five years when I have heard someone mention the European Union on the doorstep and it is very difficult. I remember canvassing in Hull in 2004 with an American friend from the National Journal in Washington who wanted to hear responses to the Iraq invasion. The first door we knocked on, we got a very strong reaction on parking on the verges in the local council estate. Ninety seconds later we had moved on to Iraq, passing through the European Union mean time. But the European Union is not something I often hear about on the doorstep. I hope what I am about to say is not entirely out of order. We have heard a lot from the Conservative Benches about flags. I hope that this is not a story about one of our noble Cross-Benchers. When the European Union negotiated the question of a European flag in the mid-1980s under the Government of Mrs Thatcher—now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—the proposal was made that the European Union should adopt a flag. An anonymous British official is alleged to have said—I have this story from someone in another Government—that Mrs Thatcher would never accept a flag, but if the European Union would agree to accept an emblem which could then be put on a flag, that might be acceptable to the Conservative Government and herself. We do not officially have a European Union flag; we have an emblem which is carried on a flag—a very important and subtle distinction which infringes British sovereignty less. That is quite enough for a short after-dinner speech, but I simply want to say that I still do not understand why this amendment is on the Marshalled List and why we are repeating arguments that have already been made several times. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Anderson of SwanseaLabour- Quote
- My Lords, there is no final destination in politics; it is a journey. It is the illusion of the extreme left and the extreme right to think that there can be a final struggle. There will be flexibility, which is revealed mostly in the details of the treaty in order to avoid holding intergovernmental conferences ad nauseam. It would be absurd to follow the reasoning of this amendment.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness LudfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, over our seven hours of debate I have listened to many Conservative speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, claims that the Conservative Party is the nice party now, but I think that it is the confusing party. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, told us that the approach of the Government should aim to be at the heart of Europe. I certainly agree. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, seems to be reluctant to recognise any role for the European Union. He says that on the one hand the Lisbon treaty will be followed by more treaties, but on the other hand it is self-amending so there do not need to be any more; it is liquid legislation. Many questions have been asked today. At one point the noble Lord, Lord Howell, made an important statement to the effect that—I do not want to misrepresent him, but I cannot recall whether he was speaking for himself or putting forward the Front Bench position for his party—had there been a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, the Conservative Party would have campaigned for a no vote. I am not clear whether that represents the settled view of the Conservative Party as a whole, but I cannot see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, taking the same position. In summary, I remain confused on exactly what the Conservative Party position is on the European Union and indeed on the Lisbon treaty. To conclude, I agree with some of the spirit of the amendment in the same way that I intervened earlier to ask the Minister about citizenship education and the basics of the EU. I agree that there simply is not enough explanation about who does what in the Union. I have a theory that when people say that they do not know what the EU is or who makes decisions, it is because one of the problems is that they do not really know how their local council works, and they certainly do not know how the Government in Westminster work. However, because those institutions are within their sphere of legitimacy, they do not question them so intently. But I have to recognise that they do question the legitimacy of the European Union. It is not that they are burning to know all about the Union, but it amounts to people saying, “We don’t like what we don’t understand”. There needs to be a great deal more relatively simple but not unintelligent information—not too simple because people are not stupid—about the EU. Finally, on the one hand we are supposed to accept that there are a lot of Eurosceptics, while on the other hand reports from respectable polling organisations and Eurobarometer surveys carried out on behalf of but not by the European Commission show consistently that a large majority of people even in this country want the EU to be competent on issues such as tackling serious crime and terrorism, climate change and helping to solve the problems of poverty in the third world. They want the EU to be able to do things. There is something of a contradiction in those results, but I believe fundamentally that the British population supports a competent EU that is good at solving problems. It can do that only if it gets its act together and speaks with one voice. There is something of a kernel of truth in this otherwise unacceptable amendment about the need to convey more information.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- The Archbishop of YorkCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I am bothered by an Act of Parliament which comes into force because of what we were sent, but then someone says in that Act that a report will explain and clarify it. This is a departure from the way Acts of Parliament in this country work. Parliament passes an Act and it is for the courts to interpret and clarify it. We are creating another category of legislation here. I am quite dubious about frequent regulation—you can govern by regulation—but that process has increased under the present Government and I am quite anxious about it. Parliament by regulation is always dangerous. I can associate myself with Acts and Bills, but if you want clarification and interpretation it is for the courts to provide it, not the Government who have brought forward the Bill. The Prime Minister’s reporting, clarifying and explaining will again be subjected to the courts, so why are we doing this? I would rather stick with the Act and forget this malarkey.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Ashton of UphollandLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, earlier in the debate someone said that we were on a journey; we are coming to the end of tonight’s journey. I am very grateful for the 24th offer of a report—19 of them from the Conservative Front Bench—in the course of our deliberations. I am going to resist this one as much as I have resisted the previous 23. In answer to the question about how many times the European Union is mentioned on the doorstep, my noble friend Lord Hunt suggested to me that it might be as often as Lords reform is mentioned on the doorstep.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TomlinsonLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, they do not talk about that in Walsall.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Ashton of UphollandLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Tomlinson is right and they do not talk about it in Walsall, so be it. I shall be rather old fashioned and talk briefly to the amendment before us. We have discussed the substantive issues in the amendment on many occasions, including the role of the full-time president of the European Council. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has accepted that there are aspects of this amendment on which we have already voted and therefore should not have been included in the amendment. It is not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Howell—they should not have got through—but he has graciously accepted that and I shall not deal with those aspects of it. I have said a number of times that when one is looking to ratify a treaty there are two principal issues. The first is to make sure that the work is done by officials at the right level to ensure that should ratification occur in all 27 member states, and thereby we move on with the Lisbon treaty, we are able to implement it properly. That happens with all legislation in a national Parliament and there is no difference in anything we do intergovernmentally. There have therefore been discussions. I have explained them at great length and I am not going to go over the same ground again. We have been very clear that the decisions will be taken post-ratification and that Parliament will be involved appropriately in making sure that the Government are held to account, through scrutiny processes, for all the decisions that will probably take place throughout the remainder of the French presidency. The Minister for Europe has set out in a letter, which noble Lords have seen, how the Government intend to keep Parliament involved and has committed to ministerial contact with the committees ahead of ministerial discussions of these implementation issues. As I have indicated, there have been some preparatory discussions at the right level but, I repeat again, no final decisions will be taken until the treaty has been ratified, and they will be taken only by Ministers. The scrutiny committees are receiving the draft annotated agenda for the European councils and the Foreign Secretary has given evidence today to the Foreign Affairs Committee. We expect there to be an informal discussion over dinner at the junior European Council on issues of implementation. It is important to have these informal discussions in order that officials are able to prepare for the moment when we hope ratification occurs across the European Union. The Prime Minister will be reporting back to another place from the European Council and, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat any Statement that is made on 23 June. That is one way in which we are able to keep noble Lords in touch. I think I indicated previously, so I will not go over this ground again, that when I was in Brussels I talked at length to a number of different people, such as the head of the Council Legal Service and the secretary-general of the Commission, about all these issues. During all those meetings it was made clear to me that although official-level discussions were necessary to ensure that the arrangements were properly dealt with, no decisions would be reached without ministerial agreement. As I have said, we will keep both Houses informed. I hope noble Lords will agree that in the course of our deliberations on Report I have made it clear that the Government will do all we can to keep your Lordships’ House and the other place informed of the discussions on implementation, and therefore this amendment could only duplicate what is already being provided by the Government. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Howell of GuildfordConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I will straight away agree heartily that the Minister has done enormous amounts—staggering amounts, in fact, considering that she had a quick flit to Peru in the middle of it—to keep us informed on the meanings of the treaty and the Bill and on the issues she has encountered on the way in Brussels, and so on. There will be more to be kept informed about, both in this House and in the other place. Not all is clear. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who is immensely experienced in this area, rightly said, there is not enough explanation about who does what. That is just a small consideration. Sadly, the noble Lord Wedderburn, cannot take part in these debates because he is not well, but he reminded us earlier that the appointments of presidents and so on are serious matters. We may be setting in train areas of expansion of powers that are a zero sum, in the sense that powers taken in those sorts of areas can be powers lost in others. In many areas, the Lord Watson dictum—that it is not a zero sum—is correct, but in these areas it could be wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is also very experienced in foreign affairs and had 10 years’ command of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I think he followed me in that role. It is a splendid committee; he knows a lot about it, and he says it is all a journey. It certainly is, in the Foreign Affairs Committee—a lot of journeying takes place. All I would say about the journey we have had with the Bill in Committee and on Report is that it is rather like travelling on one of our older motorways. There seem to be a lot of road repairs and a lot of traffic jams. We are clearly going to have to do a lot more waiting before these things become clear. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said that these matters are all small details—but he will not have forgotten where the devil resides. There are many issues here that we have to be clearer about before one can be entirely happy that the proper role of parliamentary control is being fulfilled in satisfactory ways and we are not once again parked on a bypass while the traffic of legislation and the redistribution of powers rolls by. It was said—again, perhaps, by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—that we should all be happy about the treaty because we wish the EU to do certain things. Indeed we do, and we have legitimate arguments about the ways in which they should be done: how much legislation is needed, how much centralisation and harmonisation, how much variety and diversification. We all want the UN to do things as well, and I personally want the Commonwealth to do things. We want NATO, which obviously needs to adjust to the 21st century, to do things; many of the things it did in the past century will have to be done in quite a different way in the present century. We have had a wonderful contribution from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. It is marvellous that he should have the time to be with us this evening, right at the end of Report. He is with us, but he is not quite with me, on a rather central point: that this legislation is not like other legislation. It does not end up with the difficulties sorted out in our courts. Rather, those difficulties are sorted out in the supreme court, which all our lawyers have told us again and again is the European Court of Justice, whose powers, and the extent of those powers, are vastly increased by the treaty. All are agreed on that; no one has disputed that the extension of ECJ sovereignty, as it were—or at least of its powers and influence over the so-called Third Pillar issues with the exception of CFSP, although certainly intruding into aspects of foreign policy in different ways, as most people have agreed—is an important constitutional change. It takes our affairs into the hands of the European Court of Justice in a way that we did not always expect.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- The Archbishop of YorkCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the European Court of Justice uses the same standard of proof, arguments and decisions as our own courts? Why can it not uphold the same level of judiciary rights as we have in this country?
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Howell of GuildfordConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, this is the last moment when we want to get into any kind of detail, but it is simply because it can strike down the UK law. The judges in our courts are governed by the will and laws of our Parliament; the European Court of Justice is governed by the constitutional laws and principles of the European Union, which are evolving. It is a very different story, but that is surely a debate for another day.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord KinnockLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, the noble Lord is—I am sure, inadvertently—being slightly misleading, because the only UK and other member-state laws that can be struck down by the European Court of Justice are those which are proven to be at variance with the treaty to which this democracy and 26 others have set their hand. That has been the case in all the areas of competence of the European Court of Justice ever since it was established. Throughout the years when the noble Lord’s party was in government, there were divergences, but the court was never accused of unconstitutional presence, which is what he is accusing it of now.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Howell of GuildfordConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I did not say “unconstitutional”, but the noble Lord is absolutely right at this late stage to confirm the point—the devil is in the detail. He was right to correct me. I should have added the qualifying phrase “in those areas in which the ECJ has recognised judicial jurisdiction and where UK laws conflict with that of the EU, it can strike them down”. But that is a limited area; it is not the entire area. It is perfectly right that not all UK laws can be struck down. That was the conclusion of my remarks and the conclusion, I suspect, of Report, because I am about to do the decent thing and withdraw the amendment. I hope that this has not been for too many of your Lordships too tedious a process. I have found it instructive and—dare I say it?—even entertaining at times. It has been very challenging and has raised major issues about this nation, its Parliament, its parliamentary democracy and our position in the world for the future, to which I think we will return again and again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗