§ Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
§
Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
§
Revision of Treaty: reporting proposals
§
(". Whenever proposals are made by any Member State or by any institution of the Community or of the Union for revision of any of the policies or forms of co-operation introduced by the Treaty on European Union, the Secretary of State shall
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35. There is no doubt about the meaning of these amendments. There may have been some doubt about the meaning of some amendments during Committee stage but these amendments state quite clearly what they seek to achieve. Perhaps I may go briefly through them.
§ Amendment No. 32 seeks to allow Parliament to have an influence on the conduct of any revisions of the treaty or policies or the form of co-operation introduced by this treaty. Amendment No. 33 seeks to involve Parliament directly in revisions of treaties by making any proposed revision subject to its consent before any review. Amendment No. 34 seeks to limit the term of the Act to 1996, when there is to be an inter-governmental conference. The objective is to examine what has happened between the ratification of the Treaty on European Union (and what has been said during these debates) and what in fact is happening in 1996. That gives us a chance to repeal the Act if it is not doing what it was thought it should do and ensure that it is doing what was intended.
§ I seek to have Parliament involved at every stage. The treaties relating to the European Community are different from other treaties. They are different in that they constitute a series of "mini" written constitutions, designed to lead eventually to complete economic and political union. So they are different from other treaties which seek to do something quite specific.
§ This is a series of treaties which has as its ultimate objective complete political and economic union. So it is necessary to treat them differently. They embrace every facet of government, including foreign policy and defence. As we have heard in our debates, the issues are indeed complicated. They are varied and the interpretations put on them can be quite different. Therefore it is all the more important that everything should be clear, especially since a European supreme court will make decisions on the basis of what is written into the treaties. It is supremely important that Parliament should know exactly what is in the treaties, has been involved with the content of the treaties, can have a say about what is in them and should eventually decide what should be in the treaties in absolute detail.
§ We have seen all too vividly how government can be at odds with Parliament and how both the Government and the Opposition can be split on these issues. It is desirable that Parliament should be involved at every stage, both supervising the negotiations of treaties and finally agreeing the terms of treaties before they are finally concluded by 204 Ministers with other member states. Only in that way can we obtain the true acquiescence of Parliament and, through Parliament, the acquiescence and involvement of ordinary people, who are, of course, represented in another place.
§ Such a system would be a unifying experience for Parliament and the people. I suggest that it would restore confidence that Parliament is more than a rubber stamp. People would feel that their representatives had a genuine say in what was happening. If people were involved at every stage and had the final say on the details of the treaties, they would feel that they had an influence on what was done in their name. They would have confidence that they were not being bulldozed into a system which they did not want by a bureaucracy which was completely out of touch with their aspirations and was careless, even contemptuous, of their fears.
§ To involve Parliament in all those matters and to do so at every stage is not to try to put the Government into a straitjacket. It is to try to form a new partnership between government and Parliament, so that it is not simply a matter of the Government saying, "We have made this treaty. If you don't agree with us on the treaty, we shall look bad in the eyes of the international community and lose face. You really can't do that to us". Arising from that is the absurd situation of Members on both sides being whipped into the Lobbies, very reluctantly indeed in many cases. These amendments show the way to a new and genuine partnership between the Government and Parliament and Parliament and the people.
§ Amendment No. 35 seeks to obtain from Her Majesty's Government for Parliament's consideration a White Paper concerning the process for making further revisions to the Treaty on European Union, the use of prerogative powers and the extent to which Parliament may in future be directly involved in discussing and approving individual articles in future treaties (I suppose that that is an alternative to the other provisions but it comes together with them). It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not in the Chamber. We are suggesting something similar to what he has proposed. I expect that he has been very bored and very angry, as have many other noble Lords, because we have had to deal with the Bill and this treaty in a particular way, since that is the absurd manner in which we deal with such matters.
§ Amendment No. 35 seeks to persuade the Government to think of what the future process should be in regard to Parliament's involvement. Bearing in mind the problems that they and the Opposition have had during the passage of the Bill to ratify the treaty, I should have thought that the Government would want to discuss a new way of doing things. Then, when we have future treaties—I suppose we shall have them, which will be a pity—we can discuss them in a way which everybody understands and in which everybody is able to participate.
§ I hope that the Government will give favourable consideration to that amendment. They may have some difficulty with the others; I appreciate that. But we are trying to plot a new and future course where 205 Parliament becomes more rather than less important. We are trying to chart a course where, far from losing sovereignty, Parliament gains more sovereignty. I should have thought that that was something we would all want, including the Government.
§ The amendments are interesting and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
§ Lord BeloffMy Lords, as my name is down to Amendment No. 35, which is part of this group, perhaps I should state my position.
I do not altogether share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in regard to the likely reaction of Her Majesty's Ministers. It does not seem to me that the evidence suggests that they are prepared to take into account the genuine feelings of Parliament—I do not mean the people who are whipped through the Lobbies—and still less, as we shall hear tomorrow, the genuine concerns of the population of these islands.
For some time there has been a commitment on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the belief that Britain's problems are incapable of solution if Britain is left to govern herself and that the only hope for this country is continuous integration in a supranational framework. That is clearly exploitable by other countries which have a clear idea of where they would like to go from the political, economic and social points of view. They know that they can play upon the determination of Her Majesty's Government to he "at the heart of Europe", to coin a cliché.
It is interesting, and historians will regard it as extraordinary, that we should come round to that essentially defeatist position when so much is going for this country in terms of its capacities and material resources. In successive conferences which have revised the Treaty of Rome, a bargaining situation has emerged in which carrots are held out and eagerly nibbled by our negotiators but which, in the end, proved to be only carrots, and the inexorable course towards total integration proceeds. Though naturally one would like to see Parliament associated in the early stages and receiving warnings of what is afoot, I doubt that will happen.
We have been talking of 1996—the year which the treaty prescribes for the next conference. But, as I said al an earlier stage, we have no guarantee that it will be 1996; it could be sooner. For instance, it is obvious that, since Belgium is in an internal mess and badly needs an international triumph, it would like to mark its presidency with a further move towards integration. At one point the Belgian Prime Minister suggested that there might usefully be a conference this coming autumn. That now does not look likely but we must expect a series of forays of that kind. Because of our determination to be involved in the process, we will see what is and what will go on happening; that is to say, the use of whatever article in any of the three treaties comes to hand to progressively impose upon our economy and our environment the desires of the nucleus striving in Brussels and some of the capitals for further integration.
Ministers say. "We fought against the 40-hour week directive; we fought against other directives. But 206 it is necessary for us not to break with our great European partners, so in the end we gave way". What is striking about the process, which came out in our lengthy and, I fear, elongated debates on the Bill, is that the Government are doing all that while themselves holding no brief for most of what the Community is doing.
Yesterday we heard that there was nothing to be said. Indeed, Ministers said nothing in favour of the common agricultural policy. They all say that it is awful, dreadful, costly, damaging to us and to the developing countries. But they then add, "But we are only one and can do nothing about it unless we repudiate the Treaty of Rome". I dare say that that would be a striking step. But as long as one says that, one puts up with it.
It is equally the case—there has been a great deal of press comment upon it—with the dmectives on the environment. We may have to charge enormous sums of money to those who drink water—mistakenly, but they drink it—because of the totally absurd demands being made under directives of the European Community, which have no relation to the health of our people. They are not supported by statistics or health arguments. In other words, they are matters wholly within our own grasp. We used to run the support of our agriculture and run it rather well. We are perfectly capable of deciding what are the proper levels of purity of water and other environmental questions.
Any country which has a well-established government, with ministers, civil servants and Parliament, could do this for themselves. But because we are besotted with this idea that we must be "in" with the Europeans we abandon our own capacity for dealing with our own problems. That is why I think that there is a great deal to be said, although I am not optimistic about it, and we have to see that the public is awakened to what is happening. As we are a parliamentary country, associating Parliament with any further accretion of powers to the centre, or any further negotiations for the accretion of powers to the centre, must be a sensible course. Therefore I support this group of amendments.
§ Lord Thomson of MonifiethMy Lords, we always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with a great deal of interest because he always puts his case so fluently and in a way that is stimulating, even when one does not agree with him. However, it seems to me that when he was complaining that the mood of Britain was defeatist in its approach to Europe, he himself was immensely defeatist in the whole tenor of what he was saying. The picture he presented was of a rather pusillanimous or a rather weak British Government that was incapable of looking after any British interest in Brussels and was a push-over for anything that other members of the Community do. I am no uncritical admirer of Her Majesty's Government but, even to someone coming from these Benches, I think that was a grossly unfair caricature of the reality. The reality goes a great deal deeper than the noble Lord's analysis.
The fact is that this country used to be a great imperial power, with a Commonwealth with which it 207 was very closely associated, and it had an international role of a special character. The world changed greatly in the post-war period and the United Kingdom had to decide how to adapt itself to those changes in the world situation. The view was taken by successive British governments and by the majority of the British political community over many years that the best way of adapting to these new circumstances, when we could no longer be a substantial world power with an international world-wide base through the Empire and Commonwealth, was to become part of a European community.
It was a very positive decision. It is of course possible to argue about it but it was a very positive decision; and I think that has been the position of successive governments. That is the underlying reality that we are dealing with here. For my part, I regard the process from the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Maastricht as a beneficial one for the peoples of Europe, including the peoples of the United Kingdom. Although we may be critical of the way the Government handle particular issues, I think that the underlying position of the British Government in relation to Europe is very different from the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Of course it is possible to find areas of European Community life of which one is completely critical. It is possible to find areas of United Kingdom life of which we are very critical. The common agricultural policy is a sitting target for that kind of thing. I suspect that the issue of clean water is a rather more complicated issue than the common agricultural policy.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who has a very real feel for these issues of national power, standing and so on, that he seems to be, by picking on these particular issues, ignoring the fact that 90 per cent. of the entire British business community believes that the real interest of the British people, from the point of view of economic welfare, lies in being part of a European Community. That, I think, he totally overlooked.
The first of these amendments emphasises the importance of Government having adequate machinery for parliamentary consultation, as events develop within the European Community. In a general way, I think that we are all in sympathy with that particular purpose. For my part, although I have many complaints about the way that Her Majesty's Government have behaved in these matters—I totally disagree with the opt-out on the social chapter, for example—I do not think that Parliament can complain about the way the Government have sought to consult it throughout the whole process of the Maastricht affair. They held very full consultations before the Maastricht Treaty was finally signed and there was endorsement in Parliament after that.
If I have a criticism it is that instead of standing on our own feet in the matter we allowed our timetable to be determined by the views of the Danish people rather than by the views here in the United Kingdom. I do not think one can complain about the parliamentary consultation. The role that this House plays through its select committees in European affairs 208 is a very positive one. No doubt some things could be improved, but the underlying position is that the British interests for the future lie in a more integrated European community and in Britain being at the heart of that.
§ Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, I very much agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has just said. Turning in particular to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, of course it is desirable that Parliament should be involved and I very much endorse what my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon has said about this. But surely it is quite inconceivable that this or any future government which follows it should fail to take into account the views of Parliament with respect to any proposals regarding the amendment of the treaty. No doubt the Minister will give us this assurance when she replies.
Let me give my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon this assurance. We from this Bench will hold the Government to their political obligation to consult Parliament at the time of renegotiation of the treaty. If I may say so, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said. The peoples' representatives have certainly had a very good say on the ratification of this treaty. Some would say that they have had almost too much of a say and too many hours of parliamentary time have been devoted to it. But I am sure that they will also have plenty to say when renegotiation takes place.
If I could turn for a moment to Amendment No. 34, it seems to me that this amendment, if accepted, would tie the Government to replacement of the Act by a particular date, which really makes no sense whatever. The treaty is actually concluded for an unlimited period, and the Act ratifying it should also be for an unlimited period. After the member states' governments have met in 1996 to consider those parts of the treaty for which revision is provided, there can be no doubt that the government of the day will bring forward to the British Parliament any proposals for legislation or legislative change if and when that is needed. Again, I give my noble friends who are concerned about this an assurance that this is a political obligation on the part of any government that is in power at that time that must be enforced.
Turning to Amendment No. 35, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has his name, I do not want to get into the issues of substance on European integration which I think he was raising, because it does not seem to me that they are terribly germane to this amendment—even the purity of water, much as I am also concerned about that—and nor do I think it would be right to get into tomorrow's debate on a referendum. We shall have many hours to discuss something that he also mentioned: the question of whether the people, rather than the peoples' representatives, should be consulted. I think that this is a question for tomorrow.
I have little objection to this amendment in principle, although the timescale of nine months is very short. I have not been convinced by the arguments put forward by the two noble Lords supporting the amendments that it is necessary to put this provision on the face of the Bill. Again, we in 209 Opposition would want to ensure that the Government fulfilled their political obligations in this respect. That does not need to be embodied in statute. I regret to say that the Labour Party cannot support these amendments. We consider them to be either unnecessary or damaging in the case of Amendment No. 34.
§ 9 p.m.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, out of these four amendments, three of them, led by Amendment No. 32 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, seek to guarantee Parliament's role and involvement in any future treaty revision. I can give the assurance which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was seeking. There is already going to be a role for Parliament. There will be involvement for Parliament in any future treaty revision. The exceptional amendment to the four is Amendment No. 34 to which the noble Baroness also took, exception. I am not surprised that this amendment was tabled limiting the duration of the Act to 31st December 1996. I have to say "thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for his magnanimity in allowing us three whole years' grace to sort out what is going on.
But it is not practicable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, the period should be unlimited. If there are elements in this treaty, as in any previous treaty—and as I outlined in answer to Amendment No. 31—which requires amendment, then it must be taken up at the next opportunity. With the Maastricht Treaty we have closed certain loopholes which we found to exist in previous treaties.
I now turn to the three main amendments, Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 35. Amendment No. 32 would require a report to Parliament whenever proposals are made for the revision of the Maastricht Treaty and that the United Kingdom follows a negotiating mandate approved by Parliament. Amendment No. 33 requires the Government to gain the prior approval of Parliament to any further treaty revision. Both these amendments reflect ones debated at Committee stage. They were Amendments Nos. 414 and 408.
No one will dispute the legitimate right of Parliament to influence legislation. But I believe that that is best ensured by following what is consistent UK practice on treaties; namely, that any domestic legislation is passed after signature but before ratification. The treaty itself contains a clear procedure for amendment. Currently Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome is replaced by Article N of the Maastricht Treaty which states:
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I shall not go down that path tonight. We shall have our full debate tomorrow. In the United Kingdom substantive amendments to the Community treaties will of course require an Act of Parliament as was the case with the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. Parliament will have every opportunity to have its say. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, 210 with the Maastricht Treaty we did indeed seek the approval of Parliament for a negotiating mandate before my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary went to Maastricht. When they returned, the outcome of that negotiation was put to both Houses of Parliament. Therefore. it is not only possible but certain that the Government would seek a mandate from Parliament for the negotiating strategy and treaty negotiations, particularly if they are major. That is a decision for the government of the day. I see no way of proceeding in these matters of making—
Lord MorrisMy Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend the Minister. Perhaps I may ask one point for clarification which is very important. Will Parliament have the opportunity of seeing in draft the terms of any treaty which is in the process of being negotiated?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords. I know what my noble friend is asking. What one can fairly say is that Parliament, as in the case of the Maastricht negotiations, can certainly see in outline the detail of what it is intended to negotiate. That is exactly what was done in the period leading up to December 1991. On return the detail of the outcome of those negotiations was put to both Houses of Parliament.
Whether the exact words can be put to Parliament—certainly not in advance but after the negotiations—is perhaps asking too much only because it takes some time for the lawyers to make sure that there is a watertight expression of the intentions of the heads of government at their meeting. I remember well a debate I had with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He was asking me about changes in words. I explained to him that it was for clarification that words were changed. In the case that he cited, the words were very minor. I managed to satisfy him on that occasion. I am not seeking to provoke him now to any disagreement.
I understand what my noble friend Lord Morris asked. He asked whether the exact words would be put. I do not think that is practicable. It is not that the Government are unwilling. They are perfectly willing to make sure that all the tenets are set out as we did in the case of the Maastricht Treaty and which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Tebbit in the debate in another place in December 1991 and which I quoted in our debate on 17th February last.
The decision is always for the government of the day as to how they will proceed. There will be different circumstances from time to time and that is why I do not believe that we can enshrine in legislation Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
Perhaps I may make perfectly clear our intention to consult and inform Parliament about Community activities. We already provide notification of proposed Community legislation and, of course, we take the views of Parliament into account when negotiating even minor directives and when voting in Council. Ministers are well aware of the need to justify their actions and new directives to Parliament. I can well remember during the three-and-a-half years when if was associated specifically with such directives the trouble that was taken to seek to inform and to get the 211 information through to those who were interested. I welcomed then, and I welcome now, any Member of this House or of another place who is interested, because it is much better to have an interested Parliament than to have an uninterested Parliament when one wishes to make what one hopes will be the right decision.
The matters of scrutiny which are covered in the amendments are really matters for the Procedure Committee and not, I believe, for legislation. The procedures to which the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, refer, would be laid down in statute and therefore made far less flexible. In fact, they would be made inflexible. I fear that if the noble Lord's amendments were to succeed, not very much time would go by before we would require further legislation to change them and to make them less inflexible.
I turn now to Amendment No. 35, which I shall call the favourite amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The amendment draws attention to the role of national parliaments. A declaration on this subject is attached to the Maastricht Treaty. That declaration notes the importance of encouraging greater involvement by national parliaments in the activities of the European Union. The declaration calls for increased exchanges of information between national parliaments and the European Parliament. It calls for national parliaments to be given the Commission's legislative proposals in good time for scrutiny, and for increased contacts between national parliaments and the European Parliament, in particular through the granting of appropriate reciprocal facilities and regular meetings between Members of the parliaments who are interested in the same issues.
The Birmingham European Council reaffirmed that national parliaments should be more closely involved in the Community's activities, and member states undertook to discuss the issue with their national parliaments. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary put a number of ideas to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities of your Lordships' House and to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation of another place. In the Government's view, both the Maastricht and Birmingham declarations offer new areas of involvement for Parliament which we believe to be right. They also offer real opportunities to mesh the views of Parliament with Community business. But ultimately it will be up to Members of your Lordships' House and of the other place to decide whether or not the proposals that come forward for discussion should be accepted.
My noble friend Lord Beloff made a number of interesting comments but I, like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, felt that he was being defeatist. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that some of the noble Lord's descriptions were grossly unfair. I certainly would not be defeatist. I have always said that many things need to be improved in the European Community, but we now have the basic co-operation that was so urgently 212 needed after 1945. That has been built up. We in the United Kingdom are intimately interconnected with our partners in the European Community for our economic well-being. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for what he said.
My noble friend Lord Beloff made some comments about the Belgian presidency. Having lived in Belgium at one time and having a part-Belgian family, I often feel that I know better than most just how intractable and difficult the Belgians can be, but I hardly think that they will gain some great international triumph from their presidency. I think that my noble friend Lord Beloff knows full well that, whereas they may try to distract other members of the Community from time to time, there are certainly a good half-dozen members of the Community which are absolutely determined to get the future of our Community right, and particularly to concentrate on the economic rebuilding that is necessary within the Community. I do not think that any of us will allow ourselves to be knocked off course during the coming five-and-a-half months.
My noble friend also said that the British Government had given way over the 48-hour working directive. I must tell him that that really is not so. I know that my right honourable friend who is now the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but who was previously the Secretary of State for Employment, worked exceedingly hard to make sure that we had a minimal directive—something which I know will not please the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Nevertheless, she succeeded in that. We all believe, and we still believe, that the wrong treaty basis has been used. That is why we are taking a minimal directive, as it now is —it is far less dangerous than it once was—to the European Court of Justice. I ask my noble friend Lord Beloff not to say that we gave way on something for which we fought exceptionally hard. We succeeded in the art of the possible.
I shall not go through all the rest of the things that my noble friend said about water purification. I gave that directive as an example in our previous debate. It is right that we should awaken the public to what is going on, but we should do it with facts. We should not base it on myths or stories. We should ensure that the communication is open, balanced and fair. I shall always stand by that approach.
We do not need the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I hope that he will think again. Should they be pressed, I would advise your Lordships to vote against them. I cannot see, with the outcome of the discussions, especially at Birmingham on greater openness and those which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has had with the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee in this place and the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee in another place, that Parliament will be less informed than ever before. It is going to be much more informed, and we do not need the amendments.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I thank all those who have taken part in it. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord 213 Beloff, was saying when he talked about defeatism. He was not talking about the defeatism of the British people. He was talking about the defeatism of the British establishment. It does not have confidence in the people of this country to manage their own affairs. It therefore believes that they have to be integrated with other people. As I said on Second Reading, the very same people believe that everyone else should have independence but that this country cannot manage other than by interdependence. I think that that is what the noble Lord was talking about, and I very much agree with him.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He said that in his view the road from Rome to Maastricht had been beneficial. Our debates have shown the reverse, quite frankly. I, my noble friend Lord Bruce and noble Lords on the other side of the House have often challenged those who say that there have been beneficial effects from our entry into the EC to have a cost-benefit analysis. That has never been provided.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, it would be interesting to have a cost-benefit analysis before us before we enter into any treaties.
My noble friend Lady Blackstone gave me the assurance that the Opposition would hold the Government to consultations with Parliament. That is not what I want. I am sorry, I do not want consultations with Parliament. I want Parliament to be supreme. That is what the amendments are all about. They are not about consultations. They are about supervision. They are about supervising government, which is Parliament's right, to ensure that Parliament is involved at every stage, even at the negotiation stage, and eventually, through the proper procedures, able to examine any treaties in detail and not through a five or six clause Bill. That is what it is all about. That is what the amendment is about.
The Minister said that there would of course be many more opportunities for Parliament to be involved in matters European. Good, good, good! I just wish that Parliament had never rid itself of the powers, which now means that it has to have some formal involvement in the discussion of the powers which it has handed over to others. Again, the Minister has it wrong. She says that the procedures are adequate. She had better ask her honourable friend Bill Cash and others whether the procedures are adequate. Another place did not think so. Members of another place had great difficulty, first, in tabling proper amendments, and then being allowed to vote on them when they had tabled them. That was what all the terrible fuss was about. The procedures simply are not good enough. We have shown in this House that those procedures are not good enough. I must say to the noble Baroness, whom I respect, like and admire, particularly for the way that she has handled this Bill, that we are about ensuring that Parliament can examine every clause line by line, dot by dot and comma by comma as is done with domestic legislation. That is what we want and nothing else will do.
214 Having said that, and having had this helpful discussion, I shall not put the House to the trouble of voting on the amendment this evening. I believe that the amendments are extremely good. I shall withdraw the amendment in the hope that the noble Baroness and others will reflect upon it for a future occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 not moved.]
§
Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
§
European Union: legal personality
§
(". Her Majesty's Government shall ensure that the United Kingdom does not, without the prior approval of Parliament, give its agreement to any proposal under which the European Union (as distinct from the European Community) shall have legal personality.").
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is not an easy amendment but I shall move it as quickly as I can in view of the lateness of the hour. The Treaty on European Union, which is what we are discussing, states quite clearly in the first paragraph of Title I that:
By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union hereinafter called the 'Union'".
That has no juridical effect. It merely means that the European Community—I use the politically and legally correct term—has decided to change the name of the band, so to speak. It is rather strange. It must be rather more than that because it has imposed upon the citizens of every single nation state of Europe a citizenship of that Union.
§
The bald heading of Title II states:
Provisions amending the Treaty establishing the. European Community",
which is the Treaty of Rome,
with a view to establishing European Community".
The word "economic" has been dropped. That sends an enormous signal to so many people in the United Kingdom who say, "Ah, here we go. Look to the language and you will find the truth. As soon as people start mucking about with the language, you know that there is dirty work afoot".
§ What concerns me more than anything else—and that is why I have tabled the amendment—is that there is an intention among many, not least in the European Parliament, to give the European Union a legal personality which now resides with the European Community and all its institutions. If there is any movement in that direction, it should be looked at with immense care.
§ The reason for that is extremely simple. The two-pillar principle which has been aclumbrated with great skill by my noble friend Lady Chalker will go out of the window. It is for that reason that I am concerned that immense care should be taken if a legal juridical personality is given to the European Union. I should like to know what the Minister has to say in that regard. I beg to move.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I thought for a moment that my noble friend Lord Morris was not going to deal with the question of the legal personality to which his amendment refers. The 215 amendment seeks to require Parliament to approve any proposal which gives the European Union a legal personality.
The amendment also draws attention to an important distinction between the European Union and the European Community. I believe that the Union is best characterised as an association of member states which, for certain purposes and in certain ways described in the treaty, act in common. The Union acts through its component parts—namely, the Community on the one hand (covered by Titles II to IV) and on the other the member states, which act intergovernmentally under the common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs pillars of the treaty (under Titles V and VI).
The Union is simply an over-arching concept which links the different methods of operation and co-operation; but legally it is the Community that acts under Community business and the member states will, act under each of the two pillars. In my view, it would be a mistake to try to fit the Union into other international models; for example, the Community, a state, or an international organisation like NATO or the United Nations. The Community is quite unique and so is the Union.
My noble friend raised the question of conferring a legal personality on the Union in the Maastricht Treaty. There is no clause conferring such a legal personality on the Union in the treaty. That contrasts with Article 210 of the Treaty of Rome, which expressly provided that,
the Community shall have legal personality".Therefore, the functions which one would expect the Union to exercise if it had such a personality—which it does not —are exercised by the Community; for example, all provisions on concluding external treaties are actually in the Community section and give the Community power to act at the behest of the member states. Citizenship of the Union is also in the Community section. That is given effect by Community measures and enforced by Community procedures.I hope the points I have made in answer to my noble friend show that there is a clear intention of the parties not to confer any legal personality on the Union. I should simply point out to the House that the question was raised during the negotiations. The Dutch presidency said very firmly that the Union would not have legal personality. That was supported by the Community legal service; there was no dissent from any country and the director of the Commission's legal service has also, in evidence to the European Parliament, taken the view that the Union lacks legal personality.
I believe that the fears of my noble friend Lord Morris are unfounded and that the amendment is both unnecessary and undesirable. In the light of what I have just said, I trust that he will agree that his fear is not a real one. I hope, therefore, that he will not press the amendment. However, should he do so, I must advise your Lordships to resist it.
Lord MorrisMy Lords, I listened with as much care as I could to my noble friend. She answered me 216 most fully and there is much in what she said from which I draw great comfort. However, my noble friend seemed to suggest that I am seeing ghosts; that is not so. Although my noble friend sees no prospect of the Union having a legal personality, if she has read—and I am sure that she has—the draft by the institutional affairs committee of the European Parliament, she will know that that draft is determined to give a legal personality to the European Union. Article 2 of Title I—that contains the fundamental principles of that draft constitution—agrees that the union is of a juridical nature.
I know this is only a draft. However, many Members of Parliament and their clerks and assistants do not go to an immense amount of work constructing draft constitutions of a union just for fun. This matter is not just a figment of my imagination; it is a fear which has led me to move this amendment. However, I have listened to what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§
Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
§
Social Policy
§
(". This Act shall not come into force until all Member States of the Community have entered into an agreement that is legally binding under the law of the Community that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Treaty on European Union or any of the Treaties or of the Community Treaties as from time to time defined by the European Communities Act 1972, the Community will not introduce or implement any Regulations or Directives under any of the said Treaties which could be introduced under the provisions of the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy agreed at Maastricht.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I have much pleasure and some indignation in moving this amendment. I refer to a familiar theme. What divides us more than judgments about policy are differences on how seriously to take the particular terms of the Maastricht Treaty embodied in this Bill. We need to draw on our experience of the Single European Act.
§ The proposed new clause in Amendment No. 38 seeks to strengthen the opt-out that we treasure and trust to be fireproof. We believe that our opt-out should not be frustrated by any devious or perverse effort on the part of the Commission to develop under some other heading directives that would normally appear under the heading of social policy.
§ Why are we so sceptical and so cynical as to suppose that there might be an effort to frustrate our opt-out? I must dig a little into the history of the Single European Act. I shall try to do that as briefly as possible as I assume we are all totally knowledgeable about the precedents in this matter.
§
A little earlier we heard that fears of the kind we are raising now were placated at the time of the passage of the Single European Act. Lynda Chalker, as she then was—she is now the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker—gave an assurance to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons on 7th May 1986. I do not
217
wish to quote her comments in full and I do not wish to be accused of taking the comments out of context. However, her key sentence was:
Majority voting will apply in the areas where we wish it to apply. When we do not wish it to apply, it will not do so".
§ The extension of qualified majority voting under Articles 100a and 118, was to be confined to very particular aspects of European policy. Article 100a sought to extend qualified majority voting only for the purposes of completing the single market. It specifically excluded fiscal provisions, the free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employed persons.
§ In the most blatant violation of that simple distinction we saw the draft directive on employment conditions for part-time workers under Article 100a. The directive to apply to part-time workers—
§ Lord HackingMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for giving way. We all have sympathy with the noble Lord for the short notice with which he has had to move the amendment, but I believe that I should draw to the attention of your Lordships that the noble Lord has not said one word about the amendment which he is moving, which relates to social policy.
§ Lord Harris of High CrossMy Lords, I am trying to explain why the amendment has been put forward. The purpose is to avoid the frustration of our opt-out on social policy. It stems from our anxiety about the deceits which have been practised in the past, that those deceits might be practised again, and that our opt-out will be bypassed by social policy directives being raised under other headings where qualified majority voting would apply.
The example that I am giving is the part-time workers directive which has been drafted under Article 100a. That would normally have been thought to be excluded because it concerns the rights and interests of employed persons. But no, the directive was presented by the Commission on the basis that there had been an increase in the use of part-time or temporary workers, that the arrangements vary from one country to another, that those variations comprise a distortion of competition and that the differences in costs in relation to entitlement to holidays and so forth distort the single market. Therefore, a social policy measure was introduced as though it was really to complete the market. It is that kind of twist and devious interpretation which has caused us to have the greatest anxiety.
There are many precedents of that kind. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others may pounce on me and say that I am moving away from the amendment. However, it seems perfectly clear to me that our opt-out is not the watertight shield which we expected against further incursions on British sovereignty in the matter of the shaping of social policy.
The reason is twofold. First, our European partners take a different view from us on the conditions for the single market. It is rather sweet in a way. They believe that a single market can only be fairly competitive if costs are equalised at the outset. That is perfectly 218 preposterous. It is a rather childlike and innocent notion that there is equality and solidarity in these great phrases. Our partners say that we should start by equalising conditions but totally ignore the elementary observation that competition involves striving between firms or countries with differing, levels of cost. They say that we have to equalise costs at the outset in order to make competition fair. Such thinking, which is tenuously called economic analysis, pervades the argumentation emanating from the Commission.
We are very worried about that, not least because our opt-out protocol indicates that our protection is:
without prejudice to the provisions of this Treaty, particularly those relating to social policy which constitute an integral part of the 'acquis communautaire'".Acquis communautaire is the highbrow phrase for the whole ragbag—the accumulated pile of law, directives and so forth.We are anxious that the acquis communautaire will be held intact and that the Treaty of Rome will be ransacked to find ways in which measures from which we would normally have obtained exemption will be brought up under different headings. Not only the Commission but the European Court in various judgments has preferred measures brought forward under those titles on which qualified majority voting rather than unanimity applies. In some cases a motion can be brought under one of two headings: in one case unanimity is required; in the other case qualified majority voting is required. The Commission, and the European Court confirming the Commission, would always prefer the application of qualified majority voting. Therefore we believe that the opt-out is not satisfactory.
Finally, our anxiety is based not merely on the obvious observation that our European colleagues have a quite different view about the nature of competition and the acceptability of initial inequalities of cost. It is that the European Court takes a quite different approach from that with which we are more familiar in this country. I have the weighty authority of a standard textbook on European law. It is the fifth edition by Lasok and Bridge. The European Court's approach to interpretation has been described in the textbook as,
references to the spirit or the aims of the Treaties [to] enable the Court to fill the gaps in the system and so 'up-date' the text. In doing so, the Court has consciously acted not only as the 'Constitutional Court' of the Community but also as an architect of European integration".That is a summary to indicate that the European Court takes a different view from the British courts, which rely on common law in which we try to go back to the text and relate each new proposal to the letter of the text.In this situation we have the expansion of the development of the law. It is called creative accountancy when local authorities adopt a similar course. The evidence is that the European Court is anxious to strengthen what it calls solidarity and cohesion, which it interprets as strengthening the centralised decision-making power, rather than leaving those decisions within the hands of the separate communities. I have indicated our anxiety. I beg to move.
§ Lord Carr of HadleyMy Lords, hitherto during the debates I have not found it too difficult to resist the temptation to intervene. However, one or two recent amendments have driven me beyond the point of endurance. I had thought that noble Lords who objected to the treaty had two main principles in mind. First, I thought that they were resisting the treaty because they wished to preserve our present system of parliamentary democracy and government. However, as we heard during one recent debate on an amendment, one of their objectives is to tie the hands of future parliaments and governments in a way which is totally contrary to what they seek to preserve. In fact they would change the nature of our parliamentary democracy far more than the treaty ever could, even if some of their worst fears proved to be true—which I do not believe they will.
Secondly, I thought that noble Lords who took that view wanted a Europe of partnership between countries rather than a federal unitary state. With that I wholly agree. I do not share their terrible spectres. But if you want a partnership, you have to enter into discussion with your partners as free and equal participants. That is not what the noble Lord wants in an amendment like this. He wants the British partner to talk to the others with hands and feet firmly tied. Whenever a partner or would be partner wants to raise something, the British delegate will have to say, "Sorry, I have no negotiating room at all. I must go back and ask nanny before I can talk to you". I hope that this kind of amendment will be firmly rejected, if it is not immediately withdrawn.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Lord HackingMy Lords, I have two sympathies with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The first relates to his endeavours to move an amendment when his time for preparation, through no fault of his, was on the short side. Therefore, I congratulate him on the second half of his speech and on getting into the tram-lines of the amendment that he was addressing.
My second sympathy is more substantive. The noble Lord referred to the posted workers directive. Sub-committee E, on which I sit, of our European Communities Committee put the directive under scrutiny and provided a number of comments on it. I was going to take up the directive with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he made his very persuasive speech in Committee on the social chapter, but by that stage I had been restrained by my Front Bench from making an intervention. If the noble Lord, Lord Richard, again raises the issue of the social chapter, as I anticipate he may do, I shall certainly come in and use some of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has used on the posted workers directive.
It was not under Article 100a that the Council was proposing to implement the directive. It was another article in the treaty. Indeed, your Lordships' committee was somewhat doubtful about the propriety of choosing another article under the treaty for the adoption of the directive.
Having said that, I would ask your Lordships to look at the amendment—I have said before that we must have some discipline in our proceedings—to see 220 what it says. The amendment is a wholly wrecking amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has told us that he is supportive of the Treaty of Rome, a view that we have not heard very clearly during his submissions to your Lordships. But he made it plain earlier today that he is supportive of the Treaty of Rome. I join other noble Lords in agreeing that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not a wrecker. But this amendment, which he had the misfortune at very short notice to introduce to your Lordships, is a wholly wrecking amendment.
All other member states except Great Britain and Northern Ireland are committed to the protocol on social policy. For this Government to say to other member states, which the amendment is seeking to state, that we will not ratify that treaty unless all the other member states which are committed to the protocol agree not to bring in directives and regulations under it is to have the reality of compelling Her Majesty's Government not to ratify the treaty. That is why the amendment is a wholly wrecking amendment. I ask your Lordships to look at the amendment and at all other amendments to see what they say. If they turn out to be, as this amendment turns out to be, totally wrecking, they should be rejected as such.
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Carr in that I suspect that his patience snapped just a little too late. I think that his remarks were addressed to Amendment No. 31, which has already gone, rather than to Amendment Nos. 38 and 39, on which we are now engaged. I say that I have some sympathy with him because I was caught in rather the same way in that I was still sitting quietly reading outside when we reached Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, having assumed that we would still be on Amendment No. 31 at this time.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, we dealt with Amendment No. 31 before dinner.
§ Lord TebbitYes, indeed, my Lords. So I say what I do with some considerable feeling of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Carr in that matter.
If he looks at the amendments, which consist of new clauses, he will see that they have a simple and clear purpose; namely, to ensure that directives are not forced upon us by using what one might describe as the easy option for the Commission of going through a route where qualified majority voting applies rather than what would appear to be the more appropriate route, which might be blocked because of the need for unanimity. I shall come back to that point. But first I think it is essential to look at the background to this amendment.
When the Prime Minister returned from Maastricht, there was a widespread welcome, at least among Conservatives, for his success, as it would seem, in securing what has been wrongly described as Britain's opt-out from the provisions of the social chapter—wrongly described of course because it is not an opt-out for us; it is a mechanism by which, as noble Lords know, we have agreed to allow the others to use 221 the machinery of the treaty and its institutions to impose the social chapter on themselves, leaving us, in theory, on one side and free from it.
However, since then, the treaty has come under quite close scrutiny. And indeed, we have also already had our first experience of social legislation being forced upon us, not through the route which one would expect, which is perhaps debarred, one might say, by the unanimity requirement, but under provisions where it could be forced through by qualified majority voting. We had a debate about this matter at Committee stage and I do not propose to go over that ground again; although there were some aspects of the Minister's reply which left me somewhat less than satisfied.
We cannot come to a conclusion on the merits of these amendments without some brief remarks about the nature of the social chapter itself. I do not believe that there is any difference between any of us in this House or indeed in the other place over the desirability of good working conditions and good pay. I think that that can be taken for granted. But there is a difference between us over the question of how those objectives are best achieved—whether by legislation in a corporatist style or, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggests, through the mechanism of the market.
There is a further difference between those of us who believe that the argument is best settled in these islands by the people of these islands, and those who believe that these are matters which are not suitable for being settled in this country by the people of these islands; that they are much too important, and the people of these islands are, as we are frequently told, not able to take decisions for themselves. Even the question of whether they should approve or disapprove the ratification of the treaty is much too complicated for them, we are told, and they should be protected from such things by much wiser and more competent people—in that case, in Parliament; and in this particular case by those wise people in Brussels.
The snag is that if the matter is settled in Brussels, it will be settled by a government in which we are always a minority partner by definition. So it will not be settled by the people of these islands in a manner which I think appropriate and where I am glad to say—and I know that this will warm the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—that I have the support of such good Socialists as Mr. Tony Benn. Indeed, Mr. Benn is a very good Socialist. He believes that whether we have a Socialist country or not should be decided in this country and not elsewhere.
Continental practice and the nature of continental law have brought about what we would describe as an essentially corporatist treaty. The Commission behaves in an essentially corporatist way. That is the nature of the beast. Corporatism is not necessarily a bad thing. There have been bad corporatists and good corporatists in history. I believe that it is a less than satisfactory system and frequently open to wide abuse. From time to time we in this country have tried it, most notably under the Government led by my right honourable friend Mr. Heath. All such attempts have ended in tears in one way or another.
222 On the whole we have favoured market solutions, using the law only to outlaw specific abuses. Again, that is essentially the nature of British law. It is not general in its nature. If it sees an abuse, it deals with it in a specific manner. So our practices are essentially discordant with those of our partners: first, on the question of whether these forms of social protection are desirable; and secondly, as regards how they should be introduced.
Until recently it has been possible to argue that continental practice has been accompanied by higher living standards and greater economic success than we have enjoyed. It is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has made on more than one occasion during our debates. If we had had these debates a few years ago, he might have had a little more justification on his side. However now we see the German motor industry, for example, losing ground to the British motor industry and we begin to question that practice. As we see France going more deeply into recession and Germany in very considerable economic difficulty, we wonder whether or not it is axiomatic that their approach is better than ours.
But those difficulties, in particular as German industry becomes non-competitive, are not leading to a change of practice on the continent. Instead, there is recognition of growing non-competitiveness, accompanied by a resolve to make the competition less competitive. Our German and French friends, finding that the burdens that they carry are so heavy that they are becoming non-competitive, have called upon us to encumber ourselves with their high-cost policies in order to reduce our competitiveness. That is quite understandable. As we heard earlier today, the fixed exchange rate system plays a role in reducing our competitiveness—or rather it did, but no longer—and so does the weight of the social chapter.
Once we succumb to the chapter and all Europe is at the mercy of the competitive economies of the outside world, the French will lead the pack which calls for protection from low-priced imports and the gospel of protection will again be promoted. That is why it is so important that we put some barriers in the place of those uncompetitive practices that are being wished upon us in a manner which we would regard as contrary to the treaty. It is certainly contrary to what the Prime Minister thought was the intention of the treaty.
It is important to look at the changes that have occurred in the treaty, or rather through the treaty, to the Treaty of Rome. The new Article G(2) (on page 9) states:
Article 2 shall be replaced by the following".It is important to look at the article as it was before, otherwise we do not see the full impact of the treaty and why it is necessary to protect ourselves further by amendments of the kind that are before the House.The treaty did not refer originally to anything much in the article beyond what might be called "economic" matters. The new insertions relate to the high degree of convergence of economic performance; the high level of employment and social protection; the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion among member states. 223 All that is well and good and no doubt is of noble purpose. The question is whether or not, by inserting those new words, we have opened up a new way in which one section of the treaty is used in conjunction with another to take us in directions in which we do not wish to go.
All that was expressed clearly by politicians on the Continent. It was the French Minister for European Affairs who said of the Hoover affair,
It is unacceptable that this social dumping goes on, that people want to level wages down. That is why there is the Maastricht Treaty and, if there were not Maastricht, there would be the law of the jungle everywhere".We do not yet have the treaty of Maastricht, so we can question whether at this moment in Europe there is, in her words,the law of the jungle everywhere".There is no doubt as to what is in her mind about the treaty; that is, that the treaty exists to prevent social dumping, as she calls it. It is to prevent this country. having a competitive advantage over Brussels in the way we thought we had secured through the Social Protocol. It is not inconceivable that she could be wrong. But I happen to believe that she is right. That is one of the principal reasons why the French Government are anxious to ensure that the treaty is ratified.We have seen Articles 100a and 118a. Article 100a is concerned with the single market and competitiveness, and 118a is concerned with health and safety. They are being used in a manner which goes around the protection that we believed we had in the Social Protocol.
§ 10 p.m.
§ Lord RichardMy Lords, the argument in relation to the health and safety provisions and working hours has nothing to do with the protocol. It is under the existing treaty. Maastricht has not yet been introduced. Is that not so?
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, of course they come under the existing treaty. the noble Lord is missing the point.
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, my noble friend says "deliberately"; I am not sure. The point is, first, that it was the Single European Act—we must not forget this—which introduced majority voting on matters of health and safety and Article 118a. That indicates the goodwill of the British Government towards getting the matters of health and safety through. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, will remember the saga of the lead and asbestos directives in which both he and I featured.
§ Lord RichardAnd on the same side, my Lords.
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, indeed, we were "collaborateurs", if I may use that expression. We dealt with such difficult matters as the Danish objection to giving greater protection to women workers than to men, maintaining that that was sexually discriminatory. We eventually got round that. But the point I am making is that those articles 224 are there for specific purposes: the protection and health of workers in one case, and the elimination of unfair practices to restrict competition in the other. Of course they are not there for the promotion of social legislation, and I think it will be made very much easier for them to be used for that purpose now that the social chapter is part of Community law and now that paragraph 2 of Article G of Title II has been changed.
That is why we are going to see an increasingly aggressive stance by the Commission in bringing matters forward which might have been brought under provisions which require unanimity. But instead of that they will bring them forward under provisions which allow qualified majority voting. The purpose of these amendments is, broadly speaking, to say that if an item could have been brought under a section of the treaty which requires unanimity, it should not be brought under a section which only requires qualified majority voting. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable protection. That is the purpose of these amendments, and that is why I believe they should be supported.
§ Lord RichardMy Lords, the terrible thing sometimes is that one actually reads the amendment before one listens to the speeches. The noble Lord says that this is all about avoiding a situation in which decisions can be taken by qualified majority, which he assumes would then be binding upon the United Kingdom. The amendment says that in any situation in which a regulation or directive could be brought either under the treaty to which we are a party or under the social protocol to which we are not a party, then, ipso facto—never mind the merits of the issue or the argument about whether it is good for British workers or not—that is the determining test. If it passes that test, it goes off into the protocol machinery which by definition, because of this marvellous opt-out the Prime Minister negotiated for us, is not applicable to the United Kingdom.
That is what it is all about. I see the noble Lord shakes his head. In other words, what it is all about is that Community social legislation for the future shall be pushed into the provisions of the social protocol and shall not be subject to the provisions of the treaty. That is what it is all about, despite the fact that under the protocol certain decisions have to be taken by unanimity and not by qualified majority voting. It does not matter whether it is something that British workers would find desirable or whether British industry would find it desirable, whether it is to do with social security and social protection of workers, whether it is to do with collective representation, collective defence of the interests of workers and employers—not even whether it is to do with encouraging consultation between management and labour. Never mind: if it comes under this label, it has nothing to do with the United Kingdom and it goes off there. I am bound to say that if ever there was a narrow view—an extraordinarily narrow and limited view—of the position of the United Kingdom inside the European Community, that is it.
Can I leave just one last thought with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, because I listened to him for a 225 quarter of an hour talking about this, and I think that the point is a very simple one. With great respect to him, he could put it in 30 seconds. He talks about democracy and about democracy within the European Community. I remember that many years ago I was in Alabama in the south of America. A rather nice lady came up to me with a microphone and thrust it under my nose and asked: "Mr. Ambassador, what do you think about all these undemocratic goings-on at the United Nations?" I paused for a moment and asked: "What undemocratic goings-on?" She said: "Well, you know, Mr. Ambassador, they are always voting us down".
In a sense, running like a continuous thread through the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is that somehow or other this country is in a unique position so far as concerns our Community partners. He puts "the Continent" in inverted commas almost as if it were "that lot over there". He refers to the Continental view of the law, social policy and economics. He suggests that somehow or other we have no part in that. It is so different that Britain cannot adapt to the Continent; it has no relevance to what goes on in this country and therefore we should retreat from it. I find that an absolutely astonishing attitude with which to approach the affairs of Britain in the late 20th century.
I leave the House with one final thought. Whether something is done under the health and safety regulations or under other provisions of the treaty; whether something is done under the old provisions of the treaty or under the terms of the Social Protocol, were the noble Lord's amendment to be carried, protection is provided by the European Court. His noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross did exactly the same; when in doubt, attack the Court. Why attack the Court? Because they are all wicked Continentals whose main purpose in life is to do Britain down on any issue upon which we come before the Court. What absolute nonsense!
Anyone who has observed the Court at work will know that it is an extremely high-powered, skilled and distinguished group of jurists who do their best to interpret the Treaty of Rome and the other treaties in a strictly legal way. I am beginning to resent the continual sniping at the good faith and integrity of members of the European Court.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, no, not "a little thought".
Lord MorrisMy Lords, with a question. Will he consider this view? The fundamental difference in essential matters between the United Kingdom and the Continent is that the laws of England and those of the United States, the Dominions and those now independent Afro-Asian states, were and are based on the libertarian principles of common law. In contrast, the European system of Roman law is based on didactic codified readings of authority derived from Justinian and Napoleon. It is not merely a juristic difference, but also a fundamental divergence of 226 outlook, the one favouring freedom and the other emphasising authority. Does the noble Lord agree with that view?
§ Lord RichardMy Lords, perhaps I may say how much I admire the jurisprudential skill of the noble Lord in putting such a complicated question in such a clear and unambiguous way. I do not agree with it because the law is not static. Anglo-Saxon law and Continental law have changed. If anything, there has been a coming together rather than a growing apart.
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that essentially what he has said is that in his belief it is no longer appropriate for the people of this kingdom to decide their own affairs in these matters and that where there is a difference between ourselves and a majority of the others, we must bow the knee to them in all respects? I find that is a not an idea which is attractive to me nor to most people in these islands.
§ Lord RichardMy Lords, neither is it attractive to me. It is a total travesty of what I was saying. Some of these matters are in the interests of the British people. If they are in their interests then any sensible government will pursue them. At the moment the real question is whether it is in the interests of the United. Kingdom to co-operate with our European partners in the manner set out in the treaty. I believe that it is. The noble Lord regards himself and the people of this country as so different from our Continental neighbours that such co-operation must, almost by definition, be against the interests of the British people. I totally reject that.
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that he had my sympathy also for being almost outside the Chamber as we approached Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. Nevertheless, he asked some cogent questions and I shall do my best to answer them.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was absolutely right in his description of Amendment No. 39. It can best be summarised by saying that it requires the Government to veto any proposal for action in the social field by the Community that relates to any matter contained in the agreement between the Eleven on social policy. We are not part of the Eleven. By virtue of our agreement, we are separate from the Eleven.
Similarly, I can summarise the purpose of Amendment No. 38. It is to delay the Act coming into force until there is an agreement that the agreement between the Eleven on social policy, rather than the existing provisions of the Treaty of Rome, will be used for all proposals for legislation on employment and social affairs. That is undesirable both in terms of delaying the coming into force of the Act and because it requires an agreement that simply would not be negotiable.
I understand why there is anxiety. This has not been an easy part of trying to decide what is best for British industry and British workers, and we do have a 227 difference of opinion with our continental partners. But the very fact that we faced up to that difference of opinion and sought to get a protocol which allowed the Eleven to go their way on the issues on which they wished to combine while we have an opt-out which is valid and which will be useful seems to me to be honest, direct and open. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the opt-out was not water-tight. I could not disagree with him more. The Eleven could go far further under the social chapter than they do currently in the social field under the treaties. However, our opt-out leaves us aside from the decisions of the Eleven. That is why the protocol is powerful for us.
We regularly succeed in reducing the proposals that are put forward by the Commission. Obviously, as I have described in previous debates both in Committee and earlier on Report, it is open to us to challenge in the European Court of Justice any proposals which are adopted which we believe go beyond the powers in the treaties. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, clearly, there are eminent judges—some from this country; not all from other countries—in the European Court of Justice. In any case, saying that we can go to the European Court of Justice in challenging a decision taken in the Community is an argument against the existing treaties and not an argument against Maastricht because our opt-out has limited our further involvement.
I do not believe that the other 11 would have argued so strongly for such provisions if they were an unnecessary duplication. There is a separate way of doing things, and the social protocol unequivocally states that measures adopted under the protocol will not apply to the UK. That was unanimously agreed by all 12 member states. The protocol has treaty status and I am confident that the European Court of Justice will give it effect. Clearly, the official Opposition think so too, which is why they have gone to very considerable lengths to have us opt-in.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the present position on social affairs is admittedly difficult. Through the opt-out, we seek to ensure that it does not get any more difficult. I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has used this phrase—and I may have used it previously—that although it may not be perfect and just because a burglar may climb in through the window, it is no reason to open the front door to him. I believe that in going down the path of the opt-out we are making a sensible provision.
To sum up on the amendments—
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, would my noble friend kindly give way?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I shall give way just this once.
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Will she assure me that she is confident that we shall not have legislation which the Government believe is appropriate to the social 228 protocol—that is, social legislation—foisted upon us through other sections of the treaty where majority voting applies?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, should, under any circumstance, the other 11 seek to foist upon us legislation which is not applicable to us, we have our option to take that to the European Court of Justice. One can never be 100 per cent. certain, as my noble friend will realise if he thinks back over his many years.
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, my noble friend cannot be certain.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I cannot be certain, but I am confident—those were the words that I was going to use—because of the advice that I have received and because of the difference of the drafting of the social protocol and of the agreement which, as I said just now, was agreed unanimously by all 12 member states.
The reason that I advise your Lordships against the amendments is that they misunderstand the nature of the protocol on social policy. They misunderstand why we negotiated it at Maastricht. The Treaty of Rome provides us with the basis for EC action in the social field. We expect the Commission to continue to bring forward proposals for legislation by the 12 on the basis of the Treaty of Rome, even when the Maastricht Treaty and the protocol are in force.
We remain committed to sensible policies in the social field under the existing provisions, but as I have sought to make clear previously in your Lordships' House, we are not prepared to support the extra measures envisaged by the agreement between the 11. That would involve increased powers for the Community in the social field; a wide extension of qualified majority voting; and a decline in European competitiveness. It would do nothing to help solve the European-wide problem of unemployment with which, as we well know, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and all our Ministers are committed to dealing with their partners in the Community.
I know that there are some overlaps between the existing treaty provisions in the social field and the provisions of the agreement of the other 11 member states. I am not surprised at that because the agreement of the 11 started life as proposals to substitute for the existing treaty articles on social policy. For example, minimum standards in the field of health and safety at work are covered by Article 118a of the Treaty of Rome and the health and safety of workers more generally by Article 2 of the agreement.
Taking the blanket approach which Amendment No. 38 proposes, or forcing the UK to veto any proposal for Community action in areas that might be covered by the agreement, as Amendment No. 39 seeks to do, is just not appropriate. It would mean that policies that we support such as minimum standards in health and safety, where Britain's record is second to none, could not be adopted by the European Community but rather only by the other 11 member 229 states. That would not be in our interests, and that is one further good reason why I urge your Lordships to reject the amendments should the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, press them to a vote tonight.
§ Lord Harris of High CrossMy Lords, it has been useful to have this run around the track once again, not least because it brings into the open the contrast between the approach of the Government Front Bench and the Labour Front Bench. We heard from the Minister a frank admission that there are differences of opinion with our European partners on this matter, and that the position on social affairs is difficult. Their hope is that those difficulties will be contained by the protocol. In the sharpest contrast, we have the view of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that all is well and could hardly be better.
§ Lord RichardI never said that.
§ Lord Harris of High CrossMy Lords, by implication, any criticism that is levelled is outside the admissible bounds of debate. We are parodied more or less as being anti-European and so on. I have heard about people going native in Brussels but the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has become a full blown native chief. He puts on that performance.
230 Our anxieties are genuine. We hope that they are misplaced. I hope that in a year or two's time the Government can demonstrate that the protocol has afforded us full protection against the worries that we have and that are shared.
Since it is approaching what I define to be the standard European bedtime, I propose that the amendment shall be withdrawn and we shall save our strength for tomorrow.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.