European Constitution (Hansard, 14 October 2003)

§ 9. Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East)
What the Government's policy is on the proposed incorporation of the European charter of fundamental rights in the draft European constitution. [132006]

§ The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
The draft EU constitutional treaty explicitly states that the charter does not extend EU competences and makes it clear that the charter applies primarily to the EU institutions. The charter would apply to member states 13 only when they are implementing EU law. The Government will reach a final decision about incorporation of the charter in the context of the intergovernmental conference.

§ Mr. Atkinson
Does the Minister recall that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), told the House that the EU charter of fundamental rights would have no more legal significance than a copy of the Beano? Why does it now form article 6 of the EU draft constitution and threaten to undermine the Human Rights Act 1998 in this country and the authority of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the European convention on human rights? Will Britain veto the EU charter of fundamental rights at the intergovernmental conference?

§ Mr. MacShane
I read the Beano many years ago— I especially read about the character Dennis the Menace. However, I must say that Desperate Dave—or Desperate Dan—from Bournemouth is at the end of his wits. Article 9 of the charter of fundamental rights supports the family, article 10 supports the right to religion, article 16 supports the right to conduct a business and article 17 supports the right to own property. When I was reading the Beano, the Conservative party supported property, believed in business, loved the family and went to church. Now that we have European rules to introduce that into our law, it should support the sound and conservative charter. Conservative Members have been overtaken by malevolent forces that have driven them toward a fanatical anti-European position, which does them no credit at all.

§ Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
But given that it is more than two years since Members drew the Government's attention to the risk of conflicting judgments by two courts based on the same facts affecting human rights, when will they get to grips with the issue?

§ Mr. MacShane
My right hon. Friend, who refers to the European Court of Human Rights and who plays a distinguished role at the Council of Europe, is right to draw attention to the fact that there are now three ways in which such law is declared: in the European Court of Human Rights, by our incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law and as a result of the charter of fundamental rights. It is important to realise that the charter applies to EU institutions. It will not replace the French or German constitution. It is clear that the horizontal articles—this is technical language—under articles 51 and 52 maintain the rights of countries to carry on their own business in terms of national law. I am certainly not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and condemn an important set of principles that the vast majority of European citizens—except perhaps those on the Conservative Benches—will welcome and support.

§ Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes)
Does not the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights constitute a fundamental change to the relationship between the European Union and its member states? By 14 the Government's own criteria, should not its inevitable incorporation, which they now appear to support, trigger a referendum to secure the consent of the British people before it is ratified?

§ Mr. MacShane
No.

§ Mr. Ancram
I am astounded by that answer from someone who proclaims himself a European. Why cannot the Minister agree with French Premier Raffarin, who this week said: a real European cannot not want a referendum", or President Chirac, who said that a referendum would be the only legitimate way", or the Spanish, Portuguese, Danes and the Irish, who are going to allow their people to decide? Why do the Government have such contempt for the intelligence of the British people that they will not allow us to decide? Why do they not come clean and allow us to have a referendum now?

§ Mr. MacShane
It is a pleasure to hear the right hon. Gentleman pray in aid France in an argument for the first time during his tenure of office as shadow Foreign Secretary. President Chirac has not made up his mind. The majority of EU nations do not intend to hold referendums at the moment. However, there is a fundamental divide between those of us who will defend the right of Parliament and the House of Commons to debate and ratify international treaties and those who want to tear up 500 years of British parliamentary history to hold their populist plebiscite. The right hon. Gentleman can splutter as much as he wants, but until he removes the malevolent forces that have made the Conservative party a byword for hostility to Europe—even if today he praises France in passing—his party will not be taken seriously ever again.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
Surely everyone, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, should welcome the extension of human rights provision to the United Kingdom, especially for those who are being persecuted? Will the Minister admit, however, that that will offer no protection for Tory MPs invited by their Chief Whip for career development interviews?

§ Mr. MacShane
Article 11.52.4 says: Insofar as this Charter recognises fundamental rights … these rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions. The trouble is that the Conservative party once believed in human rights and the rule of law internationally, and supported Europe. It is the malevolent forces that now control it that make the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) stand on his head because he is a closet European. It is time he came out of his closet and let his party reconnect with the British people, who will never vote for the manic anti-Europeanism that the Conservative party represents.

§ Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)
But there is a serious point, which the Minister touched on, concerning the competence of the European Court of Human Rights, as opposed to judgments that will be 15 made on the European constitution's charter of fundamental rights. Which one will prevail when it comes to the areas of direct conflict of competence?

§ Mr. MacShane
That point was well raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). To anyone who knows how Europe works, the answer is fairly clear. The European Court of Human Rights hands down its judgments from Strasbourg. The European Court of Justice will be charged with implementing and upholding European Union law. As I said, the charter of fundamental rights applies to EU institutions. It will not tear up domestic constitutions, domestic law and so on. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that France, Germany or almost any EU member state with its own constitution will allow those to be overridden or abolished, he does not understand how Europe works. We want a charter of fundamental rights incorporated on terms that we are happy with, in a way that upholds the principles and values that the House has always held dear.

§ Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
The charter of fundamental rights will protect religious institutions and the relationship between church and state. Assuming that the IGC can find a formulation that would allow the British Government to accept the incorporation of the charter, can my hon. Friend confirm that we would consequently and subsequently see no further reference to God or Christianity in the preamble? That would be not only inappropriate, but unnecessary.

§ Mr. MacShane
There is no reference to God or Christianity in the preamble. There is a reference, I think, to the important religious and humanist traditions that have shaped our common European home. The Government believe that we should leave it at that.