Lords Sitting of 27 April 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Community Hospital Closures: Public Consultation
Lord Hurd of Westwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to consult the public before closing NHS community hospitals.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government recognise that community hospitals often play a very valuable part in local health services. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, changes to those services are primarily the responsibility of individual local health authorities. The Government become involved only if a community health council is unsatisfied with a local consultation process and refers a decision to Ministers. The community health councils regulations require local authorities to consult CHCs on any proposals which a health authority has under consideration for any substantial changes in its district. We also expect health authorities to take other steps, such as holding public meetings, to involve the public more generally.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Will she go further and accept that many local community hospitals have over the years attracted extraordinary affection and support from those who depend on them? At a time when the Government say—and it is the Government who are telling us, as all previous governments have done—that so much extra
2
money is going to the NHS, is it not strange and sad that in my county, Oxfordshire, a consultation paper is being circulated on cuts and closures for community hospitals, and that both the options listed involve the closure of the much loved hospital at Burford? Will the noble Baroness further accept that that kind of consultation is in effect a pretence; and that, were closures to follow, whether of this hospital or similar ones in Oxfordshire, Cornwall and other counties, they would be regarded as closures by the Government, and would be received with great anger and sorrow?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am entirely happy to confirm, and underline, the noble Lord's general point about the value of local community hospitals and the great affection in which they are often held by local communities. Our general policy is indeed to promote the better and greater use of those kinds of local facilities. As the noble Lord rightly said, it is part of our general policy of encouraging local services to be more accessible to local communities, and to use that type of facility as much as we can. I am afraid that I cannot comment on the individual situation in Oxfordshire, precisely for the reasons that I mentioned in my original Answer: if those decisions to which the noble Lord refers were finally to be referred to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, it would be stupid at this point to prejudice his decision.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in the light of her comments, will the Minister accept that community hospitals play an invaluable role not only in providing day care for disabled and elderly people but also in accepting for admission patients who would otherwise occupy beds for rehabilitation purposes for much longer periods in the acute hospitals? Given the Government's recommendations in their NHS White Paper towards a primary care led NHS based in part upon community hospitals, is it not short-sighted to recommend the closure of community hospitals, with the inevitable

3
effect of reducing the ability of acute hospitals to reduce their waiting lists, which is one of the Government's highest priorities?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I entirely accept the noble Lord's remark about the importance of some of the local community hospitals. I hope I made that point in my replies to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. Of course it is true that community services which are local and accessible to people are extremely important. The noble Lord refers to a primary care led NHS. That slogan was used by the previous administration. The new NHS White Paper envisages a service in which swift advice and treatment are available as close to where people live as possible. Community hospitals will clearly be a part of that policy in some places.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not only are these hospitals held in great affection but they receive significant financial support? Burford, for example, receives more than £40,000 a year raised by the local community. In 1987 I opened a new out-patient department there, for which some £140,000 had been raised. Would it not be a great pity if that money were lost to the National Health Service?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am well aware of the extraordinarily important part that voluntary organisations play in supporting some of those bodies. Indeed, as the former chairman of the National Association of League of Hospital Friends, I have played a role in it myself. It is also important to emphasise that a great deal of public money has gone towards local community services in the Anglia and Oxford region. For example, I understand that recently £554,000 went to community rehabilitation services from the special moneys that were allocated for the winter. Overall, £2·1 million was allocated to community schemes in that area.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the policy being followed is the Government's own policy or an inherited policy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is our own policy to give locally accessible services to local communities. I hope that I emphasised that point in my previous replies. Of course, there is no national blueprint for the most satisfactory way of delivering community services. It may be through a local community hospital; it may be, for example, through our new initiative of NHS Direct, in which nurse-led telephone services provide good local advice to people. There is no national template. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, it is for local communities to decide what is most appropriate.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, before we start the consultations, will the noble Baroness give an assurance to the people of Wales that community hospitals will not be closed before we set up our parliament in Wales?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, were it within my power to give that assurance, I should be
4
delighted to do so. However, as I am sure the noble Lord realises, it is a topic which, for the moment, is for the Welsh Office.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that many small hospitals are in rural areas, serving rural communities? I understand that the White Paper which is likely to come out shortly will insist that it is for her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education to make any decision about closing rural schools. Will the noble Baroness suggest to her ministerial colleagues that it is a line that the Department of Health might wish to pursue?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness confirms what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. If decisions at a local level are not agreed, then the decision to which he and other noble Lords referred will automatically be referred to the Secretary of State for Health, if the community health council does not accept the local decision.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, did not the Government a short time ago announce the biggest hospital building programme within memory? Is it not a fact that where large centres of excellence are produced, some other hospitals have to go out of existence? It may be a choice between an archaic hospital and the most up-to-date hospital. On that basis, are we not on the right track? Even though we must consider local services and what the people want, at the end of the day are not the big hospitals with modern, up-to-date facilities the right choice?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am glad my noble friend recognises the large amount of investment which has been put into new acute hospitals. However, no part of health provision stands alone. It is an interconnected system and primary community and acute services must be delivered effectively. As I said in previous answers, the way in which that is best achieved is primarily best decided at local level.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, on 26th February I asked the noble Baroness the following:
"What was the impact on hospital waiting lists of beds occupied by medically fit people awaiting discharge who cannot leave because there is no one to look after them?".
In her kind reply, the Minister explained what the Government were doing about elderly people in order to find them beds. She said:
"However, it is not possible to quantify the impact of this on hospital waiting lists".—[Official Report, 26/2/98; col. WA.115.]
I tabled the Question for Written Answer because the charity for which I am responsible is threatened with closure of a holiday home in Essex which gives respite to patients from national health hospitals during the winter. Does the Minister think she ought to have statistics on the subject? What sum is involved in terms of private contributions to help relieve the National Health Service of those who want to be given relief and respite?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord's question is wide of the Question on

5
the Order Paper. However, I agree with him about the importance of community rehabilitation services and that is precisely why in my reply to one of the noble Lords who raised the issue in relation to Oxfordshire I mentioned the sums which had been given for community rehabilitation to try to reduce the acute stress on some hospitals. However, if the noble Lord would care to write to me again with the specific issue he wishes to raise about Essex, I shall try to help him.

Asylum
2.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have plans to improve the system of screening applications for asylum, in consultation with other governments, and plans to consider expeditiously the cases of applicants who have been waiting in the United Kingdom for decisions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are committed to delivering a faster, fairer and firmer asylum process than the one we inherited. Reducing delays and backlogs within the asylum system will play an important role in discharging that commitment. Consultation with other governments on asylum issues is a continuing feature of intergovernmental co-operation both within the European Union and more generally.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I would welcome progress in discussions with the Belgian and French authorities. Are the press reports correct that sea ferries in future will receive government help on the same scale as Eurotunnel now does since the ferry companies cannot refuse to carry passengers whose documents are in order? Bogus asylum seekers often destroy their documents during the journey before they land.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, any company is entitled to carry or not carry people, as it chooses. As I said in answer to a question a few weeks ago, it is essentially a commercial decision. I take the noble Lord's point that, unfortunately, a device often used by bogus entrants is to destroy documents wilfully because that makes it difficult then to return such people to the appropriate country of origin.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how many people are at the moment awaiting the hearing of their asylum cases and how many were waiting a year ago? Is there the same proportion waiting now in London as there was? Most of the support organisations for those people are in London. I have been told that many cases are being shifted outside London, thereby causing grave hardship.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a backlog of around 50,000 people altogether waiting. As I said on an earlier occasion, 10,000 of those cases,
6
lamentably, pre-date 1993. I simply cannot say whether the proportion of those in London has gone down. I shall research the figures and write to the noble Lord. It is true that some asylum seekers and immigrants have been placed outside the London area, but the placing authority retains the financial obligation of their upkeep.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in relation to those who have been waiting for a long time, can the Minister say whether the asylum directorate instruction is still in force? That provides that where a person has been waiting for more than seven years from the date of his or her initial application, exceptional leave to remain may be granted. Is it the practice invariably to give exceptional leave to remain where people have been here for seven years? In order to reduce the backlog, will the Government consider as an interim measure reducing the period to six years? Six years is long enough for anybody to wait for a first decision.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the policy to which the noble Lord refers is still in being; that is, after seven years exceptional leave to remain will be granted. It will be possible to have an arbitrary reduction of that period from seven years to six. However, it is premature to come to a conclusion on that, bearing in mind the overall wide-ranging review of these topics which is being conducted and considered.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the Minister say what proportion of the cases that have been dealt with within the past 12 months have been found to be bogus asylum seekers? Is he aware that any strengthening of the policy which the Government introduce will receive wide support in this country?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, a significant majority were found to be ineligible. I welcome the noble Lord's support, which he has propounded on earlier occasions. There are a number of deficiencies in the system. One is delay, which means unjustified expense and uncertainty and also—the critical point—the fact that bogus asylum seekers are doing a serious disservice to those who are genuine claimants.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, can the Government not introduce a system whereby there is no appeals process when there has been a unanimous initial consideration?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I would always be reluctant to contemplate any regime where there is no appeal in any circumstance. I have never met any judicial or even quasi-judicial body which is free of all possibility of error. However, that is one aspect of the review that is presently being considered.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I must declare an interest in that I am a lay member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The Minister has already said that a large number of applications are found to be bogus. Is

7
it correct that only a tiny proportion of those bogus applicants are removed from this country when their cases have gone right through the appeals system?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not true that only a tiny proportion are removed. My recollection is that 7,000 were removed last year. That is a significant number.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the use of the word "bogus" by the noble Lord; it is a word that was used vociferously by his colleagues on these Benches when they were in opposition. It is true that a large proportion of applicants are bogus asylum seekers, and I welcome the fact that the noble Lord now accepts that. The Minister does not possess specific figures. But will he make available to the House information as to whether there is any increase or decrease in the backlog? How many of the cases that preceded 1993 have been dealt with during the course of this year?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the last questions are legitimate questions and I shall research the figures, transmit them to the noble Baroness and place them in the Library. It is a matter of genuine public interest. However, I do not believe that I was ever guilty of complaining about the use of the word "bogus". It is a well-known English term with which I am familiar.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister said that 7,000 people who were unlucky in their appeals were returned to their country of origin. Have any of those attempted to re-enter this country on another bogus excuse?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is not a question I am capable of answering. If people are removed, they may well attempt to come back with bogus documents.

Lomé Convention: Negotiations
2.55 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
In relation to their commitment to give priority to the defeat of world poverty in their overseas development programmes, what progress has been made in the preparations for the renewal of the Lomé Agreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, a draft negotiating mandate setting out the EU's position on the successor to the Lomé Convention will be discussed at the EU Development Council on 18th May. As presidency, we hope that this mandate will be agreed in the EU General Affairs Council in June. Poverty eradication will be at the heart of the EU's position.
8
Formal negotiations between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries party to the Lomé Convention are due to begin in September.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. However, are the Government satisfied with the Commission's current trade proposals or do they have any anxiety lest they contradict the poverty eradication targets? Is it realistic to expect, as currently proposed, SADC, covering southern Africa, and Caricom, covering the Caribbean, to enter into free trade agreements with the European Union within six years? They will be competing with much stronger economies. By contrast, what progress is being made with the Department for International Development's proposals for an improved generalised scheme of preferences?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the House knows and as was made clear in the Government's White Paper, for which the Department for International Development was responsible, the eradication of poverty lies at the heart of the negotiations which the Government, along with the rest of the EU governments, will be addressing. The key target remains to halve absolute poverty by the year 2015. That is achievable; it is affordable; and the Government believe it to be morally right. However, our position will be affected in the negotiations by the review taking place on 18th May. We hope that we can adopt the negotiating position of the EU in the General Affairs Council on 8th June and that thereafter, in September, we will be able to begin negotiations with the 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries involved.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, in the formulation of this policy, the needs of business and private investment were looked at, considering that they form such an important part of poverty eradication?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government clearly acknowledge in the White Paper, published by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development at the end of last year, the need and indeed the vital part that business and the private sector can play in poverty eradication. Those proposals were put forward and will be borne in mind in our negotiations.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, are the Government sufficiently advocating the concerns of traditional friends? For example, is the Minister aware that the Caribbean statistically has a relatively high level of per capita income, yet significant pockets of poverty exist with governments unable to allocate sufficient resources as a safety net?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said, poverty eradication lies at the heart of what we are doing. Having said that, the Government are particularly sensitive to the needs of our "traditional

9
friends", as the noble Viscount described them. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs clearly made that point in the Caribbean forum held in Nassau in the second week of February this year. He made it clear to our friends from the Caribbean that their interests will be very much at the heart of our negotiations.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that, while we all applaud and endorse the Government's commitment to fight the battle for the eradication of poverty, it is not just a matter of programmes and development assistance? It is also a matter of relevant trade policies. There is real anxiety that some of the proposals put forward, not by our own Government but by the Commission, may be counter-productive in this context, not least for the Caribbean and southern Africa. Can the Minister assure us that that will be rigorously looked at?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Lomé Convention covers aid, trade and political relations. All those will have to be looked at. At the moment we are in the middle of negotiations with our European colleagues. Thereafter we will be in negotiation with the ACP countries. I do not believe that in any negotiation, having stated the Government's policy, it is sensible or wise to try to negotiate through a loudhailer. Our best position is to stick to the principles that I outlined to the House and do our best to pursue those with our colleagues in the European Union and thereafter with the ACP countries.

Medway Secure Training Centre: Costs
2.59 p.m.
The Earl of Longfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
How the cost per head of trainees at the new Medway Secure Training Centre for young people aged 12–14 compares with the average cost in local authority secure units.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is difficult to make a direct comparison between the cost for the Medway Secure Training Centre and the average charge for local authority secure units because local authority charges for secure units reflect only the operating costs and not the build costs, which are met directly from central government capital grants. In addition, there is a wide range of charges across different local authority units. There is no one standard regime. Some units charge extra for specialist facilities. However, if we exclude capital costs, the average cost of a place at Medway would be £2,400 compared with the average in local authority secure accommodation of £2,570.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, while expressing complete scepticism about that Answer, which is one of the phoniest I can recall in 52 years in the House, everyone being perfectly well aware that these places are enormously expensive and the Answer says the
10
opposite, may I put these questions to the noble Lord? Will he allow me to pay a tribute to the staff of this place under the inspiration of its director? I think I am one of the few noble Lords who has had the chance to visit it. The House may be aware that there are 100 people on the paid staff and two inmates. However, I want to pay my tribute to the evident inspiration of the staff and director. Does the noble Lord realise that there is tremendous disquiet about this place if only because it treats young people as criminals, as everyone knows who reads the press, where they are described as children's gaols? Does he understand the disquiet at the idea of treating children aged 12 to 14 as criminals so that for the rest of their lives they will bear a criminal taint?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords. I know that your Lordships do not like asperity of language and therefore I would not want to say anything about the particular comment that the noble Earl made. I was aware, surprisingly, of his visit to Medway on 20th April, as I was helpfully provided with a note about that visit. The noble Earl paid tribute, which I believe to be justified, to people who are carrying out extremely difficult work. What is the work that they carry out? It is attempted rehabilitation of young children who have, unfortunately, fallen into criminal ways. They are there essentially to be given the best possible opportunity—I accept at considerable public cost—to make their lives decent and fruitful when they come out.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the Government's establishment of this centre. It is another successful policy of the previous government which was opposed tooth and nail by the noble Lord himself and by his colleagues on these Benches when they were in opposition. Will the noble Lord clear up one point for me? The original intention was that such centres should ostensibly be for young very persistent offenders. It was set down in law how persistently they had to offend in order to qualify for a place. There was to be a programme of intensive education and training and rehabilitative programmes which included counselling and developing very close links, if that were possible, with the family and/or mentors in the community. I understand that these establishments are to be an improvement on what the previous government had originally intended. Will the noble Lord explain what is different from the programme that was originally intended for these establishments?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is true, as the noble Baroness says, that the Home Secretary announced in July 1997 that he would continue with the preparations for the centre to avoid the waste of public money that would be involved in withdrawing from the previous commitment. I believe that to be a perfectly justifiable approach. If all the places are taken up, there will be 100 staff providing 24-hour cover for 40 trainees—education, care, security and support services. We believe—I am not sure that there is an enormous difference between us in our objective—that

11
this will give a decent opportunity for rehabilitation for young children whose circumstances and background have been very unfortunate.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as the catchment area for the centre seems to be the whole of England and Wales, does the estimate of expenditure include the cost of assisting parents from, say, Northumberland or North Wales to travel to Kent to visit their offspring at the centre?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the intention is that there should be assistance, where appropriate, for family visits to be made easy, or at least relatively easy, for those who simply cannot afford to travel to see their children.
Lord Acton: My Lords, as the number of girls at Medway is likely to be tiny, and as they are to be kept in separate accommodation from the boys, does my noble friend agree that the cost per girl is likely to be very much higher than £2,400; and am I right in thinking that that is £2,400 per week?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is £2,400 a week. I do not accept the proposition put by the noble Lord that that necessarily means that a girl will be more expensive in terms of charges than a boy. I should have thought that the same proposition would obtain if he made it about local authority secure accommodation, where girls and boys are accommodated. I repeat, for the benefit of those who wish enlightenment, that the cost in local authority secure accommodation is £2,570. That is more than the Medway cost on a like-for-like basis.
Lord Acton: My Lords, am I right in thinking that at Medway there are to be five trainees in each of eight sub-units? If there are only two girls in a sub-unit, and if there are no boys in a sub-unit, are not the girls going to cost considerably more than the boys?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, many years ago my father warned me, "If you ever go to the House of Lords, avoid two things: loose women and hypothetical questions."

Public Interest Disclosure Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Registered Establishments (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whiny.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Resumed debate on Clause 1: Amendment No. 10.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The Committee will recall that Amendment No. 10 deals specifically with the items set out in the new Title VI on page 29 of the Amsterdam Treaty, to which, with the Committee's permission, I should like to refer. There can be no question that this section of the treaty puts unemployment on the agenda. But to be on the agenda is quite insufficient to deal with the situation that currently confronts us. At the moment there are 19 million unemployed people in the European Union and the figure is rising, if account is taken of the United Kingdom statistics which, presumably, are to be corrected. The figure will rise to probably 20 million.
On previous occasions—and I do not propose to do so this afternoon—I have drawn your Lordships' attention to the undesirable economic and social effects of large-scale unemployment developing in Europe. Those of us who have memories that go back before the last war will know perfectly well that the rise of fascism in Europe, and Nazism in particular, were powerfully assisted by large-scale unemployment at that time. That produced considerable unrest and resulted in the formation and strengthening of the Nazi movement in Germany with consequences of which we are all well aware.
So it is only right and proper that, with unemployment developing in Europe on the existing scale and showing no signs of diminution—in fact, rather the reverse—those who participated in the deliberations leading up to the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam were bound to have that consideration in mind.
Members of the Committee will see from new Title VI that adequate testimony is paid to this subject. For example, Article 1090 refers to,
"Member States, through their employment policies, shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in Article 109n",
which is the previous article. That states,
"Member States and the Community shall … work towards developing a coordinated strategy for employment".
Article 109o, paragraph 2, continues:
"Member States shall have regard [to] promoting employment as a matter of common concern".
Article 109p states:
"The Community shall contribute to a high level of employment by encouraging cooperation between Member States".

13
Perhaps more importantly, paragraph 2 of the same article states:
"The objective of a high level of employment shall be taken into consideration".
Article 109q says:
"The European Council … shall each year draw up guidelines which the Member States shall take into account"—
I put the words "shall take into account" in parenthesis for the purposes of my present argument—
"in their employment policies. These guidelines shall be consistent with the broad guidelines adopted pursuant to Article 103(2)".
So no one can say that adequate consideration was not given to the matter.
The trouble is that at best consideration of the problem of unemployment,
"shall be taken into consideration",
whereas the situation in Europe requires that it should be a principal priority at this time, affecting as it does the lives and fortunes of thousands of people in each of the member states, including our own. Politicians are prone to announce very good intentions. I speak in terms which I trust represent broadly consensus politics across the Chamber because consensus politics are very much in vogue these days. No one can query the sentiment which, for political purposes, is given wide circulation in the press and the broadcasting media. But the question is: what is to be done about it? It is not simply a question of having regard to the situation.
Members of the Committee may suffer a variety of emotions from time to time. We all know what "taking into account" means as distinct from forming a firm conviction leading to a springboard to action. I can sympathise, and I trust that your Lordships will also sympathise, with members of the Government and the Opposition—I believe in consensus politics for this purpose—who may have had the utmost good intentions.
The difficulties are the factors which diminish the prospects of employment. They are not merely matters to which some regard has to be paid. They appear in the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties. Those treaties lay down economic formulae against which there is no argument. We have abdicated that responsibility; it has gone to the Bank of England. There is no argument as to what has to be done. All these matters are laid down.
We must have regard to the mathematical formulae set out in the Maastricht Treaty; we have to look to deficit financing as well. We have also to consider the recent deal as regards economic and mathematical formulae enshrined in the stability pact. In other words, our hands are already tied by treaties to which we have put our signature and which, in accordance with the procedures normally adopted in the Community as a whole, are now enshrined in our own law.
Members of the Committee will be well aware of the numerous fudges which have taken place over the past few weeks in forcing member states, sometimes successfully and sometimes otherwise, to adopt the deflationary policies which are quite explicit in the Maastricht Treaty and in the stability pact. These are
14
the actualities of the situation rather than the aspirations which we might legitimately have, bearing in mind the humanities and social policy generally.
So we are in some difficulty. I trust that neither my own Government nor those who have a consensus with them on the other side of the House will seek to cast these matters aside or try to prove that, after all, Maastricht meant nothing and that the deflationary policies originally set out in the Delors Report and in the European Agenda 2000 can be lightly cast aside. They are part of our daily lives. Due to other factors which are not relevant for the purpose of this amendment, but which many of us hope to discuss later, they are not subject to democratic control either.
We are caught completely outside the variations that could be made to policy as a result of democratic considerations of these matters. We are, literally, in the hands of the machine—and it is a machine which is being administered effectively on matters on which I hope to be able to enlarge later which ensure that the will is enforced. We are in the midst of deflationary policies which will be pursued with the utmost ruthlessness and which make any consideration—sympathetic or otherwise—of the solutions of the unemployment problem a mere exercise in academics, which I am sure will please those academics who may be present this afternoon.
Lord Moynihan: Before turning to some of the important issues which the noble Lord has raised, we on these Benches would like to wish the noble Lord, Lord Shore, a speedy recovery from his illness. Having heard the noble Lord speak earlier at Committee stage, it strikes me that he must be well below par to be absent from our proceedings today. It would have been his deep desire to participate. All of us—those who echo his words as well as those who oppose them—recognise the significant contribution that he has made to date to our Committee proceedings. I know that all noble Lords wish him well.
After a brief introduction to the important issues which we shall be debating in these amendments, I intend to focus on the employment chapter in order to enable other noble Lords to reflect on that chapter. Then, with the permission of the Committee, within the same group of amendments, I should like to consider the social chapter in detail. The reason for that is that the Amsterdam Treaty marks the point at which this Government became full signatories to the European social model, composed of the social chapter and the new employment chapter. In our view, that provides for a centralised European employment programme. This is an area where the Opposition accept that the Government were not negligent in their negotiations at Amsterdam but rather deeply misguided. On this issue, we are in genuine disagreement and that is why I have tabled an amendment and new clauses to oppose both measures.
On these Benches, we believe that there is an inherent contradiction between the social chapter and the employment chapter, on the one hand, and the needs of a competitive, flexible economy, on the other, but apparently the Government do not think so. Perhaps the

15
Government do not recognise that contradiction because, collectively, they share the opinion of the Minister of State in another place, who has confessed, perhaps in another example of truth spoken in jest of which this Government are so fond, that he does not believe statistics. He said:
"I had the misfortune to study economics for four years. That experience taught me never to believe statistics".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/97; col. 998.]
That presumably helps to suppress the inconvenient facts that we have signed up to the European Social Model exactly at a time when unemployment is falling in the UK and rising in the rest of Europe; that one-third of all investment into the EU flows into the UK; and that Britain has created more jobs in the past four years under the previous government than all the major countries of Europe put together.
Since 1992, the UK has enjoyed the longest and strongest recovery of any major European country. I should point out that unemployment in the UK is significantly lower than the EU average and is lower than in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Sweden. The UK has a higher proportion of its working age population in work than any other major EU country. The UK has the lowest labour overheads in the EU. For every £100 paid in wages, employers must add non-wage costs, such as employer's social security contributions and health insurance, of £32 in Germany; £34 in Spain; £41 in Italy; but only £18 in the UK.
The strike rate in the UK has been lower than the EU average for each of the last nine years. Over the last international economic cycle (1982–93) fixed investment growth in the UK was more than in any other major European economy. The burden of tax, public spending and public debt in the UK is lower than in any other major European economy. Over the past 20 years, that story has been underpinned by the fact that the United States has created 36 million new jobs, of which 31 million were in the private sector. Over the same period, only 8 million jobs were created in the EU, with no increase in private sector employment.
Taken individually, any one of those points would make a compelling case. Taken together, they conclusively prove that unless Europe cuts its social costs and frees up its labour markets, it will be outpriced and outperformed by the rest of the world, ensuring that the unacceptable levels of employment and unemployment persist. Red tape and regulation are a regime that Europe can no longer afford to keep in place.
Does the Minister disagree with that scenario? Does he feel that we should apply a strong socialist employment policy on top of that success story? Does he believe that marginal differences in price, quality and delivery can make all the difference between winning orders and losing them; between creating jobs and destroying them; and between building prosperity and undermining it in the global economy; or does the Minister agree with the Minister of State in another
16
place who apparently discerns no link between competitiveness and the social chapter, for he said:
"Competitiveness is a different issue [from the social chapter], about securing products, new designs, new production systems and breaking into new markets"?—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/97: cols. 566–7.]
Many of us on this side of the Committee are greatly cheered by the Government's seemingly wholehearted conversion to the principles of labour market flexibility, competitiveness and open markets and fewer burdens on business. But we only hear those comments; we do not see them echoed in policy when it comes to the adoption of the employment and social chapters by this Government. I fear that once the rhetoric of the social chapter is stripped away, the best result for the Government would be an empty page.
Agreement in principle with our European partners on the need for job creation will be very different from agreement in detail on how to achieve that goal. That will not come easily, and although it is most commendable, the practical conversion of some of our European colleagues to the new orthodoxy of the past four years may require a road to Damascus to achieve it, particularly bearing in mind that the Prime Minister of France, Lionel Josping was elected on a platform of cutting the working week.
From these Benches, it will come as no surprise to hear that we agree without reservation that creating the right climate for jobs for Europe's 18 million unemployed people should be one of Europe's highest priorities. Unemployment is Europe's worst disease. Job creation should be a priority for Britain's presidency.
I should like the Minister to give the Committee one concrete example of how he expects measures under the employment and social chapters to increase labour market flexibility and competitiveness and to create jobs. I doubt whether he can guarantee that no jobs will be lost as a result of those measures. However, I shall listen carefully to what he has to say on that because I should like to consider the implications of the measures introduced by the employment chapter. The treaty may,
"for the first time recognise that employment and growth result from the flexibility that comes with skills, not the inflexibility that comes with over-regulation".
But how many jobs will that create? How many jobs were created in Europe as a result of the Prime Minister's so-called employment summit last November?
Treaties, summits and governments do not create jobs. It is businesses, entrepreneurs and risk takers free from the burden of bureaucracy who create jobs. Creating the right conditions for employment is primarily a national responsibility. No one should pretend that jobs can be willed into being simply by legislating for them in a treaty. The key to creating new employment in Europe is to improve competitiveness and productivity and strip away unnecessary regulation. It is on this stage that the UK should have a leading role to play in Europe. The implementation of British ideas and strategies for success should be at the top of the European jobs agenda.

17
I have some specific questions on those articles of the treaty that deal with the employment chapter and make member states' employment policies a matter for common concern. Article 109p, paragraph 2, establishes the objective of a high level of employment as a consideration in formulating and implementing Community policies. Can the Minister tell the Committee what common figures member states have agreed upon to define a high level of employment? Could this have future implications for the single currency, given that the Maastricht criteria do not take into account unemployment figures? New Article 109r in the employment chapter allows the adoption of incentive measures designed to encourage co-operation between member states on the basis of Article 189b; that is, the co-decision procedure involving the European Parliament and qualified majority voting. Can the Minister tell us of what these incentive measures might consist? Furthermore, can he give a tight definition of areas where EU money may be spent to reassure us that this is not simply old-style interventionism disguised under the rhetoric of laissez-faire?
Can the Minister also give some examples of the co-operation between member states which is to be encouraged? Can he also give an assurance that British businesses and workers will not be used as guinea pigs for unproductive, potentially costly and ultimately futile pilot projects and that we shall not be put in a position of having to pay for unnecessary and unproductive employment programmes?
The European Council will consider the employment situation each year and adopt conclusions. Article 109q, paragraph 2, provides for the Council on the basis of those conclusions to draw up guidelines for member states to take into account in their employment policies. Can the Minister give an indication of what those guidelines will consist? Can the Minister guarantee that such guidelines in such a chapter, which require member states to make employment policies a matter of common concern and to co-ordinate their actions in that respect within the Council, cannot be used to impose on this country an employment policy to which we are opposed?
Furthermore, each member state is required to provide the Council and the Commission with an annual report on the principal measures taken to implement its employment policy in the light of those guidelines. Given that the Council acting by qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission on the basis of those reports can make recommendations to a member state, what assurances can the Minister give that a future British Government will not have to support and implement inappropriate, unrealistic and even job-destroying policies? In what circumstances does the Minister envisage such recommendations being made? These are detailed questions about an employment policy which goes to the very heart of our market which over the past 10 to 15 years has attempted to strip away the bureaucracy that inevitably jeopardises job creation, productivity and the growth that is essential to the success of a modern and productive economy. To impose yet further employment and social chapter measures and intervention into the market place is counterproductive to growth and successful competition in an increasingly
18
competitive global market for the marginal investment dollar. The figures that I have provided both about the United Kingdom's policies and their impact over the past 15 years, the American situation, and the stark comparison with the inherent problems of the socialist model in Europe in these areas, provide proof of the need to do exactly the opposite of what the employment chapter and the social chapter that we are considering now will achieve.
Does the Minister believe that on the principles that I have set out, the annual report to implement an employment policy in the light of Article 109 will be beneficial? What good will it do to increase employment? Given that the Council, acting by qualified majority on the recommendations that are made as a result of that report, can have a far-reaching and deep impact on UK job creation, how do the Government intend to counter many of those policies that have so clearly not worked within Europe and which, through the Commission, can now be imposed on UK businesses as a result of signing up to the employment chapter?
In what circumstances does the Minister envisage such recommendations being made? Would it be when a member state had breached an agreed treaty objective, in which case Council recommendations would presumably carry considerable authority? Could this result in the British Government being hauled before the European Court of Justice, which could then interpret the employment chapter's provisions as placing a duty on the British Government to pursue employment policies dictated by other EU states which could well be against Britain's national interests?
In the light of all that I have set out, who now will have final responsibility for Britain's employment policy? Will it be the British Government accountable to British workers who are the very people to be affected by any changes in policy? I can only conclude that the answer is presumably this: not if our employment policies are to be "a matter for common concern" for all member states.
As I said at the beginning of my intervention, I intend to turn to the social chapter at a later stage of the consideration of the clauses which are now being considered by the Committee.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I echo strongly the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, with regard to the regret felt by all noble Lords about the illness of the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney. The noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, is a splendid contender on these issues. He is a man who has bravely expressed his views on many occasions out of a deep sense of loyalty and patriotism to his country. I know that I speak for many when I say that we all hope that the noble Lord will soon be back in his accustomed place contributing to these debates in his unique and remarkable way. Having said that, that is probably the point at which any further agreement with the noble Lord ceases.
I begin by saying a few words about employment policy. I shall then deal with the amendments to social policy. First, I believe it is absolutely clear that Title VI as set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam is specifically an

19
intergovernmental policy. Article 109r specifically states that no attempt is being made to harmonise the laws or practices of member states. The other sections of Title VI refer over and over again to an attempt to establish co-ordinated action on employment policy, to exchange information and to try to indicate best practice—in other words, to attempt to deal with this difficult problem by calling upon the experience of each member state. Speaking as someone who for many years has been engaged in OECD employment policies, I can see remarkably little difference between Title VI and that which the OECD constantly adjures upon its many member states: the importance of co-ordination of information and best practice.
I find it difficult to conjure up the kind of ghosts and wraiths that are being conjured up in this debate. I do not believe that there is any serious substance in them. However there is a strong case for co-ordination and the exchange of best practice in this field of all fields, because none of us has the obvious answers. In many instances the best practice in one country can become the initial stages of an imitation, a copying, in another country, which can bring benefits to all.
There is another consideration. The business world is increasingly dominated by multinational companies which will try to achieve the same practices in the fields of training, employment, promotion and skill in all their subsidiaries throughout many different European countries. It is therefore important that governments as well as multinationals and other large companies can co-ordinate their policies and practices in a way most beneficial to the citizens of Europe. For example, Article 109 refers to the exchange of information and best practice. In that context I must declare an interest as the chairman of the Regional Jobs Competition for the EU, where we are constantly engaged in trying to bring the best practice from one area to other countries, very often bringing the best practice in the UK—Scotland, the north east and the south west—to the attention of countries such as Spain or the Netherlands where a similar problem of a declining industrial base has to be dealt with. I can see no possible damage in that and every possible good, including a great deal of good for those who are most innovative and entrepreneurial in our own country.
Secondly, increasingly, under earlier provisions of the treaty, there is a greater mobility of skilled and qualified people, so what can possibly be the objection to trying to co-ordinate and to bring together training for skill? Surely we want to see a similar exchange of young people, a similar widening of opportunities for those whose training and education lie essentially in the vocational and skill areas to that which most noble Lords have broadly accepted for the exchange of university students under the Erasmus scheme.
That brings me to the first question that I want to ask the Minister. Will he tell us something about the attempts to widen the opportunities for young people who are training in advanced skills, to exchange their experience and work in other countries, so that we have a situation similar to that which now exists under the Erasmus scheme for university students?
20
Secondly, it is appropriate that there should be an annual report to the Council and to the Commission, but here I have some sympathy with those who have tabled Amendment No. 28. On these Benches, we believe that it would be wise to make that same report available to the European Parliament and to national parliaments. There seems no reason why it should not be made available. In that context I wish to commend Her Majesty's Government for having already made clear their own employment policies and for making them available to members of the public before the Cardiff summit looks at the comparative achievements of all the different countries in the Community.
With great respect, I found the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, which depended apparently on the argument that in Britain everything is as it should be, that we were the most competitive, most brilliant in performance, and most sharp-edged in pricing, a little strange in view of the fact that we are still contending with serious balance of payment problems at a time when countries which he criticises strongly, such as Germany, bound from one month to the next from one balance of payments surplus to the next. No one in this Chamber can pretend that Germany does not have serious problems. So she does. No one can be true to the facts if they do not recognise also that Germany, despite the social model—some of us would say partly because of it—has a remarkable record of economic achievement.
Finally, I shall address a few remarks to social policy so that I do not have to detain your Lordships again. The Social Charter and the social protocol have been exaggerated out of all possible proportion in the debates that have taken place over the past few years. The total number of directives under the social protocol amounts at present to one directive on consultation with work forces; one directive on maternity leave; and one on parental leave.
It is no good talking about the importance of family life, about the need to improve the upbringing of young people, and then to take no steps to try to create a world of work in which such things are possible. Parental leave is right because men and women alike should take responsibility for their children; it is right that there should be consultation between management and workforces. I find it incredible that one should still have to argue that that is in some way a deeply counter-productive and reactionary policy. It is right that the treatment of part-time workers in terms of working conditions and opportunities should be similar to those of full-time workers.
Surely we want a society where there is a competitive, entrepreneurial, imaginative and innovative industry, but one that exists within the tenets of a compassionate, responsible and decent society. That compassionate, responsible and decent society means that we have to give priority to high employment and to a compassionate social policy. Alongside our undoubted achievements in areas of competition, innovation and entrepreneurship, it is tragically true that Britain has the highest proportion of children in poverty, the highest proportion of families in poverty, and one of the most rapidly growing unequal structures of income

21
distribution to be found anywhere in Europe. That is not something of which to be proud. We need British entrepreneurial attitudes within a social model that will enable all people in society to recognise the responsibility that each has to the others.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: From these Benches I, too, wish the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, whom we all admire, a speedy recovery. Although I am not remotely capable of matching his eloquence, I should like to pick up two or three of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in his most interesting speech. I should like to have been a fly on the wall when Articles 125 and 130, dealing with employment, were being hammered out.
Which EU governments can seriously believe that EU unemployment can be reduced by "co-ordinated strategies" or "the issuing of guidelines"? We all know why unemployment is so high in the highly regulated continental economies with their burdensome social costs and, more often than not, their high minimum wages. It does not require the creation of costly quangoes, such as the treaty envisages, to discover that. Naturally any national government and parliament will respond to the wishes of their own electorates and do their best to maximise employment for their own people, first and foremost.
Under those circumstances—assuming that they are determined to keep their high social costs and their high minimum wages—there is only one way in which high continental unemployment can be reduced in the short-term, although certainly not in the longer term; that is, by the introduction of protectionism. Overt protectionism is of course forbidden by the GATT, but there is plenty of scope for covert, indirect protectionism. We have only to think about the way in which the French channelled Japanese and other Asian electronics imports to a small customs post in the inland town of Poitiers, thereby delaying them by several months, to realise that.
That protectionism is what the French have always wanted to keep out goods from Asia, the Americas, Australasia, and so forth. The French even managed to infect the late Jimmy Goldsmith with that virus. Now it appears that even the Germans seem to be moving to some extent in the French direction in so far as they seem anxious and, indeed, ready to keep out eastern European manufactured goods and agricultural products. Is that, one wonders, the direction in which those who have formulated the employment articles hope the so-called co-ordinated strategy will lead?
Lord Renton: We are discussing an important issue. Surely, in every modern democracy the three principal aims of economic policy must be, first, the creation of employment; secondly, the improvement of social services; and, thirdly, the raising of the standard of living. But the creation of employment must come first because without it we cannot achieve the other two. Economic policy involves many aims, but they are merely a means to an end. Monetary policy, interest
22
rates, the balance of payments and increasing production, for instance, merely support the aims, but the creation of employment must come first.
In that respect, I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, praised the speech of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. He gave a powerful analysis of the need to put the creation of employment first. I am pleased to say that the Conservative Party, which I have supported for many years, performed extremely well, especially in its last five years in government. Great achievements were also made in the early years of the Thatcher governments. It is a pity that during the general election campaign, almost a year ago, the people did not appreciate what had been achieved.
It is right that during our debate on the part to be played in Europe we should concentrate first and foremost upon the creation of employment and how our membership of the European Union, under a new treaty and further strategies, can lead to that principal aim. I hope that the government spokesman will give a full and careful answer to the points made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan.
Lord Grenfell: I, too, am sorry that my noble friend Lord Shore is indisposed. He adds enormous wisdom to our debates, even when we do not agree with the points he is making. Today, I have a difference of view with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. It is curious that those who have attacked the provisions in the new title are pessimistic about the possibility of best practice in this country being transferred to other members of the Community. They attack the title as though it were designed to create unemployment. One has only to read the title to see that it is replete with objectives, all aimed at putting employment at the top of the list and creating maximum employment possibilities.
Secondly, the title deals with developing a co-ordinated strategy. When a community of nations suffers from the problem of perhaps one country being successful in its employment and others not, it is not unreasonable that there should be a transfer of ideas. People should come together to discuss what in the practice of one country brings about a better record of employment which could be adopted by another country. That is all that the title proposes. It tries to find the best and most practical means of discovering what is best practice and encouraging its adoption by those countries which do not possess it.
The flexibility of the labour market is a typical example. Of course other countries have a great deal to learn, but I cannot understand the attitude of those people who assume that we should have nothing to do with this title, as if we have nothing to say to our Community partners. That is not the case. What on earth is wrong with drawing up guidelines for member states to take into account employment policies? Does not this country have the confidence to impart its best practice to others? Is it afraid to discuss with other members of the European Union how we have arrived at a successful employment policy with less than 5 per cent. unemployed? That is what Title VI is all about. It shares

23
the experience that we have accumulated in order to ensure that the European Union as a whole can improve its employment record and learn something from us.
I wish that those who attack Title VI on the ground that it is an intervention and interference would look at it from the other side and see that it is not an intervention and interference in our business, but an invitation to us to pass on our best practices to those who need them most.
4 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, misunderstands the way in which the transfer of best practice operates. The British motor industry, which had fallen into the worst practice in the world, did not manage to regain its competitiveness by going to governments and asking, "Please, can you tell us what the Germans and the Japanese are doing which is right?", and then waiting for governments to meet under the cover of a great treaty, with enormous numbers of people going backwards and forwards to huge offices erected in Brussels. It did not happen like that. It happened as a matter of commerce; as a matter of business. Sadly, in the end, because we were slow at picking these things up, Japanese companies arrived in Britain and demonstrated to us just what best practice meant.
I must assure the noble Lord that I was in the Department of Trade and Industry when the Nissan Motor Company came to Great Britain. It was not universally welcomed by Members on all sides of the House, but it came. It did not have to bring best practice from Japan via the government in Tokyo, coming across to me in the Department of Trade and Industry and asking me to go out and tell people in the industry what it should be doing to make motor cars. This is an absolute mare's nest. The only best practice we would receive from this method would be the best practice of bureaucrats in creating jobs for themselves and destroying jobs for other people.
I took an interest in what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. She said that this is no more than occurs all the time in the OECD. That is fine. But why do we need this provision? We could throw away part of this treaty and achieve the result by going through the OECD. If the provision does no more than the OECD does, why do we have to re-invent the OECD and put it into the Treaty of Rome in order to achieve the aim? It is a most extraordinary argument. Of course I know why it is, as I am sure do most noble Lords if they think about it. If we include in the Treaty of Rome words in particular of the kind which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, used to believe were guff, they acquire a life of their own. Matters of common concern move on and become matters of common policy. Sooner or later they become matters of single policy. That is a progress and that is why we cannot leave the matter with the OECD. It is why we cannot leave it to businessmen, through the normal flow of practice and competitive pressures, to take best practice from one country to another.
24
In particular, I noticed the comfort which the noble Baroness gave. At the bottom of page 30 of the treaty are those words from which the noble Baroness told us we should take great comfort. The treaty states:
"Those measures shall not include harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States".
But that applies to paragraph 109r. It does not apply to paragraphs 109p or 109q or any of the other paragraphs. It applies only to the part which matters least and it does not apply to the parts which matter most.
I am not a stranger to all this kind of thing. When I was Secretary of State for Employment, we were making some of the changes which, I believe, before the election the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, used to refer to as "best practice" in industrial relations law. I might add that that is best practice against which he voted on every possible occasion when those changes were being introduced. But let us set that on one side. We should welcome sinners when they come to repentance.
However, when I was introducing those measures, which now stand out clearly as best practice in Europe, I was being badgered constantly by my colleagues in the Council of Ministers with ideas of precisely the sort that we are now seeing introduced through the social chapter. "Why don't we do this?" they asked. As we all know, the power of initiation does not rest with Ministers but with commissioners and, at that time, they had the powerful backing of a most distinguished commissioner. Since he is not on the Government Front Bench at the moment, I shall not mention his name. But he kept bringing forward those ideas and bringing them forward in the Council. At that time, we needed unanimity and so I merely made it plain that there was not the slightest prospect of unanimity and those ideas were taken away again.
Always I said to my colleagues, "Look, if you sincerely believe that those measures will assist your economies, will help to reduce unemployment, will give new energy to your commerce and industry, why don't you introduce them? I wouldn't stop you. I wish you good fortune". "Oh no", they would say, "We couldn't do that because unless you were required to introduce them as well, you would have a competitive advantage". That seemed to me a most extraordinary argument.
Of course, it has been refined now. The French call it le social dumping. The French believe that it is better to be an unemployed French worker than an employed British worker because the British worker is the victim of le social dumping. On the whole, I believe that it is better to be employed in Britain than unemployed in France.
Of course, we would see the pressures to harmonise our laws. After all, it is absolutely disgraceful, is it not, that we see a company like P&O Ferries prospering, carrying goods back and forth across the Channel, while the French opposition is in considerable trouble? Naturally, the view of the French unions is the view which would have been the view of a British union 20 years ago; that is, "We'll go on strike. There is nothing like a good strike for improving the competitiveness of one's business". But of course, at

25
present, before they can stop their customers going to P&O, they have to blockade the ports. That causes disorder and social tensions—quite disgraceful affairs. British and German lorry drivers can avoid the disruption of their businesses by using P&O ferries. That causes grave concern for France.
What is the answer? To a Frenchman, it is perfectly obvious: you bring the British into line; you give us the benefit of your employment laws. That is the purpose of this provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, speaking this afternoon, said what I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Shore, had he been here, would have said too. I must say that I shall miss hearing the vivid imagery of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, on this matter. It was said that we should have a common purpose of creating employment. That is quite right. But here is the rub. At the moment, we seem to have found that happy trick of increasing employment and reducing unemployment in this country. We are doing it quite well.
What is it that is stopping our competitors on the Continent from following our best practice in that regard? Why do they not adopt the British system? Are they waiting for a treaty which would compel all of them to agree that our system is better and that they should adopt it, or are they waiting for an opportunity to make sure that we fall into line with them so that we are not competitive?
If the European Union were the world perhaps that trick might work for a while, but it is not. I talked recently to the managers of one of our largest, most successful manufacturing companies. They have made the decision that, for the first time, they will establish a manufacturing plant outside the United Kingdom. They are a shrewd bunch, very successful. Are they rushing to Germany, Spain, Greece or Finland? Not on your life. Nor are they going to the Far East to enjoy the fruits of purposeful capitalism àla Will Hutton in Malaysia. No, they are going to the United States. They are going there because not only is land cheaper, not only is the cost of the construction of a factory cheaper, not only are the planning procedures simpler, not only is the bureaucracy less but the wage overhead ratio is better too. There is less interference from union officials more concerned with making a living for themselves than making a living for their members.
If we were to have a treaty under which we were to bind ourselves to exchanging information on best practice, and perhaps even one day to bind ourselves to accept the practices of others, we might do better to have a treaty with the United States than with France or Germany.
I am afraid that, in this treaty, we have got it all wrong. I now come to some common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Paragraph 2 of Article 109p states:
"The objective of a high level of employment shall be taken into consideration in the formulation and implementation of Community policies and activities".
Could there be a more important part of a government's policy in that regard than the management of the currency? Who, in this brave new world of the European
26
Community, will be in charge of the management of the currency? It will not be this place, not the Bundestag and not the National Assembly; it will be a quango of bankers. The treaty specifically provides that they should not take any notice whatever of outsiders such as, for example, parliaments—even the European Parliament if it should call for policies designed to achieve higher employment.
I am one of those who think that, on the whole, the bankers are more likely to get it right than the politicians, but it seems to me to be a fundamentally undemocratic practice and one which makes an absolute nonsense of Article 109p. I think that we would be better off if the whole of this section were torn out of the treaty now before it does any more harm.
Lord Beloff: The word "statistics" was mentioned earlier in the debate on this amendment. What I believe people thought about at the time were economic statistics. However, as the eminent economists who normally grace the Labour Benches are none of them present today, I shall not embark upon something which would leave them disadvantaged in their absence.
I shall, therefore, talk about another kind of statistics which are much more immediately relevant; namely, the statistics of voting in yesterday's election in Saxony-Anhalt. It is important to notice that in a state in Germany—which still seems to have the untrammelled devotion of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—over 12 per cent. voted for a Neo-Nazi party, while something like 40 per cent. voted for an ex-Communist party advocating the same policies as when the GDR was a Communist country. Commentators on those results have pointed out that the division there is one of age—the older people still hanker after the quasi-security of their former Communist regime but the younger people find that a little pathetic and go for Neo-Nazism. At whose expense have those votes been garnered? It is at the expense of the two governing parties in the coalition of the Federal Republic—Chancellor Kohl's Christian Democrats and their Free-Democratic partners, who did not even make the 5 per cent. necessary to be represented in the Land Parliament.
That has happened at a time when the German Government seem intent on bludgeoning Europe into a single currency. The fact is that in Germany a single currency, among other things, has not led to improvements in employment but to a kind of mass unemployment. That is the ultimate explanation of the electoral figures, as it was, in retrospect, probably the ultimate explanation of the rise of Hitlerism in the first place. It seems curious that this phenomenon is taken so little account of when we are considering a treaty which intends, in one way or another, to bind us more closely to an economy (and an outlook) that is proving to be such a massive failure. Even in prosperous western Germany the unemployment figures are still very high.
The point I wish to make is a simple one and one which I have already made in reference to this Bill and to the Maastricht Treaty before it. Europe consists of a

27
number of countries of a highly individualistic kind, each of them with their own preferences, their own convictions and their own ways of doing things. Any attempt to put them into a single system is bound, in the end, to run up against that simple fact. Attention has already been called by, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to the French preference for protectionism as a way of securing employment. As it goes back for some 300 years, it is not surprising that they are attached to it. For reasons which I believe could be explained if we had the time, the Germans have the feeling that you somehow or other create employment by limiting the freedom of employers and exalting the influence of trade unions.
In each of those countries there is something different. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out, we have a different approach. I do not expect for a moment that it is ignorance of that approach which prevents the Germans, the French, the Spaniards or indeed the Italians from adopting the British model; it is just not relevant to their situation as they see it. Surely it is important for a British Government to retain under their own control the basic instruments of economic policy. To do less than that is to betray the electorate to whom, at least in this country, government are responsible.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like, first, to thank all those noble Lords who have sent their good wishes to my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney. It is absolutely true that we are missing him very much today. We shall continue to do so tomorrow, but perhaps not on Report. I spoke to my noble friend's wife last night and it appears that he is quite ill in hospital. Nevertheless, he has taken a great deal of interest in what is going on. His wife hopes that he will be out of hospital on Wednesday, but it will be some little while before he can take part in our proceedings. I shall ensure that the good wishes of noble Lords are passed on to my noble friend.
My noble friend Lord Grenfell and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked what this was all about. They said that it is only a bit of talk, the employment chapter is intergovernmental in its operation and, therefore, why not give them our ideas and why not listen to theirs? That is a seductive argument. However, the problem for me is that I have heard it all before and, after a little while, it becomes part of the ratchet effect towards a federal Europe.
We heard that foreign and security policy would be intergovernmental and that we were only going to have chats about such issues. Indeed, we were only going to discuss foreign policies. However, in this Amsterdam Treaty, the matter has been taken very much further than we thought it would be when we discussed Maastricht. It bears no relationship to the assurances that we were given about foreign and security policy during the debates on that matter.
The same is true as regards police and judicial co-operation which, again, is an intergovernmental pillar. Once again in the Amsterdam Treaty the question
28
is being taken further. More powers are being given to the institutions of Europe than we were led to believe would be the case when we discussed the Maastricht Treaty. That is what worries me about this employment chapter. Of course I do not mind discussing matters with our European competitors. I do not mind discussing them with anyone else in the world because full employment is a good objective. The Labour Party, which I joined 50 years ago, has always had that objective. Indeed even the Conservative Party came to accept it eventually. Of course full employment is a great aim and something which we should all support. However, I fear very much that the way in which the European Community works will not necessarily bring that about.
I do not know how many noble Lords watched the programme on BBC2 on the way that EMU and a single currency were obtained. It was an interesting programme. It showed just how undemocratic the decision making process is and that ordinary people were never involved. When we talk about the people's Europe we are not talking about ordinary people; we are talking about the "top people" in Europe. It is the "top people's" Europe that appears to concern some people, not the real people's Europe.
Those who watched that programme would have seen exactly how two men stitched up EMU and a single currency over tea, like any potentate of bygone ages. It was not done through a democratic process. They had not even discussed the matter with their parliaments or assemblies. It was decided over a cup of tea. They made great decisions which affect people's lives, their employment or unemployment, without any reference to the people at all. That is why I am worried that although this new title may be intergovernmental, in the final analysis one or two people will make the decisions without reference to any democratic process. I am worried about the whole issue of EMU and a single currency because those people were not concerned about the economic aspects except in so far as they concerned France and its high unemployment rate. They were concerned about the political aspects. One could see how Germany and France between them were prepared to sideline and to "do down" this country.
If some of us are suspicious when matters such as Title VIa are drafted into a new treaty, please excuse us because we have been through all this before and it is a continuing process. Those are the reasons I believe we should be careful about this title and why I shall support, with alacrity, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Shore whom we all wish a speedy and good recovery.
Lord Moynihan: I mentioned earlier that I thought it was critical to address the questions posed by the social chapter. I do so now with renewed vigour. I am always cautious when I listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, because I think it is fair to say that we agree on many aspects of foreign affairs, but on this subject we disagree most vehemently. We take a polarised position in that disagreement, save possibly as regards the importance of compassion in politics. I hope she will accept that I believe equally in the importance

29
of compassion in politics and see it being achieved best by satisfying the primary concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, of creating employment and providing individuals with jobs. The statistics I mentioned when we focused on the employment measures were endorsed by those of us who are involved in politics and in business who also recognise the importance of compassion in terms of creating jobs and creating a healthy economy.
I believe that true compassion is effectively expressed in phrases such as that used by Hans Olaf Henkel, President of the Federation of German Industries, when he pointed out that,
"Great Britain has become the most attractive location for investment in Europe".
For it is governments who create the right legal, regulatory and fiscal framework to ensure maximum efficiency, creation of jobs and competitiveness. That is an important part of compassion. From these Benches our position has been unequivocal and constant. We were simply not prepared to accept the social chapter proposed at Maastricht because it opens the door to unwanted regulation which threatens to damage our competitiveness and destroy jobs.
The Government have given many reasons why they signed up to the social chapter. We have been told repeatedly that our opt-out was damaging and that it insulted British workers. The Foreign Secretary said,
"We have ended the insult to the British people that they are fit only for the worst rights at work in the whole of Europe".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/97; col. 912.]
How can he possibly claim that to be accurate when set against the relative success of our economy and the compassion in creating so many jobs through our productivity over the years? In my view those words of the Foreign Secretary are hollow indeed. We were told that it was essential that we signed up to the social chapter if British workers were to have the same rights as those in Europe.
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that the Minister in another place sought to embrace the same rights as those in other countries in Europe already have. I am in complete agreement with him on the importance of dialogue, but I do not believe for one moment that it could not take place in a constructive manner without signing up to the social chapter. We were also informed that our opt-out reduced our influence in Europe and that we needed a seat at the negotiating table. Of all the issues that we shall debate in Committee this is possibly the most important one. I recognise that this is a subject that appeared in the Government's manifesto. It is not my intention to seek to divide the Chamber on this issue at any stage because I recognise that this Chamber has accepted that we do not challenge manifesto commitments, particularly one that was expressed so strongly by the then Labour opposition.
However, during all the "door knocking" and canvassing that occurred during the previous general election, I did not come across a single voter who decided not to vote for the Conservative Party because of the Government's intent with regard to the social
30
chapter. I may be unique in that and other Members of the Committee may have had a different experience. I should like to know in what way our opt-out from the social chapter was damaging. What are the benefits that our opt-out from the social chapter has denied us? What is the injury, the damage, the detriment that the opt-in agreed at Amsterdam is supposed to rectify? Did our opt-out mean that jobs were lost? No, on the contrary. Did it threaten our economic success? No, on the contrary again. Were we ever at risk of unwanted and possibly job-destroying legislation imposed on us by qualified majority voting? The answer is clearly not; on the contrary.
It is disingenuous for the Government to say, as the Minister said in Committee in another place, that the social chapter is,
"not only about what can be agreed at a European level; it is also about recognising that some things are better dealt with at a nation state level. When the Government judge that that is the case … we are determined to make it the case that those matters are determined at a national level".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/97; cols. 436–437.]
But that is patently untrue. The Director-General of the CBI put it best when he said:
"If you sign up to the social chapter you can't actually be sure that you'll have your way because some directives will he covered by qualified majority voting. There is, however, a way to pick and choose, and that is available to the Labour party if it wants to have it as its policy. The way to pick and choose is actually not to sign up to the social chapter".
The directives covered by QMV mean that the Government would be powerless to prevent some measures being imposed on the United Kingdom against its will. This threat has already become a reality before the social chapter has even been put in position; it does not become active until the Treaty of Amsterdam is signed.
Yet the reality has been shown, because Commissioner Flynn has proposals to extend the works council directive to companies with 50 workers and above which, if successful, would be introduced under the QMV sections of the social chapter, with no chance of a national veto.
The Government oppose these proposals to extend compulsory works councils. Yet, as the CBI business update says:
"the Government has stated that it shares our reservations, but it can be overruled since this is one aspect of Social Chapter legislation which can be covered by QMV".
How will the Foreign Secretary guarantee to ensure, as he has promised, that the Commission's proposal for all such legislation with which the Government disagree is amended? Will he give the same answer as the President of the Board of Trade, who told the BBC's "On the Record" programme that she did not support Commissioner Flynn's proposals for national works councils; but, when asked what action the Government would take to prevent the proposals for national works councils becoming law, she could only manage to stumble:
"Well, er, we shall see how things go".
How will the Government pick and choose between those social chapter policies which suit them and those which do not if they, and indeed many policies, can be

31
introduced under QMV? When summing up, can the Minister guarantee that such a measure to introduce national works councils, if the Government proved powerless to prevent it, would not be damaging to the interests of the 3·7 million small British businesses and the entrepreneurs who run them who risk their all to make their businesses a success and who do not have the resources to pay for the personnel departments and the compliance officers?
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was right to underpin the importance of social legislation, and I echo those sentiments. But we have a Parliament in which we can consider each possible measure that we deem necessary in this country to protect workers. I have a list, with which the Library have generously provided me, with hundreds of measures appropriately considered by Parliament and passed for this very purpose, and on which I have full agreement with the noble Baroness. But, under the social chapter, legislation in any of these areas—working conditions, the information and consultation of workers, equality between men and women in relation to both employment opportunities and treatment at work, the integration of people excluded from the labour market and health and safety at work—can be introduced under QMV and the Government would have no power to stop such legislation.
There will be noble Lords on both sides of the House who will say that these seem reasonable areas for proposals. But let us look at them. Proposals under working conditions, the first I cited, which could not be vetoed if they are adopted, include the requirement for firms to provide equal rights for permanent and temporary workers, which is already a European Community proposal; no more flexibility in employing temps or casual workers; the requirement for firms to provide full employment rights for all workers—no more probationary periods and full redundancy costs; and the requirement for firms to provide full pay for every day of sickness, as in Germany, which could lead to an increase in sickness absenteeism. All these are measures which have been considered in both Houses of Parliament and all are measures which we do not wish to see imposed upon us, even if they are right for other members of the European Community.
My second area relates to proposals under information and consultation of workers, which could not be vetoed if they are adopted. I mentioned works councils for all firms with more than 50 employees. There is the obligation to consult elected representatives—in other words, trade union officials—over every management decision—recruitment, redeployment, redundancy; the requirement for co-decision between a company's management and works councils, as in Austria—firms will have to gain the agreement of the works council before every dismissal decision; the requirement for all firms to reserve up to half the seats on their boards of directors for duly elected representatives of the workers; the requirement for firms to apply to the government for permission before making any dismissal or redundancy, as in the Netherlands.
32
These are not pie-in-the-sky ideas; I am quoting specific examples which occur elsewhere in Europe and which, no doubt, those countries would like to see universally applied throughout Europe. They deemed the measure satisfactory for them; why should they not propose it within the social chapter to be satisfactory for the whole of the community and push, through QMV, for it to be adopted?
We may say in this House that we do not feel it is right for the United Kingdom. We had the opportunity when we had the opt-out to consider the social legislation appropriate for this country. But that will not be the case in future on proposals as regards the equality of men and women in relation both to work opportunities and treatment at work, which could not be vetoed if they are adopted. On sex discrimination, the European Community proposal would require employers to prove their innocence instead of being innocent until proved guilty, overturning what we consider to be a basic principle of justice; there is requirement for positive discrimination in favour of women in the workplace, with quotas for both female directors and management; and, for example, the requirement for firms to provide all workers four weeks' holiday a year from 1999; the requirement to provide all workers six weeks' holiday a year, as in Spain, which is what Spain believes to be in its national interest and, if it persuades the majority in the Community, the measure could be extended throughout; the forbidding of any worker to work more than eight hours a night on a nightshift, as per the working time directive; and the forbidding of any worker from working more than 40 hours a week, as in France and Belgium, adding further costs and inflexibility to business limitations on overtime.
It is Jacques Santer's opinion that there should be more QMV in the social chapter. He wrote to the effect that he believes that it is essential to extend qualified majority voting to certain provisions of the social chapter which currently require a unanimous vote; namely, to the protection of workers whose employment contracts have been terminated, the social security and social protection of workers and the representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers.
The Government say that we are scaremongering. As has been pointed out this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the two directives introduced under the social chapter to date—the European works council directive and the parental leave directive—have been modest, sensible and reasonable. But that fails to take into account the fact that the danger is not what has already been introduced under the social chapter, but the potential for more increasingly far-reaching social legislation. I have given many national examples in support of my argument on this vital issue. The fact that we had an opt-out acted as a brake on the development of the social chapter. How can the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, guarantee his words, echoed in another place, will remain true in the future? He said that,
"None of the provisions in the social chapter, likely or actual, impose serious costs on British business".—[Official Report, 28/7/97; col. 68.]

33
How can the Government guarantee that the social chapter today will not add to the costs of social security tomorrow?
Furthermore, surely our past experience suggests that European Union institutions, including the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, will seek to apply the widest possible interpretations in order to maximise the scope for adopting measures by qualified majority. Hence, the European Union's working time directive was imposed on Britain on the grounds that working time concerns health and safety rather than employment. The Department of Trade and Industry calculated that the working time directive could cost British employers £2 billion.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, focused on what is surely the most important issue. After all, what is wrong with a domestic agenda for social legislation? If the Government deem it essential that British workers have the same rights as their counterparts in Europe, why do the Government not introduce employment and social policy measures which they believe will boost employment in Britain through domestic legislation and avoid the risk of the imposition of unwanted and damaging legislation under the social chapter? From those—
Lord Tebbit: I am surprised that my noble friend seems not to know the answer to that question. It is that such domestic legislation could be repealed following a change of mind by the British electorate. Any measure introduced as European legislation under the provisions of this treaty could not be so repealed. My noble friend made the point that we in this place would never vote down a matter that was in the election manifesto of an elected government. Unfortunately, our masters in Brussels do not have such qualms.
Lord Moynihan: My noble friend intervened as I begged the question and before I came to give an answer. I had intended to give two answers. My noble friend has given what would have been my second answer far more eloquently than I could ever have done.
My first answer to the question that I posed is that social legislation must, and should, be tailored to fit the interests of this country as decided by this Parliament for the people of this country. It is just not possible for any student of Europe, particularly given the examples that I have mentioned, to believe that the ill-fitting, one-size-for-all measures on social policy for general use from Finland to France can possibly be in the best interests of this nation.
Thirdly, the argument was put to us that the "empty chair at the negotiating table" philosophy has been used to argue that, despite our opt-out—which meant that we played no part in shaping social chapter policies and had no influence over them—Britain was still affected by legislation under the social chapter and companies were frequently forced to apply it. Even in this House, the Lord Privy Seal himself has told us that there is no halfway house between opting in and staying out, and that we must be at the table arguing our case or we shall be outvoted on measures with which we disagree. That is a critically important point.
34
Will the Minister explain why the same logic does not apply to our other opt-outs—to the title on asylum, immigration and visa policy and to our sovereignty over our border controls, to the provisions for flexibility, and even to our opt-out from economic and monetary union? Will the Minister explain where the difference lies and how, elsewhere in the Union, we shall be able to maintain a halfway house between opting in to those measures which may suit us while exercising our right not to opt in to other potentially damaging measures, if that is not possible in the case of measures enacted under the social chapter?
It is therefore relevant for us to consider whether there is a third way, or whether it is merely a damaging dead end. The truth is that, despite the Prime Minister's much vaunted "third way", despite his apparent conversion to flexible job markets and his praise for entrepreneurship—even though it is clear that the Foreign Secretary does not share his enthusiasm—his early action in signing up to the social chapter and agreeing to the employment chapter sends quite a different message: that we are returning to the old, discredited agenda that social legislation is somehow the way to provide more security in employment for people in the modern world.
From these Benches we support the Government if their objective is indeed ending the old ways of state intervention, corporatism and over-burdensome regulation. But it is hard to see how that fits with signing the social chapter, compulsory union recognition, adopting the employment chapter and introducing the minimum wage, many of which are more likely to destroy jobs than create them.
It is particularly ironic that this should happen just as we were winning the argument for the enterprise model of Britain—just as the years of Conservative government were delivering Britain an economic performance that has made it the envy of Europe; just as our partners in Europe were waking up to the fact that the only route to job security and wealth creation is through the success of enterprise, and the success of building an open, outward-looking, customer-driven economy throughout Europe.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not find some inconsistency between his extolling of American records in achieving high employment and his remark about the minimum wage, to which the United States has been attached for many years?
Lord Moynihan: I find none at all. For that reason I assure the noble Baroness, who focused very carefully on the words that I chose, that I should be more than happy to enter into a debate about the effect of a minimum wage. I should, however, be in danger of straying outside the remit of this particular clause. I genuinely believe that the minimum wage, particularly set at the wrong level, can be deeply damaging to the flexibility of the labour market. It is an argument on which I should happily deliver in greater detail.

35
The point I was making when the noble Baroness intervened was that the European social model—I quoted four or five specific aspects of that model, many of which would now be employed as a result of the social chapter—has done much to destroy jobs in Europe. When we see that absence in the United States, when we see the climate that we have built in this country, I find it worrying and disturbing, and wholly wrong politically, that we should be going down the path of establishing a stronger social model, which will now be imposed on the United Kingdom as a result of the absence of our opt-out, rather than working in quite the opposite direction to make the economy more competitive, less burdened by bureaucracy and particularly by the social measures that I indicated would possibly have to be adopted—that is the importance of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—by this country whether we liked them or not. I believe that anybody looking at our economy recognises that millions of Europeans also accept that. Perhaps I may quote again to the noble Baroness the many examples cited by strong pro-Europeans, with whom she would have a great deal of sympathy. Jacques Delors forecast after Maastricht that our opt-out from the social chapter would make Britain, "a paradise for Japanese investment".
I have already quoted Hans Olaf Henkel who, I believe, is very wise in this context and highlighted his recognition of the benefits of the right economic framework in the United Kingdom as opposed to the damage that can be done by a European social model, the likes of which we are witnessing in so many European countries and which has brought so much unemployment to those countries. Maybe the Government give greater weight to the opinions of their European partners than those I have just quoted.
However, I add in this context a couple of newspaper reports to support the point I hope to make, although I doubt whether I shall convince the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on this occasion. Perhaps I may quote the German newspaper Handelsblatt which reported:
"With greater labour flexibility, trade union power was reduced, meaning that Britain has suffered far fewer strikes than during the 1960s. According to OECD economists, Britain is setting the pace in micro-economic reforms".
It went on to say:
"One might even say that Britain was a model".
If the Germans do not convince, then perhaps the French might. Le Monde asked:
"How does one interpret the incredible change in unemployment in Great Britain? If unemployment is dropping in Britain it is because they have done everything to deserve it. For several years, considerable efforts have been made to improve the workings of the labour market, thereby boosting job and new company creations".
Perhaps the last word might go to the Dutch. Jan Timmer, president of Philips, said:
"The most competitive country in Europe today is the United Kingdom. It has a great sense of realism, a great sense of competitive spirit—the factories we have in the UK are the most changed factories in the world. For manufacturing, Britain [for Philips] is the most competitive country in Europe today".
36
I have made those arguments in detail because we on this side of the House feel passionately that the proposal to adopt the social chapter, to face the effects of QMV in the way that I have outlined, will be deeply damaging to our economic prospects at exactly the time when we should not be staying where we are but going in the opposite direction for further liberalisation. The policies of the previous government were focused intently on this approach. They gave British business a critical competitive advantage for British business to win orders, create jobs and build prosperity.
The cumulative effect of the present Government's policy, the signing up to the social chapter and the new employment chapter represents a slow but definite erosion in the opposite direction—the salami slicing of that critical margin of competitiveness, starting with small and medium sized firms across the country. To sign the social chapter is to lower our legal defences and to invite into our law, into our market place and into our culture, rules and regulations that are strangers to our spirit of free trade. To sign the social chapter and to agree to the employment chapter is to sign away British competitiveness and to stifle and smother our entrepreneurial shoots of success.
Some confusion exists over the Government's assessment of the importance of the social and employment chapters to British workers and businesses. Can the Minister confirm once and for all whether the social chapter and the employment chapter are vital measures for British workers which will create jobs and lead to better working conditions or whether they are modest measures which are more symbol than substance? It seems to me that both would lead to disaster, although by different roads; the former, by hitting prosperity through burdensome regulations, the latter by fuelling unrealistic, potentially damaging expectations. That is why I have tabled Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 opposing those measures. That is why I tabled the new clause—it appears as Amendment No. 43—calling for a report to Parliament on the legislation and employment implications arising from the social chapter. I hope that the Government will adopt the proposals.
Lord Whitty: This has been a lengthy debate in two halves. For those who can remember, the first half was late on the night of 26th March when we had some broad sweep of history discussions about the whole nature of the European Union. Today has been more concerned, I admit, with the clauses on the table. However, the past hour or so, with its concentration on the social chapter, has once again been a bit of a pre-election time warp. I was hoping that we had got over some of the arguments. The social chapter and the employment chapter are neither the bogies that are suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Nor are they the solution to all our ills. We never claimed that they were.
As regards the broad sweep of history argument, we must be careful. I shall not respond in detail because we have heard much of the argument previously. This is still the Committee stage of the Bill and we should concentrate on the amendments and what is changed by

37
the Bill and the treaty which it facilitates. So it will not be the intention of myself or my noble friends to engage repeatedly in debate about the fundamental principles of the Treaty of Rome and UK membership of the European Union. That was the tendency on the night of 26th March; it has occasionally been so today.
The basic framework under which we are operating, including the notion of qualified majority voting, is the same as it was in the Single European Act which was signed when the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was a member of the Cabinet and when the Maastricht Treaty was signed at which time the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—although regrettably not a member of the Cabinet—was a member of the Government.
I therefore cannot accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said in his first intervention, an attack on our adherence to the social chapter on the grounds that it is impossible for us to reverse it. His government were responsible for signing a very large package or range of issues on which QMV would apply, which put us in exactly the same position under the Single European Act—quite rightly, in my view.
The social chapter, as the debate has indicated, is an area where there is a genuine difference of opinion between this side of the House and the other side, although one or two Members behind me seem to share the concern. But that is on grounds of principle and not on grounds of the content of the social chapter.
The difference between us is that we believe that the single market, to which I had thought all the mainstream parties were committed in this country, should have a social dimension. The Conservative Party apparently does not believe that it should have a social dimension. That is a genuine political difference, but not a major constitutional issue.
I had thought, with some relief, at the beginning of his speech, that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, recognised that this issue was explicitly settled by the general election. I understand that. In a few areas of the Labour Party manifesto, I understand, people are claiming ambiguity of meaning. But there can be no ambiguity of meaning whatever in,
"Britain to sign the Social Chapter".
The noble Lord may regret losing the general election. He may feel that the British electorate were mistaken in making the decision that they did. But we have never supported the opt-out on the social chapter; the British electorate has never supported the opt-out on the social chapter; and we take pride in reversing the opt-out on the social chapter. It was a squalid little episode in our European history. The British government were behaving like a banana republic, going around assuring potential investors, who were not impressed, that British trade unions and British workers had fewer rights than anyone on the Continent. That is now over, and the British public in general support the change.
There was a slightly different attack on the social chapter in the first intervention of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. He produced an argument I have not heard for some time. It is, of course, true that at one point the British trade union movement and the British Labour Party were against any legal intervention in
38
the area of workers' rights and collective bargaining. But that era came to an end, partly as a result of the experience of the 1970s. It is not the position of the Labour Party and has not been the position of the Labour Party for at least two decades. We now recognise on all sides that a clear legal framework for the way in which workers are treated is needed for prosperity as well as for security of workers.
As to whether we should be pursuing those social provisions at national or European level, clearly the vast majority of social policy issues will continue to be determined at national level. The social chapter is a much more limited part of the social provisions than has been claimed today. We have not taken on a whole mountain of prescriptive EU regulations intruding into every aspect of our working lives. We have not shackled ourselves to pointless restrictions which will strangle British competitiveness. As the noble Lord acknowledged, there are so far few provisions, and those which are in the pipeline or which may emerge will be subject to input not only from Britain but also from those countries which he rightly points out picked up the positive aspects of the experience of the British and American economies over recent years, as well as the much longer run of benefits of their own job creation programmes which took place in an earlier period, some of which still benefit them today.
The noble Lord points to the alleged ambitions of the Commission, and of Commissioner Flynn in particular, and a whole range of new regulations. That is scaremongering. Even if Mr. Flynn wished to pursue a whole range of new regulations, he does not act in a vacuum. The member states are increasingly influenced by an approach to labour market flexibility. I hesitate to use the term "the third way", but it is neither the corporatist demon that the noble Lord seeks to conjure up before us today, nor the utter free market concept of cutting workers' standards and wages, of which the previous government were very much in favour in both their domestic and European policies.
5 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: The noble Lord must have clear in his mind examples of where, under the previous government's policies, workers' wages were cut. Will he tell us about those wage cuts?
Lord Whitty: I intended to come to this in terms of the employment chapter, but the biggest wage cut of all occurred with the destruction of a large number of jobs in the manufacturing sector of British industry in the early 1980s.
Lord Tebbit: That will not do. I asked the noble Lord to give me examples of cuts in wages; that is, reductions in the amount of money men received from their employers.
Lord Whitty: I was first making the point that the biggest cut in the aggregate wages of British workers occurred because of the deliberate creation of unemployment by the previous government. They remarked on more than one occasion that unemployment was a price worth paying. However, if the noble Lord

39
wishes for more specific examples, for which his department was partially responsible—I believe he was Secretary of State for Employment at the time—we had the abolition of the wages councils. In many of our service sectors, and subsequently in agriculture, that definitely in real terms cut the wages of several hundred thousand British workers. That was the objective. The noble Lord now denies the objective. But otherwise what was the point?
We do not believe that the labour market should be overregulated, nor do we believe that it should be unregulated. We believe that there are decent minimum standards, as do our European partners. We require more flexibility than some of our European partners recently demonstrated. But we believe also that to have a properly flexible labour force we need not only greater skills, mobility, flexibility, adaptability and employability, but also some degree of security and motivation among the workers. Simply cutting their protection and standards does not provide the background to make the substantial changes which the European economies will have to face in order to compete with increasingly globalised world markets.
Our balanced view on this matter—I regret that it is not shared by the Front Bench opposite—is that this combination of flexibility and basic minimum standards is necessary and that the commitment to co-operation at the job summit in Luxembourg last November and in the employment treaty provisions at Amsterdam will lead to a sharing of expertise; to some new European initiatives; and also to the creation of a skilled and adaptable workforce and labour markets which are responsive to economic change. Those are the British Government's words; they are not words which were there before the present Government took over and they are words which recognise the reality of the labour market situation rather than the mythology.
As to whether we will be overruled by QMV on these issues, our constructive approach to Europe gives us a real voice in the future development of EU policy in all these areas. Some noble Lords seem to approach QMV on the defeatist assumption that we will always be in a minority of one. Far from it. We can influence others and bring about our own majority. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the empty chair allegation that we made—rightly—on the absence of British influence on the development of the social chapter during the period from Maastricht until the British general election. He mentioned in particular, in a different context, the new proposition coming through the social chapter pipeline on information and consultation for firms with under 50 employees.
It is true that the present British Government, like the past one, is not keen on that proposition. But it is true also that, had we started in the negotiations on that proposition at an earlier stage—in other words, if we had not had the social chapter opt-out—we would have been able to influence it in a somewhat different way. Of course, those negotiations are still open to us; they are not yet complete. The British Government's belated presence will improve the directive and make it more acceptable to us. We will continue to oppose it in its
40
present form. But one of the reasons it is in its present form is that no British influence was brought to bear at an earlier stage. As has proved to be the case with the European Works Council, British firms will be indirectly affected by it, whether or not we are a party to the social chapter.
We believe that we have done the right thing in signing the social chapter. The provisions of the social chapter ought now to be accepted by a wide consensus of British industry and British society, and in reality we believe that they are. The debate on the social chapter is politically over as a result of the general election; it ought intellectually to be over in this House once and for all. I hope therefore that amendments which seek to delete our signing up to the social chapter will not appear at any later stage in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, in recognition of the convention in these matters, accepts my position—as he outlined—on the Salisbury Convention, not only by not pressing the vote himself but also by not voting for anybody else who may, by some chance, happen to press the Motion themselves.
I was slightly surprised at the vehemence of the Opposition in this debate towards the employment chapter, particularly those arguments we heard this afternoon. The comments we heard in the earlier stages of the debate, on 26th March, were even-handed and perhaps slightly confused. On the one hand, my noble friends Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Shore—whose absence we greatly miss—made the point that these employment measures were not sufficient to make any real difference to economic policy. In reality, these employment measures will make some difference to the way in which the Council of Ministers approaches employment matters at the European level. They are not specific measures in themselves but they provide a way in which European Ministers can look at each other's employment policies and consider whether they should be generalised across Europe. However, the responsibility for the adoption of those policies rests with national governments.
I find the official Conservative position on the employment chapter quite extraordinary. On the one hand they say—the noble Lord, Lord Renton, echoed the earlier contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—that the creation of employment is central to their concerns, but they reject the idea that part of any strategy on employment should be co-operation with our closest trading partners. My noble friend Lord Grenfell made that point clear. We all agreed that greater emphasis on employment was needed. All partners in Europe were convinced of this, although the degree to which we needed new employment measures was subject to some negotiation, and therefore not everyone got exactly what they wanted out of the new employment chapter, as is always the case in these inter-governmental conferences. But the provisions are not a centralised, Stalinist, European employment policy; they are a matter for common concern. Common concern means co-operation; it means learning from each other; and it means that some things are done better at European level than at national level.

41
Our position, which has been adopted by Europe, is that we ought to be adopting the kind of guidelines that were agreed at the Luxembourg jobs summit last November. The employment chapter sets out a sensible procedure for member states to work together to identify how best to tackle unemployment. The value of EU-level co-operation is that it enables us to pool our expertise and to identify best practice. I am not clear why the Conservative Front Bench has departed from the position adopted by its predecessor. The previous administration accepted at the Essen summit that there was great benefit in agreeing procedures and guidelines on co-operation on European employment policy, on assessing each other's performance, on identifying areas where European co-operation could take place and on setting objectives for employment policy. In effect, the substantive part of the employment chapter puts into treaty form the agreement with which the previous government, with relatively little dissent on their Back Benches as compared with one or two other European issues during that period, were quite prepared to go along and indeed regarded as a major achievement.
I was asked some specific questions on the articles comprising the employment chapter. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to Article 109p and asked whether there would be specific targets in this area. The answer is no, there will not be specific targets in this area in the sense that there are targets under the Maastricht criteria for the single currency, if that is what he meant. But there will nevertheless be some concerted effort to try to co-ordinate activities under that title.
He also asked what incentive measures may be. They are relatively tightly defined under Article 109r, which indicates that initiatives aimed at the exchange of information will be included as well as analysis promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences, in particular by recourse to pilot projects. For example, we are now working on a project to improve training opportunities for young entrepreneurs. Given that the chapter will not be in force until the ratification of the treaty, specific examples are slightly difficult to define. Nevertheless, they will fall in those kinds of areas. Declarations 23 and 24 attached to the treaty make it clear that any such incentive measures must be limited in time, must have limited financing and must have an objective need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked whether they could include incentive measures in order to finance a project for exchange students or young people. They could indeed include such funding, although the funding under this chapter is limited. It is clear that all European-level funding of these activities, as distinct from national-level funding, is within existing budgets. The agreement at Luxembourg, with which Members of the Committee may not be entirely familiar, provides that some of the first measures under this chapter should be an agreement to a significant increase in EIB venture capital which would be lent to small and medium-sized enterprises in order to create employment. But that is not European budget money. It comes from the bank's reserves, not from member states or from the Community budget. The summit also agreed to redeploy 150 million ecus a year from the Community budget to
42
provide for venture capital for small and medium-sized enterprises in order to fund projects. But this spending will be offset elsewhere in the budget, so there will be no overall increase.
I hope that, in a slightly rushed way, I have shown that the intentions of the employment chapter are nowhere near as Stalinist and centralising as the noble Lord attempted to conjure up and that they are directed at specific and practical ways in which we can learn from each other and provide some communal expertise and a limited degree of communal resources. They will not lead to vast, new regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked why the limitation on harmonisation applies to only one article. The answer is that that is the only article in the employment chapter which is a legal basis for the Council to adopt detailed measures. So it would not be relevant to make that qualification to areas other than the article which provides for incentive measures.
The employment chapter will not create jobs overnight and will not bring down the number of unemployed—18 million—in a short time. But it will help to focus member states on the need to tackle unemployment by investing in people, by being competitive and by providing decent prospects for improving skills and mobility. It should also help all EU governments to identify which policies are most successful in doing that.
The debate has perhaps exaggerated the importance of both the social chapter provisions and the employment chapter provisions—not so much the debate in this House but the debate outside. However, it is a real distinction between us. We believe that social measures are an important part of the future of Europe and we believe that the European institutions can help in creating jobs. Apparently, the Opposition do not. We are prepared to rest on that defence but not to create a major constitutional issue out of it. I hope, therefore, that other colleagues in the Committee will not create a major constitutional issue out of it and I trust that, at this stage at least, the amendments can be withdrawn and that consideration can be taken at a later stage.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he be kind enough to deal with the argument which I presented at the initial stage of the debate, bearing in mind that I am fully in accord with his observations on the social chapter, and more particularly with those of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, who pointed out that its effects in any case are insignificant within the general flow of political and economic events? Will he deal with the point I ventured to make that, although the existing employment provisions incorporated in the Amsterdam Treaty are good enough in themselves and put unemployment firmly on the agenda, with marginal good effects where applied, nevertheless, other provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, and indeed of the Amsterdam Treaty, providing for economic conditions, monetary conditions and even fiscal policies to be determined centrally, have had an adverse effect on unemployment and have not contributed to unemployment going down?
Lord Whitty: The reason why I did not deal in detail with that point is because I believe that much the same point was made in the debate that we had on the EMU provisions on, I believe, the second day of the Committee stage. If we are to have a debate on particular amendments which extend to the whole area of economic management, we are going to be here a very long time. I accept that there are some aspects of economic policy in the European Union which have a negative effect on employment. That is the exact and main reason why I believe we should institute an employment chapter which begins to reverse that tendency. Therefore, such a chapter should be seen by the noble Lord, among others, as a benign move in that direction, even if it is a limited one.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord finally sits down, may I say that I have listened with enormous interest to the debate. I have a question which the noble Lord may regard as a matter of detail. If he cannot answer it immediately, perhaps the noble Lord will write to me. He will know that the matters under discussion, such as social affairs and employment, will devolve to the Scots parliament. Under the Scotland Bill not only is there devolvement, but there is no certainty that a Minister from that parliament will be present when United Kingdom Ministers discuss these matters in Europe. Are the Government considering altering the Scotland Bill to make sure that a Minister from the Scottish parliament will be present when these matters are discussed? If not, there are serious questions when there is policy divergence between England and Scotland. Will the Scottish parliament be kept in touch with Europe? I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can answer that question or write to me about it.
Lord Whitty: I believe that the noble Baroness would like me to write to her so that I get the formulation right. However, I do not believe that changes are required to the Scotland Bill to fulfil what we are committed to. I may not have got the formulation quite right, but as regards those areas which are devolved to the Scottish parliament, where European legislation is relevant steps will be taken to ensure that the views of the Scottish parliament on behalf of the United Kingdom are taken into account in the deliberations at European level.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the noble Lord finally sits down, may I press him on a position taken with some force by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell? It seemed to me that they made much play of the suggestion that the United Kingdom should be happy to share with our European competitors the secrets of our social, employment and industrial success compared with some of theirs. In other words, our competitors in the European Union would be wise to accept our experience and advice and follow it.
The point I wish to put to the Minister and on which I would welcome his view is that the evidence to date is that that is not the way matters flow between us. I had intended asking the noble Baroness and the noble
44
Lord the same question; perhaps they might like to intervene since we are in Committee. Can the Minister give examples of where the Commission and others have accepted our advice? It seems to me that the bulk of the flow is the other way. I refer to the working time directive—the 48-hour week, as it is known—parental leave, young people at work and other directives mentioned by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. It seems to me that they all prove the way the river flows in this debate. It does not flow from us to them. Can the Minister tell the Committee why he believes that it is going to change direction?
Lord Whitty: All the examples the noble Lord cites show our partners being slightly resistant to ideas coming from the United Kingdom for understandable reasons. There was the hostility of the United Kingdom government of that period to anything European. Therefore, it is not surprising that there was then a certain intellectual as well as political resistance. I believe that in the past few months there has been a major change in that flow. Indeed, the conclusions of the Luxembourg Summit are clearly reflective of the views put a few weeks earlier by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his proposal as to what a European-level approach to employment policy should be. That proposal is reflected virtually word for word in the Luxembourg communiqué and it is being pursued in the national action plans of every member state. It will have to be reported on by the time of the Cardiff Summit. These are early days. I accept that.
I believe that we have seen a reversal in the flow of ideas—not always ideas which, at their most extreme, have been expressed from time to time by people who are defensive about the position of the previous government but ideas we can share with our fellow members. However, we should not be so arrogant as to assume that there are not still a few ideas of theirs which we can learn from as well.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: Before the noble Lord sits down, I have detected in the debate—acknowledging that the party opposite is now in power and whatever it says goes—an ideological difference between us. That was borne out in the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. He believes that free market ideologies are the secret to what we have achieved. What has to be borne in mind—and this was very much derided in the speech of the noble Lord opposite—is the extremely painful period this country went through when we shook out what one might call "rust-belt" industries. Europe needs to do that very badly. What advice will the Government give in that respect if they are going to give advice to Europe? Without it, nothing much will happen. Alternatively, will the Minister give the kind of advice which he gave when his party was last in power which led to our having the highest tax, the lowest output, and the lowest level of benefits in the whole of the OECD?
Lord Whitty: We have all been through painful periods of economic adjustment. We went through a much belated one, in the view of some people, in the

45
1980s. But we did so in a way which did not take account of the need to ensure that not only were we moving away from inefficient work practices and areas of industry but also that we were equipping our workforce to take on the skills and move into areas in which we would be able to compete in the longer term.
We still have one of the least skilled workforces in Europe. The Germans, and almost any other European country, still have better skill levels. If we can combine the adaptation of the structure of British industry which we have gone through over the past couple of decades with the continued upgrading of the skills of our workforce and of our innovation and expertise, that is the kind of message that we would wish the whole of Europe to receive. At no stage do we intend to go back to what may have been prescribed by some Members of this House in the 1970s. Nor do we intend to go back to achieving change solely at the expense of the workers which, by and large, was the experience of large sections of our community during the 1980s. There is a better way forward not only for Britain but for the rest of Europe.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I am sorry to intrude again. I believe I detected the noble Lord saying that the Germans have reached that situation already. I am always interested in the contributions of my noble friend Lord Beloff. He made the point that the Germans are not very happy in spite of that.
Lord Whitty: I did not say that the Germans had it already; I said that the Germans have a more highly trained and flexible workforce in many areas requiring higher skills than we have been able to achieve. That does not mean that they have resolved all their problems.
I get slightly fed up when people in this House and elsewhere point to Germany as an economic disaster. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is no longer in his place, and I accept that some of the judgments of the electorate in Eastern Germany are worrying, but, for heaven's sake, let us accept that one of the major reasons for the Germans' relative failure in the past six or eight years has been the enormous task that they have taken on in absorbing the whole of the defunct and decaying economy of 17 million people in Eastern Germany. I cannot even bring myself to imagine what would have happened to the British economy in 1990, in the last years of the Thatcher regime, if we had had to absorb similar costs. Germany's record over the past 50 years in terms of its creation, prosperity and democratic traditions has been a lesson to us all. The fact that Germany has stumbled on the economic front in the past eight years or so has very little to do with some of the issues raised this afternoon, and quite a lot to do with its absorption of Eastern Germany.
I believe that this amendment stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, but perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lord Stoddart to withdraw it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: If my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney were here, I am sure that he
46
would want to reply at reasonable length to our very long and detailed debate, which has ranged widely over economic policy, employment policy, the social chapter, economic and monetary union and the single currency. Having to reply to such a debate is a tall order, and I am not tempted to do so otherwise we would he here for a long while yet.
I am sure that we were all pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Whitty say that this is not a Stalinist measure. Some of us agree that it is not a Stalinist measure at the moment, but we are frightened that it may become such in the future. Let us hope that my noble friend is right and that it will not progress in that way.
On the social chapter and collective bargaining, I advise my noble friend that I was in the trade union movement a long time and I believe that trade unions are still in favour of collective bargaining. Indeed that is their whole raison ďêtre and if they cease to believe in collective bargaining, they cease to exist. What is necessary is a broad framework in which they can embark on collective bargaining. I am afraid that the social chapter goes further than I would wish in those circumstances.
I must also advise my noble friend that it may well have been necessary under the previous government to have the social chapter because their attitude to trade unions was perhaps a little different from our own, but now that we have a Labour Government we do not need to be constrained by any social chapter because we now have the power to put into operation whatever social chapter measures we want. That is the essence of the British democratic system—and I do not want it interfered with. When there is a Conservative government in power with a mandate from the people, they must put forward their policies unconstrained, but when a Labour government are in power I expect them, having the same sort of mandate but on different policies, to be entitled to do exactly the same. That is the essence of the British democratic system and that is why I am opposed to the social chapter. I believe that it undermines our system.
As I said earlier, we have had a long and useful debate. It seems that we are agreed on some measures. We believe that the free market is good—that is, at least the two Front Benches agree that it is good and that it should continue for all time because it will bring us all great benefits. Having said again that this has been a good debate, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 10.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannochmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 13, after ("2") insert (", other than paragraph 7 (provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community relating to combatting discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation),").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 13, and Amendment No. 50 which is grouped with it, stand also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of

47
Swindon, Lord Shore of Stepney and Lord Monson. I am moving the amendment in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Shore. This gives me the opportunity to echo the sentiments which have been expressed by other noble Lords about the noble Lord's very regrettable absence from this Committee. All those who have attended our debates so far will appreciate that he is a tremendous strength and addition to the more Euro-realist side of our arguments. I join others in hoping that the noble Lord will have a speedy recovery and that he will be able to join us at Report.
Amendment No. 13 would exclude a new article, an article which by coincidence and not, presumably, by diabolic intervention, is also numbered new Article 13 in the proposed Amsterdam amendments to the treaty establishing the European Community. New Article 13 extends the competence of the EU to allow the Council, acting unanimously to,
"take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation".
Amendment No. 50 would subject the old Article 6, now Article 12 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to a report from the Government setting out its implications for the United Kingdom, such a report to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. New Article 12 prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality.
To take Amendment No. 13 first, which refers to new Article 13 of the treaty, one has to acknowledge with as much gratitude as one can muster—that may not be much—that the extension of the EU's powers to allow it to join forces in this country with those armies of political correctitude of the sex, race and class brigade, is at least subject to unanimity in the Council—in other words, we could veto any action which the rest of the Council might wish to take but which we do not, although our veto would be subject to all the usual horse-trading which goes on in Europe.
Nevertheless, it is yet another glaring example of the way in which the EU machine advances step by step into areas which were before subject only to our national jurisdiction, and which should remain so. It is yet another example of the working of the "salami slicer" of my noble friend Lord Tebbit. Incidentally, I am still waiting from our earlier debates in Committee for the Government to give us any examples of where power has been returned to national parliaments in contradiction of the doctrine of the acquis communautaire. No doubt we shall come back to that question when we reach our old friend subsidiarity in the group of amendments which begins with Amendment No. 26 on the Marshalled List, but perhaps I may mention it again in this context. Perhaps the answer is that that is just not how salami slicers or the EU work, which may be why the analogy chosen by my noble friend Lord Tebbit is so accurate. Once another juicy slice of national sovereignty has been severed, they are not capable of putting it back again, even if they wanted to do so which, of course, they do not.
48
I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if this all seems very obvious. It would be nice to hear just a few examples from the Government, compared to all the thousands which go the other way, which might go to show that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom is not on a salami slicer after all. If they cannot do that—I am pretty sure that they cannot—perhaps they would at least admit it. Then we shall know where we stand and openly acknowledge the true nature of the Treaty of Rome.
This is not a particular criticism of the present Government. The problem was exactly the same with the Single European Act and the Treaty of Maastricht. Indeed, in 1993 some of us posed exactly the same question to the previous government in our debate on the Treaty of Maastricht, without the vestige of a satisfactory answer. Instead, we were told that subsidiarity would be our shield of defence against the further erosion of national sovereignty which of course it has not been, nor could it be.
I come to the detail of new Article 13, from which I have quoted. I should like to ask the Government a few questions. First, why have they felt it necessary to allow the European Community to extend its competence into these areas? For instance, what is wrong with our own Race Relations Act or similar legislation? Is it in any way inadequate? If so, could it not be easily amended in this Parliament? For instance, is it felt that we do not do enough about ageism? For those noble Lords who may not be familiar with that expression from the vocabulary of the politically correct, it means that we should not be discriminated against just because we are getting on a bit. I am sure that a number of noble Lords, myself included, would support something along those lines, but do we need Europe to do it for us?
What does this article actually mean? What did the Government believe that it meant when they signed up to it? Can the Minister be so good as to tell the Committee exactly in what kind of "appropriate action" the Government foresaw themselves joining forces with other members of the Community to combat all of these evils? What would be an "appropriate action", and why could not each of us take it on our own if we wanted to? Can the Minister explain to the Committee exactly what is the difference between a religion and a belief? Have the Government thought through some of the possible ramifications of this dilemma? For instance, if one is a well-known Christian evangelical will one be able to sue the national council of atheistic marxists if it refuses to give one a job as membership secretary? Who will decide whether the Moonies or other less desirable sects deserve Europe-wide protection under this clause? What about witchcraft? Can the Minister tell the Committee what are the bounds of decency, and therefore presumably of protection under this provision, of sexual orientation?
I hope that the noble Minister will forgive me but I am trying to understand what this clause may come to mean. I do so against the background of one of the good things that the present Government seek to do in the field of education. One of those good things appears to be an appreciation of how much damage the

49
over-promotion of issues concerning gender, race and class has done in our schools. The present Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his firm comments in this regard. Yet here we are extending Community competence into those very areas that have brought our state system of education so low, or at least have helped to do so. The people in our schools who over-promoted these issues were the same people who, for instance, refused to use the phonic method to teach children to read. I congratulate the Government on standing up against these people. I do not understand therefore why they are kicking them out of the front door only to risk letting them in through the back door under this treaty. Another brief example is the growing demand for single-sex schools in this country, for very good educational reasons. Have the Government considered whether such schools will eventually become a violation of EU legislation?
I understand that part of the inspiration for new Article 13 may be a response by the Community to the so-called Kilanker case in Germany which overthrew an attempt to put into law positive discrimination in favour of women; in other words, we may be looking at an attempt by the EU to start to enshrine positive discrimination in favour of certain groups taking precedence eventually over the existing national legal order. Can the Minister assure the Committee that this is not part of the intention behind the article?
When the Minister comes to consider his answer will he remember that, although the new article is protected by unanimous voting, already Directive No. 7605/97 aims to combat gender discrimination in the workplace? Such directives can already be passed by qualified majority voting under the social chapter, which I fear the Government may one day regret having signed. Directive No. 7605/97 (if I am not mistaken) enshrines the principle, contrary to British law and natural justice, that the burden of proof is to be divided between plaintiff and defendant. It also introduces into our law the rather woolly concept of indirect discrimination. My noble friend Lord Moynihan alluded to that kind of legislation in his speech on the previous group of amendments.
That is the kind of legislation, is it not, that gives rise to the recent case in this country of a pregnant woman who applied for a job which she knew that she could not do because it required her to lift heavy loads? The employer was as a result forced to pay compensation for not giving her the job. The Minister may recall that that case has been raised in Written Questions by my noble friend Lord Vinson, from which it appears clear cut and apparently true. Does the Minister agree that that is the kind of case which must make us very worried about new Article 13 and that therefore Amendment No. 13 is reasonable in seeking to exclude it from the treaty?
I turn to Amendment No. 50. This deals with the previous article in the treaty, Article 12, by making it subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The article simply prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality:
"The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, may adopt rules designed to prohibit such discrimination".
50
Article 251 is also without prejudice to other special provisions in the treaty.
The first matter that we must look at is the procedure to be followed under new Article 251. That article turns out to be our old friend Article 189b in the Treaty of Maastricht which sets out what is known as the co-decision procedure, except that the procedure has been slightly speeded up in the Amsterdam amendments. The co-decision procedure is not the innocent creature that many people suppose it to be. In effect, it allows the Council acting by qualified majority vote to pass into nationally binding law any Act with which the European Parliament agrees. It is only if the European Parliament does not agree with a law or Act supported by qualified majority vote in the Council that the so-called common position procedure is then adopted.
The common position procedure is just about the silliest way of taking a decision or not (as the case may be) that has yet been devised by mankind, as far as I can see. But I need not weary the Committee with it now. The danger to the United Kingdom in Article 251 lies in the stark fact that we can be out-voted in the Council, as we often are, and then our only protection is the possibility that the European Parliament may agree with us against the majority of the Council who have voted against us. I would have thought that that eventuality was so unlikely as to provide very little protection. Therefore, for practical purposes I fear that we must accept that Article 251, which governs Article 12 of the treaty, subjects us to a qualified majority vote in Council; in other words, no veto.
One then must look pretty carefully at what Article 12 may really come to mean. What it says is fairly stark:
"Within the scope of [this] Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein",
the Council shall prohibit any discrimination on grounds of nationality. To boil it right down, the Council must prohibit all discrimination on grounds of nationality, unless there is something in the treaty which says that it need not do so. What does this mean? Of course, we must look to the Minister to enlighten us. I appreciate that this was largely the version of the Treaty of Rome which predated the amendments agreed at Amsterdam, although that does not give comfort to many of us.
I give the noble Lord an example of what it may mean as far as I can see. Might it mean that in future there is to be no difference between Spanish, Dutch or English fishermen under the common fisheries policy? If it does not mean that, can I ask the noble Lord why it could not do so? If it does mean that there will be no such difference, it would of course be very serious and would make the CFP even more of a free-for-all for those who cheat, and a shambles, than it is at the moment.
In asking that question, I refer to a Written Answer that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on 24th April. He said that the legal basis for the CFP was to be found in Article 3 of the EC treaty, which merely states:
"The activities of the Community shall include a common policy in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries".

51
I imagine that something may have gone adrift in the translation there, or Article 3 is not being followed, because, of course, we have one common policy in the sphere of agriculture and another common policy in the sphere of fisheries; in other words, two common policies.
I would of course be grateful if the Minister would care to comment on that point. But whatever the answer is—it may have great significance for the legality of the CFP—that is not strictly the subject of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, then said that the rest of the legal basis for the CFP is to be found in Articles 39 to 47 of the EC treaty. Members of the Committee will understand that I am looking through these articles, trying to find some special provision in the treaty which will exclude the extinction of nationality under the CFP.
I have read through the articles and can see no mention of nationality. Indeed, the words "fish" or "fisheries" do not seem to appear in them at all. Even in Article 38, which the Minister did not mention in his Answer as forming part of the legal basis for the CFP, the word "fisheries" occurs somewhat obliquely as part of the meaning of the expression "agricultural products". In fact, one is left wondering whether the CFP does indeed have a legal basis in the Treaty of Rome.
The question for the Minister when replying to this amendment, however, is whether Article 12, potentially, or indeed actually, removes the distinction of European nationality under the CFP, or has the capacity to do so. I am aware that the CFP is labouring under a derogation at the moment, but surely that cannot for long override the clarity and authority of Article 12. If the Minister can assure us that I am wrong about the specific example of the CFP, that would of course be good news, but, if so, can he assure the Committee that this article will not come to have other similar disadvantages for our national identity and for our national independence in the future?
In other words, is it possible that Article 12 may pave the way for the virtual disappearance of European nationalities in the Treaty of Rome? Until we hear the Minister's answer, I have to hope that the Committee will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I do not wish to pursue the complex arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on the subject of Article 12, but I should like to congratulate the Government most warmly on having been among the supporters of Article 6a. Had the previous government still been in office it is unlikely that Article 6a would ever be part of the Treaty of Amsterdam. I want to say just one or two words about why I believe it to be an important article, and one which may have been insufficiently discussed and deliberated upon.
I say first—it is in response partly to something that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said—that that is in part because of the UK's example in areas such as equal opportunities legislation, the Race Relations
52
Board, and race relations legislation. There has been a great deal of interest in the British experience in all those areas throughout the EU member states. I took part in no fewer than six meetings of NGOs in six member states of the EU. In virtually every one members of non-governmental bodies, some of them working at the grass roots—not the élite—spoke of the need for anti-discrimination legislation to be embodied within the Treaty of Amsterdam. That request came from immigrant groups, civil liberties groups, women's groups, and people working with children. In all cases they begged that there should be within the Treaty of Amsterdam reference to the need for action against discrimination on racial, religious, sexual and other grounds. I congratulate the Government on having heard that and on having responded to it.
Secondly, when we are looking forward to the enlargement of the EU to take in a group of countries whose history with respect to discrimination is at best patchy, and which needs to be greatly strengthened by the requirements of the acquis communautaire, to oppose the idea that Article 6a should be a part of the treaties governing the EU would be to misunderstand the extreme importance of shoring up civil liberties and human rights.
We are aware that Slovakia has been put in the second wave, just because of the degree of discrimination against Romanies and people of Hungarian and other descent. One of the reasons why many people are concerned about the possibility of Romanian and Turkish membership relates to human rights issues. Surely, regardless of politics, we must welcome an attempt to deal with those issues and to enshrine at the very basis of the EU the concept that racial and religious tolerance are a required principle of that Union.
We are not the only country that has a substantial religious minority (the Moslems) or substantial racial minorities. The same is true of France, Germany, and many other member states. This was a necessary article. I see no objection to it. It is based upon unanimity. It is something in which British practice is well in advance of that of many other countries in the EU and what the Committee is asking for—that our best example should be followed—is indeed being followed in this very article of the treaty.
At the heart of Amsterdam—it is an important new aspect—is a concern for human rights that did not exist before. Article F and Article O are all about human rights being at the heart of what the EU should be all about. Anyone who looks back at the finest moments of British history will recognise that that is indeed part of the British tradition, and one which I am delighted to see the EU is now embodying. Far from being critical of this article, we should be applauding it, and the amendment should be withdrawn with the full support of all Members of the Committee.
Lord Desai: I am somewhat surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, introduced the amendment. Surely he is not for discrimination. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out, in these matters UK law has been in advance of European law. Let us consider the single market, of which we are all in favour, and a

53
British person who wants to work abroad. Why should that person not have the same rights wherever he or she works in Europe as he or she has at home?
How would the noble Lord feel if a French person came here and enjoyed better rights of non-discrimination than a British person working in France? He would be the first to protest that that was outrageous. Once we have a single market we cannot have the idea that laws are relevant only in the territory in which one lives, that there is no commerce and that no one will travel, work abroad, or earn money abroad, and that local laws are all right for local citizens. With the single market comes the free movement of capital as well as labour. Once one has the free movement of labour people must have a basic set of rights. Surely, the noble Lord will agree that the good rights enjoyed by British citizens should be portable across Europe. The purpose of the provision that he wishes to remove is precisely to make the rights portable—
6 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not wish to detain the noble Lord, hut, for me, the price of that portability is too high. The noble Lord is right in saying that I am not in the least in favour of discrimination. In fact, I asked the Committee what is wrong with the Race Relations Act in this country. One knows what the anti-discrimination laws are in the countries where one goes to work or to live—so when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Lord Desai: I cannot resist repeating what an Indian politician once said: "When in Rome behave like the Romanians"! That is often the case.
The noble Lord's answer is not good enough. Many people are posted abroad. They should not have to say, "I cannot be posted to such a country because being a woman, black, or homosexual I shall be discriminated against". In that case, one would be less qualified to take up a job in Britain because one's mobility would be restricted. Do Members of the Committee really want British citizens to be restricted in taking jobs abroad because other countries do not enjoy the same good rights as ours? Surely not, but if the Committee adopts this strategy it will be disadvantaging British citizens from taking jobs abroad.
I am not a great expert on the Maastricht or Amsterdam treaties, but I know that as regards fisheries there is a conflict between the single market and national quotas. As the noble Lord knows, one of the problems with Spanish fishermen is that some of the quotas held by British citizens became saleable. That was part of the single market. Therefore, it is probable that Spanish fishermen are holding British quotas because British fishermen sold them. We are all in favour of a single market—I am very much in favour of a single market—but in a single market national logic will not work if it is declared that British fishermen will not be able to sell quotas while the fishermen at every other country can do so. Surely that is absurd. As
54
regards the idea that we should have a common policy for agriculture and fisheries, the mind boggles. How would we have set-aside?
Lord Monson: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, not every state in the United States has identical labour and anti-discrimination laws. They may be fairly identical, but not wholly so.
Lord Desai: That is not the case. The interstate commerce clause in the constitution ensures that discrimination is not allowed. As the noble Lord is aware, the entire civil rights legislation of the early 1960s was carried through on the interstate commerce clause. Once one has mobility of labour one cannot have different discriminatory laws in different parts of the country. That is not allowed. Similarly, one should not have different laws in different parts of the European Union.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord may he right about the United States in theory but not in practice. I believe that the laws are enforced with more vigour in some states than in others.
I support the amendment moved so well by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. One could take the view, as he appears to do, that the proposed Article 13 is an airy-fairy, motherhood and apple pie declaration unlikely to have any practical effect since it requires unanimity. The Mediterranean countries alone are not noted for their enthusiasm for Californian style political correctness. That lack of enthusiasm does not stop at the Mediterranean. At the heart of the Community, the European Commission practises blatant age discrimination, telling candidates for certain jobs that no one over the age of 35 need apply.
The article would outlaw religious discrimination, for example, re-opening many of the problems that we have and are still experiencing in respect of the Human Rights Bill. Religious bodies for good reason wish to employ their co-religionists, but may be forced to employ those whose beliefs may not only be different from but positively hostile to their own. It would also be illegal to take people's beliefs into consideration, even the most fanatical or outlandish political or religious beliefs. Therefore, a Jewish employer, for example, would be forced to employ someone who sincerely believes in the authenticity of the protocols of the elders of Zion.
The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Pearson, referred to the disgraceful directive on so-called gender discrimination in the work place which is wholly counter to our Anglo-Saxon tradition of someone being innocent until proved guilty. That is leading to positive discrimination by the backdoor and no doubt to more disgraceful examples of injustice; for instance, that suffered by the prospective—not the actual—employer who had to pay an enormous sum of money, which practically bankrupted him, for declining to engage a heavily pregnant woman to carry out a physically demanding job.

55
What about the idea that discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation should be outlawed? Surely, that would open a can of worms. Schools, juvenile prisons and other institutions dealing with young people would be forced to employ paedophiles; presumably undertakers would have to employ necrophiliacs; and so on and so forth. We shall be told, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, told us, that this is simply a question of rights. The trouble is that one group of people gain rights at the expense of the rights of others. I commend to the Committee an excellent article on this topic written by Barbara Amiel in the Daily Telegraph on 23rd April. It is absorbing and well worth reading.
Lord Tebbit: On many grounds, I have a good deal of sympathy with those who oppose discrimination. Two questions arise in relation to this clause and this amendment. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the present Government were enthusiastic advocates of the inclusion of this clause into the Treaty of Amsterdam. Therefore, we should hear from the Minister what measures they propose to bring forward under it. Surely, it is not to be left as a piece of decoration. As it stands, it has no effect because there are no measures under it. Exactly what do the Government propose to bring forward?
Inherent in my objection is the fact that here is another example of the common market which we joined showing its ambition to become a state. Surely it is the business of a state, not a market, to legislate in these areas. We have legislated in the state of the United Kingdom in a way which we regarded as appropriate. Others in the European Community have done the same. If one argues that the legislation should be at the level of the European Community one is inherently arguing that it is not an economic community but a state. I believe that that is where it is heading.
Furthermore, there are problems with these grand and sweeping comments. We are all against discrimination based on sex. However, I must confess that some 40-odd years ago I chose a woman to marry and should the occasion ever arise again I shall do the same. I hope that that is not offensive to other members of my sex.
We are all against discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability and all that. Although I am not against discrimination based on sexual orientation, I am of the view that one should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals if one is looking for scoutmasters. I do not know whether that is a widely held view any more, but if I were looking to recruit a scoutmaster I should not be haunting Hampstead Heath to do so these days, I must confess. It is right that persons of that orientation should be excluded from such activities.
But of course the European Union is becoming involved in those matters, as we know. It is not that long ago that we were compelled, whatever this Parliament thought, to enact legislation to amend the sex discrimination legislation of 1976 in relation to the provisions regarding the Armed Forces. We had no choice in that matter. Therefore, this game is already on in many ways. Let us be in no doubt about that.
56
It is bound to lead us into many troubles. Apart from anything else, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, observed, in this country we now have a substantial minority of Moslems. Just how do we legislate in that area? After all, if we are to respect the religious beliefs of Moslems, we may find ourselves with some problem as regards some of their views on sexual discrimination. Which of those injunctions are we to obey? Are we not to discriminate on grounds of sex or not to discriminate on grounds of religion? I do not have an easy solution to that, although my preference would be to say of a religion like the Moslem religion that such an established religion, which is held so deeply by so many people throughout so much of the world, must be allowed to take its own view on the position of women.
That may be offensive to some people. But if we are to envisage the day when Turkey is admitted into the European Union, we had better make up our minds whether in this country, our Government wish to become involved in controversies within Turkey which have been fundamental to the social fabric of that country and to its religion for many years. Those are the sort of issues which Kemal Atattirk took on in his day and had apparently resolved but which are now returning to the surface as the Moslem religion in Turkey becomes again more dominant in terms of politics and social life.
I believe that we would be utterly and completely mad to become involved with those issues. But I cannot imagine that the Greeks, for a start, would be able to resist treading in that dirty water if it embarrassed their neighbours in Turkey. We would be better without this on the grounds of impracticability; the fact that this is another extension of the power of the European state over the nation states: and above all, that we have no idea at all where this will lead us. It would be better out of the treaty than in.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: I am pleased to say that I find myself in broad agreement with the thrust of what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about the important issues which we need to address in relation to discrimination. Indeed, I echo many of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, made on that subject. I was slightly surprised that in earlier debates this afternoon he did not speak on the economy. However, on this occasion at least, we agree with the general thrust of the points and principles espoused by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and other noble Lords.
As ever, we feel that it is our duty to look in detail at exactly what is proposed by the clause. The example of portability was interesting. If, as was rightly pointed out, the basic body of legislation which we have in this country is something worth following in other countries—and we take a lead in this area—it takes only one other country in the European Union to disagree

57
with the lead that we have taken, for whatever reason, for it to go by the board, because this is to be applied by unanimity.
Lord Desai: Does the noble Lord support QMV in that regard?
Lord Moynihan: I would have a great deal of sympathy with the point which the noble Lord made when it comes to other countries in the European Union adopting many of the measures that we have taken in that context. However, there is something far better than QMV; that is, to persuade other countries on a bilateral basis—outside this treaty—as to the merits of the body of law which we have and to encourage them individually to adopt that body of law. It is not necessary for that to be done within the context of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Therefore, while gingerly and cleverly drawn into the subject of whether I agree with QMV in that context, I say that there is a far better route to follow; that is, completely outside this treaty, to persuade other countries of the important steps which we have taken and the principles which have been espoused.
Therefore, it is important for me to look at the detail of this matter. With the permission of the Committee, I shall ask the Government to respond to the points I raised. This is an area which has taken up a great deal of time in Committee in another place and there are many issues to which I simply do not know the answer and I am sure the Government do. It would be helpful for the Committee to clarify the position as it stands. I shall ask specific questions and give specific answers and follow the warning given by the Government earlier this afternoon to avoid hypothetical questions and loose women. Therefore, the questions which I ask will be very specific. Some were looked at in another place and never answered, and some are new points.
I should be happy to be corrected if I am wrong but, as I understand it, the treaty introduces a new clause which the Government see as providing a legal basis for Community measures to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, disability, age or sexual orientation. Indeed, that chimes with the Government's commitment to fight unfair discrimination and promote equality in the domestic context. With the important proviso of unanimity in decision-making, European Union-wide measures will be adopted only, as I understand it, when action at European level would bring an added value to action by member states. The clause is couched as a legal basis for future action rather than as a free-standing and unrestricted principle which might allow direct interference in UK laws in the realm of anti-discrimination. I shall examine that important distinction between a legal basis in that context and a free-standing, unrestricted principle.
It is important for the Committee to be aware that that is accompanied also by a declaration calling on Community institutions to take the needs of the disabled into account when framing single market legislation. In addition, there are strengthened provisions on equality between men and women. Amendments to Articles 2 and 3 make the promotion of equality a specific aim of
58
the Community applicable to all its activities. Incorporation of the social agreement provides the legal basis for action to promote equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment matters.
Article 6a gives the European Community new powers to act in specified areas. Article 6 (new Article 12) already allows the European Union to act against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. There was already a provision to prevent discrimination on grounds of sex, but that is made more explicit in that article, and other areas are newly introduced. The new article provides a legal basis for Community measures to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion and belief, disability or age.
I turn now to the first important point. The new article entitles the Council, after consulting the European Parliament, to take "appropriate action" against discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion and belief, disability or age. However, the article fails to make clear what it means by "appropriate action". I am sure that the Committee will allow me to question the Government as to what they consider "appropriate action" to mean in that context because it opens up new areas in which the Community can act.
A memorandum on the Amsterdam Treaty from the Minister of State at the Foreign Office said:
"The clause is couched as a legal basis for future action, rather than as a free-standing and unrestricted principle which might allow direct interference in the UK laws in the realm of anti-discrimination".
As UK law already provides against discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, ethnic origin and disability, this is a very important issue to pursue and consider carefully. The British Government supported the new article at Amsterdam. In addition, they tabled the declaration attached to Article 95, which was adopted, calling on Community institutions to take the needs of the disabled into account when framing internal market legislation.
In doing so, I should say that I know the Government were specifically keen to promote this idea—this important principle—and it is one that should be welcomed. It was an important initiative to take and I was only sorry that it had to be carried unanimously throughout Europe and that that required us to push it. But that, at least, is commendable from the British Government's perspective.
In another place it was interesting to note that particularly, and at significant length, Bill Cash MP and Sir Teddy Taylor MP were robust in exploring what they saw as the flaws in this article. They were concerned about the uncertainty that that may cause to Church schools, as many Anglican and Catholic schools currently insist on being run by a practising member of their Church. It is not clear that this could remain a condition of employment after the introduction of such measures.
On Second Reading in another place, Sir Teddy Taylor quoted a letter to Christian Action, Research and Education dated 7th July 1997 from the Foreign Office, which said that although it would not expect litigation to arise one could not rule it out.

59
The other place was also concerned about the ambiguous definition of sexual orientation in reference to discrimination on those grounds. For example, does it question the future status of marriage by opening the door for homosexual relationships to be treated in law as if they were heterosexual marriages? The question was asked as to whether sexual acts between homosexuals would have to be equated with marriage and childbearing, and whether the age of consent for marriage would have to be equated with that for homosexual sex. Indeed, could a Church refuse to marry a homosexual couple? Would the case of a same sex couple applying to adopt a child be given the same weight as an application from a married man and woman? Would discrimination by an employer, including the Armed Services, on the grounds that an active homosexual is inappropriate in that particular workplace, be illegal? Those were legitimate questions which led to a very lively debate in Committee in another place. It is important to clarify how the Government see the answers to those questions as they were not available in the other place.
I should say—I do not believe that I need to emphasise it because it is well known in this Chamber—no one should be in any doubt about the attitude of my party to discrimination. Like everyone in this House, we are firmly, resolutely and utterly opposed to it in any shape or form. In government we did not hesitate to take action to fight discrimination and to stamp it out. We are proud of our national record on questions of discrimination and we are also convinced of the adequacy of the legal framework already in place. For example, although our race relations may not be perfect, they are nevertheless recognised as being very important in many countries of the world. Among the legislative measures that we took in government, the Public Order Act 1986 stands out. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Tebbit: I am most grateful. My noble friend set out in broad terms the position of the Conservative Party and its opposition to discrimination. However, just before that he raised some enormously interesting questions and asked where the Government would stand on some of them, such as those relating to Church schools, and so on. However, I am no longer quite sure where the Conservative Party stands on those issues.
Lord Moynihan: I am sure that the Conservative Party stands very firmly and clearly on those issues and would find considerable if not total agreement with my noble friend in the answers to many of the questions that I put forward. However, perhaps I could make a clear and telling point in that context. In my view—and I know my noble friend will agree with me—it is a matter for the Houses of Parliament to consider the answer to that important question and for a decision to be made in this Parliament. My worry is about the implications, especially the legal implications, of another body determining the answers to those questions without recourse to the views expressed in this place.
I mentioned the Public Order Act 1986 as an exemplary measure. It is right also to recognise the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which, for
60
example, made the publication of racially inflammatory material an arrestable offence and created the new offence of intentional harassment. Now, in opposition, we remain ready and willing to support any sensible and effective measures that the Government may take to combat discrimination. We believe that problems of discrimination, especially on such sensitive questions as race and religion, are best dealt with through national legislation. Legislative provisions to deal with discrimination need to be carefully tailored to the particular circumstances and traditions of each member state. The exact nature of problems of discrimination depends on the country in which those problems occur. This is an extraordinarily sensitive area and requires very sensitive handling.
I believe that our domestic legislation has always sought to reflect our particular circumstances. The great disadvantage of the provisions in Article 6a (new Article 13) is that they do not meet that essential requirement. It is yet another example of an ill-fitting "one size for all" measure, tacked approximately into place for general use from Italy to Ireland. Therefore, we do not believe that the European Union is the right context for a general clause prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, age or disability in that way.
Why do I say that? Perhaps it would be better if I were to pose that in the form of a question to the Minister. It is critical that we look to the legal basis. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this article enables the European Court of Justice to intervene, go beyond specific legislation and act on the basis of the treaty language that we find here. For example, could the European Court of Justice give direct application to the article? Could a complaint be brought before the ECJ on the basis of Article 13 and the general principles laid down under it? Can the Minister help me by giving a specific and categoric assurance that that court will not be able to intervene on the basis of this article unless and until there are specific legislative provisions under it? I hope that that is the case, but it would be most helpful if the Government could clarify the position for the purposes and the benefit of the Committee.
We on this side of the Committee wanted to see co-operation on racial and other discrimination issues achieved. We wanted to reach agreement on those issues under the third pillar. However, it seems that the introduction of the article into the treaty would give the European Court of Justice jurisdiction and that it is a treaty article which could be taken into account by the ECJ in reaching decisions on complaints brought before it. I would welcome the Minister's response to that issue.
I am aware that we were discussing an enabling measure which is not, at this stage, a directive or binding in law and which, as I understand it, will not change any Act of Parliament or any measure covered by such an Act. I am also aware that decisions taken, based on the provisions of the measure, must, as I mentioned earlier, be adopted by unanimity. Yet its general catch-all provisions and ambiguous definitions nevertheless open up a minefield of social and ethical

61
dilemmas which could have far-reaching implications for the traditions and beliefs of this country. For example, does the Minister believe that the magistracy should be opened up to adults under the age of 27, as could happen under the age provisions of this article? Should doctors be able to refuse fertility treatment to women over 40? Should the institution of marriage—as I mentioned earlier—be restricted to heterosexual couples? As regards religious groups in the United Kingdom, all at present can technically refuse to admit individuals to membership on the basis of their religious belief. Mosques, for example, are allowed to employ only practising Moslems. The Roman Catholic Church is allowed to ordain only men into the priesthood. I do not seek to debate these detailed points but to ask the Minister's views on the application of the article to them.
Can the Minister give examples of the kind of appropriate action (which I mentioned at the outset) that this article will entitle the Council—after consulting the European Parliament which has a veto in this area—to take with regard to the relevant areas of discrimination? Of course, such an article has merits and drawbacks. Its merits are its good intentions. However, those good intentions should be reflected in the individual legal frameworks of member states. All states should be encouraged to ensure that their frameworks are adequate. I firmly believe that national domestic legislation should be introduced to cover key questions—I have mentioned many—not least the need for members of racial minorities to travel freely throughout the Union without suffering discrimination. But if countries which do not have such legislation prove reluctant to introduce it, the unanimity requirement in this article—which is rightly part of the provision—would prevent those countries being obliged to do so by any action under the treaty. If such an objective was the raison d'être for this article's inclusion in the treaty, in that situation it is effectively rendered useless.
The drawbacks and the unknown aspects of this blanket provision have caused widespread apprehension and genuine concern, particularly given the sensitivities of the issues involved which far outweigh the arguments in favour of the inclusion of this article in the treaty. I hope that the Government will inform the Committee of the position they are taking on these points. In terms of the broad principles I am at one with colleagues on all sides of the Chamber as regards the importance of tackling these measures. However, I believe that the focal point for tackling them should be the national parliaments, and that there are real dangers—I hope that I have mentioned many of them—as regards uncertainty and the language that is employed. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My noble friend Lord Whitty expressed his regret earlier this afternoon at the absence of our noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney. I am sure I speak for the whole of the Government Front Bench in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Shore, a speedy recovery from what I understand
62
is an extremely painful condition. I hope that he will return shortly to give us the benefit of his wisdom on this matter as on so many other issues.
We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate on Amendments Nos. 13 and 50. First, I shall concentrate on Article 6a and Amendment No. 13 which pertains to it. The new clause provides a legal base for Community measures to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation. As such it represents a new power to adopt by unanimity legislation in fields where the Community already acts, such as employment and social policy. This is welcome to the Government. It is also welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and to my noble friend Lord Desai. I had thought that it was also welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, but towards the end of his peroration I was in some doubt of that.
The Government have always supported the fight against unfair discrimination in the United Kingdom and across the European Union. While this country already has relatively advanced anti-discrimination legislation such as the Race Relations Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act, the same cannot necessarily be said of other member states. We should not claim that our domestic legislation is perfect in every respect, but we are in the vanguard on much anti-discrimination legislation. We are confident that the experience of our domestic laws will help to shape EU legislation in a way that brings positive effects in Europe.
It has been suggested in this Chamber this afternoon that issues of such sensitivity should be handled only at national level. Some Members of the Committee have argued that only national governments can take proper account of national sensitivities. While it is true that incidents of discrimination differ between member states, many are common problems. To take one example, racism is a blight across Europe. In discussion of this provision in another place a number of speakers referred to the discrimination suffered by their black and Asian constituents when they travelled in Europe. Most notably the honourable Member for Leeds, North gave an example of two of his constituents, one of whom had been born in St. Kitts and another of whom had been born in Karachi, who had experienced difficulties when travelling in Europe.
Before I joined your Lordships' House I was the general secretary of a Civil Service trade union. I am proud of that record. Unlike some Members of the Committee I do not regard trades unions as the inevitable and awful instigators of all that is wrong with industrial relations in this country. When I was general secretary of the FDA, incidents were brought to my attention of fairly middle ranking or senior civil servants who had experienced racial discrimination in different parts of Europe. When noble Lords ask what is the point of trying to do anything about this in Europe, I must point out that at the moment some British nationals suffer racial discrimination when they travel in Europe. If European legislation can help to prevent that, we should be prepared to support it. This Government are prepared to support it. Of course we shall need to

63
consider individual proposals when they are presented, but we believe there is an important role here for co-ordinated action at European level.
It has also been suggested that Article 6a will have direct effect and could be interpreted widely by the courts. However, that is not the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, the article is clearly couched as an enabling provision for future action and is not couched as a freestanding and unrestricted principle. In itself it does not outlaw discrimination on any of the grounds that have been listed in the Chamber this afternoon. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, were not only preposterous but also groundless. I refer to the view supported by other member states and by Justice, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. I had thought that that proposition was also accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, until he also allowed himself to be tempted into giving possible examples which would automatically be put in place by this provision. As the recent report of Justice on the Amsterdam Treaty states—
Lord Tebbit: If the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying so, I did not suggest that any of the matters which I mentioned could be brought automatically into effect by this provision. I am as capable of reading the treaty as the noble Baroness, if I may say so. It is quite clear to me that nothing will be brought into effect without propositions from member states and legislation flowing from that. My concern, apart from ones of principle, is to know what the Government want to bring forward under this provision.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble Lord must forgive my misinterpretation of his remarks about scoutmasters and Hampstead Heath. However, shortly we shall discuss what the Government would like to introduce. As Justice's recent report on the Amsterdam Treaty states:
"This means that individuals will not be able to rely on [Article 6a] in actions before national courts; instead additional EU implementing measures are required to bring it into force".
I hope that those noble Lords—not the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—who thought that there was some degree of automaticity here are comforted, if not by what I say, at least by what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, as the chair of Justice.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Minister will give her opinion on the following matter; I think that she will have no difficulty in doing so. The European Court of Justice could not rely merely upon the provisions mentioned here. Those provisions would have to be followed up within the European Union, carrying them into some effect within the Union.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble Lord is right. It was a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. The provisions do not of themselves give the European Court of Justice any right on any particular issue. Extra action would be required
64
for that. There are two main safeguards in that respect. The clause makes clear that any action taken under Article 6a must be what is called "appropriate" to the objective. Several noble Lords have raised the question as to what is appropriate action. At one end of the scale, it could be a directive harmonising the legislation of member states; at the other, it could be a recommendation addressed to member states on how their legislation should be framed. It will clearly depend on the precise objective which the Council is seeking to pursue.
The word "appropriate" also caters for many of the individual points that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, put towards the end of his speech. Action might support one person's extreme definition of non-discrimination, but that would not be appropriate. I have in mind here such points as those made about Church schools and homosexual marriages. But, of course, the ultimate safeguard is not the word "appropriate", interesting and important as that is. The ultimate safeguard is the point on unanimity. If we felt that the legislation was going too far, that it was not appropriate or that it failed adequately to reflect UK approaches, we would not agree to it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: On the more positive rather than the negative aspect, would Her Majesty's Government view the article, which expresses a will and a desire on the part of the European Union, as the basis upon which Her Majesty's Government might push an argument for looking again at, for example, recruitment to the official levels of the European Union's employment, where few faces are other than white?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for redirecting our attention to the positive aspects of Article 6a. I regret that of necessity in answering the debate I have unfortunately had to concentrate much of my remarks on the more negative aspects.
Let me take the noble Baroness's point, together with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who asked what action we might want to take. Commissioner Flynn has an initiative under way to look at an action plan on racism, for example. It would be an important contribution to keeping up the momentum in Europe generated by last year's European Year Against Racism. Her Majesty's Government plan to make our own contributions to this through a seminar on racism which we shall host in June this year. We look forward to studying in detail Commissioner Flynn's action plan and to working with the Commission and our European partners to take forward the fight against racism in Europe. I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, a concrete example, while also giving the noble Baroness the more positive angle on this part of the treaty.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I feel extremely uneasy whenever we start talking about discrimination. When we discussed the Disability Discrimination Bill, I spoke to the effect that Bills against discrimination achieved

65
nothing. That is partly because of a misuse of the English language. What we are all talking about is not discrimination but prejudice. Of course, there are suspicions. When the noble Baroness talks about objectives of various people in using discrimination law to effect various matters, one immediately sees the system being manipulated. If it were simply a case of someone proving prejudice, it would be a matter for the courts to decide whether or not something was a matter of prejudice. If we could sweep away "discrimination" and put in "prejudice", everyone's mind would be clearer.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I do not want to be drawn into a semantic argument about the difference between prejudice and discrimination. What we are talking about is unfair discrimination. The noble Lord says that he does not believe that that subject can be legislated about. I wonder whether the thousands of women in this country, and the millions of people in this country who are not white Anglo-Saxons, who have benefited from the legislation of the mid-1970s would agree with the noble Lord. I rather think not. I believe that the anti-discriminatory legislation of the mid-1970s has stood women and people from ethnic minorities in this country in very good stead; and I am proud that it was a Labour government that enacted that legislation.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his acknowledgment of the role that the Government played in relation to the disability aspects of the treaty. It was at the Government's insistence that a declaration was included in the treaty calling on Community institutions to take disabled people's needs into account when framing the single-market legislation. We believe that this will give the Commission a clear signal, when drafting legislation, not to overlook disabled people's interests. I believe that the thousands of disabled people in this country will consider that a not inconsiderable part of the treaty. I believe that they will think it an important and much needed part.
We should not fool ourselves that the situation in this country is perfect regarding the state of our anti-discrimination legislation; but neither do we need to be blind to the advances that we have made. We should like to see these advances against unfair discrimination reflected elsewhere in Europe. We believe that this article is a sensible provision which will help in that respect.
I should like to turn now to Amendment No. 50, about which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, spoke. The amendment made in the Amsterdam Treaty to this article makes EC rules to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of nationality subject to co-decision. This means that the agreement of the European Parliament, as well as that of the Council, is needed for EC legislation in this area. The article has been little used, but it was used, for example, for a 1993 directive on the rights of residence of students.
We support co-decision because we believe that the European Parliament has an important oversight role in the EC legislative process, especially in areas like this which are subject to majority voting in the Council. Extending co-decision is a limited but sensible
66
enhancement of that role. It does not enable the European Parliament to propose an Act or to insist on a proposal opposed by the Council.
We recognise that the co-decision procedures need to be streamlined. That is why we agreed in the IGC to changes to the procedures to simplify them. We must ensure the right balance between the proper legislative oversight role of the European Parliament and the requirement for efficient EU decision-making.
We do not see enhancing the European Parliament's oversight role as an alternative to strengthening the role of national parliaments. On the contrary, we believe that the two are complementary. So we strongly support the new protocol on national parliaments. This creates a new legally binding minimum period for national parliaments to scrutinise the new legislative process.
I said that discrimination on grounds of nationality has always been banned. It is a basic principle, and nothing in Article 12 changes that. The way in which the principle applies to the common fisheries policy, the point exercising the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is through the requirement of non-discrimination in the provision of freedom of movement and freedom of establishment. I hope that that gives the noble Lord some handle on the matter.
The common fisheries policy allows national fishing quotas; however, the quotas cannot under EC laws be applied in a way which discriminates between one nationality and another. That is why the previous government's efforts to introduce provisions through the Merchant Shipping Act were struck down by the ECJ. We shall be able to discuss this area, which I know particularly interests the noble Lord, in rather greater detail when we debate the amendments on quota-hopping.
If my replies to these matters have not been to the satisfaction of noble Lords, then at least I hope that I have covered the points raised in the debate. I hope that the noble Lord will now be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I deliberately did not speak until I had heard what my noble friend had to say. We always hang on her words very closely. I was pleased to hear her confirm that decisions can be taken under this article only by unanimity. That is true; and they can be discussed only on the initiative of the Commission, and not of any single country.
I have to say that I am not quite as reassured as I should like to be. If a decision was made under this article, by unanimity, it could come into operation in this country without the consent of this Parliament, although under other provisions Parliament is given the opportunity of examining the provisions over a period of six weeks. Let us make no mistake about it. Once the decision has been taken, by unanimity or whatever else in the future, that becomes law and does not need the British Parliament, or any other parliament for that matter, to bring it into domestic law. I feel sure that I am right on that point. Therefore, we have to be extremely careful about what we are doing. That was the reason for tabling this amendment. It was not tabled

67
because some people are more racist or less racist than others. It was tabled so that we could have a full and proper discussion. That discussion has taken place, and will perhaps continue to take place.
An examination of Article 13 indicates that there can be absolutely no problem about discrimination on grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, disability or age. I do not think anybody would worry at all about those items. In this country we have built up a great body of law and practice which is good and is admired in many parts of the world. Certainly, nobody would want to go back on that. If other countries wish to adopt our ways, we should be very pleased.
But the matter goes further than that; and this is what worries many people. We are now entering the realms of religion and belief and sexual orientation. Those subjects are fraught with enormous difficulty. In relation to religion there could be enormous problems. There are all sorts of different religions throughout the European Community. It is understandable that church leaders, in this country and other countries, will be worried about this proposition being included in an article of this sort. We must therefore take account of those worries and try to deal with them, not merely set them aside.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I am grateful to him. I did not intend to interrupt his peroration. However, he made some specious claims on behalf of disability legislation in this country and contrasted our legislation and practice very favourably with that in other European Union member states. Perhaps I might bring him up on the point about the provision of hearing equipment for those with significant deafness such as myself and tell him that Germany, which he criticised heavily some two weeks ago, has far more advanced legislation and practice on the treatment and provision of hearing aids and equipment for the deaf than does the United Kingdom, which lags very far behind. Will he please therefore withdraw his comments on disability legislation? It is just one example; I can give him many more.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not think that I am prepared to withdraw my remarks. I did not specifically refer to this country being better than every other country in all matters. I have no doubt that there are other countries of the Community that do things better than we do, and that we do things better in this country than many other countries of the Community. I am sure that the noble Baroness is right. If the Germans have better disability legislation than we do, then the sooner we follow them the better. However, I do not believe that we need Article 13 to enable us to do so. We can do that through our own Parliament and our own decisions. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness and that it brings us somewhat together.
There are, as I said, very real difficulties. I do not know how "belief" is defined, and what appropriate action could be taken in relation to somebody's belief. We run into all kinds of difficulties when we try to deal
68
with these matters by laying down legislation of this sort. And what is discrimination against sexual orientation?
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, raised the matter of whether we wish to employ homosexuals in the scout movement? As a matter of fact the movement does employ homosexuals. It was recently decided that it is perfectly all right to do so. That is a matter for the scout movement, and of course the parents.
Lord Tebbit: The noble Lord may not be aware that there is a separate scout movement which is gaining many adherents because it undertakes that it will not employ homosexuals as scoutmasters. Clearly, we are in the happy position at present that each of those movements can take the view that it likes and parents can decide to which movement they prefer their children to belong.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I did not know that. We learn something every day. In that case the matter becomes even more worrying. This article might very well mean that the new scout movement which guarantees not to employ people of a homosexual bent may very well be declared illegal. That is one of the problems that may arise when entering into legislation of this sort.
Another matter comes to mind. If people wish to be homosexual, bisexual, trans-sexual, or whatever else, I have no problem with that. It is entirely a matter for their own choice. However, those who employ people of that orientation also have to have a choice. I fear that that choice may be taken away from them. For example, if you have children and want them looked after, you may well wish them to be cared for by a heterosexual. It would be completely wrong if the state came along and said: "You may not make that choice". That is why I believe that to bring such matters of personal choice, personal habit and personal belief into a clause of this kind is wrong. I hope that the Government will think carefully when dealing with the matter in future discussions within the European Community.
I also ask for an assurance—I am sure it will not be given—that we shall never agree to QMV on this article.
7 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I wish to make a couple of points in relation to what the noble Lord said and of which it might be helpful to remind the Committee. First, the provisions are subject to scrutiny. Any legislation would have to be agreed by an elected government of this country on the basis of unanimity in Europe. I believe that there are safeguards—if that is the appropriate word—in trying to deal with some of the perhaps more extreme difficulties that some Members of the Committee have raised this afternoon in relation to the provision.
The noble Lord asked finally about the extension of QMV. I am in no position whatever to give open-ended commitments on the extension of QMV. All I can say is that it is a recently negotiated treaty. The Government negotiated on unanimity because that is what they

69
believed to be appropriate. So the unanimity is something that the Government wanted. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, would be angry with me if I said that it stood for all time, as would others. It is for future governments to decide what they wish to do in that respect. I cannot make decisions that would be binding in that way, as I think the noble Lord knows.
Lord Tebbit: The noble Baroness has just said something which we should think about deeply. She said that she could not bind future parliaments. Quite so. It is one of the great traditions of British constitutional law that parliaments cannot bind their successors. Here comes the double-edged sword of unanimity in decisions which might be made under this article. If a parliament accepts that its government, which is formed from its ranks, should agree to a proposal which was put forward under this or any other provision of the treaty and it is enacted by unanimity, exactly how does a subsequent parliament escape from that law? It has in effect been bound.
So we now find that parliaments can and do bind their successors under European law. We would be bound, unless we were able to persuade every other member of the Community to agree with us to repeal the legislation which had been enacted.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble Lord is most kind to give way. I was responding to a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in relation to QMV and future voting on Article 6a, which is currently on the basis of unanimity. I said it was on that basis because that is what the Government felt was appropriate. The noble Lord asked me about the future.
Treaties change, governments change. A future government might take a different view. The noble Lord should read no more than that into it. We have had this discussion with him in relation to every single one of the groupings we have taken so far, and I am sure that we shall continue the discussion in relation to every one of the groupings we still have to deal with. I believe that at one time there was an amendment on the Marshalled List which dealt specifically with the point. It is not clear why it was withdrawn, but if there is something the noble Lord wishes to pursue, perhaps it would have been the most appropriate vehicle.
However, this is no more nor less than what we have said on the point. We stand in grave danger of rehearsing the argument over and over again. I am sure it would not meet the noble Lord's point, but my noble friend Lord Whitty dealt with it successfully when winding up on the previous group of amendments.
Lord Tebbit: That is quite right, but it underlines once again that the noble Baroness should no longer, ever, use the expression that one parliament cannot bind its successors. That is precisely the position we are in now; parliaments can bind their successors. By putting the provision into the treaty, in effect the Government have bound their successors.
70
There was one other point which I thought worth raising with the noble Baroness. We know the way in which the European Court works and leaps from point to point in a treaty and finds new ways to extend its influence. I suppose that one would broadly say that these provisions relate to what are generally referred to as human rights. I guess that most of us would take that view.
But then one looks back to page 10 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and finds Article E which tells us that Article F should he amended and should be replaced by the following:
"The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms".
It then goes on, under Article F.1, to make the point that if a government are found to be in breach of any of those principles, certain of their rights can be suspended, including voting rights.
I give a warning. No one on the Europhile side of the Committee will take it at all seriously, but here we are again. We have extended it. There is the opening, the wedge in the door to combine this section, Article 13, with Article F.1 and Article E. Just wait. Just watch.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the Minister answers, to save her getting up and down like a jack-in-the-box, perhaps I may intervene. The amendment to which she referred concerning one parliament not being able to bind its successor was taken off the Marshalled List because it was to be debated late at night or early in the morning. I can assure the noble Baroness that it will be brought back under the first business at Report stage.
I also wish to ask whether she was confirming that any decisions under this article, once made by unanimity, will not need any further legislation in this Parliament. That was what I asked. I believe I was right in saying that no further legislation would be necessary, but perhaps the Minister could confirm it.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: It would depend on what the decisions were. They might be decisions which needed legislation. It would depend on the nature of the decision reached by the Council. I thank the noble Lord for his warning about the reappearance of the amendment. I had thought—wildly—that perhaps the noble Lord had thought better of it. However, I thank him for giving us adequate warning on the matter.
In relation to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, he will not have to wait long for a discussion. We will either reach it later this evening or at some point in our debate tomorrow.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken, especially those who supported these two amendments. Most of the debate took place on Amendment No. 13, which refers to the new Article 13 in the treaty.
Amendment No. 50 deals with Article 12 and its co-decision procedure. I am grateful for what the Minister said in that regard. It confirms the question of

71
discrimination on grounds of nationality, whatever that may come to mean in the future. It will depend on a qualified majority vote in the Council supported only by the agreement of the European Parliament.
I was trying to look a little further into the future as to how the article might be used in view of the well-known action of the famous salami slicer of my noble friend Lord Tebbit, to which he has just referred again. I was grateful for the Minister's answer, in so far as it went, concerning the application of that principle to the common fisheries policy. I was trying to get at whether the article might not lead to the eventual disappearance of European nationalities under the Treaty of Rome. We did not quite conclude that, but I am happy to leave the fisheries aspect to quota hopping and related matters.
As to Amendment No. 13, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and others that it would be nice if we could go anywhere in Europe and the world and find anti-discrimination legislation, arising from prejudice as my noble friend Lord Hamilton so rightly said, as good as it is here. Of course we cannot. There is the rest of the planet to consider. I accept that many Members of the Committee may feel that this is a first step in that direction. However, for me and perhaps many other noble Lords, that somewhat dizzy prospect is not outweighed by the fact that this is the European Union making another step forward—as my noble friend Lord Tebbit and others pointed out—into national sovereignty and that these anti-discrimination clauses are more properly the attribute of a state than a market.
Some of the questions asked concerned the difficulties of our obvious and proper tolerance, for instance, of the Moslem religion. But what do we do when we come up against some of its less acceptable attitudes towards women? The whole question of national sensitivities was not properly concluded in this debate. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is absolutely right when he says that the issues of race, religion, disability or age are comparatively easy to deal with as set out in new Article 13, but other issues such as sexual orientation are much more difficult.
I asked what is the difference between religion and belief. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate is no longer in his place; I thought that he might be able to help on that matter. What about belief? That is not an easy question. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made the point that people should be free to do what they want in matters of sexual activity and so forth, but so should their employers be free to employ them or otherwise.
There is no question of dividing the Committee on the amendment this evening. I am grateful to all those who have spoken and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindonmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 1, line 13, after ("2") insert (", other than paragraph 15 (Title IIIa of the Treaty establishing the European Community (visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons)),").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14, it may be convenient also for me to discuss Amendments Nos. 15 to 18, 45 and 51. This group of amendments deals with the freedom of movement of persons, border controls and the implications for Gibraltar. It covers immigration controls, asylum and other matters. It also incorporates the Schengen Agreement between certain countries in the European Community and is therefore subject to the acquis communautaire.
As the protocol states in its opening paragraph, the new Schengen acquis agreements are aimed at enhancing European integration. It means that the powers now given to the European Union cannot be reversed because the intergovernmental nature of the agreements no longer applies and all new applicants for membership will have to agree to the Schengen acquis before they will be allowed to join. Thus the control of borders, except for the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark, will come under the control of the institutions of the European Union, constituting yet another step towards the eventual creation of a single European state stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Russian border—yet another big step towards the creation of a country called Europe under the suzerainty of Germany. I am sorry to mention Germany again.
If anybody believes that my last statement is rather extreme, I recommend that they read the article by Graham Turner in the Daily Telegraph of Saturday, 28th March 1998. I shall not read it or quote it to the Committee because it is too long; I shall just read the title. It says, "Tomorrow belongs to Germany" by Graham Turner:
"Chancellor Kohl and his allies have managed to create by the ruthless exercise of political will the empire that Hitler failed to fashion by military conquest".
That is not the Euro-realist Stoddart saying that; it is Graham Turner, a distinguished journalist of long standing.
What is more, life will be made more difficult for travellers and workers from eastern Europe. The Schengen acquis will simply be a further step towards the building of a fortress Europe. Those are basic reasons for not wishing to see the Schengen acquis incorporated into the European Community even though the United Kingdom, Eire and Denmark will not be part of it, at least in the early stages. As I said, Britain has an opt-out and will retain control of her borders. She will continue to have the right to refuse entry to any citizen of a third country and, presumably, of the European Union and European Economic Area citizens, though I am not sure how refusal of entry to the two latter categories will work. Perhaps my noble friend will explain that to me when replying to the debate.

73
Britain and the other opted-out countries will have the right, at some future stage, to apply to join the Schengen acquis, though I hope I can be assured that the present Government will never make such an application. But any such application will have to have the unanimous consent of existing members—a condition smuggled in by Spain, no doubt with some ulterior motive concerning the future of Gibraltar. As we all know, the Spanish authorities make endless difficulties for Gibraltarians and others wishing to go to and from the Rock. They do so with a blatant disregard for the principle of free movement of people enshrined in the treaty of the European Union to which Spain is a party. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will no doubt wish to elaborate on the position of Gibraltar when he speaks to Amendment No. 45, so I shall not say anything further about that aspect.
The claim is made for the Schengen aquis that it will make it easier to catch criminals, but I have to say that the reverse would seem to be the case. Surely the fewer the border checks, the easier it will be for criminals to extend their criminal activities and the more difficult it will be to catch them. That is the conclusion I would come to, but apparently some people believe the reverse. I should like to know the reason for that. The Italian Mafia have already made a killing out of fraud in the European Union and they must be licking their lips at the prospect of a Europe-wide bonanza for themselves and other criminals out of this arrangement and when the border controls are loosened further.
There are many questions arising from the Schengen aquis which need to be answered. For example, what will be the position regarding asylum? Will the United Kingdom be able to reject mass applications for asylum when people travel through the European Union from such places as Slovakia or Kurdistan, or anywhere else for that matter? Will this country be able to exercise its full authority to reject applicants for asylum under such circumstances without making special agreements with the various countries of the European Union, as has previously happened in relation to Albanians who came here through Italy? We had to make a special arrangement and agreement with Italy before we could return them to that country. Perhaps my noble friend would be kind enough to deal with that point when he speaks.
I come back to the issue of European Union citizens wishing to enter the United Kingdom. Will British immigration officials be able to examine the official identity documents of any entrant—his passport or any other document he may have such as an identity card? Will immigration officers be able to search his person? Will immigration officers be able to examine his belongings or detain him temporarily for further inquiries? Will they be able to detain him for longer periods if that is thought appropriate? I am talking here about citizens of the European Union.
This is undoubtedly an important issue. Although the United Kingdom will not be part of the aquis in its early stages, there are implications for this country, especially in the long-term and even more especially if we foolishly decided at some future date to accede to the Schengen aquis. On that point, I should like to ask my
74
noble friend a final question. What would be the position of Parliament if the Government decided to opt into the Schengen aquis? Would such a decision require parliamentary approval through primary, or even secondary, legislation, or does Parliament's ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty through this Bill give the Government full authority without further reference to or decision by Parliament? Would the Government be able to accede to the Schengen aquis provided all the other member states agreed to such accession, which of course is implicit in the Bill?
Those are very basic questions and I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer them this evening. If not, I should like him to study the matter and perhaps write to me as and when he can. I beg to move.
Lord Chesham: I should like to speak specifically to Amendment No. 45 on the position of Gibraltar. For nearly a decade the status of Gibraltar has been an obstacle to agreement among the member states on a convention to control third country immigration into the EC/EU. A common visa format and a policy for crossing the EC/EU's external frontiers has not been possible to agree.
In 1993 the Spanish Government refused to ratify a draft external borders convention because of its application to Gibraltar and insisted that the southernmost external frontier of the Union should be at La Linea, on the southern tip of Spain. Recognition of Gibraltar as an EU frontier would give Gibraltar a status unacceptable to the Spanish Government because of the Spanish objection. The draft convention has not come into force and has to a certain extent been superseded by Schengen and other EU developments.
In his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in November 1997 the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Mr. Peter Caruana, identified incorporation of the Schengen agreement into the Community pillar in the Amsterdam Treaty as one of the main areas of concern. Schengen was in fact an earlier agreement than the external frontier draft. It was agreed in 1985 by France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. When it came into force in 1995, those countries had been joined by Spain and Portugal. By mid-1997 there were 13 full Schengen members—all the EU member states except the UK and Ireland, with associated status for Norway and Iceland as members of the European Economic Area. Should the British Government decide to join the Schengen aquis in the future, the unanimity requirement in the Amsterdam Treaty could mean that entry by Britain, and by extension Gibraltar, would be blocked by the Spanish Government unless Britain agreed to exclude Gibraltar, which could result in further obstacles to free movement to and from the Rock.
The Conservative Government did not intend to join Schengen because it was considered incompatible with the UK's policy on the need to retain border controls. The Labour Government have expressed similar views and have said that they have no intention of joining. The Gibraltar Government, on the other hand, are for economic reasons extremely keen to join Schengen and be free of both official and unofficial border controls.

75
The Schengen aquis and provisions to build on it were included in the Amsterdam Treaty as a protocol integrating the Schengen aquis into the framework of the European Union. The UK will not be a party to the Schengen aquis, as provided by Article 4 of the protocol, but,
"may at any time request to take part in some or all of the provisions of this aquis".
Shortly after the Amsterdam summit the Minister with responsibility for Europe was asked what arrangements had been made for Gibraltar to enter the Schengen area if it decided that it was in its interests to do so. The answer given was that it was up to the United Kingdom to decide and that since Gibraltar is part of the UK for most EU purposes there could be no question of unilateral decision-making in this area by the Gibraltar Government. That could have interesting ramifications when we come to the Committee stage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
In evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place, the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Robin Cook, discussed the treaty protocols and declarations in relation to the possibility of future British membership of Schengen and insisted that there was nothing in the treaty that altered the status between Gibraltar and Spain or gave Spain power to impose border controls on Gibraltar. There were reports of a misunderstanding at the time of finalising the Amsterdam provisions on Schengen which have added some confusion to the nature of the opt-in arrangements. Apparently, Spain did propose an amendment to have the effect of bringing in unanimity for UK participation in the Schengen acquis. There was an agreement that this should be submitted in writing by Spain, which was not done. The subsequent change to the treaty, we are advised, was a bilateral agreement between Spain and the Dutch presidency.
The position of Schengen in the Amsterdam Treaty remains somewhat confusing. According to Mr. Cooke, Spain had not deposited its proposal in writing with the presidency to be agreed by all member states, and yet it was written into the treaty allegedly as a result of a bilateral agreement between the Spanish Government and the presidency. I believe that Amendment No. 45 would clarify the position as far as the United Kingdom and Gibraltar are concerned. I support it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I put my name to Amendment No. 18 and I meant to put it to Amendment No. 45 but because of some oversight I failed to do so. So the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will understand that I, too, am very concerned about Gibraltar. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, reminded us, Spain has caused endless trouble for both Gibraltarians, British visitors and British residents at the frontier, totally contrary to the Treaty of Rome, which has nothing to do with the Schengen agreement and ante-dates it by decades. As the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said when speaking to Amendment No. 13 a half hour or so ago, discrimination on the grounds of nationality has always been banned.
76
I complained at Question Time some weeks ago about one serious incident involving very senior British personnel. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, was good enough to write to me. May I take this opportunity to say how impressed I am by the way in which Ministers of this Government always do write to one when they say that they will do so. They write at length and promptly. That is most commendable. She wrote to me at some length explaining that the British Ambassador had complained to the Spanish authorities, who had apologised and promised not to do it again. As we know, that sort of thing still does happen, but perhaps the incidents are not quite so serious. I hope that, whatever happens, pressure will continue to be brought to bear on Spain to behave in a civilised manner, as the Treaty of Rome should compel it to do.
The other aspect of this article which concerns me is that there is a danger that, by abolishing all the internal borders of the Community and strengthening the external borders, it will make the probable introduction of a Europe-wide identity card more likely, which for anyone with libertarian tendencies is worrying. Another aspect is that it will make life for our Commonwealth friends who fought for us in World War II even more difficult. It is already humiliating for ex-servicemen and others to have to queue for hours at immigration to enter, although those from Guadaloupe, Macao and elsewhere apparently get in without any problems. All this is a matter of worry. For that reason I support the amendment.
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that consideration of Amendment No. 14 be now adjourned and that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.

Pesticides Bill
7.34 p.m.
Lord Stone of Blackheath: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so I should declare an interest. For 32 years I have worked in a company which has been involved with improving safety standards in foods for the consumer, for those involved in the food production chain and for the community at large.
Pesticides carry many important public health and economic benefits. For example, in agriculture they are used both to protect crops from pests and diseases and to increase yields. However, being designed to control or destroy living organisms they must, therefore, be regarded as potentially hazardous material. A comprehensive regulatory system has been put in place to ensure that only those pesticides which may be used without undue risk are placed on the market and are available for use.

77
The basis of the regulatory system is that before all new pesticides are given approval they are subject to a comprehensive scientific assessment, considering in particular the potential effects on human health and on the environment. The day-to-day work is carried out by the Pesticides Safety Directorate, which is part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Health and Safety Executive. Where major decisions are to be taken, their work is overseen by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides. This committee in turn makes recommendations to Ministers in a number of departments and only when these Ministers are content, is approval granted to place the pesticide on the market. I shall not seek to detail these arrangements further at this stage because they work well and the Bill before your Lordships does not seek to change them. What the Bill does seek to do is make some improvements to associated features of the pesticides regime.
The Bill deals mainly with public access to information on pesticides. Because pesticides are hazardous products, it must be right that the public should have ready access to information about the pesticides to which they may be exposed. The powers to enable information to be provided are already in the legislation. However, the powers to provide detailed scientific information about individual pesticides can only be applied to pesticides approved since 1986 when the statutory system came into force. This means, in effect, that the comprehensive arrangements to provide information to the public cover less than half of the pesticides currently on the market. This Pesticides Bill would remove the 1986 cut-off date and would thus allow information on all the older pesticides (which are often of greatest concern to the public) to be made available.
The other main issue dealt with in the Pesticides Bill is the enforcement of pesticides legislation. Existing legislation set up a comprehensive system to ensure the orderly marketing and proper use of pesticides once they have been approved. Enforcement powers are shared between the agriculture departments, the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities. The powers given to these bodies to enforce the legislation are wide-ranging, but several minor areas for improvement have been identified and are included in the Pesticides Bill.
First, there is currently a restriction on the powers given to local authorities. Local authorities acquired enforcement powers when the original legislation was amended in 1989. However, the 1989 Act did not allow local authorities to be provided with the power to seize or dispose of pesticides. The Pesticides Bill would enable this power to be given to local authorities by way of legislation.
Secondly, the Pesticides Bill would introduce flexibility to the existing power for enforcement officers to serve enforcement notices. Enforcement notices are issued to those believed to be in breach of the regulations and indicate the action which should be taken. Clearly, it is possible that circumstances may change or that the enforcement officer may not have
78
been in possession of all facts when first issuing the notice. The Bill, therefore, allows notices to be withdrawn and re-issued in these circumstances.
Thirdly, the Bill introduces a power to enable potential witnesses to be questioned. The power is designed to maximise the information which can be gathered but includes a safeguard that the evidence so collected cannot be used to prosecute the interviewee, unless they have perjured themselves. I understand that the usual powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would be used to interview suspects.
Fourthly, the Pesticides Bill would extend the present power which authorises enforcement officers to photograph written records. The Bill would enable photographs to be taken of anything which might prove helpful to the investigations.
The Pesticides Bill also makes a technical amendment to the arrangements for making secondary legislation in Northern Ireland. This would allow secondary legislation on pesticide residues to be set out in a single instrument where at present two are required.
The United Kingdom already has a strong system of regulatory control for pesticides. This Pesticides Bill would improve the operation of these arrangements. In particular, the change to allow the public to be given comprehensive information on all pesticides rather than simply those authorised or reviewed since 1986 is a valuable amendment to the legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Stone of Blackheath.)
7.39 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I am certain that everyone would want me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, on starting to carry through his first Private Member's Bill. However, I think that he will find that it is not quite the same experience as was making his excellent maiden speech. I am confident that the House will extend to him the same courtesies, but I am not quite certain whether we shall be able to extend to him the same tolerance towards the errors and omissions of this legislation. The noble Lord reminded the House of something of which we are well aware. I refer to his connection with one of the principal food retailers in this country, whose name is associated with value for money and quality.
Food safety concerns us all. We have lived through the BSE crisis, e-coli outbreaks and the farce of beef on the bone. We seem to have endless scare stories in the press on the subject which have the effect of eroding public confidence in this area.
In this Bill the noble Lord is attempting to extend into the public domain further information about the pesticides used in food production. However, I think that the Bill should be considered against the background of two other initiatives which are in the early stages of enhancing food safety in this country. I refer first to the Food Standards Agency, which is about to start its work

79
according to nine guiding principles to protect pubic health in relation to food and
"to work in an open and consultative way".
How does the noble Lord feel that his Bill fits in with the provisions of the Bill that we are shortly to consider on food safety regulations?
I am sorry that when introducing the Bill the noble Lord did not mention something that is regarded highly, certainly throughout the arable counties. I refer to the assured combinable crop scheme. It is an industry-backed voluntary initiative in support of this Bill. This summer the first quality-assured crops will be harvested. Crop merchants are already putting out contracts under the scheme and I sincerely hope that some are being put out for purchase by the organisation for which the noble Lord works.
Is the noble Lord aware that that scheme requires an 80-strong team of farm verifiers, who are commencing their visits this month to assess standards in relation to crop protection, sprays, spray records and pesticide label recommendations? The scheme needs finance. In fact, that is being met by a levy on all those competing with the scheme. I simply do not understand how it is said that the noble Lord's Bill does not require finance. As I read it, there are to be enforcement powers and powers to direct other persons to take remedial action. There are powers to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland. Surely the Bill should have been subject to a financial resolution in the other place.
However, I do not see why the noble Lord should be penalised for what is becoming a very disturbing habit. I do not believe in Private Members' Bills being government-sponsored or government-hand-outs. There should be no such thing, although we should admit that there is such a thing. What normally happens is that a private Member who is selected in the ballot will feel strongly enough about an issue to want to do something about it. It is wrong that we should continue to allow private Members in another place to introduce measures which incur financial liability without a proper financial resolution being placed. I hope that the noble Lord can give us some guarantee that the expenditure problems which this Bill creates will be dealt with.
I do not want to delay the matter further, but I must advise the noble Lord that we shall certainly seek minor amendments in Committee. First, we all know that the position of Secretary of State is recognised in law, but the Bill does not specify which Secretary of State. That vagueness in the Bill reflects a problem that we all know exists between the Secretaries of State responsible for agriculture and for the environment. We shall want to be more specific in Committee and to have the matter sorted out. Secondly, the definition of "information" is too broad and, thirdly, the provisions seek to empower certain officers to a greater extent than is desirable.
Subject to those three small amendments, which I am confident that the noble Lord will be able to accept because they will not in any way delay the progress of the Bill—they will improve it—I thank the noble Lord for introducing the Bill and wish it well.
7.45 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, for his introduction of this Bill to your Lordships' House. It is a short Bill, described as "a dormouse" in another place, but none the less an important one in our progress towards greater freedom of information in this field. I have very little doubt that any noble Lord who has been in this House during the past six years will understand my interest.
I accept that the majority of users of pesticides are responsible individuals and that they make every effort to comply with existing legislation which, as Section 16 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 indicates, is designed to protect the health of human beings, creatures and plants, to safeguard the environment and to secure safe, efficient and humane methods of controlling pests. There are, as I have found, some people who behave in a cavalier manner, with a total disregard for safety, perhaps because they are unaware of the implications, careless or take short cuts simply to save time and money.
Clause 1(1) of the Bill extends ministerial powers to seize and dispose of pesticides and treated materials to local authorities. If I understand it correctly, it should bring the law enforcers closer to the illegal activity in both the time and location and should reduce the delays which so often render any attempt to enforce legislation ineffective.
I particularly welcome Clause 1(2). Any move to make information on what is known, and perhaps what is not known, about the actions of a pesticide can only be helpful. May I ask the noble Lord the Minister to make clear one or two points? I have read the proceedings on this Bill in another place with great care and have been unable to ascertain whether the information to be made available concerns only the active ingredients of the pesticide formulation or whether it includes what are known as the inert ingredients. I ask this because research by the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides in the USA recently identified 25 per cent. of some of the 2,500 substances added to pesticides but not named on product labels as hazardous. Some 400 of these so-called "inerts" are in fact active ingredients in other pesticides; for example, coal tar, a known carcinogen, and naphthalene, considered to be of "unknown toxicity" but on the other hand known to destroy red blood cells.
May I ask the Minister whether the Government intend that full disclosure of the formulation is intended? I can see that there may be some difficulty here. This could justify a refusal on the grounds that commercial confidentiality would be breached. I am sure the Minister will appreciate how important full disclosure is to an individual who believes that his or her health has been damaged by exposure to a pesticide; a medical practitioner treating such a person; a veterinary surgeon treating an animal; or any person investigating an environmental incident to establish exactly what chemicals may be implicated. Is there any means whereby the information could be divulged to an individual inquirer but not to a competitor?

81
I note that Section 16(4) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 states that:
"Pesticides may be identified in any way for the purposes of this … Act".
Despite the recent tightening of the controls for the purchase, use and disposal of sheep dips, which are veterninary medicines, there is still evidence that the law is not always observed. Can the Minister inform the House whether sheep dips will come within this legislation?
In another place there was discussion about the feasibility of putting information on the Internet. I commend this practice to the Minister. I have made considerable use of the service provided in the USA and would be delighted if it could be extended to the United Kingdom. The Minister in another place made much of the facilities provided by the reading room at the Pesticides Safety Directorate in York. While I accept that this facility is excellent, it is not much help to a person who lives some distance from York, is ill and is unlikely to be able to afford the rail fare, no matter how good the rail services.
I also welcome Clause 1(4)(b) which extends the provision of information on pesticides to those in use prior to 1986. I ask the Minister how many pesticides in current use fall into this category.
The power to question embodied in Clause 2, new paragraph 2A is a very necessary addition. All too often I have been made aware that an individual who has been concerned with an incident where a pesticide has been purchased, stored, used or disposed of illegally has been afraid to speak out for fear of jeopardising his or her employment. This is especially applicable to certain areas of the country where unemployment is high and employers are still, dare I say it, feudal. This was highlighted when I heard of a joint HSE/Pesticides Trust research project in Lincolnshire which was hampered by just such a situation. While I am pleased that every effort is now to be made by investigating officers to obtain such information, I have no doubt that a determined employer, who may later be the subject of a prosecution, will at least attempt to prevent an employee from divulging information of an incriminating nature. I ask the Minister what protection will be available to an employee or other person against loss of employment or any action which may affect their current position.
Clause 2, new subparagraph (3) permits an investigating officer to photograph anything which he believes is relevant to the exercise of his functions under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the 1985 Act. Frequently, an infringement of the law takes place when no investigating officer is present. I think particularly of field-spraying operations when a member of the public may be present with a camera. I am not sure whether such evidence is currently accepted. If it is not, would the Minister consider extending this provision to admit photographs produced as evidence by a person other than the investigating officer?
I look forward to the progress of the Bill, I hope unhampered, through your Lordships' House.
7.53 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, for introducing this Bill. I apologise to him that I missed the first minute of his opening speech. Any Bill that serves to regulate pesticides in the marketplace and their indiscriminate use is to be recommended and supported. Where farming has been changed from being an occupation to an industrial enterprise by the concentration of market forces and the drive for intensive production there will inevitably be a small proportion of the intensive farming community who will take the easy route to soil management by throwing pesticides at any problem, often on the advice of the pesticide salesman. Control is important on several fronts.
Soil management is a vital part of the sustainable environment, and the reckless use of chemicals seriously damages our inheritance. Is the Minister aware that Wessex Water offers a premium of £12 an acre to any farmer who can be persuaded to convert to UKROF standards of organic farming in an attempt to reduce the leaching of agricultural chemicals into the water supply? Does this not impress the Minister as proof of the need drastically to reduce the use of pesticides on all fronts? In this context the power to seize and dispose of chemicals, and in particular what is euphemistically called treated materials, is very useful to local authorities. In Clause 2 "enforcement notices" has the ugly ring of the thought police, but this is a vital matter and recalcitrant farmers must be held to pay special regard to the safety of the food that they grow for public consumption, of which the noble Lord, Lord Stone, is well aware and is a great exponent.
The recent help offered by the Ministry to organic farmers is most welcome. While it is not directly relevant to the Bill, I hope I shall be allowed to make that point. Perhaps I may ask whether other water companies will be encouraged by the Minister to take a leaf out of the book of Wessex Water. The residual effect of all pesticides on the crop which will pass through the food chain is well known to dieticians. I should be glad to hear from the Minister whether the department is taking on board the serious effect of organophosphates on society and small children in particular. This is especially so when it is used as a pesticide in horticulture. It is all very well to be told that there is no danger when the department itself has recently tightened up the regulations about its use in horticulture. If there is no danger, why is there any need to restrict its use? The Bill states that pesticides are permitted to be marketed or used only if they are safe to people and the environment. If one is altering the structure of a product that is allowed to be used there must be danger in it.
Is it not worth pointing out for the umpteenth time that this particular pesticide is derived from a nerve gas that directly affects the central nervous system and for which there is no known cure? Not only that, but its effects are cumulative and fatal. I say this in deference to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, whose strictures on the subject are well known to noble Lords. We have the examples of Dieldrin and Aldrin, not to mention DDT,

83
which in our wisdom and in the light of revealed knowledge have been banned. When will we come, as inevitably one day we will, to the conclusion that OPs should join that insalubrious list? I hope that the Bill will have fair passage through your Lordships' House.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this Bill is about freedom of information and public safety in a field that causes increasing concern, not least in your Lordships' House where the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has rightly pestered the Government to come clean on the matter of OPs. It may be that she is partly responsible for the fact that this Bill reached the shelf of the Ministry of Agriculture from which it was rescued by the noble Lord and his colleague in the other place.
There is a growing body of opinion that there is a fundamental connection between many of these chemicals and the incidence of cancer. Only last week my noble friend Lord McNair hosted a meeting in this House at which Mr. Teddy Goldsmith delivered a lecture in memory of his brother in which that point was strongly made. In another place on Third Reading of this Bill that admirable Member of Parliament, Sir Richard Body, raised the same point.
It is not that we do not need science and technology to help us. We have thankfully left an era in which Pliny the Elder could state as a fact that naked menstruating women walking round grain fields could cause caterpillars and beetles to fall dead. We need to have the knowledge to control pests properly but to control them in such a way that we do not poison ourselves or, for that matter, the useful insects, the bird population or the fish in our streams.
The problem under the current law is that the public have access to information on only about 40 per cent. of approved pesticides, which do not include a large number of the older and more popular ones which this Bill will bring within the system. We on these Benches believe it is important that maximum information on these dangerous substances should be available to the public. It may be that this Bill does not go far enough. Clause 1(3) gives Ministers power to consider making information available to the public. This surely is inadequate. Information must be provided and freely available, not just on the Minister's whim.
The Minister in another place gave an undertaking that all information requested would be made available. I accept that that will be so for the foreseeable future. But we come across the problem that your Lordships always encounter at this point in a Bill. The Minister cannot bind his successors. If that is what is intended why is it not on the face of the Bill? We all know that we are in an area where if people are harmed important commercial interests come into play. There could be very powerful reasons for some people in some circumstances not wanting full information to be made available. There have been such cases in the past. It would be wildly optimistic to think that there will not be some in the future.
84
It is now more than ever possible to make such information easily available. It was suggested in another place, and has also been suggested here this evening, that the information should be put on the Internet. The Minister took that suggestion on board and said that he would take advice on the matter (Hansard of Sub-Committee C, 4/3/98; col. 6.) I should be interested to know if the Minister can let us know what advice the Minister has taken since he gave that undertaking, and what the ministry intends to do.
One of the elements in the Bill of which we on these Benches approve in principle is the bringing down of the responsibility in these matters to local level. In principle, we of course agree with that, but will the local authorities have the resources adequately to carry out their duties? Here I join the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, about the pretence that the Bill does not carry costs with it, although I challenge the noble Lord, who must know from his experience in another place, that just as another place does not exist so far as concerns this House, so there is only one Secretary of State. Having sat in another place there may have seemed to him to have been several Secretaries of State, but technically speaking there is only one. So in legislation it is not considered right to particularise which part of the one Secretary of State is responsible.
I look forward to hearing the matters that we shall discuss in Committee, but, in the meantime, I have great pleasure on behalf of these Benches in giving full support to the Bill.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, on the manner in which he introduced the Bill and the clear explanation that he gave. Like him, I declare an interest—it is not as professional as his—as someone who occasionally uses pesticides, like the vast majority of the population of this country, in the garden and the home. I note that the Bill affects not just farmers and producers but home owners, as entry into private homes is covered in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Kimball referred to the practice of government hand-out of Bills. When I read Hansard of another place, I noticed with interest that the Minister of State admitted freely that this is a hand-out Bill left over from the previous government, not an invention of the present Government, and that it fills a gap identified some while ago. So it is hardly surprising that I, too, agree with the Bill's objectives, but I still have some questions to ask and issues to explore. There are two reasons for that.
First, I seek, whenever possible, to apply to legislation what I call the "Judge Bassingthwaighte" principle introduced to us in the Social Security Bill; that is, that a Bill which enjoys bipartisan support paradoxically needs to be challenged more strenuously in order to test its effect. The second reason why I should like to examine the Bill in some detail is that this House possesses expertise uniquely available within the Palace of Westminster, which means that we can examine effectively aspects of the Bill which might not

85
receive such attention in another place. That is a fact recognised by my honourable friend Mr. Paice who is recorded in Hansard of another place as saying that there were legal technicalities in the Bill which might well require the judgment of Members of this House who may have more expertise in such matters. I am sure that we shall try not to let his confidence in this House flag.
I shall ask the Minister a number of questions. If they can be addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stone, I shall be grateful. However, I do not wish to make the noble Lord's life difficult at this or any stage of the Bill. I recognise that it may be more appropriate for the Minister to answer them, either now or in Committee.
The Bill makes several improvements to the provision of information with regard to pesticide control and enforcement, which I welcome. I was pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Stone, recognised that the UK already has the most rigorous controls on pesticide registration in the EU.
Clause 1(3) deals with the release of information on older products that have not yet been reviewed by the Pesticide Safety Directorate. My noble friend Lord Kimball referred to costs. My first question relates to the costs to be incurred in complying with the new provisions of the Bill. It was an issue raised by my honourable friend Mr. Paice in another place. Like him, I am anxious to ensure that the industry is not burdened with unnecessary costs in providing information which the public may not demand to see. Will the Minister tell the House what costs are to be incurred in providing information? How will the calculation be made and what will constitute a reasonable charge which will not then deter research?
I note that in another place the Minister of State claimed that the wording in the Bill:
"the cost reasonably attributable to the supply of the information",
was chosen to replace the old phrase a "reasonable fee" because its construction is tighter. Do the Government intend that the cost of supply should be limited to photocopying? How will they calculate that? Will they take into account matters such as the full cost of labour, maintenance of machinery and depreciation?
The question of how information may be transmitted to interested parties was raised by the noble Countess and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Like them, I shall he interested to learn what advice the Minister received with regard to the use of the Internet, and what decision the Government have made with regard to using the Internet for posting information? I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate MAFF on its website. It has an excellent home page. Its signposting is the best within Whitehall. It gives a lesson to some other government departments. One department which I hope might learn from MAFF would be the DETR. I have torn out some hair trying to find my way around its website. That could never be said of MAFF's.
Clause 1 raises also civil liberties issues which we may need to examine in some detail in Committee. It extends to the local authority the power to enter premises as prescribed in the 1985 Act. Those premises include private homes. Have the Government considered
86
fully the implications of extending to the local authority the power to enter private homes to take photographs and videos of evidence?
Clause 2 deals with improving the operation of investigations where allegations have been made, bringing it into line with the normal procedures of the Health and Safety Directorate. It is an attempt to make enforcement effective against the holding of illegal pesticides. It is a move that we on these Benches welcome.
I seek confirmation from the Minister that I have correctly understood the provisions of Clause 2(2) with regard to two points. Those two points relate to perjury and the sanctions for non-compliance. First, with regard to perjury, currently an inspector is allowed only to ask a person to volunteer information. The amendment to Schedule 2 of the 1985 Act introduced by this Bill gives the inspector the power to question the individual and obtain a signed statement. New Section 2A(4) provides that a person is not to be excused from giving information on the ground that it might incriminate him or that person's spouse, but:
"a statement or admission made in complying is not admissible in evidence against either of them in proceedings for any offence other than perjury".
When the subsection was discussed in the other place there seemed to be confusion about its implications—at least, I was certainly confused when I read the debates on the matter. Therefore, I wish to seek guidance on whether I have correctly understood the clause. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I pose a practical explanation of how the Bill might operate.
Let us say, first, that an officer questions me and I give a statement that I am storing illegal pesticides for Mrs. Bloggs. Some time later, I find myself in court. At this stage, there are three possible scenarios. First, I am the defendant charged with storing the pesticides and I state in court that I have not stored them. I understand that the Bill prevents the prosecution from adducing my original statement as evidence against me in those proceedings. But if it wishes subsequently to prosecute me in separate proceedings for perjury it can use the first statement as evidence.
The second scenario would be that I am a prosecution witness in the trial of Mrs. Bloggs. Again, I lie and say that I have not stored the pesticides. My first statement can be brought into that case only if the prosecution wishes to apply to treat me as a hostile witness by demonstrating that I had made a previous statement which was inconsistent with my oral evidence. It would then be used as to my unreliability as a witness but not against me because it would not be in proceedings against me. However, the prosecution could subsequently bring a charge of perjury against me and, as in the previous scenario, use the first statement as evidence against me in those proceedings.
The third scenario is that I am a witness for the defence in the prosecution against Mrs. Bloggs. Again, I lie in court. I promise your Lordships that I would never do such a thing, especially having until recently been a magistrate. Again, I lie in court and say that I did not store the illegal pesticides. The first statement

87
can be used as evidence, but only to demonstrate the unreliability of my oral evidence. It cannot be used against me because the proceedings are not against me. However, the prosecution could subsequently bring a case of perjury against me.
I hope that those three scenarios have given the House an example of the issues about which the other place got into such a tangle. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that my legal interpretation is correct with regard to the three scenarios. If so, I would not have too much trouble with the wording of the Bill, but it may be that those who must operate the Bill will have some difficulty.
The other issue is the sanction for non-compliance. I wish to query the sanction which can be imposed on a person who is asked by an officer to give information, but simply refuses to do so. Debates in another place refer to the sanction as lying within the provision of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Does that Act require further amendment to ensure that the sanctions are extended to cover the amendments introduced by the Bill? If not, can the Minister direct me to the relevant provision?
I, too, wish the Bill well. I am sure that noble Lords will bring their expertise to bear in discussions in Committee. We on these Benches support the underlying objectives of the Bill.
8.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Bill before us is designed to improve the effectiveness of the United Kingdom pesticides legislation and the provision of information about pesticides to the public. The Government fully support the Bill and I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Stone for sponsoring it before your Lordships. He did it so well that he runs the risk of carrying similar burdens in the future.
I wish to set the Bill in a general context, but, first, I shall touch on some of the questions that have been asked. I noted 18 questions. As we have a time constraint I shall not be able to answer them all. However, I wish to deal with some of them in order to ensure that they are dealt with at the beginning and not lost in the rush at the end. I can assure the noble Baroness that I can speak for 20 minutes without answering any questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, asked about the relationship with the Food Safety Agency. We see no reason why the Bill should not sit alongside the aims of the agency. It is important for us to take the opportunity offered by my noble friend to tighten up relevant existing legislation.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked about active and inert ingredients. Some details are bound to be confidential, but all formulants are assessed and the evaluation published covers the safety of the whole product, not just the active substance. She asked whether the legislation will be extended to sheep dips. I do not need to point out that separate legislation already applies
88
to sheep dips, which are considered veterinary medicines. It applies similar standards of safety and efficacy to those set out in pesticides legislation.
The noble Countess asked about the balance of pesticides since 1986. Information is available only in respect of about 40 per cent. of pesticides. That will increase to 100 per cent. once the Bill is passed. She asked what protection is available to employees who give a statement. A copy of the statement is given to the person who made it, if he wants it, but a copy is not given to the employer.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, for raising the assistance offered by a water company in the conversion to organic fanning. We are sympathetic towards organic farming and applaud the initiative taken by the company and encourage others to follow its good example.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked about the information available. Regulations to provide access to all information that is not strictly commercially confidential will be laid as soon as possible. An increasing amount of information on pesticides is being placed on the Internet. There is a risk that placing detailed information on the Internet would increase the risk of misuse by rival companies. But there is likely to be scope to go further and this is being pursued.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked an impressive number of questions, most of which I wrote down. We do not believe that the Bill will require the industry to provide any additional information. The costs charged will cover the administrative costs, including an element for labour. The maximum price charged for any document is set at £25 and there is no intention to increase that by more than the rate of inflation.
I shall certainly write to noble Lords about the points that they have raised. I shall also try to come to grips with the three scenarios which the noble Baroness presented.
Perhaps I may set the Bill in context and outline briefly the current arrangements and indicate how those would be developed by the provisions of the Bill. In the UK there is a rigorous and detailed system for regulating pesticides. To gain approval for their products, pesticide manufacturers must provide detailed scientific information about health and environmental effects. That is evaluated within government and important decisions referred to the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides which makes recommendations to Ministers in five government departments. Only if all agree will approval be granted.
A considerable volume of information about pesticides is already available. This includes evaluations carried out by the advisory committee which provide a great deal of high quality scientific information and assessment. In addition, the data submitted by companies underlying these documents are available for inspection.

89
The Bill before the House today has three features. The first is the extension of powers for providing information. At present, those extend only to about 40 per cent. of pesticide compounds; that is, those evaluated or reviewed since 1986. The Bill would allow Ministers to bring all pesticides within the arrangements.
Some questions were raised in another place as to the costs of extending these arrangements. As I said, it is not intended that any existing charges should increase should the Pesticides Bill enter into law.
The Bill makes several minor improvements to current enforcement arrangements. Current powers allow enforcement officers to serve enforcement notices but do not allow a notice to be re-issued or withdrawn. The Bill would allow this flexibility. The Bill would provide a new power so that a person being questioned would be obliged to answer the questions put to him. However, the information thus obtained could not be used in a prosecution other than for perjury and safeguards are included to prevent the powers being used to intimidate. The Bill would allow an enforcement officer to photograph anything reasonably believed to be relevant to an investigation. Current powers extend only to documents, books and records.
The Bill provides that Ministers may make regulations so as to give local authorities powers to seize or dispose of pesticides following a breach of any legislation.
The final provision of the Bill is a technical amendment to streamline the making of secondary legislation in Northern Ireland.
I pay tribute to the vigilance of the major food retailers in ensuring the safety and quality of the food they sell. The work they carry out in respect of the residue testing is a valuable complement to the Government's own programme. There is already a great deal of contact between companies and government officials in this area and that is an approach we should like to encourage and see developed further.
I conclude by saying that the Government welcome the Pesticides Bill, in particular the extension of public access to information. I commend the Bill to the House.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Stone of Blackheath: My Lords, I take the opportunity to commend the Bill to noble Lords. Its provisions are sensible and in the area of public access to information on pesticides they represent a significant improvement on current powers.
I am grateful for the comments made by your Lordships and for the general support for the Bill. I thank the Minister for answering many of the questions raised this evening. I do not wish to go over those questions again but look forward to discussing any of the points not answered fully in Committee.
90
I am grateful to the noble Countess for bringing her expertise to this Second Reading debate. I am grateful also for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the noble Baroness. I am not sure that the unscrupulous Mrs. Bloggs would share my gratitude.
I commend the noble Earl on his passion for organic produce which one must surely applaud. Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and I look forward to discussing his proposals in Committee.
I shall not expand on the present pesticides approval system and its enforcement powers since the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, summed up the relevant details. I would, however, like to speak for a few moments about the Bill itself and emphasise the main areas of improvement it makes possible.
First, on access to information, I agree with the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that the public should have a right to be able to find out as much as possible about pesticides about which they may have concerns. As already pointed out, current legislation only allows the public to access information on pesticides approved or reviewed since the introduction of regulatory controls over pesticides in 1986. However, this represents a minority of those pesticides on the market today—about 140 out of 340. The Bill will open up access to information on pesticides which were authorised under previous arrangements. As a result, the public will be able to access information on all pesticides.
Secondly, on enforcement powers, investigation officers, who ensure that all aspects of pesticides marketing and use are fully complied with, face difficulties in the execution of their work. These difficulties lie mainly in the fact that officers do not have powers equivalent to those available under other legislation, including the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. That has sometimes made it more difficult to enforce pesticides legislation. Again, the Bill would improve the ability of officers to enforce pesticides legislation.
Thirdly, on secondary legislation for Northern Ireland, although the Bill only provides a minor technical amendment to allow the Northern Ireland authorities to make secondary legislation on pesticides, this is nevertheless important. At the moment Northern Ireland authorities face delays and increased work as a result of having to make regulations under two primary Acts. This delay, which I should point out affects pesticides legislation only, also disadvantages the agrochemical industry and farmers are not able to make use of newer technology. This Bill addresses that point.
I believe the Bill makes valuable improvements to pesticides legislation and in particular offers scope to improve, by regulations, the public's access to information on pesticides. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. In doing so I wish to say how grateful I am for the support I have been given today. As the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, pointed out, this is my first Bill. I have been helped enormously

91
by officials who have taught me more about pesticides than I ever wish to know although, yes, my work has made me familiar with all aspects of food safety, including the Food Safety Agency on which we have offered advice. Your Lordships' advice and helpful contributions at this late hour have been encouraging. I thank noble Lords and commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that the House be now adjourned during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.30 to 8.35 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1, Amendment No. 14.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I strongly support Amendment No. 45. I am concerned about the anomalous situation in Gibraltar, for which the UK is responsible, and the lack of transparency throughout the many negotiations with the EU which have concerned that territory. Thanks to British advice, Gibraltar long ago stayed out of the Customs Union. She is equally disadvantaged, thanks to Spanish pressure, in matters of air liberalisation and on a number of other issues. But, worst of all, we allowed ourselves to be out-manoeuvred by Spain at Amsterdam on the Schengen issue. That has already been outlined by my noble friend and I shall not, therefore, rehearse it again.
However, Gibraltar has had constantly to find out for itself what clauses in the Amsterdam and the EU treaties may render that territory yet more vulnerable to Spanish harassment, and to warn Her Majesty's Government rather than the other way round. It appears that they cannot or will not secure for Gibraltar even some of the special funding and support which the French overseas departments—and, indeed, some British overseas territories—enjoy from the EU. Gibraltar has no voice in the UK either and seems to have none of the advantages and all of the drawbacks of a dependent territory.
Under Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome, Gibraltar is an integral part of the EU. That article applies to European territories for which a "Member State is responsible", yet Gibraltar was not invited to comment on the IGC or to have its views considered. There seems to have been a lamentable failure to consult in time to keep Gibraltar informed and, most of all, to act effectively to protect her interests. I therefore strongly support the amendment and I urge that Gibraltar should be given some way to vote for its own future, if not in the EU then in the United Kingdom.
Other Members of the Committee will have received today, as I did, a note from the Self-Determination for Gibraltar Group which makes two relevant points. First,
92
why have Her Majesty's Government not yet rejected the Spanish proposal for a period of joint Spanish/British sovereignty, leading to full Spanish sovereignty? Secondly, what are the Government's reservations on recognising the right of Gibraltarians to self-determination? What possible argument could be advanced in the EU or, for that matter, in the UN, for handing over a territory to the very power which has consistently harassed it and which is an alien power? All this is very relevant to the related issue of the veto and QMV.
Surely this is a case where we should be free to exert the Luxembourg compromise if the worst comes to the worst and Spain continues to attack the human rights and the economic survival of Gibraltar. I shall be wholly unimpressed by anything the Government may say about human rights or transparency if the Gibraltar issue is not properly and honourably resolved and Spain's disgraceful behaviour exposed.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I should like to express my support for the noble Baroness. The exclusion of Gibraltar from the right to vote in Europe in elections seems to most people, on this side of the water and where I live in Northern Ireland, to be indefensible. Admittedly we in Northern Ireland are accustomed to having all manner of exotic devices imposed upon us. I imagine that at election time we shall have another tranche of them. But this measure really is the limit. I understand that 30,000 people in Gibraltar regard themselves as British. I refer also to other European Union nationals of other countries who happen to have the misfortune—in the eyes of the bureaucrats—to live in Gibraltar. All of them are denied the right to vote in European elections.
Whatever rather bogus arguments may have been proposed in 1978, the situation of Gibraltar has altered significantly. The European Parliament has acquired a much more extensive role in legislation which applies to Gibraltar, even to the extent of compelling the authorities in Gibraltar to embody certain directives and new laws in their arrangements. Yet in the electoral sense they will not have a say. It is even more staggering to note that French and Spanish territories on the continent of Africa are given full voting rights in European elections. To my simple mind it is difficult to extend the European Union across the Mediterranean to another continent. That seems not only illogical but indefensible. At this end of the Building we debate matters calmly. I hope that we can arrive calmly at some measure of agreement and put to right something which is quite indefensible.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: In a few moments I shall refer to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in their interesting speeches on Gibraltar. I shall for a moment or two address the wider issues. I find it hard to believe that the Schengen opt-out is of any great permanency. It was a convenient way of dealing with a difficult problem at the time. Denmark and the Republic

93
of Ireland opted out of the Schengen agreement. I believe that Denmark wanted to do so but that the Republic of Ireland did not.
The logic of the Schengen agreement is bound almost inevitably to "suck in" the countries that have presently opted out. I refer to having separate sets of policies with regard to third country residence. That raises difficult questions as regards the mobility of senior managers. To have separate visa requirements poses difficult questions. The issue of how to deal with refugee and asylum cases will produce the most horrendous problems for Her Majesty's Government, as those countries that are within the Schengen agreement will be inclined to export some of their problems to those countries that are outside the agreement. I do not say that with any prejudice because I think it is almost inevitable that a country which opts out of an arrangement which then becomes mutual is likely to be the one that loses most in terms of the advantages of such an arrangement.
The poor Minister is always being asked many questions. I shall try to keep mine as brief as possible and as relevant as possible. As regards those countries which are within the Schengen agreement—most of the treaty, including Articles 73J, 73K and 73M, concerns the situation within the Schengen agreement—why is there such a clear reference in the treaty to a three-month period of travel? It seems to me that this is profoundly restrictive. I do not understand why the period of three months is reiterated in the treaty, especially given the importance of trying to encourage people to study, to work, and to work as managers in other countries within the European Union. First, can the Minister throw any light on the reiteration of the three-month period, as if it were, in a sense, central to the granting of visas? Are we right in thinking that it is? Will there be a quite different procedure for people who arrive for more than three months than for those who arrive for less than three months if they are third party nationals? If so, on what basis do we justify this bureaucratic limit?
My second question concerns visas. Will Her Majesty's Government work with the other countries of the European Union on an informal or a co-operative basis with regard to those third country nationals who are neither members of the European Union—who would clearly be within the agreement—or who are members of the Commonwealth? Do the Government envisage any continuing special relationship for those Commonwealth countries which already have substantial numbers of their fellow citizens in this country as regards giving them some degree of preference over other third country nationals?
My third and most serious question concerns asylum and refugee policy. I shall not mince my words. A proper asylum and refugee policy has to be balanced between the need to prevent the swamping of a country by huge numbers of people coming in largely for economic reasons—clearly in our present deeply unequal world two-thirds of the world would like to move into one-third of the world as they would gain far better opportunities than they will enjoy at home—and the absolutely essential requirement that those who have
94
the courage to be political refugees in situations where there are major issues of principle at stake should be offered asylum. I take the example of courageous men and women in Nigeria who risk their lives and their safety for the sake of democracy. Are we to take the view that there are no political refugees at all and therefore we do not need to make provision for them?
Within the treaty there is a reference to that profoundly forgotten document; namely, the Dublin convention on asylum and refugees. There are some other references to the minimum conditions—I use the phrase from the treaty—applied to asylum status, refugee status, the reception of such people, their treatment and the way in which their claims are dealt with. I have recently read the report on Campsfield. Anyone who has read that report cannot for one moment pretend that this country has anything to teach our European neighbours, or they anything to teach us, in this regard. The record of Europe has moved from being excellent to being frankly disgraceful. Germany and Scandinavia and for a long time Great Britain had excellent records of offering asylum to genuine refugees. There are such people. Today all three countries are running away as fast as they can from the inheritance of the past.
I recognise fully that this matter presents us with most acute difficulties. The next decade will be a decade when people seek asylum by any means they can. The position will become more and more difficult. In no way do I hold Her Majesty's Government responsible for the endlessly lengthening queues. But we must have a sensible, reasonable and agreed policy for dealing with political refugees who are genuine cases. We must be humane in dealing with the cases that we do not accept as valid cases of asylum. We must recognise—here the treaty's words are correct—that there has to be a balance of responsibility between the member states of the European Union, or otherwise we shall simply find that we export the problem from one to the other in a kind of lurid form of pass-the-parcel in which human beings constitute the parcel and European states the players. I should be grateful for comments from the Minister on what I believe is one of the most difficult issues that we shall discuss tonight and one to which neither Schengen nor opting out of Schengen offers any satisfactory answer.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I hope I may ask a further question which arises from what the noble Baroness has said. So long as we are not members of Schengen, are we obliged to abide by the EU negative visa list to which the noble Baroness has referred, which contains an extraordinary anomaly that it includes countries such as India, Pakistan, Zambia, and many countries of the Commonwealth with whom we are on the closest and most longstanding terms, but, according to the EU's rules, we are required to ask them for visas? Are we required to do that or not? It is pretty odd that Latin American countries, whose nationals might be

95
supposed to be bringing drugs into Europe, are not on the list. I hope that the Minister will give me a clear answer. Do we have to recognise that list or not?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I had not completely finished what I had to say. I apologise, because I looked as if I was about to finish, but then I remembered that I had promised to say something about Gibraltar.
Let me make two comments about Gibraltar. First, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, about the illogic of excluding Gibraltar from having some voice in European elections. As long as Gibraltar is regarded in the European Union treaties as being associated with and in effect part of the United Kingdom, I believe that there must be some means of representation. If that means of representation is to make Gibraltar part of some other European Union constituency, so be it. What is crucial is that the voice of Gibraltarians should be represented in the European Parliament.
My second point on Gibraltar is perhaps more contentious. On this I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. With regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parks, I simply want to say—contentiously, if you like—that I believe that in the long run a solution may be found along the lines of that which is emerging in the Belfast agreement, where there would be some broad discussion with Spain but a recognition that self-determination must be the final criterion, but where Spain is brought in to discuss the logistics and transport issues that arise from Gibraltar's geographical placement. I regard the Belfast agreement as possibly a model for far beyond Northern Ireland. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord is nodding in agreement.
Lord Moynihan: It is important that in the context of this Committee stage we bear in mind the important comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who referred to the logic, as far as Schengen is concerned, of being sucked in, whether or not we particularly want to be. The implications there are very clear. When we consider the impact of Schengen, it is important for us to concentrate on the contribution that she has made.
Throughout the Committee proceedings I have sought from a variety of Ministers one of what are almost three Opposition pillars, the first being clarification, the second being an analysis of policy differences, and the third views on areas where we in Opposition believe that the Government have been incompetent in handling the negotiations. I regret in many ways that it falls to the Minister who will be at the Dispatch Box in a moment to answer charges of incompetence, but they are important and they will be analysed in some detail, not least because they have been referred to by my noble friend and definitely affect Gibraltar.
Before I come to the conflicting views and statements from the Government regarding Gibraltar, I should say that I have tabled new Clause 45 which seeks to correct this most grievous example of the sheer incompetence
96
of the Government's negotiations at Amsterdam. As I said in the Second Reading debate, the early hours of the morning appear to be a particularly low point for the Government's ability to negotiate, as is amply demonstrated by the negligent negotiation of the Schengen acquis. This agreement will move those countries who have chosen to participate in it towards a European Union without common border controls.
The Opposition welcomed the Government's seamless transition of policy in retaining sovereignty over Britain's border controls through the legal binding protocol to the treaty, although I hope that the Government recognise that our support on this is not surprising in the light of the agreement reached in March when a complete British opt-out on border controls was first agreed in principle before the general election. The Government are absolutely right to proclaim that this is a major achievement. That is exactly what it was: a Major achievement with a capital "M".
To put this point firmly on the record, let me refer to an article in the Financial Times in February 1997 which supports this claim:
"After a decade of battling against pressure to open up the frontiers as part of the EU's single market, the UK now seems certain to be offered an "opt-out" from a new treaty agreement which is expected to set 2001 as the target for banishing customs and police checks at national ports. Mr. Michael Patijn, the Minister for European affairs in the Netherlands, said it was now an accepted political fact that the UK's borders would not be given up in the interests of European Union integration".
I am also pleased that the Government have overcome their opposition to opt out:
"We reject permanent opt-outs or 'variable geometry'".
Time prevents me from indulging in a semantic argument over what I understand I must call the Government's right to opt in to any part of the proposals to establish a new area of freedom, security and justice.
This change to the third pillar of justice and home affairs represents the biggest change in the treaty, a point which has been recognised and echoed on many sides of the Chamber. It also represents the single largest transfer of the powers of member states to the Community contained in the treaty. Policy on asylum, immigration and visas will no longer be agreed intergovernmentally; instead we shall be "communitarised" within the European Union first pillar, into which the Schengen frontier zone will also be gradually integrated. This will allow the Commission to initiate proposals, and the institutions of the community will also participate. The European Parliament will be given a full role in these affairs, and the European Court will have legal review powers.
The creation of an area of freedom, security and justice was a main priority for other states to allow freedom of movement for people to become as much a reality as freedom of movement for goods and services. This has major constitutional importance, for, after five years, qualified majority voting will be introduced on these decisions if two-thirds of member states agree to this. This introduction of QMV after five years is critical.

97
I refer Members of the Committee to the fact that, to guarantee that an area of freedom, security and justice is established gradually in the Community, that five-year period from the entry into force of the treaty during which the Council will continue to take decisions by unanimous vote came against an interesting background. At the end of five years, Community decision-making procedures may be introduced if at least two-thirds of member states agree. In fact, it was pressure from Germany's 16 Länder, which share responsibility for immigration with the federal government, which caused Bonn to reverse its position on integrating justice and home affairs. On its insistence, such decisions will remain subject to such unanimous approval for the time being, as I have outlined. Some Länder, such as Bavaria, fear that co-ordinated European immigration policies could grant third-country residents living in one European Union country the same rights of movement as European Union citizens. They have insisted that Germany retains a veto on all issues of immigration policy. The treaty aims to remove obstacles to free movement and to strengthen the means available for maintenance of security. All frontier checks and internal border controls will be abolished, with one heavily policed external border ringing participant countries.
The Prime Minister told us:
"what we have secured, which is important and a better way of going about things, is what I call an opt-in. We have the power within the Treaty to go into any of these areas if we want to. If we do not want to, we need not, but if we do, no other country can block us"—[Official Report, Commons; 18/6/97; col. 319.]
I do not believe that that statement is correct. Subsequently the Foreign Secretary indicated that the Prime Minister's statement referred only to new Title IIIa on asylum, immigration and visas. That is indeed correct, but this seems a little strange since the Prime Minister's next sentence used the example of the Schengen acquis to illustrate his point. If the Minister tells me that the Prime Minister's statement applies only to Title IIIa on asylum, immigration and visas, can he explain to the Committee the distinction between the asylum, immigration and visa provisions under Title IIIa and the provisions of the Schengen acquis, the relationship between that title and the Schengen agreement, and, further, how the Schengen agreement will be incorporated into the treaties?
I seek clarification from the Minister on the issue of Article 4 of the protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union. I beg the indulgence and patience of the Committee while I dissect this extremely sorry saga in some detail, not least because of its importance to the people of Gibraltar.
It is my understanding that, as a result of negligence on the part of the Foreign Secretary, a late amendment by the Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar, was accepted into the treaty by default in the early hours of the morning of 18th June, meaning that any member state, including Spain, would have a veto over future opt-ins to the Schengen acquis which will be decided by unanimity rather than by qualified majority voting.
98
That potentially hands the Spanish a powerful bargaining chip with which to exact concessions over Gibraltar. I repeat the question of the noble Lord's colleague, the Labour Member for Wrexham, to the Foreign Secretary, when he wanted to know whether this had happened simply because
"Her Majesty's Government do not care about Gibraltar and give it a low priority, or was it just a government cock-up?"—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/97; col. 754.]
The Government have compounded that negligence and blunder by their utter failure to produce a clear, consistent and coherent explanation of what actually happened. Let us hope that we shall receive one tonight. But to date we have heard a catalogue of confused and contradictory explanations. It is important that the Committee is aware of those, because the Foreign Secretary's first explanation for the blunder was that it had been a "misunderstanding", and that the Dutch presidency's note-keeping was, "not as much as we would have wished it to be". That gave the impression that the Foreign Secretary had failed to challenge the Spanish Prime Minister's late amendment, perhaps, I venture, as a result of the lateness of the hour.
But three weeks later, the Foreign Secretary gave another explanation. He had indeed challenged the amendment, and it was withdrawn by the Spanish, only to reappear mysteriously in the text of the treaty when the Foreign Secretary received it "a week later". He explained that mysterious re-emergence as the result of a deal done between the Spanish Government and the Dutch presidency which was kept secret from the other member states and incorporated into the treaty after the negotiations had finished. He explained that,
"there was no cock-up in the Amsterdam Treaty negotiations".
I rather think that the government and people of Gibraltar think otherwise.
I sincerely hope that such hole-in-the-corner deals between member states following the conclusion of intergovernmental summits are not common. Certainly they do not inspire confidence in the European decision-making process.
But then, the Minister of State gave a third explanation, which contradicted that of his own Foreign Secretary. The Minister explained that the deal was not in fact done after the negotiations, but during the summit on the night of 16th/17th December before the negotiations had finished, but that it was still kept a secret from the other member states and incorporated into the treaty without their knowledge, although the United Kingdom found out about it a day after the summit concluded, when it received a copy of the revised treaty text on 19th June and not "after a week", as the Foreign Secretary had alleged.
On closer examination in another place, the Minister of State gave a fourth explanation: that it was in fact both—a deal done between the Dutch presidency and the Spanish Government in the margins of the summit and discussed afterwards, "when it was discovered there was a difference of historic interpretation".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/97; col. 568.]

99
Worse still, in alleging that the text of the treaty was changed, to the detriment of the United Kingdom, as the result of a private deal between two member states which was not communicated to the rest of the Council, the Government have managed to portray themselves as cuckolded by the Dutch presidency and the Spanish Government.
The Foreign Secretary has also effectively accused the Dutch Government of lying about whether a challenge to the amendment was made. He has effectively accused the same member state of inefficiency by criticising its note-keeping, although subsequently the Minister of State claimed that there were in fact no provisions for minutes to be taken or for a record.
I should like clarification on this matter. Is it the case that there was absolutely no provision for a record of the meeting in question? Is it not the case that the negotiations were recorded by the Dutch presidency? Would it be possible for the Government to clarify all of this by releasing those tapes in order to clear up the matter? What representations did the Foreign Secretary make to the presidency of the European Union about the bilateral agreement between Spain and the Dutch presidency? Was that matter raised as a priority at the Luxembourg Summit last December as it should have been for the people of Gibraltar?
The Dutch Government have, unsurprisingly, clearly been concerned by these extraordinary allegations in relation to the behaviour of two member states. They wrote to the British Government as long ago as 16th July. Given the Government's commitment to open government and transparency, not to mention their dislike of fraud, will they give the Committee an assurance this evening that that letter will be published?
It may be argued by some that the question of an opt-out is a technical point. That is neither our view nor that of the Foreign Office. When I say it is not the view of the Foreign Office, let me quote from the Foreign Office's memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which states:
"There may, however, be aspects of the Schengen acquis unrelated to the removal of frontier controls in which the United Kingdom will want to take part when the Schengen arrangements are brought within the EU Treaties … there may be areas of co-operation, notably on the fight against crime and drugs, where we will want to participate",
far further than potentially being sucked in at some stage in the future. That is a direct and clear view expressed by the Foreign Office about the current benefits in areas where the Government may wish to participate in the Schengen acquis. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I simply wish to clarify that when I use the phrase "sucked in" I mean sucked in essentially by the circumstances of organised crime and the movement of immigrants and refugees, not by some conspiracy.
Lord Moynihan: I had hoped that we had moved on from a clear explanation of the hole-in-the-corner affair to look at areas of the Schengen acquis where the noble
100
Baroness's point is well made. I refer not only to the potential for being sucked in in the future. Already, in Foreign Office memoranda, there are clearly stated areas where today it might be in the interests of the Government to pursue closer involvement with Schengen, not least, as the areas that the noble Baroness mentioned, in the fight against crime and drugs.
It may well be that the Foreign Secretary has secured the declaration of the whole Council which sets out that admission to the Schengen acquis would be on the basis of an opinion of the Commission. I wish to know from the Minister whether the declaration is legally binding in the same way as an amendment to the treaty.
I say that it is not the view of the Foreign Office that the opt-in is a technical point. It clearly is not. Nor is it the view of the Labour MP for Thurrock who has said that future UK governments may wish to opt in, that Article 4 substantially disadvantages Gibraltar for the future and that it puts a powerful tool at the disposal of the Spanish foreign ministry. He too wanted an explanation and he, too, as another Labour Member of Parliament, agreed that the episode illustrated how not to conduct negotiations.
But even if this lapse does not have serious consequences—and we on these Benches very much hope that it does not—it does not lessen the fact that the Foreign Secretary's negotiation being negligent the matter should be brought before this Committee and answers sought from Ministers. Without clarification one is left with lingering doubts about the Government's competence in negotiation, their ability to protect and enhance British interests in all future negotiations, and, frankly, a suspicion of gross dereliction of duty.
Was this what the Foreign Secretary had in mind when he spoke of Britain's "transformed" relations with our European partners? I sincerely hope that the episode is not an example of Britain being respected as a constructive partner with which the other countries of Europe can do business; that it is not an example of the Government getting a better deal for Britain as a result of their new co-operative approach. I hope it is not an example of how the Government intend to make Britain's voice heard in Europe. Rather, it makes a mockery of the Government's claims that their approach to negotiating in Europe is successful.
I have gone into the incident in some detail. I do so not just to highlight incompetence in negotiation. I do so first and foremost because every member of Gibraltar's government, everyone within Gibraltar, and many people in both Houses are very concerned about the implications of this late-night slip-up, whichever of the four different interpretations one may care to believe. Maybe we shall have a fifth tonight; I hope not. I hope we shall have clarification of exactly what happened. The people of Gibraltar should know. That is why I believe that it is important that the Committee has the opportunity to consider Amendment No. 45.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may be helpful if, first, we are clear in our minds which amendments we are talking about. The amendment moved was Amendment No. 14 which would exempt the whole of

101
Title IIIa, new Title IV, from the treaty. We follow with Amendment No. 15, which is concerned with Article 73j on border checks and visas; Amendment No. 16, concerned with Article 73k on asylum, refugees and immigration policy; Amendment No. 17, concerned with Article 73m on judicial co-operation in civil matters having cross-border implications; and Amendment No. 18, concerned with Article 73o, which, in turn, is concerned with the decision-making process and the review, which is referred to in the treaty, of the unanimity requirement.
Amendment No. 51 deals with Protocols 2 and 4 which in turn deal with the integration of the Schengen acquis and the UK and Ireland position in Protocol 4. Finally, Amendment No. 45, which has understandably taken up a good deal of time, is particularly concerned with Gibraltar.
Let me acknowledge right from the beginning that the free movement, Title IIIa, and the relationship which the United Kingdom and Ireland will have with the title is probably the most complicated part of the treaty. I say that with due deference to my noble friend Lord Whitty who understands complications which I do not even start to comprehend.
It was a basic negotiating objective for the United Kingdom that a way be found at Amsterdam to give the United Kingdom an explicit assurance of its right to keep internal frontier controls and to retain national control of the sensitive area of immigration and asylum. Equally, however, a way had to be found to accommodate the majority who wanted to use the EU treaties to create an area of passport-free travel within the EU in which policies on immigration, asylum and other related matters would be closely harmonised. The result was an elaborate system of overlapping text, including the various articles under Title IIIa, the two protocols to which I referred and declarations (in particular Declaration 45 which is concerned with Gibraltar), plus a range of opt-in and flexibility provisions. On top of that, we have the text of the Schengen acquis itself and the various decisions which have been taken subsequent to the adoption of the Schengen acquis.
Let me set out briefly what the implications of this package will be to this country. Under the treaty our legal right to maintain frontier controls is explicitly enshrined in EC law. It is important to say that because this is the first time it has happened. That alone is a substantial achievement for the United Kingdom and, judging from the speeches which have been made, one which is welcome in this Chamber. A protocol to the treaty integrates the Schengen agreements and existing Schengen measures—the subsequent documents to which I referred—into the framework of the European Union and sets out procedures for future UK and Irish participation in Schengen measures to the extent that our two countries wish to be involved.
In relation to the free movement, Title IIIa, we will not be bound by any measure adopted under it except where we so choose. However, arrangements are set out in Protocol 4 by which the United Kingdom and Ireland can participate in measures adopted under this title. That
102
means that we will be able to decide whether we want to take part in individual measures adopted under the title. That is quite different from the situation before, where we only had the choice of being wholly in or wholly out of these arrangements. Our main consideration will be whether participation would make us better able to implement UK immigration and asylum policies and safeguard harmonious race relations. Where civil judicial co-operation is concerned, we will similarly want to take a pragmatic decision on participation which will depend on the nature of the measure.
I return to the incorporation into the EU framework of the measures agreed among themselves by the Schengen member states. The arrangements I described are rather different where a measure forms part of the Schengen acquis; in other words, where a measure is part of that package of measures agreed unanimously among the Schengen states in the context of the Schengen agreement—a treaty aimed at the removal of frontier controls between its party states and to which we are not a party and (I emphasise this) have no intention of becoming a party.
Even in that area we have the right, under Amsterdam, to participate in individual measures should we wish to do so and should the others agree. Where the UK and Ireland wanted to take part in a Schengen measure, the Commission would be asked to deliver an opinion. In practice, we have no intention of signing up to the Schengen acquis in full. That would be inconsistent with our determination to maintain frontier controls. Many of the existing Schengen measures are aimed at creating a system able to dispense with internal frontier controls and are therefore unlikely to be of operational value to the United Kingdom. I need only to point to the well-known differences of geography—the absence of land frontiers.
However, we may want to take part in some of those measures; for example, in so far as they relate to drugs or crime. We know that our partners are keen for the United Kingdom to play a full role in helping to keep Europe safe for our citizens. They have all signed up to a declaration making clear that they will use their best efforts to enable us to do so where we wish. That is Declaration 45, to which I have already referred. Where a new measure is being developed which builds on the Schengen acquis, the United Kingdom and Ireland may participate as of right, whether the measure is being developed under the new free movement Title IIIa or the revised third pillar. The agreement of the others is not required in that regard.
Clearly, I shall come on in some detail to the issue of Gibraltar, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred. However, before I set out the Government's position on that, perhaps I might deal with the individual points made by Members of the Committee in the debate.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart asked how European Union citizens could be kept out of the United Kingdom. As he is well aware, it is not just European Union citizens; it is the citizens of the European free trade area, an organisation to which I know he attaches credit.

103
European Union and EFTA citizens already have a right to enter the United Kingdom; that is fundamental to the principle of free movement. We have a right to ensure that someone who claims to be an EU citizen possesses documentation that proves that to be the case. In direct answer to my noble friend, therefore, if there is any doubt about a person's citizenship, officials can examine documentation and exercise powers to search belongings and so forth. I can assure my noble friend that that situation is not changed by anything in the Amsterdam Treaty.
My noble friend went on to ask whether legislation would be needed if the United Kingdom wanted to join the Schengen acquis. If we wanted to joint the Schengen acquis in total and we wanted to participate solely in the zone of free movement by changing the EC treaty—I have already made it clear that that is not our intention—for example, by removing the United Kingdom borders opt-out, Parliament would need to be consulted because a Bill would be required. Therefore, there would be full parliamentary scrutiny. If we wanted to opt in only to a limited part of the Schengen acquis—for example, matters relating to police co-operation—the normal parliamentary arrangements for European Union measures would apply. In other words, it would be available, after sifting, for scrutiny by our own European Communities Committee and there would be opportunities for debate, which I and my noble friends on the Front Bench have already explained to the Committee. The Home Secretary has given an assurance to a committee in the other place that if the United Kingdom wants to participate in aspects of the Schengen acquis, that will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, the need for legislation would depend on whether existing United Kingdom law required amendment in order to implement the measures in question.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked me about the three-month period which is referred to on a number of occasions in Title IIIa. The three-month period is the period for the short-term visa for which there is to be, and is and will be, a uniform Schengen visa. Longer visits or settlement—this would include visits to this country for lengthy periods of study—are not covered by Schengen. Visas for such purposes are a matter for individual states and will remain a matter for individual states. The fact that we are opting out of Schengen in any case means that we do not have to operate the Schengen short-term visa unless we choose to do so.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Park, asked whether we will work with our partners to give preference to Commonwealth citizens. We will need to consider how far we want to co-operate with our partners in visa arrangements. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, will know, visa co-operation, even under Maastricht, is a matter for qualified majority voting. We already have agreement with our partners on the European Union common visa list, which sets out certain countries for which all European Union member states must have a visa regime. That seems sensible. Clearly, under QMV it will be difficult to guarantee special arrangements relating to Commonwealth
104
citizens. Although we are part of the EU common visa list, what Amsterdam provides is a choice as to whether we take part in any future arrangements. We are not bound by the Schengen visa list, which is more extensive than the EU common visa list.
I turn now to the issue of asylum, which was referred to particularly by my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. The UK does and will retain its right to deal with asylum applications under the 1951 Geneva UN Convention on Refugees. Even the most recent asylum and immigration legislation of the previous Conservative Government started off with a declaration that anything that was done would be in accordance with the 1951 convention. The noble Baroness asked me about the Dublin convention, which relates to the member state in which an asylum application should be made. As she will know, the Dublin convention only came into force with the last signatories in December of last year. The arrangements under the Dublin convention will remain in force under the Amsterdam Treaty. If the Schengen members decide, once Amsterdam is in force, to agree further measures dealing with asylum, the UK will have the option of joining in, or not, as it chooses, but if we do not opt in we will not be bound by any such measures and our existing rights of asylum will not be changed.
In taking asylum generally, we co-operate with our partners on some aspects of asylum policy, but always in the context of our obligations under the 1951 convention. It is that convention which is the foundation of our national asylum policy. The fact that there have been difficulties with people coming over in the past few months is evidenced by the fact that the Dublin convention came into force only in December of last year and, clearly, it still needs time to settle down. But I am confident that it will be possible to do that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one brief, technical question. Under the Dublin convention will the last friendly country be assumed to be a nation state or the Schengen agreement countries as a whole?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that it is the first country of entry into the European Union rather than the last friendly country which is covered by the Dublin convention. My understanding is that the Dublin convention applies to Schengen and non-Schengen countries alike. So it is where entry takes place into the European Union rather than the last friendly country which is the consideration.
Before I return to the subject of Gibraltar, which is clearly of concern, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that I do not agree with his claim that the move after five years to qualified majority voting will take place if two-thirds of the member states agree. The treaty states quite clearly in Article 73o that the Council has to act unanimously in order to make a decision as to whether to move to qualified majority voting or to stay with unanimity.
I now turn to the issue of Gibraltar. I recognise that this is a highly sensitive and difficult issue. I refer Members of the Committee not only to the text of the treaty itself, but to Protocol IV and Declaration 45.

105
We shall continue to defend vigorously the position of Gibraltar in the European Union and the Community law rights of Gibraltarians, in particular existing rights of free movement in the EU. There is nothing in the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty which erodes these rights, nor which gives Spain any additional rights over its border with Gibraltar.
Where a measure that the UK would like to opt into is potentially relevant to Gibraltar, our approach will give due weight to the interests of the UK and to the interests of Gibraltar, as with any other EU measure. Where the UK opts in it will negotiate robustly and in good faith, taking fully into account the interests of Gibraltar.
Nevertheless, a number of criticisms have been levelled at the Government, both here and in another place, on their negotiation of the provisions for UK participation in existing Schengen measures. I would therefore like to take this opportunity, as I was invited to do by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to set the record straight about what happened at Amsterdam.
During the course of the debate at the European Council, Spain proposed an amendment to the Schengen Protocol to bring in unanimity for UK and Irish participation in the existing Schengen acquis. I am talking about the Schengen acquis, the core text, rather than to any subsequent agreements. At the insistence of the Foreign Secretary, there was agreement that any such amendment should be submitted in writing by Spain. No such amendment was submitted.
When the revised treaty text was circulated after the Summit, we subsequently learnt that the unanimity requirement had been introduced into the text. We took that up with the Dutch presidency and a number of member states. It emerged that there was a misunderstanding about what had been agreed at Amsterdam. As a result of that intervention we obtained Declaration 45 that provides protection for the UK's interests in this area.
The declaration invites the Council to seek the opinion of the Commission before it decides on a request by the United Kingdom to participate in any measure in the existing acquis. Moreover, member states undertake to use their best efforts to enable the UK to participate.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: I am most grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. He said that these matters were taken up with the Dutch Government and I asked whether it would be possible—it would certainly assist the Committee—to see a copy of the letter which the Dutch Government wrote back to our Government. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that letter will be published.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, it is not normal practice for intergovernmental correspondence of that kind to be published. Perhaps I may anticipate the noble Lord's next question. Members of his party in another place have asked several questions about the availability
106
of the tapes of the debates in the Council. The answer which has been given consistently, and which I now give, is that the tapes are not available to member states.
The important thing is not the process of what happened on a particular night, however late, in June, but the result. Declaration 45, which has been attached to the final Act of the treaty, makes the provision, to which I have referred, for the Council to seek the opinion of the Commission before it decides on such a request from the UK or Ireland. Other member states undertake to make their best efforts available to allow the UK or Ireland to participate. Moreover, the UK cannot be blocked from opting into proposals and initiatives which build upon the Schengen acquis. That is a declaration of the intergovernmental conference. It is politically binding on all member states and any decision to allow the UK or Ireland to participate in the existing Schengen measures will be a political decision.
Noble Lords have referred to the issue of Gibraltarians taking part in European parliamentary elections. We understand the strong feelings in Gibraltar about the lack of representation in the European Parliament. As has been said, it is true that Gibraltar is bound by a number of directives from the Commission and the Parliament. We have reviewed the situation, but we have had to conclude that the practical and legal difficulties of any change would be formidable. The main obstacle is the requirement to amend the 1976 European Communities Act on direct elections, which has treaty status. An amendment would require the agreement of all member states and subsequent ratification by all member states. The prospect of securing that is uncertain, to say the least. Therefore, we are not attracted to pursuing that possibility now when the chances of such an agreement remain so uncertain. We have other priorities to pursue on Gibraltar's behalf.
I hope that that has set out the position on the negotiations that took place and how they affected Gibraltar in the context of Title IIIa of the protocols, and now of the declaration which has been appended to the treaty.
The free movement title is enormously important and valuable. It is clearly right that those who wish to open their frontiers internally should be able to do so, but at the same time that the position of the UK, which sees, or may well in the future see, advantage in particular aspects of the title but which is determined not to have an open frontier policy, should be protected. Our negotiations at Amsterdam provided both the freedom for the Schengen countries to go ahead as they wish and a clarification and assurance that our opt-out from the Schengen agreement is accepted and included in the treaty, and that we have the ability and the power to adopt those parts of the title that are consistent with our own national interests. That has been our concern throughout, and that has been the result of our negotiations at Amsterdam.
Lord Moynihan: Before the Minister concludes his remarks—I thank him for going into these points in detail—I must press him once more on this matter. For a Government who are totally committed to transparency and openness, I believe that on an issue of

107
such critical importance to the people of Gibraltar, and where it is well known that this exchange of correspondence has taken place, it would be of considerable help to make this information available. I do not understand why the Government are not happy to do that. Since the Minister has rightly come clean on every aspect, I do not understand why he cannot give a commitment to publish the letter.
Ironically, he anticipated my second question, which I had not asked. Part of the reason for not asking it was that I took as read the claim by the Minister of State in another place that there were no provisions for minutes to be taken or that there were no tapes. Given that there were Amsterdam tapes, surely it would be helpful if the relevant extracts could be made public along with the letter to clear up these matters. In the interests of open government, surely there is every benefit in making available this information on a matter of critical importance to the people of Gibraltar.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that the noble Lord need be in any doubt about our adherence to open government. It would be a quite remarkable state of affairs if, in conflict with all of the principles of diplomatic negotiation between nation states, we unilaterally published confidential correspondence between one nation state and another. The noble Lord's government did not do it. I believe that I see the noble Baroness, Lady Park, nodding in agreement. I think I am right in understanding that she also cannot imagine how it would be done. I do not think that on this occasion we can make such a major change.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Before the noble Lord sits down, some noble Lords will be greatly encouraged by his words in regard to voting rights for Gibraltarians for the time being. I hope that I do not misquote him. Will Her Majesty's Government give some thought to the helpful suggestion that has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in regard to the Belfast treaty? That is not as far fetched as it may seem. That treaty now provides a consultative mechanism for overseas British territories such as all three Channel Islands separately plus the Isle of Man. That is not too great a stretch of the imagination.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I might add to what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has said. There are always ways of easing situations in which the law stands in the way. Another suggestion I make so that the Minister can turn it over in his mind is the possibility perhaps on one occasion a year of allowing a representative of Gibraltar, possibly the Prime Minister, to meet the British delegation to the European Parliament so that he can at least be assured that the concerns of Gibraltar are heard by those who are legitimately Members of that Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that both suggestions will be treated with the seriousness that they
108
deserve by Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I would not wish to give the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, the wrong impression. In my reply I believe that I described the formidable obstacles to be overcome if a change were to be made to the European Communities Act 1976 in order to give Gibraltarians a vote in the European Parliament. Not least it would require the unanimous agreement of all member states and unanimous ratification afterwards. Those are formidable obstacles.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting and wide-ranging debate. I also thank my noble friend for his detailed response to the many questions raised by noble Lords. I am relieved that he has given as absolute an undertaking as he can that we shall not join the full acquis system and that ratification of the treaty by Parliament in no way gives the Government carte blanche to accede to the acquis without proper parliamentary debate and consent. However, I am not quite as reassured by his statement that we could enter parts of it without primary or secondary legislation, although parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation would take place. I am most obliged to my noble friend for all the replies that he has given me. Naturally I want to study them, and, if necessary, bring back matters on Report.
I am also happy with my noble friend's assertion that so far as concerns asylum, it is the first friendly country and not the last that is responsible for giving asylum to asylum seekers. Presumably the Belgians and Italians know and understand that and will ensure that people who land in their countries seeking asylum will not be trained on to London or any other railway station in this country. I hope that I have that assurance and that I understand it completely. If I do not have it right, perhaps my noble friend will intervene and say that I have not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Pepper v. Hart says that what Ministers say on legislation can be taken into account in the courts. It does not say that what other people say in debate has to be taken into account or that the failure or unwillingness of Ministers to reply to statements with which they do not agree has to be taken into account in the courts. If I have misled the Committee or my noble friend in any way, I shall of course write to him.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is satisfactory, and I thank my noble friend. We rightly had a number of speeches on Gibraltar. The Gibraltarians are concerned about their position and want it rectified. Representation is probably a matter not for this Bill but for the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which could perhaps be amended to accommodate Gibraltar, although, as my noble friend said, it would be difficult to achieve. If I can help in any way, of course I shall do so, although I do not know when we shall be considering it.
I am worried about what happened about the Spanish amendment in the Council. I spoke earlier about the hole-in-the-corner way that things are done in the EU.

109
That seems to confirm my view of it. Here we have what appeared to be an agreed text being amended by the presidency in consort with a member state without the member state which was going to be most affected being aware or informed of it. That is absurd, outrageous and completely unacceptable. I do not know whether the British Government noticed that before or after the treaty was signed. If they noticed it before the treaty was signed, why on earth did they sign a treaty to which they had not agreed? My noble friend might check on that and drop me a line about it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can spare my noble friend the pain of receiving correspondence from me. The answer to his question is that we saw to it that Declaration 45 was added to the treaty.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I hope that that is satisfactory. We shall see in due course. Again, I find it almost inconceivable that parties to a discussion which is tape recorded do not have access to those tapes when there is a dispute. I would have thought that since it was a Council discussion the tapes belong to the Council and that, if there was a dispute, all its members had the right to say, "Let us listen to the tapes." After all, even we in this House, if there is a dispute as to what we say, may listen to the parliamentary tapes. Why on earth in matters of great moment—greater moment than we discuss here—cannot governments or their representatives be allowed to listen to the tapes? I do not expect an answer from my noble friend, but I confess that I am completely amazed by the whole business. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 20 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 1, line 13, after ("2") insert ("(except paragraph 40)").
The noble Lord said: The treaty with which we are dealing today contains a large number of amendments to the Union treaty. It is possible to trace most of the reasons for their inclusion. One may not always agree with the amendments to the treaty set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, but one can at least understand the reasons and importance attached to them.
The amendments we are now considering deal with paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, set out on page 38. They can be found within the original setting at pages 75 and 76 of that invaluable document, The Treaty of Amsterdam in Perspective. I cannot imagine how those two measures found their way for consideration at the conference held on the treaty.
Paragraph 40 relates to the appointment of the president and members of the Commission. Paragraph 41 relates to extra powers to be given to the president of the Commission. I cannot for the life of me understand who put the proposal forward or the reasons for it. It may conceivably be part of a greater deal
110
reached between the parties in the course of the negotiations. In precise terms, it provides:
"The governments of the Member States shall nominate by common accord the person they intend to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament".
That is a new adjunct to the appointment. I suppose that it can be expected; there is no particular reason why the appointment should not be approved by the European Parliament.
Lord Renton: The word "shall" in that context could have a double meaning. It could mean that the parliament has no option but to be a rubber stamp; it has to approve. Alternatively, it could mean also that the appointment could not be effective unless approved by the European Parliament. If I am right that there is a genuine ambiguity, I should be most grateful if the noble Lord will give us his opinion as to which interpretation may be right.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Read in terms of the actual text, it appears to follow automatically. The paragraph states:
"The governments of the Member States shall nominate by common accord the person they intend to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament".
I do not know whether that is a command to the European Parliament to approve automatically or whether the European Parliament has a discretion in the matter. I am quite content to accept the interpretation that the European Parliament definitely has some choice, if sufficient of its members are present in plenary at the time to be qualified to record a vote at all.
It then goes on to state:
"The governments of the Member States shall, by common accord with the nominee for President, nominate the other persons whom they intend to appoint as Members of the Commission".
Since when has the nominee for president of the European Commission been given the power of veto over who the member states may decide to nominate as members of the Commission? That is extraordinary.
It would be bad enough if the provision referred to "The member states, by common accord, with the president of the Commission"—but no, they are supposed to arrive at an accord on the persons to be appointed members of the Commission, with a person whose status is not even that of president yet but merely a nominee. That seems to be quite extraordinary.
I pass no particular observation other than to say that it is quite true that the president of the Commission over the years—and to my own personal knowledge I speak of the time since 1975 when I first became a member of the European Parliament—has steadily acquired more influence. That has matched the growing influence of the Commission itself which has become the powerhouse, in effect, of developments within the European Union. That is quite natural because that is its function. It does not have to govern member states; it has no departmental responsibilities to anybody; it has no territory to administer and no armed forces, yet, at

111
its disposal. Its entire function is to carry forward the impetus towards its own objectives, which it puts most forcefully.
Therefore, one can understand that some further formal recognition of importance as an individual member state is sought. I do not speak of Luxembourg, which has the population of Bristol, but of Germany and the larger member states. We are arrogating to the nominee for the post of president of the Commission a power of veto.
I should have thought that the Commission has power enough. Of its own accord, it appoints ambassadors throughout the world without any objection from the Council. In fact, under the treaties, the Council cannot object in any event. It administers whole areas of finance, quite out of control of the Council. It makes apportionments of budgeted funds in relation to various projects without the slightest need to have the consent of the Council. Therefore, it is extremely powerful.
Some people in the United Kingdom might wear that; but I do not intend to do so. I do not approve of, and will not agree to—and I am now a European citizen, too, although I did not elect to become one—the president of the Commission, let alone a nominee president, having that power of veto. There are, of course, circumstances in which that might be possible, but that in itself would be in breach of the treaty. Because it is the only logical supposition, are we to suppose that member states of the European Parliament, before they nominate a president of the Commission, will make unofficial inquiries to him as to who in advance he is prepared to approve as a member? Surely that is rather a degrading position for a member state to find itself in.
I do not necessarily stand on ceremony, and other countries can take whatever consciousness of their national identity as they wish. However, as a Briton, I object to it. No doubt the Government can tell us who raised the proposition. Who put it forward in the negotiations over Amsterdam? Surely it could not have been the British Government putting forward such a proposal. If so, what kind of package deal was involved in giving way to the wishes of the president? Surely these questions require answers. They do not even involve party politics.
I turn now to the second item which is to be found in paragraph 41 of the treaty and which reads:
"The Commission shall work under the political guidance of the President".
Tut, tut: what political guidance? Members of the Commission are supposed to be quite objective in their work and they are not supposed to pay attention to representations from outside. They are supposed to be—and I have no doubt that they are—persons of the utmost personal integrity. But now, suddenly, out of the blue and without any discussion, we see that the president of the Commission shall give "political guidance". But what kind of political guidance will that be?
Perhaps we shall be given some idea as to what was in the minds of the representatives of Her Majesty's Government who apparently agreed to this clause. Will the president of the Commission be able to define what
112
the attitude of individual members of the Commission is, for example, towards the budget? Alternatively, will he be in a position to satisfy himself as to whether the existing control of European affairs at Commission level is adequate? In the event of arguments between one or another member state, will he be able to decide which side to take? All these matters fall due to be considered. There should be answers to them.
For my own part, as regards any endeavour by the president of the Commission to give any kind of political guidance whether party, ideological or even technical—as long as it comes within the term "political"— I do not think that he should be entitled to do this. I am at a complete loss to understand why these amendments should ever have been included within the treaty itself. I cannot find any reason for them at all unless they mark the relentless advance of the president of the Commission and the members of the Commission towards the progressive achievement of their goal of the ultimate government of a federal Europe. That is the only thing that makes sense and is fully in accordance, incidentally, with an instance that I reported to this Chamber many years ago—this is not new—when the then spokesman, Mr. de Vries, talking on behalf of the socialist group in the European Parliament, said that there should be no misunderstanding. He said that his party believed in the Commission becoming the government and Parliament exercising its normal parliamentary functions over them.
This is my suspicion. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will be able to dispel it and say that the insertion of these absurd clauses in the Treaty of Amsterdam was something that happened while people were taking a post-prandial nap, or that they were smuggled into the presidential summary without anyone's knowledge. That has often been the case. Certainly there must be some logical explanation for a ridiculous action such as this. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: Before the noble Lord sits down, if the president of the Commission whose authority he is questioning happened to be British, would he express the same opposition?
Lord Bruce of Donington: The answer is yes.
Baroness Ludford: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, wondered why these proposals had been put forward. I confess that I do not know who put them forward. I hope it may have been the British Government; I would be proud if that were the case as I submit that these proposals, which do not please the noble Lord, seek to improve the quality and the accountability of the Commission.
We are dealing with three issues. The first concerns the greater involvement of the European Parliament in approving commissioners. The second concerns giving the president in waiting a say in the appointment of his or her colleagues. The third concerns encouraging the president to be a real team leader. As regards the involvement of the European Parliament, the

113
Amsterdam Treaty simply builds on the influence granted to the European Parliament by the Maastricht Treaty. Maastricht gave the European Parliament the right of approval of the whole Commission before appointment by governments. The Parliament used this power in 1995 to hold a series of hearings before approving the Santer Commission as a whole. Therefore the practice of questioning individual commissioners—the president and others—has already been established.
It is but a small further step for the president on his or her own to be subject to approval by the European Parliament. Surely accountability can only help to ensure that the president is of the highest possible standard. Will the Minister confirm that the word "shall" in relation to the European Parliament's approval process means that the European Parliament is obliged to institute an approval process—that is, it means more than "may"—and indeed that the European Parliament can approve or reject?
By the same logic of what I have said about the president, we on these Benches would like in the future to see the European Parliament acquire the right to approve individual commissioners via a series of confirmation hearings analogous to the way in which the US Senate approves executive appointments. That is not on offer now, but I flag it up for the future.
The second issue challenged in these amendments is that the putative president should have a say in the appointment of other commissioners. This is only formalising the previous behind-the-scenes soundings. I do not believe that we would think much of any nominee who did not have sufficient leadership aspirations to want to influence his team.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Will the noble Baroness give way? On my reading of the treaty, it is not that the president elect will have "some say" in the nomination of the other members of the Commission; it is that he will have a veto. It says:
"The governments of the member states shall"
and the new words in the Amsterdam Treaty are,
"by common accord with the nominee for President, nominate the other persons whom they intend to appoint as Members of the Commission".
To me, that means that if that common accord is not there, nobody can be appointed. It means that the president elect of the Commission can go on blackballing anyone he likes until eventually the member states come up with a Commission that suits him. That gives the man a veto.
Baroness Ludford: I stand corrected. It is indeed the approval of the president in waiting that is required. I stand corrected on my loose use of the term "a say". That leads on to the question I was about to ask the Minister. Can he confirm that the term "nominee" means after approval by the European Parliament, so that this nominee is truly the president in waiting and does not have that rather irresponsible power to horse-trade which I believe the noble Lord was suggesting? I believe that, once the nominee is the
114
president in waiting, having been approved by the European Parliament, we can have good confidence in the responsibility of that person.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness again, but I do not agree. The fact that the president elect, or the president in waiting, has become the president and as such has the power of veto to which I referred earlier does not make any difference. It merely makes him more presidential and less acceptable to those of us who support these amendments.
Baroness Ludford: The noble Lord and I will not agree. I believe that it is a good idea for the president of the Commission to have responsibility for his or her team, and the noble Lord perhaps does not. Therefore I fear that we shall not see eye to eye. What I want to achieve—and I therefore applaud these provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty—is a position where the president of the Commission cannot evade responsibility for the performance of a weak colleague, as can happen at present, by pointing out that he or she has to put up with the choice of governments; that the president simply has to take what they decide and therefore "the buck does not stop here", as it were. We on these Benches want the Commission president to be a true team leader. We do not expect team leaders in other circumstances—a sports team captain or a business chief executive, for example—to have no ability to approve the selection of the team.
Finally, on political guidance, perhaps that term should not be interpreted in the way the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, interprets it. I do not believe that it means that a socialist president—if socialists exist any more—should ensure that all his team are socialists. I believe it means political with a small "p" and that the president will be responsible for keeping the team in line and working well. We believe that giving the president this kind of influence will make him or her accountable for the effective working of the Commission as a whole and improve the chances of the Commission being cohesive and efficient. It will help to meet the aim of the declaration at Amsterdam by the heads of government supporting the rationalisation and reorganisation of the Commission to improve its effectiveness.
This provision is not about the president forcing unwanted appointments down the throats of governments. We therefore believe that the provisions challenged by these amendments are designed to improve the quality and accountability of the Commission and are laudable. It is surely not in the interests of our citizens or our governments to block improvements in the working of the Commission. These amendments cannot be supported from these Benches.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I might put one question to her. She said that her party looks for leadership qualities in any president of the European Commission. Since when has a civil

115
servant been required to have leadership qualities? Such qualities are required in a politician, such as the Prime Minister of a nation state, not in a civil servant.
Baroness Ludford: I should have thought that anyone in a position of public responsibility, or indeed in the private sector, would be expected to have leadership qualities—the Permanent Secretary of a Whitehall department, the chief executive of a company or the captain of a sports team. Surely we are looking for qualities across the spectrum of leadership and ability to inspire loyalty, hard work and effectiveness. I am afraid I am at a loss otherwise to answer the noble Lord's point.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Surely it is inherent in the notion of any effective servant of an organisation—which this person, as president, would be—that he or she is expected to be a good manager and to have loyalty and all the other qualities. But they are not expected to give a political lead. We cannot get round the word "political". It suggests directions, guidelines, acting as if the Union were one political body. That is what concerns us.
Lord Renton: Constitutional democracies vary a great deal, but they all have four factors in common. They have a head of state who may be, like our Queen, the sovereign head of the state, or, like the President of the United States, may also be a politician, providing leadership to the nation. All democracies have their political bodies—in our case a Cabinet and other Ministers. They all have a Civil Service; and they all have a Parliament.
With those factors in mind, it is interesting to consider the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, with great clarity and force in moving this amendment so that we can see and understand clearly what it is to be like in the European Union (I avoid the word "Commission" for the moment). There will not be anything analogous at all with a head of state—either political, as in America, or an hereditary head of state, as in this country, or with an elected head of state who keeps himself above party politics. There will be none of that, so far as we can tell.
We know that there is to be a gathering of democratically elected politicians serving on the Council of Ministers. That is analogous with the Cabinet in our country. We know that there is a Parliament. In our country, our Parliament, coupled with the Queen, is given sovereignty. The Civil Service does not have to share sovereignty at all. It is separate from it and subordinate to it. None of us would imagine giving the head of the Civil Service—and calling him a president—the kind of power that is now envisaged under the Treaty of Amsterdam.
The Government must do their best—they may find it very difficult—to explain two matters in particular. They must first explain how it is that the president of the Commission is to have this tremendous power, which Parliament, it would seem, in making his appointment,
116
has to endorse whether it likes it or not. Or it may—we should be glad to be told—have a discretion not to endorse it.
The other matter I find strange is that the president of the Commission shall give political guidance to other members of the Commission. Whoever heard of the head of the Civil Service in any democracy in the world having a power and an obligation to give political guidance to his subordinates? If anyone is to give political guidance, it is the Ministers at the head of each department, but not the head of the Civil Service. The Prime Minister can give political guidance to the whole of the Government if he has the support of the Cabinet. Those are important questions to which constitutionally we must have an answer.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend sits down, I might have misunderstood him, but I do not think I heard him recognise the fact that the Commission to which he referred, under the Treaty of Rome, has the monopoly of proposing legislation to the Council and the institutions of the Community for acceptance. So we are looking at a budding presidential system, with a president or president-elect who has the power to blackball every other member of the Commission and to give them political guidance for an institution of the Community which has the monopoly of proposing legislation. I submit that it takes my worries a little further than those expressed by my noble friend Lord Renton.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am surprised that another place should have let this go through without much discussion. We see the power seeping away gradually from the British Parliament, and the House of Commons in particular. They seem not to realise what is happening. My noble friend and others have exposed what is happening, but the House of Commons does not appear to understand that every time it gives the power to an institution of the European Community, it takes perhaps just a little bit—but it is a little bit or a big bit—of power away from Parliament.
Let us take the appointment of the president of the Commission. Up to now, or up to the time when the Amsterdam Treaty goes through, he will have been appointed by the elected representatives from their parliament, in other words the individual governments. So our Prime Minister will have something to do with the appointment of the president of the Commission, untrammelled by anything else.
Now the European Parliament comes into it, so that in itself weakens the vote of the British Prime Minister and every other Prime Minster. Thus another little bit of power has seeped away from Parliament, in particular the House of Commons. Of course, the House of Commons is the real representative body of the people of Britain. When it gives the power to the president to refuse the nomination of a representative of its Parliament—the Prime Minister—again it loses a little bit of its power. The House of Commons has ceded it to someone else; indeed, in this case not even to an elected body but to an appointed person. So the House

117
of Commons has now ceded its power to an official, for that is what he is. Because they will weaken the political presidency and have given a share in political guidance to an official, they will have weakened themselves and a bit more power seeps away from the House of Commons to the institution of Europe.
That is why I am surprised that the House of Commons did not block this. It was its duty to block it. It is the true representative of the British people. It is to the House of Commons that the people have given power and the people do not give power for it to be ceded to somebody else. I am sorry therefore that it did not do what I consider to be its duty.
However, as my noble friend Lord Bruce said, it is part of the plot. We know well that the federalists or the unitarists wish to see the Commission as the government of Europe. That is no secret. The European Parliament passed a resolution in that regard. That is the game plan—that eventually the Commission will become the government of Europe and the parliament will become the parliament of Europe. But they want to speak for the peoples of Europe; not Westminster, but Strasbourg and Brussels. They are the people who will speak for the British people. Anybody who doubts that needs only to look at the issue we are discussing. It is a move forward to that position.
I asked a question as to why, in discussions, reference was made to "President Santer" rather than to the "President of the European Commission", but reference was made to the "President of the Council" rather than to "President Blair". I thought that the real president of Europe was the president of the Council for the time being. That is Mr. Blair, for the time being. The answer came back that the president of the Commission was always referred to as "the president". So, by nomenclature, he is already the "president of Europe" and poor Mr. Blair is relegated to being the "President of the European Council".
One can see where we are going. We are going away from an elected system to an appointed system. That is not democratic. I thought we were all democrats here. In fact, it is anti-democratic and should not go further. Indeed, the reason these amendments are tabled is to try to prevent it going further. We believe it is dangerous.
In relation to political protection, we must know from my noble friend what that means—whether it means that the president of the Commission will give a political lead or whether he will become the political leader rather than the troika which is at present the leader under the presidency of the European Council for the time being. We also want to know whether the president is the president with a writ firmly to impose his views and his discipline, or whether he is primus interpares. That is an important distinction and we are entitled to know exactly what the president will be. If we are not careful, we could be on our way to a nasty little dictatorship. The question is asked, "Why do people like Stoddart, Bruce and Tebbit become so worked up about this whole thing?" The answer is that we believe in democracy. We see steps like this as taking us away from a proper democratic system in which the people and not the officials rule.
118
I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some answers tonight that will put our very real fears at rest. I am not at all sure that he will be able to.
Lord Moynihan: The amendments that I have tabled on Article 2.40 and 2.41 relate to another area addressed in the treaty which has been debated by noble Lords on both sides of the Committee. The debate has focused on the reforms to the appointment of the president of the Commission and new commissioners from member states. It seems yet again that the Government may simply not have been present at the time of negotiation on these points for nowhere in the treaty is the Government's negotiating failure more clear. Nowhere in the treaty is the Government's giveaway more apparent and nowhere in the treaty have the Government sacrificed national interests so greatly for the sake of the Brussels bandwagon with so little apparent thought. Of all the changes agreed by the Government in Amsterdam, these reforms are potentially of the most long-term significance for the people of Britain. That is why the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, focusing on why the other House had not addressed this subject in greater detail, was extremely important. I hope that in due course this House will provide the other place with another opportunity to discuss the matter.
In this treaty the Government have given away important national powers. As we have heard, in future the European Parliament will have to approve the new president of the Commission. The freedom of member states to appoint commissioners of their choice is diminished, as the president of the Commission has been given new powers to veto the appointment of new commissioners and can therefore effectively pick the other 19 commissioners. What is more, those new commissioners will be required for the first time to work under the political guidance of the president. I shall come to the interpretation from the Liberal Democrat Benches of the word "political" in this context, which frankly I find astonishing.
My amendment, to remove Article 2.40, would correct the situation where, first, the European Parliament has been given a veto over the agreed nominee of the president of the Commission. This means that even a candidate on whom all member states had unanimously agreed could be blocked by the European Parliament. Secondly, my amendment seeks to remove the proposal that the president of the Commission should have a veto over the nominee for commissioner of each member state. This means that if the United Kingdom, France, Germany or another member state wanted a particular person as its commissioner, the president of the Commission could say no. I should like to know whether the Minister agreed with the attempts of the Euro socialists to block the appointment of the European Commission in January 1995 under the leadership of Pauline Green, MEP for London, North. For this is the parliament which in future will have the right to veto the appointment of the president of the Commission.

119
Under the existing arrangements the president is appointed by common accord by member states after consulting the European Parliament, so the power to appoint the president lies quite properly with member states. Under Maastricht, the nomination must be unanimously agreed by the member states, which is an important and necessary power. Previously, the European Parliament was consulted about the presidency but had to approve or reject the Commission as a whole. That is no longer the case.
It is true to say that the treaty does not provide for the right of nomination for the European Parliament, either originally or in the place of a rejected candidate, so the nomination of the president still lies with member states. But given the Government's approach to protecting our national interest in this area, it is wholly legitimate to wonder how long that will be the case.
Furthermore, Article 2 paragraph 40 of the treaty provides that,
"governments of the Member States shall, by common accord with the nominee for President, nominate other persons whom they intend to appoint as Members of the Commission".
That gives the president of the Commission the completely new right to veto the appointment of any other member of the Commission thus substantially diminishing the unfettered right of member states, under the Maastricht Treaty, to nominate their own representatives to the Commission.
Under the Maastricht Treaty there was a duty for member states to consult the president of the Commission when putting forward their choices for the commissioner. That was simply and rightly consultation. Member states were free to ignore the views of the president if they so wished and to appoint a person of their choice. That has been the position since the Treaty of Rome. The previous government successfully defended that arrangement every time the European treaties were negotiated. Why did this Government fail at their first attempt?
I move on briefly to my second amendment which addresses Article 2 paragraph 41. That paragraph states,
"The Commission shall work under the political guidance of its president".
As Members of the Committee have pointed out this evening, it is a short sentence but far from being an innocuous one. In the context of this new sentence Article 160, left unaltered by the Amsterdam Treaty, is worthy of some reflection. It provides that,
"If any Member of the Commission no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties … the Court of Justice may … compulsorily retire him".
Article 2 paragraph 41 of the Treaty of Amsterdam imposes a new condition on each commissioner to work under the political guidance of the president. That is not under the managerial effectiveness or leadership of the president, about working well or helping to keep in line and doing the job, but under the clear political guidance of the president. Is it not the case, then, that if a commissioner, in the president's opinion, fails to toe the president's political line, shows too much independence of thought, or questions the president's political
120
direction or even disagrees with it, the Commission can simply apply to the European Court of Justice to remove him or her.
If the commissioner is found to have failed to follow the president's political guidance the court would then have little option under the treaty but to remove him or her. I accept that in practice it is unlikely that such a case would reach the court, and I sincerely hope so, since the president would use his powers to force the resignation of the commissioner in question. But I give it as an example to illustrate the potential danger of these new powers concentrated in the hands of, as has so rightly been pointed out, an unelected official, the president of the Commission.
What may be the Government's justification for allowing these changes from the debates that we have had in another place? Does the Minister agree that these changes take power away from democratically elected governments who are accountable to the people of their countries and place it in the hands of an unelected official? The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, searched for this: what is the justification for such a change? Why did the Government agree that the president of the Commission should have the power to veto commissioners chosen by member states? On what criteria will selection by the president be based? What assurances are there in the treaty that the commissioners who take office in the year 2000 will not all be drawn from one political party or from one point of view? What assurances did the Minister seek on these issues? If he sought none, why not?
The Government have said that amended Article 2 paragraph 40, which amends Article 158, represents an enhanced role for the Commission president in the appointment of commission members. I do not understand the justification for this enhancement. The Minister of State in another place has said that the changes are very much in Britain's interests. Does the Minister think that it is in our national interest that no President of the European Commission can be appointed unless the European Parliament agrees?
The Minister of State said that he,
"cannot foresee a situation in which the European Parliament would reject someone as President if the Council is agreed on who he or she should be".
He would not be the first Minister to fall into the guessing-game trap of what might or might not be a realistic scenario in Europe. Does the Minister really think that it is in our national interest that we in the UK can no longer be guaranteed the right to choose our own Commissioner? Does he really think that it is in our national interest that the Commission must in future work under the political guidance of its President and that the President now has the power to hire and fire? Does the Minister really think that it is in our national interest that the balance of power in Europe has shifted away from nation states and from intergovernmental control towards a political Commission led by a political President with the word "political" spelled out in the papers before us?
What possibly can be the justification for that fundamental shift in the nature of the Commission where the President can use his veto again and again to

121
ensure the right result for himself or for the Commission but possibly the wrong result for Britain? Once the President is appointed, all the Commissioners must work under his political guidance. Why has the independence of the Commissioners been removed? What defects are these proposals designed to correct? What flaws have the Government identified in the existing arrangements? I looked long and hard to find criticisms from the then Opposition on these points. I could find none that warranted and pushed for the changes that are now being sought.
The Minister of State justified the powers to the European Parliament saying that,
"as Members of the European Parliament come form the same countries and political parties as Council Members, I do not think their views will he very much out of line with the majority Council view. The fear is therefore unrealistic".
That was a direct quotation from the Minister of State. Is that faith in MEPs why the Government have undemocratically and repeatedly tried to gag their own MPs when it came to hearing them express a socialist agenda? Was that faith in MEPs justified by the Euro-Socialist group's efforts to block the appointment of the Santer Commission in 1995?
If the Minister cannot,
"foresee a situation in which the European Parliament would reject someone as President if the Council had agreed on who he or she should be",
what was the reason for enshrining in treaty form a provision to allow the European Parliament to set aside the unanimous view of its member states? The Minister of State justified the shift to a political Commission because,
"some Commissioners do not always take the Commission … view and grind their own axe. Some Commissioners have a view of their own and go off on their own track"—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/98; col. 544.]
That is what he said. Is it now government policy that their appointees—indeed, their Members—should not have a view of their own'? If that is the case, even when that view being expressed or that axe being ground happens to be in their view in the British national interest, I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister could justify that fundamental and inexplicable shift in power to the President of the Commission and the European Parliament with no apparent gain whatsoever to the British people.
Ultimately, it is still for member states to decide by unanimity the big issues. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the Commission clearly plays a role in driving the EU forward and in setting the agenda. These are major changes with major implications yet they were not even mentioned by the Prime Minister in his Statement in another place on his return from Amsterdam. They represent a significant step towards an overtly political Commission in which unprecedented powers are concentrated in one individual's hands. Taken together with the extension in QMV and the substantial additional powers for the European Parliament, which we have yet to debate, the treaty represents a significant shift from the nation state to the central institutions of the European Union. It is no mild amendment to the current position in Europe. It is a
122
fundamental shift. It is therefore vital that today we hear from the Government why these proposals were agreed by them, their implications for Britain and why they consider them to be in the national interest.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I make a brief intervention. I am extremely puzzled by part of the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble Lord who speaks for the Official Opposition. Time and again the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in a very eloquent speech referred to loss of democracy. On a number of occasions he said that he deeply disapproved of these sections of the Treaty of Amsterdam because they represented a loss of democracy. I do not understand the English language in that sense. I believe that the proposals in the treaty represent a democratic gain. In the past proposals for nominating the president of the Commission have been conducted secretly by governments. Governments have reached precisely the back-door deals of which the noble Lord has expressed such powerful disapproval. They have never consulted Parliament or the people but simply reached understandings with other member states about the name of the person to be advanced as president of the Commission. I am sure that the Committee would not wish me to detain it by going through the history of previous presidents from the very beginning. But if noble Lords care to consider the matter they will find that time and again the president of the Commission has been appointed following agreement between two or three powerful member states.
The shocking crime of Her Majesty's Government is to have agreed to a change in the Treaty of Amerstdam which for the first time subjects the president of the Commission to some kind of democratic procedure. I can understand the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who leads for the Official Opposition—I acquit the latter to a certain extent in this matter—only on the basis that democracy is defined to exist only in national parliaments and in no way at the level of the directly elected European Parliament. We may not like the directly elected European Parliament, but the truth of the matter is that the people of Britain, France, Germany and Italy have elected freely the people they wish to represent them by a recognised democratic procedure. That parliament will now be able to approve, or I assume refuse to approve, the name of the person put forward as president of the Commission. By any simple standard that must represent an extension, not a diminution, of accountability of a democratic kind.
Similarly, in relation to the second part of the paragraph which the amendments address, the Committee has heard over and over again about the "veto exercised by the president of the Commission". The truth of the matter is that the provision precisely states that nomination will lie in the hands of member governments and that member governments must reach a common accord with the president of the Commission. In ordinary English, it means that they must continue to consult until such point as they can agree upon a name. It resembles the strange process by which in this country we manage wisely to appoint bishops. There is an almost endless process,

123
which I do not fully understand, of consultation between the Church and the Prime Minister of the day by which we end up with bishops apparently approved by both sides.
I believe that this debate has entered a rather strange self-contradictory phase. In my view, and I believe the view of any fair-minded person who reads the treaty, there is an improvement in democratic accountability. There is a requirement on both member state governments and the Commission president to agree the names of commissioners. I believe that that is very much in the interests of good government within the European Union.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: We were discussing earlier what the word "political" meant. Perhaps I might draw the Committee's attention to Article J.1 where the member states are required to support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly, and work together, and refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.
We pass then to Article J.8 where we are told:
"The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy".
That is a definition of a pretty wide mandate for political action.
Lord Tebbit: I had not intended to intervene in the debate. It is worth mentioning that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has once again clarified issues for us. If the EU is to be a state, then what she has said had some force; if, on the other hand, the EU is to remain an organisation comprised of sovereign national states, then what she has said is absolute nonsense. That is where we divide: between those who, like the noble Baroness, want to create the state of Europe and those of us who do not.
Lord Whitty: Like the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, because until then I thought that I was becoming slightly unhinged. I should be used by now to recognising that all European debates in this place give rise to a degree of paranoia and demonology about the Commission. But I had not expected to have the fantastic constructions put on the relatively minor provisions that we have heard in the past hour.
I am even more surprised that the Official Opposition should go along with those interpretations, because these proposals are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, about the quality and efficiency of the governance of the EU, and what is important, they are about the European dimension of the accountability and democracy of the EU. They are not about creating a superstate; they are not about creating a president of the European Commission who is the equivalent of a President of the USA. That may be a complete misunderstanding and an attempt to apply British structures and British definitions to what are evolving new apolitical institutions within Europe.
124
Indeed, the debate in another place which my noble friend Lord Stoddart had clearly read was at the more superficial level of why we called Jacques Santer president in the first place. I suppose that I would expect this place to be more respectful of title, but it must be recognised that the title "president" does not imply that one is running a superstate. Some Conservative Members in the other place were making an issue of us changing to President Santer, as respect requires, the previous government's convention of referring to Mr. Santer simply as Mr. Santer. They saw it as a major shift of politics and sovereignty away from this place towards Brussels and Strasbourg. Those are fantasies.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: They are not fantasies.
Lord Whitty: Let us look instead at what is proposed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank my noble friend for giving way. It is not fantasy when the president of the Commission is called Mr. President and the president of the Council is called the President of the Council. That is the point that I was making: the official is called Mr. President and the president of the Council is called the President of the Council. That is not fantasy; that is fact.
Lord Whitty: I was not directly referring to that contribution of my noble friend but to expressions in another place that our designation of the president of the Commission by his proper title somehow shifted sovereignty and power from here to Brussels. Admittedly, the debate here has been a little more sophisticated, but let us return to the proposal.
The first part increases democracy within the European Union. The European Parliament is now part of our democracy. Those who resent it are rejecting the past 30 years, whereby we in this country—Parliament by Parliament and Government by Government—have agreed that some of our powers should be pooled within a pool sovereignty within Europe; that there should be a European Parliament to look after the democratic interests of the British people and the rest of the peoples of Europe; and that we should provide for accountability in the exercise of those powers.
The Amsterdam Treaty changes the relationship between the Parliament and the appointment of the Commission in one important way. I clarify the interpretation understood by everyone until tonight, when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the issue that the Parliament is not obliged to give its approval, that it does have a choice. Admittedly, it is unlikely that that choice would ever be exercised in contradistinction to the decision of the Commission to appoint a president. However, it is important that we have made this change so that we have a separate power to appoint the president and the Commission.
The UK has always supported an elected European Parliament having a stronger role in appointments to the Commission. The European Parliament will not have the right to nominate the European Commission's president; only member states will have that right. The European

125
Parliament's right will simply be to agree or disagree with the Council's candidate. We believe that that is an improvement in democracy which retains the essential right of the member states in this respect and also makes their choice subject ultimately to the European Parliament's agreement.
The second issue is that of concord over the appointment of member states' nominees to the Commission. The current position is that the nominee president of the Commission is only consulted about nominees to that Commission rather than having a separate voice. But it is already a common accord. We are moving from a common accord of 15 member states to a common accord of 15 member states plus the president. The president will already have been agreed by all the member states, including this one, and by the European Parliament in order to become a president in waiting.
Surely, it is sensible that the Commission president should play a part in ensuring that the Commission is made up of people with the right ability, the right spread of representation and the right spread of competence. But that common accord for appointing all the members of the Commission is not new. We are extending the right of participation to the presidency, and that already existed for all 15 member states to approve each other's nominees.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It is not that the president is playing a part; he has a veto. That is a tremendous difference.
Lord Renton: Before the Minister replies to my noble friend's question, will he say whether common accord means unanimity or a majority vote?
Lord Whitty: It means unanimity and it has always meant unanimity. It meant unanimity over the appointment of the president and it means unanimity over the approval of the nominees of the member states which, I repeat, are the only ones that can nominate the members of the Commission. Therefore, the initiative clearly rests with the member states, but, surely, the president will be in a better position to help ensure that the Commissioners are the right calibre for the job and can meet all its varied political requirements.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Will the Minister confirm absolutely clearly whether the president elect has a veto or does not have a veto over the appointment of the other members of the Commission? I used the word "veto".
Lord Whitty: And I used the words "common accord". That is a common accord between 16 entities—15 member states and the president. I do not believe that I can be clearer than that.
Lord Tebbit: What word would the Minister use if the Secretary of the Cabinet were to be given a veto over the appointment of the permanent secretaries of the departments of state?
Lord Whitty: The Secretary of the Cabinet is not the appropriate equivalent in this situation. That takes us on to the misunderstanding as regards the role of the president of the Commission in the first place.
Lord Tebbit: Of course, that is quite correct, because the Secretary of the Cabinet is a civil servant who works
126
to the instructions of Ministers who are working on the instructions from this sovereign Parliament. That is the difference.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Will the noble Lord accept that those of us on these Benches find it extremely shocking that in that situation Luxembourg clearly has a veto?
Lord Whitty: And always has. I find it surprising that in all issues noble Lords are insisting on unanimity and yet on this particular issue they find unanimity unacceptable. However, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, goes to the heart of the matter. Perhaps there is a major ideological or perceptual problem in this regard. The president of the Commission is more than the Secretary of the Cabinet. He is more than a civil servant. He is a political figure who gives political direction. At present, in practice, he gives political guidance to the other commissioners. That is the reality of the matter and has always been so since the Treaty of Rome onwards. The practice of the European Commission, which has been complained about many times in this Chamber, will bear me out.
Lord Tebbit: I recollect most clearly the words of the then Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath, on this matter when he returned from his discussions with President Pompidou. He made it plain that the members of the Commission are civil servants and no more than civil servants who took their instructions from Ministers and had no rights of policy initiation. The doctrine which the Minister is now expounding is very different from that.
Lord Whitty: No, the position has always been, from the Treaty of Rome onwards, that in pillar 1 areas at least the Commission has sole initiative for policy proposals. The issue as to whether it is accountable to the Council is an entirely separate matter. It has a political role but its political accountability is to the Council of Ministers and, in certain circumstances, to the European Parliament. Therefore, members of the Commission are political rather than purely civil servants but they do not have the ultimate political responsibility. That rests, not with an appointed figure like the president, but with the Council which is, and will continue to be, the main decision-making body of the Union to varying degrees, subject to the agreement of the European Parliament.
Perhaps this debate indicates the chasm of misunderstanding which exists. It certainly shows that the role of the Commission is both misunderstood and denigrated within this Chamber. A Commission which acts coherently within the structure of the European institutions acts effectively also in the interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom. It has an absolutely key role to play in the functions of the Union. Its roles on proposing legislation, on implementing the decisions of the Council, as the guardian of the treaties and as an independent institution of the treaties are all vitally important political roles. But at the end of the day, as regards the carrying out of those decisions, it is subject

127
to the Council of Ministers which is responsible to national parliaments and, to some degree, it is responsible to the European Parliament. The idea that it is an unelected dictator model for a super-European state, as we have heard suggested over the past hour, should be dismissed from our minds.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said right at the beginning of this debate, these are relatively minor amendments and we should recognise them as such. However, they are important and they will improve the functioning of both democracy and efficiency within the Commission.
11 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: After listening to the very interesting debate that has taken place, I stand astounded at my own moderation. I am normally known as someone who goes into debate in fair combative style—and that is still not a sin within a parliament; indeed, that is what the conflict of ideas is all about—but I approached this matter on a very modest scale. My noble friend, who effectively excluded me from the debate in his reply, may find on reflection that what I said is strictly in accordance with the facts as they have been presented not only by him but also in the treaty. I could have gone a long way further.
It will be within the recollection of this Chamber that I have objected publicly to the cavalier attitudes shown by successive presidents of the Commission, excluding the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who was always polite and correct in such matters. They have sometimes intervened rudely in the political debates which have taken place between the heads of member states and even between Prime Ministers and the opposition within their own countries. I heard President Delors, who came across to this country to attend a conference organised by the Financial Times, refer derisively and dismissively to the then British Prime Minister, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher. I objected publicly to anyone in his position—that is, in a collegiate position, a civil servant position or its equivalent—presuming to criticise a British Prime Minister personally, regardless of the fact that she did not happen to be a member of my party and that politically I was firmly opposed to her. I got up and objected publicly to that and received a reply from Delors, who said: "Well, it's a free country, isn't it?". This was in public in the United Kingdom.
I have heard successive presidents of the Commission take it upon themselves to enter unilaterally into political disputations between the heads of member states; they are quite permissible and, indeed, normal, and should be so. They have intervened personally in debates that have taken place in this country; indeed, it is not only the president of the Commission who has been guilty of this but so also have several of the Commissioners who have presumed to lecture us as to how we should conduct affairs in our own country. It would be far better if they conducted their own affairs.
I listened to my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect—indeed, he knows that—cataloguing the successes and the brilliance of the
128
European Commission. However, I have news for him. I have watched those concerned for years and have witnessed their activities. I am thoroughly familiar with the way that they work. If any Member of this Committee wishes to get up and praise the Commission for its control, for example, over financial affairs (for which it is responsible), all he or she has to do is to read the last report of the Court of Auditors and the latest document produced by our own Audit Office here to find out the depth of gross inefficiency, negligence and, in some sections of the staff, actual fraud at Commission level. I am under no illusion about that. I shall be proved to be correct with the passage of time even though I may perhaps be derided now on the grounds that this is old hat, or possibly because of my advancing years. I tell the Committee that I shall be proved to be right, and so will my colleagues.
Having delivered that friendly homily to my friends on both sides of the Chamber, believing as I do in consensus politics, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Lord Moynihanmoved Amendment No. 23A:
Page 1, line 13, after ("2") insert ("(except paragraph 13)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 23A I wish to speak also to the amendments grouped with it. I hope that the Minister appreciates that the points being made from all sides of the Chamber reflect our concern and consideration for what is in the treaty. As the hour grows late, I am concerned that there is a tendency to dismiss amendments lightly as minor drafting amendments which should not agitate the Committee, let alone lead to serious questioning. If that were the case it would be a pity because the points being made in different ways from all sides of the Chamber reflect genuine, legitimate concerns about principle, drafting and negotiation. We intend to examine the Bill in detail and the spirit in which we do so inevitably requires a full consideration from the Government Ministers who respond.
The amendments on QMV may well be the final series of amendments we consider this evening in Committee. Therefore I shall speak briefly. I may return to some of the points I want to make about the importance of the fight against fraud and the significant and new powers for the European Parliament, not to mention the location of the European Parliament. Those are three important issues which are covered in the amendments. They will be mentioned at a later stage and I do not intend to cover them in detail this evening.
I fear or expect that at an early stage of my comments concerning QMV, the Government will probably say that we did not have a blanket ideological opposition to QMV when we were in government. That is certainly the case as we agreed to a considerable extension of QMV at the time of the Single European Act in 1986 and subsequently at Maastricht. As a result majority voting now already applies to a wide range of issues such as the single market. However, there was always a clear tangible benefit to the extension presided over by

129
the previous government which was worth the price of sacrificing our veto. In 1986 it ensured the progress and the development of the single market. This evening I question the Government's claim that the extension of QMV we are discussing gives a similar benefit. The previous government accepted QMV in limited areas for a specific purpose. I do not believe they ever did so without getting a real tangible benefit in return.
The amendments we are discussing tonight deal with three specific areas: the extension of qualified majority voting; the reduction in the use of the national veto agreed at Amsterdam; and the extension of the powers of the European Parliament, and particularly its co-decision powers on the location of the European Parliament. I question the Minister as to whether we gain tangible benefits in return for a significant extension of the use of QMV and the co-decision procedure in the European Parliament which, on the face of it, represents a significant transfer of influence from this Parliament to the institutions of the European Union. There will be those who will argue that these concessions, given away at Amsterdam, were wholly unnecessary. No one is claiming that they constitute in themselves the end of the United Kingdom as a sovereign national state; but, the more I look at them, the more I feel that they represent a significant reduction in the influence of this Parliament and of the British Government. It is a further step away from our vision of an enlarged, competitive, decentralised, flexible Europe, a partnership of nation states which deepens instead of widens the Union.
I should like to start with the extension of QMV. The weighted voting system, or QMV, works against the background of the political agreement known to all Members of the Committee as the Luxembourg Compromise, whereby in the last resort a member state may insist that, where it has a very important national interest at stake in a particular decision, discussions should continue until its fundamental problem has been resolved. It was agreed at the informal Foreign Affairs Council in Ioannina in March 1994 to discuss the arrangements for majority voting and the scope of QMV at the intergovernmental conference.
However, the result has been that the Amsterdam Treaty extends QMV to 15 new areas—four existing areas and 11 new ones. This is a significant increase in the power of the EU institutions. To increase this power, it must be transferred from elsewhere, and it has been. It has been transferred from Parliament to Brussels. Together with Britain's competitive advantage, jettisoned by joining the social chapter, which we covered earlier, Britain's veto and position of negotiating strength have also been discarded, with the result that we are now powerless to resist many more potentially burdensome legislative proposals in a wide variety of areas.
Let me spell out the sheer scale of what was agreed to at Amsterdam in this context. The four areas currently decided by unanimity consist of co-ordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action for special treatment for foreign nationals; the adoption of the research framework
130
programme; adapting or supplementing the research framework programme; and the setting up of joint undertakings in R&T development.
The 11 new treaty provisions which will also be subject to QMV consist of employment guidelines; incentive measures; social exclusion; equality of opportunity and treatment of men and women; public health; transparency; countering fraud; statistics; protection of individuals with regard to the processing and free movement of persons' data; outermost regions and customs co-operation.
Under the social chapter, legislation in any one of the following areas can be adopted by QMV: working conditions; the information and consultation of workers; equality between men and women in relation to both work opportunities and treatment at work; the integration of people excluded from the labour market; and health and safety at work. Not only that, but there are provisions for QMV under the employment chapter and within the flexibility provisions.
On the reduction in the use of the national veto and the extension of QMV, I wonder if the Minister can give the Committee one concrete example of how giving up our veto in the four areas previously decided by unanimity—that is, the right of establishment for foreign nationals; adoption of the research framework programme; adapting or supplementing the research framework programme; and the setting up of joint undertakings in R&T development—will benefit this House or the British people? Is it not the case that under the European Union framework programmes for research Britain has done well, winning money for our research programmes under various schemes—for example, the European Strategic Programme in Information Technology, ESPRIT? If QMV is used to decide these programmes, the UK could do less well, and, at the very least, we shall no longer be able to use our veto as a persuasive tool in arguing our case.
Secondly, can the Minister guarantee that the extension of QMV to cover 15 new areas would not result in the introduction of policies harmful to our national interest which this House and another place would be powerless to prevent? Is it not the case that any new proposals should be not only open to all but agreed by all?
Let me take one example, Article 129, to which QMV applies. The article seeks to ensure,
"A high level of human health protection … in the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities",
and that,
"Community action, which shall complement national policies, shall be directed towards improving public health, preventing human illness and diseases, and obviating sources of danger to human health. Such action shall cover the fight against the major health scourges, by promoting research into their causes, their transmission and their prevention, as well as health information and education".
It is possible that decisions by QMV on the public health provisions contained within Article 129 could lead to considerable interference by Brussels which we should not welcome, given how liberally a court, or indeed this House, could interpret, first, what constitutes public health and, secondly, what amounts to "preventative" measures. For example, preventative measures could

131
refer to anything from a good diet, housing and shelter, to school meals or the provision of milk to children. Is it up to Brussels to determine those preventative measures, or is it something that the Government believe should be done at national level?
Thirdly, can the Minister explain how the proposals for social legislation in the pipeline will be subject to QMV and, under the social chapter, benefit the national interest? I have already spoken at some length on these issues, particularly about the directive to extend the remit of works councils to all companies with 50 or more employees, a proposal which the Government themselves oppose but which they could be powerless to resist.
Likewise, the proposed directive to change the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases, so that employers would be assumed guilty of discrimination unless they can prove otherwise, will also be subject to QMV. Is it not the case that qualified majority voting could succeed in this case in overturning the basic principle of British justice and lead to a flood of speculative cases?
Were we to debate this matter at length, we should come up with an endless list of such examples—full rights, terms and conditions for employees for those on part-time, temporary and fixed-term employment contracts; the incentive measures to be adopted by QMV under the employment chapter, which could prove to be a source of employment programmes for which the UK would have no need but would be expected to pay. And is it not the case that such an instrument to devise incentives, possibly financial ones, could be used to encourage member states to act in a certain way?
As I have already demonstrated, the Amsterdam Treaty provides for more majority voting in the operation of the CFSP decision-making process. Article J.13 provides for subsequent decisions on the implementation of overall strategies—that is, on the adoption of joint actions and common positions—and on any other decisions made on the basis of the new CFSP instrument, the "common strategy", to be taken by QMV in the Council of Ministers.
The treaty continues the distinction on decision-making on principle, which is still unanimous, and implementation of decisions, which is now generally to be by QMV. But is the line between principle and action so black and white? In the Minister's opinion, is one trade sanction the same as another? Is the trade sanction a principle, or is it an action? That represents an important question and a potentially dangerous move from a true common foreign policy agreed by all to a foreign policy supported by most. Likewise, the flexibility provisions are also subject to QMV.
I do not intend to go into further detail on these points. I hope the Committee will forgive me for not doing so at this late hour. There are critical issues associated with the Ford argument which I hope noble Lords will take up during this Committee stage.
Finally, perhaps I may touch upon the gridlock enlargement argument in this context. The Government have used the gridlock argument to justify the extension
132
of QMV on the grounds that an enlarged European Union will be paralysed unless more decisions are taken by QMV. The QMV already applies in those areas where regular decisions are needed to enable the Community to conduct its day-to-day business such as the single market, agriculture and external trade. It is inappropriate, in my view, for fundamental decisions such as foreign policy and defence, which must remain intergovernmental in their nature. Are the Government seriously arguing that, in those remaining areas, indecisions on research or industrial policy, retention of unanimity would render the Union unmanageable after enlargement? I am sure that the Minister will be the first to agree that there are greater obstacles to the process of enlargement which the Treaty of Amsterdam singularly fails to address.
Perhaps if the Government believe that the only way forward for Europe is instinctive integration from west to east and north to south, then the argument I have just made does not carry sufficient weight. But there is a different way forward which does not require every member state to sign up to absolutely every aspect of the treaty of which the Government are already taking advantage in terms of borders and the single currency. If that way is taken, then it is not necessary to have more QMV to enlarge.
On these Benches, we do not believe that unanimity in those areas to which it currently applies would be incompatible with effective decision-making, even in an enlarged Union. The European Union has been able to reach decisions on highly contentious issues such as the Maastricht Treaty itself and the 1992 financing package, despite the unanimity requirement. Unanimity ensures that decisions on even the most sensitive issues take proper account of vital national interests, as indeed they should—a fact which the Government appear, sadly, with the Amsterdam Treaty before us this evening, largely to have forgotten. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I begin by saying a few complimentary words to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Throughout the debate he has addressed the subject with great detail, thoroughness and care, and, although quite frequently on these Benches we do not find ourselves in agreement with him, we always listen carefully to the arguments he makes. They are rational and well argued.
On this group of amendments, I wish to distinguish between three elements. The first concerns qualified majority voting. Here, perhaps to the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, we have sympathy with the view that qualified majority voting should not just be randomly extended as a simple way out of the problems of trying to get agreement on difficult issues. Clearly a substantial area falls within the responsibility of the Community and will continue to do so. That area becomes more complex, as Members of the Committee have indicated, in such areas as how one deals with organised crime, the drug trade, and so on. None of us can seriously think of trying to repatriate the national governments' responsibility in a large part of the field. As has been said before in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, as Prime Minister, fully

133
recognised that, in agreeing to qualified majority voting, as regards the Single Act which established the Common Market. That should not be forgotten.
At that point, we were doing a certain amount of cherry-picking. We liked the single market. We were prepared to accept qualified majority voting for the single market; and then we drew the line at almost every other area of qualified majority voting because we did not want it, we just wanted the single market. Nevertheless, it is obviously right that national parliaments and this Parliament in particular should scrutinise carefully the argument made for extending qualified majority voting.
With regard to the long list of amendments to that effect that were put down by the noble Lord and his colleagues in the Opposition, I thought that both Customs co-operation and fraud were odd subjects to choose. I should have thought that they were good examples of where qualified majority voting might be appropriate. One needs only one naughty government to be able to veto effective measures to deal with the issues. They seem to be prime examples of where QMV is appropriate.
On these Benches, we do not argue that QMV should be extended loosely to more and more areas. It is essential, if the European Union is to work, that member states have an area which they regard rightly as their own, where the principle of subsidiarity is fully recognised, and where member states also work with one another within those areas on the basis of co-operation and not of qualified majority voting.
Having said that, I found it puzzling that on Amendment No. 25 the Opposition took exception to the co-decision-making procedure. Until the Amsterdam Treaty, the methods of making decisions within the European structures, the Community structures, were ludicrously complex, obscure, lengthy, and difficult; it was hard to understand what was going on. I cannot see any objection to simplifying those democratic procedures down to the three that now effectively exist: consultation, assent and co-decision. Co-decision makes it quite plain that the European Parliament's agreement—by way of conciliation procedures and all the rest of it—is a necessary component of passing major European legislation. That has to be right. In this area, which falls to the Community—I use the word advisedly because the Community is only part of the Union—it is surely vital that the European Parliament must be carried by the Council and the Commission before law becomes law. Therefore, on Amendment No. 25, from these Benches we cannot offer the sympathy we offer for the earlier amendments in at least the sense that they should be taken seriously, because we believe that the co-decision procedure is a substantial improvement on what has gone before.
In that context let me add one further word of sympathy for amendments we will later approach; that is, that central to this Bench's argument—it may sound paradoxical to some noble Lords—is the strengthening of the scrutiny by our own Parliament of European legislation and proposals. That is crucial to maintaining democratic control, and nothing we say from these
134
Benches about the importance of including the European Parliament in decision-making procedures in any way reduces our total commitment to having the strongest possible scrutiny, advice and consultation by national parliaments.
I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 26B. This amendment is well taken. It makes no sense for the European Parliament to he a perpetual mobile theatre, where secretaries, files, computers and heavy material are dragged around Europe by large lorries at great expense to the taxpayer, making the Parliament less efficient than it ought to be. I fully understand the desire of the Government of France to maintain Strasbourg as a significant city. I would have thought that it was not beyond the bounds of the imagination of Commissioners and the Council of Ministers to find some excellent European agency that could be settled in Strasbourg, in those attractive surroundings, which would then save the expense of shuffling Parliament to and fro. Those of us who care about parliamentary democracy recognise that that is no way to build up respect for the European Parliament, and it would be much better all round if the European Parliament, like the wandering dervish, were to be allowed to finally settle in one place.
Lord Grenfell: Perhaps I might briefly intervene. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. It is always to the point and interesting, though we do not always agree with him. However, with all due respect to the noble Lord, he tends to speak with a mind-set which is indicative of a party which when in government always found itself in a minority of one in Brussels. In those circumstances, of course, the veto is extremely attractive.
I wish that noble Lords opposite who take objection to the extension of QMV would think a little about that. All that the extension is designed to do is to try to make the conduct of affairs in the European Union a little easier. There is seemingly a great lack of confidence on the Opposition Benches in the possibility of being able to assemble a blocking minority in the Commission and the Council. It is possible to do that. But with this reluctance to give up the veto, it suggests that there is a mind-set which reflects the fact that the idea of assembling a blocking minority is almost an impossibility; it is not. This Government are perfectly capable of putting together a blocking minority when they feel it is necessary to do so. We should therefore not be afraid of an extension of qualified majority voting in areas where we believe that that would be suitable.
My final point—I hope it will not be taken as being too jocular at this late hour—relates to what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said when she referred to the movement of the European Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again. As a member of the Council of Europe I have suffered somewhat in the past from arriving in Strasbourg having been blocked on the way by trailer trucks carrying documents backwards and forwards. I simply suggest that we might be able to make a deal if we were prepared to allow M. Trichet

135
to have the presidency of the European Central Bank in exchange for France agreeing to give up Strasbourg as a centre for the European Parliament.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: No one has yet spoken in support of Amendment No. 25, which deals with the co-decision procedure and its extension under the Amsterdam Treaty. It gives me great pleasure to agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about the European Parliament and the jamboree, which I understand costs fully £10 million a year, of moving the files from one building to the other and back, and also with what she had to say about the scrutiny procedure, which I understand becomes strengthened under the treaty. However, when we come to Amendment No. 25, we have to face the fact that the co-decision procedure is being extended by the treaty into 21 new areas, some of which overlap with other areas, or are the same areas but different parts of them, covered by the extension of qualified majority voting.
Co-decision may sound an innocent enough procedure but in fact it boils down to qualified majority voting with which the European Parliament agrees. If the European Parliament does not agree, then we go into the common position procedure, which, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is complicated. So, extremely briefly for the record, I ought to mention the areas which the Amsterdam Treaty does subject to the co-decision procedure—in other words, qualified majority voting plus the agreement of the Parliament if it is available.
They are: discrimination on grounds of nationality; freedom of movement and residence of citizens of the Union; social security measures for migrant workers; special treatment for foreign nationals; provisions relating to self-employment and professional qualifications; common transport policy—that could be a big one; incentive measures for employment; customs co-operation; equality provisions; the European Social Fund; vocational training policy; public health; trans-European networks—another big one; the European regional development fund; multi-annual framework programmes for research; some elements of environmental protection; multi-annual framework programmes for development co-operation; transparency; anti-fraud measures; statistics; and the independent advisory body on data protection.
All those are further erosions of our national sovereignty, however else one likes to look at it. I do not propose to say any more about those matters now, but I have no doubt that we shall be coming to them at the next stage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: At the risk of again being described as paranoid, I want to support what has just been said about co-decision and qualified majority voting. Before I do so, I am pleased to be able to support the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in her plea for the European Parliament to be allowed to sit in one place. Brussels. It is completely ludicrous and a waste of taxpayers' money that the Parliament should be moving
136
around. It is inefficient for the operation of the Parliament itself, it is costly and it is very upsetting for the Members of the European Parliament. After all, we have just spent around £670 million on providing a new parliament building in Brussels which is unoccupied for part of the year. That is quite absurd. Therefore, I find myself in total agreement with that.
I am of course—my noble friend would expect me to be—against further qualified majority voting and co-decision. I have already said that I object to further erosion of British parliamentary sovereignty. I believe that the British Parliament represents the British people. That has been our constitution over a very long period of time. I object to it being undermined. Every time we agree to some measure of new qualified voting or co-decision we undermine another piece of sovereignty, because once qualified majority voting has applied and the co-decision procedure ended, that is the end of the matter. Apart from giving its opinion, the British Parliament then has no further say. That is my objection.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, criticised me in our previous debate. She said that we are extending democracy, but I do not believe that we are. I shall tell her why. As far as I am concerned, democracy lies in the House of Commons. There they are elected to appoint a government to govern the country; to hold that government to account; to check on what they are doing and to raise supply. That is our parliamentary democracy. All the people there are elected by the British people. But when one goes across to the European Parliament that is not so, because out of 626 members we in this country elect only 87. Therefore, on every occasion we can be outvoted by people who have not been elected by the British people. That is my objection. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it is a reasonable one and a reasonable point of view to take. She takes a different point of view and I understand that. But that is where I am coming from and I hope that I have been able to explain to her the difference that we bring to European democracy.
With those words, I ask my noble friend to believe that when we discuss these matters in detail we are not being paranoid but we are being good parliamentarians because the essence of real parliamentary democracy for parliamentarians, whether they are in another place or here, is to understand what is being put before them; to object, if necessary, and to make those objections heard, however bizarre they may seem to the government, and to have those objections considered seriously and, if necessary, at length. I hope that my noble friend will understand that and take those objections into account when he replies.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he agree that people the world over will accept laws that they dislike, albeit grudgingly, made by their fellow countrymen, but that they will not accept laws that they dislike made by strangers?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, answers that, and in amplification of what he was saying about the lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament, it is interesting

137
to note that the public perception of that parliament appears to have decreased over the years with the greater powers that have been given to it. For instance, in 1979 when direct elections were first held to the European Parliament, 63 per cent. of the population voted. In 1984, that decreased to 61 per cent. In 1989, it further decreased to 58.5 per cent. In 1994, it fell to 56 per cent. or just over half of the available population, and all this despite the fact that in a number of member states voting is compulsory and despite the arrival of new members in the European Community whom one might have expected to have been enthusiastic about the wretched thing. Clearly, they are not and that is why I, among others, do not take the great democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament very seriously. If it were abolished, life would be much easier for all of us.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I concur with those two points. It is right that, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, people are prepared to take a lot from their own countrymen; they are not always prepared to take the same from people who live abroad. I hesitate to call them "foreigners", or I shall be criticized—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: There you are, straightaway!
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right that support for the European Parliament has continued to decline. I cannot tell the reasons for that. It may very well be that MEPs are ineffective or that the public do not notice them because they do not do the sort of jobs done by local councillors or MPs. At the last European elections, turnout was 36 per cent. in this country and in the last European by-election, in Liverpool it was down to 11 per cent. It is true that the European Parliament is not held in great regard or is perhaps not properly understood by people in this country and, increasingly, in other countries.
Lord Whitty: I am gratified that this is, I hope, the last debate of the evening and that it has been a measured one in which noble Lords have expressed expected but nevertheless important views. When I perhaps provoked my noble friend Lord Stoddart to say that I should not accuse him of paranoia for raising these issues, I must point out that I was not doing that. I have great respect for my noble friend's views and for all other views expressed this evening. It is just that on some issues a construction is built which does not bear a reading of the text and, on other points, important issues of principle clearly arise. There have been differences over both QMV and the role of the European Parliament. On QMV, it has been unfortunate that at the back end of the previous administration it became such a totemic issue. It was not during the earlier stages of the Conservative regime. Under the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, successive Conservative Prime Ministers rightly judged the issue on whether it would be in Britain's interests to go along or whether the only way of getting something, even if they were
138
not particularly keen on it, was to use the QMV process. That gave us the single market, and the Maastricht treaty gave us 30 new articles subject to QMV.
This treaty is far more minor with regard to the extension of QMV, as was clear from the list that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, rightly read out. We are not unhappy about that extension of QMV. Indeed, we would even have been prepared in certain circumstances to have gone slightly further. Nevertheless, that seemed sensible progress at this point in the development of the EU.
We have a view of QMV which is not informed, as my noble friend Lord Grenfell said, by the expectation what we will always be in a minority, that we will never be able to build a blocking minority or that we will always be in a minority of one. At Amsterdam, we argued strongly that some extension of QMV was necessary to allow the Council to push through effective measures in important areas. Those areas included fraud. If we allow measures against fraud to continue to be subject to unanimity, we can expect a veto from one country or another. Fraud is rightly an issue of serious concern which we shall be debating at some unearthly hour tomorrow, but if we are serious about expecting to do something about fraud in the Community—it is a serious problem—we must accept that decisions will have to be made through QMV. We argued also for QMV on transparency, so that some member states which are less keen on openness in government would not be able to block those measures.
The noble Lord raised queries in relation to research and development. It is true that the British Government, the British economy, British industry and British universities have had a good deal out of the R&D framework programmes over the years. But that depends in future on other member governments not vetoing the excellent criteria on which we gain those resources. If unanimity were required we would face that prospect. Earlier this year there was an excellent example of it. Spain threatened to block the R&D framework until she got satisfaction over her future receipts under the structural and cohesion funds. In the event we were able to agree the framework, but had we not been able to do so after long and difficult negotiation we would have faced a veto which would not have been in the interests of this country, yet a European framework for R&D is for the benefit of Europe and Britain has differentially benefited from it.
On the other hand, at Amsterdam we rightly insisted that many major areas should remain subject to unanimity, as we said in our manifesto. We retain the veto in key national interest areas such as taxation, the budget, foreign policy—subject to discussions that we have had in previous debate—defence, immigration and border controls. We are not a government that is in the business of extending QMV left, right and centre 'for dogmatic, ideological, federalist reasons—any more than we are in the business of resisting it for equally static reasons. There are some areas where QMV is simply inappropriate, but those areas to which the Treaty of Amsterdam extends QMV will greatly benefit

139
this country and the decision-making process of the European Union both immediately and in anticipation of enlargement.
I turn to co-decision and the role of the European Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, cited the list of areas to which co-decision would henceforth apply. I did not quite understand the argument put forward by the noble Lord and others that somehow it represented a loss of sovereignty. Those areas are already subject to decision by the Council of Ministers. In most cases such decisions are subject to qualified majority voting and can lead to legislation at European level. The issue here is not the balance of sovereignty between Britain and Brussels or Strasbourg but the balance between the powers of the executive and a degree of democratic accountability. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others almost deny that the European Parliament has, or should have, democratic credentials. I am also aware that the legitimacy and importance of the European Parliament in this respect has suffered over recent years, particularly here but in other member states, by some denigration and failure on its part to put its own house in order and to ensure that the citizens of Europe understand what the European Parliament is about.
The Committee is aware that co-decision means that the agreement of the European Parliament and Council is required for Community legislation. It does not enable the European Parliament to propose an Act or to insist upon a proposal or a provision that is in any sense opposed by the Council, but it makes the Council's decisions subject to the agreement of the European Parliament. The European Parliament is therefore able directly to exercise democracy within the European institutions, which we welcome. Co-decision was introduced under the Treaty of Maastricht signed by the previous government. Therefore, there can be no objection in principle to co-decision by the Opposition Front Benches. I assume that they, like us, supported co-decision because they believed that, despite its difficulties and set-backs, the European Parliament had an important oversight role to play in the European Union's legislative process, particularly in areas subject to majority vote in the Council. It is an important democratic check which needs to be further developed. We also realised before Amsterdam that the co-decision procedure laid down in Maastricht needed to be streamlined. That has also been done under the Amsterdam procedure.
The anxiety expressed here, that giving the European Parliament greater oversight of European legislation somehow takes away the role of national parliaments, is misplaced. We believe, as the principles laid out in the new treaty indicate, that there are complementary roles for national parliaments and the European Parliament. We strongly welcome the new national parliaments protocol. It gives a new and legally binding minimum period for national parliaments to scrutinise new legislative proposals.
Co-decision is not appropriate in all cases. It is appropriate in those limited cases to which it has been extended by the Amsterdam Treaty. If there is to be an
140
extension of co-decision in future that needs to be accompanied by an extension of scrutiny by national parliaments. We shall be returning to that issue early in tomorrow's debate when we consider the protocol on national parliaments.
I should emphasise that there is no contradiction in wishing to extend the role of the European Parliament on European legislation and extending the role of national parliaments in scrutinising and controlling the European decisions of their national governments. We wish to see improved scrutiny at both ends of that process.
Finally, I suppose that I have to respond to an issue with which I have considerable sympathy—that relating to the dual location of the European Parliament, which has proved irksome to me as it has to other Members of this place and MEPs and which is an unnecessary cost for the European taxpayer.
Although we did not seek in any sense to include this provision in the treaty, it is consistent with the existing agreement on dual sites which had been reached in Edinburgh in 1992. In October 1997 the ECJ ruled that the European Parliament is legally obliged to hold 12 plenary sessions a year in Strasbourg. That ruling was based on the existing legal provision after the protocol agreed at Edinburgh, signed by the previous government, and not on any new agreement.
There are enormous problems with that, but the status quo pre-dates even UK accession. It can be changed only by unanimity, irrespective of whether it is in the Edinburgh decision or the treaty. There is no greater prospect now of unanimous agreement to a single European site than there was in 1992. Unfortunately there is no prospect in sight in the future. We therefore agreed with some reluctance to that provision which merely carried over into the new treaty the Edinburgh provision. I hope that with those remarks the noble Lord can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moynihan: I thank the Minister for his response. I was slightly concerned about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. He believed, to a certain degree at least, that my mindset was that of a blocking minority. There are two arguments which militate against that observation. The first is that, no doubt greatly to my disadvantage, my observations throughout the Committee's proceedings came from a politician who spent the past five years in industry outside Parliament, regretting deeply the polarity which existed in the Conservative Parliamentary Party and which I believe proved so electorally damaging.
Secondly, all my comments have been considered and drafted in my offices south of the river and revised late at night. For the past six weeks my three children, all of whom are under four years-old, had chicken pox and accordingly kept me awake most nights and allowed me to do some of that work. For those reasons my contributions may not have matched the excellence of Conservative Party briefings. I sincerely hope that from our Benches they provide a constructive approach to our

141
role in Europe and Europe's relationship with us, and were not in any sense made in the mindset of a blocking minority.
Lord Grenfell: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was not intending to say that he was acting as a blocking minority. I was saying that there is a certain mindset on his side of the Committee which reflects his party having been in a minority of one so often in Brussels and that has made it much attached to the idea of the veto.
Lord Moynihan: I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that position. Perhaps I may make one or two swift observations. First, we will return to fraud at a late hour tomorrow, so I will hold back on my comments until then.
Secondly, I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in highlighting the fact that there are strong arguments, not least financial ones, for all the parliamentary sessions, the committees and the secretariat to be based if not under the same roof at least in the same city and, in my view, surely in the same country. I believe that by tabling the amendment tonight it has been useful to place on record our concerns about the location of the European Parliament.
Thirdly, I was concerned by the echoing "Hear, hear" to the view that at the end of the previous government a blanket ideological opposition appeared to creep in with regard to QMV. That is not the case. It may have been brilliantly exposed as such by the electoral machinations of those seeking to beat us at the last election, and if that was the case I offer congratulations to colleagues opposite. However, at all stages, the issue of QMV should seriously be considered in the context
142
of cases in which QMV in limited areas can, for specific purposes, produce a tangible benefit in return. That is how we should be looking at the extension of QMV, and it is the point I underlined at the outset of my comments. It certainly underpins the position of my Benches.
Finally, I believe that at this late hour we have not given sufficient consideration to the whole question of co-decision in the treaty. For the record, there are massive new powers for the European Parliament, and this was confirmed in a briefing note produced by the European Community in July last year. It stated:
"The European Parliament made two major gains at the Conference to become a genuine co-legislator and a full arm of the European legislature alongside the Council … Firstly the co-decision procedure has been considerably extended essentially along the lines of the principle suggested by the Commission in its report of July 1996, whereby any instrument of a legislative nature should be adopted under the co-decision procedure between the European Parliament and the Council".
The co-decision procedure is nothing short of a veto over decisions of the Council of Ministers handed to the European Parliament, and the Government have agreed that veto in 23 new areas. It was right and appropriate, even at this late hour, that attention should be focused on those provisions in this set of amendments.
I indicated that I intend to return to some of the key points that have arisen during the debates, but at this point in the Committee stage tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23B to 23K not moved.]
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes before midnight.