Criticism of the EU (Hansard, 27 November 2000)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
My Lords, the noble Lord's Question is based on a factual inaccuracy. At no point in the opinion to which he refers did the Advocate-General state that criticism of the EU was akin to blasphemy or that the right to freedom of expression did not apply in criticism of the EU. The Advocate-General merely concluded, in the context of an internal Commission 1109 staff case, that a former official had been in breach of his obligations according to his terms of employment and that his dismissal was therefore justified. The case will now be considered by the European Court of Justice. We shall await its final judgment before passing further comment.

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is true that the Advocate-General in question, Senor Dámas Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, whose 18-page opinion in the French translation I have with me, did not actually say that it was akin to blasphemy. What he said—and this is an opinion commonly held among the continental elite but not, thank goodness, in this country—is that damaging criticism that undermines the prestige, the self-confidence, the dignity, and so on, of institutions like the European Union is as heinous and as unacceptable as blasphemy. He did not say that it was "akin", but it comes to very much the same thing. In the light of that, when the proposal for a European public prosecutor comes to be discussed at Nice in less than a fortnight's time, can we hope that Her Majesty's Government will be extremely cautious?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, the noble Lord raised a number of questions in his response. I should point out that the appointment of a public prosecutor is not something for which the Government find there is any need. Perhaps I may remind the House that the opinion of the Advocate-General is not binding; the European Court of Justice may or may not heed the opinion; and that substantive comment should await the final judgment. Noble Lords will know that advocates are prone to making arguments and suggestions and that judges are prone to disregard them.

§ Lord Clarke of Hampstead
My Lords, in the light of her previous answers, is my noble friend the Minister able to inform the House as to why in her opinion the European Court of Justice has not so far sought a retraction from the Daily Telegraph?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I can assist the House. The press articles written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard are factually inaccurate. The ECJ wrote to the Daily Telegraph twice asking it to print a rectification. Only this Saturday, nearly one month after the appearance of the original story, did the Daily Telegraph finally print a response from the ECJ. In that letter the ECJ wrote: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is wrong to state that … the Advocate-General … claims that criticism of the European Union is, 'akin to blasphemy and could be restricted without violating freedom of speech'. In fact, the Advocate-General in no way makes that assertion". As with the earlier Question today, they seem to have got it wrong once again.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, even if the Advocate-General was misquoted—one difficulty may be that his views were set out in both Spanish and French and only recently became known in 1110 English—will the Minister at least reassure the House that there will be nothing unpatriotic or blasphemous about arguing for a development of the European Union in a more flexible and democratic direction than anything that seems to be in prospect at Nice or even in daring to suggest that the, at best, command structure for the defence of Europe might not necessarily lie at the heart of the European Union institutions?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Lord that it is not blasphemous. However, whether or not it is good sense is another matter.

§ Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that we now find ourselves in the position where it is no longer prudent to believe everything that we read in newspaper reports?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, it would, regrettably, appear to be so.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, is it not true that Article 52 of the new Charter of Fundamental Rights provides for limitations on imposed rights and freedoms otherwise recognised by the charter "if they are necessary" and meet the objectives of general interest recognised by the Union"? Does not that give one cause for concern, especially bearing in mind that, with this unfortunate development of the European Union, we are now in the phase of, "It doesn't exist"? We shall of course in future, as we have with all previous initiatives of this kind in the European Union, go through the phase of, "It doesn't matter", "We'll vote against it", or, "Our partners don't want it either". We then come, do we not, to the final phase, which is, "Oops, sorry; it's too late. You were warned"?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, if I may say so, I do not know what the noble Lord's precise question was—

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, perhaps the Minister could answer my point about Article 52 of the new Charter of Fundamental Rights, which proposes precisely the sort of sanction to which the noble Lord's Question applies.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not permit the wholesale undermining of citizens' rights, as subsequent Articles 53 and 54 make clear. Fundamental rights are guaranteed by the legally binding ECHR, the treaties and the member states' constitutions that the non-binding charter cannot go below.
1111 Perhaps I may further assist the House. Article 52(1) of the charter does indeed state that limitations may be placed on the rights contained within it, if they are necessary and generally meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union, or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others". Yet—I should stress that this is important—the following Articles 53 and 54 state that nothing in the charter should be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting the rights contained within the European Convention on Human Rights, the treaties or member states' constitutions. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord is content and comforted by those words.

Lord Acton
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that it is not altogether akin to blasphemy to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for whom I have the greatest respect, is not always totally sound on the subject of the European Union?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, as someone said before me, "You may say that; I couldn't possibly comment".