Community Law (Hansard, 29 November 2000)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
My Lords, the charter will be adopted as a political declaration. It establishes no new powers for the EU or the European Court of Justice. The Union is already obliged by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on the European Union to respect fundamental rights as general principles of Community law. The ECJ is responsible for ensuring this. In interpreting Article 6(2), the Court can have regard to any material it considers relevant. This may include the charter. But that does not make this declaratory charter legally binding.

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The Minister for Europe likened the charter to the Beano comic, and both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said— as the Minister herself has told the House—that it is a mere political declaration and will not impact on national law. However, does he agree that the Commission, in an official communication, and the vice-president of the European Court of Human Rights have stated that the charter will become mandatory through the European Court's interpretation of it and that our judges will have to apply it? Who is right? Surely it is plainly wrong to assert, as the Government have, that the charter is a mere showcase of existing rights and will not affect member states. One has only to look at Article 19, which purports to restrict the right of member states to extradite criminals.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I know that on this topic, too, noble Lords opposite have been exercised in a way similar to that just referred to by my noble friend. Perhaps I may speak plainly and assist the noble Lord in relation to the Commission's attitude to the charter. The Commission's press release of 12th September, regarding what the charter will not be, stated: It will not be a vehicle to extend or reduce the powers of the Union and the Community. Changes in any powers are a matter for the Intergovernmental Conference only, not for the Convention. As the discussions within the Convention have shown, it will not require any amendments to the Member States' constitutions. It will basically group together rights already existing in different documents and in the Treaties. It will have no 1319 impact on forms of court action or the court structure put in place by the Treaties, as it does not provide for new channels of access to Community courts. It neither requires nor precludes the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. This matter does not fall within the remit of the Convention". People have been very careful which quotations from the Commission they choose to adopt. The Commission has made it absolutely clear that the charter is not a binding document; it is declaratory. The courts can take it into account, but it is not legally binding. I invite the noble Lord's attention to the end of the charter, especially Articles 52 and 53. The House will find that that puts the matter very much in its proper context.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords—

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords—

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, in any event, does my noble friend agree that it is not desirable for this House to give instructions to the European Court of Justice, any more than it would through any avenue of law enforcement in this country? Indeed, the noble Lord is a Queen's Counsel and should know much better than that.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is an opportunity for us to exercise not only judgment but also moderation. As has been rightly said, the matter will be capable of being taken into account by the European Court of Justice. The Court has indicated that it understands that this is a political document, which is declaratory in nature, and, therefore, will have to be approached appropriately.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords—

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords—

Noble Lords
Lester!

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington)
My Lords, I believe that there is probably enough time for both noble Lords to put their questions, provided that they are reasonably brief.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, the Minister told us most eloquently everything that the new charter is not. We already have the European Convention on Human Rights, which our courts are seeking to assimilate, and our national rules governing people's rights. In addition, we are being threatened with a Commission document encapsulating the rights and aims of the European Union. If, on top of that, this new charter really does not add anything at all, what on earth is the point of the whole endeavour?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I believe that I have answered that point on a number of occasions. However, I am quite happy to repeat my answer. Clarity is always of use—making visible those 1320 rights that we already have is a matter of real importance to the peoples of our countries. The charter will be a measure that can be used to good effect by ordinary men and women. Indeed, to highlight the issue raised in this House previously, perhaps the lawyers will not have it all their own way.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords does the Minister agree that it is desirable for the European Court of Justice to have regard in areas of EU competence to the charter and the European convention to protect the individual citizen against the misuse of power by EU institutions and officials? Taking the specific example given by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, does the Minister also agree that Article 19 of the charter, to which he takes objection, is already in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which forbids inhuman or degrading treatment, punishment or torture?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The ECJ will be able to take these measures into account, as is proper. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, a good basis for the upholding of those rights is already inherent in the current structure that we have. It is a persuasive document, but nothing more.