HL Deb 16 October 2000 vol 617 cc668-73

3.6 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House a question of which I have given notice. I regret to have to do so because it shows a certain breakdown in the usual channels. However, it is on a matter that needs a wider airing in the Chamber; therefore, I crave the indulgence of the House.

As is now widely known, a summit of the European Union took place this weekend in Biarritz. It is normal at this time in the afternoon on the first sitting day after such a summit for the Government Chief Whip to rise and announce a Statement. On this occasion the Government Chief Whip has stayed firmly in his seat.

That is no surprise. Late on Friday afternoon, when we suggested that there would be a Statement today, the Government told us that there would not be. This morning we were told that the Government had had second thoughts: there would be a Statement to Parliament but it would be a written, not an oral, Statement. The Government have, therefore, accepted that Parliament should be informed about what happened in Biarritz. But what is not acceptable is that they have offered a Statement in a manner that allows for no debate and no response either from the Opposition or from the many Back-Benchers represented here this afternoon. There is no opportunity for a wider debate between now and the end of the Session because the Government's programme is so packed.

On examining recent precedents I discovered that, following interim European Council meetings over the past 18 months, there was a Statement: in March 1999, in October 1999 and in March this year. On all those occasions the Government said that the events of the summit had been a resounding success for the United Kingdom. Are we to believe that on this occasion the summit has not been a triumphant success for the United Kingdom? Does that explain the lack of a Statement on this occasion; or is it because the other place is not currently sitting? If that is the reason, is it not a disgrace that the Government cannot be bothered to come and give an oral Statement to the House of Parliament that is sitting?

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has, since this House returned at the end of September, behaved in an exemplary fashion as regards Statements. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made a Statement on the Dome; the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, made a Statement on the fuel crisis; and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has kept us regularly informed on international events. But on this crucial matter of national interest the Government seem to be rather coy. This weekend vital matters were raised on QMV, on the charter of fundamental rights and no doubt on the Middle East.

Will the noble Baroness tell us why no oral Statement has been offered this afternoon? Is this a change of policy; or is it another example of sidelining Parliament in general and this House in particular? Will she say whether the House will have an opportunity to discuss these matters before the Nice summit later this year?

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, I intervene briefly on behalf of these Benches to say that we are very much in agreement with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Apart from the normal areas that the interim conference is expected to discuss, there was a great deal of discussion about the Middle East. It might have been unreasonable to request a further Statement today in view of the fact that we had one last week, but bearing in mind the role of the Foreign Secretary and the reports that were no doubt given at Biarritz of his experience in the matter, I should have thought that it would have been a courtesy to the House to have had a Statement. It might have been quite an effort on the part of the Government, but it was an effort that they should have made to give some report on the matter.

I am especially concerned about a view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as regards what would have happened if the House of Commons had been sitting. Had the other place been sitting, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Prime Minister would have chosen not to make a Statement. That Statement would then have been repeated in this Chamber. I very much hope that we are not second-class citizens in that respect and that we have not been denied a Statement today which would have been made if the other place were sitting.

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington)

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for raising these points. As both noble Lords said, the Government have been extremely "forthcoming", which is perhaps the right word, in the past three weeks about the number of Statements that have been made to your Lordships, even though the other place has not been sitting. I believe there have been four Statements and one reply to a Private Notice Question. Therefore, the issues about the status of this House, and the importance that the Government see in reporting to Parliament through this House, have been adequately dealt with.

I turn to the point about the European Councils. As the House will be aware, it has been the practice for the heads of government to have these informal meetings as a precursor to the formal, full European Council meetings. But they do not usually result in either decisions being taken or in communiqués being agreed or published. That was the nature of the meeting in Biarritz last week. In general, successive governments have not made oral Statements about such meetings; indeed, they are different from the European Council meetings. For example, following similar informal summits in Formentor in 1995, in Dublin in 1996, in Noordwijk in 1997 and in Poertshach in 1998, no oral Statement was made. Therefore, the Government do not consider it necessary to make an oral Statement today.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is slightly misinformed. It was always intended that we should report back to Parliament by means of a Written Answer, tabled in both Houses. Noble Lords will see from the back of the current version of the Minute that a Question to that end was tabled on Friday by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. That Question will be answered by the Government in written form today. If substantive issues emerge from the Middle East summit taking place at the moment, I believe that it has been made clear that a Statement will be made on that outcome.

Lord Marsh

My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that there is a slightly wider issue here as regards some of us on these Benches? Noble Lords on the Cross Benches are now formally recognised as an element in this House, but we are unique in that we are not part of the usual channels and have no party machine. Therefore, it is important to noble Lords on these Benches—some of whom have mentioned this fact—that issues such as this should also provide us with an opportunity to participate in the discussions that others have available to them.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point, but it is not directly relevant to the issue under discussion. As he said, the Cross Benchers are not members of the usual channels and, therefore, that is a wider issue regarding the organisation of this House which he may want to raise in an appropriate and slightly different form.

Lord Shore of Stepney

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that the anxieties expressed so far are shared on this side of the House. These matters are very serious. The agenda at Biarritz included the charter of fundamental freedoms, among other things, and we should have an interim report on the proceedings. I do not know whether my noble friend has sufficient influence with her colleagues on the issue, but perhaps she could get them to understand that it is not just a question of minor matters; indeed, the future of this country and the effectiveness of this Parliament are also involved. When heads of government meet, we expect to have a Statement thereafter.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern about some of the issues that were discussed in Biarritz. However, with his very deep knowledge of European matters and the way in which the European Councils are organised, he will be aware that informal meetings such as the one held last weekend in Biarritz do not have conclusions or take formal decisions. Therefore, although his concerns are completely legitimate, I suspect that my noble friend's concerns are not necessarily appropriately applied to this particular meeting. As I said, this was not a meeting where the sort of far-reaching decisions about which he is rightly anxious were taken.

Lord Elton

My Lords, there appeared to be a major difference of opinion on the status of some of the proceedings of the Community between our Prime Minister and the leaders of other countries. That is a matter of concern to your Lordships and to the country. Can the noble Baroness promise the House an opportunity to debate the Written Answer when it has been published?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, the noble Lord is tempting me to incur the wrath of my noble friend the Chief Whip and, indeed, the usual channels in previewing any business decisions about the future of the House.

Lord Elton

My Lords, if it would assist, I should be very happy for the noble Lord the Chief Whip to answer my question.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, is it not a little more serious than the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would have us believe? Surely decisions were taken at Biarritz which cannot and will not conceivably be reversed at Nice. I have with me a copy of the final press conference of the presidency of the council of Biarritz—the so-called "informal council". I regret to say that it is written only in French. I shall not trouble your Lordships with my less than first-rate French, but it says in the clearest possible terms that the chiefs of state have unanimously agreed the project of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Indeed, the President of the Council, President Chirac of France, goes further and says that, this is an ambitious political test, which consecrates principles that often go further than those that have already been enunciated elsewhere". My question to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is this. Does she think that there is the slightest conceivable chance that any of this will be reversed at Nice, bearing in mind that the record of the European Union is a one-way ratchet in all of these matters; indeed, it always has been and always will be?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I could not possibly enter into the detail of that discussion, especially not in French because I suspect that my French would be less good than that of the noble Lord. However, I should point out again that this meeting was an informal council. The Government and their predecessors have taken most seriously the importance of reporting to Parliament on substantive decisions taken in the European Union, but it has not been the custom for Parliament to debate the outcomes of such informal councils. As I said earlier in response to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Rodgers, these substantive decisions are not taken at such informal councils. There are, therefore, no decisions to be reported; and, indeed, there was no communiqué to be discussed in this instance, except the informal notes to which the noble Lord has access.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, can the noble Baroness answer my question as to whether she thinks that the decision on the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be reversed at Nice or whether it will stand as agreed in Biarritz?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I am sorry; I obviously did not make myself clear enough. The decision on the universal charter will be taken at Nice.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, however informal the noble Baroness believes the meeting at Biarritz to have been, there are, nevertheless, considerable differences of opinion about the status of the fundamental rights charter. Although decisions were not taken at Biarritz, commitments to signing at Nice were in fact made. Therefore, it is important for the people of this country to know the exact status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the degree to which our Prime Minister is right to say that it is merely declaratory and has no other impact on the way in which our judges will determine law in this country. We also need to know whether M Chirac, or some of the other heads of state, are right in what they say. I think that the least we in this country should be offered is democratic, parliamentary discussion before any decision is taken finally at Nice.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, the noble Baroness suggests that it is my interpretation that this is an informal summit.

Noble Lords

Oh!

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I did, indeed, say that, because that is the status of the preliminary meeting before the full Council takes place. As I said in my original reply to the Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that follows a procedure which has been long established over the past decade and a half; namely, that informal preliminary meetings take place which act as a precursor to the full European Council. The informal summit is not an invention of mine; that is the precise term which is used. The noble Baroness mentioned the Prime Minister's attitude. As the Prime Minister has made clear—I have heard my noble friend Lady Scotland repeat this on several occasions in your Lordships' House when the point has arisen—the text which was considered simply constitutes a declaration. The noble Baroness and other Members of your Lordships' House may disagree with that but that does not detract from his view.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, having listened to everything that the noble Baroness has said, are we right to conclude that, left to herself, she would almost certainly have made a Statement today, albeit on this informal matter, and that therefore she has been under irresistible pressure from elsewhere to abrogate the rights of your Lordships' House?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

No, my Lords, that is not the case.