Lisbon Treaty (No. 3)

I shall try to make some progress and bring my remarks to a close. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for making an important point and further drawing out that element of the European Scrutiny Committee's report. One must bear it in mind that any new legislation initiated by the European Commission, and affecting the entire European Union, is certain to follow the decisions made by the European Court of Justice on specific cases. Even if the protocol means that the United Kingdom is exempt for a time, once a decision has been made in respect of, say, Austria or Romania, subsequent legislation from the Commission on that topic will follow not the position in the United Kingdom but the situation brought about by the ECJ judgment. That legislation will then become binding on the United Kingdom. The only way in which the protocol could insulate the United Kingdom from the impact of court decisions based on the charter would be either for the protocol to have included the kind of clause described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), or for the Court of Justice to permit the development of two separate systems of jurisprudence within the European Union—one for the United Kingdom and Poland, and the other for all the other member states. I see nothing in the charter, nothing in the treaty and nothing at all in the traditions of the European Court of Justice that makes that seem remotely likely. I fear that once again on this issue, as on others in respect of Lisbon, the Government have been trying to pull the wool over our eyes. We have had from successive Ministers a series of different positions on the charter of fundamental rights. We first had the then Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), saying that it was of no more significance than The Beano. Then, as recently as last June, the former Prime Minister declared that"““we will not accept a treaty that allows the Charter of Fundamental Rights to change UK law in any way.””" A month later in their White Paper the Government had slithered into a position where they were committed simply to ensure"““that our existing labour and social legislation remains intact””." Back in June, Tony Blair was insisting:"““It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from both the charter and judicial and home affairs””—[Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 37.]" and just weeks after that, the current Minister for Europe told the Scrutiny Committee:"““The UK specific protocol which the UK secured is not an 'opt out' from the Charter. Rather, the protocol clarifies the effect that the Charter will have in the UK.””" By January this year the Minister was saying that"““the United Kingdom has neither sought nor achieved an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights””—[Official Report, 28 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 34.]—" a fairly shameless rewriting of history, even by the standards of the present Government. The British people deserved their Government to speak to them on these issues with both clarity and candour. Instead, again and again, we have been subjected to spin. Nothing that the Secretary of State has said this afternoon has persuaded me that we can have confidence in the Government's assurances and promises any more than we were able to believe those that they have repeated to Parliament and the public over the past few years. For that reason, I ask the House to support the Opposition amendment tonight.