Lisbon Treaty (No. 3)

The hon. Gentleman has a fair theoretical point. In all these debates, I feel at times like William Blake when he wrote:"““Both read the Bible day and night""But thou read'st black where I read white.””" We all take our different interpretations from the common text in front of us. For example, we had some discussion about the relationship between the ECJ and the Strasbourg Court—I shall call it that for the sake of shorthand—on the question of Gibraltar. This sovereign House of Commons denied the people of Gibraltar their right to vote in European Parliament elections. When they fought and struggled for it, it was the Spanish Government who took the issue up with the European Court of Justice. However, the Gibraltarians had already gone to the European Court of Human Rights and the ECJ accepted the superiority of the ECHR on that matter. We then legislated to allow Gibraltarians to vote in the Spanish regional constituency of the European Parliament. There will be that tension; of course there will. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden gave a marvellous example of the Court backing away from an alarming ruling that would have damaged Europe's standing in Britain before the Bill on the Maastricht treaty—I would have thought that how that Bill was handled did quite enough damage to Europe's standing in Britain, but no matter. Such dynamisms exist. To take an example, each country has highly specific national sets of labour rights. In Germany, 1.5 million Beämtern—full-time public employees—have no right to strike under the German constitution. That cannot be changed by reference to the right to strike in the European charter of fundamental rights because the horizontal national protection language written into it was put in at the behest of Germany. France has a completely different approach on issues such as minimum service in the event of strikes. In France, only five trade unions are recognised to sign contracts. Even if a 500,000-strong union went on strike every day, it would have no legal existence under French law. That will not be altered. To that extent, I agree with the points made about the protocol. It is a strengthening of the horizontal provisions in the charter of fundamental rights, but it is not an opt-out. The decision was made to go down that road for political reasons. I am happy to say in the House of Commons—I have said it to colleagues—that the political price paid was very high, given how alarming and upsetting it was to trade union friends. I have exchanged correspondence with Mr. Lambert, the director general of the CBI, on the issue and I think that having extracted that, the CBI had a duty to reciprocate and campaign for the ratification of the treaty in Parliament. It has not done that; it was given the works, but has not put much back on the table. That is just a private point—the CBI behaves as it behaves. Several Labour Members have spoken about their fears and concerns. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) is not here, but he described the European Union as a neo-liberal project. I do a little speaking here and there at international economic conferences in Europe and elsewhere. At meetings in America, and at some of the more business-focused meetings in Europe, the European Union is regarded as a bunch of communist, lefty social-welfarists. It is thought that we in the EU, far from being neo-liberals, are far too soft on social matters. Perhaps my right hon. Friend should read article 2 of the new treaty, which says:"““The Union shall establish an internal market…aiming at full employment and social progress…It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination…shall promote social justice and protection.””" Article 8B states:"““The institutions shall…give…Representative associations””—" that is, trade unions—"““the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action.””" No other arrangement in the world writes into the language at the very top of its articles of association—in this case, the treaty—the commitment to promoting social justice and protection. As an ex-trade union official, I fully agree that much of what I see is not entirely to my liking. The European Court of Justice has, on the whole, been positive for workers and employees. Only last week, it gave a ruling—not a full decision—on the rights of employees in Britain to be able to look after handicapped children. Some vicious, ugly firm refused a mother the right to go and look after a handicapped child, and the case went up to the European Court of Justice, which has said that employers should behave properly. We can look at provisions under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and some of the rulings on working hours. We can look at—this is a matter of deep concern to me and my constituents—the rulings on the pensions stolen from steel and engineering workers, where, again, a ruling from the ECJ has forced our Government, rather late in the day, to step up to the mark and provide justice for those workers. The Swedish case could be solved if Sweden had a statutory minimum wage. The German Social Democratic party is now dropping its opposition and going in that direction. This is not a nirvana of high wages, but it writes into a national legal obligation what the ECJ then cannot rule against. We should be careful about objections to the country of origin principle. When I was Minister for Europe, one of my most pressing problems was trying to get European law applied to British citizens working in different countries who found all sorts of little social protectionist rackets that stopped them having full title, full salary, full pensions and the rest of it. I want to see an open European market, a socially just market in which British citizens have full rights. We must be careful that what is sauce for the British gander in terms of social protection is not used against it. I must finish by dealing with the absurd complaint that judges are not accountable to electorates. They are not so in this country; they are not so anywhere. The very concept of justice is based on separation of powers. The Conservatives want a European Union from which it can pick and choose the bits that it wants to support. The gist of the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) was, ““Let others go further forward, but we can stop where we are.”” I do not particularly dissent from that, but believe me, if we want to pick and choose what we like, then other countries can say, ““We don't like Ryanair and easyJet landing””, or ““We don't want the environmental rules that Britain is fighting for to be applied to our nation.”” If we want Britain to have an effect and a voice in the European Union, we have to accept that in relation to other countries.