Lisbon Treaty (No. 3)

No, I am not going to take interventions, because I hope to leave more time for the winding-up speeches than I would if I took my full 12 minutes. What does the charter of fundamental rights say to anyone? Who is interested in it, and who is afraid of it? I will tell hon. Members who is afraid of it: the person who stood as the presidential candidate in Serbia, who would have taken that country back under the influence of Russia. It was what the charter of fundamental rights and the European Union stood for that won the election in Serbia for those who want to get closer to the EU, and we hope, join it, alongside other former parts of the fractured former nation of the Republic of Yugoslavia. I have no fear of what the EU holds out to our citizens, as well as to others. I would like to talk about what the treaty does, with reference to the consolidated texts of the EU treaties as amended by the treaty of Lisbon. For example, article 3 has been referred to by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children as representing a fundamental move forward. Paragraph 3 of article 3 says that there will be"““solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.””" Paragraph 5 refers to"““eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child””." That is the first time such a provision has been put down in the laws of the EU. It is an important matter because we saw in Romania the terrible sight of children chained to potties on stools in the so-called children's homes that existed there before that country entered the EU. If such conditions alone are ended by the treaty, it is one worth signing. Article 6 refers to the charter of fundamental rights, which is important because it shows that it is central to what the European Union will be about. Paragraph 3 of article 6 says"““Fundamental rights…shall constitute general principles of the Union's law.””" How can we be afraid of that? Articles 145 to 150, under title IX, ““Employment””, deal with employment rights. I cannot see how anyone can object to a treaty that includes such provisions which will be binding on all nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) spoke about the difficulties of Latvia and Sweden, which did not have an understanding with regard to how people have common rights that transfer across the Union. I come to article 153—the original article 137 of the treaty—under title X, ““Social Policy””. For the benefit of those who want to read our debates, and I hope that many will, I want to put on the record what that article says. It refers to"““(a) improvement in particular of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety;""(b) working conditions;""(c) social security and social protection of workers;""(d) protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated…;""(f) representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers, including co-determination…;""(g) conditions of employment for third-country nationals legally residing in Union territory""(h) the integration of persons excluded from the labour market””—" we are always talking about integration, and wondering about the 2.7 million people who are on incapacity benefit, and why that figure has grown from several hundred thousand—"““(i) equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and treatment at work;""(j) the combating of social exclusion;""(k) the modernisation of social protection systems without prejudice””." Those points are not just in the charter of fundamental rights, but in the treaty. They are things worth voting for, and I hope that we will do so. Everyone says that it is all about the European Court of Justice—this big bad organisation that will somehow take decisions from a malicious point of view. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) pointed out earlier, its judgments normally are on the fair side of the equation and are not made in a malicious way that is disadvantageous to the people. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), my colleague on the European Scrutiny Committee, says that there is no right of appeal. We know of a case that came before the Committee, concerning a journalist from Belgium. His house was raided and his equipment taken because he had put out a story about corruption in the fraud office of the EU. He went to the European Court of Justice and lost. He then went to the European Court of Human Rights and won. He got €30,000 in compensation and his costs paid. The court found against OLAF, so there are places to which one can go in the European Union if the European Court of Justice denies one's human rights. That is why human rights are so important and central to the Bill. The charter of fundamental rights is an important document. Somebody asked why it was not a single document—it is. Here it is—I am holding up the charter. Anyone can get a copy—it is readable, accessible and says some things that we should be proud to state about the European Union of which we wish to be part. Those things will be law once the treaty is passed. Ministers have said that the charter contains nothing additional, but it does. According to the Law Society, which analysed it purely from a legal point of view, it"““contains many rights similar to those set out in the ECHR, in addition to further rights and principles already recognised in EU law.””" The rights will be additional but they are already in EU law. However, the article continues:"““Until now the Charter has had no binding effect, but this will change as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon.””" The charter will be binding, and I find that attractive for reasons that I will outline. Article 4 of chapter I is entitled, ““Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment””. Such a prohibition may not exist in some countries that might be considering joining the European Union. Holding up as a flagship guarantee a provision that people cannot be abused, tortured or punished inhumanely by their Governments will attract people to share our view of Europe, rather than that which some other regimes currently hold. Article 5 of chapter I prohibits forced labour and people traffickers. Article 10 of chapter II is entitled, ““Freedom of thought, conscience and religion””. That is very important. Article 23 of chapter III deals with gender inequality and article 24 is entitled, ““The rights of the child””. Those are fundamental matters in a charter of which we should be proud. Surely hon. Members approve of article 25, about the rights of the elderly and article 26, about the ““Integration of persons with disabilities””. In chapter IV, articles 27 to 33 deal with employment rights, including family and maternity rights, and the rights that my colleagues who spoke about employment law discussed. Chapter VI contains articles 47 to 50 and includes article 48, ““Presumption of innocence and right of defence””. That seems to me to be an anti-sharia law article because people are not presumed innocent under sharia law. People are presumed innocent under our law in the EU and that is fundamental, especially when considering some of the jurisdictions that want to join the Union, which take a different view about whether sharia or EU law should apply. In chapter VII, article 53 protects fundamental freedoms and article 54 deals with the prohibition of abuse of those rights. We should include all such provisions in anything that we wish to become the law of the EU. Indeed, they are a part of EU law. Some hon. Members have asked why we should have a protocol when, in the European Scrutiny Committee's judgment, it did not have any of the opt-out powers that were originally discussed. As early as July, the Government began to admit that we were right and that the protocol did not constitute the opt-out that was originally intended. Paragraph 28 of our third report of the 2007-08 Session, which was published after taking evidence from Ministers, states:"““It seems to us that a judgment of the ECJ interpreting a measure of Union law in a case brought in another Member State would form part of the body of Union law which the UK courts would be obliged to follow in the UK so as to ensure the consistent application of Union law throughout the Union.””" We believe that that is the correct interpretation. If there were such judgments on the working time directive, that on agency workers and others that were mentioned, which are part of EU law and in the charter, I believe that they would be binding in this country as well as in others. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) was correct when he said that we kept emphasising to the Minister—the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) especially pressed the matter—that the only way in which the charter would not apply would be to pass a protocol, which would take effect, ““notwithstanding the treaties or Union law generally””. If Union law generally and the treaties are binding, the charter is also binding. I believe that that is a good thing. I repeat that I am worried that the trade union movement has reacted so badly to what appeared to be a signal—a flourish—to the CBI that somehow we would not grant the same rights in employment law to everyone. If we rejected the treaty, we would deny the charter to every other country and trade unionist in Europe. Some need it much more desperately than our unions. It is a question of solidarity. The trade union movement should not be afraid of the impact on human rights or workers' rights through accepting the treaty, for which I shall vote.