European Union (Amendment) Bill

I take that point and hope that everyone else will. I believe that any form of xenophobia is a very bad thing for the project and, indeed, for the world we live in. We now live in a global village, as Marshall McLuhan predicted back in the 1960s. We have to get used to it and come to understand that what seems to some to be a threat may be our saving grace. The truth is that people are not really talking against the Lisbon treaty, but against the process of the European Union—what I as a member and Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee recognise as clear ““Commission creep””. There is such Commission creep because that plutocracy was given power to try to put together arrangements for the advancement of a closer and closer Europe in order to prevent Europe from being run by politicians who would go to war when they could not solve problems. We have moved on from that, however, as the process is now about economic development, social development, enlargement and making the European Union a place of safety, security and, hopefully, human rights for people who did not have them under the previous Soviet communist arrangements. Many everyday things will not change when the treaty goes through and the various directives, regulations and framework decisions come into force—the process under which the European Commission can get rules, regulations and laws on to the statute book. There will be green papers, white papers and even the non-papers. The EU is the only organisation in the world I know that presents non-papers. I predict that they will eventually become green, then white papers and eventually directives. That is how the EU gets things on the agenda. We are used to dealing with that process every week. I hope that people will read our reports, which are printed every week, and see exactly how our business is done. In respect of the post-constitution and post-referendum period, at COSAC and Future of Europe meetings or even in face-to face meetings with Franco Frattini, I have said—I believe I said it in Hansard—that ““the constitution is dead””. The constitution was dead, because that arrangement would never have got through under the barrier. Even by taking 5 per cent. out, the treaty was acceptable to the French Government, who took two days—one and a half days in the Chamber of Deputies and half a day in the Senate—to get it through, but I did not see an uprising in the streets of France. I am sure that the French referendum had as much to do with the disquiet and the problems in the streets and arrondissements of Paris as it had to do with the constitution itself. I would like to suggest that people should take the trouble of reading our Committee's reports. They have been quoted bit by bit, piece by piece—but not line by line in the sense of every line, just the line that people like. We expressed our concerns on many issues in our reports. I am not claiming that this is a perfect deal for the UK. It amounts to a hard-won alteration to the conditions that we will have to apply when the Lisbon treaty comes into force, but we have to accept that that is what negotiations are about. How the negotiation took place is a mystery, and we said that. We said that the process"““could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national parliaments and to curtail public debate, until it has become too late for such a debate to have any effect on the agreements which they have reached.””" That was in our 3rd report of Session 2007-08, paragraph 8, page 5. It is true. It was a mysterious process, but it did come up with a number of important decisions that safeguarded the UK and, indeed, other countries, on common security and foreign policy, on defence, on tax, on social security and so forth. We were leading that argument, by whatever means it was going on. In the final intergovernmental conference, we obviously came out with something different and better than what had been proposed before in the treaty for a constitution. We had some doubts about it and we put them on the record. Let me refer to the paragraphs in our reports. I will not read them out, as we do not have enough time, but I will mention the paragraphs where we expressed a doubt— paragraph 6 on page 7; paragraph 21, page 8; paragraph 24, page 8 and paragraph 25, page 9. We went on to express further doubt about other elements of the same treaty. That will not surprise the Minister, who has heard all those doubts argued. In paragraph 60, we said:"““We were less concerned by the provision relating to measures which build on the so-called Schengen aquis.””" On that, we added that"““the UK needed to establish an 'absolute right' to choose whether to participate in Schengen building measures.””" It did, in protocol 10 to article 10, which gave us an opt-in or opt-out decision every time that an advance along the Schengen lines is proposed, which obviously concerns the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). We expressed further concerns in paragraph 64 on page 18 and paragraph 67 on page 19 and we drew our conclusions on page 20. In paragraph 72, we stated:"““We remain concerned that the provisions on the role of national parliaments are still cast in terms in which a legal obligation can be inferred””." People may remember that we would have preferred ““may”” rather than ““shall””; we had to argue again and again about what the direction to ““participate”” will mean. Paragraph 74 states:"““We draw attention to the provisions relating to the 'opt-in' on amendments to existing EU measures, where we consider a stronger position could have been achieved.””" Paragraph 75 states:"““We are concerned that the interpretation of the red line to 'protect UK civil and criminal justice' as only requiring control of the decision to opt in or not does recognise the loss of protection that will occur every time jurisdiction is transferred from UK courts to jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice and the Commission.””" So, we had many concerns, but we have many more reasons for offering support. Throughout the debates, I have read into the record parts of the actual treaty—in particular, the consolidated treaty numbers and what they say—because I believe that there are many reasons to support them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) spoke of some of those. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) spoke fluently and in a reasoned way, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) also gave lucid reasons for positive support. The economic and social balance has been switched back slightly towards the social and away from the problem that people have with unabated free market economics. On human rights, the charter of fundamental rights has been opposed. I cannot understand how anyone can oppose what is in it, because most of it is in our own Human Rights Act 1998. That is the way it should be, but we seem to have got upset in a way that makes no sense to me. What is wrong with having human rights throughout the whole of Europe? The rights of children throughout Europe are in the treaty for the first time, which is very positive. The rights of the elderly—intergenerational solidarity—are in the treaty. There are employment laws and rights—not just in the charter of fundamental rights, but in the treaty. The protocol on services of general interest will protect not only the ferries to the islands of Scotland, but many social services, if they are designed specifically for the needs of the people for whom they are provided. There are links, on the basis of economic and social welfare, to education and skills, and an education White Paper is being considered in Europe at the moment. None of that is compulsory; it is advisory and it is good practice. That is how we should try to transfer good practice across the EU. On intergenerational solidarity, I recommend that people get hold of the report and read it. The analysis is that, by 2030, there will be 30 million fewer people of employment age—of work force age—in the EU. We have to face up to that and think about how we can extend people's work life and make work life more accessible—for example, perhaps for those with disabilities. We must also consider how to draw into Europe people who can give us the work force that we require. The ongoing processes on climate change, energy use and energy generation can be done only on a European level. There is no way they can be done country by country any more. We have to think seriously about how we deal with those matters. The latest book by Professor James Lovelock, ““The Revenge of Gaia””, says that we are already over the tipping point and heading beyond 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere—heading for 600, which would mean parts of London being under water. A lot of south-east Asia will be under water if we do not do something about that. I think that the EU did not try to direct; it fudged the issue. It did not say what it should have said about the need for different types of energy. It said, ““We want more renewables.”” There was a kind of wish list, which said, ““We're going to have 15 per cent. renewables; that's our target.”” But how do we get there? The EU is afraid to say some important things. The one I think that it needs to say is that nuclear, with reprocessing using mixed oxide—or MOX—fuel, is a renewable resource, as well as any other. What is the bogeyman in all this? I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has gone. The bogeyman is what we frighten people with in Scotland.