European Union (Amendment) Bill

I can tell the noble Lord where every single article comes from. I am very happy to provide that information, because it is incredibly useful. For those noble Lords who do not have it in front of them, Article 13 is on freedom of the arts and sciences. It states: "““The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected””." It derives from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is already part of EU law and is the same as that article. The noble Lord specifically asked about the genesis of Article 7 on: "““Respect for private and family life””." In a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, dealt with that when he said that it was part of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and is, therefore, already part of EU law. The noble Lord asked me about Article 29 on: "““The right of access to placement services””." In this context, it is a principle to guide the EU institutions when they legislate. It is not an enforceable right. We continue to determine our own placement services. If noble Lords would find it helpful, I would be more than happy to provide more detail, because it might help to assuage some of their concerns. We have tried to put as much as we can in the Library of the House, but I am always conscious that I should not overload noble Lords. We will make sure that we provide that detail as soon as possible. Amendment No. 89 seeks to remove the additional protection for UK social and labour laws from the UK protocol to the charter. Ensuring that the UK’s labour and social legislation was protected was, and remains, a UK ““red line””. The charter protocol guarantees that the charter cannot be used to undermine existing UK laws—in particular, but not exclusively, economic and social legislation. To those who have been concerned about the potential impact of a binding charter on UK law, it is right to say that the social and labour rights in the charter have been the principal source of concern. I can reassure the House that this concern is not justified, as all the social and labour provisions in Title IV of the charter are either existing rights in UK law, are tied back to national law, or are guiding principles—for example, the one on placement services—rather than rights. Rights cannot, therefore, be created, except in so far as they are provided for in national law. A specific reference to Title IV helps to clarify the existing position on those provisions. Perhaps I may quote my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith from the same lecture to which I have referred. He said: "““As all the provisions in this Title [Title IV] are either existing rights in UK law, tied back to national law or are guiding principles, it clearly follows that they cannot create rights except in so far as they are provided for in national law.””" However, he continued, "““sometimes, as we all know, it is necessary for reasons of clarity and reassurance to reiterate points provided for elsewhere””." So although UK social and labour laws are protected, we do not reduce the level of protection enjoyed by UK workers. I could go on, but I will not, to talk about the importance of social rights and the benefits of parental leave, European work councils and the rights for part-time workers that I believe are so essential to providing the right framework for the people in our workforce. Amendment No. 117 aims to prevent domestic courts recognising the legal status or to take account of any proceedings in courts outside the UK based on the charter. Amendment No. 118 adds from the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and Lord Stoddart, a further sentence—namely that the word ““notwithstanding”” be added at the start. There is an intellectual legal difficulty with Amendment No. 117. It runs against, I would argue, the whole scheme of the 1972 Act, which is the mechanism by which European law is implemented in the UK, because it prevents the charter having effect. I am putting forward a very simple proposition. The UK is a member of the European Union and, as such, bound to implement EU law. Members of the Committee may not like that and may wish us elsewhere, but while we are a member of the European Union, we are bound to implement EU law. I think noble Lords know that we derive great benefit from that. It is right that the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that are recognised in the charter apply across the whole field, binding the Union institutions and the member states when they are implementing Union law. Accepting the amendment would mean that the courts could not take account of the charter and that the UK could not ratify the Lisbon treaty. Let me answer as many of the specific points as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether we had consulted the Commission on the UK charter protocol. The protocol forms an integral part of the treaties—primary EU law agreed by the member states—and the Commission is a creature of the treaties so it does not have any free-standing right to rule on what is set out in the treaties. The only way of answering the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is to break my own promise about not quoting people. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, will have to forgive me—I will try not to do this again but I cannot think of another way of doing it. On the ““Today”” programme, Mr Barroso described what he believes to be the case on behalf of the Commission. He said: "““I think the deal done by Britain was very clear in keeping the role of the British courts and I think there are no dangers of revision of the conditions negotiated by Britain through … the jurisdiction of Brussels””." That is as close as I can get to giving the noble Lord what he seeks. Bearing in mind what I have said, it would be inappropriate, at best, to formally consult a creature of the treaties about the role of the treaties. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and other Members of the Committee asked about whether the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg or the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has priority. The charter does not change the position. The European Court of Justice will be able to decide how fundamental rights apply in European Union law. That is what it does now. The Court of Human Rights will have the final say about the meaning of the rights in the European Court of Human Rights. So EU law has the European Court of Justice as its final arbiter and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has the final say on human rights, as is the position now. Nothing has changed. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also said—