European Union (Amendment) Bill

Again, this has been an interesting debate. I only raise with noble Lords the time, because for noble Lords who I know have been clear that they want to complete the Committee in good time and in good order, I suggest that at the next Committee day we think about the length of our contributions, regardless of the intensity of debate, which I accept has been very important. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Quin, because it is very important that we girls get in on this debate. It is a boy-dominated discussion. I cannot answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, about 25 per cent; I do not have the faintest idea what he is talking about, but I have no doubt that he will provide me with his sources and I shall be able to give him a full and factual answer. I have received a letter from Open Europe about the issue of its briefing, mentioned last time, in which it pointed out that there was an article in a newspaper. I have to say that I was looking for more authoritative sources. I will look at who wrote the article; I, too, can read it in the original French and we shall see where these debates take us. Let me respond to the amendment by being clear on where we began our discussions on the purpose of the treaty. It related to the question of how we managed a European Union of 27 nation states, with a possibility of that number growing by one, two or possibly more, and made ourselves as effective as we possibly could, not only between ourselves as nation states, but on the world stage. I accept—and noble Lords have not made much of this, but it was an important element of the debate in another place—that the three presidencies working together, including the presidencies to come, have been important elements in making sure that there has been synergy, collaboration and continuity between those who have had the privilege of serving on the Council of Ministers in relation to all the aspects of European work and those who have chaired them together and thought through the continuity of what we do. As a former justice Minister during the UK’s presidency who has had the privilege of chairing several Justice and Home Affairs Council meetings, I firmly believe that there is a real issue that we have to think about. We have been clear in the UK that it is a good move to think about the creation of a new full-time president of the European Council, because we have in Europe a strategic agenda which national prime ministers and presidents set for the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, rightly says that there are occasions when there is disagreement between member states. The role of the president is to be a functionary of the Council. The president is not making policy but rather representing the European Union on the world stage. I looked back at the relations between the European Union and Russia, a country which was discussed earlier in our debates for different reasons. While Mr Putin was President of Russia, he met 16 different European leaders in their role as EU President—beginning with Portugal in May 2000, interestingly, running through the gamut of European countries and ending up with Portugal again in October 2007. Those who have the good fortune to chair the European Council are also running their own countries and have their own priorities as national Presidents or Prime Ministers. They arrive to take over the mantle from a President or Prime Minister before them and try to continue a debate which is often at a critical stage or are in the middle of deep negotiations with another member state. From my small and irrelevant experience of chairing the Justice and Home Affairs Council, I know that just when I had got to grips with things, I handed over the baton to somebody else. That does not matter on those councils where three presidencies are working together on issues that are beneath the strategic issues, looking at the role of the European Union on the global stage. However, it does matter when you are thinking about how to make sure that you have continuity in dealing with global issues. I believe that for an individual to represent the views where we have consensus between 27 member states for two and a half years plus two and a half years, and no longer, is a sensible solution.