European Union (Amendment) Bill

moved Amendment No. 115: 115: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— ““United Kingdom courts: independence Nothing in this Act or the Treaty of Lisbon shall be taken as requiring United Kingdom courts to enforce judgements of the European Court of Justice relating to civil or criminal law or police and judicial processes that run counter to laws passed by the United Kingdom Parliament.”” The noble Lord said: This straightforward amendment seeks to establish that nothing in this Bill or the treaty of Lisbon changes the position requiring the UK courts to enforce judgments of the European Court of Justice in the specific areas of civil or criminal law, or police and judicial processes, that run counter to laws passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. In our debate earlier this week on the provisions in the area of freedom, security and justice I made the point that justice and policing was an area that belongs within a nation state. The electorate of a nation expect to be able to elect a Parliament and Government that have ultimate control over their criminal law and judicial processes. I fully accept—although I may not like it—that, where the UK agrees to opt in to a measure on freedom, security and justice and then passes a law to apply that measure here, we will be signing up to the jurisdiction of the European Court on any measure in that area. Indeed, as we noted during the week, the European Court can take the UK Government to task if it believes that they have not implemented a measure effectively in the UK. The question that follows is: if there is a dispute, who decides which law applies in the UK? Can someone apply to the UK courts for a court interpretation of the will of the UK Parliament, or is the UK court system trumped by the European Court of Justice, which has a superior position in interpreting that will? Moreover, if the UK Parliament responded to an ECJ judgment by passing a new law that made explicit what the provisions of that law were meant to be in the United Kingdom, would the UK court system uphold the will of this Parliament, or would it regard itself as having to uphold decisions by the European Court of Justice? It is important that we are clear on these issues at this point. In the area of freedom, security and justice, where we may not have opted in, judgments will be made and precedents developed within the rest of the European Community and it is quite possible, following precedent, that those judgments may be taken as setting precedents. Then we have the situation that, even in an area where we have not opted in, our legal system may start to define UK law based on judgments elsewhere in the European community. Much of that is normal process, but if our UK courts are asked to interpret a law according to a law passed by the UK Parliament, can we be clear that the UK Parliament’s law will take precedence over the importation of precedents from the European legal system? Will judgments in the area of security, freedom and justice—where we have opted in—to do with cross-border disputes, as all measures under that area are supposed to be, nevertheless become precedents that become a determining factor in the UK legal system? Then we come on to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights which, as we know, has the same effect in the UK as elsewhere, despite our protocol, and is binding in its consequences. The question arises of whether it can be used as an appeal mechanism to appeal against UK laws on the basis that a UK law passed by the UK Parliament offends, in the eyes of the European Court of Justice at least, against some of the measures in it. If so, will the European Court of Justice have the final say on the matter or will it be the UK courts? I am not a lawyer, and I confess that many of these issues puzzle me. I have listened to many lawyers arguing them without coming to a clear resolution. My amendment attempts to put this matter beyond doubt by stating: "““Nothing in this Act or the Treaty of Lisbon shall be taken as requiring United Kingdom courts to enforce judgements of the European Court of Justice””," in this area, "““that run counter to laws passed by the United Kingdom Parliament””." I live in hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will respond to this by saying, ““Yes, of course that’s true and therefore I am quite happy to accept this amendment and add it to the face of the Bill””. If she cannot accept it, it is incumbent on her and the Government to spell out that under this Act and treaty they are asking us to accept that the ECJ should have the power to override laws passed by the United Kingdom Parliament because if she does not accept this amendment, that is what she is telling us. I beg to move. [Amendment No. 116, as an amendment to Amendment No. 115, not moved.]