European Union (Amendment) Bill

I rise to support a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, which nobody else has picked up, but which is central to the debate. He said that we agree not only to laws passed by Parliament; we also agree to treaty law in Parliament. That is why we are discussing the Lisbon treaty. It goes through the Commons, comes to this House, we debate it and eventually agree the various provisions. It is agreed by the Government and that is that. That is the position as the Government understand it. However, the noble Lord was right to say that that is no longer the case. When we agree these laws, they are then liable to be changed by the European Court of Justice without recourse to the agreement of Parliament. I have a quick example from when Mr Major was Prime Minister. He was shocked. He went to Maastricht and returned, notoriously saying, ““game, set and match””. He then found that things were changed not by Parliament, the Commission or the European Parliament, but by the European Court of Justice. He wrote to Mr Santer, the then President of the Commission saying: "““Dear Jacques,""My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom””." The next paragraph is important: "““The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht””." The letter continues: "““However, in its judgement today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was ""originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation that the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.""This is contrary to the clear and express wish of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht””." The noble Lord, Lord Owen, was quite right to highlight this. Regardless of what Parliament agrees, what the electors elected Parliament for and what the European legislature or the Commission say, the European Court of Justice can, unilaterally, change agreed European arrangements. That is very important. I would be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say about that in his response, and, indeed, what the Minister will say now.