European Union (Amendment) Bill

Let me begin by reiterating what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, for whom I have the highest respect. I hope he did not take offence at what I said. With such an interesting debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, on the role of the German constitutional court, which I found so fascinating, I would have loved it to have ranged further and taken in other countries such as Denmark and Poland to which the noble Lord referred. I believe that I referred to France. It was in that spirit that I made my point. It is often frustrating when you wish to be brief from the Front Bench if you can see the opportunity to reiterate much of what you have said before for the benefit of noble Lords who had not participated. I apologise if I caused any offence—it was not meant. In a way this is a simple proposition which relies on the position that noble Lords take on Europe and the current treaty. Those noble Lords who believe we should not be in Europe at all—and their view is perfectly formed—will take great exception to the suggestion that some court outside the UK should have jurisdiction. Those who wish us to have a kind of halfway house in our relationship with Europe will equally wish to put in caveats to make sure that if there is a bit of law that they do not quite fancy on day two, they can prevent the UK being subject to it. I go back to what I have said during all our deliberations. When we signed up to this proposition, the European Court of Justice already existed and the primacy of European Union law was a well established principle. Noble Lords may argue that we should not have done it, that we should not do it now and that we should get out of it, which is a completely reasonable position. But that is where we are and I will not hide behind dancing on the head of a pin as to what is what. The Council of Ministers is made up of the member states. It is no good saying that the Council and not the member states makes the law, because the Council is made up of the member states. I have sat on the Council of Justice Ministers. I was there with a badge which said, ““UK Government””. I gave my contributions, voted and made my decisions on that basis. I represented this Government, this country and its best interests throughout, as did all of the other colleagues around the table, representing the 27 member states. I am under no illusion about what I was doing. I was a representative of a member state moving to make better law. I believed that what I was doing was in the best interests of the citizens of this country. I have described civil justice as an important element. If people are to live, work, study, travel, buy or sell in the European Union they need a civil law backdrop that makes sure they are well protected in those transactions, whatever they be. That is fundamental. In the determination of that civil law, where we have made the law, the European Union Court of Justice interprets for all of us to make sure that each member state does what it says on the tin. Each of them enacts the law as it has been written. I am also under no illusion that that comes from the supremacy of this Parliament in signing up to the 1972 Act and all that went with it. At the end of the day, this Parliament will decide whether we repeal that Act or stay within the European Union. That is the fundamental point of this amendment and for me a very simple point. While we are part of the European Union, the European Court of Justice has a role and responsibility. The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Hunt of Wirral, have made it perfectly clear that they do not like the Third Pillar collapsing into the First Pillar. They do not seem to recognise the importance and relevance of the opt-ins that have been proposed. We will debate this further—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will be able to put forward his case. In the context of the negotiations that have gone on around the Lisbon treaty, the UK is in a strong and good position—we want to be part of the European Union. In justice and home affairs, collaboration with our European partners is central to many of the things that we want to achieve—on serious and organised crime, terrorism, asylum and all sorts of issues and matters to do with collaboration and co-operation. We must look at the rub between what we are doing in Europe and in a domestic scenario and ensure that, when we sign up to it and opt in, it is in our best interests. Noble Lords will know that on some occasions on civil justice I opted in and on some occasions I did not. All those decisions were made on the basis of what I believed and my colleagues, more importantly, believed, were in the best interests of the UK. That will continue. Part of what is factored in will be a recognition that the European Court of Justice will have a say in determining what the rules are and how they are applied. That is one of many factors that the UK Government will take into account, but it is just one. It is an important one, however, and part and parcel of what this treaty does. Noble Lords may decide that they do not like this and if they were on this side of the House they would renegotiate. Well, this has been a long negotiation, which started a great many years ago; it is time to move on from institutional reform and get on with the business of what being part of the European Union is for and tackle some of the long-term and difficult objectives that we all have. In the context of the amendments, the role of Parliament is clear. It has the capacity to repeal the 1972 Act and to make that determination. That in my view is the answer to the amendment and on that basis, the noble Lord should withdraw it.