European Union (Amendment) Bill

moved Amendment No. 12: 12: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after ““excluding”” insert— ““(i) any provision that gives Her Majesty’s Government authority to agree to pay, or to pay, any financial penalty imposed as a result of a decision by Her Majesty’s Government not to opt in, or to opt out of, any provision, unless the Secretary of State has given a binding undertaking to Parliament that he will make no such payment unless he has laid a statement before Parliament setting out a schedule of such penalty or penalties and payment has been approved by an affirmative resolution of the House of Commons; and (ii) ”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, of course we need to make progress, but we now come to an amendment about which I feel very strongly. Both I and my noble friend Lord Kingsland have raised this point before in various discussions on the Bill. I am afraid the matter is just too important for us to let it lie. I am certain that most fair-minded people will share our first-level concern about the possibility that financial penalties may be imposed on the UK for future breaches of European correctness. More significantly, however, this real and present financial concern is also inextricably linked with deeper and wider doubts about how effective our notional opt-outs are really going to be in future. I recall a number of unedifying tussles when I was a Secretary of State, most notably over proposed limits to the working week. Our European partners tried a series of different means to achieve the same ends, repeatedly finding one avenue blocked and immediately seeking out another. It was therefore with great sympathy that I read the proceedings of the European Scrutiny Committee in another place. It has played devil's advocate repeatedly by highlighting the uncertain nature of our supposed right to opt in or out and subsequent doubts about our ability to safeguard our national interests post-Lisbon. This provision effectively guarantees that financial penalties will in future be levied on the UK if our refusal to opt in to an amended measure makes the existing measure inoperable, as a consequence of which the whole package has to be discarded. Ministers will no doubt cling, as the Minister clung last time, to the assertion that the provisions allow only for necessary and unavoidable financial consequences to be charged to the UK, in what they apparently consider to be the most unlikely event of the provisions being implemented. I ask again: how can the Government be confident about this? They are making what I suppose has come to be regarded as the classic ministerial error. Around the year 375 AD, Flavius Renatus first coined the immortal phrase, ““Si vis pacem, para bellum””. The Minister will not, of course, need me to explain that this means if you want peace, prepare for war. Although the contemporary parallel under the amended treaty of Rome is happily less bellicose, the principle is the same. As a Minister, I learnt that the best approach to European and all other international treaties and agreements is to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Ministers cling to the optimistic hope but neglect the second half of that formulation—the preparation for unwelcome eventualities—at their and our peril. Where is this infallible crystal ball that gives the Minister such certainty and privileged knowledge about what will happen in the future? For the rest of us, alas, the intentions of our European partners are shrouded in mystery and we therefore seek to reserve our position. Of course, much of this will be contingent on the decision on whether an existing measure is operable or inoperable, and on what the necessary and unavoidable financial consequences may be, but both these decisions will be made by qualified majority voting so we will have no veto whatever over what our European partners decide to do, or over what they might decide we should do. On the previous occasion I was unable to persuade the Minister, even when I quoted the very emphatic words of the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee in another place, Michael Connarty. Noble Lords may recall that I quoted his phrase: "““These are bullying clauses and I am shocked that you try to defend them””.—[Official Report, 14/5/08; col. 1053.]" I have reread the full transcript, which contained an interesting exchange between the chairman and the Foreign Secretary. That gives me great confidence in the ability of the Select Committee system to test Ministers. After he said, ““These are bullying clauses””, Michael Connarty went on to say, "““I say that in the spirit of comradeship … I know what is happening out there, we have just been through it—a lot of nations are unhappy with the UK, they say, contaminating the process because we have opt-outs and Protocols, and these appear ""to me and appear to all sensible people who see it as additional clauses put in to make sure the UK does not either opt in and still have the freedom of not having the European Court of Justice—””." At this point the Foreign Secretary could contain himself no longer and interjected: "““Can I just pick up one thing you said?””" The chairman of the Select Committee, may he ever more be praised, said, ““Let me finish””. He went on: "““Or on the other hand to cajole us or pressurise us to opting in. On those terms I do not think anyone with a bit of principle would sign up to them””." I dare say that the Minister will not be persuaded by me and her colleague, the Foreign Secretary, was not persuaded by a Labour Member in another place. However, I would like to hear her at least attempt to explain in clearer terms exactly why these provisions were allowed to remain in. On the previous occasion we debated this in Committee, I asked the Minister to give examples of situations where these provisions could come into effect. I was minded to take the amendment to a vote but she got up, looked me straight in the eye and said, with regard to examples, that, "““if I find any then I will certainly send them to the noble Lord. He would expect me to say that, and I would do so””." At that point I said: "““That is all I needed to hear and … I beg leave to withdraw the amendment””.—[Official Report, 14/5/08; col. 1055.]" A week went by after that and nothing came in the post. Indeed, my birthday was a week later but nothing arrived. My wedding anniversary was a week later still and there was not even a card, not even a billet-doux. Since then I have heard nothing at all so I await with anticipation what the Minister will say tonight. I beg to move.