European Union: Negotiations (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being present for what I am sure were excellent speeches at the start of the debate; I was on the HS2 committee, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and in order for it to be quorate, I had to stay. I asked our Whips to put me down for the end of the debate. The trouble is that an excellent debate such as this leaves you with very little new to say. I will try not to repeat what others have said, even if it means jumping about in the speech I prepared.

I did not hear the previous speeches, but the report before us is absolutely admirable, in the great traditions of the EU Select Committee. To my mind, it demonstrates beyond all doubt that the Government are now pursuing not just a much harder Brexit than Mrs May tried to achieve but a harder Brexit than was outlined in the political declaration, which the Prime Minister signed in October and which was ratified as part of an international treaty at the end of January. That was the basis on which he fought the election. As the noble Lord, Lord Barwell, said, he solemnly promised that he had this oven-ready deal, and it is now clear that he is going for something different.

I want to make clear that I fought Brexit very hard. I think that it is absolutely the wrong direction for the country. However, I now accept that it is done. Having said that, that does not mean that those of us on these Benches have to accept that the only option is the hardest Brexit imaginable. We in the Labour Party have a responsibility to vigorously oppose what the Government is now trying to do. Plenty of changes could be sought. If they are not, Labour should go into the next election saying that it wants to achieve a closer relationship with the EU.

On the question of a hard Brexit, many noble Lords have drawn attention to the retreat from the paragraph of the political declaration that made it clear that there is a difference between the United Kingdom’s position and other nations’ positions on concluding a free trade agreement. Because of our geographical proximity and economic interdependence, these are the words—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—that the Prime Minister signed up to. The noble Lord has to accept that.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The issue that I was raising was why this was not considered in the report. It first came to light on 18 February and the report went to bed and to the printers on 3 March. There was plenty of time to consider these issues. It is remiss of the report that it did not consider whether our closeness to the EU and the size of the trade that we were doing were material issues.

[Lord Liddle]

I take the point—but at least the committee has drawn this crucial point to our attention. If we had not had this Select Committee report, what kind of debates would we have had, either here or in the other place, on the Government’s new policy? The fact is that we had nothing. There was no explanation of how what the Government were proposing was different from what they had previously proposed. Mr Johnson was going for a sleight of hand in going for this hard Brexit, and it was right that our committee should have exposed it.

The shift in our position on this particular point about the level playing field for open and fair competition will undermine confidence in our good faith. That will have very practical and real consequences for jobs and livelihoods in Britain. Even if we reach a trade agreement, I think that it is now likely that the EU will say that, if we make any move that it interprets as a move away from a level playing field, it will have a legal right to impose trade defence instruments in short order and we will not be able to stop them. These could be very damaging to sectors of our economy such as the car industry, where the non-existence of tariffs is of crucial importance.

We have already damaged ourselves very considerably. We will end up with a treaty that will not provide a stable investment climate for companies in Britain because they will always be under the threat of EU sanctions being imposed because of our attempts to break the rules.

However, that is not the only issue on which the position has changed. It is scandalous that we have thrown away just like that our participation in the European arrest warrant. Where has the big debate about that and what it means for our security been? Where has the Home Office statement been—the explanation by the Minister of what alternatives will be put in place that will be as effective in defending our interests? I feel that something fundamental such as this should not have been done in the way that it has.

As for the rest of the security agenda, the Government say that they are aiming for what they call “pragmatic co-operation”, but then go on to say:

“The agreement must not constrain the autonomy of the UK’s legal system in any way.”


So they will not sign up for our continued participation in not just the European Court of Justice but the European Convention on Human Rights. It is incredible that a Government believe that our European friends will agree to some system of administrative co-operation between the police and intelligence agencies without there being in place a binding framework of legal oversight that both parties judge to be acceptable. That has to be that, or co-operation will not work.

My third point relates to co-operation on foreign policy. The Government dismiss the prospect of a joint institutional framework; all they promise is friendly dialogue and co-operation and they do not want an agreement about this. Yet anyone who knows anything about how relations between countries work knows that institutions are incredibly important. One of the lessons I took away from my time in Brussels was that the framework it provided for regular meetings and policy discussions between senior officials, day by day and week by week, is absolutely fundamental to trying to create a convergence of approach between countries. If we say we do not want any of that kind of institutional co-operation on foreign affairs and defence, it will put us in a much weaker position.

I also think it is wrong for the Government’s new policy to reject the possibility of an overarching framework for the EU-UK relationship that was held open in the political declaration. What has happened to the deep and special partnership that Mrs May used to talk about? Do we no longer believe in that? Without such an overarching partnership, our relationship with Europe runs the risk of being characterised, and indeed poisoned, by interminable trade disputes when these are in fact of secondary importance. What matters is that we should work with our European friends to promote our shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Without that overarching partnership, I think we will lose that.

I have come to the regrettable conclusion—and I do regret it—that this Government do not really want a close relationship with our European friends. The thing that convinces me of that is the attempt that I think is being planned to rewrite the Northern Ireland protocol, which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, explained to us in great detail. If that is what happens, the relationship is going to be one of betrayal and resentment, and I think it is an absolute tragedy that that is the route down which we are going.

Somebody referred to Philip Stephens’ article in the Financial Times last week. Many of us, probably including myself, in the next few days are going to go into self-isolation because we want to survive. Well, a lot of us will survive but I do not think that the policy of the country should be one of self-isolation—but that is what we are getting with this Government.

EU: Future Relationship

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am not going to be critical of the EU. As I have said, we respect its right to conduct itself as it wishes. I repeat: we certainly do not accept the proximity argument that requires that we should be in a customs union. It is not an argument that applies in North America, and I do not believe it applies on the European continent either.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to his place and assure him that we accept that we are now in a different situation. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, just asked about, do the Government still adhere to the political declaration that the Prime Minister signed on 19 October last year? I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph 77, which deals with the point that the noble Lord just raised. It starts:

“Given the Union and the United Kingdom’s geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field.”


That is what the Prime Minister signed up for last October. Can we have it clearly stated that the Government still sign up to that statement? This is a matter of great importance; I think hundreds of thousands of people’s jobs depend on it.

[Lord True]

My Lords, the political declaration set out our commitment to discuss open and fair competition as part of negotiations on our future relationship. We are committed to doing so.

Conduct of Debate in Public Life

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harris on organising this debate and on his outstanding introduction to the issues. What made me decide to speak was the fact that I had had a pretty rough time on the doorstep in the local elections running up to 2 May. I have done a lot of this in my life, for getting on for 55 years. I know what the voters are like; some people slam the door in your face and others say, “Oh, you’re all the same. You’re only in it for yourselves”. But I sensed that there was a much more aggressive tone towards politicians in this set of elections than I had ever seen before—and Wigton has such a nice local community.

I think that it is a direct consequence of the 2016 referendum. People feel that they were offered a clear choice: in or out. They just cannot understand why “out” has not happened, given that they voted for it. What the bitterness on the doorstep brought home to me was the great risk involved in going down this road of direct democracy, offering people simple choices when issues are becoming ever more complex as time goes on. Part of the answer to these problems is to restore faith in representative democracy, and I will make four points about how we try to do that.

The first point is one with which I know a lot of colleagues on my side of the House will not agree, but it is a view that I have held for a long time: namely, that if we had electoral reform and a system of proportional representation, it would lead to a wider representation of views in Parliament. I cannot stand Nigel Farage’s views, but he represents a sufficient group of people for his party to be in Parliament. The main political parties have ceased to be effective vehicles for representing a much more fragmented nation. That is true of the Conservative Party, which is bitterly split between nationalist populists and the traditional one-nation and pro-business Conservatives. It is arguably true of the Labour Party as well. So I favour electoral reform, which would bring a wider range of views into Parliament and force on our political system a culture of compromise. That is what the post-war Federal Republic of Germany is so good at. When we see the shouting match of Prime Minister’s Questions, the contrast with the political culture of the Federal Republic could not be greater.

Secondly, we have to foster more political education and debate in society. That should start in schools. I am very keen on Gordon Brown’s ideas for citizens’ assemblies, which have been shown to work in getting people to understand some of the complexities that we face. The way in which the Irish handled their second referendum on the Lisbon treaty in 2009 was a model of how to involve people in a proper debate about the issues that is not extreme and polarising.

Thirdly, we need reform of the media, on which I will make two points. First, social media companies have to accept much greater responsibility for rooting out unacceptable language from their platforms. That should become a legal obligation. Secondly, we had a wonderful Speaker’s Lecture from Tony Hall—the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead—as director-general of the BBC, in which he spoke about the BBC’s mission to counter fake news and to put news as its top priority. This will not happen unless we stop trying to use the BBC as a social security policy to help over-75 year-olds with the cost of their licence fee and fund it properly to do the job that it should be doing in promoting objectivity and debate. I shall stand up for the BBC. I know that some of my colleagues and closest friends attack the way in which it behaves, but I do not support that.

Fourthly, we have a responsibility to provide political leadership. I am not satisfied that in the Labour Party, for instance, we have taken the necessary steps to deal with anti-Semites. The leadership has not defended Members of Parliament who have come under vicious attack. This is not good enough and it has to change.

Employee Shareholding and Participation in Corporate Governance

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I think some people will find the reason that I put my name down to speak in this debate amusing. I felt that the reaction to the proposals put forward by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell at the Labour conference on these questions was harsh. I thought that the employers’ association made a great mistake in condemning them. It is unusual for me to agree with Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell but I agreed with them on this question. It requires rigorous thinking, however, about how we go forward and the idea of a Lords committee is a very good one.

Workers co-ops can work in some circumstances but they do not work in all of them. I am in favour of employee shareholding but we have to make sure that employees do not build up such a big stake in one company that all their eggs are in one basket if that company gets into trouble. You have to have means of dealing with that. I do not think that proposals for employee shareholding should get mixed up with proposals to increase tax on the corporate sector, which are in the McDonnell plan. We should look again at the Meidner plan, which the Swedes put forward in the 1970s, and think about why they backed off from that and how it could be improved.

As far as workers on the board go, as someone who learned about industrial relations in the Oxford school I was initially very sceptical. There are inevitable conflicts of interests in business, which is why trade unions exist, so we cannot always assume that we would get a unity of purpose between worker representatives and management. But I changed my mind about that in the 1970s and was a great enthusiast for the Bullock report—indeed, my first job as a special adviser in government was to write briefs for Bill Rodgers, now the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, who was on the Cabinet committee deciding what to do about it.

I make two reflections on that. First, as well as putting workers on the board you have to have a bottom-up involvement of workers at all levels of the company. We could have done more in government to build on the European information and consultation directive to ensure that. Secondly, if there are to be trade unionists on the board—and I support that—they should be elected by the workers in the company, not appointed by general secretaries. That is an important principle. When it comes to international companies, we have to look at the experience of European works councils and see how they can be built on and improved.

This is an enormously important subject. I am very sorry that there are not more government Members present in the Chamber today because we have to build a consensus. Just as Keynes reformed capitalism in the 1930s to help it survive, we have to do the same today—and part of that includes serious examination of proposals for employee shareholding and workers on the boards.

Northern England: Opportunity and Productivity

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, on obtaining this debate and I declare an interest in my role as a Cumbria county councillor, about which the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, was far too generous.

For us in Cumbria, the northern powerhouse came as a beacon of hope. But today the flame has been reduced to a flicker. Why and what can be done about it? Cumbria is a county with enormous economic potential. The national parks stretch continuously from the Cumbria coast right into Yorkshire, and with Hadrian’s Wall and all its cultural history it is one of the great places to visit—and to live—in Europe and the world. If the northern powerhouse could reignite the 19th-century dynamism of the great northern cities to its south, and if only the right local infrastructure were in place, Cumbria could become a compelling attraction for small business entrepreneurs, innovators, consultants and the rest.

As for Cumbria’s west coast, which the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, just spoke about, in the 19th century a few made their fortunes out of coal, iron, steel and shipbuilding there. In the 20th century, the workers and families they left behind lived through decades of acute depression and, since the Second World War, a longish industrial decline. Now, however, there is a real prospect of billions of new investment. GSK is putting £350 million into Ulverston, in south Cumbria. The Trident replacement programme in Barrow is taking on highly skilled workers. A £2 billion wind farm is planned off the Barrow coast, and a £20 billion new nuclear power station at Moorside next to Sellafield will generate 7% of Britain’s electricity, with a £2 billion investment by National Grid to carry it to the rest of Britain.

But for those developments to lead to a lasting rebalancing of Britain’s economy, there has to be a coherent economic plan, and they need supporting infrastructure. I shall explain to your Lordships how bad things are. The Cumbria LEP made a bid last July for 12 key projects, to be completed by 2020, to help support this new investment. The cost would have been £165 million, but the Government are offering us £12.6 million—less than a 10th of what we asked for.

In addition, we have argued for government commitment to a £130 million improvement to the Cumbrian coast railway, which connects all these projects and runs from Carlisle to Whitehaven, Barrow and Lancaster. At present, the journey from Carlisle to Lancaster is longer and much bumpier than the Virgin Trains ride from Carlisle to London. The new Northern Rail franchise will improve the rolling stock a bit, but only if we get Network Rail investment in track and signalling can this be transformative in what will be a hugely important area. The £3 billion of extra rail investment that George Osborne promised the north is, frankly, inadequate. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I am not arguing that the sums committed to HS2 should be cut; nor am I arguing that London’s Crossrail should be stopped. I feel very strongly that, if we are serious about rebalancing, we have to increase our overall commitment to transport investment.

At the same time, there has to be much more joined-up thinking in Whitehall. I support Greg Clark. I think he is a great Minister who is developing an industrial strategy, but that strategy has to put the nuclear innovation at its heart. Why spend all this money on new nuclear in Cumbria when all we will have is imports by foreign companies if we do not make ourselves a centre of nuclear excellence?

But more than that, we have to develop our universities and have much better schools and higher apprenticeships, and we have to support the vital public services. How can it make sense for the Government to support a plan to build a new nuclear power station in west Cumbria, which will require a workforce of 6,000, at the same time as we are proposing to cut services at the local hospital?

Finally, in Cumbria we need to get our act together, as the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said. Our structure of two-tier government is hopeless and, at a time of continuing public austerity, disgracefully costly. However, there is no incentive for reform unless the Government put money on the table and bang heads together, showing a lead. Without that, I am afraid that the remaining flickers of the northern powerhouse will die out.

Chilcot Inquiry

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I suppose I ought to declare an interest in this debate in that I worked at No. 10 at the time of the Iraq war. Indeed, I sat opposite some of the foreign affairs private secretaries whose minutes are now to be found on the Chilcot inquiry website. I saw some of it pretty much at first hand, although I was not directly involved with Iraq. It was not a very easy period, I can tell your Lordships.

I do not think it is right for our debate tonight to get into the substance of the issues that the Chilcot inquiry is addressing. It has been an extremely good debate and the speeches, as usual for the House of Lords, have been of exceptionally high quality, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who obviously put an awful lot of thought into what he had to say in opening the debate.

I will confine my remarks from these Benches to the question of delay and the view the Government take of that delay and of the questions relating to the disclosure that are at the heart of that delay. It is important to be clear: as I understand it, it is not that written evidence has been withheld from the inquiry; the inquiry has seen all the relevant papers. The issue at stake is how much of that evidence it can actually quote in its final report. So the question is: does the committee base its conclusions on the public taking it on trust that it has read the material and this is what it concludes, or is it able to quote from the documents?

Everyone will agree that the Chilcot process has been very thorough. If you look at that website, you will see that far more government papers are available than for any precedent that I can recall. The comparison with Suez, where no one was told about the secret deal that was done with the French and the Israelis, is very striking.

However, there are questions about the extent of disclosure. I want to see the Iraq question and as many of these issues as possible put to rest, but even then there are three areas in which questions of disclosure raise awkward issues. These are questions not just for civil servants, but for any responsible Government of any party acting in the national interest.

I think one of these questions has already been sorted out: the question about dealing with the use of intelligence, and the worries as to whether disclosure of anything to do with intelligence compromises sources. I should like the Government to confirm what I think to be the position: that in the case of Iraq those questions were sorted out in the Butler inquiry in 2004, and that there are no new intelligence issues arising in the case of Chilcot. These issues relate to national security. From our Benches, as my party leader said only yesterday, we support greater scrutiny of the way in which intelligence operates. There are obvious limits as well.

The second issue concerns relations with our allies. The committee wants to quote from private correspondence between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. If we see ourselves as America’s closest ally there is a real question, not just of the past but for the future, as to the obligation that places on us to protect confidences in that relationship. On that point I am sure a lot of people would say, “Damn the Americans”. I do not take that view. If we are serious about our alliances—and the same would be true of our close partners in Europe in other situations—we do have obligations to our allies and partners. How do the Government see that question? Time makes a great difference, but we are talking about something that happened a little over 10 years ago. What view do the Government take of what is a reasonable time to disclose things that affect our closest allies?

Thirdly, there is the issue about freedom of information and what are called Cabinet-level discussions. Whatever decisions the Government make on disclosure as far as the Chilcot inquiry is concerned could have long-term implications for freedom of information more generally. This is a serious issue. My party introduced freedom of information in 1998. We are proud of that achievement, but there were always boundaries that had to be set. I have always thought of freedom of information, in simplistic terms, as meaning that expert advice should be open but confidential discussion should remain confidential. How do the Government see this question about disclosure of discussions right at the centre of government on the basis of papers provided? Much of the content is now available on the website, but how do the Government see this question of disclosure of Cabinet-level decisions? This will have an impact on all future Governments. This is not just about dealing with the Iraq issue. This is about whether disclosure is going to affect the relationship between Ministers and civil servants for decades ahead. We have to get that right.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Two points arise. First, if it be the case that information of a confidential nature between states is always to be kept in the background, that is an end to any question of transparency. Does the noble Lord accept first of all that many of the thousands of documents that have been disclosed to Chilcot on the basis that they are declassified and therefore open to publication come into that particular area that he mentions?

The other matter is that it appears—if the responsible press is to be believed—that Mr Brown, in so far as his position as Prime Minister or as Chancellor is concerned during the period from 2001 to 2009 that is covered by the inquiry, says that he has no objection to the disclosure of any of the three groups of documents that have been referred to.

[Lord Liddle]

I am arguing here that these are very difficult decisions and that we have to have a clear view for the future. I am not looking to the past; I am wondering what the impact of this will be on future relations between Ministers and between Ministers and civil servants. I would simply be grateful if the Minister was able to give us an answer.

EU: Balance of Competences Review

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The other day my wife and I were discussing how much sugar she puts in jam. We have rather a surplus of fruit from our allotment this year. I simply remind the noble Baroness that Britain is also a European country.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, while the Government conduct this interesting and potentially valuable but, in truth, somewhat academic exercise, has the Minister noticed the CBI report published yesterday which shows that the benefit to Britain of our membership is between £62 billion and £78 billion a year—4% to 5% of our GDP? Can he imagine any circumstances in which any British Government would be crazy enough to throw away these benefits, whatever the results of his review of competences?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, academic exercises have their valuable purposes as well. I look forward to hearing the Labour leadership say frequently and openly that they also agree with the CBI’s statement.

European Union Committee: 2012-13 (EUC Report)

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I join the chorus of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and to the formidable array of committee chairs and retired chairs who have spoken. I thank them for their hard work, and for the rigour and objectivity of that work, which makes a tremendous contribution to the European debate in Britain.

I want to make three points in a brief speech. First, this work is essential and therefore I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that there should be no further cutbacks to it in this House. Secondly, it can work properly only if all parts of the Government take it seriously. I have a lot of sympathy with the strictures on the Treasury that I have heard from various quarters in this debate. When I worked in 10 Downing Street the Treasury would not even tell No. 10 what was going on. That was not so much because of the personalities at the top but rather because of an institutional arrogance: they believe they are guardians of the state unaccountable to anyone else. This attitude has to change.

If I may make an aside, I am somewhat alarmed by the fact that at present the two key posts in the management of European business—in the European Secretariat and at UKRep in Brussels—are held by people from the Treasury. I congratulate Sir Jon Cunliffe, who is a very able man, on his appointment as Deputy Governor of the Bank of England but I hope this Treasury grip will not be maintained.

The third point is about the future work of the committee. Here I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell—and not just because of the very nice compliment that he paid my think tank—that the committee could take a more ambitious view of its role beyond scrutiny. We have to recognise that a big debate has been started about Britain’s future in the European Union and the committee can make a very valuable contribution to it, particularly in two areas where it is extremely well, if not uniquely well, qualified. One is the question of competences and the whole debate about subsidiarity and proportionality. The second is the debate about the need for an enhanced role for national parliaments.

A good starting point would be the Government’s balance of competences review. My fears about this have been somewhat allayed by the tone of the first reports, as they show an objectivity of approach. There has certainly been a bit of Lib Dem influence there, which is possibly more effective in this area than on many coalition policies. I also think there is a sense in parts of the Conservative Party that it is simply not going to follow the kind of bar-room prejudices of Nigel Farage in setting its future European agenda—at least, I hope so. I detect—I would like to know what the Minister says about this—that the Government are shifting from what started off as a Conservative manifesto commitment to the repatriation of powers to a sensible debate about the need for multilateral reform of the way the European Union exercises its competences. If that is the case, it would be quite an important shift, which on this side of the House we would very strongly support. The committee could help that debate along, particularly if it carried out a detailed examination of how there can be better enforcement of subsidiarity and proportionality and what role national Parliaments can play.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right to say that the work of the committee could be even better. Certainly, the role of national parliaments in the system could be strengthened without treaty change. We have to look, at a much earlier stage in the policy-making process than at present, at how national parliaments hold Ministers to account. We should seek to beef up the role of COSAC—the body that brings together the parliaments in Brussels—so that the yellow card procedure is used more effectively. Of course, there are all sorts of other ways in which the role of national parliaments could be strengthened through future treaty change, but I suspect that that is some way away.

Therefore, the Select Committee does excellent work, but it could do even more if it made a contribution to this crucial debate about reform of the European Union, and in that way helped us to remain effective members.

EU: Advocates-General of the Court of Justice

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rowlands]

My Lords, I associate myself fully with my noble friend’s observations about the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I have had the privilege of serving under him for more than three years, and if anyone wanted to find a way to be a model chairman, they should follow him. We have been a disparate group over these past three or four years. Europe encourages lots of disparate views but he somehow managed, throughout the whole of his chairmanship, to achieve a consensus through persuasive patience. I, too, acknowledge his importance and he has been a marvellous chairman.

I welcome, too, the acceptance by the Minister of our recommendation to increase the number of advocates-general. Whatever one’s views about the court’s broader role—it has been controversial and previously I have made observations about its role and said that it might have been on a mission to drive ever closer union and so on—we know simply that we need a fully functioning Court of Justice if we are to remain in the single market and if it is to be effective. It is not just in the interests of some European ideal, it is strongly in British interests that the Court of Justice works effectively, and produces quality and timely justice.

Given the new role that the court will be playing in the field of justice and home affairs, there is a potential time bomb. It is not just the fact of the number of cases but the relationship between the work that the court will play in the new area of the administration of justice, which has to take priority because judgments have to made quickly, and, more broadly, the court’s other cases and judgments that could be displaced. Interesting figures are quoted in the report. Table 1 reveals that the number of preliminary rulings that have come before the Court of Justice concerning freedom, security and justice, was 17 in 2009, 38 in 2010, and 44 in 2011. That represents a considerable increase, both in terms of numbers and proportion. If that were to continue, the relationship between the work of the Court of Justice in its role as regards freedom, security and justice and its more general role could have an important and serious effect.

When this matter was raised with the Minister, David Lidington, he accepted in his oral evidence that there was a considerable proportionate increase but argued that only 10% of preliminary references in 2001 came from justice and home affairs. However, that 10% figure is increasing. The Minister admitted in his evidence that we really do not know the potential. The figures are beginning to show, and I believe that they will show, that as the Court of Justice increasingly becomes involved in freedom and security issues there will be more urgent cases and, therefore, delays to cases in the broader work of the court could occur.

We wanted to raise this matter and are glad that after initial hesitation the Government have accepted our recommendations on advocates-general. As the noble Lord said, they were actually written into the Lisbon treaty, but the Minister should also be aware that sooner or later we will have to address again the issue of the number of judges. I understand the impasse and the complications among all the member states on who should be appointed, who should appoint and which country should be given the appointments. Mr Lidington at least accepted that advocates-general do not raise those sorts of issues.

I was particularly interested in the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, which was very different from that of his predecessor. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was very chary of the whole idea of new judges, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has said that the Government have in principle accepted that concept. If that is the case, we as members of the committee are very pleased.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, this is the third debate in which I have spoken on the European Court of Justice from the Opposition Front Bench. We support the strengthening of the system; it is essential to the effectiveness and quality of justice in the European Union. We seem to be getting there at least step by step. The proposal for additional advocates-general has our support. The idea that Poland should have a permanent position seems to be in accord with the acceptance that that country is one of the major member states of the Union. It grants Poland the equality of status that it has long sought.

It is significant that the Government have moved to support this proposal. It shows that at least they accept the pragmatism of the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, whereby if you are going to have an effective single market you have to have an effective form of justice. I have to say, however, that there are many people not present tonight but who occupy the government Benches and talk about renegotiating a relationship between Britain and the European Union, which, in essence, boils down to free trade and political co-operation. If that is the vision of the modern Conservative Party about Britain’s relationship with the EU, it is not one in which you would have this system of law which upholds the single market. We need clarification from the Government as to what they envisage the role of the system of law in the European Union to be. I very much hope that what they are doing now, on a case-by-case basis, demonstrates that they accept pooled sovereignty in areas where we have chosen to accept it, and that part of this involves a form of supranational decision-making and supranational law.

My second point is that I support those noble Lords who have raised the question of why progress is limited, so far, to the issue of additional judges for the general court. That is clearly an important part of the reform package. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said about the Government broadly supporting this proposal. Do they support it or do they not? Do they regard the requirement to keep within the existing budget of the court as a binding constraint in all circumstances, or do they not? Is it a binding constraint or is it not? If they say it is a binding constraint, what efficiency proposals are the Government putting forward to the court in order that the cost of the additional judges could be met from within the budget?

I suspect that we are seeing a divided Whitehall here, with some departments recognising the need for additional judges, while others are trying to argue that the cost has to be kept within the existing budget. It is all very well making these declarations but how will it be done?

I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said about not differentiating between cost and value. It should be obvious to everyone that the value of more efficient decision-making on issues of central concern to our economy, such as the single market, would greatly exceed the cost. Where do the Government stand on this point?

I also endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, said about the value not just of greater efficiency of justice in terms of the single market, but also in terms of the basic rights of European citizens. We welcome the limited steps that have been taken. Of course, one should search for efficiency and cost saving all the time, but can the Government give us an assurance that they will not block a proposal to increase the number of judges purely on cost grounds alone?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this debate has moved more widely than the decision to appoint another three advocates-general. I take it that we are all agreed that we have no objections to the appointment of three additional advocates-general, so I therefore trust that we may agree the Motion—which is the trigger for this debate—at the end of the debate.

On that point, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked about the exact meaning of Article 252 of the TFEU. Many of these things require juristes-linguistes to play around with the words a great deal. I am told that the Council, acting unanimously, can decide, in effect, to increase the number of advocates-general. Declaration 38 is a declaration of intent but the Council has nevertheless to act unanimously to approve a decision. If the British Government, having failed to achieve the agreement of both Houses of Parliament, were to block it, it would not go forward and that would have a damaging effect on UK relations with Poland. The Poles are very much looking forward to joining the other big five, so to speak, in appointing their own advocate-general.

EUC Report: EU External Action Service

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I must apologise to the Grand Committee because, for unavoidable personal reasons, I probably have to commit the unpardonable sin of leaving the Committee before the Minister has concluded. I am very sorry about that, but I cannot avoid it. I will be very brief. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for the work that he has done and for the many reports that this Committee has produced. This again shows the value of the work that our Select Committee does.

Secondly, I join the tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for the role that she has played in helping partly to settle the Serbia-Kosovo dispute. I would like to make clear, on behalf of the Labour Party, that we support the External Action Service and that we want to see its role developed, obviously as a supplement to British foreign policy and to magnify that policy’s impact.

The fact is, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has explained, that what went before was dysfunctional, and the EAS is a great improvement. There is one point that I would like to ask the Minister about, and that is the role of Britain in this service. I agree with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, about the hope that the Government would not be so reserved in their approach. One of the real worries that I have is about the proportion of British officials working in the EAS. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised this point. The service gave me figures showing that only 7.6% of the people working in the service are British, as opposed to our 12.5% share of the population. This is particularly true of member state diplomats: British diplomats make up only 2.3% of the numbers in the service as opposed to 4% for France. As a lot of the national diplomats occupy senior positions in policymaking in the service in Brussels, this is a demonstration of a lack of adequate British influence that I would like the Minister to address in his reply.