Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I intervene briefly on behalf of these Benches to say that we are very much in agreement with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Apart from the normal areas that the interim conference is expected to discuss, there was a great deal of discussion about the Middle East. It might have been unreasonable to request a further Statement today in view of the fact that we had one last week, but bearing in mind the role of the Foreign Secretary and the reports that were no doubt given at Biarritz of his experience in the matter, I should have thought that it would have been a courtesy to the House to have had a Statement. It might have been quite an effort on the part of the Government, but it was an effort that they should have made to give some report on the matter.

I am especially concerned about a view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as regards what would have happened if the House of Commons had been sitting. Had the other place been sitting, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Prime Minister would have chosen not to make a Statement. That Statement would then have been repeated in this Chamber. I very much hope that we are not second-class citizens in that respect and that we have not been denied a Statement today which would have been made if the other place were sitting.

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for raising these points. As both noble Lords said, the Government have been extremely "forthcoming", which is perhaps the right word, in the past three weeks about the number of Statements that have been made to your Lordships, even though the other place has not been sitting. I believe there have been four Statements and one reply to a Private Notice Question. Therefore, the issues about the status of this House, and the importance that the Government see in reporting to Parliament through this House, have been adequately dealt with.

I turn to the point about the European Councils. As the House will be aware, it has been the practice for the heads of government to have these informal meetings as a precursor to the formal, full European Council meetings. But they do not usually result in either

16 Oct 2000 : Column 670

decisions being taken or in communiques being agreed or published. That was the nature of the meeting in Biarritz last week. In general, successive governments have not made oral Statements about such meetings; indeed, they are different from the European Council meetings. For example, following similar informal summits in Formentor in 1995, in Dublin in 1996, in Noordwijk in 1997 and in Poertshach in 1998, no oral Statement was made. Therefore, the Government do not consider it necessary to make an oral Statement today.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is slightly misinformed. It was always intended that we should report back to Parliament by means of a Written Answer, tabled in both Houses. Noble Lords will see from the back of the current version of the Minute that a Question to that end was tabled on Friday by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. That Question will be answered by the Government in written form today. If substantive issues emerge from the Middle East summit taking place at the moment, I believe that it has been made clear that a Statement will be made on that outcome.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that there is a slightly wider issue here as regards some of us on these Benches? Noble Lords on the Cross Benches are now formally recognised as an element in this House, but we are unique in that we are not part of the usual channels and have no party machine. Therefore, it is important to noble Lords on these Benches--some of whom have mentioned this fact--that issues such as this should also provide us with an opportunity to participate in the discussions that others have available to them.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point, but it is not directly relevant to the issue under discussion. As he said, the Cross Benchers are not members of the usual channels and, therefore, that is a wider issue regarding the organisation of this House which he may want to raise in an appropriate and slightly different form.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that the anxieties expressed so far are shared on this side of the House. These matters are very serious. The agenda at Biarritz included the charter of fundamental freedoms, among other things, and we should have an interim report on the proceedings. I do not know whether my noble friend has sufficient influence with her colleagues on the issue, but perhaps she could get them to understand that it is not just a question of minor matters; indeed, the future of this country and the effectiveness of this Parliament are also involved. When heads of government meet, we expect to have a Statement thereafter.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern about some of the issues that were discussed in Biarritz. However, with his very deep knowledge of European matters and

16 Oct 2000 : Column 671

the way in which the European Councils are organised, he will be aware that informal meetings such as the one held last weekend in Biarritz do not have conclusions or take formal decisions. Therefore, although his concerns are completely legitimate, I suspect that my noble friend's concerns are not necessarily appropriately applied to this particular meeting. As I said, this was not a meeting where the sort of far-reaching decisions about which he is rightly anxious were taken.

Lord Elton: My Lords, there appeared to be a major difference of opinion on the status of some of the proceedings of the Community between our Prime Minister and the leaders of other countries. That is a matter of concern to your Lordships and to the country. Can the noble Baroness promise the House an opportunity to debate the Written Answer when it has been published?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord is tempting me to incur the wrath of my noble friend the Chief Whip and, indeed, the usual channels in previewing any business decisions about the future of the House.

Lord Elton: My Lords, if it would assist, I should be very happy for the noble Lord the Chief Whip to answer my question.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it not a little more serious than the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would have us believe? Surely decisions were taken at Biarritz which cannot and will not conceivably be reversed at Nice. I have with me a copy of the final press conference of the presidency of the council of Biarritz--the so-called "informal council". I regret to say that it is written only in French. I shall not trouble your Lordships with my less than first-rate French, but it says in the clearest possible terms that the chiefs of state have unanimously agreed the project of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Indeed, the President of the Council, President Chirac of France, goes further and says that,

    "this is an ambitious political test, which consecrates principles that often go further than those that have already been enunciated elsewhere".

My question to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is this. Does she think that there is the slightest conceivable chance that any of this will be reversed at Nice, bearing in mind that the record of the European Union is a one-way ratchet in all of these matters; indeed, it always has been and always will be?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I could not possibly enter into the detail of that discussion, especially not in French because I suspect that my French would be less good than that of the noble Lord. However, I should point out again that this meeting was an informal council. The Government and their predecessors have taken most seriously the importance of reporting to Parliament on substantive decisions taken in the European Union, but it has not been the

16 Oct 2000 : Column 672

custom for Parliament to debate the outcomes of such informal councils. As I said earlier in response to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Rodgers, these substantive decisions are not taken at such informal councils. There are, therefore, no decisions to be reported; and, indeed, there was no communique to be discussed in this instance, except the informal notes to which the noble Lord has access.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble Baroness answer my question as to whether she thinks that the decision on the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be reversed at Nice or whether it will stand as agreed in Biarritz?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry; I obviously did not make myself clear enough. The decision on the universal charter will be taken at Nice.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, however informal the noble Baroness believes the meeting at Biarritz to have been, there are, nevertheless, considerable differences of opinion about the status of the fundamental rights charter. Although decisions were not taken at Biarritz, commitments to signing at Nice were in fact made. Therefore, it is important for the people of this country to know the exact status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the degree to which our Prime Minister is right to say that it is merely declaratory and has no other impact on the way in which our judges will determine law in this country. We also need to know whether M Chirac, or some of the other heads of state, are right in what they say. I think that the least we in this country should be offered is democratic, parliamentary discussion before any decision is taken finally at Nice.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page