asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What is the justification for using Article 308 of the treaty establishing the European Communities as the legal base for the European Union’s programme “Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism” when that article permits the European Union to act only “in the course of the operation of the common market”.
My Lords, Article 308 does not require that every proposal using it as its legal base should relate in a narrow and restrictive sense to the operation of the Common Market. There is limited Community competence in relation to civil protection and the protection of critical infrastructure from security-related risks and damage to these interests could have an impact on economic activity and the operation of the Common Market.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, from which it is depressingly clear that most of the failed constitution is being put in place surreptitiously and illegally using this and other treaty clauses. If this process leaves Brussels with the constitution’s aims of a new foreign secretary, a more permanent president and the reweighting of votes in the Council—for which even the Euro-crats may lose their nerve before using such provisions—will the Government give us a referendum on those initiatives? Also, assuming that that would leave only one unfulfilled ambition in the constitution—the big one, which is the EU’s proposed new legal personality superior to that of all the member states—will the Government guarantee to veto that or, if they do not, put it in a referendum to the British people?
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, says. This is not an attempt to bring in through the back door provisions relating to the constitutional community. The noble Lord knows that only too well. I congratulate him on his ability to use this Question as a stalking horse. Article 308 has been in the treaty for a long time. It has been used proportionately and appropriately in this instance, as the noble Lord knows, in order to support member states in carrying out their duties. It has passed the scrutiny committee, which was content.
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is blindingly obvious to anyone, as it should be to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that if we had terrorism for which we were not prepared in Europe, at least one of the consequences would be the disruption of the single market?
My Lords, I agree without reservation.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is taking a rather restrictive view of Article 308? This is very much an enabling article, and surely, in the present day and age—when we are fighting cross-border crime and terrorism—it is right that we should make use of it. Surely incidents such as 9/11, 7/7 and the Madrid bombing have an effect on the economies of the countries involved and of other countries in Europe.
My Lords, I also agree with that. We must also remember that Article 308 can be used only where there is unanimity. Where all 27 agree, it must be right that we can do something better to protect our countries.
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Euro-crat. Does the Minister agree that, very important though it is that we observe the proper legal basis for European Community instruments, it is also important to focus on the real benefits that the European Union brings to British industry, to British workers and even to British tourists travelling in countries where, alas, Britain no longer has full consular representation? Although the link is rather indirect, may I ask the Minister or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to thank all those, whether British, Ethiopian or Eritrean, who worked so hard and successfully to secure the release of the British tourists in Ethiopia earlier this week?
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for uttering those thanks. Again, I agree without reservation. He is absolutely right: all those who engaged in that activity did an absolutely first-class job, and we owe them a debt for that work. I also agree with his other comments about the real benefits that we get as a result of being a full partner in Europe.
My Lords, is it not also blindingly obvious that the use—indeed, the increased use—of Article 308 means that more and more, and by stealth, this country is losing its right to govern itself? Should there not have been a veto on behalf of the British people in this matter?
No, my Lords. I absolutely disagree. We have made it clear that the provision can be used only within the Community’s competence. The language has been honed to enable that to happen. Yes, we have partnership, but we have not ceded any competence at all by joining our partners in our joint endeavour.
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the EU Commission’s communication that Article 308 and the recent measures that have been introduced under it facilitate,
“the emergence of common approaches in fields traditionally very close to national sovereignty”?
It is well known that throughout history individual freedoms have been chipped away at under the guise of crime prevention and terrorism. This is a most serious matter. It falls to Britain to read some of these publications. Behind this is a gradual erosion of this country’s sovereignty, and I think that the Minister should take that most seriously.
My Lords, if there were to be an erosion of sovereignty, we would of course take it seriously. However, because the globe has changed, we have had to pool our efforts in order to face up to some global challenges. Europe together has made a much better fist of it than each of us would have done on our own.
My Lords, we are well into the 23rd minute. Time is up on this Question.