European Council: June 2006

– in the House of Lords at 4:49 pm on 19 June 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Amos Baroness Amos President of the Council, Privy Council Office, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (Privy Council Office) 4:49, 19 June 2006

My Lords, with permission, I would like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council held in Brussels on 15 and 16 June. I would like to thank Chancellor Schuessel and the Austrian Government for their arrangements for the summit and for the way in which they conducted their presidency.

"There were two parts to this Council. On the constitutional treaty, it was agreed that there would have to be a further period of reflection, because at present there is no consensus on how to proceed. A Europe of 25, not 15, soon to become 27, and in time enlarged still further, needs a modern set of rules to function effectively. Around 15 states have ratified this treaty, but of course, there have been the No votes in France and Holland. As a result, others, including the United Kingdom, have not proceeded with ratification. The German presidency, in the first half of 2007, will therefore consult member states and present a report to the European Council. Decisions will then be taken by the end of 2008. But it was made crystal clear that, in line with last year's conclusions, there can be no presumption about the outcome of this discussion.

"The bulk of the conclusions of the Council, however, deal with the specific issues of most immediate concern to Europe's citizens. One of the key outcomes of a positive attitude towards Europe on the part of Britain was the election of President Barroso to the Commission. I welcome thoroughly his commitment to the Council to transmit direct to national parliaments all new Commission proposals and consultation papers and to take due consideration of their views. This is an important boost to a long-held British concern over subsidiarity.

"In addition, on better regulation, the Commission has already announced the withdrawal of some 70 pieces of legislation. The European Council invited the Commission to report by early 2007 on further progress—and, in particular, asked the Commission to make proposals by that time on how to reduce administrative burdens on businesses by 25 per cent. This, again, is a central British objective, on which we built alliances with other partners.

"On the single market, the Council welcomed the agreement on the services directive; welcomed agreement on the competitiveness and innovation programme; and looked forward to the Commission's forthcoming review of the single market and proposals for completing it. The services directive, in particular, is expected to deliver some 600,000 jobs across the EU and add around €31 billion to the EU economy. I pay tribute to the work of British MEPs from both the Party of European Socialists and the European People's Party in securing the compromise necessary to allow it to pass.

"The Council agreed a number of specific measures and initiatives to combat illegal immigration, designed to strengthen borders while improving co-operation with some of the main source countries of migrants and refugees. In particular, the Council agreed to implement regional protection pilot projects to protect refugees in their region of origin and therefore avoid the need for mass migration. We also agreed to intensify work on readmission agreements, so that across Europe failed asylum seekers can be more easily returned.

"On energy, another of the Hampton Court initiatives, we welcomed and agreed to take forward proposals for an external energy policy, developed jointly by Javier Solana, the EU's High Representative, and the Commission. One of the priorities will be developing strategic partnerships with the main producer and transit countries, including an agreement with Russia.

"The Council also agreed declarations on the western Balkans, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process, Africa, Lebanon and Timor-Leste.

"Finally, on climate change, the European Council committed itself to pursuing, in all the relevant multilateral organisations, an international goal consistent with the objective of a maximum global temperature increase of two degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels.

"This was a European Council which focused on the practical policy-driven agenda which the UK has long advocated. It demonstrated yet again the benefits of positive engagement with Europe. I commend the outcome to the House".

That concludes the Statement.

Photo of Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde Leader of the Opposition In the House of Lords, Parliament 5:07, 19 June 2006

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Rarely has an EU summit attracted so little publicity, in glaring contradiction to the title of the first chapter of the presidency conclusions, which is "Europe Listens". Where is the evidence that EU leaders have listened in any way to the concerns of people about the trend towards more regulation and integration? Will the noble Baroness confirm that this summit agreed to more integration on immigration, asylum, criminal procedure, industrial policy, consumer protection and foreign policy? Where is all the rethinking in that?

Was the noble Baroness the Leader of the House as surprised as I was that the conclusions made no reference to the rejection of the constitutional treaty by the people of the Netherlands and France, except in the Newspeak of paragraph 43 of the conclusions that:

"Two Member States have been unable to ratify . . . [but] It is hoped that this process will be completed in line with the conclusions of June 2005".

Is that the UK Government's view? Has nothing changed in the so-called "period of reflection"? The conclusions blandly declare that,

"citizens remain committed to the European project".

Is not the problem that the Brussels definition of the EU project is miles apart from the wishes of millions of EU and British citizens?

The conclusions call for "concrete results" in achieving what the EU constitution proposed, but European electors rejected, by noodling inside the present system. Where is the listening there? Is that also the UK Government's view? The conclusions call for a further report on a constitutional treaty in spring next year and necessary steps to legislation in 2008. Is that the UK Government's view? Do the Government want a new treaty?

I am fully aware that no Government can bind their successor, but I hope that the noble Baroness will know the answer to this question. Is the commitment to resurrecting a treaty supported, not only by the Prime Minister, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Finally, will the Minister accept that there must be a referendum on any EU constitutional treaty and that the manifesto pledge to the electorate before the last election that they would be consulted must be good for the whole Parliament?

Of course, there were things we supported at the summit, such as action on climate change, but what discussion was there of ensuring energy security? Was any concern expressed about a potential 60 per cent dependence on Russian gas?

We very much support the enlargement of the EU, so we strongly welcome the accession talks with Turkey. For too long, this proud and great nation has been toyed with by the EU as if we were still living in 1683 and not a 21st century in which a model of secularist Islam offers a key to a more stable world.

We have long supported greater openness and transparency at EU Ministers' meetings. Supporting that was a rare success for the Prime Minister over one of his Cabinet colleagues. The Minister may not know the answer to this question, but perhaps he could ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to open up UK Cabinet meetings in the same way. How fascinating that would be.

Finally, I turn to regulation and criminal justice. On regulation, was it not a bitter disappointment that the best the summit could agree was that it might be possible to ask the Commission to make proposals in 2007 about the possibility of setting targets to reduce regulation? What a sad outcome, when businesses are groaning today about EU red tape. How can we have any confidence in a process that pays lip-service to deregulation but says that the acquis communautaire cannot be touched?

On criminal justice, in 2003 the Europe Minister, Mr Hoon, said that ending the veto could,

"change fundamental principles of our legal system . . . which we are not prepared to accept".

So why do the Government now apparently have an open mind? Would it not be rash indeed to abolish the veto now? Will the Minister give a guarantee that Britain will not give up its veto in this vital area?

The Government, over the past few weeks, have said that the system that they have been running for nine years is already in a dysfunctional mess at home, with Ministers making open attacks on civil servants, police and judges. Surely it would be madness to add to the mess by inviting European dictation to those same civil servants, police and courts. The ultimate responsibility to deal with terrorism must lie with the British Government. Abolishing the veto in these areas was a key part of the European constitution. Does the Minister understand that reintroducing changes such as these without a referendum is completely unacceptable? When will the Government take a stand against the integrationist tide and hold firm for the real alternative option, a flexible Europe? The last year has shown how Europe can live without a new constitution.

However sweet the Austrian wine, is it not high time to cut through the dinner-table complacency, state categorically that the constitutional programme is finished, and that the UK will play no part in smuggling it in by the backdoor and will insist on the right of a referendum for the British people?

Photo of Lord McNally Lord McNally Leader, House of Lords, Liberal Democrat Leader in the House of Lords 5:13, 19 June 2006

My Lords, when such an amiable fellow as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, delivers such a negative and sour response to a European Council, surely it is time for the Government to realise that the Conservatives, for the time being at least, are a lost cause with regard to Europe. They long to wound, they fear to strike—and we shall continue to get statements, such as this one from their official spokesman, which at no time explain how an organisation that has expanded from six to 25 members and with ambitions to expand to 27 should conduct itself or have a rule book.

Have the Government considered publishing a Green Paper, taking from the constitution the areas that they think could be brought forward? Let us have a debate about that, because otherwise we shall have either the Government reacting to what is going on in Germany or elsewhere across the channel or the Conservatives continuing to bring forward these hobgoblins to scare us about what is going on. We have to realise that the global context in which Europe exists is changing rapidly. We will have a world of Chinese, Indian and, perhaps, Brazilian economic superpowers. The idea that we can rest comfortably on a Conservative Party "Stop the world, we want to get off" approach is plainly ludicrous. Let us take the debate to them on the grounds of giving Europe a rule book that will work.

On the rest of the communiqué, we welcome the businesslike approach, the recognition of subsidiarity and the commitment to reducing burdens on business. We were a little bemused, as was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, by news stories headed "UK U-turns on open meetings". How we ever got ourselves into that position, I do not know. It would be reassuring to know that the Government are committed, as these Benches are, to far greater transparency in the way Europe does business. We believe—as we thought the Government believed—that that would be one way of preventing the Conservatives and their allies in the media misleading the British people about the reality of doing business in Europe.

Let us get the realities about the approach to immigration into the open. If we are to deal with immigration we need specific co-operation in Europe and British activity in areas such as north Africa. Of course, we have naval capacity in Gibraltar at that end of the Mediterranean. Is it proposed that Britain should get physically involved in control activities? Are we talking directly to the north African Governments concerned about this problem? The Council agreed to declarations on the western Balkans, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process, Africa, Lebanon and Timor-Leste. Does anybody on the Official Opposition Benches believe that Britain would have any impact on any of these global problems without the strength and authority we get from membership of the EU?

If we want to play a part in the 21st century, we will have to do so with our natural allies in a European Union that works. That is why we have also supported enlargement. Would the Minister not agree that the British people need reminding again and again of Europe's most amazing transformation into a Europe committed to democracy and the process of law? This has been undertaken—from Spain, Portugal and Greece onwards—by a European Union which has demonstrated to the world that it is possible to settle even the most intractable differences by political process. That is what we should all encourage.

Photo of Baroness Amos Baroness Amos President of the Council, Privy Council Office, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (Privy Council Office) 5:18, 19 June 2006

My Lords, I begin with the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about his surprise at the negative and sour response of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is generally negative in our debates about the European Union, but his jokes are usually a little better than they were today. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised a number of issues, including regulation, the purpose of the European Union and the constitutional treaty. I will deal with each of them in turn.

The Statement said that there are proposals for the withdrawal of 70 pieces of legislation, and there will be further work on the regulation issue in the coming years. On the European Union more generally, part of the importance of our being part of the European Union is clearly to get added value in areas where we can work together. I think that the examples given in the documents coming out of the Council are important indeed. Migration is one example, and the noble Lord asked about criminal justice and the use of the veto in the criminal justice area. Migration and criminal justice are issues in which we need to get the added value that comes from working with our European Union partners. We have made it clear that we are able to opt in or opt out of specific proposals on criminal justice. The noble Lord knows well that we need partnerships in the areas of terrorism and drugs. Those are global problems with global reach. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke about the global context in which Europe exists and the fact that the context is changing rapidly. These are not issues we can tackle alone.

The issue of energy security remains important. I welcome the commitment that the noble Lord made to enlargement, particularly with respect to Turkey. As he will recall, we began accession negotiations with Turkey under our presidency. As for a flexible Europe, that is precisely what the Lisbon agenda and the Hampton Court agenda are designed to deliver.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about the possibility of a Green Paper. That is not a matter that I have heard discussed but I will take it back to my colleagues. However, I recognise that we will need institutional change to manage a Europe of 25 or 27. The institutions that we have in place were put in place for a much smaller organisation.

The Government's position on the constitutional treaty has not changed. We have consistently said that we will hold a referendum on the constitutional treaty if there is a constitution to vote on. There is not one at the moment.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised the issue of transparency. My understanding is that we, the United Kingdom Government, raised concerns about moving too quickly on the transparency issue. It is not that we are against transparency, and indeed the Council agreed an overall policy on it—the main effect of which will be to open to the public all deliberations on co-decided legislation and in other areas. The Council also agreed to assess the impact on the effectiveness of the Council's work after a six-month period.

I think we are all agreed that we need a proper system of managed migration. This is not just a bilateral issue, or an area in which the United Kingdom can discuss with our partners on a one-to-one basis. What we are doing at the European Union level is extremely important.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the positives need to be stressed. What we have managed to achieve from the European Union in the spread of democracy and the rule of law would not have been deliverable without the European Union. The peace and security which we see in Europe today is very much a result of that.

Photo of Lord Eden of Winton Lord Eden of Winton Conservative 5:24, 19 June 2006

My Lords, just what is it that the Government hope will come out of the deliberative and consultative process in which Germany is about to become engaged? What exactly is the Government's objective with reference to the constitution of Europe? Is it not about time, in the interests of transparency, that the Prime Minister came clean with the British people and stated clearly what is the Government's policy?

Photo of Baroness Amos Baroness Amos President of the Council, Privy Council Office, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (Privy Council Office)

My Lords, the noble Lord will know from reading the presidency conclusions that there is an ongoing process within the European Union. The Council agreed to extend the "period of reflection", and for a report to be presented to the June 2007 Council assessing the institutional situation and exploring possible ways forward. It is a little premature to ask what the British Government's view will be a year before we come to that point.

Photo of Lord Grenfell Lord Grenfell Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which on the whole I welcome. I was pleased to see that the Statement referred approvingly to paragraphs 37 and 38 of the presidency conclusions, concerning the involvement of national parliaments in the community's policy-making processes—in particular, the Commission's own,

"commitment to make all new proposals and consultation papers directly available to national parliaments", which is very welcome, and inviting national parliaments to react,

"to improve the process of policy formulation".

I am, however, a little disappointed by the weakness of language in the presidency conclusions that:

"The Commission is asked to duly consider comments by national parliaments".

At our recent COSAC in Vienna we strongly emphasised that the Commission would need to provide a considered response in a reasonable timeframe, which was in fact taken up by the Austrian presidency. The Commission would do well to "consider", but there is not much point in considering what national parliaments say if it does not actually respond to them. Therefore I ask Her Majesty's Government, through the Minister, whether they would insist that the Commission take that seriously. Otherwise, it will too easily slide off the hook and make mere anodyne comments without due consideration, or even within that reasonable timeframe.

Photo of Baroness Amos Baroness Amos President of the Council, Privy Council Office, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (Privy Council Office)

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will know that the UK Government have pushed for the involvement of national parliaments in these processes. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord about the need for consultation processes to be meaningful. What I take from it is that this is a step-by-step process. We will continue to keep this under review, as I am very mindful of the points that the noble Lord has made.

Photo of Lord Anderson of Swansea Lord Anderson of Swansea Labour

My Lords, we must all have been struck by the contrast between the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. That is perhaps the answer to those airily talking of the faint possibility of a Liberal Democrat-Conservative pact after some future general election.

It is fair to say that the consensus is that this was effectively a non-event. Such a bland document will hardly merit a footnote in the history book. For example, nothing of any provocation was said. Certainly, there was no mention in the paragraph on Turkey that it is currently barring access to its ports by a member country of the Union—namely, Cyprus. It is as if the communiqué was seeking to avoid any form of controversy, though I do not blame the Austrian presidency for that.

I want briefly to raise what the Prime Minister said about a new set of rules being needed for a union when it reaches 27. Is it the Government's view that this new set of rules will be just technical, on new weighting on voting in the European Parliament, for example, or new weighting in the Council? Or, is it something of greater significance? The answer may give us some pointer as to whether that new package will merit a future referendum.

Photo of Baroness Amos Baroness Amos President of the Council, Privy Council Office, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (Privy Council Office)

My Lords, I say to my noble friend that bland is sometimes good—certainly, from my point of view. On the issue of a new set of rules, clearly we will need institutions that work better as the European Union expands. We are committed to working with European Union partners on that reform process. It is too early to say at this point what reform is needed, and it is far too early to speculate on the outcome of that work and whether there might need to be a referendum. My right honourable friend Jack Straw, in his previous role, in March 2006 said:

"I am not going to anticipate a rather abstract possibility. I certainly agree that a referendum in respect of this constitution was appropriate".—[Hansard, Commons, 27/3/06; col. 564.]

We have to see how things develop.

Photo of Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord Hannay of Chiswick Crossbench

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for the Statement. I was struck not so much by the contrast between the statements by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, but the contrast between the statements by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the opposition spokesman for foreign policy in another place, who made an interesting speech last week of a somewhat different tone.

I have a couple of questions about the conclusions on enlargement. I noticed that there were three references in the conclusions on enlargement to a concept called "absorptive capacity", rather as if we were branding a form of blotting paper. I gather that was not the intention; the intention was no doubt to construct a large elephant trap into which the luckless applicants for membership would fall. Could I please have from the Government some recognition of the risks of the policy of absorptive capacity? Could they state very firmly—which I believe to be the case—that there has been no addition of a further criterion to the Copenhagen criteria which candidate countries have to fulfil, and that there is no question of some formal requirement being added to those relating to this ghastly blotting paper concept?

Secondly, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I think that there was a reference to Cypriot vessels going into Turkish ports, but it was written in that usual Euro-jargon that makes it extremely difficult to follow. It insisted that the Turkish Government should respond to the requests that were made last year by the European Union. Did the noble Baroness notice, and will she say something about, another commitment in relation to Cyprus that was not referred to—the commitment to bring north Cyprus closer to the European Union not only in terms of aid but also trade? The Turkish Government have linked those two issues, which is unwise because they are a little bit apples and oranges; one is a strict legal obligation that they must fulfil and the other is a political obligation that the European Union has to fill. Frankly, it sends a very bad message if it is not clear that we are as concerned by the second as we are by the first.

Photo of Baroness Amos Baroness Amos President of the Council, Privy Council Office, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (Privy Council Office)

My Lords, with respect to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the tone of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Conservative foreign affairs spokesperson in another place, of course splits in the Conservative Party on Europe are not new.

On the conclusions on enlargement and absorptive capacity, I can confirm that this is not a further criterion. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will know that there are some in the European Union who are sceptical about future enlargement, and they want a greater focus on the EU's ability to absorb new members. It is important to say to the House that the idea of absorption capacity is now more than a decade old, and it has not inhibited the progress of enlargement so far. It is certainly not the intention that it should be a new criterion.

There is a commitment that northern Cyprus should come closer to the European Union on the issues of aid and trade. I do not have any further information on that, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, knows a lot more about this issue, given his background, than I do. If I can help the House further in any other way, I will of course write and put a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

Photo of Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall Labour

My Lords, my noble friend might not be surprised if I were to say that some of us would not on this occasion echo the words of my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea in saying that this was a non-event. In a few years' time, the fact that Council meetings will be televised will be seen as a watershed. I know that it is on the back of the fiasco of the constitution, but unfortunately—some of us might think that it is unfortunate—the demos nowadays to a large extent is the television. We ought to reflect that although there are obvious concerns that people have to speak for the television, this House some 20 years ago managed to get over its initial worries about that.

On the broader question of the constitution, I was one of those who apparently echoed the feelings of Jacques Delors, when he said to his successor, "Please do not call this damn thing the constitution". It is to some extent semantics. Regarding the framework for enlargement, obviously we need to have different rules as we go along. I am even a bit sceptical about a Green Paper; as if there is ever going to be a once-for-all end to what this animal is. It has evolved. Only a few weeks ago, the Conservative Party was very strong on the need to have a really integrated energy approach to the former Soviet Union. That was not really high on the agenda a few months ago. We have all welcomed the results—in the Statement it is referred to as a compromise—on the services directive. As one of those with a trade union background, I was a bit worried about some of the principles of the early drafts of the services directive; so that is welcome.

It is very good that Europe is not now going to be seen as a secret society. Pragmatic work will go on. Annex 6 notes the importance of the EU-Africa partnership on migration and development. I am quite sure that in 10 years' time that will be seen to be an enormously important topic.

Photo of Baroness Amos Baroness Amos President of the Council, Privy Council Office, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (Privy Council Office)

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to draw our attention to the importance of having a framework for enlargement. There is still a debate to be had in the European Union about whether we need a statement of values and principles to set out what we stand for. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lea on the importance of transparency, although while I think transparency is important, it is even more important to find new and different ways of communicating what the European Union is about. Using such methods as the internet and podcasts is much more important than having television coverage of what goes on in European Council meetings, for example. Again, my noble friend is right about the importance of the EU-Africa partnership, particularly at the moment with respect to managing the issue of migration.

Photo of Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon Independent Labour

My Lords, this summit has certainly been under-reported. I have one question for the Leader of the House concerning the decision to create a pan-European counter-terrorism force, which I understand will proceed apace, with a steering group meeting within a fortnight. As far as I understand it, it will involve the pooling of the police, civil protection and military assets of all 25 nation states, including Britain. That seems to me a very large step. Will Parliament have a say in the creation of this force, how should it operate and what its resources should be?

Photo of Baroness Amos Baroness Amos President of the Council, Privy Council Office, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (Privy Council Office)

My Lords, the aim is to ensure that Europe is contributing fully to global security. We all know what the challenges are; for example, shortfalls in key crisis management capabilities in Europe. We need EU action not only to add value but to be fully coherent. With respect to the opportunity for Parliament to debate this, I am sure that the noble Lord could ask a Question or table a Motion for a short debate if he wishes to do so.

Photo of Lord Bowness Lord Bowness Conservative

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The presidency conclusions are full of warm words about enlargement. Does she agree that, after the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, there cannot be further enlargement without treaty change, and that without the prospect of treaty change, this gives unfortunate messages to Croatia, in particular, and the nations of the western Balkans, generally? Bearing in mind how long it takes to reach agreement on change, should we not be actively preparing so that if and when those nations are ready to join, the European Union is ready to admit them?

Photo of Baroness Amos Baroness Amos President of the Council, Privy Council Office, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (Privy Council Office)

My Lords, the European Council reaffirmed that the existing commitment on enlargement will be honoured. As I said earlier, enlargement has spread security and prosperity across Europe. The General Affairs and External Relations Council called in December for a debate on further enlargement during 2006. That debate started at the June Council and will continue under the Finnish presidency. We will, of course, actively participate in that. I take entirely the concerns expressed by the noble Lord about the message we send to others in the queue, as it were. He will know, however, that we are very committed to the enlargement process.

Photo of Lord Dahrendorf Lord Dahrendorf Crossbench

My Lords, there are those of us—I am one of them—who are quite pleased if a Council meeting is a non-event. That is not because we do not want anything to happen, but because it is one of the weaknesses of Europe that there always has to be some enormous project—unless there is an enormous project, things go wrong. That is certainly not my view, so I would have no word of criticism on that.

There remains an institutional issue, on which I would like to hear an even clearer view from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. Transparency is not quite the right word, when one talks about how the Council of Ministers of the European Union should operate. With the peculiar language that was introduced at the beginning of the process, in the Treaty of Rome, the Council of Ministers is in part a legislature. Incidentally, the Commission is, in part, a parliament. It has some of the parliamentary rights that the US Congress has—making proposals, even a monopoly, in theory, of making proposals.

When you have a legislature, in a democratic context, it is not about transparency, it is an utter necessity that this legislature meets in public and can be checked by the public. Can one be sure that this traditional British position is still upheld, and that nothing occurred at the recent Council meeting which detracts from that understanding of how legislatures should operate?

Photo of Baroness Amos Baroness Amos President of the Council, Privy Council Office, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (Privy Council Office)

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that certainly my understanding and reading of the conclusions and of what happened at the recent European Council is that accountability remains at the heart of the European Union. I accept entirely the points made by the noble Lord that the Council of Ministers and indeed the Union itself have different and overlapping roles. That makes accountability more rather than less important. The onus, therefore, is on all European Union countries to take these institutional matters—and in particular these accountability matters—very seriously.

I could not agree more with the noble Lord's first point about the importance of Europe just getting on with its work.