---

Lisbon Treaty (No. 3)

This has been a fascinating debate, although facile in parts; the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) perhaps ought to look on the Benches behind him for that adjective. I commend the passion that has been expressed in all parts of the House and thank the Chairmen of the European Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights for their contributions. I should like immediately to apologise to the House for being unable to answer all the questions thrown up in this four-and-a-half-hour debate, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will address some of them in the following debate on amendments to the Bill. I start by asserting our pride in our provisions on human rights and stressing again that the human rights provision contained in the Lisbon treaty, particularly the charter of fundamental rights, will ensure that the European Union is committed to the protection of human rights without infringing on the sovereignty of member states. The charter is not, and was never intended to be, a source of new enforceable rights. The 1999 Cologne European Council, which started the work of the charter, was very clear in its conclusions:"““The European Council takes the view that, at the present stage of development of the European Union, the fundamental rights applicable at Union level should be consolidated in a Charter and thereby made more evident.””" The aim of the charter in 1999, as in 2008, was to make the fundamental rights and principles shared by member states more visible by condensing them in a single document. The level of protection of fundamental rights across the Union was never intended to be, and cannot be, changed by the charter, for the simple reason that the charter reflects only existing rights already recognised in the Union, which in some circumstances do no more than restate—and are subject to—domestic legislation. During the negotiations, the Government successfully agreed a package of safeguards clarifying the scope and interpretation of the charter. Four measures in particular have been established: the new wording of article 6 of the treaty on European Union, the charter's horizontal articles, the official explanations accompanying the charter and the binding protocol on the charter. I shall deal with some of those items in detail, but first let me reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Colin Burgon), for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) and for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who raised important issues about the Laval and Viking judgments. The legally binding charter and the protocol will not affect the European Court of Justice case law in those cases, in which the ECJ held that the right to take collective action was already part of EU law, as reflected in article 28 of the charter. That right, however, is subject to national laws and practices. The protocol does not reduce or limit charter rights; it simply makes clear how they apply. The amended article 6 of the treaty on European Union, new article 6(1), clearly states:"““The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.””" That was raised by a number of Opposition Members, notably the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). Article 51(2) of the charter states—[Interruption.]