Statement by Mr Denis MacShane, the Minister for Europe, United Kingdom.
Abstract of the Verbatim Note
Strasbourg, 29 January 2002

Mr MACSHANE said that the first part of his speech would be in French, and he recalled Winston Churchill’s remark, “I shall speak French – beware!” This was proof of Franco-British friendship. In that respect he regretted the fact that Mrs Lenoir, with whom he worked closely as a colleague, was unable to attend the debate, but he wished to draw on her prepared remarks. Europe was undergoing a period of great change. What would Churchill, who had urged European reconciliation from 1946 onwards, have said if he had witnessed such developments as the fall of the Berlin Wall? Europe had achieved a great deal. The Court of Human Rights was particularly significant. The dynamism of the Council of Europe had enabled it to adapt successfully to new circumstances.

(The speaker continued in English)

It is a great honour to take part in the debate. I thank the distinguished rapporteur, Mr Pangalos, for a stimulating and timely report, which I enjoyed reading, on the Council of Europe’s contribution to the issue of the constitution for the European Union. It is timely because the Future of Europe Convention, which is considering reform of the EU, is in full activity. While, naturally, the member states of the EU are preoccupied with internal reforms that are vital to allow for an expanded European Union, it is appropriate to remind them that Europe is more than the EU. Even a twenty-five-member EU with 450 million citizens does not cover the whole continent from the Atlantic to the Urals, as General de Gaulle put it so well. The forty-four-member Council of Europe, with a population of 800 million, has a better claim to represent all of Europe.

Our colleague Mr Pangalos’s excellent report makes a number of suggestions about the Council’s contribution to the EU constitution-making process. It recommends incorporation of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights in the constitutional treaty. That is an important proposal, which all member states and their parliaments are taking very seriously, but we must be alive to the serious political and practical problems, including the potential for confusion in the European legal space, which could arise if the charter were incorporated in the treaty structure in the form in which it was declared at Nice.

My German colleagues will know that under the German constitution the 3.8 million or so public-sector employees with the status of Beamter – public-sector employee – do not have the right to strike. The Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulates that the right to strike is a fundamental human right. Which is superior, the charter or the German Constitution? Such questions must be considered seriously as we debate the possibility of incorporating the charter in the constitutional treaty.

Mr Pangalos’s report suggests that the problem should be tackled through the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. That, he argues, would create harmony between the two legal orders. It would make EU institutions directly accountable for violations, rather than accountability being through the member states. But the United Kingdom does have concerns about the impact that such accession might have on the competences of the two bodies. We must have some regard to the position of the independent member states in relation to protocols, reservations and the ability to derogate.

Let me again quote Mrs Lenoir.

(The speaker continued in French)

She had said that the EU should not be satisfied with affirming the principles of the charter, but should be concerned with jurisdictional guarantees. The French Government was not convinced that the EU should ratify the European Convention on Human Rights: not all the protocols of the Convention had been ratified by all member states.

(The speaker continued in English)

I feel that these issues need to be worked through. Mr Pangalos’s report and this debate make an important contribution in that regard.

We must also acknowledge that not all the protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights have been ratified by members states. Some, indeed, have entered reservations and derogations. European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights could entail a lot of confusion if no account was taken of the individual legal positions of member states. The United Kingdom sees a need to ensure that accession takes place without prejudice to the individual legal positions of member states in respect of the Convention.

These are important and difficult questions, as we heard from the two opening speakers. The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the Future of Europe debate, trying to work out how those questions can best be answered. How the EU frames its human rights is one of dozens of questions under serious discussion at the Future of Europe Convention. However, the EU must not be so absorbed in its plans for internal reform that it neglects the impact that the outcome of the Convention will have on the millions of Europeans who are not part of the EU. That is where the role of the Council of Europe is essential. It must be protected from what might be called collateral damage as the future EU is being shaped. The place of the European Court of Human Rights in the European human rights architecture must not be undermined.

The Council’s future is not defined exclusively in terms of its relationship with the European Union. According to our perspective in Great Britain, the Council should continue to play a unifying role as the one truly pan-European forum where EU and non-EU states engage in the human rights, political and social issues that are on today’s agenda. The Council should continue to lead the way in setting and developing human rights standards. Its careful monitoring of how member states are living up to those standards, sometimes resented as being intrusive, is essential. Some member states have criticised some of the Council of Europe’s conclusions and observations, but they are essential if all members, new and old, are to live up to their obligations and the values that they espouse. The Council will continue to play a vital role as a common European forum.

Let me end with the concluding remarks of my good friend and colleague Noëlle Lenoir.

(The speaker continued in French)

She had said that the Council of Europe was a forum for new ideas outside the usual political mainstream. It had a unique opportunity to bring together partners from different sectors of Europe.

(The speaker continued in English)

There Mrs Lenoir speaks for every British citizen as well.

Thank you very much, Mr President, for the honour of being allowed to address this great Assembly.