| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South) : The hon. Gentleman argues for including article B in the original Act of Parliament. He will be aware that article B, in a declaratory form, includes the three pillars of the Maastricht treaty : bringing the original treaty up to date ; the pillar on home affairs ; and the pillar on foreign affairs and security. He will know that the Government chose that form to exclude home affairs, foreign affairs and security from the European Community's competence. Would the amendment, which would include that in the original Act of Parliament, bring home affairs, foreign affairs and security within the competence of the Commission ?
Sir Russell Johnston : No, the amendment would not have that effect. I simply contend that what already exists in the treaty as a declaration of intent should be approved of by Parliament. The amendment does not change the treaty in any respect. A number of other countries have approved the entire treaty.
Mr. Marshall : I realise that the hon. Gentleman and I have both been in Paris this week--perhaps he took an earlier flight than me--but he misses the point. The Government are keen to exclude foreign affairs, security and home affairs from the European Commission's competence, which is why they chose the three-pillar approach in the Maastricht treaty. Would the hon. Gentleman's amendment to the original European Communities legislation bring foreign affairs and security and home affairs within the competence of the European Commission ?
Sir Russell Johnston : As far as I know, the answer is no--not because I do not want them to be brought within the competence of the European Commission and institutions, because I do, in respect of both foreign affairs and defence. However, the inclusion of article B in the Bill would not have that effect, any more than it has by being in the treaty signed by the Government.
Mr. Denzil Davies : This may be a point for the Minister, but I understand that the Bill creates within the United Kingdom certain Community rights and obligations. As title I does not need to be incorporated because it demands no rights or obligations internally in the United Kingdom, what is the point of including it in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman wants to do ?
Sir Russell Johnston : For the very reason that I have already explained, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was dozing. As far as I know, the Parliament of every other
Column 173
Community country has approved the whole, not just part, of the treaty. Even if we are talking about declarations of intent rather than specific legislative requirements, we have a right to express a view.5.30 pm
Mr. Davies : If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, it is he who has been dozing. We are not talking about ratification. Ratification is for the Crown. The treaty can be ratified according to United Kingdom law. Other countries may ratify treaties differently. This Bill is not about ratification but about incorporating certain rights and obligations in the internal law of the United Kingdom so that courts can enforce them. I ask the hon. Gentleman again : on that basis, what on earth is the point of incorporating title 1?
Sir Russell Johnston : We had that argument at the beginning of my remarks. You, Mr. Morris, made it clear at the beginning, when dealing with various points of order, that the Bill does not have the legislative effect of ratifying the treaty. The hon. Gentleman is correct :. I know all about that. It is also true that, if the Bill is rejected by the Committee, it will have the political effect of the treaty not being ratified.
Mr. Benn : Will the hon. Gentleman help us on one point? He is a fully declared federalist. He said so, and he would be in favour of the Bill including title 1. Can he confirm again the view expressed so powerfully by the leader of his party, that the Liberal Democrats support the most federal development of Maastricht and, anyway, the Maastricht treaty as it is before us, and favour a referendum on the matter? There is all the difference in the world between people who favour a union but say that the public should have no say in the matter, and those who favour a union but say that they recognise its importance and think that the public should decide for themselves.
Sir Russell Johnston : There are two different questions there. One is whether one approves of federation ; the other is whether one approves of a referendum. I take the latter point first. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has frequently expressed his support for a referendum ; he has for a long time been consistently on record in that regard. However, that is not the official past conference policy of the party, and there are others within the party, including myself, as I said about 10 mintues ago, who do not necessarily agree with him or with the right hon. Gentleman that referendums are necessarily the best way of making decisions.
When one considers the Danish referendum and the fact that opinion polls have demonstrated that some 20 per cent. of the Danish population who voted in the referendum did not know what Maastricht was two weeks before the vote took place, one sees that that is not the wisest way to take a complicated decision.
I know perfectly well that there are strong and consistent arguments in favour of referenda. There are hon. Members who regard referendums as a desirable general part of the constitution, rather as is the case in Switzerland, which is the one country which uses referendums as a regular form of making decisions. But there are others who, for more substantial reasons, believe that representative forms of government are a better way of reaching such a complicated decision.
Column 174
The Chairman : Order. The amendment is not about referendums. It is appropriate to make a passing comment on referendums, but it is not in order to develop the arguments for or against referenda.
Sir Russell Johnston : I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Marlow : The hon. Gentleman has just said that 80 per cent. of the Danish electorate knew what the Maastricht treaty was. The Maastricht treaty is being debated by the Committee. Would the hon. Gentleman like to give an opinion on how many right hon. and hon. Members know what the treaty of Maastricht is?
I have good news for the hon. Gentleman. Christmas has come early. He said that he would like the Community institutions to be involved in foreign and security policy, and probably home affairs and immigration. Article J.9 says :
"The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out in the common foreign and security policy field."
Article J.7 says :
"The Presidency shall consult the European Parliament on the main aspects and the basic choices of the common foreign and security policy and shall ensure that the views of the European Parliament are duly taken into consideration."
If the Bill is approved, the hon. Gentleman has won the match. It is there.
Mr. Jim Marshall : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I realise that you have just said that referendums are not to be included in the debate, but I draw your attention to title I, article F, which says :
"The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member states, whose systems of government are founded on the principles of democracy."
You and the House, will know that, in a number of member countries referenda are an accepted and legitimate means of making decisions. If people refer to referendums in other countries and in Britain as well, that would be covered by title I, article F.
The Chairman : I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my ruling clearly. I said that it was perfectly proper for referendums to be alluded to or referred to, but not to have a substantive debate on a referendum.
The Chairman : It is not relevant to the amendment that we are debating. If the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier, he must have heard all the points of order about referendums, and if he was not, he should have been.
Sir Russell Johnston : I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Morris. I think that you intend that we should refer to it en passant.
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) : Or de temps en temps.
I was referring to article B and there is no point in referring in detail to the other articles. I have no doubt that we shall hear from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on article F. I find it difficult to understand why he would wish to exclude article F if he deserted title I. I should have thought that he, like myself, is in favour of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Column 175
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) : So that the hon. Gentleman does not go down a blind alley, I should say that that amendment was designed, as so many other amendments have to be designed, to allow a debate on the subject of the European convention on human rights, no more no less.
Sir Russell Johnston : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I wish to make only three more substantial points.
Mr. Richard Shepherd : Is it the hon. Gentleman's position, and that of his party, that the article could be brought into effect by prerogative power? As has been pointed out, it seeks to establish a union and citizenship. How could that be effected by prerogative power, when the very last paragraph of article F says :
"The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to obtain its objectives and carry through its policies."
I am interested in whether the hon. Gentleman is moving the amendment because he believes that that title I cannot be achieved by prerogative power.
Sir Russell Johnston : I am arguing that the title, which I quite accept is declaratory and sets out a number of desirable objectives--
Mr. Shepherd : But it is legally binding.
Sir Russell Johnston : Yes, but it is difficult to make an objective legally binding. An objective is an aim, a hope--a desire to move in a particular direction. In this day and age, Parliament ought to be able to pronounce upon the matter, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree.
Mr. Shepherd : My intervention was made in the spirit of inquiry, because I think that I will vote for the title's inclusion in the Bill. I was merely trying to establish the basis on which that proposition was being advanced. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was appropriate, whether it was justiciable by the European Court--in which case it would be legally binding on us--and whether the Government maintain that, through the use of the prerogative power, they can effect such a provision.
I am also interested to know why the hon. Gentleman does not think that article F--this point was seized on by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State--does not require a money resolution.
Sir Russell Johnston : I explained my position, and I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been convinced by my oratory and is likely to vote for the inclusion of the title. The aims set out in the title and the implications of establishing European union directly concern every one of us, and should be the subject of approval by Parliament.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : The initial provision in article A makes reference to the development of a union, yet the Liberal Democrats favour federalism. Are not the title's provisions a step towards a unitary system? Subsidiarity itself is a centralised notion that dictates that certain aspects can dribble down and be devolved, whereas federalism specifies particular responsibilities for national Governments and the federal body. Are not the Liberal Democrats' principles being eroded by the title? Other right hon. and hon. Members might want to vote for the amendment, but it is difficult to understand why the Liberal Democrats proposed it.
Column 176
Sir Russell Johnston : Although the word "federal" was removed by the Government in negotiation, the way in which the majority of our Community partners view the nature of an evolving union and the notion of subsidiarity is significantly different from the way in which the British Government view them. Chancellor Kohl talks about subsidiarity and union in terms of federalism.
In that regard, I will quote from our debate last June, when the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) put the point extremely appositely :
"If we had a federal state in Europe today, we should have more sovereignty guaranteed for the House than we have at present."--[ Official Report, 26 June 1991 ; Vol. 193, c. 1076.]
The hon. Gentleman repeated himself in December, saying : "our federal position would be a step ahead of what we have now. At least when a country is federal it knows what belongs to it and what belongs to others."--[ Official Report, 18 December 1991 ; Vol. 201, c. 360.]
I agree. I know that what was established at Maastricht is not yet a federal state, but I am convinced that it is moving in that direction.
Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West) : The hon. Gentleman knows that the word "union" evokes strong responses from Ulstermen and a different response from Scotsmen. The meaning of subsidiarity to a German may mean devolution for Scotland, unwanted devolution for the regions of Britain, and an unwanted disassembly of the Union for the people of Ulster.
We are addressing a constitutional point, and the hon. Gentleman has a good record of examining such questions. He has been consistent with his party's policy on devolution, so does he believe that the objective--to use his word--is the German style of
devolution/federalism/subsidiarity, or the citizenship of a monolithic state? The hon. Gentleman is opening up a key question. 5.45 pm
Sir Russell Johnston : I believe that the Community could not hold together if it became a monolithic state, given the diversity of its peoples. Almost inevitably--although perhaps more slowly than I would wish- -one will see the development of federal institutions. The Community is already a sort of incomplete federation.
As to the different meaning of words to different people, one Conservative Back Bencher sensibly turned to his dictionary. If one looks up the word "federalise" in the "Oxford English Dictionary" one finds the following explanation :
"unite in a federal union to decentralise ; to take from the central authority and hand over to federal bodies in the state, or to federal states in a union."
That is the OED definition, but the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs seems anxious to rewrite that excellent book.
Mr. Cash : The hon. Gentleman may have read the evidence given on 5 February by Paul Taylor, senior lecturer in international relations at the London school of economics to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in which he clearly stated, in relation to the Maastricht agreement :
"The expression a European union is a term that was included in the preamble and which appears at a number of other places, but which in practice appears to signify little that would not have been indicated by the term federalism in this context."
Column 177
In other words, Mr. Taylor was saying that there is no distinction to be drawn between the arrangements provided by the treaty and a federal system.The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel- Jones) indicated dissent.
Mr. Cash : My right hon. Friend, in his usual jocular manner, thinks that is wrong, but I look forward to hearing him explain--which I do not think he will find it easy to do--how the arrangements for which title I and the rest of the treaty provide--particularly having regard to the central banking arrangements for the whole of Europe--can easily be distinguished from a federal system. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will distinguish between the arrangements in this country--with a central bank at the centre of gravity for Europe as a whole, with unelected, unaccountable bankers having the degree of power that they will--and the word "federal".
Sir Russell Johnston : I will decline the hon. Gentleman's invitation, and take this rare opportunity to agree with almost everything he said. I thought that his definition was very accurate, and it is exactly what I would like to see.
Sir Teddy Taylor : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for quoting me as an authority, and I glad that he agrees with me. I was seeking to make the point that a federal state would be a fundamental advance on what we have now and on what is in the Maastricht treaty--not the creation of a federal Europe in which they belong to something and we belong to something, but the creation of a unitary European union in which there would be central decision making and hardly anything guaranteed for national institutions.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those of us who are inclined to support his common-sense amendment to allow Parliament to debate title I would not in any sense be supporting that title? We would simply be saying that such a provision should be discussed by right hon. and hon. Members and not be a device used by some--perhaps erroneously--to have the Bill presented in such a way that amendments are not selected and issues are not properly discussed?
Sir Russell Johnston : Having heard the hon. Gentleman speak many times, I have a pretty clear idea of what he does and does not believe, so I do not accuse him as he suggests that other people may.
In my definition, subsidiarity is federalism, because it is written down, entrenched and guaranteed--and the hon. Gentleman asked me whether an institutionalised federal state would represent an advance on Maastricht. Yes, of course it would. We have never said that we regard Maastricht as an end point--far from it--but in the present circumstances we consider that it represents a notable advance, and that its rejection would have a severe adverse effect on the political situation in the Community and beyond, in the eastern countries and in the European Free Trade Association.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson : The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to congratulate me on using a French dictionary to try to unravel "acquis communautaire". As he has just mentioned subsidiarity, I wonder whether he could show me an English dictionary which contains a definition of that word.
Column 178
Sir Russell Johnston : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could try the Library. I am sure that the people there would help him. Mr. Marlow rose --
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) rose --
Sir Russell Johnston : I must bring my speech to a conclusion. I am not in the business of extending the debate. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has not intervened so far, so I shall give way to him.
Mr. Jenkin : Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's victory in negotiating the words "federal vocation" out of the treaty has made no difference to the meaning of the treaty? Given his view that the treaty takes us towards a type of federal union, does he suggest that the Government, albeit inadvertently, seek to sell the treaty on a somewhat false prospectus?
Sir Russell Johnston : I could pretty nearly say yes--but, among other things, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's "victory". I wish that Conservative Members--and all hon. Members--would stop using such warlike language about negotiations within the European Community. Every time a Minister returns from Brussels, we are told, "We defeated them," or, "We beat them," or, "We did them down." One sees the image of Spitfires whirling in salute above. That is not the way forward. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Government have not been so successful in many areas of negotiation is because they approach matters in too confrontational a way.
The hon. Member for Colchester, North said that I believed that the rest of Europe wishes to move the Community towards the creation of a federal Europe. That is not my idea alone ; I am sure that many independent observers would accept it. I realise that the British Government do not wish to move in that direction. They have made that quite clear, so they are not deceiving anyone. What emerges will be the result of interplay between the various political forces. That will determine the outcome for us.
The Liberal Democrats' goal is a democratic, accountable, federal Europe, embracing all the countries that wish to join and respecting their national and cultural identities.
Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Russell Johnston : Oh, all right.
Mr. Mitchell : Mine is a more friendly intervention. I shall revert to the earlier argument, because I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) had a more correct assessment of what we are doing. Would the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) care to wade a little further into his pile of "acquis liberale" by telling me what will happen if we accept the amendment?
Paragraph 2 of article F of the treaty says :
"The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950".
Column 179
If we incorporate title I, as the Liberal Democrats' amendment suggests, would the European convention on human rights be incorporated into British law, as many of us feel would be appropriate?Sir Russell Johnston : I do not think so, although I would wish--
Mr. Mitchell : Then what is the point?
Sir Russell Johnston : What is the point of what? I have already explained at length to the hon. Gentleman why I think that the title should be approved by Parliament--because it contains a series of declarations of considerable seriousness, on which Parliament should have the right to express a view. That does not mean that the provision goes as far as I would wish. I should certainly favour our recognising the European convention on human rights.
Mr. Barnes : As hon. Members who believe in open government and freedom of information, surely we must get the meaning of the word "federalism" correct, and understand what subsidiarity implies. Is it really being said that subsidiarity is a subterfuge being used to move us towards federalism? I stand for federalism, and I should like the Bill to provide for it, but that is not what we have been offered.
We are offered something else, which is described as subsidiarity, so subsidiarity must be clarified. If that cannot be done in such a way as to turn subsidiarity into federalism, subsidiarity should be recognised for what it is--an attempt to persuade us to accept moves towards a unitary system, and a union.
Sir Russell Johnston : I believe that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Government have a record of centralising control within the United Kingdom. Does he also agree that, when they use the word "subsidiarity", they mean subsidiarity from Brussels to Whitehall? The Government want subsidiarity to stop at Whitehall. But my definition would mean subsidiarity from Brussels to Edinburgh and Liverpool, and to the various regions of England, Scotland and Wales. That is what we mean in connection with federalism, too.
Of course we know that the Government's definition of subsidiarity and their concept of decentralisation are different from mine--and doubtless different from those of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
Mr. Barnes : The Liberal Democrats are supposed to be a democratic party.
Sir Russell Johnston : We are.
Mr. Barnes : A democratic party must opt clearly for a principle by which the various positions begin to become clear. The word "subsidiarity" has never been used in legal or constitutional documents, nor to explain democratic positions. It was used in a papal encyclical, and operated within structures such as the Catholic Church. The word was applied to fascist Italy, to define the rights of the individual.
The document in question contains the mildest of trickle-down provisions ; some things might be dealt with at a lower level, but most things would be done at the centre. That is like someone going to the monarch, or to
Column 180
the tsar, with icons, and hoping that he will not be killed. What comes down to the lower level is entirely dependent on the centre.Sir Russell Johnston : I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that the Minister does, too.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : It is the long- standing policy of the Liberal Democrats to seek the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our domestic law, and that policy has been openly supported by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, in his annual address to the Bar Council, and--as recently as last night-- by Lord Chief Justice Taylor, in his Dimbleby lecture.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, because the Government do not intend to include in the Bill matters which do not give rise to Community rights and obligations--in particular, the provisions of article L of title 7--which excludes from the consideration of the European Court of Justice all matters which do not directly arise from the original treaties of the European Community, even if we adopt title I into the Bill as the amendment proposes, we shall still not be able to incorporate the European convention into British law? That is regrettable, but unavoidable in light of the Government's policy, which has no doubt been imposed on other colleagues in the Community.
| Next Section
| Home Page |