| Previous Section | Home Page |
Sir Russell Johnston : I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. I also referred to the Dimbleby lecture in that connection. I have made the case as clearly as possible
6 pm
Mr. Marlow : The hon. Gentleman's advice on this issue will probably be very valuable and much more so than that of many other hon. Members.
It has been made clear to us that the Committee is not about ratifying the Bill : it is about incorporating parts of the treaty into United Kingdom legislation. In the amendment, the hon. Gentleman seeks also to incorporate title I into British legislation. I am tempted. I have a great deal of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve, and I may well support him in the Lobby later.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to advise the House. Let us suppose that we do not support his amendment. Let us suppose that even the Government oppose the amendment and it is defeated. Let us suppose that other amendments that seek to incorporate other parts of the treaty into British legislation at a later stage are also defeated. How, then, is the whole of the treaty ratified? Through this process, we are legislating only part of the treaty. How, therefore, is the rest of the treaty ratified?
Sir Russell Johnston : The short answer is that, because the Chair very properly decided that the amendment should be selected--the Chair has also selected other amendments concerning other missing titles--the House has the opportunity to express an opinion on whether it wishes titles to be included or not. The opportunity exists. We know that, in strict terms, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is right. We are not ratifying ; we are talking about the parts of the treaty which have a direct consequence on British law. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the fact is that, if we defeat the
Column 181
Bill, the effect will be that we do not ratify.I know that that is a paradox, but it is true, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I repeat that we should include title I of the treaty.Mr. Garel-Jones : I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I seek in the first instance not only to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), but to seek to place in context the important debate that we are about to have. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris, I shall seek to respond to points made subsequently by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who will no doubt speak on the amendment he has tabled, and to the points raised by other hon. Members.
The House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber for tabling the amendment because it enables us to have a debate that is essentially about the structure of the treaty. It is important for us to have that debate and it is timely that the Committee should open with it.
I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will be persuaded by my remarks, and by what subsequently takes place in Committee, that the wisest course would be for him to withdraw the amendment. That is my objective. Curiously enough, the finger was put by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall)
Mr. Jim Marshall : I hope that it was not my finger but the intellectual power of my comments that influenced the Minister.
Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Gentleman, aided and abetted by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), went to the heart of what, as I hope that hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will accept after the debate, is the weakness of the argument. There are two sides to the amendment. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber replied frankly when the hon. Member for Leicester, South said, rightly, that the purpose of the structure of the treaty--this is at the centre of the Government's negotiating position and I believe that the Opposition are not unsupportive of that position--is to separate out common foreign and security policy, and interior and justice policy, and to make them separate intergovernmental pillars and not part of the treaty of Rome. The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked whether that was not the purpose of the whole treaty.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber replied, perfectly frankly--this is the position of the Liberal Democrats and will come as no surprise to anyone--that he indeed wanted to bring those areas of intergovernmental activity into the treaty of Rome. He wants a single structure--what we here have come to call a federal state. I realise that in the course of the Committee we shall have some interesting debates about what the word "federal" means. It means different things in different countries. That is what the Liberal Democrats aspire to.
There is a certain amount of sense in what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber seeks to do. I do not want Conservative or Opposition Members to be confused about the matter. In seeking to move title I on to the face of the treaty, one is taking a step towards a
Column 182
single-structured treaty. That is what the hon. Gentleman wishes to see. I hope that none of my hon. Friends will be deceived by that. Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose--Mr. Benn rose--
Mr. Garel-Jones : I will give way, but I want first to complete this part of my argument so that the House well understands what we shall be asked to vote on when the Question is put.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and his party are clear about the matter. It must, therefore, have come as some surprise to the hon. Gentleman to find that the amendment enjoyed the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I will explain why I believe that my hon. Friend will give that support and why he will even gain support from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) whose intentions on the Maastricht treaty and on the Bill are well known to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and to the Committee. My hon. Friend's intentions are perfectly proper, but they are not the ones that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Benn : Whether the amendment which seeks to incorporate title I is in the Bill or not--that is all that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) proposes--the Government intend to ratify title I. There is no objection to the words. It appears that the Government do not want too much of the attention of the House of Commons and of the country to be drawn to title I by incorporating it in the Bill-- [Hon. Members :-- "No."] Of course. If title I is in the Bill, everyone can see it.
People do not study treaties, including the aims and objectives. Acts of Parliament do not get studied very much, but at least they are looked at. Treaties are never looked at. I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will not be persuaded to withdraw the amendment. If he does withdraw it, the Government will go ahead and ratify the treaty.
The second point raises matters of tactics for the Edinburgh summit. What gain have the Government got from putting the Bill on today? When the Edinburgh summit meets next week, every other European Minister will see that the British Government do not want the objectives of the Maastricht treaty put before the British Parliament. That is what this is about-- [Hon. Members :-- "No."] Of course it is.
If the Minister had said that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber was right and that the Government would ratify the objectives, he could at least go to the summit as a "good European". However, in fact, the first thing that he will have to say to the others is, "You are ratifying and we are ratifying, but we did not want our Parliament to incorporate the objectives in the legislation." By moving the amendment, the hon. Gentleman has exposed the deception and the strategy of the Government in trying to deny to the British public the enormity of what they are doing. On a matter of language, I do not know what "la reine la veult" means, either, if the Bill has to receive Royal Assent in Norman French which, to the best of my knowledge, is no longer in the Oxford English dictionary.
Column 183
Mr. Garel-Jones : The right hon. Gentleman is making a point that seems to be entirely misleading both to himself and to the Committee.
Sir Teddy Taylor : Tell us why it is misleading.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I will seek to do so.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I will seek to do so.
Sir Teddy Taylor : I will listen very carefully.
Mr. Garel-Jones : If my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will contain himself for a few seconds, I will seek to do so. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will be aware that the purpose of the Bill is to bring into British law those elements of the treaty of Maastricht that involve an amendment to the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act. Fortunately for the Committee and for its procedures, it is possible for us, in doing that, to have much wider debates and to debate those other elements of the treaty of Maastricht which do not necessitate a change or an amendment to the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act, such as the intergovernmental activities of the union. There will be a number of debates--I dare say that they will be very long and detailed--when the Committee considers all those aspects of the Bill, too.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : The point that I was going to make follows on from what was said by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), with whom I wholly agree. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that European law overrides British law when there is a conflict? In so far as title I has any legal validity in the courts of the land, it will be enforced by the courts of this land whether or not it is incorporated in the Bill. Therefore, what on earth is the point in preventing the Committee from debating the legal consequences of title I? What is the point of keeping it out of the Bill when the legal effect will be identical, whether it is in the Bill or whether it is enforced through European law?
Mr. Garel-Jones : If the Committee will allow me to make the remarks that I am about to make, I hope to be able to answer my hon. Friend. As a quick reply--I hope that I am allowed to make a detailed explanation of the point--may I say that my hon. Friend will see in the response that the Government have put to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the common provisions of the treaty are not justiciable by the European Court of Justice by virtue of article L of the treaty. The common conditions that we are discussing are not justiciable under the European Court of Justice. I shall try to make progress, but I will, of course, take interventions.
Mr. Marlow : My right hon. Friend is being very tolerant, and I am grateful. If title I is not justiciable, what is the point of it and what effect does it have?
Mr. Garel-Jones : Title I describes the objectives of the treaty. It places the treaty in context, both those aspects of the treaty that are amendments to the treaty of Rome and those aspects of the treaty that are not part of the treaty of Rome. I welcome the amendment because it goes to the heart of the structure of the treaty and the Bill. It is important that we understand that from the outset.
Column 184
Mr. Denzil Davies : We all understand that title I is not justiciable by the European Court because it is not incorporated into the treaty of Rome. It is quite different to say, however, that, if the British Government ratify title I, as they will have to if they ratify the treaty, the British Government are then bound vis-a-vis all other Governments by what is in title I. If title I is a federal blueprint--I do not know whether it is or not--the British Government are ratifying a federal blueprint.
Several hon. Members rose--
6.15 pm
Mr. Garel-Jones : If the right hon. Member for Llanelli and my hon. Friends who are seeking to intervene will allow me to make some progress, they will realise that I am seeking to address the very questions that the right hon. Gentleman has put to me and that my hon. Friends wish to put. So far, I have not been able to get beyond the first paragraph of what I wish to say. I am perfectly happy to take interventions, but I should like to place my answers to the right hon. Gentleman and to the mover of the amendment in context. It is important that we understand that the treaty structure--this is the point that the hon. Member for Leicester, South put to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber--was a significant negotiating success for the United Kingdom at Maastricht. It provides the separate intergovernmental pillars for co-operation on the common foreign and security policy and in home affairs outside the treaty of Rome. In those matters, the EC institutions will operate under different rules. For example, the Commission will not have the exclusive right of initiative. There were those--the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber is of this view--who wished--
Mr. Butcher : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. We now have a difference of view on whether title I would be justiciable. It is a very important matter because, if we are to incorporate something into law which will be justiciable, and if that is therefore to be part of our constitution, now written as opposed to basically unwritten, we should not proceed with the discussion of the amendment, given that it now sets a precedent--we should know the answer to this--for the proposal by the Government to exclude whole chunks of the treaty from the Committee's consideration unless covered fortuitously by amendments that you accept.
This is not a spurious point of order. We really need to know before we proceed further whether, having passed article 1, whether we discuss it or not, a European Court judgment could give flesh, meaning or obligations to this Parliament arising from its approval.
The Chairman : Obviously, there are powerful arguments at bay and they must be discussed on the Floor of the House, and they should proceed. I certainly cannot rule on them at this stage.
Mr. Butcher : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. The Minister of State has given an assurance--of course, we have to accept in good faith that that is his interpretation--but there are serious doubts whether article L insulates us from decisions by the European
Column 185
Court which bind the House of Commons and bind us constitutionally and which can have a significant effect on the way in which we view citizenship in this country.I put it to you again, Mr. Morris, that this is a very serious point. If we approve article 1 without that discussion and without a judgment from the Law Officers we may have future discussions on many other parts of the treaty, not knowing the constitutional basis on which they might be implemented in this country.
Mr. Cash : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : I rule on one point of order at a time. The hon. Gentleman should know that by now.
The arguments are all of substance throughout the whole process of the Bill. Some may seem more important than others, but arguments have to be deployed and then we have to come to a conclusion. The Committee votes either for the amendment or against it. It is not for the Chair to advise one way or the other. I do not think that I can help the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) any further.
Mr. Cash : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would it be convenient for the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, perhaps in rotation, to attend our debate? These are matters not exclusively of English law. We are now told that they are part European law and part English law. It seems to me that the Minister of State is having a little difficulty in explaining himself. It might be helpful if the Attorney-General or the Solicitor- General could be brought in to bail him out.
The Chairman : Order. Ministers will have heard that ; it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I am not experiencing--
Mr. Benn rose--
Mr. Garel-Jones : If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to make a little progress. I will seek to deal with a number of questions, including the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has just raised on a point of order. I do not want to be discourteous to the Committee by refusing to take interventions, but I want to try to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and to address the questions which hon. Members wish me to address. We are in Committee and there will be no difficulty for hon. Members to intervene. They may intervene freely on each other. I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I put these remarks on the record now. When I have done so, hon. Members will no doubt raise a number of points.
Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I agree with almost nothing that has been said by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and indeed take a different view from some of my hon. Friends, but may I support the hon. Member for Stafford on one matter? There is a serious argument for having a Law Officer present.
The Chairman : I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already ruled that that is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Garel-Jones : There are those in Europe who wish all co- operation between Governments and member states to fall under the treaty of Rome within the framework of
Column 186
the existing Community rules and under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is in essence the position which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber seeks to defend. I think that is why he has sought to incorporate title I into the provisions of the Bill. There is a reason why he should not do so, but that is a respectable reason, well understood by hon. Members. There are also a number of people in Europe who share the federal views held by the Liberal party. That is why, in the course of the negotiations leading up to the treaty, the Dutch Government sought to introduce a unitary text that would indeed have made all these matters areas where the Commission had the sole right of initiative, and would have made all the areas that we will discuss in Committee justiciable by the European Court of Justice.Sir Nicholas Bonsor : My right hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the Committee to article L. He must give his full attention to what article L(a) says. Is he telling the Committee as a legal fact that title I of the treaty is not a provision amending the treaty establishing the European Economic Community with a view to establishing the European Community?
Mr. Garel-Jones : Yes, Sir. The pillared structure that I was referring to represents a significant change of direction for the Community. For more than 30 years, since its foundation, the Community has developed in a centralising way, drawing more and more areas of policy and action under the central framework of Community institutions, operating under Community rules and enacting Community legislation. The introduction of the pillared structure of the treaty on European union represents moves away from that centralising trend and into more flexible forms of co- operation under the umbrella of European union. It is the distinction between co-operation in the Community and co-operation in the European union that lies at the heart of the treaty and therefore at the heart of the Bill.
Mr. Rowlands : Will the Minister point to anywhere in title I which makes those distinctions? Is there anywhere in title I a reference to intergovernmental institutions? We read that the objective is the framing of a common defence policy, leading to common defence. That is not a pillared structure. Is there any reference in title I to a pillared structure and to the intergovernmental provisions of the treaty?
Mr. Garel-Jones : Title I refers at different points to the whole treaty ; therefore, it makes reference to the treaty of Rome and the amendments to it and it makes reference to the intergovernmental aspects--
Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Gentleman has just referred to one himself--defence. More importantly, it distinguishes which areas are aspects of the amendments to the treaty of Rome and which aspects are intergovernmental.
Mr. Cash rose --
Mr. Garel-Jones : I want to make more progress.
Mr. Rowlands rose --
Mr. Garel-Jones : I want to make more progress. I am about to address the very points that the hon. Member for
Column 187
Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is putting to me. If he will allow me to make a little progress I will give way to him and to my hon. Friend.It is important that I reply first to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and seek to place the debate in a context that will help other hon. Members who have tabled amendments. The treaty falls into distinct parts. Title II contains amendments to the treaty of Rome.
Mr. Rowlands : What about title I?
Mr. Garel-Jones : I will come to title I in good time.
Titles II, III and IV contain corresponding amendments to the treaties establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. Titles V and VI provide for intergovernmental co- operation in common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs respectively.
Hon. Members will recall the debate about the treaty structure before Maastricht--temples versus trees. That debate concerned whether Community rules in the treaty of Rome should apply in all areas of co-operation. Co- operation in separate intergovernmental pillars will not take place under the Community's normal rules. That is clear from article E. The Community institutions will operate according to the conditions laid down in the relevant sections of the treaty. For example, article L specifically excludes intergovernmental provisions from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Several hon. Members rose --
Mr. Garel-Jones : Not at this point. I shall certainly give way later.
Mr. Cash : On the point about article L--
The Chairman : Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
Mr. Garel-Jones : For example, article L specifically excludes intergovernmental provisions from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice unless member states unanimously confer on it jurisdiction to interpret a specific convention adopted under title VI. Community legislation cannot be adopted under the
intergovernmental provisions of titles V and VI. In those areas member states will co-operate as members of the union. The union is a wider concept than the Community, embracing both intergovernmental co-operation and co-operation under the treaty of Rome. Title I-- Mr. Cash rose --
Mr. Garel-Jones : I am answering the point about title I.
Mr. Cash : The Minister is not.
Mr. Garel-Jones : Since I am about to embark on the answer, it shows remarkable anticipation by my hon. Friend to say that I am not answering the point ; perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to do that.
Title I, "Common provisions", and title VII, "Final provisions", apply to the treaty as a whole. Effectively they establish the treaty's structure. The structure of the treaty is reflected in the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to make effective as part of the corpus of the Community treaties in
Column 188
the law of the United Kingdom those provisions of the Maastricht treaty which amend the European Community treaties previously enacted here by the European Communities Act 1972 and its successors. We must give effect in our domestic legislation to the Maastricht treaty in such a way as to create a framework within our domestic law for recognising Community rights and obligations which arise from the treaty. We had to do the same with the treaty of Rome in 1972, and we did so by means of the European Communities Act. That is the framework of domestic law that we have followed ever since--notably in 1986, when the 1972 Act was amended to incorporate the Single European Act.6.30 pm
I fully understand the motives of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, who moved amendment 93. As a European federalist, he wished to begin chipping away at the pillared structure of the union, which is what moving title I into the body of the Bill would do. If one is a European federalist, there is a point in that--most of my hon. Friends are not. As I shall explain in detail later, the purpose of the Bill is to incorporate into British law those narrow amendments to the treaty of Rome that we need to operate in the House and to operate our legal system in Britain. The amendment has the disadvantage of creating an anomalous situation in United Kingdom domestic law.
Mr. Benn : In respect of title I, the Minister properly says that those are largely objectives and are not justiciable. The end of title I says that the union--the new organism that we are setting up-- "shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
Those words can mean only one thing. We are setting up European union and-- with the assent of the Government when they ratify the treaty--the European Community will have the right to do things to us and to other countries. It is no good saying it is not justiciable. If the instruments of union take on board that remit, the question is whether it is legal in Britain and what remedy we have got. By ratifying the treaty, the Government are giving birth to a new executive which is even more powerful than the Crown. I think that that requires a proper answer.
Mr. Garel Jones : It is policies as defined in the treaty.
Mr. Rowlands : The hon. Gentleman repeated that title I establishes, describes and reflects the structure of the treaty. I asked him before, and I ask again, where in title I there are any references to the intergovernmental pillars. He referred me to the defence policy provision. Let me remind him that that is
"to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
There is nothing intergovernmental or pillared about those words--they are all about federalism and the union of the European Community.
Mr. Garel-Jones : The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is contained in the third paragraph of article A :
"The Union shall be founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of co-operation established by this treaty."
Intergovernmental union is one of the forms of co-operation that is established in the treaty.
Column 189
Mr. Cash : Is my right hon. Friend arguing that the provisions of title I do not give rise to international legal obligations, irrespective of whether they are within the treaty of Rome and are therefore European Court of Justice applicable ? Secondly, has it passed his notice that article L comes under title VII, which is not part--or sought to be made part--of the domestic law of the United Kingdom ? The situation is therefore curious, as my hon. Friend invokes the provisions of article L, which will be dealt with exclusively by prerogative, to endorse his arguments for yet another prerogative power, when everyone knows that both provisions are international legal obligations, irrespective of whether they are in the treaty of Rome--unless he wants to deny that they are obligations. Will he comment on that ?
Mr. Garel-Jones : Any international treaty that the United Kingdom subscribes to is an international treaty--
Mr. Cash : It is a legal obligation.
Mr. Garel-Jones : My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I said that it was not justiciable by the European Court of Justice.
Mr. Dalyell : Is the Minister aware that mine is probably the friendliest--or the least unfriendly--face that he is looking at on the Opposition Benches? That puts me in a position to say that if Ministers are going to talk about the incorporation of law--we have just heard that that is the main object of what we are discussing--it is at least wise that a Law Officer should be present to clarify such matters. I have some experience of constitutional Bills--although not experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) would entirely approve of-- and, having spent 47 days on a devolution Bill, I ask, will the Government take it from me that it is a wise precaution to have a Law Officer present at an early stage because it makes a difference? This is not an insult to the Minister, but he will get into dreadful trouble if he does not do that.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I understand the friendly way in which the hon. Gentleman puts his case. He will understand that any legal matters that I seek to explain--if my hon. Friends will allow me to do so--are explained on the advice of the Government's Law Officers. If specific matters arose and the Treasury Bench felt that an intervention by a Law Officer would help the Committee, we would invite one of my right hon. and learned Friends to assist the Committee.
Mr. Dalyell rose --
Mr. Denzil Davies rose --
| Next Section
| Home Page |