House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Dec 1992

Mr. Butcher : My hon. Friend has been most courteous in giving way, but he was very provocative when he said that this was a routine and technical Bill. I ask my hon. Friend to accept what the Government are telling us : that transfers of sovereignty are involved and that there is considerable dispute about whether sovereignty will be transferred in areas that so far have been described as being outside the treaty. It is not a routine and technical Bill. To pretend otherwise is to do my hon. Friend's own cause, which he has honourably espoused, a disservice. Let him be absolutely open about the move towards the transfer of further powers. Let us not pretend that the Bill is routine and technical.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. I deprecate very long interventions.

Mr. Dykes : The problem is that I have to try to face you in your Chair, Dame Janet, and my hon. Friend. I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the position. I was not being discourteous when I said that the Bill was technical and brief, which it literally is. All I am saying is that all those arguments were presumably aired during the earlier stages, including Second Reading. The conclusion must therefore be that, in the absence of any significant change, the House overwhelmingly supports the legislation, which itself refers to consequential amendments, in the legislation of the European Community, to the treaty. I say no more than that. That is why I regret that, all too often, we return in our debates to the fundamental question as to whether membership of the European Community is a good idea.

Mr. Winnick : Crucial to the debate on this group of amendments is the question of power and whether that power will be taken away from us. The hon. Gentleman keeps on saying that that is not so, but where in the treaty is there any suggestion that power, let alone more power, will remain with this Parliament? The reason why so much criticism was levelled at the treaty both before and during the two-day debate was that power will increasingly be taken away from this Parliament and given to Europe. That is why the hon. Gentleman ought to be as honest as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). Although the right hon. Gentleman is a great enthusiast for the treaty, he, unlike the hon. Gentleman, admits, defends and justifies the taking away of further powers from Parliament. Why is the hon. Gentleman not willing to admit that?

Mr. Dykes : We all have our ways of explaining these things. I do not think that it is a transfer of power from one entity, a nation state, to another, Europe. It is a development of the collective power of all the sovereign

Column 347

member states working together in the new concept of European union. I am grateful for the patience of the Chair--

Mr. Dalyell rose --

Mr. Dykes : I do not intend to give way again as it would be unfair to hon. Members who are waiting to speak.

If the treaty proposed the creation of a single governmental entity or structure--a new European Government, presumably based in Brussels--to replace national Governments, that would be a different kettle of fish. That simply is not so.

Mr. Winnick : It is in the treaty.

Mr. Dykes : This is my answer. The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he must accept it.

The enhancement of intrinsic sovereign power for all member states comes from their collective, reciprocal sharing of that power, based increasingly on majority voting and the terrifying concept of democracy, which the anti- democrats in the anti-European camp do not accept or like.

The amendments are illogical. The hon. Member for Hamilton amply explained why they do not fit and are not apposite and would have the opposite effect of that intended by the hon. Members who tabled them. That is why the House needs to settle down and accept that the vast majority of Members want the treaty to go ahead without further undue delay.

The Second Deputy Chairman : Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : On a point of order, Dame Janet. A few minutes ago, you said that you deprecated long interventions. As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I fully accept that ruling, but will you accept that hon. Members who have been sitting for many hours are deeply concerned that when the Minister, who is one of the great architects of this misguided treaty and policy, sits down, the closure motion will be moved?

Hon. Members who have a valuable contribution to make to the debate have not had the opportunity to do so. The amendments allow Members on both sides of the Committee to debate the principle behind title I of the treaty and to articulate our fundamental opposition to what the House, under the guidance of the Government, is likely to be forced to do. Constitutional issues are being forced through, not in a free debate but on a three-line Whip. I ask you to say that you will allow the debate to go on after the Minister has sat down. Several hon. Members rose --

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I shall deal with one point of order at a time.

As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be well aware that, in Committee, the presence of a Minister at the Dispatch Box does not mean, as it would in an ordinary debate, the end of the debate. I cannot anticipate what might happen after that.

Mr. Winnick : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. You are aware of the importance of the debate and I know that you and your colleagues in the Chair wish to defend the integrity of the House and the Committee. You

Column 348

said that the fact that the Minister intends to speak again does not mean that the debate will be concluded. As many hon. Members on both sides want to speak, if a closure motion is moved, I beg you, in defending the Committee and bearing in mind how crucial the debate is, not to accept it. The decision, I understand, lies with you. A rumour--it may be unfounded--is circulating that a closure motion will be moved shortly, certainly before 10 o'clock or just at 10 o'clock. In those circumstances, if you are in the Chair, Dame Janet, I beg you not to allow the motion to be moved, because it would make a mockery of the debate.

Several hon. Members rose --

8.45 pm

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I shall deal with this point of order first.

I do not anticipate what may happen ; I deal with what happens. I confirm that the acceptance of such a motion is entirely at my discretion.

Mr. Devlin : Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Dame Janet. Some hon. Members sat here yesterday evening--as you know, because you accepted two points of order from me. A number of the hon. Members who are rising in their places have already intervened in long speeches. This is an extensive debate, with many amendments, and many hon. Members are keen to make progress. I therefore hope, with all the hope in my heart, that you will accept a closure as soon as possible so that we can get on.

Mr. Rowlands : On a point of order, Dame Janet. I have sat here almost continuously from 3.30 pm to 10 pm yesterday and from 3.45 pm today until now. Like other hon. Members, I therefore feel able to make a plea to you.

You said that the fact the Minister intends to speak again does not mean that the debate will be concluded. Some of us wish to follow up aspects of the Minister's speech and put some points to him, to which we should like a reply. Will you consider not calling the Minister so that other hon. Members can make their speeches and put some specific points to the Minister that arose from his speech yesterday afternoon?

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : On a point of order, Dame Janet. We spent a considerable amount of time on this debate yesterday, and at 10 pm we will have devoted a whole day to it today. I would not for a minute suggest what you should do, but I merely point out that, by then, we will have had as long as we normally have on a Second Reading debate. It must surely be obvious to everyone that certain hon. Members, far from observing the 10-minute rule, have occupied-- [Interruption.] I am as aware as anyone that there is no rule, but I also know, as you do, Dame Janet, that, when colleagues are anxious to let as many hon. Members speak as possible, they practise a little self-denial.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Dame Janet. It is a convention of the House that speeches move from one side of the Chamber to the other. The last speaker was a Conservative Member, so it was confidently expected that a Labour Member would be called next. You called the Minister, which has given rise to a number of

Column 349

fears. Indeed, the Minister had a brief conversation with the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to indicate, from what I could tell, that he was going to get in immediately after the hon. Gentleman, and that he could curtail his remarks.

The debate is being keenly argued, and many hon. Members want to speak, which is another consideration that Chairmen of Committees bear in mind. I was told that the Minister was going to speak at 8.30 pm, the closure would be moved, and it had all been set up. If that happened--I am sure that you, Dame Janet, would not be a party to it--it would provoke great anger.

This is an important issue, and many hon. Members have a lot to say about it. Once we leave these amendments, we shall lose the opportunityy to talk about title I, which is important. This debate is vital to us all. I am not making any jokes about false points of order. If we do not have the opportunity to debate the treaty, I and many other hon. Members will be extremely angry about the Government conspiring to deny us the opportunity to speak. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are not involved in that agreement, or consensus--because there is no consensus tonight.

The Second Deputy Chairman : I know nothing of any private conversations or conspiracies--and if I did, they would not move me one iota.

Mr. Richard Shepherd : On a point of order, Dame Janet. When the Chairman of Ways and Means, unusually, convened a meeting on Monday, he emphasised that he recognised the great importance of title I, and the fact that, as it constructed the architecture of the Bill, it gave us probably our only opportunity to view the treaty and the Bill in perspective.

Some of us could not speak on Second Reading because of the demand of so many hon. Members to speak, and the Chairman of Ways and Means suggested that we would have the opportunity to come back. There is therefore a sense of alarm that the Minister is being called at such an early stage, when so few people have spoken. One has not had an opportunity-- [Interruption.] The point is that Mr. Morris showed us that he recognised that the matters before us are terribly important. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member had spoken out of order, I am sure that the occupant of the Chair would have notified the individual concerned.

There is a real sense of anxiety that we may be frustrating the purpose of the Committee stage, and our examination of the important title I. The amendment was moved by the Liberal Democrats, and it will be to the disadvantage of other hon. Members who wish to speak on the subject if we subvert the processes of proper debate.

Mr. Spearing : On a point of order, Dame Janet. The whole House recognises that if anyone claims to move the closure the occupant of the Chair has to make a decision in the circumstances at the time, and do a balancing act. May I, through this point of order, put to you two matters which I hope that you will bear in mind if that occasion should arise at any time during the debate on the amendments?

As Mr. Morris said, and as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) reminded us, this debate is in a sense a broad conspectus on the total

Column 350

meaning of the treaty as contained in title I. The breadth and gravity of the matters concerned are considerable, and they affect this country's constitution.

The Minister found some difficulty talking about those matters yesterday--

Mr. Garel-Jones indicated dissent.

Mr. Spearing : The Minister shakes his head, but I believe that there was some difficulty in the manner in which he replied to some of his hon. Friends, and to some Opposition Members. It is not appropriate for the Minister to speak again before some of us have had an opportunity to follow up those important matters--unless there will be another opportunity for us to speak, and the debate is to continue.

I therefore hope that, if you have to make such a decision, Dame Janet, you will bear in mind that important consideration, and the fact that several of my hon. Friends and I have been in the Chamber all day yesterday and most of today, yet we have not had the opportunity even to comment on what the Minister said in his opening speech yesterday.

Mr. Butcher : On a point of order, Dame Janet. The part of the Committee discussion which deals with title I is of fundamental constitutional importance. I readily concede that some over-lengthy speeches have been made in the House in the past two days, but some hon. Members who have an immense contribution to make to the debate have waited patiently to speak. There is a clash on the exact meaning and applicability of title I--and we may never have another chance to discuss it. Six or seven major questions remain in the air, and have not been resolved.

If you were asked a question about the closure, would you think it fair to close the debate after the Minister had spoken? May I put that question to you now?

The Second Deputy Chairman : The hon. Gentleman may put the question, but I retain my discretion, and I do not answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. Ian Taylor : On a point of order, Dame Janet. Will you give guidance to the Committee ? It seems to me that the debate on title I and on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has contained many of the same points as were raised in earlier debates on the Bill.

I am aware that we are in Committee, but many of the points raised in the debate have been raised at earlier stages, especially on Second Reading. That is important, because the Bill has already been discussed by the House for longer than all the stages of the Single European Act. There can be no question of there not having been a proper debate. If certain of my hon. Friends decided to make very long speeches covering all the points, naturally it will not be possible for other hon. Members to contribute if we are to make progress.

I hope that we can make progress on the Bill, Dame Janet. Many of us would like to contribute to debates on amendments on the Order Paper, which will be discussed in later groups. This debate on the opening group has already been very long.

Mr. George Robertson : On a point of order, Dame Janet. Unfortunately, you are embroiled in dealing with hypothetical situations, but may I offer you the information that it is my view, and that of my hon.

Column 351

Friends, that the Opposition have not had an adequate opportunity to air our variety of views on the fundamental part of the debate which is now taking place? Lest there be confusion in anyone's mind, let me tell the House what I told the Minister earlier this evening : if the Government Whips choose to move the closure at this stage, we shall oppose it.

Mr. Shore : The House has entirely legitimate anxieties about the Minister's intentions. Is it not possible for the Minister himself to rise on a point of order and allay those anxieties by assuring us that he has no intention of moving the closure--[ Hon. Members :-- "Or anyone else."]--yes, or anyone else on the Government Front Bench.

The Second Deputy Chairman : That is, of course, not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Garel-Jones rose --

Mr. Bill Walker rose --

Hon. Members : Sit down.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I tell the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that I have no notion what the intention of the business managers may be--

Mr. Winnick : Why don't you ask them ?

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli) : On a point of order, Dame Janet. Several hon. Members rose --

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I am taking a point of order from Mr. Davies. It is a point of order, I take it?

Mr. Davies : Yes, Dame Janet. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have sat here for almost two days. This debate is not the debate we had on Second Reading. We are discussing some difficult legal matters, including the justiciability of title I. The Minister of State made some important points, although he has not clarified many of the matters which we wish to raise. If the debate is closed after his second intervention, we will have no further opportunity to debate those matters.

9 pm

Mr. Bill Walker : On a point of order, Dame Janet. We have had a two -day debate, and some of us have sat through the whole two days. You will notice that I represent one of the Scottish constituencies. Some aspects of title I must be addressed, as they affect the unitary Parliament and the Union. It is necessary for me to raise matters with the Minister and to get some sort of answer. I fail to see how I can do that if the Minister addresses the Committee now. It will give the Government no opportunity to answer the matters that I wish to put to the Minister. That would certainly send the wrong message to Scotland and to the rest of the country.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you explain why the Minister looks as if he is about to be called to speak again when other hon. Members have not spoken once, although they have sat through the whole debate? Some of us want to hear those other Members. Why have we broken the rule that we call hon. Members alternately from both sides of

Column 352

the Chamber? Will two Conservative Members be called consecutively? Are you aware that our fears have been strengthened as a result of the non-assurance and the weasel words of the Minister?

The Second Deputy Chairman : The right hon. Member I was about to call is the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen : On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I express my extreme distaste for the way in which the Minister of State dealt with the Committee a moment ago? He had an opportunity to calm the Committee and to offer a reasonably conciliatory gesture. However, he tried by a clever sleight of tongue to give an ambivalent answer to you, simply to irritate the Committee.

With the exception of the Government, the Committee wishes the debate to continue. If we are to have satisfactory discussions, we must create some trust between the Minister who is dealing with the matter and the rest of the Committee. The Minister's ambivalent--I even go so far as to say impertinent--remark does nothing but create contempt.

The Second Deputy Chairman : The Committee will appreciate that I am not responsible for the answers given by a Minister or, indeed, by any other hon. Member.

Mr. Barnes : On a point of order, Dame Janet. We are in some difficulty because you have called the Minister to speak, and the points of order are an attempt to make you change your mind. I appreciate that you have already made your decision. In those circumstances, would it not be helpful if the Minister announced that he did not wish to speak at this stage, but that he would be willing to speak later? The Minister's remark was not helpful to the Committee. He can now rise on a point of order and assist us all.

Mrs. Gorman : On a point of order, Dame Janet, I appeal to your sense of fairness in the matter. Many of us on the Back Benches, who, because we are not Privy Councillors and have not held offices that would enable us to attract the attention of the Chair in such a debate, have tried in vain many times to contribute to debates on Europe. That means that we sit for hours during such debates. On Second Reading, I tried to speak on the subject-- [Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I have great difficulty in hearing, due to the sedentary comments of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). That is not acceptable to me.

Mrs. Currie : On a point of order, Dame Janet. I apologise ; I merely wished to make the point that what was said by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was not a point of order ; it was a load of humbug --

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I shall be the judge of what is a point of order ; it is not for the hon. Lady to do so. Has the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) finished her point of order?

Mrs. Gorman : The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has spent more time out of the Chamber in the past two days than I have.

The Second Deputy Chairman : That is not a point of order. I must move on to another point of order.

Column 353

Mr. Lewis : On a point of order, Dame Janet. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and others have referred to the fact that we are in Committee. Is it not the case that, in Committee, extra time should be given to allow hon. Members on both sides to make their contributions?

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : On a point of order, Dame Janet. I am sure you recognise that several hon. Members have sat through the whole two-day debate and have not been called. Although there is debate and argument about whether title I should be included in the Bill, the fact of the matter is that title I is an integral part of the treaty. Once the treaty is ratified, it will be interpreted as though title I stood part of it. Therefore, it is extremely important for the Committee to be given a full opportunity to debate the matter almost exhaustively, because it is of such fundamental constitutional importance.

Mr. Livingstone : On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you rule that it is completely out of order for hon. Members who have been called and made their speeches to try to curtail the debate? We have a noble tradition in the Labour movement that such action is completely out of order and insulting to everyone else.

The Second Deputy Chairman : I am not aware of any such rule in the House of Commons.

Rev. Ian Paisley : On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I draw your attention to the fact that the other parts of the United Kingdom have a right to be heard in the debate on this constitutional matter? I am the only Northern Ireland Member who has attended the Committee both days. I believe that I have a duty to the people who sent me here and a duty to the overwhelming majority of voters of Northern Ireland who, on three occasions, have endorsed my view of the European Economic Community. I believe that I should have an opportunity to put my view.

I have not spoken at length in this Committee. In the European Parliament, I spoke many times for many hours. In this Committee, I have always respected the Chair, and I have always done right by the Chair. I should feel very angry tonight if not one speaker from Northern Ireland was allowed to put his view.

I have heard something of the plottings, and I have overheard remarks. It was disgraceful of the Minister to act as he did tonight. This is a constitutional issue. It will not affect us for 10 minutes or for an hour : it will affect our future, our families, our children and our grandchildren, and we have a right to be heard. The Bill was drafted in such a way as to gag us. What we could have said in order we shall not now be allowed to say.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : On a point of order, Dame Janet. I appeal to you as someone who safeguards the interest of Back-Bench Members. May I remind you that the Minister said during these points of order that he had no knowledge whatever of what the business managers of the House intended? May I ask whether I and other long-serving Members are expected to believe that?

The Second Deputy Chairman : As we are all supposedly honourable Members--I trust that we are--we must accept what another hon. Member has said.

Mr. Budgen : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I dare say that there are right hon. and hon. Members who are generous enough to believe the Minister

Column 354

of State when he says that he does not know what the business managers intend to do. As I speak, he has an opportunity to ask the Whips what their intentions are. If he cannot move the two feet necessary to get to the Whip, I am sure that the Whip is sufficiently athletic to move that two feet himself. The Minister might then be able to give the Committee some information. I repeat : the Minister's earlier reply was offensive to the Committee.

Mr. Cash : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. Is it in order for the Minister to say that he has had no contact with the Whips on this question when there are those in the Committee who have some access to other information? Would it be possible for us to be able to put it to you that the Minister may have information which he is not disclosing to the Committee about what is going on this evening in relation to the proceedings?

The Second Deputy Chairman : The duties of the Chair are onerous enough, without checking every rumour or suggestion. The Chair cannot be involved in that.

Mr. Leighton : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. May I suggest that you adjourn the Committee for two minutes to allow the Minister to find out what the Whips intend to do?

Mr. Budgen : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. May I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has made an extremely sensible and helpful suggestion? The Committee is, in general, very fond of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, he has offended the Committee tonight. This is an opportunity for him to speak to the Chief Whip. It is sensible to suggest that the Committee might rise for a few minutes to enable my right hon. Friend the Minister to discuss the matter in a calm and civilised way.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and I have both done time in the Whips Office. It will not come as a surprise to him to be told that it is not infrequent in these matters that sometimes the last person the usual channels choose-- [Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. As I understand it, the Minister seeks to answer a point of order. We do not have interventions on points of order.

Mr. Garel-Jones : It is of course the case, as my hon. Friend was saying, that I have attempted in the course of the afternoon to ascertain what are the plans for the future, and I assure hon. Members that my whole purpose in seeking to intervene when I did was to hope that other hon. Members might be able to continue to speak after I had sat down.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, The Second Deputy Chairman, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw :--

The Committee divided : Ayes 9, Noes 416.

Division No. 94] 9.10 pm

AYES

Budgen, Nicholas

Cash, William

Etherington, Bill

Paisley, Rev Ian

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Sweeney, Walter

Next Section

Home Page