| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Blair : I hope that, once I finally get on to article K, I shall be able to show that that simply is not true. As for the Trevi group being a wonderful example of the openness of government, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can exchange views with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) ; certainly, that is not my experience.
Sir Teddy Taylor : The hon. Gentleman has obviously studied the matter very carefully, but hon. Members who have not done so would appreciate his advice. According to his reading of article 100c, would there be a common arrangement for the style of visas and on which countries will require visas? Does he believe that a person with a visa valid for entry to, say, Italy or Greece would thereby have the right to enter this country? Article 100c does not make that clear. Will everyone have the same kind of document? A Minister has been unable to clarify that ; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to.
Mr. Blair : The hon. Gentleman expresses a vain hope. It is a question of more than the form of the visa, but
Column 1094
article K--with which I will now deal, irrespective of requests for interventions--makes it clear that immigration policy is still a matter for unanimity. That, at any rate, is my view.The co-ordination procedures in article K are complex, but there are broad areas of common interest, including asylum, immigration, justice--both civil and criminal--and customs and police co-operation. The procedural dimension of the article divides into two parts. First, there is the co- ordination envisaged by paragraphs 2 to 6 and paragraph 9. A common policy derived in the first way requires an initiative of a member state, or the Commission, and a unanimous decision in Council. That, I take it, will be the effect of article K.4(3).
Furthermore, any conventions drawn up unanimously by the Council shall be adopted in accordance with the "respective constitutional requirements" of member states. That is the point involving ratification to which I shall turn shortly.
The measures implementing joint action may be decided on a qualified majority basis if the Council unanimously so decides. There is, as it were, a trigger of unanimity before qualified majority voting operates. Measures implementing conventions shall be adopted by a majority of two thirds of high contracting parties, unless such conventions state otherwise. Obviously, they will often state otherwise, because they will be drawn up on the basis of unanimity. 7.15 pm
In addition to the requirements laid down explicitly in articles K.3 and K.4, there are other, more general safeguards. There are supplementary requirements, consisting of compliance with two international conventions, which are mentioned in article K.2. One of those conventions is that relating to the status of refugees, so that point is specifically covered. Then there is the consultation with the co-ordinating committee of senior officials, mentioned in article K.4, and the consultation with the European Parliament and the Commission referred to in article K.6. Perhaps most crucially, article K.2(2) refers to the responsibility of member states to maintain law and order and to safeguard internal security. Those matters are clearly set out and remain unaffected.
Article K.9 provides for the importation of the procedures relevant to article 100c into the areas covered by paragraphs (1) to (6) of article K.1. Perhaps the Home Secretary will confirm that the importation of the procedures in article 100c will, in a sense, involve the Commission in a way in which it otherwise would not be involved. Such an incorporation involves--indeed, requires--an initiative on the part of the Commission or a member state, a unanimous decision by the Council, successful completion of the voting according to whatever voting conditions are then imposed by the Council and the recommendation that the decision be adopted in accordance with those "respective constitutional requirements". I want the Home Secretary to explain clearly what is meant by the words "respective constitutional requirements". I understand them to mean that ratification, or debate in the House, would be required.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke : The meaning of article K.9 is certainly important. There is, in effect, what the Government tend to describe as a double lock if it comes
Column 1095
to any suggestion of extending Community competence beyond article 100c. Such extension would require a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers, followed by constitutional endorsement in each member state. That, in effect, means a vote in this Parliament. Community competence, under article 100c, could not be extended without all 12 member states voting in favour of it and the House of Commons supporting that extension.Mr. Blair : That is certainly my understanding and I think that it is made fairly clear in article K.9. At the Edinburgh summit, the Danes declared that the agreement to use article 100c would require the same constitutional procedures as governed the ratification of the treaties, which would mean a five sixths majority in their Parliament or a referendum.
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : To what extent will the European Court of Justice function and what will its role be?
Mr. Blair : According to article K.3, the conventions that may be agreed--obviously, they will be agreed by the full European Community--may stipulate that the court shall have jurisdiction to interpret their provisions and to rule on any disputes ; but that will be decided in relation to the specific conventions involved. To obtain action or agreement in relation to the areas of policy in article K, there must in each case be a figure of unanimity before procedures--some of which may involve qualified majority voting--can be implemented. There is a ratification process before Community competence is extended. Both of those are there and seem to be fairly clear.
Mr. Spearing : I hope that I can make myself clearer than I did on the previous occasion. My hon. Friend asked the Home Secretary what the Government thought was the correct constitutional procedure for ratification of what is, in effect, an expansion of the powers of the Community in the treaty under article K.9. My hon. Friend may have noticed that in new clauses 12 and 13, which apply to a similar and even riskier procedure under 2.(c) of article K.3, some of my hon. Friends and I have said that the lock, when it comes to this country, should not be a vote of the House of Commons alone but a specific Act of Parliament. I remind my hon. Friend and the Committee that by means of a simple vote on a statutory instrument it is possible to ratify something as being a Community treaty. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that a statutory instrument, or even a resolution of the House of Commons, should not be able to extend the powers of the Community--by, in effect, ratifying a Community treaty--and that it should be done by nothing less than an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Blair : I understand my hon. Friend's point and his concern about the fact that there is a difference between the procedure for ratifying something and an Act of Parliament. The most important point is that the House of Commons should be given the opportunity to express its view. That is the vital aspect. Provided that that is done, the precise form in which it is done is less important. [Hon. Members :-- "Oh!"] I take the point that my hon. Friend has made, but the most important point is that there should be a chance for us to express our view.
Column 1096
Mr. Shore : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Blair : Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to answer this point before I give way to him.
It is clear from reading article K.9, in conjunction with the other articles in article K, that in only a small number of cases is it possible for that situation to arise. It is also absolutely clear from article K.9 that the procedures in article 100c--in other words, the extension of Community competence--cannot happen at all except unanimously and after measures have been taken in accordance with constitutional procedures.
Mr. Shore : This is a very complex matter and difficult to get right. One accepts the fact that unanimity is needed in the first instance. That is absolutely clear. However, once unanimity is gained, there is no possibility of clawing it back. The importance of that first step is crucial. The second step is also crucial. The second step appears to be, through the operation of articles K.9 and K.1(3), that the whole of our immigration policy may conceivably be shifted into the European Community domain, under article 100c, under which matters can be decided by a qualified majority vote. We need something very much stronger than a simple resolution of the House of Commons, or a vote in the House of Commons. We need an Act of Parliament before any such act could be authorised.
Mr. Blair : There are a number of different steps within article K.9. It is important to understand the differences between each of those steps. Article K.9 will not apply at all unless there is a unanimous decision of the Council. At the same time, the Council determines not merely whether European Community competence is to be extended, but the relevant voting conditions that relate to it. That is a fairly significant safeguard. Article K.9 also recommends "the Member States to adopt that decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
I understand entirely the point that my hon. Friends have made, which is that the procedure for an Act of Parliament is very much bigger than it is for a resolution of the House of Commons. Even before one reaches that point, however, the Council must unanimously decide it. It can also lay down--this can be part of the negotiations upon which unanimity is founded- -the relevant voting conditions relating to it. We should have to be extraordinarily negligent in the conduct of our business if we were unable to construct sufficient safeguards within article K.9 in order properly to protect our position.
Mr. Marlow : The hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman opposes this Government. This Government may be in favour of policies which his hon. Friends look upon as racist and deplorable policies. On the basis of those policies, my right hon. and learned Friend might be unanimous with other European Governments. He might then come back here and, on the basis of one debate and one vote, and with the support of the Patronage Secretary, drive us all through the Lobby. And that would be it. The hon. Gentleman's party--the Labour party--would be able to do no more about it. That is what the hon. Gentleman is saying to his colleagues. He says : "Trust this Government. We are very impressed. We are delighted."
Column 1097
Mr. Blair : I am saying nothing of the sort. This Government can provide poor legislation. The co-operation at the moment, outside the Maastricht treaty, has resulted in decisions with which we powerfully disagree, but it seems to me that, as a matter of principle, it cannot possibly be said that it is wrong to seek the prospect of co-operation. Whether we then grant that co-operation depends upon us. I do not believe that the safeguards are inadequate.
When the Secretary of State replies to the debate, I should be obliged if he would give us his views relating to the situation in which he may be prepared to activate article K.9 and his views on ratification. It must not be thought, however, that the alternative to what is in the Bill now is that there should be no discussion of these issues. It is absolutely clear that since 1975
intergovernmental meetings have been taking place under the auspices of the Trevi group. Various policy groups have been meeting to co-ordinate policy. At the last ministerial meeting of Immigration Ministers in London on 30 November, issues relating to harmonisation, asylum and safe third countries were discussed. Some Parliaments--for example, the Dutch Parliament--gave their people the opportunity to debate these matters. The papers were laid before those Parliaments before decisions were taken. None of those steps is at present open to this Parliament. It is extremely important, therefore, that we do not believe that the choice at the moment is between nothing happening in this area and what is happening under the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Corbyn : This is an extremely important point. If the Government were to come to some agreement at Trevi on changing the immigration rules in some way, they would be put to the House of Commons in a one and a half hour debate on a statutory instrument, on a negative prayer. And that would be it. The Opposition have always complained that that is a totally unsatisfactory way of deciding immigration law and immigration policy. That, too, apparently, is all that we shall get under the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Blair : It is not. If one looks at the treaty carefully, one sees that that is not what is happening. The safeguards there are greater than the existing safeguards. The point is that none of these things exists or comes into being unless effect is given to the procedures that I have delineated a number of times and that are set out in article K.9. It is important to take account of that fact when deciding our attitude to the procedures that are before us now.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Trimble : I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman when he obviously wished to continue his speech. However, a thought has occurred to me and I should be interested in his reaction to it. The hon. Gentleman obviously considers the safeguards in the Maastricht treaty on this point to be adequate. Perhaps they would be adequate for member states that have a proper ratification procedure, but because of the nature of our constitution we do not have a proper ratification procedure. If we were to change our constitutional requirements and introduce a proper ratification procedure so that anything that had to be ratified came back properly to the House of Commons to be embodied in
Column 1098
legislation, that might be all right, within the context of those agreements. The problem lies perhaps not so much in the terms of the Maastricht agreement but in the fact that our constitution must now be fitted underneath the new written constitution for the European union. Our constitution was evolved for a different purpose and we may have to think more deeply, but a proper ratification procedure in the House would solve some of the difficulties that have been raised.Mr. Blair : I understand and have some sympathy with that point. However, in a sense, it is a matter for us to determine. Within the context of the Maastricht treaty, the procedures are plain as they apply to all member states.
I deal with two particular issues arising from the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I apologise for intervening. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise references, but if he reads certain volumes of Hansard from the late 1970s, he will see that his party's Callaghan Government accepted a demand by the then shadow Home Secretary, now Lord Whitelaw, that any such development--any such ratification--must be by Bill, not by Order in Council or any other form of statutory instrument. His Government accepted that willingly.
7.30 pm
Mr. Blair : I am always delighted to be reminded of the time when my party was in government. I understand the point about the process of ratification and, as I said, I have some sympathy with it. However, in the end, it is something for us to determine outside the provisions of the Maastricht treaty.
I deal now with two particular issues arising out of article K of the Maastricht treaty. The first has to do with asylum policy. Much of what has been said by some of my hon. Friends who oppose the treaty is based on a belief that our asylum policy has worked extremely unfairly for those seeking asylum. However, if we can get the right basis for agreement, there is a strong argument for co-operation on asylum policy, a co-operation that genuinely solves the problems and is not based on the lowest common denominator. I submit that there have been two striking changes in the European asylum situation in the past 20 years. The first is a huge rise in the number of asylum applications from about 13,000 throughout Europe in 1972 to more than 600,000 today. The second is the dramatic fall in the proportion of asylum seekers being granted asylum. Virtually all were granted refuge in 1972 whereas today the figure is only about 20 per cent.
Those changes are the result not only of a change in procedure but of the changing nature of refugees away from those subject to individual persecution at the hands of various totalitarian regimes towards the position today when most refugees are fleeing from ethnic conflict or civil war but are not themselves subject to individual persecution. The second type of refugee is not explicitly covered by the 1951 Geneva convention and Yugoslavia is a classic example of the problem.
Inevitably, many of those seeking asylum are not asylum seekers in the strict sense of the word because they are not subject to individual persecution, but, nevertheless,
Column 1099
they are in a desperate situation. Countries acting on their own, merely pulling up their drawbridges as fast as they can, is not the answer to the problem. It requires to be managed on the basis of shared goals and responsibilities. Indeed, if some of the energy presently being expended on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill was directed towards helping those displaced by the conflict on the basis of a proper policy of co-operation, it would provide a much better solution than those that we have recently debated in the House.Contrary to some of the more lurid headlines, the vast majority of refugees did not want to leave their homeland and are desperately keen to return. A policy of co-operation and joint action is surely the only intelligent response.
one or two points to make on international policing. Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Before my hon. Friend moves on to the issuof policing, will he agree that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, which we have recently considered and which is now in another place, is the basis and blueprint for a future European policy? Is it not true that Britain's role in the past year in dealing with Bosnia and the former Yugoslav states is quite shameful and that the number of refugees whom we have so far received in this country is minimal and derisory? Is that not a matter of absolute shame, not only for the Home Secretary but for the entire Government?
Mr. Blair : My hon. Friend will know that colleagues from the Front and Back Benches have constantly raised the plight of the refugees and have strongly criticised the Government's asylum and immigration policy. I do not believe that the Bill should be the basis of co-operation between member states, although that is what is happening, irrespective of Maastricht. It is important for us to raise these issues, whether we are debating Maastricht or asylum and immigration policy in general.
The system for international policing would be affected if some of the provisions in article K.1 were to come into effect. The growing levels of international crime demand a more concerted international response. However, the procedures give some cause for concern and I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would respond specifically to this point. The problem is not that there are too few avenues for information exchange, but, at the moment, there is a danger that there are so many systems that they may at best cause unnecessary duplication and, at worst, conflict with each other.
The Trevi group, outside of Maastricht, has long had working groups dealing with anti-terrorism, police technology and organised crime and has set up its own European information system. In addition, the countries that are party to the Schengen agreement, which does not include this country, are attempting their own common information systems, backed by agreements on cross-border chases and similar matters.
Most crucially, Interpol, which obviously has a long history of international police co-ordination, has recently become considerably more efficient and more able to provide computerised records of fingerprints and other information that will be of some assistance in tracking down international crime. The important task is not to add
Column 1100
another European body for information exchange, but to concentrate our efforts on focusing and enhancing the existing co-operation. It is far from clear which of those tasks Europol is primarily meant to undertake.It would be right for the Home Secretary at this stage to say a word or two about Europol. It must be said that its beginnings have been rather inauspicious. There were disagreements over its location and when it was to become operational. Interpol has proposed to incorporate it within its own European secretariat, as a part of Interpol which will have separate functions. It will, in some senses, be a separate bureau but it will nevertheless still be under the aegis of Interpol. As that is specifically contemplated in the Maastricht treaty, I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would say something about it.
In his speech on the Maastricht treaty on 4 November last year, the Prime Minister was constantly at pains to point out how little co-operation was obligatory under the treaty. As with so much else in the treaty, the Government define their position not by the parts of the treaty which they embrace but by those which they think they can avoid. Provided that the right basis for co-operation can be found I agree that that is the issue that must be determined--immigration and home affairs matters are not issues on which intelligent co-operation should be regarded as alien as long as there are proper safeguards to ensure that countries can continue to protect their own distinct interests where they wish to do so.
Mr. Blair : I think that that has been adequately set out earlier in my speech. The hon. Gentleman may shout, but some people will oppose co- operation on any basis. We do not. We believe that co-operation is entirely sensible provided that the basis of it is clear and it will work in our national interest. That implies not a wholesale destruction of sovereignty, but a process of co-ordination. If used reasonably, to further clear objectives, it will yield a far greater benefit to our country and to the people who live in it than would perverse isolation.
Sir Trevor Skeet (Bedfordshire, North) : I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who made what I regard as a well informed and accurate speech. When speaking about article 100c(6) the hon. Gentleman suggested that other matters could be considered, but that that matter would be determined by the trigger article, K.9. Two conditions must apply. There must be a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers. That is acceptedc, but unanimity does not last long in Europe. By article 100c we have already found out that the unanimity rule will be downgraded by 1996. The Single European Act was passed seven years ago, and unanimity has already gone in many areas. Over the course of time, decisions were made by majority voting.
Ratification by national Parliaments is the other side of the double lock. I appreciate that the law must be sound, but changes could be in prospect. A resolution of the House after one and a half hours' debate would not have a serious impact. It is unlikely that an Act of Parliament, which would be much more substantial, would be conceded.
In dealing with some of the points that have been made I shall refer to amendment No. 113 and new clauses 12 and 13.
Column 1101
Mr. Spearing : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should deal with the so-called double lock straight away? Some hon. Members, especially Front-Bench spokesmen, present it as a guarantee, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, whether it be over the arranging of the rules-- that is important--or over the method of voting, once there has been a unanimous agreement the door back in the other direction is locked? The Home Secretary looks surprised--but once the agreement on the structure for decision making and voting procedures was concluded, unless there were a new treaty or a new Edinburgh summit or something else to change it all, any successor Government would be doubly locked into those procedures.
7.45 pm
Sir Trevor Skeet : There is a lot of sense in the hon. Gentleman's argument. The lock is a Bank of England lock, and when it closes, it closes. That does not mean that there will be no changes in future. As I have said, majority voting has gone in many quarters ; there is no reason why it should not be modified here. I envisage that in future the provisions in articles J and K will be taken over as additional machinery required for the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
The Prime Minister has said that he is not prepared to allow a referendum-- although we shall be able to argue about the possibility. The Prime Minister will not have a referendum because he does not consider it purposeful. In that case there should be full parliamentary control over any matter in which we can see great danger. The participation of the European Parliament is distinctly limited. Considerable powers could be taken away from a democratically elected Government here and surrendered to bodies in which representation is not so clear.
Another matter of grave concern to me is the fact that we are still supposed to be responsible for a large segment of Commonwealth countries. If we support the measures before us, surely we shall still have responsibilities not only in Europe but beyond which give cause for concern.
I am troubled by another significant matter. We are told that the treaty must go through without amendment. If that is so, there will be no satisfactory arrangement for the House to deal with any Act which becomes necessary to rectify article K.9.
The use of article 100c in conjunction with the citizenship provisions under article 8, and in alliance with the pillars under article K, has given the Council of Ministers and the Commission a stake in both camps. In this case, immigration policy is likely to follow.
The implications of some of the original arguments on visas are broad. I have considered some of the countries where visas are required. The United Kingdom lists 81 different states whose nationals require visas ; France does things another way, and, rather than stating a requirement for visas, says that 40 nations do not require visas ; Germany cites as many as 70 countries.
We could find ourselves in difficulty. Centralising within the EC could mean that, even if pressure were brought to bear, Britain would have to admit people whom it considers undesirable. For example, there are problems with the Algerians in France and with the Indonesians in the Netherlands. Once such people enter any country in the Community they can flow to any other part of it.
Column 1102
Furthermore, visas are often granted capriciously. To give a simple example, about two years ago I wanted to go to France and I had to obtain a visa. That was because a ship had been tied ashore in New Zealand, so the French decided there would have to be repercussions for the New Zealand Government, and made visas an essential requirement. I am glad to say that the requirement has since been removed.We have noticed that the point of the treaty of Rome and of the Single European Act is free movement of people, services and capital, which is provided by articles 48 to 73. But that does not seem to apply to that big stretch of territory for part of which we are accountable--the British Commonwealth. What happens to the arrangements under the Hong Kong settlement? Will they be counterbalanced by certain people in the Community? After further upsets in South Africa, will people be permitted to return to the United Kingdom?
Mr. Corbyn : Is the hon. Member aware that under article 100c it is perfectly possible for EC member states to get together and decide, for example, that visa requirements should be introduced for visitors to this country from the Caribbean? That would be opposed by the British Government, who have already given a commitment not to introduce such visas, especially for people from Jamaica, but the requirement would be imposed on this country and then it would be illegal under European law for Britain to admit Jamaican visitors without a visa, even though the stated policy of the British Government was that they did not want to introduce visas.
Sir Trevor Skeet : Those anomalies must be ironed out, although it is quite possible that they could go through.
Has the matter been looked at carefully by the Commission, by the British Government and by others? I know that the Italians and Greeks have no effective administration for visa control. In that event, people may leak into these countries and then come across to the United Kingdom. They will have a right to be here for some time or they may be illegal immigrants. Once in the United Kingdom, they cannot be removed because they cannot be detected.
There is another anomaly. The French define the people of Guadeloupe and of Martinique as European Community citizens. Would we be able to define many of the people of our former colonies as citizens of the United Kingdom who should have free entry? Why has a special privilege been conceded to the French? I understand that the Portuguese have taken similar action with Macao. I dare say that those special matters have been arranged.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) : Surely my hon. Friend appreciates that the freedom of movement between EC member states derives from the treaty of Rome and from the Single European Act 1986. It has nothing to do with the Maastricht treaty. British citizens given full British nationality under the Hong Kong citizenship scheme would be as entitled to freedom of movement as the citizens of Macao whom my hon. Friend mentioned.
Sir Trevor Skeet : I am not certain that my hon. Friend is right about that.
Sir Teddy Taylor : Will my hon. Friend tell his hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that the difference is that a limited number of people in Hong Kong, who have worked hard for this country and who
Column 1103
have been good friends, will be able to come to this country? Every citizen of Macao is a Portuguese citizen and would be entitled to enter this country. That is the big difference. To suggest that we are giving preference to Hong Kong may be misleading.Sir Trevor Skeet : It is inevitable that many suggestions will be made in a matter such as this, in which there are no certainties. I have sat through most of the debates on Maastricht and I am amazed that no Law Officers are present. We are lucky today in having here an experienced Queen's Counsel in the form of the Home Secretary, who can make his own contribution, but the Law Officers should be present at all our debates because many legalities arise. The Prime Minister said on 9 October that certain matters were outside the jurisdiction of the European Court and outside the competence of the European Commission. He said :
"We have wanted this principle established for years."
My right hon. Friend was referring to the pillars. Having looked at the pillars carefully--the Opposition have rightly suggested that the pillars should be encompassed by the treaty itself because that is what it will come to in the end--I have tried to work out precisely the role of the Commission.
The Commission's role is not so innocent as it would seem. On the initiative of the Commission or of a member state, the Council of Ministers will be able to adopt common positions under paragraphs 1 and 6. A co- ordinating committee will be set up. Who will participate in that co- ordinating committee but the European Commission which will be fully associated with all its activities? That provision is in article K.4.2. Under article 152 of the treaty of Rome, "The Council may request the Commission to undertake any studies the Council considers desirable for the attainment of the common objectives, and to submit to it any appropriate proposals." In other words, studies can be undertaken. The Commission has the right to draft and propose legislation on immigration policy, on drug addiction and on other matters alluded to.
I wonder whether the Government consider that they have been resourceful enough to insulate us against the revisions that are likely to be made to the treaty in 1996. We have had a treaty of Rome since 1975 and we have had the Community now for only 36 years. The House of Commons has operated for more than 700 years. We shall find that we may become a national council at the end of the day. We should consider the matter far more carefully and we should consider how our position as a national Parliament should be secured. I note that article 100c falls within the provisions on the approximation of laws. It seeks to approximate the laws not merely on other matters, but on immigration policy and the like. I have said that article 100c deals with visa controls and presupposes broader immigration controls. There are three important articles in the treaty of Rome to which I draw the Committee's attention. Article 5 says that member states shall take all appropriate measures to fulfil their obligations and they shall do nothing that is detrimental to the obligations
Column 1104
being attained. Article 235 says that if the Community does not have sufficient powers, it can damn well take them. Article F should also be remembered. It says"The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
When one realises the significance of all this, when one realises what the Commission can do, when one realises what it has achieved in 36 years and when one compares that with what we have attained over 700 years, one wonders what will be left for this Chamber to do. Concessions are being made and rights are being lost, probably without even a referendum. The public may lose all their rights of representation in this Chamber and the great issues will be decided in Brussels.
The Home Secretary will probably refer to the new Minister, Mr. Flynn, who is a full-time appointee. My right hon. and learned Friend will probably say that as these matters are outside the competence of the Commission for the moment, Mr. Flynn will have nothing to do. I dare say that he can find a lot going on and I dare say that he will continue co-operation and negotiation as far as he can.
My final point deals with subsidiarity under article 3b. We have two choices. We can have pure international collaboration between states, which would suffice. After all, in previous years we have collaborated and we have been able to find satisfactory solutions. Alternatively, we could adopt the philosophy that the Government advocate of supporting the pillar arrangements of intergovernmental arrangements mixed with the Council of Ministers and with the European Court.
In the United Kingdom, we have learnt to live with immigrants, and our policies have been successful. We have long experience of racial issues because we have been a major colonial power. We have legislation on the statute book, such as the Immigration Acts of 1971 and 1988, and the British Nationality Act 1981.
It is worth remembering--we are primarily concerned with Europe--that there are 30 different ethnic groupings in the whole area. All these people could flood into other corners, and because of the free movement of people it would be difficult to resist them, provided that they had the means by which to support themselves and provided that they complied with certain regulations in the treaty. In the Bedford area, we have more than 70 nationalities. If people felt that all their applications would ultimately be decided in Brussels, they would probably be shocked by the arrangements. I will not say that the British law on that matter is perfect, but it is much more tolerant than many of the arrangements which are likely to come out of Europe. Such arrangements resort to more absolutist methods.
We have gone a long way on this important clause. I am not sure where the articles will lead us. Eventually, it will be the foothold that the Council of Ministers and the Commission will use to secure their final entry, which could be extremely disastrous for the United Kingdom.
8 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : The provisions in article K, which are being considered in this group of amendments, go some way to improve the prospects of co-operation in Europe on matters of great pressing and immediate concern. The impact of matters such as immigration, combating drug addiction, terrorism and fraud on the member countries of the Community is
Column 1105
growing. Some of the criminal problems which are dealt with in diferent countries by justice and home affairs departments know no national boundaries. Clearly, international co- operation is necessary if those threats to civil society are to be combated effectively. The treaty marks an important step forward in establishing a framework of co-operation, improving co-ordination and opening up procedures which have been conducted to some extent in an unsatisfactory ad hoc way. There has been much criticism, especially from some of the quarters which criticise title VI of the treaty, about the lack of transparency in the procedures for tackling crime and in the activities of the ad hoc committee on immigration, the Trevi group, the Schengen group and so on.Title VI marks a valuable step forward. It does not go much beyond recognising that the member countries of the Community would wish to co- operate on such matters for reasons of self-interest. It provides continuing servicing of that co-operation by establishing the co-ordinating committee and by specifying that decisions shall be arrived at unanimously, for the most part.
Mr. Spearing : I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does not title VI go a good way beyond that? We have already discussed how unanimity should be extended to qualified majority. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the conventions set out in paragraph 2(c) in article K.3, which we have not yet mentioned but which will guide the co-operation to which he referred, could be made subject to the judicial decisions of the European court? Does not that mark a great deal of change from what we have at present, which is rather more than the hon. Gentleman is suggesting?
Mr. Maclennan : It is an inherent characteristic of the sovereignty of the member countries of the Community that they may freely decide to draw up conventions which, as a result of the operation of their domestic constitutional laws, become binding in their own countries. That does not seem to go greatly beyond what is already the case. The provision that the European Court of Justice may have jurisdiction to interpret provisions is a step beyond the law as it prevails in the Community at present. I accept that it is a step forward. It is an extremely sensible step to take, because, if member countries seek to act in accordance with an agreement which has the force of the treaty, it is clearly desirable that they should all have the same understanding of what the treaty provides.
What more authoritative way of interpreting provisions could there be than submitting any doubts or differences to the arbitrament of the court, which would undoubtedly give the necessary steer? If it proved to be unsatisfactory to a member country, it remains open to that country to follow the normal proceedings for derogation of the provisions of the treaty. [Hon. Members :-- "No."] I hear a chorus of disagreement--I am not quite sure why. It is a normal principle of international law that derogation provisions are incorporated in any treaty. Provisions for denouncing treaties are incorporated in such conventions. That remains especially true for a convention which is drawn up under article K.2--for example, the European convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
At least once in the memory of many hon. Members, the Government have seen fit to announce derogation from the provisions. That seems to be the way in which we
Column 1106
will proceed. There is nothing novel about that. It is a novel step to allow the European Court of Justice to have a specific role in interpreting provisions and to rule on disputes involving applications. It is a welcome step forward in the development of international law.Mr. Spearing : I concede that the hon. Gentleman knows more about the matter than many of us present. The proper role and vires of the European Court of Justice is important. It is part of the so-called trunk and arises from the treaty of Rome, and the normal role of international courts and international law with regard to a possible derogation which could subsequently be arranged or may possibly be arranged under existing law.
If the European Court of Justice is to adjudicate on matters relating to those conventions, it will operate under the rules which stem from the treaty of Rome and the rest which follows. Therefore, the strength of the Community in its trunk sense is extending into those pillars, and it is no longer international in the United Kingdom : it is part of the Community structure.
| Next Section
| Home Page |