House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Feb 1993

Column 38

consequences of having to fight themselves or having their family fight? As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the cases of Casement and John Amery show the horrible dilemma of a person who has a citizenship of which he cannot dispose and which leads him to be tried for treason, in this case because of forced loyalty to a European identity which he might want nothing to do with.

Mr. Clarke : My hon. Friend ingeniously seeks to read across from other provisions of the treaty dealing with foreign and security policy-- perfectly properly--which are part of the so-called second pillar of Maastricht. The second pillar of Maastricht will proceed as the third pillar on interior and justice matters, by a process of intergovernmental co-operation requiring the unanimous consent of any of the members to a change of policy.

It is also plain that defence policy will proceed on the basis of developing the Western European Union as the European arm of NATO. It has repeatedly been the Government's policy to remain committed to NATO as the main arm of our western defence policy, the Western European Union being part of the European commitment to that. There is absolutely no suggestion of our Government, or any Government, contemplating forming a European army. There is no treaty obligation on us to do so. There is absolutely no question of this country being committed to war through a process to which we have not consented. To go beyond that to the subject that we are now discussing, and to try to extract from it a fanciful notion that, under this part of the treaty, we are paving the way for conscription may have worked with a few gullible Danes, but it should not be seriously argued in the context of this debate. [Interruption.] I hear sounds of shocked outrage at that attack on the Danish nation--

Mr. Cash : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is not it disgraceful, and insulting to a foreign nation, to refer to its members as gullible? If you were to look in "Erskine May", would you not find that that is a remark that the Home Secretary should withdraw? 4.30 pm

The Chairman : That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair. Let me make it clear to hon. Members that we are to have a full debate on foreign and security matters a few days hence.

Mr. Clarke : I should make it clear--

Mr. Cash rose --

Mr. Budgen rose--

Mr. Spearing rose --

Mr. Clarke : If my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) thinks that I said that all Danes are gullible, he plainly misheard me.

Mr. Budgen rose --

The Chairman : Order. Hon. Members must not persist in standing when it is clear that the Secretary of State does not propose to give way. They must resume their seats.

Mr. Budgen rose --

Mr. Clarke : Let me relate the point to the provision before us--

Column 39

Mr. Budgen : Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke : Let me first reply again to the points that are being pressed.

In so far as there were Danes who voted against Maastricht because they believed that there would be conscription to a European army, it remains my firm opinion that those Danes were gullible. They may indeed have been few, as I said. In so far as there are hon. Members of this House who believe that the provisions pave the way for conscription to a European army, they are extremely gullible--and again, they are few, in my opinion, in number. The position under the treaty is that there is no obligation to have conscription--

Mr. Budgen : May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give himself a new intellectual treat? Will he turn to page 5 of the treaty, which, I remind him, is the page on which the preamble--[ Hon. Members : -- "Which he hasn't read."]--which I am sure he has now read--occurs. Will he explain to the House what this means : "the framing of a common defence policy, which might"

The Chairman : Order. Not this afternoon Mr. Clarke.

Mr. Spearing : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As I understand it, you ruled out of order an hon. Member who wished to quote the preamble to the treaty. Moreover, you hinted earlier that reference to article J--the intergovernmental area relating to foreign policy--was not in order in a debate that concerns the duties of citizens. I put it to you, Sir, that the two are closely connected. Mr. Budgen rose--

The Chairman : Order. What I ruled out of order was the request by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) to the Home Secretary to explain the preamble. Hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, who were here at the time know that we had a full debate on the implications of the preamble. Moreover, elements of the preamble are covered by a whole host of amendments, and those relating to armies, armed forces and defence matters will be covered in later groups on foreign and security policy matters. That is my ruling, and that is all.

Mr. Budgen : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I be clear about this? Is it the position that we may discuss the advantages of European citizenship but are not allowed to discuss any of the potential disadvantages or obligations? That seems to be what your ruling implies.

The Chairman : I am here to serve the Committee. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is engaging in pure argument. The Committee has before it amendment No. 12 ; that is what the Committee is supposed to be discussing.

Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I think that we all understand the difficulties of trying to debate the Bill and the series of amendments with which we are confronted ; they cover a great deal of ground, and many of them are interdependent and linked. I imagine that your ruling is not meant to signify that you regard the series of debates as essentially a series of mutually exclusive watertight compartments. The fact that a topic has been, or is about to be, debated principally in

Column 40

connection with one group of amendments surely cannot preclude a reference to it for the purpose of illuminating the principal subject of another group of amendments. I understand that to be the purpose of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I hope that you will regard that, as in order, so long as it is not carried to the point when the principal subject of the debate becomes different.

The Chairman : If it was his intention to make an allusion or reference, the hon. Member was in order, but I did not understand that to be the implication of his suggestion. Otherwise, I confirm what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) says.

Mr. Rowlands : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) referred to the preamble to the treaty. I suggest that there is a direct connection between the amendment that is before the Committee and the preamble. The first part of article 8, which is the subject of the debate, says : "Citizenship of the Union is hereby established."

The preamble to the treaty says :

"Resolved to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries"

That is followed immediately by the words quoted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. So there is not only an allusion but a clear link between the treaty preamble and article 8.

The Chairman : I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. He will clearly see the paragraph that says :

"Resolved to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries."

It then goes on to another paragraph. The reference that the hon. Member quoted and I have re-quoted is in order. The next is not, apart from a passing reference or allusion to it. I hope that that clarifies the position.

Mr. Budgen : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful to you for clarifying the position, and I am sure that it is the wish of the Committee that the temperature should cool a little. To ensure that I understand the will of the Committee, may I ask whether you are ruling, on reflection, that we may discuss the potential obligations of European citizenship ? If so, the discussion of an evolving, and no doubt idealistic, European defence policy and even a European army are subjects that may impinge on the obligations of European citizenship.

That is the only limited point that is raised. I have known the views of my right hon. and learned Friend for 30-odd years and I appreciate that he is an idealistic supporter of the European ideal. I dare say that he would like his son to have the chance to fight and die for a European army. We are giving him an opportunity to explain all that.

Several hon. Members rose --

The Chairman : Order. I hope that, if hon. Members are rising to put points of order, they are new ones, because we have traversed the situation. References and allusions are acceptable.

Mr. Clarke : To restate my point, which is firmly based on the treaty--including the preamble and article 8--citizenship of the union involves no new duties on individuals beyond the existing duty, in so far as it is extended, to comply with European Community law, as

Column 41

enforced where necessary on us all as individuals by the United Kingdom courts, and there is no new duty to take part in any European army. Indeed, there is no reference to a European army from beginning to end of the treaty.

If at a later stage--I shall not deal with the point in detail now--we return to the text of the treaty, I shall ask my hon Friends to bear in mind, when referring to page numbers, the fact that they are all using the British edition, whereas I am using the European Community's--[ Hon. Members-- : "What is the difference?"] The words are the same, but the page references are different.

Mr. Cash : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Enthusiastic though the Secretary of State may be with his European credentials, I urge him to recall that the treaty that was laid before this Parliament in Cm 1934. No wonder, if he has not been reading that, he does not know much about it.

Mr. Clarke : I assure my hon. Friend that the text of the two are the same.

To return to what we are discussing, there are no new duties : there are a number of new rights. I have already referred to the first two rights-- voting and consular protection abroad. The third is the right to petition the European Parliament, and the fourth is the right to apply to a European ombudsman.

I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said. I cannot believe that anybody could reject the concept of being given the right to petition the European Parliament or to apply to a European ombudsman. Indeed, I suspect that a large number of our critics in the Committee at present will take advantage of both those rights with considerable frequency, once they have accepted that they have become citizens of a European union when we have ratified the treaty.

Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he has spoken about duties as they exist at present? Can he give the Committee an assurance that no fresh duties will be imposed on our citizens in future as a result of a decision either of the European Court or of the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Clarke : Any development of the European union would involve fresh treaty obligations. We have not yet ratified this treaty. The question of what future treaties might come along is a matter on which I certainly must not speculate. In effect, the duties that fall on us as a result of Britain's membership of the European Community, and any future membership of the European union, will arise from those legal obligations on us all to obey the law of the land. As far as the law of the land will incorporate European legislation, either directly applicable or passed by the House to give effect to European directives, we all have a duty to follow it. If we do not follow the law, the United Kingdom courts, occasionally, with reference to the European Court on a point of difficulty, will in the end impose an obligation on us.

Mr. Winnick : The Home Secretary said there were no new existing duties. I do not understand that, but perhaps he will clarify the position for the Committee. The word "existing" does not appear in article 8.2. I am taking the position, if you like, before the treaty is put into force. The treaty makes it clear that there will be a common security policy.

Column 42

If that is the case, why does the Home Secretary tell the Committee with such confidence that under no circumstances in future will a common security policy mean whatever may arise on the international scene, with duties and obligations imposed on British citizens which will arise from the treaty? How does the Home Secretary come to the conclusion that there will be no new existing duties? I do not understand that.

Mr. Clarke : I said that no new duties will be imposed on nationals of the United Kingdom as a result of the treaty, save the duties on us all to comply with the law as it evolves under the treaty. As for the reading of "security policy", I will not stray out of order, Mr. Morris.

The point of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is relevant to the so-called pillared approach from Maastricht, which has been fundamental in most of the debates that we have had. The second pillar of foreign and security policies and the third pillar, which we are now discussing, of justice and interior affairs are outside the competence of the European Community. They do not proceed subject to the institutions of the Community.

The Commission has no sole right to initiate foreign or security policies. It is not subject to the European Court of Justice. We are talking about provisions under which we co-operate Government to Government. So far as we enter into new policies or new obligations, it is by the unanimous consent of the member states.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Clarke : I have not finished yet.

I should make it clear that it is open to us as a sovereign country to have a common foreign policy with our Community partners if we wish to enter into such a policy. For as long as I have been in the House, many people who are fairly sceptical about the European Community have often urged the virtues of a closer foreign policy among the members of the European Community.

The idea that the foreign policy of the United Kingdom or the foreign policy which the United Kingdom has agreed to in alliance with its allies and the rest of the European union imposes personal obligations and duites is extremely limited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South -West (Mr. Budgen) said a moment ago, it can be treason to work contrary to the United Kingdom's security policy.

Apart from that, however, I do not think that the matter is relevant. We should return to matters which are relevant to what we are now talking about. With great respect, it does not help the case against Maastricht when blatant red herrings are drawn across the trail, obscuring what European citizenship comprises.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : I suggest to the Minister that he may well be wrong on this issue, because the possibility of a European army, which is decried, is not a red herring at all. There has been considerable discussion or thought about the establishment of a European defence force. In 1992, the Government and the Minister's Cabinet colleagues announced to the House that the British Army would be the lead unit, the core unit, of the rapid reaction force which will be established on a European basis.

Substantial arguments have been advanced on the establishment of a European defence force. If it is an army,

Column 43

a navy or an air force, it is still a force. That does not detract from the Minister's argument, but he should get his facts right. 4.45 pm

Mr. Clarke : We have a history. Let us simply take the post-war part. Parts of the various defence forces in the United Kingdom have been committed to NATO or deployed in alliance with our European neighbours. There is nothing new about that. So far as there have been such commitments, the British Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy have been committed in that way. But I am being drawn out of order again.

No hon. Member can claim, while keeping a straight face, that we are entering into any obligation to merge our Army, our Air Force or our Navy with anyone else's army, air force or navy. The leap of imagination that goes beyond that--to say that people might be conscripted into any merged force--was an argument unworthy of the Danish referendum, and it should not be deployed here.

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South) : Surely there is every difference in the world between an alliance and obligations which follow from citizenship. I find it difficult to fathom this from what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying. I believe that he is against a formation of a new state of Europe, yet citizenship implies the formation of such a state. How does the Minister square those two matters?

Mr. Clarke : I am against the formation of a state of Europe. It seems that our arguments on the Bill are slightly beside that point. The most significant part of the Maastricht treaty is that the 12 member states abandoned any suggestion that they would go down the path towards a common state. [ Hon. Members :-- "No."] Oh yes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, having known each other very well over many years, in my case, any more is a change of mind on my part.

The idea of the founding fathers--to use that rather pompous phrase--who created the original treaty of Rome was that the institutions of that treaty would extend Community competence to wider fields of whatever sort. In the end, one effectively has the institutions of a state with a common Parliament, a common court, a Council of Ministers, an embryonic Government and so on. In practice, that has not worked out in the past 20 years to the satisfaction of many people, most especially in the United Kingdom. As I sometimes say, the result is that we are all Gaullists now.

The Maastricht treaty, compared with all previous European agreements, marked a most sharp change of direction from the common institutions in the direction of extending what we now call a European union into new areas on a different basis of co-operation between sovereign Governments. Article 8, which we are now talking about, is part of establishing that co-operation by a variety of methods.

I see nothing wrong with the idea that article 8 refers to citizenship of a European union. It involves no derogation from our citizenship of the United Kingdom. Its practical consequence is to impose no new duties. It is to impose the four new rights. The people of the United Kingdom did not have two of those rights before, vis-a-vis the European

Column 44

institutions. I see nothing in article 8 which is contrary to the Government's policy or the interests of the United Kingdom. Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Clarke : I hope to move shortly to a conclusion.

[Interruption.] I will not give way simply to the hon. Member who shouts the loudest.

Mr. Richard Shepherd : I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he has reflected on the conflict of law. For instance, I cannot imagine the circumstances, but it is still held that Parliament may revoke our membership of the European Community. Under the provisions of the Bill, we are citizens of the union. My right hon. and learned Friend seems to be more uncertain about it, but my argument is that that is a superior citizenship, because the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent of the European union. Where does my allegiance and duty lie? Is it with the laws of the United Kingdom or with those of the European union? How would one resolve a conflict should it arise?

Mr. Clarke : I have not said at any point that I regard European citizenship as superior to British citizenship. The position remains that my hon. Friend, like me, remains a subject of the United Kingdom. We are subject to the courts of the United Kingdom. The courts of the United Kingdom will enforce the duties imposed on us by the laws of the European union, to which Britain will be adhered. So there is no great difficulty.

If my hon. Friend had the right, which he appears to want, to renounce European citizenship, he would not rid himself of any duties to which he might object, because no duties are imposed on him beyond those which we already contemplate. He would renounce the four new rights which I have advocated. We are discussing an attempt to build around that.

Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Clarke : If hon. Members catch your eye, Mr. Morris, they may seek to enlarge the debate and read into the provisions of Article 8 things which are not there.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield and I have already sought to chase off many of the shadows. There is a great deal of talk of waving around documents, reading them and contemplating them. I recommend that my hon. Friends read article 8, in whatever edition they prefer-- [Interruption.] It has become clear during these debates that I have not only read far more of the treaty, but have understood it with rather greater clarity, than most of my critics. I will listen to their points, but meanwhile I commend article 8 to the Committee, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield on tabling this probing amendment.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye) : I shall be brief because there is clearly a great deal of interest in article 8 among hon. Members on both sides of the House. By speaking in support of article 8, I shall by definition speak technically against the amendment. However, judging by the tone and substance of the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I believe that he, at least, does not seek to press the amendment to a Division. What other sections of the parliamentary Labour party do will become clear later.

Column 45

When we are discussing citizenship, it is important to remember what was pointed out earlier in the debate before the cacophony began which it is the speciality of the Home Secretary to whip up, especially among his hon. Friends. He did so when he served in other Departments and still does in his present Department. Before that cacophony got going, it was pointed out that it was up to the member states of the Community to define citizenship. That is an important prerequisite which comes in front of much of the argument or, if argument is not the right word, many of the points which have been swapped across the Floor of the House.

Mrs. Dunwoody : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy : I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment if she will let me complete this opening thought.

As we have seen from the balance in previous debates on this treaty-related legislation, not many of the hon. Members who have attended the debates subscribe to the notion of Europe. However, an increasing number of people- -judging by the evidence of one's eyes--and especially younger people see Europe as a natural entity. Irrespective of article 8 and--with respect-- what people may say at the Dispatch Box, young people already feel European. They class themselves as European and want to remain in that mould. In giving effect to that outlook for the future, article 8 does the right thing and the House will do the right thing by supporting it.

Mrs. Dunwoody : I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not a lawyer --

Mr. Kennedy : I never will be.

Mrs. Dunwoody : I am glad to hear that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address the point in article 8.2 which has been carefully avoided by both the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and the Home Secretary. What does the hon. Gentleman think is meant by : "Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby"? Does he believe that in plain English that seems to say that citizens will not only enjoy the right, for example, to go to the European ombudsman but must respond to the obligations imposed? Is it not likely that all those European young people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers might be slightly less anxious about being European if they suddenly discovered that their future was to be determined by a large organisation in which they had a tiny say?

Mr. Kennedy : I am glad that the hon. Lady stressed that I was not a lawyer. By definition, my answer will be a lay person's response. It is a straightforward philosophical argument. Any set of rights which citizens enjoy in a nation state or any democratic set-up carries with it responsibilities. We argue about rights and responsibilities--two sides of the same coin--on a host of issues including the economy, domestic social policy and law and order. We argue time and again about the rights of individuals and the responsibilities that those rights carry with them. Article 8 is a classic example of that.

Mr. Cash : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Column 46

Mr. Kennedy : I shall first complete my answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Who knows, I may even satisfy the hon. Gentleman by fully responding to her point. I doubt it, but I shall try.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned the right to petition the European ombudsman. Let us assume that the treaty will be ratified by Britain and that at some point beyond the end of this year, a citizen of Britain petitions the ombudsman on some grievance. If the ombudsman upholds that grievance, the Government of the day or the institution involved will have to address that grievance and set it right. I am sure that any Member of Parliament would support that process if the grievance were legitimate.

Rights and responsibilities run in two directions. They are not all from the top down. The institutions which we are creating must have responsibilities in an accountable sense to the citizens of the member states and of the union as a whole. That side of the argument must be put robustly because it is correct and valid.

Mr. Cash : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy : The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has many opportunities to speak so I should like to begin by giving way to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

Mr. Gill : My question is short. In the hon. Gentleman's opinion as a layman, is the assertion that the Secretary of State made this afternoon that it is possible to create citizenship without creating a state correct? Is there any truth in that statement?

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) : What about Commonwealth citizenship?

Mr. Kennedy : The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has looked rather wider than I might have done to answer that question by saying that one can talk about Commonwealth citizenship. That is an adequate answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. There can be a category or classification of citizenship which goes beyond the nation state.

Mr. Cash : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy : I give way to the hon. Gentleman because the show would not be complete without Punch.

Mr. Cash : That is very good, although I daresay that the hon. Gentleman would not particularly want to be called Judy. Does he agree that the discussion is not simply a matter of philosophy? He mentioned the idea that some obligations might arise in connection with the economy. He fails to understand that, under this title, citizenship comes within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Therefore, the duties imposed by the treaty will be adjudicated upon by the European Court of Justice. The slithery attempt, which the hon. Gentleman has tried on the House, to get past that question by saying that our arguments are nitpicking legalese will not succeed.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked the hon. Gentleman a simple and straightforward question. She asked whether he believed that duties would be imposed by the treaty. Will he answer that question?

Next Section

Home Page