House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Feb 1993

Column 47

Mr. Kennedy : The party of which I am a member can be accused of a range of things, and frequently is by both Conservative and Opposition Members, perhaps even on occasion with justice and correctness. But, in respect of matters European, we can hardly be accused of slithering. Let hon. Members recall the vote that took place here last November.

The longer this debate goes on, with arguments about very detailed legal definitions, the more we lose sight of the fact that political common sense must be applied. The political common sense of what has been negotiated and agreed, as well as the political circumstances surrounding the entire process since the original Maastricht weekend summit, suggests that some of the fears that have been raised are phantom fears, and the Home Secretary is correct in suggesting that they were introduced during the referendum in Denmark. There is no doubt that votes in Denmark were swung as a result. But these matters must be addressed in a sensible manner. I do not believe that there is some great design going beyond the art of the possible and the politically deliverable, not just at Community level but at the level of individual member states. That is the way in which we should approach the issue.

5 pm

Mr. Rogers : I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has fallen into the same trap as the Home Secretary. It has been suggested that the Danish voters were misled by a rumour about the establishment of a European army. The fact is that European countries have already got together and decided that a European defence force would be a good thing. A rapid reaction force has been set up, with Britain as the lead country. That is not a bad thing. Indeed, it may well be a good thing.

Mr. Kennedy : I am not levelling that accusation ; such suggestions have come from other quarters. But let us take the obvious comparison of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Note the word "Treaty". Tragically, in the name of NATO, a British service man was recently killed on active service. That person was a member of the British armed services, which are committed to NATO under the terms of that treaty. It is a treaty to which this country gave its name and to whose implementation, in terms of pursuance of the law, as seen by successive Governments, troops have been committed.

Mr. Wilkinson : I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is extremely courteous.

I should like to put to him the fundamental point that NATO is an association of free and independent sovereign states and that there is no NATO citizenship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) pointed out, history contains no instance of the conferring of citizenship on an individual other than by a state or by an empire, such as the British empire, the Roman empire or the Soviet empire. There is no such thing as Commonwealth citizenship. Commonwealth nationals resident in this country have the citizenship of the nations to which they belong, and we choose freely to grant to them certain rights and privileges of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kennedy : I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. Perhaps, if he catches your eye later, Mr. Morris, we shall hear his argument

Column 48

developed more fully. In the meantime I am having the greatest difficulty in understanding the focus of his comments.

Let us consider the United Kingdom itself. In this regard my remarks are directed not at Labour Members who are hostile, concerned or critical in respect of this matter but at Government Members, who are members of the Conservative and Unionist party. I am a Scot. I am from a country with a distinct culture, a distinct education system, a different Church and a different legal system. Some Scots are happy, and some are not, but we are represented in the United Kingdom Parliament and contribute as a part of the kingdom.

Some Scots like the idea of dual citizenship. For example, the late Iain Macleod always entered "Scottish" in the nationality column of hotel registers. Some Scots feel Scottish in some contexts but British in others. Different instincts may prevail at different times. But that does not make either identity less valid than the other--a point that has been missed entirely in respect of European citizenship, which is regarded as an element of this union. What we have here is a question of confidence in one's personal and national identity. If, in this respect, the European level can be furthered, so much the better.

On the question of the definition of citizenship, we welcome recognition of the reality of freedom of movement and freedom of employment. Then there is the question of voting rights--something that exercises the minds of hon. Members on both sides. In this context, there has been discussion of the meaning of "municipal". I have not seen the legal ruling that has been referred to, but I am somewhat reassured by the Home Secretary's remarks about what was in mind when the treaty was being drafted.

In this regard, two further points ought to be made for the benefit of those who are critical of the right to vote in local--I shall not use the word "municipal"--or European parliamentary elections. There is no doubt that that is a significant extension of rights and of their political effects on individual member states. However, it remains open to the electorate in any constituency, whether in a local election or in a European parliamentary election, to cast their votes as they please. If people are not satisfied that a candidate from another member state is sufficiently local to represent them properly, they may vote for someone else.

In this regard, I agree with what was said about my right hon. Friend the former leader of the Liberal party, who, as a matter of principle, put the theory to the test in Italy some years ago and was rejected at the ballot box. It was his right to exercise that freedom under Italian law, as it was the right of Italian voters not to accept him as a parliamentary representative.

Mr. Cash : With regard to the word "municipal", the European Court of Justice said in 1972 :

"the treaty entails a definitive limitation of the sovereign rights of member states against which no provisions of municipal law, whatever their nature, can be legally invoked."

It is quite clear that, in that context, "municipal" means national.

Mr. Kennedy : As I have already said, I am not a lawyer, but that definition is very legalistic and forensic. I am not in a position-- certainly not off the top of my head--to discuss "municipal" in this context and come up with something authoritative. No doubt the hon. Gentleman

Column 49

has himself sought legal opinion, and we look forward to hearing what it is. I am quite sure that he would not have raised the matter in this way without having satisfied himself. We look forward to hearing from him.

Mr. Fraser : As distinct from international law, which is law governing several countries, municipal law means domestic law and has nothing whatever to do with local authorities.

Mr. Kennedy : For the second time during my short contribution, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

I do not wish to go beyond the bounds of this group of amendments, Mr. Morris, but article 8 carries with it an extension of voting rights and opportunities. That is an important constitutional and political development and it is fundamental. It is a matter of principle and is one of the reasons why I take the view that the British public should have the opportunity to cast its verdict on the treaty, outwith the normal scope of a general election, as and when we have completed the procedures and processes of this House. That is why we should have a referendum and that is why I shall cast my vote in favour of the opportunity for such a process, as and when we get that right.

Although I differ entirely some hon. Members on their analysis of the viewpoint, I recognise that the issue is one of principle and as such goes beyond the normal confines of party politics.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) rose --

Mr. Kennedy : This will be the last intervention that I shall allow, as I want to leave time for other hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Jessel : The hon. Gentleman mentioned the extension of voting rights in local municipal elections and elections for the European Parliament to people from the continent, as the treaty refers to both. Does he not think that that could be the thin end of the wedge for a proposal to extend voting rights to foreigners in parliamentary general elections, which could distort the result in a way that most of us would not want?

Mr. Kennedy : I stand open to correction, but I think that citizens of the Irish Republic have voting rights in United Kingdom general elections. If it is the thin end of the wedge--to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase--then it was not inserted by anything decided at Maastricht, but has been accepted in the House for decades. If hon. Members are so concerned about the breach or the establishment of that principle, why did they not try to deal with it through all the procedures open to them as Back Bench Members of Parliament, such as ten-minute Bills, Adjournment debates, private Members' motions and all the rest? Why has it suddenly become such a fear when it is suggested as a part of the Maastricht treaty? I do not accept that argument.

Mr. Michael Spicer : Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Kennedy : No, I gave a fair response to the previous intervention and I wish to finish now.

In conclusion, it is interesting that the concept of citizenship is assuming increasing salience in domestic and international politics among the centre-left or reformist politicians--whichever terminology one chooses --as opposed to the traditionalists. It is being much debated

Column 50

within the Labour party. When Governor Clinton was running for President he stressed the sense of empowerment and of the citizen being able to assume more rights and as a result have more access to activities within his or her country. Definitions of citizenship have become a subject and focus of debate in the Liberal and Labour parties as well as elsewhere in this country.

The present Foreign Secretary, as Home Secretary under the former leader of the Conservative party, set out his views of "active citizenship" in the United Kingdom. Clearly, citizenship is a political idea whose time has come. That being the case, it is appropriate for it to be highlighted in article 8 of the treaty. The article is partly practical, and it points towards greater political and institutional integration. It points in a more federal direction and I welcome that. The article is also partly philosophical because it deals with citizenship and begins to redefine and consider the notion of the nation state freshly and more fully. As such, I believe that the article commands our support and we are pleased to welcome it as part of the legislation before us.

5.15 pm

Mr. Wilkinson : I suspect that this apparently insignificant but detailed debate may, with hindsight, turn out to be one of the turning points in our debate on the Bill. If people outside this place fully comprehended what the proposed treaty of European union will do to their identity, they would call into question the legitimacy of what the Government are calling upon the House to endorse.

The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who is the long spokesman for the Liberal party on such matters and a great enthusiast for Europe--as we all are--shed a ray of candour on our proceedings when he said that the issue of citizenship was so important that it merited a referendum.

I had my Damascus road conversion on the proposed treaty of European union when those "gullible Danes"--as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary so enchantingly put it--in their considered majority rejected their Government's proposal that the treaty should be ratified. The British people are not gullible. If they had the chance--as they certainly deserve- -they would vote against a citizenship of the union as proposed in article 8 of the treaty.

Mr. Winnick : Is it not interesting that, in his frank speech--which I was pleased to listen to when he called for a referendum--the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty, and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) made it clear that he had limited time for the nation state?

Is it not clear that the ardent federalists in this House, not least the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)--who has stated time and time again that he is in favour of a federal arrangement--are keen on the treaty because they understand that is it the paving stone to reach that state, whereas the Home Secretary and the Labour Front-Bench spokesman refuse to concede that fact? Would it not be more frank of the Government to say that outright, rather than trying to mislead the Committee and the British public, which cannot be forgiven?

Mr. Wilkinson : That may be so : I would not seek to gainsay the hon. Gentleman. It is instructive to note that the title of part II, which contains article 8, is "Citizenship

Column 51

of the Union". It does not even say "citizenship of the European Community". The word "community" gives the sense of a free association of sovereign states. The title suggests citizenship of a union--a political entity, a new creation. It is a highly centralised creation. It is not even a federation, with proper checks and balances between the constituent elements and the centre, to which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye referred. It is a union--a centralised united states of Europe.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle) : There is nothing in the treaty to imply that the union is taking on the essential attributes of statehood. The union has no legal personality. It has to act through those of its component parts which have a legal personality--the

communities--whenever there is a question of giving rights enforceable in law. That is why the citizenship provisions are included in the Community treaty. They are there, rather than in intergovernmental provisions. The union does not have a legal personality.

Mr. Wilkinson : I did not know that I was being so provocative. I thought that I was merely stating the truth.

Mr. Gill : Is not the question, do the British people believe what the Minister has said? Does the Committee believe what the Minister has said? If it does not, the Government have got it wrong, and those of us who are opposed to the treaty have got it right.

Mr. Wilkinson : We are not permitted to know the answer, because the British people have not been allowed to exercise their judgment on that crucial issue--

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster) : Yet.

Mr. Wilkinson : My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We should have a referendum.

Article 8.1 of the treaty states :

"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established."

Citizenship is precious to us. It is an attribute most dear to an individual, and primarily acquired by virtue of birth. If it is not acquired by birth, citizenship is acquired by conscious and carefully considered application--in this country by a process of

naturalisation.

I am sure that you, Mr. Morris, have been involved in many such cases, and may have had to affirm as a Member of Parliament that an applicant was worthy of British citizenship. Therefore, you will know that it is something that our state considers important.

It is so important that I well recall sitting along into the night during the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, when the issue of citizenship was considered at great length as we thought that it could not lightly be given away. We thought that British citizenship was being abused and that we should be careful to whom we should grant it. The signatories of the proposed treaty of European union are not careful--by fiat and edict, they think that they can bestow it on anybody, whether or not he or she wishes it, so long as the individual happens to hold citizenship of a European Community country.

Mr. Marlow : Is it not an insult to the concept of citizenship if people are obliged to have it whether or not they want it?

Column 52

Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : What about the citizens charter?

Mr. Marlow : Yes : if my hon. Friend the Member for

Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) were to look at the citizens charter, he would see the value bestowed on it--a value that will be devalued by the Bill.

Mr. Wilkinson : That is true. The only other means whereby, historically, citizenship has been acquired has been by a process of conquest. That is how citizenship has traditionally been imposed on those who did not wish to assume it voluntarily.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid Kent) : I wonder whether my hon. Friend is not building an elegant tower on shaky sand. It seems that the vast majority of citizens of the union have been born within the European Community. If they have the sort of citizenship that makes them eligible for citizenship of the union, it will have been bestowed on them with the same sort of care as that shown when bestowing citizenship on British citizens.

Mr. Wilkinson : As usual, my hon. Friend attributes the best of motives to those involved. That has been the trouble throughout the passage of the legislation. We have all been bored into attributing the best of motives to those who have enjoined us to ratify the legislation, but it is not our job to be gullible. Our job is to subject the proposed legislation to the most careful scrutiny and make people outside realise exactly what is at stake, so that, even if they do not rise up with sticks and staves, they rise up in anger at what is proposed and say that their birthright is worthy of protection. Those people are willing to accept another citizenship, but only if it is their democratic desire so to do, as expressed by their majority will in a referendum.

Mr. Spearing : Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that it was not easy to scrutinise the legislation because the Home Secretary used his favourite device of provoking a riot and retiring under the protection of the procedural police?

I wish to raise the issue of citizens' reponsibilities to the Crown in the armed services, of which the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) may have knowledge. If the Crown is subject to a single authority in relation to foreign security policy, and therefore its military consequences--which it is--is the citizen serving the Crown as determined by Ministers of the House, supported by Parliament? Or is it the case that, in the words of the treaty in article J.5 :

"The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy"?

Will they not serve the president of the union for the six-month period, rather than the Crown responsible to the House?

Mr. Wilkinson : The hon. Gentleman makes a nice point, and one to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sought vainly to reply. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sought to provoke a riot--I cannot imagine anybody less likely to provoke a riot. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have known each other, and I have had the privilege of being his hon. Friend on and off, since about 1970, and he is a man with whom it is difficult to take issue, as one instinctively warms to him. However, I do not instinctively warm to his arguments on the issue under discussion, and I am not gullible.

Column 53

Sir Teddy Taylor : My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is a nice person, and in case he is in danger of being gullible on the issue of citizenship--like my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary--I ask him to read the EC Commission's report on citizenship, published in a supplement on 21 October 1990. It stated that European citizenship as in the treaty was

"the setting of targets for the definition of an individual's civic, economic and social rights at a later stage."

Does my hon. Friend not agree with the Commission and Parliament that that is an important issue, not an insignificant one as has been suggested?

Mr. Wilkinson : The supplement does contain that statement. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was trying to distinguish between the respective applicability to citizens of the union of those parts that are strictly within the competence of the treaty, with relevance to the European Community, and those parts that lie within intergovernmental co- operation--defence and security policy. All I shall say on the second category is that, although the preamble has no legal effect and is not justiciable--

Mr. Budgen : It is important to state that it is almost certain that the preamble is justiciable and something that the European Court of Justice is obliged to take into account. When we consider that the European Court of Justice describes itself in political terms as the agent for greater federalism, we see that my hon. Friend has made no small mistake.

Mr. Wilkinson : I am glad that my hon. Friend has clarified that issue. If he is right, the resolution in the preamble

"to implement a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence"

is germane to those citizens of the union who, through no fault of their own, find themselves with an additional citizenship conferred by article 8 of the treaty.

Mr. Budgen : My hon. Friend should also read the concluding phrase :

"thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and the world".

Plainly, the identity of a state is enhanced by a single army. That is a way of reinforcing the European identity. Independence plainly means the independence of Europe not only from other nation states but from subordinate nation states below it.

It is no good saying that the preamble is a vague aspiration. It is part of the legislation, and it will be the basis of the discussions in 1996 when the EC settles down for a further period of what it calls steady progress towards a federal union.

5.30 pm

Mr. Wilkinson : I will not follow my hon. Friend's detailed points, except to say that, in my lay judgment, the citizens of the union will in effect have the rights and obligations normally associated with the citizens of a single state. That, at least, is how I read the treaty.

Mr. Rogers : The hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge of military and defence matters, and he and I have often debated them here over the past few years. I am sure that he will recall the establishment of the rapid

Column 54

reaction force, which was intended to be the precursor of an army in which every citizen of the Community and every country of the Community would take up their obligations. Time and again we have argued that it would be better if not only France and Britain but the rest of the European Community took up certain international obligations.

Conservative Members who have raised the spectre of such an army are absolutely right, and the Home Secretary is wrong. This is indeed the beginning of a development towards a European army, but I remind Conservative Members that they welcomed the statement in which the Secretary of State for Defence announced the establishment of a rapid reaction force, and that more than once they have advocated the deployment of joint forces from Europe--especially in former Yugoslavia and Bosnia.

Mr. Wilkinson : That was interesting, but I will not pursue it. I am more interested in the citizenship aspect, which is strictly relevant to this group of amendments.

A more exact parallel was shown by the judgment of the French National Assembly when, in 1954, it rejected the proposed European defence community, recognising that a unified European army was a step too far for the citizens of France--just as this treaty is a step too far for our citizens, unless they are given the opportunity, as they morally should be, to express their will in a referendum. If they are not given that chance, Her Majesty's Government will show themselves either undemocratic in this matter or exhibiting a rare lack of confidence about the outcome.

Mr. Marlow : My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that my hon. Friend had made a mistake in thinking that the preamble was not justiciable. May I reassure my hon. Friend that he is in good company? When we debated the Single European Act, Baroness Chalker, as she now is, speaking for the Government, was repeatedly questioned on whether the preamble had any meaning or justiciability. She said that it did not. She was wrong, just as my hon. Friend is wrong. So, although we have been reassured time after time by Ministers that all our anxieties about citizenship are as dross, we should beware.

Mr. Wilkinson : Again, I do not intend to pursue my hon. Friend's historical allusion, except to say that, in a number of instances important matters of fact and of principle have not been dealt with by Ministers, who have relied on the closure and the sheer weight of votes to close the argument. I hope that you, Mr. Lofthouse, will permit us the time that the importance of this group of amendments merits.

Mr. Budgen : My hon. Friend creates a great deal of interest by his protestations against closures and the authoritarian behaviour that has so often marred and marked discussion of this Bill. My hon. Friend gives us to understand that parliamentary democracy is not working in these circumstances. Even those of us who, in general, dislike referendums are coming round to the belief, albeit reluctantly, that one may be necessary in this case.

Mr. Wilkinson : Indeed. I was going to say, in the context of the first paragraph of article 8, that the parallels to which I referred earlier, dealing with how citizenship has traditionally been conferred, are historically correct : that is, by birth, by naturalisation, by registration in the case of Commonwealth citizens, or by conquest. There was a time

Column 55

when the very word "subjecthood" encapsulated the status of those who possessed British citizenship. It was the same sort of status as that to which St. Paul referred when he stood up and said, "Civis Romanus sum". It was his assurance that he would be subject to the due processes of Roman law.

With citizenship goes the right to deny oneself citizenship--to give it up. The Home Secretary suggested that the only way in which a European national could renounce his European citizenship was to renounce the nationality of his birth or the nationality that he acquired by naturalisation. That is most unsatisfactory. The treaty should provide for renunciation of citizenship.

It is very broad in scope :

"Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union".

I should like to hear what Home Office Ministers have to say about British overseas citizens--an important category. We in this Parliament decided that those who had some connection with the United Kingdom for historical reasons--British subjects of Asian origin living in East Africa, say-- should have this category of overseas British citizenship bestowed on them. That would be useful, in as much as they would have a British passport of a kind, but it would not entitle them to residence in the United Kingdom.

That is an important distinction, which the treaty does not mention. I therefore take it that, under the treaty, British overseas citizens would have exactly the same rights, responsibilities and duties as other British nationals. I presume, too, that British overseas territories citizens would have the same rights and duties. It is an extremely important point, because of the immigration and freedom of movement aspects of the proposed treaty of union. I assume that, with European union citizenship, people with British overseas citizenship could go to France or to another European Community country and establish residence there. It would be interesting to see how the courts decided whether such people could move to the United Kingdom. The first such case would be fascinating. Many Chinese people in Macao hold Portuguese nationality. I assume that, as citizens of the union, they could, if they wanted to, come here. Perhaps 5 million Hong Kong Chinese cannot come here, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) tells me that 100,000 Chinese from Macao with Portuguese nationality and thereby European citizenship could come here. That is interesting and important.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Storford) : My hon. Friend argues that European citizenship should be capable of renunciation by those who do not wish to hold it any longer. I am puzzled by that argument, because it would mean that European citizenship was independent of the citizenship of EC nation states. That would mean that European citizenship would have its own status, independent of the independent state to which the person also belonged.

That would confer on European citizenship a status similar to the kind that I understood my hon. Friend was arguing against, the citizenship of an independent unit--the European Community. Therefore, it is illogical to demand that a citizen should be able to give up that

Column 56

citizenship when it must and should be entirely dependent upon his citizenship of another European Community country.

Next Section

Home Page