| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 105
authority will no longer rest in this House but outside it. If that is not a matter of supreme constitutional importance I do not know what is.My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) seems surprised by what I have said. I am only surprised at his reaction. I do not believe that I was elected to
The Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech. He has hardly mentioned the word "citizenship" and has not referred to amendment No. 12. I understand that he feels strongly about the issues, but he must address the amendment.
Mr. Winnick : I accept what you say Mr. Morris, but the citizenship of the union, as set out in the article that we are discussing, would severely diminish the independence of this country and the authority of this House and that is part of my argument.
Article 8b relates to candidates for municipal elections and European elections. It is argued that it will not apply to those outside the United Kingdom who wish to stand for election to Parliament. Why not? I do not see the logic in that. If it is argued that someone outside the United Kingdom has a right to stand here for local elections or the European Parliament-- as set out in article 8b--how can it be argued that he should not also stand for Parliament?
9.30 pm
Even if, in the context of today's debate, municipal does mean local, surely once the law is passed, the obvious logic is that, if people outside the United Kingdom can stand for local elections and for a British constituency in the European Parliament, they should be able to stand for Parliament. Once we pass certain measures, it is not long before other measures are taken which further diminish and erode our independence.
It is dangerous for Parliament to be out of step with the wishes of the majority of people on a major constitutional issue. It is for that reason, among others, that I fully support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), under which the Government would be asked to set out in a Command Paper the duties and obligations of citizenship of the union. That is a reasonable amendment, and it is unfortunate that the Government are unlikely to support it.
Sir Teddy Taylor : What is the point of having a White Paper when article 8e states that, every three years, the Council can add to the rights and duties of European citizens? We are not debating a static position involving merely the right to vote. Under article 8e, the duties and responsibilities can be extended every three years. Would it not be better to have a White Paper published every three years to take account of exciting new duties and responsibilities that the EC decides that we have to undertake?
Mr. Winnick : I agree. The Government's first step should be to adopt the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, but I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that that should not be the end of it. If the treaty becomes law, the least that we should require of the Government of the day is that there should be a continuing review of the position. We should press for that.
Column 106
I am sufficiently pessimistic to accept that the Bill and the treaty will become law. If that happens, the controversy will not end. Hon. Members who support the Government and the Labour Front Bench team believe that by the end of February or March the Bill will have completed its Committee stage, then go to another place and afterwards receive its Third Reading, but the controversy will not end. The issue will become and remain a festering sore in British politics. If authority and independence is taken away from Britain and the House without the consent of the majority of British people, the issue will remain one of great importance and controversy, and will undoubtedly cause many sharp clashes both inside and outside the House.For those reasons, I believe that the Government should recognise the depth of feeling among many of us. I do not know whether we are in the majority, but to take the steps that the Government propose, as set out in article 8, without the mandate or authority of the British people is wrong, and can only cause tremendous resentment outside the House. Therefore, I hope that at least the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend and others will be accepted by the Government.
Mr. Shepherd : I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 12, which is why I listened with particular care to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I expected an analysis of the text of the article, given that the Opposition propose to remove all the citizenship provisions.
What I found, however, was that the hon. Member for Sedgefield advanced with a powder puff and caressed the provisions set out in the treaty. So reassuring were his arguments for the removal of this part of it that the Home Secretary thought it unnecessary to argue in favour of the treaty thereafter. We witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of the Home Secretary expressing his admiration for a speech by an hon. Member who was trying to remove the citizenship provisions from the treaty and who did it so persuasively that my right hon. and learned Friend was able to curtail his own speech. We have heard no analysis, either by Ministers or Opposition spokesmen, of what citizenship means or how it affects the Queen in Parliament. When asked, the Home Secretary was not sure whether the Queen would become a citizen of Europe. Very little thought has been given to that when preparing the briefings that the Home Secretary receives from the Department. We know from the fanciful little cards sent to Members of Parliament from the Home Office that royal matters concern the Home Secretary, yet no inquiry has satisfied him to enable him to answer with confidence questions about the position of the Queen under the treaty.
We all know that we are forming a union. If I were a bureaucrat, the one provision of the treaty that I would want to secure above all others would be that governing citizenship. It is the one that tells us our relationship to the state, and it is the one that I want to discuss this evening.
I was elected as a Conservative, and as such I have always believed that, at the heart of our philosophy--to this I subscribe wholeheartedly--is the maintenance of our constitution, which is a democratic, self-governing constitution. That is the fundamental line of trust linking all Conservatives. But the Government propose that we
Column 107
become citizens of a new political structure in which, as if by an afterthought, the Queen is apparently to become a citizen. These are profound matters, touching on the heart of nationhood and citizenship. Ultimately, they are a question of sentiment. Despite the arguments of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) about international law, we all know that what lies behind these relationships is the question of who we are--our sentiment. I am glat to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. I am one by birth, but more importantly by sentiment. The Government trivialise that. I suggest that from sentiment follow all manner of things. I support the laws of the state of which I am a citizen. This I do gladly and by an exercise of free choice. When I am told that I am to be made a citizen of anywhere else, I feel like Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians must have felt when they were told that they were to be made citizens--to use the language of this treaty, irrevocably and irreversibly--of the USSR.So there is no choice in these matters, and it is impertinent of Front- Bench spokesmen to tell Parliament, which is the sovereign representative of the will of the people, that the Government propose to make us citizens of somewhere else without seeking our advice first. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked by what mandate such an important change was to be made.
This is the one proposal in the treaty above all others for which I suggest the sanction of the individuals who will be most affected--the citizens-- must be sought. There has been no mandate on that.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : The hon. Gentleman's sincerity and passion are well understood in the Committee. Two matters in his speech puzzle me. He says that at the heart of his understanding of British citizenship is the concept of being, within the constitution, part of a representative governmental system. As a result of that system, we have a Government who won an election and who made clear their commitment to the treaty. That is my first puzzle about what the hon. Gentleman places at the centre of his thinking of what it is to be British- -he rejects the result of the election.
Secondly, we live under a constitutional system in which the rights of citizenship are not defined. The hon. Gentleman describes them in almost metaphysical terms, and that is correct. There is a much greater definition of what citizenship might mean in the context of a framework constitution for the European union than we have had in 700 years of British history.
Mr. Shepherd : I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not the maker of the speech for the Liberal Democrat spokesman, because at least his intervention contained some reflection. I was speaking about democratic self-government being the heart of our constitution. I am truly surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that an election is the end of the democratic process or the conferment of a mandate as such.
Column 108
All that was achieved at the last election was what in constitution terms is referred to as a general mandate. I am arguing for a specific mandate, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have understood that. That is a constitutional concept in our history. It is referred to by authorities, and for the past 25 years this country has sought to exert it on profound constitutional issues. That happened first under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), secondly under the premiership of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and thirdly under the premiership of Mr. Callaghan.For every major constitutional change during those periods, it was considered necessary to seek a specific mandate from those who would be affected. Therefore, that is part of our constitutional requirements. The fact that it was fudged in 1985 and the fact that the Government run away from it now is understandable. We are in the hands of ideologues who wish to force through this measure without regard to the-- [Interruption.] We know the fashions as they come and go, and I well understand why we had South Sea bubbles.
I have watched the Government come to their knees on the ERM, and I watch them now as they prepare to force through a contention of citizenship for which the Home Secretary could not even wave a concept. We have not had one testing thing about what it amounts to, nor did we have any indication as to where it leads.
Each of us in his heart--because it is a metaphysical concept--must ask, what is nationality, what is citizenship, to whom do we owe allegiance, and why? I owe allegiance because I am confident that all the laws and rules of this land are ultimately under the control of the citizens. It has nothing to do with the mere sanction of an election, because if I as a Conservative am allowed to misappropriate Burke yet again, I would say that it was the process of consent and acquiesence that Governments and laws seek. Without consent, they have no foundation, and they are seen to become unjust.
When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) was advancing that argument, in essence he was saying that these matters cannot be processed without the consent of the people. Citizenship is the relationship of us to the state. How can it be that the Government cannot advance one argument in favour of the necessity to subordinate current citizenship, given by birth and allegiance, to European citizenship?
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Shepherd : I should like to continue.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke about the construction of the state. If the United Kingdom, as one of the high contracting parties, is a subordinate constituent of what those high contracting parties are forming--the union of Europe--the citizenship of one of those subordinate constituents must be subordinate to that of the greater proposition. That is the only point that has been established this evening.
Therefore, in all matters that affect the union, where it has competence which is not a settled and finished matter, which is extended--I would say grotesquely--in the treaty of Maastricht, there has been a profound change. That means that United Kingdom citizenship must of itself be
Column 109
subordinate. Therefore, my first duty to support the laws and maintain the structure will be to the union of Europe rather than to the United Kingdom.9.45 pm
Mr. Whitney : Earlier in his remarks, my hon. Friend asked himself two questions--what is nationality, and what is citizenship? He was right to ask those questions. However, he should accept the definition of European citizenship, which, as we all agree, is a new concept and something that we must learn to develop and understand. He should also acknowledge that the treaty clearly defines nationality. I understand his propensity--
Mr. Nicholas Baker (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put. Question put, That the Question be now put :--
The Committee proceeded to a Division :--
Mr. Marlow (seated and covered) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is well known that it was anticipated that most hon. Members would be here at 10 o'clock for a vote. Because the Government have got their people here first, they are trying to have the Division early. Why cannot we keep the debate going until 10 o'clock, when most hon. Members will be here?
The Chairman : The timing of the Division is nothing to do with the Chair.
Sir Teddy Taylor (seated and covered) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : I will take it later.
Sir Teddy Taylor : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : Order. I will take it in a minute-- [Interruption.]
Sir Teddy Taylor (seated and covered) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Some of us have been here for 28 years. Do you really think that it is adding to the dignity of democracy that, for the fifth time, we have had a major debate but no ministerial response? How on earth is it possible for you to consider a closure motion when there has been no ministerial reply to fundamental and important issues raised in the debate?
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not give reasons from the Chair.
Mr. Rowlands (seated and covered) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I have a simple question. When will you refuse a closure motion from the Government?
The Chairman : I have already said that the Chair does not give reasons, but I have refused a number of closures.
Mr. Budgen (seated and covered) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I would be very grateful--and, indeed, you might be very grateful--if you took the opportunity to explain what you meant when you said that the question of the time was not within the discretion of the Chair. There is a rising sense of frustration on the Conservative Benches. We feel that you should explain your position so that we may decide our action--
Column 110
The Chairman : Order. It is very clear. I do not choose the time at which a closure motion is moved. That is the point.
Mr. Budgen (seated and covered) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. Surely you decide when to accept an application, and the time may be relevant to your consideration.
The Chairman : I accept a closure motion when I believe that there has been a full and fair debate.
The Committee having divided : Ayes 285, Noes 267.
Division No. 136] [9.45 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Aitken, Jonathan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Alton, David
Amess, David
Ancram, Michael
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Ashby, David
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkins, Robert
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Baldry, Tony
Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bates, Michael
Batiste, Spencer
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Bellingham, Henry
Beresford, Sir Paul
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Booth, Hartley
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Bowden, Andrew
Bowis, John
Brandreth, Gyles
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Browning, Mrs. Angela
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butler, Peter
Butterfill, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Churchill, Mr
Clappison, James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
| Next Section
| Home Page |