| Previous Section | Home Page |
Dr. Cunningham : I say at the very beginning that amendment No. 13 is a probing amendment. It would remove title XIV from the treaty. Title XIV refers to economic and social cohesion in the Community. We are supporters of the principle of policies to move to economic and social cohesion, and it is exactly because of the importance and sensitivity of these issues that we have tabled this amendment to enable a debate to take place.
Column 508
I share the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)--and others, for that matter-- that, regardless of the number of amendments on the amendment paper, there is an important series of issues in this group of amendments. Far from there being any conspiracy--it is difficult for me to conceive of the ability to have a conspiracy with Ministers when we can barely believe a word they tell us about the proceedings on this Bill, and to construct a conspiracy in those circumstances is almost impossible--we are no more enlightened about the Government's intentions on closure motions or 10 o'clock rule motions than is anyone else. In case anyone is in any doubt, however, let me say that if the 10 o'clock motion is moved tonight we shall oppose it exactly because we believe that the House as a whole will want a significant amount of time to discuss the cohesion fund and the Committee of the Regions, which is the subject of amendment No. 28.Mr. Marlow rose--
Dr. Cunningham : I will give way in a moment. This amendment, also tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, refers to chapter 4 of the treaty which establishes the Committee of the Regions. It is to amendment No. 28 that I shall address myself in the course of what I hope will be a relatively brief contribution.
Mr. Marlow : I am sorry to learn that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) does not know when the Government are going to have their procedural motions, particularly as we all know that the Liberal party does know. The hon. Gentleman has said that he is in favour of the cohesion fund. Does he realise that we pay for it but that other people get the money?
Dr. Cunningham : Yes, of course I realise that simple fact, but perhaps I can observe in response to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that if the Government he wholeheartedly supports in other policies continue to wreck the British economy in the way that they are currently doing, Britain will soon be able to benefit from the provisions of the cohesion fund. Indeed, in a technical sense, sad to say, because of high levels of unemployment in Merseyside, Tyneside and elsewhere, some regions or sub-regions of Britain would already qualify for benefit from the provisions of the fund.
I want to discuss the important principle set out in amendment No. 28, referring to chapter 4 of the treaty and the Committee of the Regions. Articles 198a, 198b and 198c set out the duties of the committee and its relationship to the Council of Ministers and to the Commission. The Maastricht treaty recognises in two key ways the increasing role for the regions of the Community : first, the establishment of this important committee, and, secondly, the subsidiarity principle included in the treaty. Subsidiarity, however, is the subject of a later debate in our proceedings.
It is a general observation and widely recognised throughout the European Community that decentralisation, devolution, the sharing of power and decision-taking have worked well for almost all the major countries of the Community and for their economies. Only in Britain has there been a blind drive towards greater and greater centralisation of decision-taking in the past decade or more. Only in Britain have we had a Government who, far from wanting to devolve power and share decision-taking,
Column 509
have given Ministers more and more central and authoritarian powers, including powers over democratically elected local government. Only in Britain have we had a Government who, by Act of Parliament, have struck out what were existing important elected authorities such as the Greater London Council and the metropolitan authorities of England. Only in Britain do we have a capital city with no authority elected to represent its citizens and their views--and we see daily the damage that this has done to the interests of the city and people of London.In Spain, autonomous provinces with varying powers have been an engine of Spain's economic growth. In France, economic revival has coincided with the abandonment of the traditional French attitude to central control. In Germany, the La"nder have long been recognised as key ingredients of German success. In Belgium and elsewhere, devolved power operates beneficially and successfully in economic and social policy. In relation to other countries and the Committee of the Regions, there have been varying representations. Other countries have taken varying views, but only in Britain has there been the suggestion that the Committee of the Regions may perhaps comprise non-elected, non-representative ministerial appointees. Whatever the devolved arrangements, whatever the constitutional form, in all the other countries of the Community the principle, at least, has been established and accepted that nominations to the Committee of the Regions will be from some level of elected representatives. We believe that it is very important that the same principle should apply for Scotland, for Wales and for England and that the same principle should apply for Northern Ireland, too.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Is the hon. Member suggesting that Derek Hatton, for example, would be more capable of representing Liverpool than, say, Bishop Sheppard or Archbishop Worlock?
Dr. Cunningham : The hon. Lady could not have been listening carefully. I was talking about elected representatives. It is quite some time since Mr. Hatton enjoyed the status of elected representative. If the hon. Lady wishes to get into that kind of political approach to the debate today, she had better look a little closer to home and direct her attention to the stench which has been hanging around the Tory administration in the City of Westminster for a very long time indeed. She is in no position to make allegations about Labour when there are so many Tory authorities that I could name when it comes to matters of that kind.
Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : Is my hon. Friend aware that West Wiltshire district council, a Tory-controlled council, has been involved in such corruption that the police have now been called in and Tory councillors have had to resign their seats because of the appalling administration of that particular Conservative council?
The Chairman : Order. That is one from both sides. I do not think that the Committee ought to get into local government difficulties now.
Dr. Cunningham : We had better decide to play a draw, Mr. Morris ; otherwise, this could be an extended debate.
Column 510
Sadly, there are examples in all political parties of the kind that the hon. Lady wrongfully and unhelpfully introduced. That subject was not one that I intended to touch on.Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Many of us believe that it is paramount that representatives are not nominated by central Government. As to the United Kingdom's representatives, has the Labour party come to a view as to how many of them should be allocated to the nations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
Dr. Cunningham : We have not come to a view, but some of our representatives in local government have ; in fact, I believe that they take several views--certainly more than one.
Today, we want to establish the agreement of the Committee to the principle that I described. We can discuss the details of allocation later. I have no doubt that those discussions may be heated within parties as well as between parties. I do not disguise that reality for a moment. The purpose of the amendment is to persuade the Government--I believe that all other parties in the Committee have done this--to accept the principle that the amendment seeks to establish.
Since the original signing of the treaty, Ministers have made some very odd statements. At one point, it seemed that the Secretary of State for Wales intended to appoint himself to the committee.
Mr. Garel-Jones : What a good idea.
Dr. Cunningham : That is a matter of opinion--as ever, when the Minister of State speaks.
If the Secretary of State were to represent the United Kingdom in the Council of Ministers--as he is entitled to do, as a Minister--he should not be entitled also to take a place on the Committee of the Regions. That would be contrary to the spirit and the letter of the treaty.
Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North) : Can my hon. Friend say whether any other country is considering nominating a Minister to represent one of its regions?
Dr. Cunningham : As of now, we know of no such example. I am not saying that another member state may not make such a proposal, but we think it unlikely. All the indications from those countries which have declared their intentions rule out the appointment of national Ministers to the committee.
The Government again seem to have set off on the wrong road, as they so often do. It may be that they have drawn back from their earlier position and that common sense and persuasive argument have prevailed. There is always a first time, even with a Government as pig-headed and obstinate as the present Government. We hope that is the case. The Government, in the form not only of the Secretary of State for Wales but of the Secretary of State for Scotland, have made statements about Ministers putting their nominees on the Committee of the Regions. We reject that approach because, I repeat, it is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the treaty. We hope that the Minister of State will be able to assure the Committee that the Government have had second thoughts, and we hope even more strongly that he will indicate that they are prepared to accept our amendment.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his argument is even more true of Northern Ireland as not one Minister in the Northern
Column 511
Ireland Office was elected by any Northern Ireland constituency, so such an appointment to the Committee of the Regions would in no way be representative of the people of Northern Ireland.Dr. Cunningham : I accept absolutely the hon. Gentleman's point. I intended to make the same point about the Secretary of State for Wales, who has no personal mandate in Wales--certainly his party does not have one. The Secretary of State for Scotland has a personal mandate, but he cannot claim that his party has a mandate in Scotland. To make such appointments would fly in the face of the wishes and decisions of the electorates of Northern Ireland, the Principality, and Scotland. That is why we reject the approach that the Government are apparently taking to the Committee.
5.15 pm
Last week, I read with amusement a statement which was repeated at Prime Minister's Question Time today--that the Government are to have a bonfire of controls. They have already had at least two bonfires that I can recall during their tenure of office, so where are the other controls to come from? They will come from the legislation that the Government have heaped on our country over the years. If Ministers intend to follow that course of action, which is usually just a smokescreen to hide other difficulties--in this case, the disastrous state of the economy--I encourage them to apply the same bonfire principle to controls on local government as to controls on industry.
No aspect of our national life has been more subject to a tidal wave of legislation and controls than local government the length and breadth of our country. It has suffered 60 Acts of Parliament which have hedged around and circumscribed local authorities with more and more authoritarianism. The Community and local government associations in Britain, regardless of political control, are almost unanimously in favour of accepting the principle embodied in the amendment applying to the Committee of the Regions--that it should be made up of members of elected local authorities.
Those in favour of that principle include the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, the Consultative Council of Regional and Local Authorities in Europe, and the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe--which is a Council of Europe body. Britain will be in an anomalous situation if Ministers do not accept our amendment.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : My hon. Friend's powerful case is, I am sure, strongly supported by right hon. and hon. Members from the regions. If the Government do not accept the amendment, does my hon. Friend intend to press it to a Division?
Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : Poor man.
Dr. Cunningham : The hon. Lady is apparently amused. I do not know whether she is surprised or astonished, but we have every intention of pressing the amendment to a Division. I dare say that the smile will be wiped off the hon. Lady's face because we expect that, if the Government do not accept the amendment, a great number of hon.
Column 512
Members from minority parties will vote with us and against the Government. For someone who is a self-professed, pro- European, and anxious to get to Europe, the hon. Lady displays a disarmingly candid view--one that is in opposition to that which is widely shared in the Community.Mr. Radice : My hon. Friend might care to ask whether the so-called pro-Maastricht Conservative Members will support this important part of the Maastricht treaty with their votes tonight.
Dr. Cunningham : We shall not be voting on the substance of the amendment tonight, but the hon. Members to whom my hon. Friend refers could join us in opposing the motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule, thus ensuring the widest possible debate on this important nexus of issues.
Local government in Britain has made various proposals. This relates to the point made a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am not here to adjudicate between those detailed submissions, but I know that the Government have received one such submission on behalf of the local authorities, to which, so far as I am aware, they have made no response--certainly no public response.
We should value the regional and local democratic mandate of those who are to comprise the committee. We should recognise their knowledge and expertise in regional and local government. We should acknowledge that local authorities of all political persuasions have a duty to implement European Community directives, and to monitor and supervise other aspects of European Community decisions. To use a well-worn if not hackneyed phrase, locally elected members are at the sharp end of the implementation of the overwhelming majority of European Community directives and other decisions in their own communities and localities. They therefore have a firm grasp of the implications of European Community legislation and EC decisions generally--for instance, in regard to the environment--and will bring a powerful voice to deliberations on the Community's future, including the nature and content of its legislation.
The Committee of the Regions is intended to introduce such a new dimension to the Community's affairs, and it is a very welcome aspect of the treaty. Acceptance of the amendment would mean that the House and the Government had agreed the principle that I have sought to highlight. I repeat that discussions on the allocation of places between Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland could subsequently take place.
I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones) : I hope that it will be convenient if I make some opening remarks at this stage. I dare say that the debate will run for a number of hours, and, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris, I shall try to answer the points that have been raised in the intervening time.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)--as, I am sure, are other hon. Members--for telling the Committee that he does not intend to press amendment No. 13 to a Division. That has yet again given us an opportunity to discuss not only the whole subject of cohesion, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, but the Committee of the Regions. I hope that it
Column 513
is in order for me to make a few remarks about amendment No. 13, although the hon. Gentleman did not refer to it. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee may wish to touch on it. The Committee will probably recall that the Community's commitment to assist the less-developed regions dates back to 1975, and the creation of the European regional development fund. The specific objective of reducing economic disparities between regions of the Community--which, in Eurospeak, is known as "economic and social cohesion"--first appeared in the treaty with the Single European Act 1986, which added five new articles to the treaty of Rome : articles 130a to 130e. Those articles specified that the main instruments of cohesion would be the structural funds and the European investment bank.The Maastricht treaty seeks to build on the articles in the Single European Act, first, by stating that European Community policies and actions must take cohesion into account--although that is not a sweeping provision designed to ensure that all EC actions are subordinated to the objective of cohesion ; other treaty provisions must be taken in their context. The cohesion fund legislation must be agreed unanimously by member states, after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament.
Secondly, the Maastricht treaty allows the Commission to propose specific actions outside the funds if necessary, although such proposals would have to be agreed on their merits by the Council, again by unanimity. There is no question of the United Kingdom, or indeed any other Government, being forced to accept proposals that they find unacceptable.
Thirdly, the treaty provides for the establishment, by the end of 1993-- again, by unanimity in the Council--of a cohesion fund, which will seek to target assistance on the four poorest member states, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece, for projects relating to environment and trans-European networks. Finally, it is provided in the cohesion protocol annexed to the treaty that assistance from the cohesion fund will be made available only to member states which have a per capita income less than 90 per cent. of the Community average, and which are implementing sound macro-economic policies designed to attain the targets agreed in their convergence programmes with the Community.
I hope that the Committee will agree that the Maastricht treaty does indeed strengthen and improve the existing cohesion articles in the original treaty--above all, by targeting the Community's cohesion effort where it is most needed.
The Committee will not need reminding that the Maastricht treaty says nothing about the level of cohesion spending ; that was for decision in the future financing review, which we concluded at the Edinburgh European Council meeting in December. Hon. Members will recall that the overall settlement agreed at Edinburgh was rather restrictive, raising the own- resources ceiling by less than half the increase originally asked for by the Commission. Despite that, the increases in cohesion spending were in our view generous, reflecting the new emphasis that the Community is placing on this objective.
Mr. Marlow : My right hon. Friend has said, effectively, that we have a lock on it, because it depends on unanimity, and we can be very careful about how the fund is established and what it is spent on. I remind him that
Column 514
article 130a states that the aim of economic and social cohesion is, as he said, to reduce disparities. If we ratify this particular part of the treaty, we shall commit ourselves to attaining the objectives set out in article 130a, and the Community's policies and actions must follow that. We are actually committing ourselves, if we accept this, to reducing disparities through a cohesion fund which will obviously take up a lot of money.My right hon. Friend will be aware that the draft regulation put out by the Commission, on behalf of the Commission, wants the Commission to control the funds without any further intervention from the Council. May I suggest that we would be better off without the cohesion fund? It will cost our taxpayers money, and provide nothing for them. I suggest that my right hon. Friend's Conservative colleagues would do well to support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
Mr. Garel-Jones : I do not agree. Cohesion is one of the instruments available to the Community in the pursuit of its objectives, and cohesion is one of the Community's objectives. I remind my hon. Friend, however, that the Maastricht treaty is littered with new references to the importance of markets and sound economic policies. My hon. Friend has asked what Britain will get out of the arrangement. I am sure that he needs no reminding that, with the single market now available to us, we in Britain have the good fortune of having more major international and transnational companies than any other country in the Community. Our international insurance and chemical companies are moving into European markets on a much larger scale than any other country in the Community, which is proving enormously beneficial to the United Kingdom. It is part of the whole single market package.
5.30 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the change to the cohesion fund made in the Maastricht treaty is the inclusion of rural areas? It is an extremely good thing, and would it not be rather strange if the Opposition wanted to delete rural areas from the cohesion fund package merely because they might not obtain many votes there?
Mr. Garel-Jones : I agree, but I must say that the hon. Member for Copeland has made it clear that he does not intend to press the amendment so we cannot accuse the Opposition of wishing to remove rural areas from the fund. They are providing an opportunity for us to debate these matters.
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) rose
Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : rose--
Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). One of the reasons I want to be brief is that a number of hon. Members from Northern Ireland and other parts of the country will want to catch your eye as early as possible, Mr. Lofthouse. I want to ensure that I do not detain the Committee for too long so that they may do so.
Mr. Shore : I am very much in favour of regional funds, provided that they are spent and targeted sensibly. Can the Minister explain why the criterion for the new cohesion fund was a percentage of the Community's average GDP
Column 515
instead of the fund targeting particular regions which fell below the 90 per cent. threshold? Surely that would have been a more intelligent way to proceed. I should be grateful for the Minister's explanation of why the national measure was adopted.Mr. Garel-Jones : The Community has two instruments for that purpose. One is the structural funds which are specially aimed at regions and from which the United Kingdom benefits. The new cohesion fund relates to per capita income, meaning that it is devoted specifically to the four poorest countries in the Community. It was part of the bargain struck at Maastricht that the funds should be devoted-- [Interruption.] Yes, it was a bargain. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will be aware that sensible bargains, arrived at by consensus between grown -up people, happen to be part of the profession to which she and I belong. That is what we do as politicians. I do not think that any Government in the Community, whether those at the top or bottom of the per capita income scale, need to apologise for arriving at sensible bargains between nation states.
Mr. John D. Taylor rose --
Mr. Garel-Jones : I must make progress. May I finish this point? I repeat that the four poorest member states in the Community argue with some fairness that certain member states, largely those in the north of Europe-- we are an example of this--which have highly developed world-beating multinational companies, are taking enormous advantage of the single market by investing in their countries and by buying into the insurance, food and chemical industries in their countries. The trans-European networks, for example, which seek to improve communications--in Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal in the case of the cohesion fund--are of enormous benefit to countries that are fortunate enough to have such enterprises. Therefore, the bargains work both ways. It is not a crude case, as some hon. Members have implied, of British taxpayers pouring money into roads in Greece with no benefit to Britain. That is a travesty of reality.
Mr. John D. Taylor : The Minister was right to express some satisfaction at the outcome of the Edinburgh summit where, as he said, the increase in the budget ceiling was not as great as had originally been requested. It was only about half of that. However, will he define more clearly how much of that increase is being allocated to the cohesion fund as it has not been made very clear?
Mr. Garel-Jones : I think I am right in saying--although if I am lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Lofthouse, I can correct this if necessary--that the cohesion fund which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, applies only to the four poorest countries is likely in 1993 to represent about 7 per cent. of the total cohesion effort. That would include the regional funds in which he is especially interested. By 1999 the total cohesion effort, including the structural funds, will represent about 8.7 per cent. of the total spent.
Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool) rose --
Sir Russell Johnston rose --
Column 516
Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall give way to both hon. Members but then I must make some progress.
Sir Russell Johnston : I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I know that he wants to make progress. He is perfectly correct to check the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)--and the more he does so the better in my view--but does he agree that it is not merely a question of Britain deriving commercial advantage from the cohesion and structural funds? We are also accepting the principle that all in the Community have some responsibility for the deprived areas, wherever they may be.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I very much agree. I should have said that about the structural funds in my reply to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) : For last year the United Kingdom will receive about £1 billion from the structural funds. Northern Ireland is a substantial and wholly proper beneficiary of that money.
Mr. Mandelson : I do not want to disappoint some of my hon. Friends but I also want to express support for an important principle of the cohesion fund--that of solidarity with countries poorer than us. The basis of the deal that the right hon. Gentleman described includes both funds. Under the Delors 2 proposals there is to be an increase in the structural funds in support of objective 2 regions, those which have old industries which need restructuring. That support, including some for the north of England, is proposed to increase by two thirds by 1997. Will the British Government support those proposals, which are central to the operation of the structural fund and the deal struck between Governments?
Mr. Garel-Jones : Yes, of course, but we are now entering the stage where member states bid for the structural funds. We are at the moment in the process of putting together the bids that we shall be making for the various regions. That will take place this year. Naturally, the British Government intend that the regions in Britain which now benefit from a particular status will continue to do so, and we shall be trying to achieve a better status for some areas--for example, the highlands and islands.
Rev. Ian Paisley rose--
Mr. Garel-Jones : I wish to make progress so that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is able to speak later. I want to talk about the Committee of the Regions on which the hon. Member for Copeland concentrated.
The Government welcome the establishment of the Committee of the Regions. There is a wide range of Community policies which attract regional and local interest, either directly or indirectly. We therefore think it absolutely right that there should be an input into the Community's decision-making process from the regions. The treaty establishes that the Committee of the Regions will have an advisory status. It must be consulted on new proposals on matters such as education, culture, public health, cohesion and trans-European networks. It may also be consulted in any other instance which is considered appropriate or--this is important, too--it may issue an opinion on its own authority where regional interests are involved.
The treaty provides that the committee will be made up of representatives of regional and local bodies appointed
Column 517
to serve for four years. The treaty makes it clear that it is for the Governments of member states to nominate their national candidates to the committee. It is left to the member states to decide how their seats should be allocated between their regions and what representatives should be nominated. The amendment would commit the Government to ensure that all United Kingdom nominees to the Committee of the Regions will be elected local government representatives.Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : I represent the part of the north-west that is very far from the centre. We would be most apprehensive if the major part of representation on such a regional body were to come, as it inevitably would, from Liverpool and Manchester. We would not trust our fate in their hands.
Mr. Garel-Jones : My hon. Friend makes a point that I shall seek to develop in a moment.
There are many reasons why I shall invite the Committee to reject the amendment. Among those reasons is that the hon. Member for Copeland implied that it was within the spirit of the treaty that every representative should be an elected local government representative and that the United Kingdom would in some way be failing in its duty and not living up to the spirit of the treaty if every member were not an elected member.
So far, two countries have nominated their candidates for the committee-- Greece and the Netherlands--and they are good examples because they are two completely different countries. One is a southern Mediterranean cohesion country and the other is a northern, rather rich, sophisticated country. The Greeks have nominated eight elected mayors and four non-elected regional secretaries, and five elected and seven non-elected representatives is what the Netherlands has done. I make that point because I do not think that it is necessary that there be an obligation on any Government to ensure that all the nominees are from local government.
Several hon. Members rose --
Mr. Garel-Jones : Let me finish developing this point and I shall give way.
We have 24 seats and 24 alternates. In order properly to reflect and represent all the various subtle interests, not just local government interests--
Several hon. Members rose --
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way?
Mr. Garel-Jones : I am taking careful note. If I may develop my point, I shall then give way.
There are a range of national, regional and cultural interests of some importance and consequence that would not necessarily be adequately represented if we chose to go down the rather crude route that the hon. Member for Copeland is suggesting--a route which, so far, every member state that has chosen its members has not chosen to go down.
Dr. Cunningham : The Minister is giving a completely different interpretation to the meaning of the treaty from that which Mr. Delors gave. In a letter in December, on behalf of the Commission, he said :
"The Commission is of the opinion that, considering the functions attributed to the Committee of the Regions, the Committee should consist of elected representatives."
Column 518
Mr. Garel-Jones : I remind the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Delors is not a party to the treaty. It is a treaty between member states. He is perfectly entitled to his opinion, and it is not an unimportant opinion. So far, two member states, not noted for their lack of solidarity or for their lack of commitment to the Community, have decided not to go down the route that the hon. Gentleman is recommending.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) : Once again, does it not appear that we have a clash between what the Government claim to be the intention of the Committee of the Regions in having those clauses in the treaty and what the real architects of the European union conceived? We are building yet another treaty basis for Brussels to have direct access, bypassing national Parliaments, just as happened with citizenship and other bits of the treaty.
5.45 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |