| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 692
checked with other lawyers--should suddenly be swept aside as though the man offering it were an ignorant country attorney. The great, grand Attorney-General told him, "My good man, you have hardly been able to read either the treaty or the amendment properly-- allow an educated person to give a better interpretation." It seems that the Government are either playing around with the House or being grossly insulting to the dignified and honourable lawyers of a great Department.Mr. Robertson : The hon. Gentleman poses one of the most difficult questions when he asks me how many lawyers there are in the Foreign Office. The answer is, either too many or too few--I am not entirely certain. Last year, I was asked why I thought that the progress in Russia had not been as catastrophic as people had predicted. I suggested that it was perhaps because there were not enough economists there. At present, there seem to be too few or too many lawyers here.
I am impressed by the naivety of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South- West (Mr. Budgen), who seems to suggest that the fact that the head of the legal department of the Foreign Office has a knighthood gives him an automatic qualification. One has only to look at the dazzling row of medals among Conservative Members to see the naivety of his opinion. If the hon. Gentleman had voted differently in the paving debate, he might have had at least two knighthoods by now. He might even join Lord Tebbit in the other Chamber eventually. I return to the issue, because, humorous as the chaos and confusion in the Government is, it is serious and devastating for the nature of parliamentary democracy. We are not talking about some simple issue. We are not dealing with a hair-splitting argument about some subsection of some clause of some ordinary Bill. We are talking about the constitution and future constitution of the United Kingdom, as will be enshrined in United Kingdom law.
That is where the joke ceases to be a joke, and descriptions such as that which Mr. Peter Riddell so prosaically wrote in The Times last week--of the Government appearing like a spiv business man with a sharp lawyer-- encapsulate the nature of a Government who are sadly the Government with whom the people of the United Kingdom and all our constituents have to live and of whom they have to bear the consequences.
Mr. Skinner : Does my hon. Friend agree that probably the simple reason for the Government's decision and the statement made by the junior Foreign Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel- Jones), on 20 January was part and parcel of what many of us have experienced in the past 14 years? Our experience is of a Government imbued with arrogance and contempt not only for the British people but for Parliament and the House of Commons. Many times during the past 14 years, Ministers have trotted out smart answers such as were trotted out on 20 January. They always thought that they could obtain the requisite votes in the appropriate Lobby at the end of the day.
The past few months have been characterised by the Government not realising what is taking place. They did not realise that the Labour Opposition would vote solidly against them. They probably did not realise that perhaps
Column 693
the tin-pot Liberals would deliver this time. They probably thought that the Tory rebels did not have the guts to go into the Lobby on the social chapter.I am absolutely convinced that the statement that was made that day was born of the arrogance of the Tory party and the Ministers who sit on the Front Bench. They thought that they could get away with it. Now they know that, on this occasion at least, they cannot.
Mr. Robertson : I do not often agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. That is one of the sad accidents of the broad churches that our political parties represent. However, I agree with him wholeheartedly that we have on display an example of the arrogance that has come from too many years in power and too many assumptions that a Minister can simply be walked into the Chamber one day to say one thing to Parliament and walked out the next day and replaced by yet another Minister saying precisely the opposite, as if we were all expected to believe that both statements commanded authority and truth.
Mr. Spearing : Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government might have been saved a great deal of trouble? Everyone in the Committee will remember that we asked time and time again for the attendance of the Attorney-General when the Minister of State was in trouble over arguments of justiciability. Would it not have been better if the Attorney-General, who is after all a learned and knighted member of the Committee, had been in attendance on both 20 and 27 January, when he could have pulled the coat tails of his right hon. Friend? Does that not show that his opinion must have been asked only after those dates?
Mr. Robertson : I agree with my hon. Friend about our request for the Law Officers to be present in a previous debate. Perhaps a subject for later discussion will be whether that issue will be the subject of some other legal review, given the strength and vigour with which the statement was made. However, I have to say that I took the trouble to check on its legality, and was reasonably satisfied with what was said.
But I believe that my hon. Friend is wrong in assuming that, if the Attorney-General had been here for that previous debate, he would have pulled the coat tails of the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel- Jones), who has occasionally trailed his coat before. The reality is that the right hon. Member for Watford spoke the truth at that time. The Attorney-General's view became apparent only later, when defeat on amendment No. 27 was staring the Government in the face. Not only have the Government the arrogance to push Ministers in to tell the Committee whatever it wants to hear, but Law Officers seem to be wheeled into the arena to offer contrary legal advice as and when it suits Ministers' political convenience. That is much more sinister.
Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North) : Does my hon. Friend think that the Law Officers were consulted by the Foreign Office, and that they agreed with what the Foreign Office said on that day?
Column 694
4.15 pmMr. Robertson : I cannot answer that. No doubt the Attorney-General will answer it. It is one of the questions that I pose to him in endorsing what my hon. Friend says. It is inconceivable that, had the Foreign Office lawyers and the Treasury solicitors who may have been advising them been in any doubt whatever, the Attorney-General's office would not have been called upon to offer advice. The Committee demands answers from the Attorney-General in this short debate as to whether any such advice was sought and whether advice on any issue relating to the treaty was offered to the Foreign Office.
Mr. Robertson : I agree with my hon. Friend.
I have a series of questions for the Attorney-General, who the Prime Minister said would help the House, but before asking them, I should like to put a central point.
All along, the Prime Minister and Ministers have made it clear that it was for Parliament to ratify the Maastricht treaty. They put down hon. Members who called for a referendum. They argued against a referendum, and may do so again in Committee, on the basis that it was proper and right for Parliament to decide. They said that it was for Parliament to consider the great, complicated, detailed and serious matters of the treaty.
I agree that it is right to consider such matters in Parliament, because the treaty is not a fitting subject for a simple yes or no in a referendum. However, I disagree with the Government, in that I believe that Parliament should have the power to ratify the treaty and be allowed to make decisions. I agree with the parliamentary Labour party and the Labour conference that we should not use amendments to wreck the treaty, but on some areas of the treaty, Parliament can make decisions.
Last week, Parliament, people throughout the country and those on all sides of the political spectrum were stunned when the Government said that, although Parliament would decide and ratify the treaty, those areas of the treaty amended by Parliament would not damage or destroy the treaty's integrity, and the Government would simply use the royal prerogative to avoid any voice, vote or decision by Parliament.
We were told at the beginning of the whole process that only some parts of the treaty needed to be ratified and put into domestic law. Titles 2, 3 and 4 of the treaty require an amendment to European Community legislation. Title 1 is excluded, and is therefore ratified by the royal prerogative, and, as we heard in the debate on that title, it was justiciable in the international court. Title 5, on home affairs and justice, and title 6, on common, foreign and security policy, and the final provisions of the treaty are not before the Committee. They are justiciable in international law and do not require amendments to the European Communities Act 1972, as amended by the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986.
The Attorney-General : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the Committee. Therefore, let me remind him what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said last week about ratification :
"I must make it clear that there can be no question of the United Kingdom ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. The House will have the opportunity on Third Reading, after detailed consideration of all aspects of the Bill, to decide whether the Bill should pass
Column 695
into law. The United Kingdom will not ratify the treaty unless the Bill is approved by Parliament."--[ Official Report, 15 February 1993 ; Vol. 219, c. 28.]I should like the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that nothing could be clearer.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. We are here dealing with a Bill the long title of which says : "make provision consequential on the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992."
In the Bill, it is clear that the matters that are to be inserted--that is, to be dealt with in respect of the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act and the consolidated European treaties--include the protocols adopted at Maastricht on that date. It must follow that, as the words "other than the social chapter" did not appear, we were intending to legislate not merely by prerogative but by legislation in respect of all those protocols. Therefore, I submit that the matters that we are dealing with now are matters that relate to the long title and, if we do not continue to deal with them under that long title, the Bill will have to be disbanded.
The Chairman : That is a matter for debate, not a matter for me.
Mr. Robertson : I agree with the Attorney-General in one respect. I do not intend to mislead the Committee. I wish that it were possible that Ministers, who have now varied their position 100 per cent., were in a position to say that all the time. The Attorney-General has read out part of a statement made by the Foreign Secretary last week. I shall read it again, so that the Committee is certain of the quote :
"I must make it clear that there can be no question of the United Kingdom ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures."-- [ Official Report, 15 February 1993 ; Vol. 219, c. 28.]
He referred to "the treaty". Something happened between the day when the right hon. Member for Watford came along with one legal view, and the taking of the view that is being expressed today--that the word "treaty" does not include the protocol on social policies. That is the difference and the distinction, and that is why the Attorney-General will have to explain, in some painful detail, why the change took place and what were the reasons for it. It is not clear to the majority of hon. Members that the change need have taken place, because it was not there at the beginning of the process. When the right hon. Member for Watford said :
"the social protocol is an integral part of the treaty of Rome."--[ Official Report, 20 January 1993 ; Vol. 217, c. 445.],
he was stating a fact, based on a legal opinion that he had secured. The Attorney-General is now telling us another fact, but it is completely the opposite.
The titles that I mentioned do not have to be ratified by means of legislation, and the House will never again touch titles 1, 5, 6 and 7 of the Maastricht treaty in the ratification and implementation process, because that will be done by royal prerogative. The social chapter was not included in that category at the beginning of the process, but, magically, with defeat facing the Government, it is now included. What the Attorney- General said is right, because he is a fine lawyer making a fine point, but there
Column 696
is a bigger issue at stake, and that is what he will have to answer. That is one of the crucial questions in the context of this debate.Mr. Marlow : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give way.
Mr. Robertson : I want to make progress, because I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Morris. However, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
Mr. Maclennan : The Foreign Secretary said that there was "no question of the United Kingdom ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary processes."--[ Official Report, 15 February 1993 ; Vol. 219, c. 28.]
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the right hon. Gentleman was merely stating the obvious and begging the question whether normal parliamentary processes under section 6(2) of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 required the protocol to be enacted?
Mr. Robertson : Begging the question is one of the polite or legal ways that can be used to describe what is going on. Fine legal distinctions will not blind the House of Commons or the country to the way in which the Government are dealing with this exercise.
Mr. Marlow : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson : No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I know that his intervention would be valuable and helpful, as ever, but I shall resist the temptation to allow him to intervene. I have a series of questions for the Attorney-General. I believe that they are required to be asked before the Committee can move on to further consideration of the Bill. My first question drives to the heart of this debate : why is the House of Commons not getting a copy of the Attorney-General's legal opinion? It has been made available to Ministers, and it is being made available inside Government. It must have been offered as an olive branch to the head of the legal department of the Foreign Office. It was the basis of a volte-face by the Foreign Secretary last Monday.
The Attorney-General is, of course, a Minister in the Government. He advises the Government, but he is a Minister of the Crown. He must, by virtue of his office, advise the House of Commons as well. As we are dealing with matters that concern the authority of the House of Commons, why are we to be denied the formal advice that was offered by the Attorney- General?
Is the protocol part of the treaty? We do not want semantics, and we do not want questions begged. We merely want to know whether the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford, was right when he spoke on 20 January. Is the protocol concerned with the social policy part of the treaty? Are all the other 20-odd protocols to the Maastricht treaty part of the treaty, or are they not? If they are not, why are they not? They certainly were part of it when we began our consideration of the Bill in Committee.
I ask the Attorney-General to tell us when it was that the view of the Minister of State was formally decided. When did the doubts creep in, and why? Who was involved
Column 697
in making the decision that led to the abandonment of the Garel-Jones legal opinion and left the Minister of State hanging out to dry?If titles I, V, VI, and VII were not needed and were specifically exempted from the necessity to be in domestic law for the United Kingdom, why is it that we have discovered only now that the social protocol is not on the list? Is it the Government's position that the protocol can be ratified? I use "ratified" in the context of the treaty of the European Communities. If the protocol can be ratified by royal prerogative, can our vote on amendment No. 27 be bypassed by a royal or executive push of the pen?
Will the Attorney-General tell us about the significance of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, in which there is a specific instruction to government that no treaty can be ratified other than through Parliament if any extension of the powers of the European Parliament is involved.
There is no doubt whatsoever in anybody's mind that the powers of the European Parliament have been extended as a consequence of the Maastricht treaty--not just by the introduction of the novel negative assent procedures in respect of the Parliament's co-decision powers with the Council of Ministers, but also by way of its power to establish committees of inquiry, its right to be petitioned by citizens of the union, the right to appoint an independent ombudsman to intervene in matters relating to Parliament, and the power to request the Commission to make legislative proposals. These are the extended powers for the European Parliament laid down in the Maastricht treaty.
4.30 pm
Where is the legality of this treaty, and its ratification, in circumstances in which the extension of these powers impacts clearly upon the agreement attached to the social protocol? In the social protocol, the Twelve agree that the 11 may go ahead and make laws, involving the European Parliament, that will apply only to the 11 countries.
If amendment No. 27 is passed and social protocol is not included in United Kingdom legislation, and if, as the Foreign Secretary has stated, that does not create a problem, where precisely will it be justiciable? It will be part of a treaty. Either it will be part of the Maastricht treaty, or it is an independent, free-standing treaty. Would the Attorney-General care to tell us where it will be justiciable?
Can the Attorney-General tell the Committee what will happen if a member of the public, in this country or elsewhere in the European Communities, decides to take the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice for being in breach of the overall laws that apply to the European Communities? Has anybody inside the Government sought the opinion of the European Court of Justice or any of its justices, with regard to the rather novel and surprising view that the Government have taken?
I should like now to put to the Attorney-General a question that he may be least qualified to answer but in respect of which he might care to tug on the coat tails of his right hon. Friend the Member for Watford, the Minister of State. What will happen to the elaborately stitched-together political package represented by the Maastricht treaty now that we are presented with this amazing new legal revelation?
Column 698
We cannot ignore the politics of the Maastricht treaty. If the United Kingdom alone is to say that it does not have to ratify the social protocol, as its purpose can be achieved by some sleight of hand, where precisely is the package itself placed? After all, the Minister of State, during the debate on 20 January, made much of that very point.I should like to ask the Attorney-General what the implications are for title I of the treaty and for the legal advice--the advice that title I need not be included in the United Kingdom legislation, because it is redundant and, indeed, dangerous--that we received from the Foreign Office at that time. Can Members of Parliament, can the country, rely on any legal opinion that has been produced up to now? Is the Attorney-General satisfied that it stands four-square? The answers to the questions that I have just put to the Attorney-General might have been self-evident had the Committee been paid the courtesy of being allowed to see the document that the Attorney-General presented to the Cabinet--if it was ever presented to the Cabinet at all. These are questions to which answers are demanded, inside and outside the House. They need to be answered before the House of Commons can proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would it be helpful if the Attorney-General were to respond now to the remarks and very pointed questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) : is it not true that, as we are in Committee, the Attorney-General is able to speak again? Speaking now will not prevent him from replying later to further points raised in the debate.
to seek your advice, Mr. Morris. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said, we are at a great disadvantage because we have not seen the legal advice given to the Minister of State, or the legal advice on which the Foreign Secretary based his opinions-- The Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I take only one poinof order at a time. His first question was whether it would be in order for the Attorney-General to speak next. It is for hon. Members to rise in their places if they wish to speak. I look around and I try to keep a balance. It is a matter for individual Members.
Mr. Marlow : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. It may be that, when the Attorney-General speaks, everything that he says will be clear and non-controversial. On the other hand, he may leave some questions unanswered. If so, hon. Members may wish to participate further in the debate. I presume that the Government's business managers, in seeking the closure, will take into account the fact that, if the Attorney-General does not speak now, a significant number of right hon. and hon. Members may want to contribute later.
The Chairman : I cannot speak for the Government's business managers.
Sir Teddy Taylor : I want to put a few important and significant questions to the Attorney-General. There is no doubt that we owe you, Mr. Morris, a great debt for enabling us to debate an issue that is extremely important for democracy and for the way we handle these matters.
What the Foreign Secretary said in his statement did not come as a surprise to many of us who have been following the proceedings with great care. He made two
Column 699
specific points. First, he said that, even if we voted in favour of amendment No. 27, that would not require the United Kingdom to apply the social chapter. That was not news to us. We had made that point time and again while Cabinet and other Ministers said quite the opposite on television and in newspapers.As this is an important issue, no doubt the Attorney-General is aware that I appeared on two television programmes and offered £2,000 to anyone in Britain who could substantiate the views of Cabinet Ministers. One of the most worrying factors of this business is that Ministers, who we expect to maintain the integrity and standards of life in Britain, have time and again deliberately spoken a pack of nonsense on television and in the newspapers, in the full knowledge that it was nonsense. We knew, simply by reading the amendment, that what they said could not happen.
The second point raised by the Foreign Secetary was the complicated question of whether or not we could ratify the treaty. The basic issue of whether the social chapter would apply to Britain is obvious to any person who could pass the 11-plus. I hope that the Attorney-General will tell us that, as a result of such unfortunate occurrences, Ministers will make a special endeavour to tell the truth. I do not say that lightly ; I have been a Member of Parliament for 28 years.
Many of the problems relating to European affairs, and much of the misunderstanding and party division, could be overcome if on basic issues we had the standard of integrity to which we are entitled. Of course, I am not referring to issues of judgment, which obviously divide hon. Members.
Mr. Winnick : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is unfortunate that the Attorney-General has chosen not to respond immediately. Was not the initial advice given by the Minister of State just a try-on because the Government were terrified that they would lose the vote on amendment No. 27? They were prepared to use any pressure, especially on Liberal Democrat Members--it would not have worked on Labour Members--to avoid that.
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said, after listening to the Minister, that he would reflect carefully on the possibility that accepting amendment No. 27 would mean that the treaty could not be ratified? It is clear that the advice given to the House was misleading, with the intention of putting pressure on the Liberal Democrats.
Sir Teddy Taylor : I do not want to comment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has thought about that aspect very carefully, because he has attended these debates with amazing regularity--and I respect him for that. It is possible that his observations are true. On the complex issue of ratification, I can only tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney -General that, when I was leaving this Chamber after the speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, a senior and respected Member on these Benches who has held high office in the Conservative party--and whom all of us know and greatly respect--replied, when I asked for his view, "It's a load of codswallop." And that was from someone who is enthusiastic about the Community.
Column 700
We must try to establish why the opinion in question was given in the way it was. There is an urgent need for further clarification of the statement. I want answers to three specific questions. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a clear and helpful statement to the House indicating that, on further reflection, the Government now consider--in the light of the Law Officers' comment--that amendment No. 27 would not have the result either of obliging the United Kingdom to implement the social chapter or of preventing the Government from ratifying the treaty. As the protocol did not oblige the United Kingdom to do anything, it seemed that the inclusion or exclusion of the protocol had no great relevance.However, it has now emerged in a letter that I received from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary only a few minutes before this debate that, astonishingly, even if the Committee votes for amendment No. 27 and takes the protocol out of British law, the protocol will nevertheless be in the treaty that the Government sign. Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General aware of any precedent or occasion in the history of the Houses of Parliament when the Government signed a treaty when Parliament had specifically voted that one part of it should be taken out? In my 28 years in the House I have never known an occasion when the Government have said, "We are going to sign a treaty with that part in it," when that part was something that Parliament had decided to exclude.
Mr. Marlow : The Government will probably say that is precisely what they intend to do. They might be entitled to do that, but politically and constitutionally such action would be a massive abuse of the House.
Sir Teddy Taylor : It is the abuse of the House that upsets me. All right hon. and hon. Members--including the few here who are greatly in favour of the EEC--know the score. They know that what we do does not matter at all. What offends me most is that the Government were going along with the pretence. We were not to have a referendum and the people were not to decide--instead, all the clever, talented, able, thoughtful and compassionate Members of Parliament were to decide for them. We were supposed to do that with great distinction--by attending debates and thinking carefully about every line of every amendment and every clause.
The Government, along with others, tried to give the impression that that was the score--that Members of Parliament would decide--but the first time right hon. and hon. Members decided to chuck out part of the treaty, they suddenly found that was not to be the case. Senior Members of Parliament have openly stated that our views on the protocol are utterly irrelevant. It is unfortunate that the Government should try to give the impression that our views counted.
Mr. Maclennan : Will the hon. Gentleman at least exclude from his criticisms and from the suggestion that we do not care about the procedures on the social protocol my right hon. and hon. Friends who have supported ratification? It goes to the heart of our criticism of the Government's position that they have in effect deprived not only the Committee but the European Community of effective ratification by seeking to withdraw this matter from our attention.
Column 701
4.45 pmSir Teddy Taylor : I have read legal opinions which make that view clear. I am not competent to make a judgment, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied that issue carefully and expresses that view after proper consideration. I hope that it will receive the attention that it merits. Even if the legal opinion obtained is correct, and even if the Government are legally off their heads and doing something hopelessly illegal, I hope that it will be remembered that the Liberal party's real strength lies in the times when it fought for people's rights--when it said that people counted. The same can be said of the Labour party. I used to see Labour supporters in Glasgow marching down the streets, fighting for the rights of people and saying, "We will not allow people's rights to be taken away." Now, we are part of a gigantic conspiracy in which we are taking away people's rights and trying to fool them by saying that clever Members of Parliament will decide.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) indicated dissent .
Sir Teddy Taylor : My hon. Friend smiles and shakes his head, but he knows that that is the case. He heard my right hon. Friend the Minister say that. He knows that it was a load of codswallop, aimed at trying to give the impression that clever people were doing something that they had no power to do.
When has that happened before? If the protocol is in the treaty but not in European law, will the Government be empowered to make contributions in respect of the one twelfth share of administrative expenses required by the protocol? In answering questions after his statement, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated clearly that that would be done from the Consolidated Fund under the powers of the treaty of Rome. My understanding is that the treaty of Rome gives authority for payments to be made only if they are Community obligations.
As the agreement to which the protocol relates is one of 11 member states only, there is no way in which payments can be regarded as a Community obligation. That is why the section of the protocol stating that Britain will pay a one-twelfth share was required. If I am not right, why on earth is it in the protocol that Britain will pay a one twelfth share of administrative costs?
No doubt one of my right hon. or hon. Friends who is a Euro-enthusiast will say, "There's not much money in it at all. The EC spends £250 million on dumping or destroying food, so what does it matter? It is only a small point." In fact, it is a terribly important legal point, and financially it might turn out to be substantial. A large section of Commission officers will no doubt be concerned with the social chapter. There will obviously be many conferences and seminars to which friends and EC enthusiasts will be invited. They will have a great time and stay in expensive hotels. That will all cost money. They will want to initiate studies and inquiries which will also cost a good deal of money. They will want to employ some of the most expensive people to undertake those inquiries.
Many of the organisations in the United Kingdom which speak enthusiastically about every aspect of the EC are making a fortune out of undertaking inquiries and studies for the EC. It would help our democracy if as well as declaring political contributions every trade association-- including the big ones in high buildings--had to declare
Column 702
in their annual reports how much money they receive from the EC for undertaking studies, inquiries and commissions. Whether it is a small or large amount, the key question is why it was included in the protocol that Britain would pay a one-twelfth share of the social chapter. There must have been a reason. If we are to chuck that out of United Kingdom law, on what basis can we make those payments?Mr. Skinner : This has just crossed my mind--perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me his view on it. As it seems that we are not to be involved--although we are not sure yet--in one twelfth of the issue, what will happen to British MEPs? Should they be paid the same as the other MEPs, in view of the fact that they will not be involved in as much work as those of other countries? I throw that out as a possibility. I know that they could make the money up by fact-finding tours, gravy trains and junkets or whatever, but someone might argue that they cannot get as much.
Sir Teddy Taylor : The hon. Gentleman, whom I much respect, is introducing some of the EEC arguments that I am sure would be relevant to this debate. I appreciate his point. If I had the power, I would feel the same way. I find it strange that British MEPs are supporting and voting for a social chapter that the Government say is terrible. I read the other day that the Conservative party is to allow some of the cushy parts of Conservative Central Office to be used by MEPs who are deliberately undermining Government policy by supporting the social chapter and its application in Britain. That, however, is a separate issue.
Mr. Marlow : As my hon. Friend has rightly said, there is the question of paying towards the administrative costs, but the protocol also says that the institutions of the Community can be used. When we are talking about administrative costs, are they part of the administrative costs of those institutions, or is it intended that those institutions should be used without being costed? If it is not intended that they should be used without being costed, how can one be taken from the other?
If the House votes for amendment No. 27, will it not be saying in effect that the institutions of the Community should not be used for the purpose of the social protocol? Would it not benefit the United Kingdom if that were the case?
Sir Teddy Taylor : We shall know in time whether the amount will simply be added to the EC budget, or whether there will be a separate fund, with any expenses being met from moneys relating to other EC decisions. However, whether the amount for the administrative costs can be quantified, or whether we shall simply have to pay a lump sum within the budget, we need a straight answer to one crucial question. On what authority will we pay that amount if it is not a Community obligation, which it is not--it is an agreement between the 11--and if Britain has not passed the protocol requiring us to pay our share of one twelfth?
Perhaps the Attorney-General is going to produce a smart answer. Perhaps he is going to say, "Don't worry ; the obligation to pay is still there." Why, then, was it put in the protocol? If it is not needed--if it is just one of those petty cash slips which have to be signed--what was the point of including it? That is an important question.
Column 703
Mr. Skinner : It has just crossed my mind that British Members of Parliament are allowed to go to Brussels once a year, paid for by the taxpayer. [ Hon. Members :-- "Strasbourg."] Strasbourg, is it? I have never been, but I know one or two hon. Members have already taken up the option. Would it be in order for Members of Parliament to go trotting off to Strasbourg to discuss the social chapter that Britain has not accepted? Or would that be ultra vires? Would they have to pay the money back? I foresee complications.
Sir Teddy Taylor : The hon. Gentleman is entitled to go to Strasbourg--or, indeed, Brussels--at the taxpayer's expense. He can travel first class if he wants, and stay at a top-class hotel, for any purpose. It is almost like the Taylor plan for agriculture, under which farmers would be given a cheque and told that they could do whatever they liked. It would save us a great deal of money if we offered every farmer a cheque for £127,000 on 1 January, to be presented at village halls. For the avoidance of doubt, let me tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that he can travel to Brussels or Strasbourg at any time, summer or winter. He can travel first class and he need not do anything at all.
Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester) : And the longer he stays, the better.
Sir Teddy Taylor : That is unfair. This is a serious issue : we are talking about people's money. My hon. Friend should be ashamed of himself if he thinks that this is funny. He should consider the tragedy of poor people today, of all the things that Britain needs and of the £250 million that is spent every week on dumping, destroying and storing foodstuffs. I feel terrible when I encounter the problems of the homeless.
The Chairman : Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address the Chair.
Sir Teddy Taylor : I am sorry, Mr. Morris. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) put me off. It is not right to treat these issues as laughing matters ; they are deadly serious, and important to the people of Britain.
Finally, I should like specific advice about the issue of urgency. Like every other hon. Member, Mr. Morris, I appreciate your decision to allow us to discuss the matter today, rather than later. It was made clear--or appeared to be made clear--that what the Foreign Secretary said did not relate only to amendment No. 27 ; in his answers to questions, he plainly stated that it also related to the Committee of the Regions. Will the Attorney-General specify the areas of decision making, apart from amendment No. 27, to which we must pay the same attention?
That is important, because we shall shortly have to vote on the amendment relating to the Committee of the Regions. The Foreign Secretary has told us to treat the Committee of the Regions in the same way as amendment No. 27. We want to know why we should treat it in the same way ; we also want to know which areas of decision making should lead us to say, "There is no need to bother about this amendment, because it will have no effect on ratification." I may be wrong, but I have a horrible feeling that what was said about amendment No. 27 might apply to everything, and that the Government could say, "We are going to ratify the treaty, come what may." I have a
| Next Section
| Home Page |