| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Marlow : Newspaper reports appearing in the past few days make it apparent that there is a European policy on sanctions against Serbia, yet arms, petrol and other supplies are flooding into Serbia through Greece --which is a member of the Community. Institutions and policies
Column 671
already exist to stop Greece permitting that. The treaty contains more institutional powers that will supposedly prevent Greece allowing such a thing in future.How optimistic is my hon. Friend that those powers will be effective with regard to Greece? If a similar problem applied to the United Kingdom, how effective would those powers be with regard to the United Kingdom? Would it be a level playing field?
Sir Trevor Skeet : Yes. My hon. Friend is perfectly right, but I cannot pursue that aspect because we shall be debating title V, article J, later, in relation to foreign policy and defence. The article leaks like a sieve and will continue to do so.
Extraordinarily enough, the Commission has the exclusive right to initiate legislation. It can modify its proposals before they are presented by the Council of Ministers, and thwart the European Parliament under article 189b. I am only left in doubt as to the full extent of the functioning of the Conciliation Committee. Will it not add to a particular complication?
The Commission will also have special powers under the pillars that are outside the treaty. It will be an enormously powerful body--much more powerful than the House of Commons, because it will be Europewide in its application.
Mr. Garel-Jones : Will my hon. Friend describe the powers that the Commission will have under the pillars that it does not already enjoy in relation to intergovernmental activity--such as European political co- operation.
Sir Trevor Skeet : The Commission has a right to be fully informed about and to take an interest in both articles J and K. It has a right to settle legislation, if legislation is to be agreed. It will have a right to carry that legislation out, by convention or other methods.
Mr. Garel-Jones : If my hon. Friend examines the Commission's position in relation to European political co-operation, which is the governmental activity that currently exists under the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act, he will find that the Commission already has those powers. What are the enormous new powers to which my hon. Friend refers?
Sir Trevor Skeet : Under article 100c, the Commission has powers, by convention, to carry things through--but these all come out of the fact that they are an addition to the powers that the Commission could normally utilise, not simply under the treaty of Rome. It could now use them under the pillars that are being established. My right hon. Friend the Minister and other Ministers have claimed that, as the pillars are outside the treaty, they are also outside the European Court and the Commission. That is certainly not true.
Mr. Garel-Jones : What I am saying is that the Commission has no new powers in, for example, the intergovernmental pillar relating to interior justice. I believe that the wording of the treaty is "fully associated with", but those words are lifted from the provisions in the Single European Act that established existing practice for European political co- operation. My hon. Friend tells us
Column 672
that the Commission has a huge range of new powers ; I am asking him to tell the Committee what they are. So far, he has not done so.Sir Trevor Skeet : I very much want to come on to that, but I fear that articles J and K are beyond the remit of our debate. I should like to be led into such a discussion, however, so that I could explain to the Minister that the Commission has substantial powers, and that Ministers have not been frank with the country in saying that some of those powers are entirely outside the provisions of the treaty.
Mr. Marlow : My hon. Friend has quite properly been preparing for other aspects of the debate, but this is to do with the powers of the Commission. Article K.3(2) states that the European Council may, "on the initiative of the commission, in the areas referred to in Article K.1(1) to (6) adopt joint positions and promote". The Commission has a great deal of power within that article, although the Government have said that it has not. If my hon. Friend has time to read it in detail later, he will be alarmed at the massive power of initiation that the Commission will have in the areas of justice and home affairs.
Sir Trevor Skeet : I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but I am familiar with that article. Under sub-paragraph (2), the Council may "draw up conventions", after adopting "joint action", and may even stipulate that reference can be made to the European Court of Justice, which will settle the matter. The Minister knows that that is so.
Sir Teddy Taylor : Perhaps my hon. Friend should ask the Minister of State to read the treaty. He may be in grave danger of finding himself in the same position as the Home Secretary. Notwithstanding the various discussions in which he has engaged, the Minister should be prepared to listen, and to examine article K.9. That article allows specific policy areas, such as immigration and fraud, to be transferred to the remit of the treaty through the extension of the application of article 100c of the treaty establishing the Community.
My hon. Friend should advise the Minister to stop making silly interjections, to read the treaty and to appreciate that, by extending the provisions of article 100c in that context, we are making a substantial change. Does my hon. Friend agree that, by bringing whole new areas of policy into intergovernmental agreement, we are extending the Commission's powers specifically, clearly, and in terms of the treaty that the Government have signed?
Sir Trevor Skeet : I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is clear that the Minister of State has not read the treaty closely.
Mr. Garel-Jones rose --
Sir Trevor Skeet : The Minister rises again, and he will be thrust down again. Ministers must read the treaty extremely carefully to find out what it actually says. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--whom I support
Sir Trevor Skeet : I do support my right hon. Friend. He has been telling the country that the pillars make a very big
Column 673
change : they are outside the European Court and the Commission. I consider that quite wrong, because they are inside for certain specific purposes.Mr. Garel-Jones : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I promise him and the Committee that I shall not try to intervene on him again. I respectfully submit that, were I to intervene every time he needed to be corrected, we should not make much progress. In seeking to support my hon. Friend's argument that the treaty gives the Commission enormous new powers in the intergovernmental area, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) tried to talk about the transfer of competences from article K to article 100c. As a close student of the treaty, my hon. Friend will know that, for any such transfer to occur, the member states must first agree to the proposition. The Commission is not a member state, and therefore has no vote. It must then be agreed by the parliament of every member state.
Therefore, far from getting new powers, the ability of the Commission to obtain new powers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) sought to illustrate, is entirely dependent on the unanimous vote of the parliaments of all 12 member states.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it in order for the Minister to predict inaccuracies, as he sees them, in the future speech of an hon. Member?
The Chairman : That is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister is responsible for his own views.
Sir Trevor Skeet : I am not impressed by what the Minister says. He is talking about the contemporary position. I was told that a certain result would follow from the Single European Act. Many of us were let down by the advice that we were given. My right hon. Friend the Minister is wrong : all the current trends are towards majority voting. How long will unanimity last? The Commission will shortly be involved in other operations, by which time we will have lost a freedom that we shall never be able to get back.
4 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : The hon. Gentleman referred to the pillars and the trunk. Many of us believe that there is no separation and that it is all one edifice--the union. Indeed, article E of title I gives us that impression. Will he draw Conservative Members' attention to article J.8, which deals with a common foreign affairs policy and which states :
"Any Member State or the Commission may refer to the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy and may submit proposals to the Council."
That is not the European Council--
Mr. Spearing : Under this treaty, it will be able to submit proposals not only to the European Council but to the Council of Ministers- -an institution of the present market that would become part of the union.
Sir Trevor Skeet : I am much obliged for that intervention. The Minister should put his ideas before the country in a referendum, from which he would learn that the British people have their doubts and want clarification.
Column 674
Mr. Corbyn : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Trevor Skeet : No. I shall proceed for a moment. We shall shortly debate this article under foreign policy, at which time it can be argued extensively. It would be wrong if I went further down that road.
Sir Teddy Taylor : The Minister said that there was no provision in the treaty to extend powers, but article K.9 is specific, and we should worry about it, because it transfers responsibility for immigration and fraud to the EC. That may require a unanimous vote, but, sadly, many unanimous decisions are taken as part of horse trading.
Instead of trying to trap my hon. Friend, quite wrongly and unsuccessfully, it would have been more helpful if the Minister had informed the Committee of the huge dangers in article K.9--which I am afraid he did not mention at all.
Mr. Skinner : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The Minister has intervened on the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) about half a dozen times. It is becoming apparent, post-Harrogate, that the Tory party and the Government do not have an answer, and that nobody believes what the Minister says about the common market and Maastricht.
Would it not be more sensible to halt proceedings so that the Attorney- General could be brought here? Let us have some more new legal advice. There is no point in listening to the Minister when we know that he gets it continually wrong. It would be a good idea if we packed up the proceedings, got fresh legal advice and then started afresh.
Several Hon. Members rose--
The Chairman : Order. I must rule on one point of order at a time. The hon. Gentleman's good advice is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I hold the mirror image position of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I agree with him about the presence of Ministers. Do you recollect that, during previous debates on European matters, at least the Solicitor- General, the then right hon. and learned Member for Reigate, was constantly in attendance to offer his expertise? We also frequently saw the Foreign Secretary and other senior Ministers. What better occupation do the Law Officers of the Crown and the Foreign Secretary have than to come to the House of Commons at this juncture to help the Minister of State, who has unprecedentedly made declarations about his own future? I agree with my hon. Friend that it is deeply unsatisfactory for the business to be handled in this way, and that we at least deserve the presence of the Foreign Secretary. What better things has he to do?
The Chairman : I am sure that members of the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Marlow : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will be aware that, when we held very important debates on the Single European Act, the House was given assurances by the Government that it would be able to maintain its competence over immigration policy and such issues as the working week. However, that has proved not to be the case.
Column 675
We are now receiving assurances from those on the Government Front Bench about the meaning of the treaty, but, similarly, they might be wrong. I agree that it would be in everyone's interest, now and in the long term, to have permanent legal advice available in the Chamber, especially while we are discussing the powers of European institutions. It is a matter of controversy, and it is important that we should be able to ask those who can best give us the answers.The Chairman : Again, that is not a matter for the Chair, and I do not think that it needed a point of order twice as long as that of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) : I appreciate that this may not strictly be a matter for you, Mr. Morris, but it is a matter for the Committee whether we are going to get correct information, especially from the legal point of view, about the complex matters being debated. The Minister of State has intervened repeatedly on his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) in order to give him information. I was under the impression that the House was to be assisted fairly frequently by the Attorney-General. I do not recollect seeing him here yet, although we are reaching a complex stage at which his help might be necessary.
May I remind you, Mr. Morris, of a letter sent two weeks ago by the Prime Minister to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition? The Prime Minister said :
"If the House of Commons wishes to have further advice on the meaning and effect of the Bill, Law Officers will be present when the Committee Stage of the Bill resumes. I believe that this is the right way to proceed, consistent with established practice and to ensure that the House of Commons has available to it the advice it may need."
Surely the Attorney-General or another Law Officer should be here when we need them, especially while we are debating such complex matters.
The Chairman : I suggest that we hear from the Minister of State.
Mr. Garel-Jones : If you will allow me, Mr. Morris, and if it will help the Committee, I can confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend is available to the Committee. If the Committee wishes to put a specific legal point to the Government, he will make himself available immediately.
Mr. Robertson : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I appreciate your problem, and I admire your forbearance. The Minister, on a point of order, is articulating a novel constitutional arrangement. How will it be procedurally possible for us to say that we wish to have a point answered if the Attorney-General is not present? The Minister is not here on the basis of listening and then enunciating what has been said. He is present, and he has chosen to intervene in many speeches as the debate has proceeded.
If the Committee needs the valued opinion of the Attorney-General on a point, how precisely are we to bring to your attention, Mr. Morris, the fact that we want to hear his opinion? How can he be involved in the debate without some notice being given to him?
The Chairman : I have already ruled that the Treasury Bench is occupied. Presumably it is listening, and
Column 676
presumably it will act. There is certainly nothing further that the Chair can do other than to emphasise those three points again.Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : I hope that these are new points of order.
Mr. Dalyell : You raised the subject of the Treasury bench being occupied, Mr. Morris. The fact is that the Treasury Bench is not fully occupied. Not since the late Dick Crossman was left completely alone by his colleagues on the reform of the Lords has a Minister been so deserted on the Treasury Bench. We all know that the previous occasion was caused because the Government of the time decided that they did not like the proposals for reform of the Lords. That is why Dick Crossman was left alone.
We have a very lonely Minister here ; apart from him, the Treasury Bench is unoccupied. Those of us who are pro-European think that it is high time that it was occupied, to give the expertise necessary for the answers to the legitimate questions being asked by hon. Members from all points of view.
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Government are indivisible.
Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : I shall take no more of the same points of order.
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : I want to ask the Chair a question on a point of order.
The Chairman : I hope that it is not on the same issue.
Mr. Walker : I assure you, Mr. Morris, that my point of order is a matter with which, I judge, you should be able to deal.
The Chairman : Is it on the same issue?
Mr. Walker : No. My point of order covers the conduct of the Committee.
The Chairman : I shall trust in the hon. Gentleman's honour.
Mr. Walker : Is there any point in the proceedings at which you, as Chairman, can make a judgment that the Committee is not being given the assistance required to carry out its duties properly? If so, at what point do you intervene?
Mr. Spearing : On a new point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : It may be an entirely new point of order. However, the hon. Gentleman must allow me to deal with the present point of order.
The Chair has to listen to the debate. The Chair has no responsibility for statements made by any hon. Members as long as they are in order.
Mr. Spearing : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : I hope that this is an entirely new issue.
Mr. Spearing : My point of order concerns a new procedural issue, Mr. Morris. Of course we accept that you have no responsibility for anything said by any hon.
Column 677
Member in this place as long as it is in order. I also accept that you have no responsibility for any statement by any Minister who, as you have stated, is indivisible from the Government.We have had a certain undertaking, to which I shall not refer, relating to advice from Ministers who are present to answer in this debate. In the opinion of certain hon. Members, that advice has not been shown to be effective.
In those circumstances, in view of the disagreement on a matter of interpretation of the treaty between the Minister and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), and as no reply has been given about that undertaking, about which we all know, may I have your permission to move that we report progress so that we can discuss the matter until such information is available?
The Chairman : No, I am not prepared to accept that.
Several hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : I ask Sir Trevor Skeet to proceed.
Sir Trevor Skeet : I find that the next six groups of amendments all contain legal technicalities, because they cover subjects such as institutions, subsidiarity, the Court of Justice, the European system of central banks, the banking system, economic policy and deficits, and economic and monetary union.
All those amendments, including the group headed "Foreign and Security" relating to article J, require the attention of the Attorney-General. It would be a happy compromise, as all hon. Members in the Chamber would agree, if the Attorney-General were to sit through all those debates, as they are of a technical nature. I should make a little progress, because I hope that the Whips will take note of my suggestion. It is important that we should receive the correct advice. I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Minister of State : he is not a lawyer, and he is doing the best he can in respect of the difficulties involved. However, we are entitled to the best advice before we surrender the powers of the nation.
4.15 pm
Mr. Corbyn : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Trevor Skeet : I think that I should make a little progress first.
Sir Trevor Skeet : I have been giving way continually, and I have been very patient. Perhaps I will give way in a few minutes. Just a moment ago, I referred to the substantial powers of a non-elected assembly. I stated that it had an exclusive right to initiate legislation. It can frustrate the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Although both those institutions have rights of way or entry, as it were, the Commission has substantial enforcement powers in respect of imposing fines under the treaty. To be able to impose fines is very important. I have selected a number of cases in respect of which fines can be imposed.
Sir Trevor Skeet : In a moment.
Those cases involve article 171 for non-compliance with the treaty and article 104c on instructions of the Council of Ministers in stage 3 on monetary policy. Fines may be imposed for breaches of competition business, and search
Column 678
warrants may be issued to enter private premises. There would be a free right to approve agreements that have been negotiated. Under article 169, breaches by member states may be referred to the European Court of Justice. Those enormous powers are being granted to the Commission either through the Council of Ministers or through the Commission's inherent right. Under Maastricht, those powers have not been diminished--they have been increased.The Commission is the executive body that implements Community policies, in particular, in respect of European integration. Let no one suggest that it cannot implement that. Under the obligations of the treaty, it is there to do so. The Commission is the body responsible for negotiating treaties with states outside Europe--for example, under GATT and in respect of articles 113 and 228. It is the agent for the union.
Is not that body, which has supreme powers, completely unelected? The United Kingdom public receive no knowledge from Ministers about the enormous powers that the public are ceding. Once those powers have gone, they are like rockets in the sky--they burst and are gone.
Mr. Skinner : Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is a little ironic that, after those two or three days in Harrogate, when people like the hon. Gentleman were told that they were to be pulled into line and that the Government were going to go to town and explain Maastricht, the hon. Gentleman is putting forward his arguments about the institutions when there is only a tin-pot little Minister present today, who gets it wrong every time he opens his mouth?
I fully expected to see rows of Ministers present today, including the President of the Board of Trade and all the rest, to argue their corner and to challenge the hon. Gentleman. What has happened? After Harrogate, it is all the same again. The rebels are in charge, and Ministers have left the sinking ship.
| Next Section
| Home Page |