House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Mar 1993

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : If the treaty came into force, would we not get the worst of both worlds? We would lose a great deal of our power from the House. That power has been diminished in the past 20 years in favour of the Community, but we would lose even more of it. Moreover, the European Parliament would not be able to take over those powers, for reasons that my hon. Friend is explaining, and in any case I would not be in favour of its so doing. I might disagree with my hon. Friend about that.

Perhaps this explains why Mr. Alan Clark wrote his article in The Daily Telegraph outlining his experience of

Column 689

what happens in Europe, where permanent officials have tremendous power and Ministers are happy to delegate that power to them.

Mr. Barnes : I agree. Losing powers from the House does not mean that we pass them to an alternative Parliament. Instead, we hand them to the institutions of the Community, giving the Commission greater influence and leaving decisions to the Council of Ministers, where horse trading and outvoting by qualified majority voting are allowed, with no democratic checks and with the electorate having no say. Under the Single European Act, and until the conference at Edinburgh, the Council still met entirely in secret, and there was no record of how its members had voted. Governments may have made statements about that on occasion--we had some feedback about our Government--but there was no full record. Since Edinburgh, that has started to change. We have to dig around to find out what is going on, though. I have had to table questions to discover what the votes were at the recent Agriculture Council meeting.

I trust that the Government will see to it that such votes are recorded for our information in future so that we can check up on what they are doing and on whether it ties in with the decisions of the House--and of the two Committees that investigate some of these proposals.

There are still some inadequate features of Council meetings. The qualified majority voting provisions have been extended and will be further extended under the Maastricht treaty, by means of the co-decision procedure which amends the consultation and co-operative procedure that has applied hitherto. Formerly, when an item was dropped, it might be lost altogether. Now it can be resurrected under the co-decision procedure. The Council and the Parliament will be equally represented on the Committee dealing with co -decison making. If they can agree, a joint text goes to the Council of Ministers and to the Parliament. Parliament can then decide by simple majority and the Council by qualified majority.

That seems to represent some sort of democracy for the European Parliament, but it actually provides more opportunities for decisions to be taken by the Council of Ministers by qualified majority voting. That is fundamentally undemocratic. Before, when a number of nations came together, the unanimity provision gave a say to each country that was party to an agreement. Qualified majority voting, however, prevents that. So we have been kidded that we are making a democratic advance in this area.

Mr. Marlow : On another institutional aspect, we have referred before to article K.3.2, under which the Council may, on the initiative of the Commission in the area of home affairs and justice,

"adopt joint positions and promote, using the appropriate form and procedures, any co-operation contributing to the pursuit of the objectives of the Union".

The Minister has said that this is all subject to a double lock, under the unanimity procedure and the procedures of the House, but the article is not subject to that double lock and the Commission, with its agenda day by day and year after year, can pursue policies without the House having any further control over them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address that matter, because it gives the Commission massive new powers that this Parliament will not be able to gainsay.

Column 690

Mr. Barnes : I am not impressed by the double lock argument because even if decisions are unanimous a treaty provision will allow the area to be decided by the Community to be extended, even if all that happens is that some nations get together and agree. Treaties should spell out the precise areas of operation and such treaties should be ratified throughout Europe in a series of referendums.

These are seeming sets of democratic changes to facilitate undemocratic practices of qualified majority voting. Maastricht considerably extends qualified majority voting through economic and monetary union, common citizenship, education and public health. Areas that are already covered are extended. The Labour Front-Bench spokesman said that 61 items were to be added to qualified majority voting. Even the social policy provisions fall within those areas and are not entirely unproblematic for democratic socialism.

There will not be a host of social provisions flowing from the social chapter. It will merely provide some hooks on which the Commission and the Council of Ministers can hang certain provisions. Many of those provisions may be progressive, but some could be regressive. Social policy should proceed hand in glove with the development of democratic decision making and should be determined democratically.

There will be a bean feast for Brussels bureaucrats. I am not against bureaucracy in all cases. One cannot have democracy in the advanced systems of the modern world without a host of associated bureaucracies. Bureaucracy should be under solid democratic control and checks, and should not itself run the show. Under the current arrangements, that will occur because of agreements between top politicians in the Government and the Commission.

Mr. Winnick : My hon. Friend has one or two fatal, subversive ideas, but I am glad to know that he is an ally on this measure. He spoke about democratic control. Even if the treaty did not have the glaring omissions and defects that he recognises, what kind of democratic controls or accountability could there be as an effective substitute for Parliament? This Committee is an exercise in democratic accountability, because, however keen the Government are to get the Bill through, they cannot do so until the Committee has examined it line by line. No European Parliament could ever achieve such democratic control, and it would be ridiculous to suggest the contrary.

Mr. Barnes : The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke about problems in the Conservative party and Conservative arrangements in Europe and their links. We should consider the position of democratic socialists. The development of democratic revolutions has always been to the fore in the Labour party. In this country, that revolution was associated with universal franchise. That was not achieved until 1928, when afterwards a minority Labour Government came to power for the first time.

We in the Opposition should direct our minds to democracy in Europe and how it can be established. That is why we should reject the Maastricht treaty and adopt an agenda for a fully fledged democratic, social and federal Europe in which all powers are accorded to the Parliaments, whether European or national. There should be a clear division of authority for those Parliaments. Subsidiarity in no way overcomes the problem ; nor is it a substitute for the arrangements that I have outlined. It is

Column 691

a vague and waffly notion and we can get our teeth into it at some later stage. We should seriously involve ourselves in the democratic concept of Europe.

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : The hon. Gentleman describes subsidiarity as a vague and waffly notion. He will recall that it was basically and originally a theological notion.

5.15 pm

Mr. Barnes : It is a philosophical, social and political theory. It is not a legal concept of constitutional significance that can have anything to do with establishing systems with clear divisions of authority. People should not be fooled by it. We shall come to that on the next amendment.

There is some emptiness about the way in which we deal with European measures. I am involved in many such matters because I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation and of Standing Committee A which considers European legislation. That does not fool me into believing that my work on those Committees is of any great import. I am discovering the difficulties of Parliament's having some say and control of such legislation. We spend a great deal of time and effort investigating such matters, but there is no possibility of our making any serious decisions.

Mrs. Dunwoody : I am also a member of European Standing Committee A. We are discussing institutions. Does my hon. Friend accept that the machinery of those Committees is there to be exploited, and that hon. Members do not use those powers? No other part of Parliament has the right to question a Minister for an hour in detail. Hon. Members who do not use such facilities are missing a great opportunity.

Mr. Barnes : My hon. Friend is greatly involved in the activities of Standing Committee A. She fully uses the facilities and makes many fruitful contributions. Hon. Members should be encouraged to do that and can involve themselves in the work of Standing Committee A and Standing Committee B without being members of them. The hour's question time before the one and a half hours of debate on European measures is most fruitful. That procedure would be beneficial in other parts of Parliament.

The Committees and their procedures can unearth details of measures and can embarrass the Government and thereby influence consultative procedures, but they are of minor legislative significance. Even if an amendment is accepted in Committee, it is stood on its head on Report or it is taken over by the Government and put down in their name. We do not know what happens when the amended measure reaches the Council of Ministers because there is no complete report of what happens there or details of the Council's vote. If that changed, the Committee's institutional significance would become more important. Meanwhile, I accept that they are valuable and worth while, and I encourge right hon. and hon. Members to become involved in them. It is a shame that there are only two European Standing Committees. We tried to establish three, but not enough right hon. and hon. Members could be found to fill them. The Committees are worth while, but let us be under no illusion that they can achieve the unachievable. There must

Column 692

be changes in the Community itself before the scrutiny undertaken by the House can have any democratic significance.

Mr. Spearing : My hon. Friend makes his point very well. However perfect our procedures can be made, and regardless of the number of right hon. and hon. Members who attend European Standing Committees--I know that my hon. Friends the Member, for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) do so assiduously--those Committees are purely advisory, and until the Community's institutions become transparent, there will be no proper accountability. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the treaty makes no provision, those who say that the institutions are democratic should not agree to the treaty because the institutions are not transparent or fully accountable in the way that my hon. Friend described?

Mr. Barnes : They are neither transparent nor accountable. There should either be extensions or the type of democratic provision that I described, whereby there would clearly be a federal division between different areas of responsibility. The House could then investigate at a federal level, though it would still have no great say because that would be done under the provisions of an over-arching constitution. This institution could complain that its rights were being invaded. A federal institution could make proper provision, discuss matters and ensure that the legal provisions existing in Europe were observed.

My position is not commonly held in the Committee. Those who are against Maastricht are not usually great friends of the European Community or in favour if its extension and development. Those who are friends of Maastricht are usually happy with its likely achievements. However, I believe that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have a democratic vision of the future after Maastricht, in which some of the improvements which I suggested might be achieved. I do not believe that that will happen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) suggested that there was among many Members of the European Parliament a belief in the dream of federalism, and that it is on the cards. If I also believed that, I would be in the Maastricht camp, but I do not. I doubt whether the Council of Ministers and the Commission will readily surrender the powers that Maastricht will confer on them. A Labour party briefing--I will not spill all the beans, but I will dissociate myself from some of the points that it makes--states : "The EC is not a unitary state and we do not agree that further progress towards European unity will, or should, lead to a European superstate."

I wholly believe that Maastricht's provisions will take us much closer to a unitary state and to becoming a European super-state that lacks democratic input--or which provides, at best, for democratic consultation--and democratic decision making. We must add those other elements to produce something acceptable. If that cannot be done, the treaty must be stopped until the safeguards that I described are on the agenda.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Before I turn to lead amendment No. 18, moved by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), it is worth noting that a considerable number of amendments in the group relate to titles III and

Column 693

IV of the treaty. They cover the provisions establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. Changes made by the treaty are purely technical, to bring those provisions into line with the treaty of Rome. It would be nonsense to have different rules for appointing the Commission depending on which Community treaty was being used. That would be a recipe for chaos.

I hope that the Committee will think it right that I do not deal with the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom provisions separately. I shall limit my remarks to those amendments which relate specifically to the treaty of Rome, which will hold true also for Euratom and the ECSC.

I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the right hon. Member for Copeland for indicating that amendment No. 18 is a probing amendment. It has allowed right hon. and hon. Members to have a wide-ranging debate on Community institutions. Amendment No. 18 seeks to delete article 138d of the treaty, which grants citizens of the union the right to petition the European Parliament. I hasten to say that I feel certain that the Opposition have no wish to remove that privilege from European citizens.

I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members agree that individual citizens should have a channel to air grievances relating to the Community. Article 138d formalises and confirms a right which has existed in practice and in the rules and procedures of the European Parliament for many years. It provides useful clarification by specifying that grievances must be concerned with matters which come within the Community's fields of activity and which affect the petitioner directly. It is entirely up to the European Parliament to decide how to respond to complaints. It may refer them to the ombudsman provided for under article 138e.

It is important to remember that those provisions help to make the Community more real and accessible to the people, which I am sure will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee.

Mr. Marlow : My right hon. Friend knows that I have the greatest personal respect for him, and the greatest sympathy for the difficulties in which he finds himself at the moment. Many technical, legal questions were asked during the debate, and others might be put to my right hon. Friend during the course of his speech. Is it the intention that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be present for part of this debate?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's sympathy and concern, which has been a great encouragement to me throughout the Committee stage. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made it clear that, where specific matters require the Committee to receive legal advice on amendments and their legal status, he will make himself available.

My hon. Friend reminds me that I had some exchanges with one of my hon. Friends, and I shall refer to them. The Committee will decide, but I think that they were commonplace exchanges about opinions-- [Hon. Members :-- "No."] That matter is for the Committee to decide when I reach the relevant point in my speech.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli) : Will the Minister give way?

Column 694

Mr. Garel-Jones : I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman later, but I should like to make a little more progress. The right hon. Gentleman was not present at that point in the debate. I do not say that in any critical sense ; I know that he is a frequent attender. The role of the European Parliament is strengthened by the provisions of the Maastricht treaty, in both the legislative and non-legislative spheres. Apart from the establishment of the right to petition the Parliament, and the establishment of an ombudsman, the Parliament will be enabled to set up temporary committees of inquiry under article 138c to investigate alleged contraventions of maladministration in the implementation of Community law. The Parliament will also have a similar role in scrutinising the actions of the Commission, particularly through enhanced provisions for financial accountability. Those proposals were both promoted and strongly supported by the United Kingdom during the Maastricht negotiations.

5.30 pm

There is also an increase--albeit limited--in the legislative role of the European Parliament. The Parliament has always been consulted on EC legislation. The Single European Act increased its involvement by creating a "two reading" procedure for single-market and other business. That procedure, which is known as the co-operation procedure, is now in article 189c. The Maastricht treaty makes two important changes. First, it extends the co-operation procedure in article 189c into some policy areas, such as transport and training ; in those areas, the voting procedure moves up from simple majority to qualified majority. Secondly, in article 189b, the treaty introduces a negative assent procedure--into certain areas, such as the single market.

That is a "three reading" procedure. After the Council has made its final decision on the substance, the European Parliament may block the legislation, but it may not amend it. It cannot overrule the Council on substance. The choice is between legislation on terms decided by the Council, and no legislation at all. When the institutions disagree, there is a conciliation procedure ; but the last word on substance remains with the Council, and I think that the Committee will agree that that is right.

Mr. Cash rose --

Mr. Garel-Jones : I have already promised to give way to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). If he does not wish to intervene now, I shall continue.

Two other amendments tabled by the official Opposition--Nos. 33 and 34--are of particular interest. Both deal with the Commission.

Mr. Marlow : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : May I make a little more progress? I will give way when I have finished this part of my speech.

Amendment No. 33 seeks to delete from the Bill article 158 of the Maastricht treaty, which relates to the appointment of the Commission. The article provides for an increase, from 1995, in the term of office of the Commission's president from two to five years, and in that of ordinary members of the Commission from four to five years, thus making their appointment conterminous with the European Parliament. Article 157 makes it clear that the Commission must remain independent, and we shall work to ensure that that remains the case.

Column 695

Article 158 also subjects the Commission as a body--including the President--to a vote of approval by the European Parliament. That is a welcome step forward. The Commission will now be subject to greater democratic scrutiny, but member states will retain the right to nominate their own Commissioners, and to appoint both president and Commission. The third element introduced in article 158 is the establishment of an interim Commission, whose term of office shall expire on 6 January 1995. As the Maastricht treaty has not yet entered into force, the present Commission has been appointed for four years under the existing article 158, but on the understanding that its term of office will end in January 1995.

Before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), let me answer a specific point put to me by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about the European Parliament. He asked about decisions on the additional six seats that Britain will have as a result of the Maastricht decisions. The distribution of seats is now under active consideration by all Departments, and I expect the Government to reach a view at a very early date. Of course, we shall then consult the Opposition parties. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need to redraw boundaries. As he will know, the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 contains no provision that permits use of the Boundaries Commission in these circumstances ; the Government are therefore considering how best to proceed, and hope to reach a decision soon. We are aware of the tight deadline to which the hon. Gentleman referred--before the 1994 elections--and the heavy work load on the existing Boundaries Commission.

Mr. Marlow : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Among the most important characteristics of a nation state--even one which is co- operating with other nation states--are defence, foreign policy, immigration and judicial affairs. Why has it been found necessary to involve the European Parliament in those affairs? Doing so suggests that we are moving towards a European nation state, rather than a group of independent nation states.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I strongly agree--as do the Government--with my hon. Friend's identification of what could be regarded as the most significant attributes of nation statehood : foreign policy, interior, justice and defence. One of the unique breakthroughs of the Maastricht treaty is its provision of a framework for co-operation between member states, albeit within the wider framework of a union treaty.

We have debated these matters earlier in the Committee stage. I have never claimed--nor, I think, have the Government--that we can be positively certain that we can entrench the intergovernmental structure which, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's negotiating skill, is a unique feature of the Maastricht treaty. We believe, however, that it marks the point at which

intergovernmentalism--co-operation between nation states--becomes respectable : indeed, we would argue that there is nothing more respectable, in co-operation between 12 member states within the framework of the traditional treaty of Rome, than intergovernmental co-operation.

Column 696

Mr. Spearing : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : Perhaps I may finish the point. Then I will give way to the hon. Member for Hamilton.

As I have said, we have never claimed that we can be certain of entrenching that intergovernmental structure for ever. The point about the Community is that there is a perfectly proper, continuing debate between nation states about the way in which we want it to develop. We believe--with the support of not only Conservative Members but, I think, all hon. Members--that we now have a chance to influence and shape that debate. In my view, the Maastricht treaty will give us the opportunity to entrench the aspects of co-operation between nation states to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and I--and, I believe, all hon. Members--attach importance.

Mr. George Robertson : I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the specific questions that I asked him last Thursday about the six extra seats in the European Parliament that were agreed at the Edinburgh summit.

When the Minister submitted his highly publicised but lengthy notice of resignation, he said that his resignation would allow him greater flexibility to speak his mind during the Maastricht ratification procedures. However, his answers to the questions that I have put to him on a specific and important issue read like a classic "Yes Minister" script. The matter is "under active consideration" ; a decision will come "at an early date" ; "we expect to hear soon" ; "we appreciate the early deadline, but I am not going to tell you anything".

Does the Minister realise that the European elections are some 56 weeks away? This time next year, candidates will be standing for constituencies in this country. It really is not good enough to tell the House of Commons at this stage that the Government have all these matters "under active consideration", but cannot tell the House anything now. Is this yet another sign of the Government's present state of dazed confusion over the whole European issue? The Minister has nothing to announce, because the Government are paralysed by the splits in the Conservative party.

The country will come to exactly the same conclusion. Given that the Government have gone such a short way down the road to agreement on the boundaries, candidates will be chosen and then have to be chosen again.

Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Gentleman is a perfectly charming Member of the House and of the Committee, and I do not object to being teased about my postdated cheque, but as he has never been a Minister, and is not likely to become one, it may surprise him to learn that from time to time Ministers have to read out bits of paper given to them by other Departments. The essential point that he made was a fair one, and it is well taken. The matter is extremely urgent, and I assure him that, despite the rather turgid prose that I have read on its behalf, the Home Office attaches importance to it and is well aware of its urgency.

Amendment No. 34--

Mr. Spearing : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall in a moment. I like to make progress, if I can, in little chunks.

Mr. Marlow : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Column 697

Mr. Garel-Jones : I have given way twice to my hon. Friend. I shall give way next to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).

Amendment No. 34, which stands in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), would require the Government to obtain the approval of the House for its nominees as British Commissioners. There is already some consultation between the Government and the Opposition on the appointment of the United Kingdom's Commmissioners. The Government intend to continue this practice, but it should remain a matter of practice. It would be inappropriate to enshrine it in legislation.

Amendment No. 426, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), is important. It is, essentially, the proportional representation amendment and it would require the Government to implement a uniform electoral procedure for the 1994 European parliamentary elections. It is clearly a reference to proportional representation, and the Committee understands the motives of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in tabling it.

It is impossible for the Government to give a commitment to implement proposals which depend on agreement, first, in the European Parliament and, next, by unanimity in the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament has been trying to agree a uniform electoral procedure for, I think, 20 years. It is considering new proposals which would require at least 50 per cent. of seats in member states to be elected by proportional representation. It is necessary, first, for the Parliament to agree those procedures ; they then have to be agreed unanimously by the Council of Ministers.

Sir Russell Johnston : The Minister is correct. Nevertheless, it is a fair guess that the DeGucht proposals, as they are popularly known after the rapporteur, will reach the Council of Ministers later this month. That being so, and unanimity being required, is the Minister saying that the Government will seek to veto the proposals?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I would rather wait and see whether Parliament approves them. It has failed to do so in the past 20 years. If it approves them, we shall see what becomes of them.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : The Minister may unconsciously be misleading the Commmittee, but the European Parliament agreed a proposal for a uniform system in 1983, which was ignored by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Garel-Jones : If that is so, I stand corrected. It certainly was not my intention to mislead the Committee. I am not aware of that proposal being put to the Council of Ministers. My understanding is that, if it had been agreed under the normal procedures, it would have gone automatically to the Council of Ministers.

5.45 pm

New clause 21, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is also important. It would require the Government to provide a written account of their position and intentions if the European Parliament, acting under the negative assent procedure, stated that it intended to reject a common position agreed by the Council of Ministers.

Column 698

I believe that that is the import of the right hon. Gentleman's new clause. We had a debate similar to this on another new clause tabled by the right hon. Gentleman.

I understand that hon. Members will wish to be informed of the progress of proposals under the new negative assent procedure, especially if the European Parliament states that it intends to reject the common position agreed in council. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the House will be kept fully informed, as it is now, of the progress of all legislative proposals under existing scrutiny procedures. Under those procedures, the Government have agreed to keep Parliament informed of developments which occur after an initial explanatory memorandum has been supplied detailing the Commission's proposals and the Government's view. Hence, we would expect to submit a further explanatory memorandum if the European Parliament rejected a common position.

The scrutiny procedures of the House--I shall comment further on this later, as the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) raised it only recently--work well and are capable of dealing with the extension and modifications of the co- operation procedure that the negative assent procedure entails.

I say to the Committee, especially to Conservative Members, that we should be extremely cautious before passing an amendment which would tie down the way in which hon. Members scrutinise legislation. The Committee will recall that the scrutiny arrangements for European Community legislation were revised in 1990 following the fourth report of the Select Committee on Procedure in the 1988-89 Session. Two recommendations of particular significance were made, to which the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Derbyshire, North-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred. Hon. Members, regardless of their view and attitude to the Community, have made a significant contribution to the work of the House on those Standing Committees. The Procedure Committee reported in December 1991 on its review of the first Session of operation of the two Standing Committees, which led to some minor changes.

I ask members of the Committee to put to one side their differences about Britain's place in the Community and how it may develop. This is, essentially, a House of Commons matter, and if we lay down procedures on how the House is to scrutinise Community legislation-- Mrs. Dunwoody rose - -

Mr. Garel-Jones : May I finish the point? I shall then give way to the hon. Lady, who has made interesting interventions on this point and who plays an important role in one of the Standing Committees. The procedures are bound to some extent to be inflexible. It would require further legislation to change them if they proved less than ideal. That would require parliamentary time, which could be devoted to more useful purposes, and furthermore--this is a point that the Committee will want to bear in mind, and I mean this with no disrespect to the other place--it would mean that the other place would have a legislative say in the procedures of this House.

Column 699

The two new Standing Committees may have defects, and we may want to improve them as we go along, but if we tie the way in which we scrutinise EC legislation we shall be going down a very dangerous road. I am sure that the irony of the situation would not be lost on a number of my colleagues if we reached the point where our procedures were effectively regulated by a piece of European legislation.

Mrs. Dunwoody : The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that much of the legislation which comes before the House has the force of law and that we seek adequate ways not only of debating it before the decisions are taken but of getting a report. If the right hon. Gentleman seriously cares about the House of Commons, he will want it to be possible for us to get a report on what is happening. If he does not care but wishes to transfer all our rights, he will clearly not accept the amendment.

Mr. Garel-Jones : With respect, we are discussing what I would call a House of Commons matter. I am attempting to separate it from the disagreements that we may have about our approach to the Community. I agree that it is important that the House should have the opportunities that it thinks appropriate to examine matters in Committee. The hon. Lady was kind enough to say that she thought that the new procedures introduced in the Standing Committees, which enable right hon. and hon. Members to question Ministers on an inquisitorial basis for an hour before dissolving themselves into a Committee, were an interesting innovation. Certainly it is an innovation of which she has made particular and distinguished use. What I am trying to say is that it would be a rather rigid way in which to proceed if we were to put such matters, about which the House knows a great deal, into a Bill which much pass through another place and then become an Act of Parliament. As I said, the irony would not be lost on a number of my hon. Friends who are anxious--as I am, and as we all are--to preserve the House's position if we were to allow a piece of EC legislation to become the vehicle through which the procedures of the House were decided. If the Committee divides on any of the new clauses, I hope that hon. Members who are worried about the House's position--especially my hon. Friends among them--will at least for these issues place on one side our debates on the treaty as a whole and regard this as a House matter.

Two other issues have been raised in the debate so far. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) suggested that all the activities listed in article 3a to 3t are now for decision by qualified majority voting, not unanimity. That is not quite correct. Unanimity is retained for key decisions on the environment under article 3k, for all decisions on industry under article 3l, for key decisions on research and development under article 3m, for all decisions on culture under article 3p, and for all decisions on energy, civil protection and tourism.

In a previous debate, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) mentioned legislation on zoos. He should know that the Commission agreed at Edinburgh to consider withdrawing its proposals on the conditions in which animals are kept in zoos on the grounds of subsidiarity. Of course, that is to be the subject

Column 700

of the next debate when the Committee moves on, but I observe in passing that it must be significant that proposals are already being considered for withdrawal under subsidiarity before it has even come to have the force of law, as I hope and trust that it will when the treaty is ratified.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) was kind enough to give way to me several times. He was, of course, right to say that as a general proposition there are, under the treaty of Rome, areas in which the Commission's power has been extended. I do not dispute that, but I was attempting to explain that the wording of the arrangements in article J.9 of the new treaty, where the Commission is fully associated with the work of the Community, applies by extension to the new intergovernmental areas. The wording is broadly speaking that of article 30(3)(b) of the Single European Act. Article J.9 states :

"The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out".

I believe that the wording is, indeed, identical with that of the Single European Act. That is the point that I was trying to make. I do not dispute my hon. Friend's general proposition about other parts of the treaty.

Mr. Spearing : I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because he said a little while ago that he would give way on that point. Does he agree that the Commission will have greatly increased powers of initiative in what he claims is an intergovernmental area? Under article J.8, which covers foreign and security policy, the Commission can initiate matters to the Council. Under K.9 it can initiate matters relating to six home affairs topics, such as immigration, asylum and similar issues. So is the Minister not wrong to suggest to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) that there are no increased powers? As the Minister knows, powers of initiation are very important, so the idea of the intergovernmental being separate--as the Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who has just walked in, would claim--will surely not be correct in practice.

Mr. Garel-Jones : If I gave that impression, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, to the Committee and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North. I am trying to say that the powers under article J.8 or J.9--

Mr. Spearing : Article J.9.

Next Section

Home Page