House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Mar 1993

Column 293

Question accordingly negatived.

Sir Russell Johnston : I beg to move amendment No. 96, in page 1, line 9 leave out and IV' and insert IV and VII'.

The Second Deputy Chairman : With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following : New clause 14-- Amendment of protocols -- No notification shall be given that the United Kingdom assents to the amendment of any part of any Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union (whether or not it is also annexed to any other Treaty) unless a draft of the notification has first been approved by Act of Parliament.'.

New clause 30-- Revisions of the Treaty (No. 2)--

The Secretary of State shall, whenever proposals are made, or are to be made (whether by the Commission or the United Kingdom or another Member State of the Union), under Article B in Title I of the Maastricht Treaty for revision of the policies and forms of co-operation introduced by theTreaty--

(a) lay before Parliament a report setting out the nature of the proposals and their potential effect on the interests and obligations of the United Kingdom, and

(b) so far as is practicable, secure that the United Kingdom's conduct of the negotiations on the proposals is in accordance with Parliament's opinion of them, as manifested in the form of Resolution, enactment or otherwise.'.

1.15 am

Sir Russell Johnston : The Committee will--

Mr. Cryer : I think that the hon. Gentleman is the thickie who has fixed all this up. He does not have a brain cell between his ears--

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order.

Sir Russell Johnston : If you have any opportunity to eject the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Dame Janet, I think that you should take it.

Mr. Cryer : She cannot do that in Committee.

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. The hour may be late, but it is no excuse for bad manners.

Sir Russell Johnston : The Committee will recall that our first debate, 19 days past, was on a Liberal Democrat amendment to the effect that title I should be incl:uded in the Bill. The argument for including title VII is substantially the same ; it is to bind more closely together than the Government would wish the pillared, intergovernmental structure of Maastricht and the supranational institutions of the Community. In fact, it would move things in a federalist direction. The Minister of State accepted that in the debate on title I on 1 December. I remind him that on that occasion he said :

"There are two sides to the amendment. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber replied frankly when the hon. Member for Leicester, South said, rightly, that the purpose of the structure of the treaty--this is at the centre of the Government's negotiating position and I believe that the Opposition are not unsupportive of that position--is to separate out common foreign and security policy, and interior justice policy, and to make them separate

intergovernmental pillars and not part of the treaty of Rome The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber replied, perfectly frankly--this is the position of the Liberal Democrats and will come as no surprise to anyone--that he indeed wanted to bring those areas of intergovernmental activity into the treaty of Rome. He wants a single structure--what we here have come to call a federal state." He later remarked more briefly :

Column 294

"There are also a number of people in Europe who share the federal views held by the Liberal party. That is why, in the course of the negotiations leading up to the treaty, the Dutch Government sought to introduce a unitary text that would indeed have made all these matters areas where the Commission had the sole right of initiative, and would have made all the areas that we will discuss in Committee justiciable by the European Court of Justice."--[ Official Report, 1 December 1992 ; Vol. 215, c. 181-86.]

The trouble with the Minister is that, while he understands that the Liberal Democrats would have preferred Maastricht to produce a single structure rather than a pillared structure, as it is described, he does not understand what the word federal means. I say that in all friendliness. He has demonstrated that many times in Committee. I see that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is obtaining paper so that he can take notes. I remember that the Minister of State and I had a series of exchanges one night, although I cannot remember which one. I also remember that on 26 June 1991 I quoted the Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl--the quotation is not very long, but it is exceedingly clear--speaking on 27 May when he accepted a doctorate at Edinburgh university, saying :

"Thinking as a European and being firmly rooted in one's own native soil, I am convinced that in order to succeed, Europe will have to learn to live by the motto of Unity in Diversity' a very sound and pragmatic structural principle of the sort of federal system we have in mind for Europe. Europe will be a federal Europe--it will not be a unitary Europe."--[ Official Report, 26 June 1991 ; Vol. 193, c. 1032.]

It can hardly be clearer than that.

Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Gentleman will recall that when he quoted me I referred to what we have "come to call" federalism in Britain. Of course, I recognise that the word "federal" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. I think that in Britain the shorthand meaning of the word "federal" is a unitary structure. That is something that the intergovernmental pillars have arrested.

Sir Russell Johnston : That is what we call beating on a closed door. During such education as I succeeded in obtaining at Edinburgh university, the word "federal" certainly did not mean what the Minister has described it as meaning--nor does it have that meaning in any of the states described as federal states anywhere in the world.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : Is not the root of the word "federal" the same as that for the word "treaty"?

Sir Russell Johnston : The answer is, frankly, that I do not know. It may be true, but I am not sure of its relevance even if it is.

Mr. Winnick : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Russell Johnston : Is the hon. Gentleman going to enlighten me?

Mr. Winnick : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is happy to discuss the matter at this hour or whether it is any consolation to him to know that those of us who are critical of the treaty believe that it is the road to a federal set-up, and that what Chancellor Kohl said is true. Although the Government keep on denying that here, if the treaty is passed it will undoubtedly lead to the sort of federal Europe of which the hon. Gentleman is so passionately fond, which should please him.

Sir Russell Johnston : I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Column 295

The amendment, arguing as it does for the incorporation of title VII, gives me the opportunity to stress that federalism is about decentralisation and the entrenchment of subsidiarity, not about centralisation. Federalism is about limiting central power. Article N of title VII is particularly important as it specifically requires that an intergovernmental conference will be convened in 1996

"to examine those provisions of this Treaty for which revision is provided".

The various subjects are listed in the fourth annex, but I shall discuss the fact that the provision provides the Government with an opportunity both to involve national Parliaments directly in discussion and to look beyond the narrow requirements to the need to develop a more open constitution for the Community.

The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will remember the assize in Rome to which we both proceeded in December 1990. Despite all the criticisms to which it was subjected, particularly by some Euro-sceptics among the British delegation, I believe that it was a truly remarkable occasion, on which it was demonstrated that there was considerable common ground. The assize has not met again since, although I believe that it was agreed that it should meet before now. When the Minister has finished consulting the wise men in the Box, I hope that he will take the opportunity to tell us why that is so. My main point, however, is that many Members in this Chamber and in others in different parts of the Community understandably complain that national Parliaments are being side-tracked in the development of European policy and have no opportunity to make an input. It seems to me that the 1996 intergovernmental conference creates an opportunity for the United Kingdom to take an initiative whereby national Parliaments--along with Members of the European Parliament, the Commission, Governments and, indeed, observers from applicant countries--could participate directly in an open investigation of the best democratic structure of the future enlarged and enlarging Community. There is no doubt that, whatever side of the argument we take, the nature of democracy in the Community provides no satisfaction.

Mr. Corbyn : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has come round to admitting that the Maastricht treaty, as it is now constituted, will not lead to greater democracy in western Europe. Why, then, is the hon. Gentleman supporting the treaty, if the best he can offer is a conference in three years' time which may or may not decide on a system imposing greater accountability on the Commission and European institutions?

Sir Russell Johnston : With respect, it is not a question of admitting anything. My hon. Friends and I have said the same from the outset. Of course the Maastricht treaty is not perfect. Of course there is a considerable democratic deficit. We support the treaty because we think that it is the best, most balanced negotiated agreement that could have been achieved at the time, and that it would cause great instability in the whole Community--and the whole of Europe, for that matter--if it collapsed. That is not to say that we do not seek to improve things ; the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) surely accepts that we never cease to do that. I do not want to talk about defence again, as we talked about it all afternoon, but it is one of the items mentioned

Column 296

in annexe 4. The Western European Union is now developing a specific role in the Community, so perhaps this is the time to ask whether the existence of a parliamentary advisory assembly in the WEU presents a further opportunity for representatives of national Parliaments to make a direct input into Community decision making as the WEU extends its role, without necessarily affecting the balance of the institutions as such.

I seriously ask the Government to consider those possibilities. I do not think that we should close our minds to any way of providing a better opportunity for elected representatives to express their views within the Community or even on its margins. The institutionalisation of the parliamentary assembly of the WEU, for instance, could be compared with the provision for a Committee of the Regions : it is a parallel organisation, although it will not necessarily be at the heart of the institutions, the Commission, Parliament, Council and Court.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Will the hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear that the Committee of the Regions has no power to do anything, no budget of its own and has to share its secretariat? All that it can do is to pass motions which will no doubt be approved and are said to be very helpful by members of the Commission.

Sir Russell Johnston : The fact that the hon. Gentleman asks me to set the record straight suggests that I made it crooked in the first place, which I did not. Of course the Committee of the Regions is an advisory body ; the hon. Gentleman is quite correct. Indeed, the Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU, with which I compared it, is an advisory body of exactly the same kind.

I say this to the hon. Gentleman seriously, although it is difficult to be serious at this time of night. Surely a parliamentarian does not deprecate the opportunity to express a view to the Government of the day, to set out what one wants to happen and perhaps--or perhaps not, of course--to influence people. That is what politics and democracy are about.

Mr. Spearing : Inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman may have illustrated a fundamental difference of opinion between various hon. Members. He asks for the opportunity to express a view, to have a say, to influence, to cajole, to request. That role has a place in a democracy. Does he not agree, however, that in this Parliament at least parliamentarians believe that a proper Parliament has the power, in the end, either to support or to defeat an Administration and to decide its own taxation, legislation and government? The hon. Gentleman suggests that the various assemblies and groups that he has mentioned, including the assize, should be a sort of public echo chamber and not what we understand to be a Parliament in a democratic country--one which decides the Administration and can destroy it at will, if it so wishes.

1.30 am

Sir Russell Johnston : I have heard that story before. I do not deny what the hon. Gentleman has said many times. [Interruption.] I am not making a direct comparison-- [Interruption.] --between existing- -

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. If the two hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches wish to have a private conversation, perhaps they would go outside and have it.

Column 297

Sir Russell Johnston : I am grateful to you, Dame Janet. I was saying that I am not making a direct comparison between existing national Parliaments and the Community institutions, which are in a state of evolution. A national Parliament is, in a way, a finished product. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not making that comparison.

I should appreciate it if the Minister would explain whether the changes made under article O, which is concerned with applicant countries, provide a new opportunity for applicant members to become involved in aspects of the union without taking on the full responsibilities of the union and becoming full members. We are talking about this pillared structure. If one goes to eastern Europe at the moment--for instance, to Poland--they say again and again that what they are most concerned about is the achievement of greater security. Is there any possibility under the new arrangements whereby Poland might, for example, be able to join WEU or be associated with the common foreign and security policy without necessarily becoming a full member ?

The hour is late. I do not intend to detain the Committee further, nor do I propose to press the matter to a Division. Despite what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, I am satisfied that these issues are discussed in a progressive way. My view is different from that which is held by many, but I believe that it is right.

We are not yet at the end of this long process. Hon. Members may, however, be encouraged by the words at the end of title VII, which is headed "Final Provisions." The final words read :

"Done at Maastricht on the seventh day of February in the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two. [Here follow the signatures]." The end is nigh.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) for indicating to the Committee that in a sense this is a probing amendment that he does not intend to press to a Division. The amendment seeks to include the provisions of title VII of the treaty-- that is, the final provisions--within clause 1(1) of the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman told the Committee, it is similar to other amendments that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats which seek to incorporate into our law more of the treaty than the Bill itself does.

The cumulative effect of the amendments that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats would be--some of them, the Committee will recall, have already been negatived--to list more or less the whole of the Maastricht treaty as a Community treaty for the purposes of section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972.

Members of the Committee will now be familiar with the reasons why the Bill incorporates only titles II, III and IV of the Maastricht treaty, and the other provisions only

"so far as they relate to those Titles".

It is a course that the Committee has been round before. Nevertheless, perhaps I ought to explain briefly the structure as it relates to title VII, which is the subject of this amendment. It is, as the Committee will be aware, necessary, before the Government may ratify this treaty, to incorporate into our domestic law those provisions of the Community treaties under which Community rights and obligations effective in this country arise. This is done by listing them

Column 298

in clause 1(1), with the result that they fall within the definition of the Community treaties for the purposes of the European Communities Act 1972 and may be implemented through that Act. The intergovernmental provisions of the treaty--that is, titles V and VI-- are therefore not included within clause 1(1). These parts of the Maastricht treaty do not provide a basis for the adoption of Community legislation. They neither give rise to rights or obligations under Community law, nor amend the Community treaties. The provisions of title I, the common provisions, and title VII, the final provisions, fall into what I might define as a grey area. While they do not themselves directly form a basis for the adoption of Community legislation, they nevertheless in some cases relate to other provisions of Community treaties which can give rise to Community rights and obligations. In some cases, they directly amend the Community treaties. Hence it is necessary to give these provisions effect in our domestic legislation as well. This is achieved in the phrase contained in clause 1(1) of the Bill, which says :

"together with other provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to those Titles"--

that is, titles II, III and IV.

All the provisions in title VII, the subject of the amendment of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, relate to a greater or lesser extent to the provisions of the Community treaties in this way and are therefore already included in clause 1(1). Article L, for example, deals with the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, which is clearly relevant to the operation of the Community treaties. Article L is therefore included so far as it relates to titles II to IV. Part of article L, however--hon. Members pointed this out when we debated this subject-- paragraph (b), relates to title V. So that would be included under this formula. Article M--

Sir Richard Body : Before my right hon. Friend leaves article L--

Mr. Garel-Jones : If I can just finish this, of course, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Article M describes how the union treaty affects the Community treaties. It is also included in the scope of the Bill. So are articles N on treaty amendment and O on accession, and I will just respond to the specific point that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber made.

Article O makes it explicit that new members may join only the union, not just the Community, thereby committing themselves to accepting the whole of the CFSP and interior justice chapters. The question that the hon. Member posed approached it from the other end, as it were : would it be possible in the future, perhaps, for potential member states--I dare say he was thinking of countries in eastern Europe--to accede to, say, just the intergovernmental pillar? That is an interesting subject for discussion that might arise at some point in the future.

I do not think that I can say any more than that, but it is an interesting thought and one that those of us in this country, at any rate, who are anxious to encourage and consolidate the democratic processes in those eastern European countries might look on with sympathy. The provisions that I have just listed relate to the treaty of

Column 299

Rome and the other Community treaties which may be amended under article O, or to which new members may accede under article R.

Mr. Corbyn : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) in a moment and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

As titles V and VI can also be amended and would also be acceded to, it was appropriate to include them, using the "so far as they relate" formula rather than in an unqualified way. Similar considerations apply to articles P, Q, R and S, which all apply to titles II to IV and titles V and VI.

Sir Richard Body : Let me take my hon. Friend back to article L. Is it not the case that article L extends the powers of the European Court of Justice and that, if the Council of Ministers agrees upon any conventions, it will be within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to interpret the meaning of that convention? Could that not have far-reaching consequences for Britain and for the House?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I do not think so. My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I shall try to respond to it.

Article L specifically excludes from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice all areas of the treaty except, first, those covered by the treaty of Rome, the ECSC and the Euratom treaty as amended here, and secondly, by article K.3(2)(c) on interior justice, which allows member states to give the European Court of Justice an interpretation role in international conventions if they choose to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) raised the same point in an earlier debate. Of course, I accept that, if member states chose to do so, they could seek the opinion of the European Court of Justice on international conventions.

Mr. Corbyn : I am glad that the Minister referred to articles N and O of title VII. Article O, on potential new members, states : "The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded which such admission entails shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant States."

It does not spell out, and the Minister has not mentioned exactly, what criteria are to be used for the admission of new member states to the Community. Is there to be a judgment on their economy, the methods of ownership, social ownership or otherwise of their economies, their constitutional arrangements or the checks and balances in their constitution? The Minister should spell those things out.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Most hon. Members will know that the broad and quick answer to the question is that any applicant state must be prepared to accept in full what is known as the acquis communautaire. It is also accepted that any applicant member state should be what the other member states, including ourselves, would regard as a properly functioning democracy. Thereafter, the details would be a matter of negotiation. We are about to embark on three or four negotiations, and there are individual areas where some members states may seek derogations.

Mr. Budgen : Will the Minister give way on that point?

Column 300

Mr. Garel-Jones : I want to make a little more progress, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

When the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber proposed a similar amendment earlier in the Committee stage, I said that I found its purpose difficult to discern. Those parts of the provisions of title VII which need to be incorporated into our domestic law will be so incorporated by the passage of the Bill. To include the whole title without qualification would, it seems to me--again this is a point that I made in an earlier debate--blur the distinction between the Community proper and the intergovernmental pillars of the union. 1.45 am.

It is only those Maastricht treaty provisions relating to the European Community treaties, to the adoption of Community law and to the creation of Community rights and obligations which require legislative backing.

I repeat what I said earlier, that it seems to me bizarre to wish to include in our law more than is strictly necessary. There is only one plausible reason that I can think of to change the face of our legislation.

I accept, without getting into the theological debate about what the word "federalism" may or may not mean, that the Liberal Democrats have always been quite open with the country that they favour a more unifying treaty-- let us call it that--and no doubt would have supported the text advanced by the Dutch Government in the course of the Maastricht negotiations. I think that the fact that the Liberal Members should be putting forward this more centralised structure fits perfectly well with the position that they have held for a very long time on the European Community.

I think that I am right in saying and no doubt, when the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) catches your eye, Dame Janet, if he is fortunate enough to do so, he will probably confirm, that the Opposition also believe in a more intergovernmental structure-- Mr. Budgen rose --

Mr. Garel-Jones : I will give way when I have finished this passage. The official Opposition believe in a more intergovernmental structure, rather than the single structure that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber is seeking to advance. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West.

Mr. Budgen : I am sorry to intervene at this point, but it is not my choice that I should do so. My hon. Friend was, a few moments ago, dealing with the question of accession. The Government have been very eloquent in talking about the reality of extending the Community, but is the position that eastern European countries will have to conform to the proposals for monetary union before they can join the Community? It is surely the grossest hypocrisy for the Community to say on the one hand, "You may join us," and on the other hand, "You may join us only if you agree to conform to monetary union." It is obvious that none of the applicant countries will be able to do that.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I do not want to engage in a debate on hypocrisy with my hon. Friend. Suffice it to say that the four members of the European Free Trade Area have judged that they wish to accede to the Community on the basis of the Maastricht acquisition. All the countries in eastern Europe wish eventually to join the European Community, and if and when they make an application,

Column 301

the conditions that apply to their application will be the same as the conditions that apply to present applicants--that they will have to be prepared to accept the full Community acquisition at the time of their application.

ot want to anticipate what the full Community acquis may be in acquis as are existing members. Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) : Ido not want to disturb this happy cordiality, which has got the hon. Lady the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in such a state of excitement. I cannot help but reflect that some people could die in here and we would not know until they started to smell.

The Minister said that the Opposition favoured a more intergovernmental form of treaty. He is right. We favour intergovernmentalism where it makes sense, but we are not in the business of making the sort of ludicrous gestures that the Government make when they negotiate valiantly, in effect, to remove the words "federal structure" or "federal vocation" and replace them with "ever closer union" and come to the House of Commons in the dead of night and try to pretend that they stand by, and have never departed from, the essential principle of intergovernmentalism.

Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee the Opposition's view of the amendment if or when he has an opportunity to speak. I stand by the position that the new structure of the union represents a holding back--I would not put it higher than that ; I do not think I have done so at any stage--of the centripetal forces that have driven the Community over the past 25 or 30 years. I think that the intergovernmental structure is supported by the Opposition. The only plausible reason I can think of to change the face of our legislation would be to give the impression that, in our law, we regard the distinction between the Community treaty structure and the intergovernmental pillars as meaningless. As I said, I think that some Opposition Members wish that we had a single structure, so I understand why the amendment has been moved. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber for saying that he would not be pressing it to a Division. As he knows, his view is not shared on any other Bench in the Committee.

Mr. Rowlands : The provisions in title VII, which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber(Sir R. Johnston) wishes to incorporate into our domestic legislation, include a number of matters ; the one on which the Minister concentrated, and with which I begin, is article N.2 :

"A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened in 1996 to examine those provisions of this Treaty for which revision is provided, in accordance with the objectives set out in Articles A and B."

I hope that, as we debate the amendment, the Minister will identify the provisions in the treaty for which revision is being provided in accordance with objectives A and B.

Mr. Spearing : I have glanced at that part of the treaty to which my hon. Friend refers and have marked it "open-ended?" because that seems the only interpretation

Column 302

to put on the words, for A and B set out great principles and the words seem to allow for the revision of any provision in the treaty.

Mr. Rowlands : It is open-ended in that sense, in that article N.2 makes a clear reference to the objectives in articles A and B. Let us remind ourselves of those objectives. They are to promote social progress, strengthen economic and social cohesion, establish economic and monetary union.

"including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty to assert its identity on the international scene which might in time lead to"

the implementation of a common foreign and security policy, and to the

"framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".

So, if we want to discover what will be the agenda for the 1996 conference, we must look first at the objectives in article B.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question specifically. Five areas are specified for review in 1996 : energy, civil protection and tourism, the legislative powers of the European Parliament, the CFSP and defence.

Next Section

Home Page