| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 313
certainly knows now that it was unworkable. Why has he suddenly come to the conclusion that he should not vote for something that is unworkable ?2.45 am
Mr. Walker : You will recollect, Mr. Morris, that a long time ago I obtained Mr. Speaker's ruling on whether or not there was such a thing as the poll tax. Mr. Speaker ruled quite clearly that there was not--that that was something quite different. What I voted for was never a poll tax. I would happily have voted for a poll tax so that individuals who did not pay did not have a vote. I have never in my life knowingly supported something that I believed to be unworkable. I believe that even the best things can be made unworkable by people injecting into them systems, procedures and checks which make them unworkable.
I made a living by sorting out companies which had problems. One of the things that life teaches us is that if we put into structures which are unworkable checks and balances which are contradictory and will not actually provide checks and balances, we should not be surprised if we end up with a shambles and chaos.
Mr. Cash : Has my hon. Friend considered the following proposition : if 12 member states agreed unanimously to ratify the treaty and then, within the context of the European Court of Justice as a whole and within the framework of a legal treaty, thereby ensured that the mechanism was put in place for, as one of the articles says, an unlimited period, and if six or even fewer of those member states were committed to it, primarily because they believed that they would get subsidies, cohesion funds and the rest out of it, if the treaty is proved to be unworkable, as we are told that it will be, how will those six member states be encouraged to unravel that unworkable treaty when it has been proved to be unworkable just as the exchange rate mechanism was proved to be unworkable? Unanimous agreement to unravel it will never be obtained. An unstable structure will be created, which is known to be unworkable, which we shall never be able to get out of, and which is bound to collapse--just as the ERM is collapsing, and economic and monetary union with it. That will have a catastrophic effect on the rest of an unstable Europe--Kosovo, Macedonia, eastern Europe, and so on. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Minister of State is creating that very disaster?
The Chairman : Order. That sounded to me like a Third Reading speech by the hon. Member for Stafford.
Mr. Walker rose --
The Chairman : Order. I know that it is late, but the hon. Gentleman should sit down until I have sat down. I hope that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will not go down that particular route and that he will now address the amendment.
Mr. Walker : I trust, Mr. Morris, that at no point have I failed to address the amendment.
The Chairman : Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be tempted down another route. Perhaps he will now address the amendment.
Column 314
Mr. Walker : New clause 30 is an important new clause. It does not alter the treaty. If, therefore, it is agreed to by the Committee, it will have no effect on a treaty that the Government wish to be ratified. Clause 2 requires a further Act of Parliament before the United Kingdom can move to the third stage of economic and monetary union. The new clause requires Parliament's agreement to any alterations to the Maastricht treaty, brought about by articles B and N of the treaty.
Furthermore, since we are already agreed that we shall now have a Report stage on the Bill, the acceptance of new clause 30 would not add to the consideration of the Bill, so it should not worry hon. Members. It is difficult to see, therefore, what possible objection Front-Bench Members can have to new clause 30, since it provides that this Parliament would have to approve any proposed alterations to the Maastricht provisions before they got set in stone-- [Interruption.] Good heavens--I have had a remarkable effect on Front-Bench Members on both sides ; they are now collaborating. Is this perhaps an indication, Mr. Morris, that they are discussing whether they can arrive at an understanding on this?
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister claims that he wishes to preserve the sovereignty of our Parliament. He also claims that he wants subsidiarity. I suggest that this new clause is a very modest test of the Government's good intentions. On the first page of the treaty we are told that it will probably have to be revised, so we understand that this is accepted. We must, it says,
"maintain in full the acquis communautaire'",
and to do that it will probably be necessary to revise both the policies and the procedures contained within the treaty.
Having spent some time examining what this version of the Maastricht treaty has to say, I suggest that we owe it to the country and to ourselves--and, more importantly, to each of our
constituents--to examine just as thoroughly any amendments subsequently proposed to the treaty. Hence I believe that the Committee will see, and the House will eventually see, that it would be wise to accept this new clause.
I wonder also, when we are looking at what would happen if the Committee accepted the amendment put forward by the Liberals linked to this new clause-- [Interruption.] It is often the case, Mr. Morris, that those who vote for us to stay up late abscond early and go to bed.
Mr. Winnick : Although the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who moved the amendment, is not in his place for perfectly understandable reasons--he may be having a cup of tea--it is interesting to consider where all the others who were responsible for the Government's majority of five are. Why have they not stayed? Does it not show contempt for the Committee that, having voted to go on after 10 o'clock because the Government could not otherwise have got a majority, none of them is here now.
Mr. Walker : One of the interesting things about parliamentary life is how others will vote for you to do the work, Mr. Morris. You may well have noticed that fact as you have to sit there as a result of a decision that was taken not by you, but by others. That seems to be the pattern for those who talk about compromise. The only compromise I have seen tonight has been the way in which the hon.
Column 315
Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber was compromised by some of the things that were said to him throughout the debate.I have some questions to put to my right hon. Friend with regard to new clause 14. Does he consider that any amendment to the protocols is covered by the procedures in article N of title VII? Does he consider that any new protocols would be covered by article N? Does he agree that any amendments to any protocols will have to be ratified by the United Kingdom before being effective throughout Europe? Does he agree that the House should have the opportunity to debate and approve any changes to any protocol?
Protocols affecting Denmark, for example, were agreed at Edinburgh last December, in the hope that those changes to the treaty would persuade enough Danish people to change their minds and vote yes in their second referendum. If those changes to the Maastricht treaty as it affects Denmark were new protocols, amendments to existing protocols or amendments to the treaty itself, they require the approval by separate ratification of each of the 12 member states.
Mr. Garel-Jones : Can my hon. Friend tell the Committee to which particular new protocols placed on the treaty as a result of the Edinburgh Council he objects ?
Mr. Walker : If my right hon. Friend were not so impetuous, he would probably have waited to hear the rest of my question. Mr. Garel-Jones rose
Mr. Walker : My right hon. Friend asked me a question and I am about to answer it. My right hon. Friend was being too impetuous. If those changes were not amendments to protocols or to the body of the treaty and therefore did not need separate ratification, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Maastricht treaty being put to the Danish people in their second referendum is exactly the same treaty as was put to them in the first one ?
Mr. Garel-Jones : Before I answer that question, perhaps my hon. Friend misread his speech
Mr. Walker : I have not misread anything.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I want to be certain that I heard my hon. Friend correctly. Perhaps other hon. Members will dissent, but I thought that I heard him talk about new protocols which had been added to the treaty at Edinburgh. Will he tell me
Mr. Walker : I said "if" right at the beginning.
Mr. Garel-Jones : Perhaps my hon. Friend will be kind enough to read that passage again. Other hon. Members seem to agree with me that he referred to new protocols which had been added to the treaty. Perhaps he can tell the Committee which protocols they are.
Mr. Walker : It is unfortunate that we have such an impetuous young man on the Front Bench. To me, at any rate, he is a young man. If those changes to the Maastricht treaty as it affects Denmark were new protocols-- that was what I said
Mr. Garel-Jones : I have not seen anyone in the Committee dissent from the proposition that a few minutes ago my hon. Friend read out a passage from his
Column 316
speech which referred to new protocols in the treaty as a result of the Edinburgh Council. To which particular protocols is he referring ? It is difficult for me to answer his question when I am not aware of which protocols he is talking about.Mr. Walker : I had wee laddies like that serving under me in the Air Force.
Sir Teddy Taylor : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Walker : I shall give way in a moment. The question that I wanted to put--
Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : Chocks away, Biggles.
Mr. Walker : Biggles was a fictional character ; I was real. Either those changes to the Maastricht treaty as they affect Denmark were new protocols or they were not. Either the treaty is unamended and therefore no extra ratification is needed, or it has been changed to suit Denmark--in which case, separate ratification of such changes is needed. If my right hon. Friend the Minister had not been quite so impetuous, he would have given me the opportunity to put what I think was a reasonable question. It has been my experience in life that individuals who are unhappy, insecure or doubtful about their position tend to jump in very quickly.
3 am
Sir Ivan Lawrence : I jumped in very quickly, but not because I am unsure of my position. I was in Denmark last week and the people of Denmark are labouring under the impression that protocols were negotiated on their behalf at Edinburgh which changed the basis of the treaty to which they said no in their earlier referendum. Is that not the most important point that we can make today, when we are talking about Denmark, because they seem to believe that they have been told--
The Chairman : Order. We are not supposed to be talking about Denmark under these protocols, I think. We drifted into that and I accept that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was tempted down that route.
Sir Ivan Lawrence : We are talking about the protocols.
The Chairman : We are not talking about what the Danish people feel about protocols under this amendment.
Mr. Walker : The question I was trying to get through to my right hon. Friend the Minister was whether, through the mechanism of this new clause 14, or otherwise, my right hon. Friend can say that any amendment to any protocols or any new protocols will require the approval of the House of Commons before they take effect. And if not, why not?
Mr. Cash : Has my hon. Friend noticed that the German Bundestag has given itself an agreement for a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag on whether or not it proceeds to economic and monetary union? Can my hon. Friend tell me under what protocol this has been agreed? All the other member states have had to agree to opt-outs of various kinds. How does it come about that the Germans have given this to themselves? It is a bit like Napoleon crowning himself to make himself Emperor of France.
Column 317
Mr. Walker : I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he is asking for, because unlike him I was not aware that the Germans could, would or had done anything that they could do unilaterally. I am not aware that any of our Parliaments or any of the nation state Parliaments can do that. My understanding is that if we are going to do it under the treaty of Rome it has to be agreed, and that all have to be in agreement with it. That is why--
Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South) : Does the interpretation of the answer that my hon. Friend has just given mean that the German Bundestag has, in effect, not ratified the treaty?
Mr. Walker : The Germans, as I understand the situation, Mr. Morris- -
The Chairman : Order. We are dealing with article 7.I thought that the hon. Gentleman was being fairly tight in his speech, but he is allowing himself to be tempted down a number of different avenues. I hope that he will now get back to the amendment.
Mr. Cash : On a point of order, Mr. Morris, this is a treaty on European union. I would simply submit to you, Mr. Morris, that to consider the relationship between the different member states in relation to those protocols is reasonable as this is about a treaty on European union. It is not just about this House. That, after all, is what the Government are trying to do.
The Chairman : We are on title VII, "Final Provisions".
The Chairman : Order. If the hon. Member knows that, he should not have made the earlier submission, with a sort of laugh on his face. It is not really very funny at all.
Mr. Rowlands : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I draw the Committee's attention to title VII, article O, in the second paragraph, which deals entirely with agreements being submitted for ratification by all the contracting states. If hon. Members refer to those articles on ratification, they will see that the second paragraph says :
"This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the Contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
I would think that that would mean we could make references to the Danish referendum or to the various processes of ratification.
The Chairman : What the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) did in his speech was to link those things in--and very skilfully--but I am afraid that there has been less skill on the other side so far.
Sir Teddy Taylor : Would my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, (Mr. Taylor) agree that there is no need to mention this any more ? Instead of criticising the Minister of State, he should thank him very much indeed for confirming that no new protocols were agreed in Edinburgh, and that to that extent the people of Denmark have been cheated--and cheated shamefully--if anyone gives them the impression that they are getting the same exemptions as Britain got.
Mr. Walker : I thank my hon. Friend for that useful intervention. The people, politicians and members of the media in Denmark are taking careful note of our debates.
Column 318
The Minister's impetuous response may return to haunt him. It will certainly be quoted, if not by the friends of the treaty, by those who, like many of my hon. Friends and me, wish to have the issues examined.Mr. Beggs : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is possible for Governments to make agreements to convenience each other, as with the Anglo -Irish Agreement ? Two were signed--one to suit the Irish Republic and one to appease the British public.
Mr. Walker : I accept that Governments can, and often do, present their side of an agreement to their electorates and dress it up in the way they would like them to understand what has been agreed. There is nothing new about that. I will not drift into discussing the Anglo-Irish Accord. I have expressed my view on that over the years. With the passage of time, the Maastricht treaty will enjoy the same degree of respect as the Anglo- Irish Accord enjoys because, like that accord, it has been oversold. I fear that the benefits of Maastricht will in many respects turn out to be the opposite of what has been stated.
I come to amendment No. 96. Hon. Members may wonder why I have dealt with this group in reverse order. By beginning with the new clause, I thought that the Minister might jump in with a quick response. Considering my right hon. Friend's attitude when in the Whips Office or as a Minister dealing with the Maastricht measure, he has not disappointed me in that he reacted in the way I expected. I got out of him precisely what I wanted. That is why I dealt with the amendments in the group in reverse order. In other words, I tempted my right hon. Friend into intervening. He was endeavouring to show that he was brighter and more intelligent than I, which is the way I thought he would react.
Sir Teddy Taylor : The Minister made a vital statement. I am wondering whether there is any means by which the Committee could convey a message to the Danish Parliament making clear what the Minister said. His statement made it abundantly clear that the people of Denmark are being conned.
Mr. Walker : I have been to Denmark many times. In my previous incarnation, I used to trade extensively in Denmark and in other parts of Europe. When dealing with the Danish people, I always found that in factual matters such as article--
The Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot give the history of his relationship with the Danish people. He can speak to amendment No. 96, which I accept that he was trying to do before he was interrupted by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
Mr. Walker : Before you interrupted me, Mr. Morris, I was about to say "article L". Will my right hon. Friend explain to me and to the Danish people what will happen ?
Does article L mean that the Court of Justice can override any interpretation of the Maastricht treaty made by the Council, the European Parliament, the Commission or any member state ? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, no matter what interpretation he or his colleagues may place on any section of the treaty--such as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's interpretation of
subsidiarity--article L means that the Court of Justice has the last word ? Is it the court's interpretation of subsidiarity which will be law ?
Column 319
Scotland has a special interest in subsidiarity. I shall not get involved in a debate about it now because I have spoken about it at some length. I hope that at some point I shall find a suitable amendment to allow the people of Scotland to have their say about how their treaty of Union is being amended, which is very important in terms of subsidiarity.If the United Kingdom were to ratify the Maastricht treaty, would the provisions for the Court of Justice in article L apply immediately to the United Kingdom? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that? Does he agree that in any judicial review or dispute relating to Community matters a judgment by the Court of Justice would override one by the High Court or even the House of Lords? Does he also agree that a House of Lords ruling on the minimum wage, maximum working hours, equal opportunities or working conditions--all matters which are in the body of the Maastricht treaty, never mind the social charter--would ultimately be determined by the Court of Justice and not the House of Lords?
Had my right hon. Friend the Minister not been so impetuous, we might have had the opportunity to speak. I and others who are carrying out our proper duties in relation to our constituents by raising fundamental issues which may lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom believe that it is right that we should have answers to our questions. One of the most disturbing aspects of our debates has been that Ministers have been intervening before people such as I have had the opportunity to make a contribution and ask our questions. It has meant that our questions have largely been unanswered.
Why do I raise that point now? At the beginning, I mentioned that I had my annual general meeting last Friday. It is no secret that some of us who have taken a stand on Maastricht have been put under pressure from forces not within our own constituencies. I took a copy of Hansard containing my contribution to the debate on subsidiarity to my constituents and supporters who turned up for the meeting. I told them to read it carefully and tell me where my questions were answered. The absence of answers has formed a pattern throughout the debates. We are told, "Don't worry, chaps. The way we have this Maastricht treaty set up, you will have opportunities to ask questions and to influence." Is that the way the House of Commons is to be treated in the future? After all, we have not yet ratified the treaty properly. Sadly, my Government are not giving me an opportunity to put questions on behalf of my constituents and to receive satisfactory answers. What we shall have when this Bill has completed its passage is exactly what it was understood at the beginning to be. We have not had an opportunity to question adequately or properly.
3.15 am
In making that comment, I intend no reflection on the Chair. I was being entirely honest when I said at an earlier stage that I was astonished at how well you, Mr. Morris, had handled these entire proceedings. It is difficult enough to listen for long hours to debates, hoping that one will have an opportunity to participate and ask questions. It must be even more difficult to sit in the Chair and ensure that individuals like me stay in order. In that respect, Sir, you have done a remarkable job, as I am sure all hon. Members agree.
Column 320
Mr. Winnick : The hon. Gentleman has talked about pressure. Does he agree that it amounts to contempt of the House of Commons if a party organisation puts undue pressure of an hon. Member who is expressing his views? Surely it is contemptuous of Parliament to intimidate an hon. Member for the purpose of preventing him from expressing his opinions.
Mr. Walker : I do not think that you will want me to enter into that debate, Mr. Morris. I shall say only that, throughout my life, I have been able to deal with such difficulties. If one believes in what one is doing, it is never difficult to explain why one is doing it. Problems arise if one does not believe in what one is doing. That probably applies to many hon. Members in respect of this treaty. They find it extremely difficult to justify the stand that they are taking. They make the point that, as the treaty is unworkable, people should not worry about it. If it is unworkable, we should not endorse it. The new clause would go a long way towards putting some kind of order into the disorder of this ghastly treaty.
Mr. George Robertson : It is always a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), as following him means that his speech is finished. He is a gentleman with a considerable sense of humour, which he has been deploying well for the last 45 minutes.
The real question that we ought to be asking ourselves at this absurd time of the night is why we should be discussing this matter in a debate on a Liberal amendment. I realise that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) moved the amendment with tongue in cheek. If he wanted to make a debating point--and what better time than the middle of the night to make a debating point?--he could have said that, over the many dreary hours of this ratification procedure, he had moved amendments that he did not intend to support and, indeed, was determined not to support. The obscure aspect of the reasoning on this occasion is that the hon. Gentleman represents a party which says not just that it is in favour of the treaty but that it is enthusiastically for the treaty. Indeed, we are here at 19 minutes past 3 o'clock in the morning because the Liberal party was so enthusiastic about it that it wanted to debate the matter in the middle of the night.
It would be a cheap debating point to say that only the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber has stayed to listen to the debate that his party inflicted upon the rest of us at this time of the night. He represents a significant proportion of his party, both in the quantitative and qualitative senses. Despite the provocation, I refuse to fall out with him, because we have been friends over many years. He is testing that friendship to destruction, but I still refuse to fall out with him.
If the Liberal party was so enthusiastic to debate this in the middle of the night, why are Liberal Members not here to support the hon. Gentleman? He deserves their support ; indeed, he requires it. I know that they were all waiting to hear what arguments he would deploy for folding title VII into the Bill.
Sir Russell Johnston : With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, there were a number here when I was speaking. It is stretching enthusiasm to an extreme to have it defined simply in terms of hon. Members being willing to come to listen to other hon. Members speak.
Column 321
Mr. Robertson : The hon. Gentleman says that a number were here to hear him. I think that the number was one for part of the time.
Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow) : And he only came in to see what time he could get a closure.
Mr. Robertson : No doubt he came in to find out what Bill his party had facilitated for the Government. However, I do not wish to be frivolous, because that would diminish the importance of the debate. There is still a genuine mystery about why the Liberal party would want to fold title VII into the Bill. It does not make sense for the Liberal party to want to do that. It makes no sense for us to do it. Even if one were a federalist and in favour of a unitary state, it would not make sense to follow the line of reasoning behind the amendment. I do not know whether the Liberal party intends to push the amendment at the end of the debate. I do not feel inclined to recommend to my hon. Friends that we should vote for it or abstain ; we should vote against it, as we did on the Liberal amendment on title I, because it makes no sense.
Sir Russell Johnston : May I be allowed to point out that at the beginning of my speech I said that we would not be voting on the amendment? Clearly the hon. Gentleman was not here or he was sound asleep.
Mr. Robertson : Anybody who has followed the debate would excuse me for the latter. The record of televison will show that I was here and have been here more consistently than the other 19 members of the Liberal party who voted many hours ago to keep us here into the night.
Mr. Rowlands : I strongly agree with most of what my hon. Friend has said about title VII. There is one temptation to vote for it: article R, paragraph 2, would make it clear that, if the Danes do not carry the referendum the treaty will be null and void and will not be ratified by us or anybody else. So there might be a case for putting article R, paragraph 2, into the legislation.
Mr. Robertson : The problem is that we cannot pick and choose ; we have to have the whole title or none of it. In any event, what happens in Denmark is a matter for the Danish people, and it should be left to them. It is not for us to interfere in their decision. The vast majority of the Danish parties will recommend a "yes" vote in the referendum on 18 May. The treaty will stand notwithstanding anything done in this debate.
Sir Ivan Lawrence : The Danes are labouring under a misapprehension, which is being given to them, that if they do not ratify they will be thrown out of the Common Market and nobody will stand by them. It is incumbent on us to make clear the undertaking given by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that, if the Danes do not carry the referendum, that is the end of the Maastricht treaty. We must make it plain that we will back them on that. That undertaking is essentially contained in title VII.
Mr. Robertson : The Danish people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds on the basis of the information that they already have. They are able to weigh all the arguments by the numerous people from this country who have gone to Denmark and those by their own political organs. I have no doubt that, at the end of that process, they will take a wise decision. Of course, on 18 May the Danish people will vote on the whole of the
Column 322
Maastricht treaty, unlike people in this Parliament, who are dealing with the treaty minus the valuable social chapter. The treaty on offer to the Danes is radically different from and much more complete and balanced than the treaty that the Government have offered us. Amendments that have still to be debated may allow us to change that.Mr. William Ross : The hon. Gentleman lauds the intelligence of the Danish people. They decided on Maastricht last year. Why on earth is the rest of Europe almost saying, "If at first we don't succeed, let's try, try the Danes again"? How many times will they have to vote? As the Danes have to have a second vote because the majority against the treaty was narrow, why can there not be a second vote in France?
Mr. Robertson : The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that the Danish Parliament has decided that the people should vote again following the discussions at the Edinburgh summit. The vast majority of Danish parliamentarians, who have as much right to make decisions as parliamentarians here, decided that Denmark should look again at the original result in the light of the improvements that the Danish Government obtained in Edinburgh. There may be cause for debate about the outcome of the Edinburgh summit, but the Danish Parliament, the Folketing, decided to ask the Danish people to vote again in the light of those changes. That is their custom, but it is not the custom of this Parliament. The Danes have decided that that is the best way to proceed, but this country uses Parliament for ratifications. That is the right way for us to proceed.
Mr. Michael Spicer : The hon. Gentleman heaps praise on the intelligence of the Danish people. Does that explain why the "Yes" vote seems to be crumbling, crashing, to well below 50 per cent.? Is that not part of the answer to the apprehensions that have been expressed about the Danish people?
| Next Section
| Home Page |