House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 May 1993

Mr. Dorrell : I picked out two, but I suspect that I could cite not dissimilar figures in the European Community, for example, in Holland. I did not want to detain the House by giving a long list. I should have thought that the example of the recent economic performances of Germany and Japan would be sufficiently persuasive to puncture the right hon. Gentleman's proposition that non-inflationary growth cannot be delivered in a modern free economy.

I always enjoy listening to the speeches of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) because they reassure me that the message of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will be carried on by another means when he has passed to another place. The hon. Member for Neath asked why, in a treaty devoted primarily to economic and especially monetary union, there were no such explicit targets for wider social objectives as there are for monetary objectives. The reason is straightforward.

The economic heart of the treaty deals with questions of monetary policy. Unemployment rates, growth rates and wider economic policy issues remain matters of national concern. During the Bill's Committee stage we discussed the fact that the purpose of the provisions for economic and monetary union is to provide an institutional framework for the operation of monetary policy on a Community basis separate from the continuing national responsibility in the rest of the economic policy sphere.

Mrs. Dunwoody : Rubbish.

Mr. Dorrell : The hon. Lady may say that that is rubbish, but I cannot see how, on any linguistic basis, the treaty could be said to be devoted to any other purpose.

Mrs. Dunwoody : Does not it occur to the Minister that those who control the economy have a direct effect on rates of unemployment and of inflation? Has that unique idea occurred only to the Opposition?

Mr. Dorrell : The point that I was making, with which the hon. Lady did not seem to agree, was that within the treaty a distinction is drawn between the operation of monetary policy and that of other aspects of economic policy.

Column 132

Mrs. Dunwoody : That is impossible.

Mr. Dorrell : The hon. Lady says that it is impossible, but there are numerous examples from around the world of political systems that draw precisely that distinction.

Mr. Shore : Surely the Minister is aware that article 103 says that economic policy shall be

"a matter of common concern",

and that there will be "multilateral surveillance" of how economic trends develop in all the countries. How can he possibly say that economic policy is not subject to Community rules under the treaty?

Mr. Dorrell : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because he has provided me with a basis upon which to proceed to the consideration of article 103, which is the main purpose of the new clause. The multilateral surveillance under that article is intended simply to provide a treaty framework for the discussions of economic policy that have taken place since at least 1974, in order to co-ordinate the full scope of economic policy within the Community. None the less, economic policy clearly remains the responsibility of national Governments within a widely drafted treaty commitment to co-ordination.

The point that I sought to make earlier was about a concept fundamentally different from the evolution of institutions responsible for day-to-day management on a Community basis of monetary policy, which is the purpose of the central banking arrangements set out in the treaty.

Mr. Shore : How, then, does the Minister explain the reference in article 103 to qualified majority voting ?

Mr. Dorrell : The purpose of multilateral surveillance is clearly to allow the wider convergence of economic policy. That is not part of the clear path towards stage 3 and the operation of a single monetary policy provided for within the context of the bank. Having sought to respond to the wider issues raised in the debate, I shall detain the House briefly by dealing with the terms of the new clause, which, as I have already said, the Government will not oppose. We have accepted that the House has an interest in the issues on which the new clause says that the Government should report. That interest is not in dispute. Article 103 makes it clear that we are talking about information on important measures which almost by definition is already reported to Parliament. Perhaps more important is the fact that it is reported to Parliament at the time that such decisions are made, so that Parliament can exercise its proper role of accountability and of scrutiny of the Government of the day. The new clause adds a further commitment to set reports submitted to the Commission by the Government in the context of the Government's assessment of progress towards the delivery of the objectives set out in article 2. If hon. Members wish to press that upon us, we shall not oppose them.

Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South) : I have spoken before about the loss of economic sovereignty and political accountability that is written into the treaty. Tonight, I concentrate on the theme with which the Minister finished his comments--the terms of convergence. I especially wish to support amendment No. 3.

Just before the bank holiday, a delegation of visitors came here from Germany. As I listened to what the

Column 133

Minister has just said, I realised that it was similar to what those visitors said to us. They said, "We know that, throughout Germany, the public believe that the treaty is unworkable and unwanted. But we have some good news for you. It is that we will not blow the gaff, break ranks or tell the public that we know it is unworkable and unwanted. In return, we expect you to do the same." The Minister said much the same. In effect, he said, "We know that the treaty is unworkable and unwanted outside, but we will not blow the gaff."

I had the temerity to ask why we should not all blow the gaff. The response was, "For goodness' sake, no. You cannot do that. If you did, we would all look fools." The sad news is that outside the House we have been rumbled. In Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the public know that the treaty is unwanted and unworkable. They know that the terms of convergence offer them nothing in addressing the key issues that affect their daily lives. They know that the terms will not produce jobs, build houses and schools, invest in our infrastructure, halt crime or do anything to stop the fearful rise in nationalism, racism and fascism.

That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and I have attempted to draft an amendment that would address, in a positive way, the real concerns of people in this country and throughout Europe. Amendment No. 3 is not a narrow nationalistic proposal. It is a commitment to a different vision of a people's Europe, a form of internationalism that is beggared by the treaty as a whole.

If I am asked why the treaty will be a catastrophe, I would refer the House to the table on page 14 of research paper 93/25 which sets out by how much all countries of the European Community currently fail to meet the terms of convergence. It reveals one case after another of failure, worse than the worst of the school reports I ever received, and I confess that some of them left something to be desired. The table shows that only France and Luxembourg would be in a position to proceed on the basis of convergence that the treaty requires. Even they are beginning to turn a fearful eye on the levels of unemployment and the social upheaval in their countries. We are being asked to subscribe to what is little more than a feast of fools. Monetary convergence would not work without mass unemployment, permanent social division and reliance on a dreadful degree of racism and xenophobia. Some of the worst effects of that can be seen in Germany, France and Italy. They are also present in my county of Nottinghamshire, where last week the Nottingham Evening Post ran an extensive series of articles detailing its concern about the new activities of neo-fascist groups in the county. Their appeal is based on the fear of unemployment and poverty and on the alienation of young people.

Amendment No. 3 sets out in a modest way to offer beacons of hope around which reinvestment in people can be structured. It talks of a required rate of growth of 3 per cent., not a large figure. To achieve it, we would have to echo Japan's initiative, by which it has increased government borrowing by £75 billion to increase its rate of growth from 1.25 to 3.3 per cent., or we would have to follow the German example of borrowing for reinvestment, by transferring £30 billion a year for the next decade, in pursuit not of zero inflation but of social

Column 134

stability. That is missing from the Maastricht treaty and its criteria for convergence. We would inherit a fearful legacy if we signed up to it.

We require a policy of investment in people that will not discriminate on the basis of age, and will not set men against women, young against old, French or Greeks against British. It requires a common investment policy that will not rob Peter in Paris to pay Paul in Peterborough. We are offering a set of proposals which would be modest, but which would commit us to removing regional disparities, to challenging poverty in the European Community and requiring the United Kingdom to have a regional policy which means something because it sets targets for reducing unemployment and regional inequalities in wealth.

11.30 pm

Were we to be given the right to vote on amendment No. 3, it would give the House the chance to rise as one behind a set of policies that would invest in the people of this country and the people of Europe. It would not be a bankers' charter or a bureaucrats' charter. It would start from the fears and concerns that assail every one of our constituents, if only we had the courage to listen to them. If we voted on the amendment, it would give the Labour Front-Bench team the chance to rise up and lay claim to it as the core of a socialist policy to which I know we could all subscribe.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendments made to the proposed clause : in line 1, leave out from of' to Her' in line 3 and insert

the Treaty establishing the European Community'.

In line 6, leave out Title II'.

In line 7, leave out Article' and insert Articles'.

In line 8, leave out out of the Treaty'.-- [Mr. Dorrell.] Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New clause 2

Assent by national constitutional requirement

. Where within the Treaty on European Union referred to in section 1 above there is a requirement for changes in voting procedure in its Council of Ministers, or other changes therein specified that decision be made after assent by the member states and in acccordance with their respective constitutional requirements, in the United Kingdom that assent shall be by Act of Parliament.'.-- [Mr. Shore.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Shore : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker : With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following : New clause 4-- Procedure for determining the common foreign and security policy--

. When it is proposed that the Council of Ministers responsible for determining a common Foreign and Security Policy are to define matters for joint action in accordance with Article J.3.2 of the Treaty named in section 1 above, no Minister of the Crown shall assent to such a proposal before those matters proposed to be specified are given approval in a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. ' .

New clause 19-- Adoption of conventions in the fields of justice and home affairs--

No convention drawn up by the Council of the European Communities under Article K.3.2.(c) of the Treaty on European Union shall be adopted by the United Kingdom unless the decision to adopt the convention has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons. ' .

Column 135

New clause 38-- Adoption of conventions in the field of justice and of home affairs--

No convention drawn up by the Council of the European Communities under Articles K.3.2.(c) of the Treaty of European Union shall be adopted by the United Kingdom unless a draft of the proposed instrument of adoption has first been approved by Act of Parliament. ' .

Mr. Shore : The Government are obviously in an accommodating mood, but I have not yet heard them say that they are prepared to accept new clause 2. No doubt a message will come to me encouraging me in my remarks. If the Government have a few manuscript amendments to make, I shall willingly accept them and we can then proceed.

We are all aware that there is much poison in the treaty. I would divide it into two sorts of poison. The first is the sort that we have just been discussing--the harsh, deflationary bias of the treaty and the appalling effect that it will have on a Europe which is already in deep recession. We have had discussions about what that means in terms of a European central bank, control of alleged excess deficits and the convergence criteria. I am talking not about that sort of poison, but about another sort--the transfer of powers and decision making from the people and Parliament, both of this country and of other countries in Europe, to European institutions. Many transfers of power will take place under the Maastricht treaty. I refer not only to the extension of Community competence. Article 3, with its subclauses from (a) to (t), and the subsequent spelling out of what they mean, shows the vast number of our affairs that are to be handed over to the European Community. Those many new competencies include the introduction of a qualified majority vote which will take away any effective control that the House may exercise over its Ministers.

What does new clause 2 seek to achieve ? It cannot deal with that which is already handed over in the Maastricht treaty, but it can at least put a brake upon the further transfers of power and competence which are envisaged in different parts of the treaty. We are seeking to make sure that the authority of an Act of Parliament would be needed before Ministers could accept further proposals to take powers and exercise them on a Community basis.

The House will agree that an Act of Parliament is necessary when I have given one or two illustrations. Before I do that, I want to say a word or two about new clause 4 in which we do not seek the authority of an Act of Parliament and are prepared to accept a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I refer to the provisions under foreign and security policy, where joint actions are envisaged.

As the House will remember, under the foreign and security policy which is far-reaching in its commitment and is the compass of the whole enterprise, there is provision for a common position and joint actions. Those joint actions could be of great importance. They could cover, for example, non- military sanctions and the recognition or non-recognition of states. When a common action is agreed, majority voting takes place within that range of matters dealt with by a joint action.

The new clause provides that when a joint action is proposed, before a Minister can assent to such a proposal he should first get the authority of both Houses of Parliment and a motion should come before both Houses

Column 136

for that purpose. That is my one illustration of an area where a resolution would be right. We have proposed a resolution rather than an Act of Parliament because we are all aware that in foreign policy matters events move fast and there is not always the luxury of dealing with matters within the time scale of an Act of Parliament. Let me turn back to where we want the authority of an Act of Parliament. Many parts of the treaty are important. I refer first to the proposals dealing with citizenship. As the House may recall, under article 8e, the discussion of the rights of citizenship ends as follows :

"On this basis the Council on a proposal of the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights laid down in this Part, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

As those who have read new clause 2 will see, we wish to see the words, "respective constitutional requirements" interpreted as an Act of Parliament and by no other means.

Citizenship is clearly extremely important. The rights of citizenship under article 8 are a modest beginning, but here is envisaged the extension of the rights of citizenship. We consider that proposals for extending those rights should be brought before the House and proper legislative authority be given for them if they meet with our approval.

I shall give just two illustrations of what might be thought to be a problem arising out of the extension of the rights of citizenship. One is the totally unrestricted right of movement and residence which is already allowed for in article 8a but which could be extended by the removal of those remaining constraints under article 8a, which states that it should be

"subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect."

People can otherwise move and reside freely throughout the Community.

The provisions go too far in any event and I have the strong feeling that there will be an attempt to expand them still further. As we know, voting rights are given to Community citizens wherever they may be so that they can take part in a local election and in a European Parliament election. That is already conceded under article 8c. I am willing to bet that the next step will be the right to take part in national elections. No such right should be extended without the proper consideration of the House, which should include full debate and full legislative proposals.

I have mentioned only rights so far. Article 8.2 provides : "Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby."

tie Rowlands : What are they?

Mr. Shore : We have not yet had them defined. They are kept under wraps. A great deal of restraint is going on in the Community so that those who have not yet ratified the treaty are not frightened. There has been an almost Trappist vow of silence in the European Commission, which has been unusually quiet during these tense months of negotiation and debate.

Mr. Rowlands : My right hon. Friend kindly responded to my sedentary request about what the duties were. He

Column 137

said that we do not know yet. Will he tell us whether it is possible for the citizens of the union to renounce citizenship without renouncing national citizenship?

Mr. Shore : There appears to be no provision for any citizen to renounce European citizenship. It is imposed on people. The analogy that comes to my mind is the famous story of a Chinese general who baptised his army as Christians with a hosepipe. We are all being hosepiped with European citizenship and I do not find that at all attractive. It is important that we should retain the right to reject that imposed citizenship if we do not want it.

Mr. Spearing : My right hon. Friend tabled amendment No. 49, which was not selected, which might have given that democratic right. Does he agree that the word "rights" is ambiguous? Should not the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who has happily joined us, elucidate the word now or later? If the right of a citizen was extended, the adjudication of that right would take place centrally. Therefore, the power of the central authority, of the court or wherever would be extended, perhaps by an Act of Parliament. That also applies to the right of the Community over its citizens. Should not we, therefore, get some explanation from the Minister of State, unless he is happily able, as in previous debates, to say that he accepts the new clause?

Mr. Shore : If the Minister wishes to intervene, I shall give way. Evidently he does not.

The question of duties and rights is, again, an area that we have not properly explored, although we have had a number of days of debate. We have done our best to explore the many important issues that are crammed together in this now five-clause Bill, which refers to more than 200 pages of treaty text.

The same problem arises about the procedures for electing the European Parliament. Again, we find in article 108.3 the following : "The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.

The Council shall, acting unanimously which shall act by a majority of its component members, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements." I believe that our constitutional requirement should, once again, be an Act of Parliament. I do not believe that we should agree to changing, as may well be the case, our electoral system for election of Members of the European Parliament to a European generalised system if it is not a system of which we approve. What we must face straight away is the whole complicated argument about whether we should have a form of proportional representation, because that is the system that the European Community will undoubtedly adopt. Any such change, therefore, should be the subject of serious debate in the House before any consent was given.

11.45 pm

That is a second example which I think is important. There is another one which is probably the most important of all, and it is in the area of home affairs and justice. A number of articles are called in question here. Article 100c, hon. Members on both sides will recall, deals on the face of it with the rather narrow matter of possession of visas and refers to the fact that from 1 January 1996 decisions about whether to have visas in relation to other, third

Column 138

countries shall be made by a qualified majority vote on a proposal by the Commission. But more important than that and a little bit further down under the same article, paragraph 6 of 100c says : "This Article shall apply to other areas if so decided pursuant to Article K.9 of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union which relate to co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs, subject to the voting conditions determined at the same time." So, inevitably and rightly, we turn to article K.9. What do we find there? After "The Council, acting unanimously", and so on, on the initiative of the Commission, we find :

"may decide to apply Article 100c of the Treaty establishing the European Community to action in areas referred to in Article K.1(1) to (6), and at the same time determine the relevant voting conditions relating to it. It shall recommend the Member States to adopt that decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

Article K.1(1) to (6) deals with matters of enormous importance to the House. Section (1) deals with asylum policy. Section (2) deals with

"rules governing the crossing by persons of the external borders of the Member States and the exercise of controls thereon".

We shall be faced with this still quite unresolved question of whether 200 or 300 Europeans, providing they wave a piece of purple cardboard, can come through a British port or airport without any further check. That has yet to be resolved, because the Commission takes one view and the Home Secretary, we hope, takes another, and the matter will presumably in the end be dealt with by the European Court of Justice. Anyway, here it is allowed specifically to come within a common policy in future and to be decided by qualified majority vote, because that is the essence of article 100c. Section (3) of article K.1 concerns immigration policy and policy regarding nationals of third countries :

"(a) conditions of entry and movement by nationals of third countries on the territory of Member States ;

(b) conditions of residence by nationals of third countries on the territory of Member States, including family reunion and access to employment ;

(c) combatting unauthorisied immigration, residence and work by nationals of third countries on the territory of Member States". This is a huge and complex area and we have made many efforts in the past 30 or more years to devise immigration policies which, we hope, try to be fair and sensitive and to avoid racial discrimination in their application. I cannot say that we have always been successful, but that at least has been our purpose. I believe that any changes of this kind require an Act of Parliament and the most serious consideration by the House.

Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article K.1 refer to

"combatting drug addiction in so far as this is not covered by 7 to 9 ; combatting fraud on an international scale in so far as this is not covered by 7 to 9 ; judicial co-operation in civil matters". These do not have quite the same dramatic impact as asylum, the removal of internal frontiers, and immigration policy, but any attempt to bring them under a common policy and to use majority voting procedures under this article should not be allowed without an Act of Parliament. We must insist on that, and that is what the new clause seeks to bring about.

Mr. George Robertson : The items that my right hon. Friend is discussing are certainly serious and important, and if any changes along these lines were made, Parliament would assume that they would be treated in a serious way. In building his case for the Bill to include a statutory

Column 139

requirement for an Act of Parliament on every occasion, however, can my right hon. Friend point to any examples of measures of similar importance being dealt with in the House in ways less serious than what he proposes?

Mr. Shore : Many important changes have been effected, but I would have to search my memory for any such examples during the 21 years since we signed the treaty of accession. Irrespective of whether there have been examples of developments of Community competence that have not been incorporated in Acts of Parliament, however, I maintain that the instances that I have cited, of occasions when we are invited to approve measures according to our own constitutional requirements, are important enough to require Acts of Parliament. My hon. Friend may tell me not to worry, but there is no guarantee that such changes would appear in Acts of Parliament. They might be put into effect by means of a resolution, or we might just be told that they had happened and then receive a report from the Minister. I am trying to maintain an element of parliamentary control and accountability over and for what could be major extensions of the treaty or what could be other major decisions.

Mr. Hoon : Perhaps I may put in a different way the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). Although I agree about the serious nature of my right hon. Friend's illustrations, the difficulty is that none of his examples has led to Acts of Parliament. They have been dealt with in different ways under the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements. Perhaps they will be dealt with differently under those arrangements in future, but I cannot see that the Maastricht treaty makes any difference to the situation. We may have our criticisms of our constitution, but it is not necessarily changed, in this context, by the treaty.

Mr. Shore : Those constitutional arrangements consist of Ministers signing accords or of Ministers doing whatever they want and then reporting back to Parliament. Alternatively, they may interpose, before making a decision, a parliamentary procedure. And there are only two parliamentary procedures : one is a motion of both Houses ; the other is an Act of Parliament. I have already said that a motion or resolution would be right, for reasons of time and speed, in the area of common action under foreign policy. I am citing the other areas where I believe strongly that there should be an Act of Parliament. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton wants to argue against that, let him do so when the time comes.

Mr. Spearing : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only purpose of the interventions of our hon. Friends was to question the need for an Act of Parliament ? [Interruption.] They shake their heads ; I am relieved at that. If there is anything less than an Act of Parliament, surely there is a risk that the Executive will be stronger, perhaps by a single vote. In respect of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), does my right hon. Friend recall that, when the original legislation was passed in 1972, there was no provision for an Act of Parliament to sanction any increase in the power of the European Parliament ? That was imposed only at a time of direct elections. Clause 1(2)

Column 140

of the Bill refers to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, and the powers of the European Parliament in the treaty can be agreed only by virtue of that part of the clause. Does not that make the case for my hon. Friend's amendment rather than the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton ?

Mr. Shore : I hope that I am carrying my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton. I expect the support of the whole Labour party for new clause 2. I cannot see any reason why he should fail to give full support to that new clause. I hope that there will be support from hon. Members in other parts of the House who are concerned that we should retain proper control over further actions which would reduce the competence, the authority and the power of this Parliament.

Mr. George Robertson : I have listened with care to my right hon. Friend. As he knows only too well, I cannot make definitive judgments on the spur of the moment about what the Opposition Front Bench can support. My right hon. Friend keeps hoping that I will be changed as the spokesman ; that is one of his many hopes. Lest he took the wrong message from my first intervention, which was a genuine request for information, he should not draw anything more than that from it. Again I ask a question. My right hon. Friend has thought about it a lot and he is building his argument.

Based on what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) has just said, there is a variety of constitutional ways in which the House of Commons, the House of Lords, or Parliament, might decide to deal with these matters, and which would conform to national constitutional arrangements. Might not an order in this House be a preferable instrument to an Act of Parliament that would involve the other place in the process ? We might not feel that it was appropriate for the other place always to be involved in a cumbersome procedure to deal with all the matters that my right hon. Friend has laid out.

Mr. Shore : Orders or motions of approval are alternatives to Acts of Parliament. I remind my hon. Friend once more of the issues that I illustrated : one, extensions of the rights and possibly the duties of citizenship ; two, the procedures for election to the European Parliament ; three, the very important areas of asylum, immigration and related matters which come under justice and home affairs. I cannot believe that he could find any reason why we should not have a full parliamentary procedure and not simply a debate, whether it is carried out in this House alone or in both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Bill Walker : I have been listening carefully because the right hon. Gentleman is getting into important areas that should properly be examined. Has he considered the rights and duties of the monarch of the United Kingdom ? He will be aware that the monarch in Scotland is the Queen of Scots, not the Queen of Scotland. There is a substantial difference. The 1706 Act and the treaty of Union clearly spell out the position of the monarch and the monarch's heirs. [Interruption.] There is no point in hon. Members shaking their heads or laughing. That area could unravel this whole business. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the position of the monarch ?

Mr. Shore : I confess that I have given that little consideration. My general objection to compulsory

Column 141

citizenship of the European union would become even more pointed if such citizenship were applied to the monarch who is also Head of the Commonwealth. Such compulsion would be absurd, and I am sure that that sentiment is widely shared.

My last illustration is important and relates to our constitutional procedures, the admission of new members to the European Community and the conditions under which they are allowed to join. Those issues should be subjected to serious debate and investigation before we allow a decision to be made on our behalf by the Community as a whole.

I have not attempted to identify in the treaty every conceivable instance of a constitutional procedure being allowed, but I think that I have identified most of them and I have certainly picked out the most important ones. I hope that we shall vote on the new clause and that I shall have the support not only of my Front-Bench colleagues but of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I shall be pleased if the Minister of State is as forthcoming in dealing with the new clause as he has been in dealing with all the other amendments that have been moved.

12 midnight

Mr. Garel-Jones : I regret that I shall have to disappoint the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who, unusually for him, has moved a wrecking amendment. We are debating a House of Commons matter and I do not disguise the fact that the new clause is a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Shore : The right hon. Gentlemen well knows, because he has been rebuked about it, that he cannot describe an amendment that has been allowed by the Chair as a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I accept that. By definition, any amendment selected by the Chair is not a wrecking amendment because it is in order. In case you thought that I was being disrespectful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say that in my terms a wrecking amendment is one that would render the Government incapable of ratifying. The new clause and the other clauses and amendments that are grouped with it call for some sort of specific domestic procedure by which the House should register its approval of various activities carried out under the Maastricht treaty. I hope to demonstrate that not only in the specific matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is the new clause unnecessary, but that for reasons related to the traditional way in which the House organises its business it would be extremely unwise to include in an Act of Parliament the kind of procedural devices that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

New clause 2 provides that where decisions taken by the Council, acting unanimously, are to be adopted by member states, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, an Act of Parliament shall be the constitutional requirement in the United Kingdom. It has been the practice that substantive changes brought about by the decision of the Council--for example, in relation to articles 138 on European Parliament electoral procedure, 201 on own resources, 236 on treaty amendment and 237 on the admission of new members--are covered by an Act of Parliament.

I can give the House some examples of that. There were accession Acts for Greece, Spain and Portugal. The

Next Section

Home Page