| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 25
Orders of the Day
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
As amended (in the Committee), considered.
3.55 pm
Madam Speaker : Before we start the debates on the Report stage, I have an announcement. I understand that there is some interest in new clause 22, with which amendment No. 2 is grouped. I am sure that it will be of assistance to the House if I let it be known that the effects of new clause 22 and amendment No. 2 are mutually incompatible. Therefore, if new clause 22 is agreed to, amendment No. 2 will fall. On the other hand, if the new clause is defeated, I shall permit a Division on amendment No. 2 when the time comes. Perhaps we can now proceed.
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, in Committee [Interruption.]
Mr. Walker : You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that in Committee, and now as we are about to debate the Report stage, there has been, and will be, no opportunity to address specifically the impact of the Maastricht treaty on the treaty of Union and thus on the creation of a single unitary Parliament. I remind you that the Scottish Parliament was never dissolved, so this Parliament, and particularly the Scottish Members in this House and peers in the other place, is the guardian of the Scottish Parliament. As we have not debated the issue-- [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. Walker : As we have not debated the issue specifically, and we have not been, and will not be, given the opportunity to vote on it in a way that would influence the people of Scotland, it seems that we are heading for a constitutional crisis. If the other place were to debate that aspect of the treaty of Union and the impact on that treaty of the Maastricht treaty and were to pass an amendment that took note of that, just as new clause 9, which has not been selected, would have done, would it be in order if it came back to this Chamber ?
Madam Speaker : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I would not dream of determining what might or might not happen in the other place. He knows that I was more than happy to see him and colleagues to discuss the matter, and I looked at it carefully. New clause 9 is beyond the scope of the Bill and therefore out of order.
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You told the House that clause 22 and amendment No. 2 are incompatible and that, unless new clause 22 were negatived, it would not be possible to have a vote on amendment No. 2. Can I take it that you would allow a vote on amendment No. 2 if new clause 22 either were not moved or were withdrawn?
Madam Speaker : Of course, if new clause 22 is withdrawn or not moved, I shall allow a vote on amendment No. 2. That is logically the case.
Column 26
Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would help hon. Members greatly to know whether, apart from the lead amendments in each of the seven groups, you would be prepared to allow votes on any other amendments grouped with them.
Madam Speaker : As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, I considered that matter carefully before I took the Chair today, and my answer is a straightforward no, unless, of course, they are consequential. I shall not allow any other votes on the amendments.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you help the House by saying whether this is the final selection of amendments and new clauses, or might you change your mind as the debate proceeds? For example, it would have been interesting to debate the inclusion in the referendum of a question on the social chapter, a concept which has much support in the House. Is this the final selection, or may you, Madam Speaker, change your mind?
Madam Speaker : I am not after changing my mind, but the hon. Gentleman might try me.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was disappointed that my amendment No. 54, which raises an issue on the social protocol separate from the selected amendments, is not on the list. The list is described as a provisional selection of amendments, so I was surprised to hear you say that this was not a provisional list but rather, in some respects, a final list. Will you confirm that this is a provisional list, and, if so, is there some prospect of you looking again at the separate issues that my amendment No. 54 raises?
Madam Speaker : The list has to be provisional to allow for any new circumstances that might arise. By tradition, it is always described as provisional. I have selected these amendments, and the object of so doing is to allow a full and proper debate on major areas of the Bill. I gave careful thought to the matter before doing so.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will there be an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to explain further his attitude towards the second referendum in Denmark? You may recollect that, at the Edinburgh summit, the Foreign Secretary said :
"It is not a political reality to suppose that we would sit down and negotiate a new treaty of wherever it is with 11 members without Denmark."
Then, Madam Speaker, you will recollect--
Madam Speaker : Order. I am not having long points of order today which are really matters for debate. The hon. Gentleman has a point of order for me. I think he began by asking whether I would allow the Foreign Secretary to speak. I am very willing for the Foreign Secretary or any other Member of the House to speak during the debate. Does that help the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Budgen : Not entirely, Madam Speaker, because it has since appeared that it is proposed that the 11 should meet together for some purposes which are not defined and not confined to exclude a new treaty. I hope that you will allow a debate which enables the Foreign Secretary to explain his position ; otherwise, some of us might say that he had betrayed Denmark.
Column 27
Madam Speaker : I have shown by the provisional list of amendments the types of debate that will be taking place.
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You kindly allowed a glimmer of light to appear between what you described as your provisional selection and your final selection. I wonder whether, in that tiny space, I could insert a plea for amendment No. 3, which I am sure will have the unique attraction of uniting the House in the provision of new criteria for convergence in the treaty, and which therefore deserves the opportunity to be put to the House so that it can receive that all-party agreement.
Madam Speaker : I have given careful consideration to all the amendments. I see that amendment No. 3 stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall not allow a Division on that.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the third debate, which has a constitutional character? You have selected new clause 2, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), which relates to the constitutional method by which the House has to approve any change in the treaty, for which there is provision. We are grateful for that, as it is an important constitutional matter.
However, in the same group, you have also selected new clause 4, which deals with the proposed single common foreign and security policy. It is proposed that we should debate whether the Foreign Secretary can assent to any matter that relates to a single policy, with or without the consent of the House. If my right hon. Friend had not, in his wisdom, tabled new clause 2 and it had not existed to be selected, we might have been voting on, rather than merely debating, the important constitutional question of the control of this nation's foreign policy.
I do not wish to apply further pressure, Madam Speaker, but you should consider new clause 4 because, it was only a matter of chance that my right hon. Friend tabled new clause 2 which takes precedence.
Madam Speaker : As he well knows, the hon. Gentleman gave me a great deal of homework on constitutional matters at the weekend, and I spent a lot of time considering them as well as new clause 4. I did not come to this Chair having determined during the past hour what the House should debate, but have given the matter a lot of thought over a long period. I am afraid that the House must accept my judgment.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : Could you confirm, Madam Speaker, that the selection of amendments for debate and the suggestions for Divisions will mean that hon. Members who support the passage of the Bill and the social protocol will be able to unite with hon. Members who oppose the Bill and the protocol, and that they will be opposed by hon. Members who support the Bill but do not support the social protocol?
Madam Speaker : Hon. Members must decide for themselves whether they are opposed or unopposed, as it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) : Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that it has been past practice that, if a new clause or amendment has been discussed or voted on in the House, it is unlikely to
Column 28
reappear, provisionally or otherwise, as a selected item for debate and Division? That is the case with new clause 43, in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).Are you aware that Scotland has been misled by the hon. Gentleman into believing that you would select it for a Division? He said : "If Opposition parties unite behind the clause, it will carry around 40 votes in the Commons and put the Prime Minister in an impossible position."
Are you aware, Madam Speaker, that few people slept in Scotland last night, faced with the excitement presented by that prospect?
u confirm that you will adhere to the usual practice and that you will not select matters for discussion that have already been disposed of? Can you also confirm that the hon. Membe-6 eMadam Speaker : I am utterly charmed that at least one Member of the Housesupports my selection. Thank you very much.
Mr. Trimble : Amendment No. 2 is couched in the same terms as amendment No. 27, which we considered in Committee. You took the view, Madam Speaker, that new clause 22 and amendment No. 2 were incompatible. When we discussed amendment No. 27 in Committee, the Attorney-General assured the House that it would have no effect or impact on the Bill or on ratification of the treaty. I wonder whether you have received different legal advice which would indicate that amendment No. 2 would have some effect, despite the fact that he assured us that it would not.
Madam Speaker : The only advice that I listen to is advice as to whether amendments and new clauses are in order. After receiving such advice, I have to determine which to select and I have done so. May we now proceed with the Bill?
New clause 42
Committee of the regions
. A person may be proposed as a member or alternate member for the United Kingdom of the Committee of the Regions constituted under Article 198a of the Treaty establishing the European Community only if, at the time of the proposal, he is an elected member of a local authority.'.-- [Mr. Garel- Jones.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
4.8 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time
Madam Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following : Government amendment No. 43.
Amendment No. 32, in page 1, line 13 after representatives', insert
allocated between England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland as closely as possibly in proportion to the respective electorates.'. Amendment No. 34, in page 1, line 13, after representatives', insert
selected on a basis which reflects the numerical distribution of MPs from each constituent nation of the United Kingdom'.
Column 29
Mr. Garel-Jones : During our debates in Committee, it was made clear to the House that the Government would have much preferred not to be tied down by the limitations that are now contained in clause 1, in relation to the Committee of the Regions. However, as I also told the House on 25 February, the Government will now accept the principle that stands in clause 1 of the amended Bill. New clause 42 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which must be read with amendment No. 43, is not designed to change the principle contained in amendment No. 28, which was moved in Committee. It is designed simply to ensure that our own legislation is drafted to achieve the purpose of amendment No. 28 and no more, and is legally watertight and consistent with our obligations under the treaty.
As a matter of legislative drafting, the change made to clause 1(1) by amendment No. 28 would operate as a proviso, so that title II falls in and out of the definition of "treaties" in the European Communities Act 1972, depending on whether or not United Kingdom representatives were drawn from elected local government representatives. That clearly does far more than the proponents of the original amendment intended--hence new clause 42 transposes the substance to a new clause operating directly on the conditions for appointment to the committee rather than make a legal nonsense of clause 1.
Also, it must be made clearer that the United Kingdom is limiting the category of persons who can nominate for appointment to serve on the Committee of the Regions, not purporting to fetter the council's power of appointment itself. Finally, article 198a of the treaty provides that members and alternate members of the committee shall be appointed for four years. Local councillors also generally serve for four years, but their terms are hardly likely to be congruent. It is possible to read the Bill as drafted as requiring that a person remains a local government representative for the duration of his appointment as a member of the committee.
It would be a breach of our treaty obligations if our domestic law meant that a member of the Committee of the Regions could no longer serve on it once his term as a local government councillor expired. As the treaty provides that the term of office of committee members shall be renewable, we would have liked to be able to renominate an existing member who was making a worthwhile contribution to the committee's work, even if he had ceased to be a local government representative since his appointment to the committee.
That is why the last seven words of new clause 34 as originally tabled last week provided that existing members of the committee could also be proposed for appointment to the committee. However, discussions through the usual channels suggested that that might not be the will of the House, so we have tabled new clause 42 as it appears on today's amendment paper, without that alternative qualification for eligibility to serve on the committee.
Sir Roger Moate (Faversham) : New clause 42 makes it clear that a person may be proposed
"only if, at the time of the proposal, he is an elected member of a local authority."
Are parish councils as well as all other councils included in the definition of a local authority? That seems an important point.
Column 30
Mr. Garel-Jones : My hon. Friend makes a good point. I believe that the definition includes any person who was properly elected under the democratic process to any local government authority in Britain. I am sure that that extends to parish councils but if, in the course of the debate, I have any reason to believe that is not the case, I will inform the House.
Several of my hon. Friends who represent, as I do, English constituencies have tabled amendment No. 34, which seeks to establish representation on the Committee of the Regions on the same lines as in the House. Amendment No. 32 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) takes a similar line. As I told my hon. Friend on 25 February, it is not realistic that England should have 20 of the 24 seats, leaving four to be divided between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think that a majority of right hon. and hon. Members, including those of us who represent English constituencies, recognise that this would not be a satisfactory or reasonable way of establishing our regional representation on the committee. As I said in Committee, we want to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are appropriately and fairly represented.
4.15 pm
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) : I welcome the Government's surrender to, or acceptance of--however they would like it to be read--the vote of the House. There was some noise abroad that the Government would not accept their defeat in Committee and might seek to reverse it on Report. I cannot understand why that rumour got around, because the same majority that defeated the Government in Committee--when they were foolish enough to press it to a vote--would defeat them on Report or at any other stage.
I welcome the Government's rewording in new clause 42. As the Minister rightly admitted, this is not the original new clause that the Government wanted to submit. He says that the improvement follows consultation through the usual channels--by which he means, "I refuse to table the original new clause that I was going to suggest to replace the wording of the Opposition amendment." This is a considerable improvement on the original.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. Clearly he finds it reprehensible for the Government to accept the will of the House, and reprehensible that discussions should then take place through the usual channels in order for the Government to ascertain what those who tabled the amendment were seeking to do, and to comply with it. I do not regard that as reprehensible ; I regard it as the proper way of conducting business.
Mr. Robertson : I never suggested that it was reprehensible ; I said that it was welcome and surprising that the Government should listen to anybody other than their own echoes. If they are willing to take on board the views of the House in this regard, I hope that they will be willing to look at other subjects and listen carefully to what is being said.
It is entirely welcome--and almost unprecedented--that the Government should consult on these matters and abide by the outcome of that consultation. I have to say, without expressing any undue cynicism, that the
Column 31
Government's willingness to obey the will of the House and listen to consultations has more to do with their fear of being defeated than with the bright new dawning of understanding in the field of consultation.Let us be merciful, in the circumstances, and welcome what we have got. What we have got is quite significant--a victory for the House of Commons-- inasmuch as the Government now accept the principle, which the Minister resisted through debate after debate, that the composition of the Committee of the Regions should be selected from among local government representives and not from that tiny who's who that makes up the Government's own list of respectable nominees to serve on everything from local health boards to the chairmanship of the largest quangos in the country. The Government had to accept that principle, and I am grateful that it is now enshrined in legislation.
Of course, other questions remain to be asked in relation to the Committee of the Regions. The Minister said in his statement--as he said to the House on 25 February--that of course the Government would accept the principle that those who serve on the Committee of the Regions should come from the ranks of elected local government councillors, but can he explain why he sent a letter to the president of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities only a few weeks ago suggesting that the will of the House would be only one of the methods that the Government were considering? If the Government have now accepted the principle, will the Minister say explicitly that they will accept the will of the House and choose only from elected councillors? I see that the Minister is nodding his head, which gives more clarification than his correspondence.
Now that the Minister has had time to consider the import of what has been said, following the Government's defeat, and to consult officials about the rewording of the new clause, may I ask him whether he has had time to think through how the British delegation will be chosen? We believed that it was important to establish here the principle that the Committee of the Regions representatives would be local authority representatives. We did not go beyond that. Some have suggested that, by refusing to specifiy the method of selection, we have left it open to the Government to choose Committee of the Regions representatives from among the ranks of Conservative councillors--that is, if, after Thursday next, there are still sufficient Conservative councillors left to sit on the Committee of the Regions.
The Government, and especially the Minister of State, will, I know, have given some thought to this question. I hope, therefore, that he will tell us precisely how the Government intend to deal with this matter. Our strong view was that representation on the Committee of the Regions should not be laid down by the House of Commons--that its composition should be decided neither by Government Ministers nor by means of a provision inserted in the Bill.
If we believed in the principle of local government power and authority and the devolution of power to that level, the composition of the Committee of the Regions
Column 32
should be left to the local government associations, which include representatives of all the major parties and which represent all the regions in the country.Whom does the Minister of State intend to consult? The local government associations have devolved the power to take decisions on many issues to the Local Government International Bureau, which has been engaged in widespread consultations on the subject. It has put forward a number of ideas which it wants to raise with the Minister. Is the Minister of State willing to consult the Local Government International Bureau, with a view to establishing the composition of the Committee of the Regions?
Will the Minister of State ensure that representation of the regions is properly balanced ? He said that he was not in favour of the amendment of one of his hon. Friends, which has not been selected for debate, providing for 20 English regional representatives and four representatives for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Since the Minister of State rejected that amendment and therefore told us what he is against, can he now, after all the detailed thought that has been put into it, tell us precisely what the composition of the Committee of the Regions is to be and how the regions will be represented ? Can we be assured, as the House has the right to be assured, that local government representatives will come from the regions that they are expected to represent ?
The Minister suggested that representation will be broken down region by region. Can we be assured that there will be no question of councillors being selected from one region nominally to represent the interests of another ? This is not a hypothetical question. Allegations have been made outside the House that there may be some jiggery-pokery in the Government's handling of the issue. Can the Minister give us some idea of the Government's thinking on the involvement of the political parties in nominating
representatives to the Committee of the Regions ? If it were thought desirable for the political breakdown to be either by region or nationally, can we be assured that the right of individual political parties to put forward nominees will not be pre-empted and that the Government do not intend to choose representatives from a selected list of representatives, or their own favoured candidates from individual political parties ? Those are some of the detailed questions to which I should like the Minister to respond and to which the House has a right to expect answers.
One of the most intriguing and perhaps most mysterious aspects of the debate on the Committee of the Regions is what happened on the night the House came to its historic conclusion, and the involvement of the Scottish National party and the Welsh nationalists. The SNP found itself rather lonely in its support of the Government. The Minister says that it will not regret it, but I have a faint feeling that some members have already regretted it. It was a fateful evening. The Minister lost, despite the new friends that he had gained and, of course, the nationalist parties lost out. We are told that there was a deal. The Minister did not tell us, and I do not know whether he will tell us now--
Mr. Garel-Jones indicated dissent .
Mr. Robertson : The Minister says no, but that could mean that he is not going to tell us or that there was no deal. However, apparently there was a deal.
Column 33
The deal for Wales--or the alleged deal for Wales--received much more coverage, seemed much more explicit and had strings attached. It apparently meant that the Welsh nationalist party was to vote in support of the Government from here on in, on 10 o'clock motions, closure motions and the rest. It was to support the Government on everything, although I give credit to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for putting his name to amendment No. 2--that was perhaps the one dispensation that the party was allowed as part of the great deal, which was to ensure that there would be one Plaid Cymru representative on the delegation to the Committee of the Regions.Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that by voting for Second Reading we showed our support for the principle of Maastricht and our enthusiasm to see the Bill on the statute book to ensure an end to uncertainty for industry in Wales? It is therefore not surprising that we vote for closure motions in order to make progress, but we are certainly not in favour of the social chapter exclusion because we want the social chapter provisions to apply equally in Wales and the rest of Europe.
Mr. Robertson : On the face of it, that sounds terribly reasonable, although the hon. Gentleman is sitting beside colleagues who have a very different point of view. I admit that, to the outside world, what he says seems reasonably plausible, but it does not bear examination against what he and his colleagues have been saying in Wales. They did a deal. They were not going to decide whether a closure motion should be moved after the appropriate period or after the shortest period in which the Government could obtain a closure motion from the Chairman of Ways and Means. The deal apparently meant a slavish devotion to whatever the Government Whip said--
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys M on) rose --
Mr. Robertson : I shall give way in a moment. I am still replying to the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, but I shall give way to other Members, because everyone wants a chance to speak.
Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : He is the Chief Whip.
Mr. Robertson : My hon. Friend informs me that the hon. Member for Ynys Mo n (Mr. Jones) is the Chief Whip, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain. It is not a matter of an assertion or allegation, because we have done the calculation. The Welsh nationalists supported the Government in 52 of the 59 votes on the Bill. The Minister says that that is very good ; they will get a gold star from the Government. Clearly their actions were part and parcel of the deal.
I shall come to the Scottish nationalists' deal in a moment. It is a "now you see it, now you don't" deal, but we should have to measure the enthusiasm for Maastricht displayed by the Welsh nationalists, which has led them to vote with the Government 52 times out of 59, against the enthusiasm shown by the SNP--
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson : No, I have not moved on yet. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I have not yet come to the Scottish nationalists, but am still dealing with the Welsh
Column 34
nationalists. The deal led the Welsh nationalist party to vote with the Government in 52 out of 59 Divisions. It certainly did not lead the Scottish nationalists to do the same. If the argument is that that was not part of the deal, and was more to do with the Welsh nationalists' devotion to Maastricht, the outside world will not be convinced by it.4.30 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : The hon. Gentleman has done us a great honour. Obviously he has looked at our voting record and thought about it carefully in order to present his argument. May I ask him two relevant questions? First, will he tell the House how many of those votes took place before the amendment on the Committee of the Regions and how many afterwards? He can tell the House whether there was any change in the pattern of our voting. The second question is : how does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his support for the Bill with the fact that he has voted 38 times with the Tory rebels who want to wreck it?
Several hon. Members rose --
Mr. Robertson : Let us deal with those two questions. The first was about votes before and after the amendment, and I believe that we will find that the Welsh nationalist party's devotion to the speedy implementation of Maastricht was concentrated in the period after the amendment was debated. I accept that there will have been some occasions before--
Mr. Wigley : Look at the figures.
Mr. Robertson : We have looked at the figures ; it happened on 52 out of 59 occasions. The nationalists north of the border are all telling us that they routinely vote against the Government, although there are occasions on which their devotion to Maastricht overwhelms their devotion to attacking the Government, but we have been told by the Welsh nationalists that the norm is to vote with the Government.
| Next Section
| Home Page |