House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 May 1993

Mr. Marlow : As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the Committee of the Regions will adopt its rules of procedure and submit them for approval to the Council, acting unanimously. What it will do, how it will do it, where it will do it and any other aspects of the running of the committee are thus subject to the vote of our right hon. Friend the Minister of State. So if my hnisations have grand ideas and like to talk about them-- the women's institute for one--and no doubt they fulfil worthwhile roles. I am always interested to hear what they have to say. In this case, it is pretended that we are setting up some form of regional government along democratic lines. As my hon. Friend points out, it is bogus nonsense.

The Government's conduct in this matter has been terrible. They have persuaded the Welsh nationalists to throw away the healthy independence that minority parties should always have. The Government have also let down the rest of the country by giving special pledges to Scotland and Wales, just because they want the representatives of those countries to vote for measures which they know are a load of rubbish.

This has been a horrible debate. If the Minister of State chooses to disregard all the opinions that I have expressed, I hope that he will at least answer my two questions. If he gives us the figures, in five years' time when he, or perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton, is Prime Minister, we can ask them questions to find out whether perhaps once again the Minister has been misguided and has underestimated the total cost of this worthless Euro-nonsense.

Column 47

Mrs. Ewing : It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), the more so since he managed to insult and compliment the SNP within the space of a few sentences. I have a high regard for his attitude to the European Community, in the sense that he at least has been consistent over many decades in political life. When I was a junior member of the body politic in Scotland, he was campaigning against the European Community, but I think that it would be more honest of him to admit that his argument is not really against the Committee of the Regions : it is against the whole concept of the EC. Therein lies the great difference between his attitude and that of the three nationalist parties. Ever since the hon. Gentleman left Scotland--some people would say that he was sent from Scotland--he has become more and more an adherent of the sovereignty of the Palace of Westminster. Our contention is that sovereignty lies with the people and we will do everything to forward their right to exercise that sovereignty. Again, I do not think that that element is reconcilable between the hon. Gentleman and me.

Some hon. Members have said that they do not believe that the Committee of the Regions will have a great influence on what happens within Europe. Like my party, I believe that it will have a major influence on structural funds. That is of great interest to people in Scotland, particularly when they consider the arguments about article 1 and article 5b, which are important to many of our fragile economic communities, certainly in the north of Scotland. We must bear in mind the fact that eventually the Committee of the Regions will influence the European Parliament and the Commission on aspects of economic life. Therefore, we must not downgrade it.

I hear rumblings already from the Labour Front Bench. Under no circumstances do we see the Committee of the Regions as a substitute for a Scottish parliament or a Welsh parliament, whereby we would have direct representation in the Council of Ministers and in the Commission ; indeed, we would thereby increase our representation in the European Parliament. Until we are in a position to deliver parliaments for Scotland and for Wales--the Labour party is in a shaky position here because, given its votes at the last election, it could deliver such parliaments--we will do everything that we can to enhance the role of our nations within the European Community, where we see our future.

Mr. Marlow : Does the hon. Lady see the Committee of the Regions as a means of bypassing the United Kingdom Parliament? Does she see it as a European device for loosening the cohesion within the United Kingdom and being able to deal directly with the individual parts of the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Ewing : As the hon. Gentleman and I serve on the Select Committee on European Legislation, he should know well my strong views about an independent Scotland within the European Community. I do not see the Committee of the Regions offering us the facility to dial Europe direct and bypass Westminster. Sometimes I wish it could. But until such time as we are an independent nation, I see the Committee of the Regions as part of a decentralising process within the European Community, whereby the views of the regions of Scotland and the regions of Wales--we are not saying that Scotland and Wales are regions--can be expressed and whereby they can

Column 48

co-operate with people from other countries and try to influence the decision-making process, just as we come here, as elected Members, to represent not only the views of our constituents, which are of paramount importance, but the principles set out in our election manifestos.

I am conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you do not want a historical review--

Mr. Salmond : Or a hysterical review.

Mrs. Ewing --or even a hysterical review of how we have reached the new clause. However, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) resorted to some unhappy hyperbole in his attack on myself and on my hon. Friends in the SNP and Plaid Cymru. If he wants an explanation of the discussions and consultations which took place, he need look no further than amendment (b) which we tabled to his amendment No. 28 and which he rejected. I will not reiterate all the arguments that I used in that debate, but it was clear that no hon. Member on these Benches was rejecting the principle of elected councillors throughout Scotland and Wales being representatives on the Committee of the Regions.

We were trying to ensure that due cognisance was taken of the mechanisms of nomination and appointment and the mechanism to ensure plurality within our democratic political societies. That amendment was rejected by the Labour Front Bench, which is now agreeing with the new clause. The hon. Member for Hamilton did not deal with the key principles which we regard as underpinning membership of the Committee of the Regions. He did not talk about the mechanisms for nomination or appointment, or for ensuring plurality within our democratic society. I wonder why? Is it because, on 5 March, at the executive meeting of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, a decision was taken on the appointment of three members of the Committee of the Regions and three substitutes? I ask hon. Members to bear that decision in mind when thinking about the plurality of our democratic system.

The president of COSLA, Charles Gray of Strathclyde, is to be a member. [Hon. Members :-- "Labour"] The senior vice president, Rosemary McKenna of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, is to be a member. [Hon. Members :-- "Labour."] The vice president, Andrew Tulley of Ettrick and Lauderdale, who is an independent, is also to be appointed. The three alternates were named ; they are all members of the Labour party.

Mr. Salmond : Name them.

Mrs. Ewing : I am happy to name them. They are Bob Middleton, the convenor of Grampian regional council-- [Hon. Members :-- "Labour."] ; Baillie Jean McFadden of Glasgow-- [Hon. Members :-- "Labour."] ; and Keith Geddes of Lothian-- [Hon. Members :-- "Labour."] They are all members of the Labour party. Can the hon. Member for Hamilton say whether that is Labour party policy in Scotland on membership of the Committee of the Regions?

Mr. George Robertson : The hon. Lady is reading from a report of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which is not the Labour party in Scotland. The question is whether local government and councillors should decide how the representatives are to be chosen. The hon. Lady must not have been listening, because those are precisely the points that I put to the Minister earlier. Had her party

Column 49

got its way in supporting the Government, there might have been no councillors representing Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom because the Minister wanted to keep representation to the Government's cronies--business men and friends of the Government. That is what the Government wanted and what the hon. Lady voted for.

Mrs. Ewing : The hon. Gentleman started digging a hole when he rose earlier and attacked hon. Members on these Benches. He is continuing to dig that hole. He should learn a lesson and stop digging so furiously. I am not reading from a report from the Scottish Constitutional Convention ; I am reading from the executive minutes of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities held on 5 March this year. The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. It is strange that there has been no communication from COSLA to the hon. Gentleman to let him know that, out of six potential members of the Committee of the Regions, COSLA has nominated five Labour members.

In regard to the amendments which were discussed earlier, I wish to make it plain to the House and to anyone else that there was no attempt by the SNP to prevent the appointment of elected councillors to the Committee of the Regions. We attempted to ensure plurality and consultation to prevent the Secretary of State or other parties from appointing placemen. We wanted plurality because there is no point in arguing about democracy if there is to be a system of appointments by the patronage of the Front Benches. We in Scotland must take account of the results in general and local elections. We hope that Labour will eventually realise that we live in a pluralistic society and that it does not have a monopoly on local government in Scotland. In conclusion, I re-emphasise

Mr. George Robertson : I hope that the hon. Lady's conclusion will answer the question that has been repeatedly asked--what is the deal? She and her colleagues voted against a Labour amendment which would have left the Government with no flexibility about who it could appoint for the United Kingdom delegation. The amendment stated that delegates had to be locally elected councillors. The Government said that they wanted to reserve places for their cronies. What did the SNP get for voting with the Government against the principle of our amendment? The people of Scotland want to know that. Does the hon. Lady propose to tell us?

5.30 pm

Mrs. Ewing : I have become increasingly depressed by the hon. Gentleman because he has not done his homework. He should look again at amendment (b) which we tabled to his amendment. That was the basis of our consultation and negotiations and it guaranteed plurality among elected councillors in the committee. The hon. Gentleman's amendment allowed the Secretary of State to continue to have the facility to appoint whom he wanted. The hon. Gentleman was allowing the Government to choose and the Conservatives are more likely to choose Brian Meek than Campbell Christie or Rosemary McKenna. Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen were allowing power to reside with the Secretary of State for Scotland. Our amendment (b) fully allowed for accountability and the plurality of our democratic system.

Column 50

The hon. Member for Hamilton spoke about deals. He is always involved in deals and negotiations. It seems that consultation is acceptable to Labour only when it is involved. If other people dare to discuss with other parties in the House how they feel about issues, somehow or other it is wrong. There were discussions with the Labour party, but it refused to accept the principles that we were propounding.

Labour should not adopt such a pious attitude. Every hon. Member has the right to discuss and negotiate with those in authority to try to obtain the best terms for his constituents and his country. A great deal of hot air has been expended.

Mr. Gallie : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Ewing : I shall do so briefly.

Mr. Gallie : The hon. Lady said that the comments by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) depressed her. Is she depressed by the fact that the hon. Gentleman continually refers to the business community in derogatory terms? Does he not see business men as wealth and job creators who have a part to play in Scotland's well being and perhaps in the committee?

Mrs. Ewing : I do not propose to enter into a debate on an intervention that was aimed at the Labour party. However, many people in our communities have many ideas about the expenditure of structural funds, for example, and they include trade unionists as well as business people. This weekend I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress as they passed through my constituency in the march for jobs and democracy. They are doing a fine job. The churches and voluntary organisations should have an input about how our communities develop and how money is spent.

Sir Teddy Taylor : As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) rightly says, business men and church people are all terribly nice and do good work for everyone. However, the Government's new clause says that representatives will be councillors only, which means that business men and church people are chucked out. I hope that my hon. Friend is aware of what he has been told to vote for. He will be voting for councillors only and excluding business men and church people.

Mrs. Ewing : The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) raised this issue. The councillors that I know in my area are very much in touch with business men, trade unions, churches and voluntary organisations and take serious account of opinions that are expressed to them. It is unfortunate that the debate about the Committee of the Regions has been marred by attempts to score party political points. We see it as an important sphere of influence for people who represent the diverse areas of Scotland and Wales and the opinions there. We hope that the committee will operate in a European context for the benefit of our two nations as well as all the other nations of the Community.

Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston) : The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was not very persuasive. She conceded that there were consultations between her party and the usual channels in Government. There is nothing wrong with that, but the outcome was that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends voted with the

Column 51

Government. I suspect that there was some reason for her and her colleagues deciding to give carte blanche to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales to make all the nominations to the Committee of the Regions. I would be rather surprised if the hon. Lady and her colleagues did not obtain some concession in return for a generous offer to the Government.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), on accepting the principle that we adopted in Committee. It was right for the Government to concede that, and wise of my right hon. Friend to back track a little.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) asked whether parish councillors would be eligible to sit on the committee. That is an important question, but I doubt that the answer is in the affirmative, because a local authority is legally defined. I stand to be corrected about that, as on most things, but I think that I am right in saying that a parish council is not a judicially defined legal authority--certainly not in the English courts, although it may be different elsewhere.

There is no difficulty in finding good people to stand for parish councils. In Lincolnshire and in most other counties, people of real ability are willing to sit on parish councils. They may be managing directors, prominent farmers, senior solicitors or senior trade union officials who do not have the time to sit on local authorities but are willing to give time to parish councils. Parish councils contain a great deal of talent upon which to draw, and I shall be disappointed if they are excluded from the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Marlow : Does my hon. Friend agree that, inasmuch as we need a Committee of the Regions, many people who would be valuable participants engage in many other activities? It is those other activities which would make them so good for the committee, but they do not have a great deal of time. However, they would have time to serve on a parish council near their home, although they would not have the time to serve on a county council or a metropolitan authority, which would require much greater commitment.

Sir Richard Body : That must be the case, but a great deal depends on what the Committee of the Regions will do. I shall return to that matter.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that he had contemplated representatives from the islands if the original provision had gone through unamended. I suppose that he had in mind the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, for example. Perhaps he would confirm that.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Or Gibraltar.

Sir Richard Body : My hon. Friend takes the word out of mouth. I was going to mention Gibraltar. It is not quite an island, but those of us who have had the opportunity to go there in recent months know that there are strong feelings there about the way that it has been treated within the European Community.

It insists that it is in the Community and that it is trying to be communautaire, yet as soon as the single market came into effect on 1 January this year, the borders were closed by the Spanish Government. When I was there a

Column 52

week or two after that closure, it was taking people from both sides four hours to cross the border. That is in conflict with all that was intended by the single market.

Gibraltar is saying that it cannot raise its voice. It has no voice in the House of Commons or the European Parliament. Therefore, might it not have a place on the Committee of the Regions?

Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister would be good enough to tell me whether there is any prospect of Gibraltar having some voice in Brussels. At the moment, it is dependent on the Foreign Office. Whether the Foreign Office is willing to express forcefully and effectively the views of Gibraltar is not for me to say. If it advocates the case for Gibraltar as it advocates the case for this country, I may wonder about what is being said on behalf of Gibraltar.

Sir Teddy Taylor : I compliment my hon. Friend on raising that vital point about Gibraltar not being represented anywhere on any body. Could not the Government, if they wanted to, allocate Gibraltar seats on this funny European Parliament? That subject may be going wide of the new clause, but the Government could, if they wanted to, do something for Gibraltar through the additional seats that have not been parcelled out to particular places but that we must parcel out ourselves.

Sir Richard Body : Indeed. The Government of Gibraltar have made that suggestion to Her Majesty's Government, and are awaiting a reply.

I wonder what France is doing over Re union, Guadaloupe and Martinique. There is an analogy. It would be interesting to hear from my right hon. Friend what the French Government are proposing to do in selecting representatives for the Committee of the Regions. As we know, metropolitan France extends across oceans and includes places that are often much poorer than mainland France, and worthy of representation on any Committee of the Regions, but still just as much part of the European Community as Lyon, Paris or Marseilles. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some news of what is happening on that score. If France is giving any representation on the Committee of the Regions to those faraway places, we should be doing the same for Gibraltar and, even closer to home, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : The case of France and Re union is interesting, but an even more interesting example is the case of Ceuta and Melilla, the Spanish areas in Africa, where the people have votes to the European Parliament. Those African areas can be represented on the new Committee of the Regions. Is it not diabolical that areas in Africa that are Spanish can be represented on the Committee, but Gibraltar, which has been in the European Community since 1973--long before Spain ever joined-- will be denied such representation?

Sir Richard Body : The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The excuse given is that those two parts of Africa are parts of Spain, just as much as Barcelona, while Gibraltar is virtually independent and is not part of the United Kingdom.

We ought to hear a little more from my right hon. Friend the Minister about how seats are being parcelled

Column 53

out in the other countries. It is obvious, whether or not there is a deal, that Scotland and Wales will have proportionately more than Northern Ireland and England.

Mr. Marlow : Why?

5.45 pm

Sir Richard Body : I also ask why. I do not want to provoke the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), but we should recall why those differences exist. Northern Ireland always used to have fewer Members of Parliament because of Stormont. Not until after Stormont was abolished and Enoch Powell and others mounted a long campaign was representation in Northern Ireland extended to match that of England.

In the meanwhile, Wales and Scotland remained over-represented, because it was more difficult to get around constituencies there. That is no longer the case. The hon. Member for Moray has an attractive constituency, which I visited the other day. I got there much more quickly than I would have got to Boston in my constituency. One can fly to Inverness and get from there to Moray quickly. It takes me about three hours to get to Boston.

I well remember, when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) represented Glasgow, Cathcart, standing waiting with him at the Members' Entrance. I was amazed to hear that he would get to Glasgow in two hours, when it would take me three hours to get to Boston.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : We have spoken about deals. Is it not a fact that, rather than a campaign waged by Enoch Powell, it was a deal done in Parliament to keep a Government in position for a little while longer that resulted in extra seats for Northern Ireland?

Sir Richard Body : I remember that. The hon. Gentleman is right. A deal was done. It was a necessary deal, and it gave Northern Ireland representation, as it was entitled to, on the same basis as that for England. That only reinforces my point. Northern Ireland and England are treated the same, and rightly so, but I do not see why Scotland and Wales should be treated more favourably than Northern Ireland, particularly when it comes to the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : The hon. Gentleman might not find it so difficult to understand if, instead of representing the sort of constituency that he represents with such distinction, he represented a constituency such as mine, which, although it has a mere 32,000 electors--less than half the national average--covers an area of 2,800 square miles. Not even the miraculous modern transport systems will allow one to get around that in one day.

Sir Richard Body : I have travelled from Inverness to Scourie, almost to the far end of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, at a tremendous speed because the roads were quite empty. I had a delightful holiday when I got there, and I have envied him his constituency ever since. If he would like to exchange his constituency--but it is not for me to make the offer.

I emphasise the point, because the other countries in the Community will not resort to regional weighting. I doubt whether some parts of France will have greater

Column 54

representation than others. I doubt whether the la"nder in Germany will allow some to have more than others, or whether the northern Italians will allow southern Italians, about whom they have strong feelings at the moment, to have more representation. Throughout the rest of the Community, representation will be proportionate to population.

I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that, because we should by now know what proposals other member countries are making.

Mr. Marlow : Another important point that my hon. Friend is probably about to come to is the fact that the United Kingdom has an allocation of 24 members for the Committee of the Regions, but Belgium, which I understand has one fifth of the population of the United Kingdom, has an allocation of 12 members--one fifth of the size, half the number. If there is to be a Committee of the Regions--many of us are not completely happy with the concept--why should each Belgian be two and a half times as heavily represented as each member of the United Kingdom?

Sir Richard Body : Poor old England will come off worst of all. That is bound to be the case, because we shall be giving proportionately more to Scotland and Wales. They will be much the same as the Belgians, whereas we in England will have to have a reduced number to enable that to come about.

That is of some importance, because I believe that we shall hear much more of the regions with regard to England. Those of us who have argued about the effect that the single market will have upon our economy have repeatedly said that we shall see a steady drift of industry away from all parts of the United Kingdom, including England and the south-east, to what has been called the golden triangle or what is nowadays being called the red banana--that banana-shaped area based on the Rhine, to which industry is now being attracted. We shall see the de-industrialisation of England continue and unemployment continuing at a high level.

Whether or not we adopt the social chapter, we shall find it more difficult to attract industry from the mainland of Europe. All parts of England will suffer the regional malaise that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have suffered for decades. That being so, it is wrong that England should be less well represented than those other regions of Europe which will be similarly affected and which may be outside the golden triangle or the red banana. Therefore, I regret the way in which the Government have done a deal with Opposition Members.

Sir R. Moate : I have listened most carefully, but I am puzzled about why it should be of any concern to my hon. Friend, me or anyone else whether the English regions have X-plus or X-minus members on the Committee of the Regions. I have listened to many debates on the subject, and I have heard no evidence that such a committee will be anything more than a talking shop, having virtually no influence on anything. What difference does it make to us whether we have 100 members or one?

Sir Richard Body : It is convenient that my hon. Friend should say that, because it enables me to go on to make what was my last point. That is that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East are remarkably naive

Column 55

about the European Community. Both should remember what was said in the early 1970s about what was then called the consultative assembly.

Sir Roger Moate indicated assent.

Sir Richard Body : I am glad to see my hon. Friend nodding his head. That assembly is now called the European Parliament. Of course, it is still not quite a Parliament, but it will get there given the chance.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : This is the second Chamber.

Sir Richard Body : Yes indeed.

In 1996, we are due to have another intergovernmental conference, and all those institutions will acquire more powers and greater strength. That will include the Committee of the Regions. That is why I believe that the committee will be extremely important. To use a rather tired old phrase, the Committee of the Regions is just the thin end of the wedge, just as the consultative assembly was the thin end of the wedge way back in the 1950s, when it was first established by the treaty of Rome.

Those of us who were federalists in those days--I must confess that I was-- always knew that we would never achieve our objective in one move ; it had to be done gradually. One reason why I departed from the federalist camp and ceased to be a federalist was that I felt that it was deceptive. It was always assumed that we would never get where we wanted in one move. Over the years we have seen a steady move towards federalism and the Committee of the Regions is one part of that move, just as the consultative assembly was to evolve into the supreme Parliament of western Europe.

Sir Roger Moate : My hon. Friend might be right : this committee might be the thin end of the wedge. That is the explanation of the support give to it, understandably, by all the nationalist parties. But if so, is that not even more reason to oppose the concept of only elected councillors being selected for membership of this regional council? Is it not that kind of thing that is designed to confer legitimacy ; to build up the pretus to retreat to the position of nominated business men and other worthy people serving on the committee.

Sir Richard Body : That is a persuasive intervention. I might have to reconsider how I shall vote. I do not wish any democratic legitimacy to be accorded to any institution of the Community. However, I must concede that I am attracted by the idea of regionalism. I say that with great regret, because I do not wish the powers or status of this House to be diminished in any way. But once we have ratified Maastricht, we shall have taken a step which will have so lowered the position of this House that we shall need to consider deeply which way we go from there. We shall have to have some kind of regional assemblies. We cannot have any true democracy or any sense of public accountability if more and more power is to go to the European Parliament, as it will after 1996 and

Column 56

the next intergovernmental conference. At that point, we shall have to recognise that we shall have to have a large number of regional assemblies, and the Committee of the Regions will have to be considerably beefed up after 1996.

Anyone who has studied the development of the Community knows perfectly well that this is just the first step. There is no strong regional authority to begin with. Powers are not given to the Committee of the Regions immediately. The idea is simply introduced to get people used to it. People are then elected to it who start to enjoy the journeys to Brussels, or wherever it may be, and being paid accordingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was rather light-hearted about the cost

Sir Teddy Taylor : The Minister of State was light-hearted, not me.

Sir Richard Body : That is much more likely.

We now know that the average Member of the European Parliament costs us £500,000 a year. Perhaps a member of the Committee of the Regions will cost £100,000 a year. It is not unreasonable to assume that their total emoluments and expenses will be one fifth. However, I must not digress into the area of expenses.

Mr. Marlow : Does that £500,000 include the cost of interpreters and the running costs of the institution as well as a Member's expenses and emoluments?

Sir Richard Body : No, the cost of the European Parliament is much more than that. The expert on that subject is sitting on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) knows that it has always been a great deal more than that. The pantechnicons moving the papers around the capitals cost more than that.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not continue with that theme. A passing reference is one thing, but total consideration of that point would be out of order.

6 pm

Sir Richard Body : I was tempted, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I must resist temptation.

I had made my point--that this is the beginning, starting with a form of regional authorities. I concede that, after Maastricht, they may be necessary--but I shall continue to oppose the treaty, because I do not want us to go that route. If we are to move towards a federal structure--as we are, whatever we may choose to call it--we will need committees established across the whole Community to represent each region. Equally, the regions themselves will need their own institutions.

If one is attracted by the argument for regionalism, as I know some Opposition Members are, it could be argued also that the sooner we recognise that case the better, and that that is the only democratic route for the Community to take. That is an attractive argument and, if the treaty is duly ratified, will probably be the route that I shall take. However, I shall much regret having to change my mind and to concede that the House will lose many more of its powers than it will anyway lose under the treaty.

Mr. John D. Taylor : In the debate on the Committee of the Regions in Committee, the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party voted in favour of elected local

Column 57

authority representatives being appointed to the committee. It is only right to place on record our appreciation for the new clause tabled by the Government this afternoon.

Several references have been made to deals made at the Committee stage between the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the English Conservatives-- all kinds of deals. Those of us from Northern Ireland--I note that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is in his place--are beginning to think, given that so many deals have been made by the Scottish and Welsh nationalists with the Government, that there will be hardly any seats left on the Committee of the Regions for Northern Ireland.

Unlike Scottish and Welsh nationalists, we are not open to deals on the Maastricht agreement because it means something much more important than just a few seats on the Committee of the Regions. It will mean surrendering many of the powers of our national Parliament, a common European defence and security policy, a common European currency and a central bank. Those major issues are not negotiable with Ulster Unionists just to secure a few seats on the Committee of the Regions.

Nonetheless, as there is to be that committee, and as the Government have decided that elected representatives shall serve on it, we must put down our marker so that Northern Ireland is fairly represented. What does the Minister consider to be fair representation for Northern Ireland? He has done deals with parties in other parts of the United Kingdom and we would like to know what is deemed to be fair representation for Northern Ireland. It is often argued that Northern Ireland's various political parties should be represented. As the Social Democratic and Labour party receives only 20 or 21 per cent. of votes in Northern Ireland, or 25 per cent. in a European election, Northern Ireland would need four seats on the Committee of the Regions for the SDLP to secure even one seat. If Northern Ireland representation is reduced to three seats, I fear that the SDLP will not be represented at all. I want to know whether Northern Ireland is to have four full members and four alternate members appointed to the committee.

As to the United Kingdom's overall representation on the committee, that should not be on a pro rata basis according to the United Kingdom's population, but should relate to those regions that receive moneys from the European regional development fund. That would naturally restrict the size of England's representation, but Northern Ireland would, pro rata, have more representation because it is an area of first priority for European development funding.

The problem for Northern Ireland in appointing elected representatives to the Committee of the Regions is that it does not have elected local government. Although Northern Ireland has 26 district councils, their powers are limited to the lifting of the bins once a week, the provision of cemeteries, and certain small tourist projects. Otherwise, all the major local government services of Northern Ireland are controlled by the English Secretary of State and his English Ministers, who come to Stormont once a week to govern us. Those Ministers have full powers in respect of roads, sewerage, water, and planning.

Mr. Mallon : It might be wise at this point for the right hon. Gentleman to state why local government in Northern Ireland does not have the power that people would like it to have. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman

Next Section

Home Page