House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 May 1993

Mr. Bill Walker : My hon. Friend will notice that my name appears among those supporting his amendment. I speak as a Scot and ask my hon. Friend whether he believes that there is a danger of the separatists using the

Column 72

vehicle of additional bodies in what they believe to be places of influence to undermine Parliament. That is why it would be wrong to base the representation of the Committee of the Regions on the representation in this place.

Mr. Marlow : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for my amendment, and I also concur with what he has said. I am sure that it is more than a twinkle or gleam in the eye of the Commission that the Committee of the Regions should include among its functions that of dissolving the bonds within the United Kingdom, so that Brussels can reach over the head of the House and seduce what it considers to be the regions away from Parliament, the House and the kingdom. Surely it must be our role to thwart that ambition.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I hope that it has not escaped the attention of my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that the way to have cast aside the fears now being expressed with such eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North would have been to support the Government in defeating Labour's amendment in Committee. Had they done so, none of the fears that my hon. Friend is now voicing about elected councillors and deals with nationalists would have arisen.

Mr. Marlow : With respect, I think that I have covered that issue. I am now talking, not about whether elected councillors should be appointed, but about the regional allocation of seats.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Perhaps uncharacteristically, far from apologising for having discussions through the usual channels in the House, on this occasion I regard them as a good thing in themselves. However, such discussions would probably not have been initiated had my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North and for Tayside, North supported the Government on the amendment.

Mr. Marlow : I am not sure what my right hon. Friend is saying, but it could be very important. If my right hon. Friend is saying that he did not like the amendment in Committee, is not happy with new clause 42 which the Government have tabled, would be happy for it to be defeated and then propose a mixture of appointees to the Committee of the Regions which would do the job more effectively for the United Kingdom, I should be happy to support him.

Mr. Garel-Jones : My hon. Friend--whom I hold in esteem and affection--is telling the House that he will now vote against precisely the same proposition as he supported in Committee. I beg him not to play games with me or the House. The Government were defeated in Committee. We are now acting as a Government should in that position. We had to decide whether to seek to overturn the decision--we believe that we do not have the support of my hon. Friend in doing so--or to comply with the will of the House. We are complying with the will of the House. I beg my hon. Friend not to play games with either the House or me. He supported one proposition a month ago and is now speaking and advocating a vote against the proposition.

Mr. Marlow : I genuinely hold my right hon. Friend in great esteem and affection--I am sure that my right hon.

Column 73

Friend was also genuine when he made that remark of me. I explained in detail to my right hon. Friend what happened on a previous occasion. My right hon. Friend was saying with regard to our Irish friends in the Chamber that he would not want to start from here, but we are here, and we have to improve the position from here. The Government are apparently accepting what happened in Committee. If the Government have a better policy that they feel will better fulfil the United Kingdom's role than the solution produced in Committee.-- [Interruption.] If my right hon. Friend wants to discuss possible alternatives that will gain majority support among Conservative Members and sufficient support within the House to gain victory, he should produce them.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall not intervene on my hon. Friend again, but he is playing games with me and with the House that do not deceive me or the House. It is clear that he played games in Committee and is playing games again. I think that that fact should lie on the record.

Mr. Marlow : That is my right hon. Friend's view. My right hon. Friend knows that the Bill is dynamite. There are many ways of resolving the problems that we face. There are opportunities for the Government, not only here but in another place, to resolve the problems over the Committee of the Regions. If the Government feel that the Bill, as presently amended, is wrong, they have plenty of opportunities to put it right. They will receive the overwhelming support of Conservative Members.

Mr. Mallon : I listened to the hon. Gentleman with some interest in Committee, as I have today, and I see that there is some misunderstanding between the Minister and himself. Let me give him the opportunity of clarifying matters. Will he confirm to the House--it would dispel the fears of the Minister and many others--whether, irrespective of how many would be on the committee, who they were, from where they were selected and how they were to operate, he would still be opposed to a Committee of the Regions-- or are there circumstances in which he would support it? That would clarify the position for us all.

Mr. Marlow : To be quite frank, I do not like the Committee of the Regions. I am not sure what it is there to do, potentially what it might do in future, what its powers may be and how the House will be able to influence those powers at a later stage. If there is to be a Committee of the Regions, I believe that there may be a balance of members and a means of appointment that may be more satisfactory than that on the face of the Bill.

Mr. Mallon : I thank the hon. Gentleman for going some way towards clarifying his position. He voted against it on the last occasion and he is voting for it today, so we are becoming confused. I ask him again whether there is any set of circumstances, irrespective of the numbers on the committee and its personnel, in which he would vote for a Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Marlow : The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is that, if I could abolish the Committee of such a way as not to have locally elected councillors and to look at the regional allocation of membership of the committee.

Column 74

Luxembourg, which has roughly the same population as

Northamptonshire, has been allocated six places on the Committee of the Regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) was talking about the red banana--the wealthy part of Europe with the fewest regional problems--and that includes Luxembourg. In the House, there are six hon. Members representing Northamptonshire. Luxembourg is of similar size, but is to have six out of 189 members of the Committee of the Regions throughout Europe. That is totally disproportionate and unacceptable.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Luxembourg is a very small country with one full-powered Commissioner to balance it out. Why should it have six representatives on the Committee of the Regions when it has a full -powered Commissioner at the seat where decisions are taken?

Mr. Marlow : I could not agree more strongly. The powers of the small states within Europe are far too great in proportion to their population. Why should we reinforce and sustain that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. This has very little to do with the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Marlow : I certainly accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With regard to the number of members of the Committee of the Regions, if I were to ask my constituents whether Northampton should be included with four or five other counties, they would not accept that. Why should Luxembourg have 20 times the representation of Northamptonshire? Has it regional problems additional to those in Northamptonshire? How can it be justified? How can we agree to the over-representation of Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland and Denmark? The balance of the Committee of the Regions will come from the smaller countries of Europe. Countries such as Belgium and Holland are part of the wealthy heart of Europe ; they do not have more problems, and they do not need more consideration and a higher profile on the Committee of the Regions. Why have we agreed to that? Returning to the membership of the United Kingdom allocation, surely it should be decided on a pro rata basis within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : Does it follow from the hon. Gentleman's argument that he believes that Germany should have approximately twice as many representatives as the United Kingdom on the Committee of the Regions?

7.15 pm

Mr. Marlow : I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has made some splendid speeches on the Bill, but he will know as I do that the population of Germany is not twice that of the United Kingdom. Under present proposals, Germany is getting the same allocation as the United Kingdom. That is wrong ; there should be more German representatives on the Committee of the Regions than there are representatives from the United Kingdom. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to provoke me into agreeing with him, but we do agree.

Column 75

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) : Does the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument suggest that he is a late convert to proportional representation?

Mr. Marlow : I take the Italian view of proportional

representation. I do not support proportional representation. It has nothing to do with proportional representation. If my hon. Friend thinks that to have similar-sized constituencies in Lincolnshire, Essex, the west country or Scotland is proportional representation, that is not my understanding. It is the first-past-the-post system in which each Member of Parliament has roughly the same number of constituents. We have the same job, and in this day and age, when much is done by telephone and through the media, the size of the constituency rather than the number of people in it is less relevant than it was in the past.

If we are to establish a new organisation, the most sensible way to do it is on a pro rata basis, not just between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but within England and the rest of Europe. I find it difficult to support a concept that does the opposite.

Having said all that, the amendment in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would delete the amendment made in Committee. I know it will cause great consternation to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but I shall have great joy in supporting it when the time comes.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : This has been quite a remarkable debate in one unique sense--that the integrity of myself and my colleagues has been attacked from a number of directions. We had a fierce attack from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), flanked as he was earlier by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). We had an equally fierce attack from those who have opposed the Bill throughout the Committee stage.

It is quite remarkable that we should have been subject to those attacks, bearing in mind of course that we supported the Bill on Second Reading. We made it quite clear on Second Reading and in Committee why we supported the Bill : we wanted to see the Maastricht treaty implemented quickly. We wanted to see progress being made towards its ratification.

I hope that the hon. Members who attacked us for voting in that way will at least acknowledge that we were consistent. Throughout the Committee stage of the Bill we supported ways in which quicker progress could be made and we voted to ensure that any amendment which sought to wreck the treaty and undermine it was voted down. That was an honourable position for us to have taken and we have been consistent in our view.

The hon. Member for Hamilton said, "Look how many times Plaid Cymru voted for the Bill." We make no apologies whatsoever for that because we are four square behind the principles enshrined in the treaty. It does not go as far as we would like in a number of respects, but our position is absolutely clear.

In responding to my interventions, the hon. Member for Hamilton failed to acknowledge that there was no difference whatsoever in the pattern of voting that I and my colleagues established prior to the vote on the Committee of the Regions and subsequently. He will find the same consistent pattern. What surprised me about the voting records of the hon. Gentleman and his hon.

Column 76

Friends, particularly as the hon. Gentleman is an avowed pro-European, is that on more than 30 occasions they were prepared to walk through the Lobbies with Conservative Members whose avowed intention is to destroy the treaty. They consistently voted with them.

Why did they do that? Why do pro-Europeans find themselves in the Lobby with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? What did he tell us tonight? He wants to scrap the Committee of the Regions. He wants to see it destroyed. What did the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) tell the House? He said that the Committee of the Regions is a pathetic and absolutely useless body. Yet on that night he was in the Lobby with Labour Members. That is a contradiction. How can one say that one favours a principle and yet consistently vote against it?

Mr. George Robertson : The hon. Member for Ynys Mo n (Mr. Jones) says that he is voting on principle, but with his colleagues he is a signatory to amendment No. 2. If the Government put the Tellers in, he will be voting with us and with the Tory rebels on amendment No. 2. He has made an exception in that instance. Why should he criticise hon. Members who have made that discriminating choice on other occasions?

Mr. Jones : The hon. Member for Hamilton claims to have read our voting record and to have given the House the numbers. He spoke of 52 occasions out of 59. Did he read the vote in the House on his party's amendment to the social chapter on Second Reading? Where did he find us in the Lobbies on that night? He found us with himself and his hon. Friends because we are consistent and have always said that the social chapter should be included. [Interruption.] On Second Reading the Opposition put down an amendment which said that the social chapter should be part of the treaty. We voted with Labour Members on that occasion because we believe in it. That is the principle on which we stood.

As I listened to the hon. Member for Hamilton, I asked myself why he was attacking us. What does he find obnoxious in Wales getting at least three members, and possibly four, on the Committee of the Regions? What does he find obnoxious in my party's accepting that the members of the Committee of the Regions should be elected councillors or in the fact that the representatives in Wales should be answerable to a body?

Then I realised why he did not like the arrangement to ensure that Wales has a number of representatives to the Committee of the Regions which is more than his party would allow. A report in the Municipal Journal of 12 March 1993 shows that the Labour-dominated associations of local authorities have carved up the Committee of the Regions between themselves. This is the deal that the Labour party has done to stitch up Wales and Scotland. Let me tell the House about it :

"The associations have agreed how the committee places should be divided, with 10 for English shire areas ; six (English metropolitan districts) ; two (London) ; two (Wales) ; three (Scotland) and one for Northern Ireland."

Is that what the Labour party wants Wales to have--two representives on the Committee of the Regions? That was not good enough for us in March. It is not good enough for us today either. We are out to get the best deal that we can for Wales. We are out to ensure not only that

Column 77

we get the highest number possible squeezed out of the House of Commons but that they do not come from one party.

Mr. Marlow : What the hon. Gentleman says is very interesting. Is he saying that the Labour party suggests that Wales should have twice as many members of the Committee of the Regions as London, which has four times the population of Wales? How does he justify that?

Mr. Jones : We have always accepted that there is a difficulty about representation in the House for Wales and Scotland. The hon. Member for Northampton, North has acknowledged that the House accepts that. The principle is enshrined in the way in which hon. Members are elected to the House. The hon. Member has said that there are more representatives from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for historical reasons. That, I believe, should be reflected in the way we send people to the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Marlow : Why?

Mr. Jones : Because we are disadvantaged.

Let me return to the point that I was making about who should go to the Committee of the Regions. We made it clear that they should be elected councillors and that nobody else was acceptable. Let me go further. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Hamilton. He said that Labour Members did not want the House of Commons to decide who should select the representatives, that Labour Members were perfectly content for the House of Commons to state that they should be elected councillors and that they did not want to tie the hands of the House as to how those people should be selected. Under the Labour amendment the three, or two, representing the region of Wales on the Committee of the Regions could be Conservative councillors, and they could not have opposed that. That might be the Government's choice. Conversely--and this is the real reason why the Labour party did not want to tie anyone's hands--if it had its way, they would be three, or two, Labour councillors.

I say that because I listened with care to the hon. Member for Hamilton saying that because Plaid Cymru had less than 10 per cent. of the vote in Wales it should not have a representative and because the Liberal party had only 15 per cent. of the vote it should not have one. The Labour party had 50 per cent. of the vote in Wales. Does that mean that all the councillors should be Labour?

Mr. Ron Davies : I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not being strictly accurate in his representation of Labour party policy. It has been made abundantly clear by me and by many of my colleagues who represent Welsh constituencies that it is our intention--and it is a fact, now that the House has accepted our proposal--that these representatives should come from local government. We have made it clear that the precise mechanism for choosing those individuals should be decided by the institutions of local government in Wales, either by the Association of Welsh Counties or by the Council of Welsh Districts.

Let me make clear a point that should be established at this stage. The proposition that the hon. Member for Ynys Mo n (Mr. Jones) has entered into by means of some covert agreement with the Government will now require members of Plaid Cymru to submit a list to the Government so that they can vet those nominees and make a selection from the

Column 78

names. That is not the way the Labour party intends to do it. If it is the case that one representative is allocated to the Labour party, we will have a secret ballot. Why does the hon. Gentleman not decide that this is an appropriate course of action for him to follow?

Mr. Jones : Let me make it clear to the hon. Member that there would be no veto on anyone chosen if it should be a Plaid Cymru representative. I can tell him as well that there would be no Plaid Cymru, Liberal or any other representative if the Labour party had its way.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that as regards Wales the Labour amendment is wholly otiose because all the discussions that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends had with the Treasury Bench were at all times on the basis that all

representatives should be representatives of local government? So there is nothing in the amendment for Wales.

Mr. Jones : Absolutely. The only arrangement that benefits Wales is the one made by Plaid Cymru, no thanks to the Labour party which would have let Wales down with two representatives, it seems, as Labour Members have not challenged the report in the Municipal Journal.

Mr. Salmond : Will the hon. Member reflect on the earlier part of the debate and the revelation of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, dominated by the Labour party, has suggested that five out of the six representatives allowed by the Labour party, that is, three representatives and three alternates, should be Labour councillors? In an earlier debate, that seemed to come as something of a surprise to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). Does it give the hon. Gentleman any confidence that the Labour party would treat Wales any differently from Scotland, where it has tried to carve up the seats according to its liking?

7.30 pm

Mr. Jones : My hon. Friend makes his own point. It is perfectly clear that the reason why the Labour party was so angry about the arrangement that we were able to secure for Wales was that it upset the little stitch-up that it had done with its friends elsewhere.

Mr. Ron Davies : The hon. Gentleman is giving the House entirely inaccurate information. If he consults the councillors who represent his party on the Council of Welsh Districts, they will tell him that I and my colleagues met them in January of this year and made it absolutely clear that the Labour party recognised that there would have to be a plurality of representation. Furthermore, we believed that the decision should be based on a secret ballot of all councillors in Wales, making up an electoral college devised in such a way as to provide proper representation for the north, the south, the east, the west, urban and rural districts, and men and women. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this and stop trying to misrepresent the Labour party's position.

Mr. Jones : The hon. Gentleman has spent six weeks misrepresenting the position of my party. All I have done is quote a report that appeared in a respected journal, showing what the Labour-dominated Association of Welsh Counties has said.

Column 79

I would take all this much more kindly from the hon. Gentleman if everything that he has said about his wishes had been included in his amendment. Had it mentioned plurality and the sort of numbers that Wales should have, I could have accepted that.

Mr. Hoon : I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and have tried to understand the basis on which he suggests representation should be allocated to the Committee of the Regions. I do not question his claim to be a man of principle from a party of principle, but what I have failed to understand from his speech is what exactly the principle of representation that he advocates is. I have been able to understand only that he says Wales should get more because Wales is disadvantaged. I do not dispute that --Scotland is disadvantaged, the east midlands is disadvantaged, and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent disadvantaged constituencies in the north. That is not a principle : I am looking for a principle.

Mr. Jones : That is a good point, to which I shall come later. I would like to list what we consider important ingredients in the way in which the committee's representatives are to be selected. First, there should be some bias in favour of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Secondly, the representatives should be elected people. Thirdly, they should not be chosen by Ministers. Fourthly, they should not come from one political tradition ; they should reflect the diversity of political tradition in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Finally, they should go to the committee not merely representing themselves but as representing Wales ; hence, they should report back.

These are the principles on which we have fought the campaign, and I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly accepts that. I outlined all these points once or twice in Committee, and the Minister responded to them there. There was nothing secret about them, either.

Mr. George Robertson : The vote in which the hon. Gentleman sided with the Government was a vote about the United Kingdom's delegation to the Committee of the Regions. I know that the hon. Gentleman represents a separatist party, so he may have no interest in the general composition of that delegation. The hon. Gentleman alleges that the principles on which he bases his support for the Government include the idea that something positive is being done for Wales. I should like to know whether he has the agreement in writing, because that is more than the SNP has. I say this because what the hon. Gentleman did on the night in question was to throw the rest of the country back into the lap of the Government's attempt to put their cronies--business men and appointees--on the committee to represent the rest of the country. Does the hon. Gentleman's interest in local democracy end at the borders of Wales ; or did he ignore the interests of the rest of the country when he sided with the crony-backing Tory Government?

Mr. Jones : I find the hon. Gentleman's turn of phrase offensive. He has accused me of being a separatist--an emotive word. How can someone who supports the Maastricht treaty be a separatist?

Mr. Robertson : My knowledge of Wales--

Column 80

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. This is going rather wide of the new clause. Hon. Members can hold their discussions and fights outside.

Mr. Jones : I just want to put it on record that I deny that I am a separatist : I support the Maastricht treaty and this European Bill, which moves in a direction giving Wales a greater voice in the European Community, not on its own but in partnership with other small nations in the EC--

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : But many of the EC institutions are run from the centre.

Mr. Jones : I know that there is a distinctive voice in the Labour party that disagrees, and I understand and respect it--but I also want to make clear where I stand. Unlike Conservative Members, I believe that the Committee of the Regions has a valuable role to play. Certainly it is only a consultative body, but in time it will become a powerful voice for the regions and historic nations of Europe. I hope that that time will come soon.

Mr. Mallon : The debate began with an exposition of the nationalist parties' position, and it is ending on the same note. At the core of the debate have been several principles. It is remarkable how, in politics, when we discuss principles we soon get on to numbers--to do with representation or with pounds--but that seems to apply the world over.

In Committee and again today, we have often heard terms such as the nation, the state and the region. That is why this is an interesting part of the Maastricht debate. Nationalism has been debated in relation to the committee in four different ways. I can understand the position of the Scottish National party ; I can understand the position of Plaid Cymru, which has presented its nationalist, if not separatist, ideas quite clearly ; I even think that I can understand our party's nationalist position on this. The position that really intrigues me, however, is that of the English nationalists, as expressed by Conservative Members throughout these debates. As a nationalist myself, I think that people are entitled to be English nationalists, just as I am entitled to be a separatist from Northern Ireland who believes that nationalism is a potent, creative and outgoing force. The problem with the English nationalist position, as expressed in these debates, is that it is introverted, inward looking and blinkered, refusing to look beyond itself and using this innocuous Committee of the Regions as an excuse to defend that inability to look outwards and see that there is a world in which it can flourish.

One good thing about the Committee of the Regions is that the representatives of each country will be in a minority. There will be nothing but minorities. Therefore, alliances will be forged and arrangements will be made to suit regions. There will be an agricultural lobby, which will be good for agriculture, and an industrial lobby, which will be good for industry. There will be lobbies for business and for labour.

It is likely that the representatives from this country, from Wales, from Scotland or even from Northern Ireland, if we have representation, will not all go in the same direction at all times. That will be good, because the Committee of the Regions will lead to a new type of debate about our involvement in Europe. Representatives will not consider matters from a national, a state or even a regional

Column 81

position, but much more broadly. They will deal with matters more constructively than under the accepted Anglo- American system of a parliamentary democracy governed by a Whip system. That will be to the benefit of every country.

The new clause proposes that representation be confined to those elected to local authorities. I have reservations about that in relation to the north of Ireland. I wish well those who will have to endure the attitudes taken by members of Belfast city council, if they happen to be representatives. Again, there would be an advantage because it is rumoured that travel and involvement in Europe broaden the mind. We have only to look round this Parliament to see evidence of that. People come back from the European Parliament with broader views, especially if they represent Northern Ireland constituencies. That could contribute enormously to Northern Ireland.

I do not want to be parochial, except on one point. Some people refer to themselves as a nation or as a state, and look upon themselves as a state within a nation, but no one can argue that Northern Ireland is a nation, a state or a state within a nation. If ever a piece of legislation was framed to suit an area, it is the European Communities (Amendment) Bill because we truly are a region and we want to be part of the Europe of the regions because of the benefits which can accrue from it.

There will be not just financial benefit but other benefits too : "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The interchange of ideas can only be good for all of us, whatever regions we represent. A cultural interchange is surely worth developing within Europe. There is also political interchange. Are we so perfect that we cannot learn from other countries ? Whoever we are, or wherever we come from, surely we can learn from other political or governmental arrangements within Europe. Or are we frozen in time and in our attitudes to the political process ? We should not think of the benefits simply in monetary terms ; there is more to it than that.

7.45 pm

The European experiment is growing and I support it fully. I support the Maastricht treaty because I am a nationalist and want to see the nationalisms that exist on both sides of the House developing in a creative, constructive way. We know what it is to have nationalism that is not constructive. Let us take the meaning of the words "Sinn Fein" ; translated literally, they mean "ourselves alone". That is not the way in which to create a future. That form of nationalism is destructive and introverted, and it will not contribute to the wider Europe which we all want.

If there is one reason why we should want a wider Europe with an interchange of views, cultures and experience, it is what is happening in Yugoslavia. If it is thought that the new Europe should have a role in European defence, surely it is better that representatives from all parts of the region should add to the views of Governments. I welcome that as well.

Mr. Bill Walker : The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned nationalists in different guises, shapes and forms. He leaves me bemused because he told us that he wants to see Europe working and the greater involvement of all countries. Those are splendid

Column 82

aspirations, yet he comes from a part of the United Kingdom where there is much trouble and he is part of a political system which wishes not to be part of the United Kingdom. He seemed to be making a case for being part of Europe which could equally be made for being part of the United Kingdom. He talked about working together. All the things that he said about Europe should be said about the United Kingdom and the benefits of the United Kingdom.

I wonder what category the hon. Gentleman would put me in. I am a Scot who has been concerned from the outset that the Maastricht treaty is an instrument that may, and probably will, lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is why I, as a Scot, oppose in principle the setting up of the Committee of the Regions. Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is not here. Earlier he chastised my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for being inconsistent and playing games. I trust that I am neither inconsistent nor deemed by anyone to be playing games. I do not support the setting up of the Committee of the Regions because I have a clear view of its possible impact on Scotland. But when it became clear that there would probably be a majority in favour of the Committee of the Regions, I had to examine carefully its composition and the way in which membership was to be allocated. I had in mind the possibility of a Report stage, and I wanted to ensure that we had the opportunity to consider the composition again. That seemed tactically to be wise. We were successful in both attempts. That is hardly playing games. Surely that is what Parliament is for.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Does my hon. Friend agree that the real playing of games was referred to by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), in his sincere speech, when he talked about Yugoslavia where there was the same artificial federation, without democracy, as is proposed for Europe?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We must not discuss Yugoslavia.

Mr. Walker : I shall not be tempted to do that. It is arrogant for politicians of my generation, who have been unable to resolve Northern Ireland's problems, to assume that we can resolve the problems of Europe and the world. I have never been able to understand that arrogance, because, as a Scot, I live with a constant constitutional problem. I fight every election on it and have been involved in it throughout my adult life because the constitution is important to all Scots from whatever side of the political spectrum. No one doubts the integrity of the nationalists who clearly state that they want a separate Scotland with a separate Parliament, although I do not agree with that view. Nationalists see the Committee of the Regions as a vehicle by which they can further their aims. They make no secret of what they are attempting to do and I do not argue with the principle of that. However, those of us who oppose that should look carefully at the composition of the committee and how its members are selected because that will have a bearing on future events, especially if the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has his way and it becomes what he called a senate, a second chamber to the European Parliame

Column 83

is proper for it to do that, although I do not agree with it. Our job in looking carefully at how the committee will be established and at the people who will serve on it will be to ensure that we do not pander to situations and circumstances that could lead to the creation of a vehicle for breaking up the United Kingdom. No one should be in any doubt about the impact on the Scottish media when Brussels starts to deal directly with Edinburgh. That will be exploited by those who wish to break up the United Kingdom, and they will do that honourably and properly because that is what they want to do. This unitary Parliament with all its failings, including me with all my failings, and despite the fact that none of my amendments has been selected--which is my fault and not the fault of Parliament--is still the best legislative assembly anywhere. That does not mean that it is not vulnerable, because one of the great problems with democracy is that if we get things wrong we are in danger of setting up structures that may destroy what we set out to protect. The problem with the Committee of the Regions is that it will become more than a talking shop, just as the European Parliament became more than just a talking shop. For those who do not know, the proportions in which we elect people to this place were laid down in a treaty signed in 1707 but which was the Scottish Act of 1706. Article 22 of that treaty of Union clearly sets out the numbers and it has nothing to do with Wales or Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mallon : I should like to respond as sincerely as possible to the points made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We are not debating Yugoslavia.

Mr. Mallon : The hon. Gentleman spoke about the arrangement between Scotland and England. That is the same type of federalism that was referred to in another context.

Mr. Walker : I do not propose to enter that area. I have spent my adult life debating constitutional issues and I would welcome any opportunity to debate that matter anywhere with the hon. Gentleman. I know the contents of the treaty of Union and the changes that have been made since 1707. I have spent a lifetime studying it. Parliament is drifting into a situation which will lead to those who follow me waking up one day and saying, "Good heavens, we have created a monster which will break up the United Kingdom." As I said in another speech, there is no point in saying, "I didnae ken", because, as the Scots say, "Ye ken noo." I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has returned to his place, because I dealt with his intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.

One of the great problems in attempting to address this massive constitutional issue is that some people have trivialised it and have attempted to categorise people by putting them into suitable pigeon holes. Those of us who care about this Parliament and about the Union between Scotland and England, which created the finest country in the world in which to live, and which I want my grandchildren to enjoy, will recognise that, throughout the

Next Section

Home Page