| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Feb 2003 : Column 67—continued
Lady Hermon: If it is true that the British public feel so strongly about the European Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why—with the exception of Northern Ireland where voters come out and vote in any election because they feel passionately about the results—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is taking the argument far outside the bounds of the amendment.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is important to distinguish between the wish to vote in an election and the wish to vote on the constitutional settlement of this country. Many people might want to vote against a widening of the European Parliament and its representation because they are not impressed by it, but they are not given the opportunity to express that view and their Parliament is being asked to accept this unsatisfactory legislation.
My only worry about the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is the modesty of his amendments. He welcomed the protocol and the intent of the negotiation. I do not think that it was a good deal well done because so much of it was unnecessary for enlargement. The applicant states need free trade, which they seem unable to get from the European Union, but do not need much of what will be forced on them and us. There is a problem with his proposals, but they are much better than the Government's.
Mr. Cash: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but he might remember that I tabled about 240 amendments to the Nice treaty and such matters were covered in principle at the time. I have said that once something has been done, we can say that we did not like it, but equally we can say that we wish to renegotiate it. I did what I did with a sense of purpose, which was also the case with the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties, and much of what I said at the time has come about.
Mr. Redwood: I agree entirely and am full of praise for my hon. Friend's energetic work. I was not criticising him but merely remarking—I think that he would agree—that his proposed remedy to the difficulty is modest and partial. There are much bigger sins of commission and omission in the underlying treaty and negotiation that we cannot discuss under the amendment or solve tonight. Despite all that, I urge the House to vote for his amendment. It goes some way to dealing with the problem and certainly highlights for those in the press and public who are interested in such arcane but important matters that there is a big problem. We must stop the Government getting the idea that they can legislate in increasingly general terms and then ram all the important detail through at any date in the future through statutory instruments, which cannot be amended and can be debated only at short length.
Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Government are confident that they can railroad through a facilitating provision that allows them to agree to a reduction in British representation in the European Parliament without proper debate, thereby showing a contempt for the institution, it is scarcely surprising if the British people feel precisely such a contempt themselves?
Mr. Redwood: I agree. According to the enthusiasts for Europe, we have missed the train in Europe, but it has come to my attention during the debate that, not only have we missed it, but it is going to run us down, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) remarked.
Mr. Redwood: I give way to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Gummer: I am waiting to be called to speak.
Mr. Redwood: I thought that my right hon. Friend wanted to intervene. He will be delighted to know that I am about to finish.
The Bill is a thoroughly bad piece of legislation. The Opposition are right to highlight its deficiencies and propose remedies. I hope that the House will vote for the amendment because it goes a little way to tackle a huge underlying problem as Parliament is invited to undertake a very undemocratic act.
Mr. Gummer: I am concerned lest the pre-judgments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) should mislead the House into mistaking the importance of refusing the Government permission to do what they wish to do. The treaty of Nice is perfectly reasonable. I am pleased about enlargement and happy that the Conservative party is in favour of it, although one might not always think that that is so.
I am determined to make it clear that the most important and valuable thing that we have done since the war is to become part of the European Union. I very much hope that we continue to play a proper part, instead of a semi-detached one, in the building of that association, which is so important for both our peace and prosperity. However, that does not give the Government an excuse to railroad the House. That is the issue. I am afraid that my right hon. and hon. Friends undermine their position by taking an anti-European line. The problem has nothing to do with that; it is about the defence of the House.
6.45 pm
The Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary are both distinguished in the quality of their independence. They must be just as appalled as I am at how the House's ability to control the Executive is being undermined day after day—usually under the foolish word "modernisation". It may be that the Conservative party is taking longer to replace the Labour party than I should like, but we must remember that one day Labour Members will have to keep the Executive in order themselves. What they have done to the House will rebound on them. That is why the proposal is so damaging.
I wish to be a little sharp with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. I deeply resent the concept of yet another referendum. This House has the parliamentary role. We must not allow the world out there to believe that we abdicate our duty by holding a referendum every time we have a difficult thing to do. The thing about referendums is that one can never find the people who voted the wrong way afterwards. There is no responsibility—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have indulged the right hon. Gentleman a few moments longer than perhaps I strictly should. We are hearing too much about election
turnout and the merits, or otherwise, of the referendum as a constitutional device. We should return to the particular matter under consideration.
Mr. Gummer: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me enough time to get off my chest something that I have been wishing to say for some time. I much appreciate it. It is very helpful to have such an opportunity.
On the precise issue, I hope that the Government will not take it too hard when those of us who enthusiastically favour our membership of the European Union tell them that it is important not to besmirch our relationships with the rest of Europe by doing things that appear to be less than wholly democratic, parliamentary and defensive of the British tradition of how we do things.
Mr. Redwood: I want to put things straight between us. I am very much of my right hon. Friend's view, as I think he is of mine, that the main affront tonight is the lack of British democracy in how we handle such important matters now and in future. I am sure that we can make strong common cause, both in our remarks and in the Division Lobby, by saying that we must believe in and practise parliamentary democracy in the House. The Bill does the opposite.
Mr. Gummer: I am glad that my right hon. Friend and I are on the same side. From time to time, we find that a great support and pleasure. I think that on this issue we will be as one.
The key issue that I hope that the Government will think through is that it is often proper for European law to override the law of individual countries—otherwise, it would not be possible to have a single market, for example. Even the former Prime Minister, powerful though she was in some of her statements, recognised that we could not agree to something in the single market only to find that French or German law overrode it. It is funny how we are usually more willing to allow our laws to override such things than other people's laws. It is a curious element in our dealings with the rest of Europe. However, there are times when any sensible single market or concept of political co-operation needs European law to override domestic law.
If the public are to accept that, it is important that we do not extend those rights into areas where they are not necessary. The Government do not need to take any more power than they need. Because they are seeking to do more than is strictly necessary, many of us feel endangered. They ought to think seriously about the matter, as they need to tread softy and carefully reassure people who may otherwise be worried. I do not want them to be troubled by some of the more extreme fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, but he also expressed some reasonable fears.
Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend's reference to extreme fears has brought me to my feet. I am extremely concerned about the democracy of the House, which is why I tabled the amendments. I have been mildly rebuked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for not going far enough, but what I have done is to stand up for democracy in the
House and for democracy for other people in Europe; and referendums, which are not disclosed in the provisions, are the means whereby this legislation will affect them—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |