---

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): I will be succinct and address questions to the Minister for Europe, who will respond to the debate.

I am the last in the House of Commons of the so-called Jenkinsites, although that is not the term that we would have chosen for ourselves: the 69 Labour MPs who voted to go into the Common Market in October 1971. I am also, with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the last of the first Labour European delegation that went to Strasbourg and Luxembourg. I say that because I am very interested in a question that I raised with the Foreign Secretary, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will address it. With the new set-up, will we really get away from the sort of nation-state Buggins's turn that so plagued the Community at various stages?

I shall never forget—this is partly why I set out the background—that when we arrived under the leadership of Michael Stewart, one of our Dutch colleagues, Schelto Patijn, later to become mayor of Amsterdam said, "Of course, things were so much easier before you British arrived." I do not think that the difficulty was caused wholly by the British, although we were difficult enough, but because of the increase in numbers.

I could not agree more strongly with the Foreign Secretary that the idea of having presidencies every 12.5 years is absolutely preposterous. That might be agreed, but we would like to know a little more about how the presidency will actually work, especially in terms of official back-up, the authority that it will have and the basis on which it will be chosen. Managing 25 is difficult enough, let alone when one considers the real problems of translation. I know that there is not a question of translating Latvian into Portuguese, but if people are going to get on pedestals and talk about the rights of their own languages, there will certainly be difficulties.

Is the White Paper right to emphasise, as it does on page 15, that there will be no powers over defence and the Army? I cannot resist saying that some of us would have liked far greater co-operation with our European colleagues in the lead-up to the Iraq war, so it might be better if there were closer relations, rather than putting an emphasis on keeping things separate.

There is a problem with having a truncated debate that ends at 6 o'clock because a lot of people want to speak, so I ask the Minister for Europe a final question
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 913
 
of which I have given him rather short notice about the specific matter of the Baltic states. Incidentally, the all-party group on arts and heritage is going to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia at the end of the month. I ask for guidance on what the Community's attitude should be—constitution or not—towards the real problem of those countries' relations with the Russians, given that there are serious problems involving Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia. I leave it at that, and hope that I will receive some answers in the Minister's winding-up speech.

3.22 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): Like the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whom I greatly respect, I have been around for a long time and have heard all the debates on European affairs, including the treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the others. I am worried that every single debate seems to have the same characteristics. In the case of every treaty, we are told that there is nothing much in it and nothing to worry about. If something is identified as a problem, we are always told that it is not new, but that it existed under previous legislation.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is an additional problem. This is the first time that I have criticised the Foreign Secretary, but it is terrible when significant and important issues are not mentioned at all, which happened today. The creation of a European Foreign Minister is important because it could be costly and would lead to some loss of sovereignty, but the right hon. Gentleman did not mention it at all—that happens a great deal.

There are a few things about which the least we should do is to try to tell people what is going on. Is the Minister for Europe aware that there has been a substantial change to sovereignty? I mention that only because we had a visit from pensioners yesterday, and several told me that it was appalling that we were spending £10 million this year because the European Union had instructed us to pay pensioners' winter fuel payments to British residents in the overseas territories of Europe, including Guadelupe, Martinique and the Azores. Although those places have sunshine all the time, we must pay people there the winter fuel allowance of £200, yet people living in Iceland or north Canada, where it is cold, do not get it. The pensioners said, "Isn't that shocking and terrible?" and I said, "Of course, it's nuts". They asked what I could do about it, and my answer was, "Nothing."

I was also visited by retailers from Southend who complained that they were worried about breaking the law. They had heard that a new European law said that if they sold carrots of less than 1.9 cm at the thick end, they could get a penalty. They asked me to find out whether that was true and what the penalty was, so I tabled a question, which was answered on 4 February. In fact that is the new law, and people can be sent to prison for three months or fined £5,000. If such a law is wrong and foolish, what can we parliamentarians do about it? The answer is of course nothing, which is a big worry.
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 914
 

What is the right of Britain to withdraw from the European Union now, and what will be its right after the new treaty comes into effect? I felt so strongly about the matter that I wrote to the Prime Minister, who sent me a lovely letter on 26 April. He said:

"if Parliament were to repeal that Act and withdraw from the EU, the UK would be in breach of its community Treaty obligations"—

I hope that the Liberal party has noticed that—

"and the Government would therefore have to negotiate the terms of its departure. Nevertheless, withdrawal  . . . always has been legally possible".

The House of Commons Library is terribly good and by and large more reliable than some Departments, and it says:

"The Treaty of Rome  . . . is concluded for 'an unlimited period'  . . . and there is no provision for withdrawal."

There is no apparent legal provision for Britain to withdraw at present, and the only test case that we have is Greenland, which withdrew only with the permission of all member states, which had to pass appropriate legislation. However, the new, exciting treaty sets out a new arrangement on page 25, which I hope that all hon. Members have read. [Interruption.] It is introduced on page 25 and goes on to page 26. The heading "Voluntary withdrawal from the Union" is at the foot of page 25, so whether the arrangement is on page 25 or 26 is a matter of judgment.

The provision seems to imply that if a member state wishes to withdraw, it may enter into negotiations on that. With the agreement of the European Parliament and European Council, it may try to get agreement to withdraw. If there is no agreement at the end of two years, however, things come to an end. Is the way in which I have set out the arrangement the case? If a country wishes to withdraw, which is a matter for its domestic Parliament, does it simply enter into negotiations and then, if there is an agreement, withdraw? If there is no agreement of any sort and the bodies say that they do not want a country to withdraw, is it possible to withdraw after two years? I ask whether that is the truth because one problem with such treaties is that we can sometimes find that what we think is the law is not the law at all.

I should be grateful if the Minister could provide guidance on something terribly important on page 29—the way in which legally we deal with people who have got into trouble. At present, under the Convention, Britain has the power to decide not to implement certain proposals. On the problems in Northern Ireland, for example, we said that we did not like what was proposed and wanted to keep certain powers for ourselves. However, the inclusion of things in a treaty makes them sovereign law, which could affect alleged criminals, vagabonds, rogues, terrorists and murderers from abroad in this country. The American Government, for example, could phone the Foreign Secretary or the Minister to say that they believe that two people responsible for the appalling attack on the twin towers and the 9/11 massacre have been seen in Birmingham or Manchester. However, according to page 25, we cannot send them to America if the death penalty is in force there. Is that the truth or not? I have read the treaty several times, and my understanding is that we cannot extradite terrible terrorists convicted of mass murder or
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 915
 
murdering children if the country to which we have been asked to send them has the death penalty and there is a danger that they will be subjected to it. That is an appalling situation. If I am right—the Government may say I am wrong—what on earth do we do with those alleged terrorists? Do we simply allow them to stay here?

The Foreign Secretary said that there is nothing in the constitution that affects strike action. However, if the European Union believes that things in the United Kingdom are contrary to the statement on page 30 it could intervene and tell us to change our ways. In Britain, we have an arrangement whereby strikes usually take place after a vote. However, could a union go to the European Court under article II-28 and say that in its opinion British law contravenes its rights as a trade union, so the requirement to hold a ballot is unjust?

Page 32 outlines an unusual procedure on the severity of sentences and says:

"The severity of penalties must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence."

If a criminal were given a two-year prison sentence in Britain, and if he thought that the sentence was too severe, could he go to the European Court and argue that the penalty should be overturned? If the Minister says that he cannot, why on earth is that astonishing statement included in the treaty?

Page 15 says that we have an obligation to co-ordinate economic, employment and social policies. How far does that extend, and will we be obliged to go in the same direction in those three policy areas? Finally, page 19 says that

"the Court of Auditors . . . shall ensure good financial management"

of the European Union. Is it true that the Court of Auditors has refused to sign the European Union's accounts for eight years?

---