| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
4.8 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): I was intrigued to learn that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) used to work for the BBC in Brussels; I thought I had heard that speech before somewhere. His legacy lives on in some of our national broadcasting editorial departments. Unfortunately for them and for the hon. Gentleman, this matter is to be decided by the people, and I expect an entirely different outcome.
To start on a note of agreement, the coming of a written constitution is a big event for any country. We have not had a written constitution in this country since after the civil war, in 1653. It did not last for very long, but at least it was drawn up in this country, whereas the European constitution has been drawn up by others, in a contorted series of negotiations during which the Government conducted a long series of retreats.
The result is a document of truly fantastic complexity. Contrary to assertions made earlier, especially by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), the result is longer than the treaties that it replaces. There are more pages, articles and protocols than in the existing treaty. Quite simply, the simplification drive has failed.
Mr. Hendrick: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House that he was one of this Parliament's representatives at the Convention? The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that only 10 per cent. of our amendments to the Convention were accepted, but will the right hon. Gentleman say how many amendments he put forward, as it is obvious that this document bears no relation to anything that he would want?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I freely concede that the Convention failed utterly in its aims. It was told to create a simpler, more democratic Europe that was closer to its citizens, but it failed on each and every count. That is why I did not sign the final document. Instead, I submitted a four-page minority treaty, which was signed by a number of other conventioneers. I think the people of this country would far rather have that as their governing treaty in Europe.
The document's complexity does not disguise the awesome nature of the changes that it introduces. In this country, we are debating matters such as the future of the judiciary, the establishment of a supreme court and the future of the Lord Chancellor. However, the reality is that the supreme court in this country will be the
9 Sept 2004 : Column 925
European Court of Justice, as is made practically explicit in the document. That court, to which this there is no appeal, will decide on the interpretation of the constitution.
I was interested to note that the House of Lords report on the ECJ—which was compiled by a Committee dominated by those in favour of more European integration—pointed out that
"if the Court is the ultimate arbiter on the extent of the Union's competence, it follows that the Court also has the final say in defining the extent of Member States' powers."
We are therefore handing over, explicitly and formally, the powers of this House to another jurisdiction. No other interpretation is possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) mentioned the complexity and confusion of the provisions governing the allocation of powers. He is absolutely right: the concept of shared powers does not advance the distinction at all, especially given that the definition of sharing means that, when the EU legislates, member states lose altogether the right to do so themselves. However, the additional point is that, in any difference of view about exactly who does what, this House and any court in this country will be literally powerless. Such matters will be decided by the ECJ.
When we hand over more powers whose definition and enforcement are in the hands of another court, what will be the point of holding elections in this country? That is where the democratic imperative comes in. There is already widespread disillusionment about politics in this country. Fewer and fewer people vote in elections, and the turnout across Europe in the recent European Parliament elections fell for the fifth time running, reaching an all-time low. People do not see that Parliaments have any relevance when it comes to the political choices facing them.
A crisis will arise if the matters that we put before the people in general elections—all those policy issues that we debate and divide on in this House—are no longer for this House to decide because the constitution has transferred them to the EU. In many cases, those matters will be decided, and initiated, by those who cannot be voted for by the people of this country, and who certainly cannot be removed by them.
The Government are now trying to sell this wretched document to the public at large. They have repeated the rather stale hope, as we heard the Foreign Secretary do, that the House—the national Parliament—gains some addition leverage on subsidiarity. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, that is not true. The Government tried to give additional powers, including a kind of veto power, to the national Parliament over measures that breach the subsidiarity principle, but they comprehensively failed in that, as they did in most of the rest of their amendments. We can do no more than raise the issue; the final decision will, as always, be with the European Commission and the European institutions.
I am afraid that the Government are resorting to cruder techniques with the public. I was disappointed to read during the recess that the Europe Minister, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, was suggesting that those who criticised the constitution and the European Union
9 Sept 2004 : Column 926
were motivated by xenophobia and even racism. This is the same Europe Minister who called the President of Venezuela, Senor Chavez, "a ranting populist demagogue". The President has been reconfirmed in his position in a recent referendum. The new Foreign Office doctrine seems to be that it can be personally abusive and rude about the elected leaders of non-European countries, while at the same time criticising Members of Parliament who criticise the European Union and its institutions. If this is how they are to conduct the debate about the constitution, we have been warned.
I was further disappointed on reading—at least in outline—the White Paper published this morning, to see that there was no mention of the red lines. We all remember the red lines in last year's White Paper—issues on which the Government were absolutely not going to give way under any circumstances. Those red lines have been completely forgotten in this White Paper. Why are they not mentioned? Because the Government gave way on them.
Criminal justice procedures, including sensitive issues governing the rights of the accused and rules of evidence that form the basis of many criminal justice Bills going through the House, are now to be decided by qualified majority voting. That is why elections will not make any difference. If a shadow Home Secretary proposes a change in the law on criminal justice procedures and wins an election, he will not be able to do anything: decisions will be made over his veto, by the European Union and qualified majority voting. That was a red-line issue to be reversed, and the Government failed.
All we have now is an emergency brake, whereby if some measure fundamentally alters the entire legal system of the country, we can insist on a veto. However, that is not how the European Union works. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. We considered 1,000 measures last year. An emergency brake cannot be pulled on each one. It is the incremental build-up of laws and directives that constitute the acquis communantaire—all 97,000 pages of it. An emergency brake, which may be used in some supreme eventuality, is irrelevant.
The red line on criminal justice was overridden. The same is true of social security, on which there is some emergency brake. Meanwhile, social security payments for migrant workers and the self-employed and their families, are to be decided by majority voting, which is contrary to all the assurances given to the House in the run-up to the final negotiations. The same is also true of the European public prosecutor and the compulsory co-ordination of employment policies. All those were promises that were given to us solemnly—and given to my Committee—in the run-up to the negotiations, but they were simply ignored.
What we require from the Government, and what we have not had today, is an explanation of how that advances democracy. How can it be that transferring more powers away from this House, upwards to the most remote tier of Government of all, in any sense brings those European decisions closer to the people, as we were instructed it would?
This document is an outrage. The only redemption is that we are to have a referendum on it: that is to say, we will if the Government do not do the same as they did with the referendums on the regional assemblies; it
9 Sept 2004 : Column 927
looked as though they were losing in the north, and so now they will not be held. I would like an explicit undertaking and assurance from the Minister replying to this debate that we will have a referendum, because if we do, people will vote for self-government, not this document.
4.20 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |