Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells): The Lisbon treaty is the fifth such treaty since the United Kingdoms entry into the EU in 1973. It is good that procedures for scrutiny evolved and improved with each of those treaties. In the past, Governments of all complexions sought to use guillotine motions to organise discussions on Bills to implement EU treaties, if necessary.
Todays business motion sets out a programme for debate on the Lisbon treaty that will ensure structure and balance. I have heard what hon. Members have said about the lack of time and the bids for more time to debate amendments and themes, and I have a great deal of sympathy for such bids and arguments. One is tempted to say, God save us from experiments and innovations when it comes to the proceedings of this House. I have been here long enough to know that, but I also know that the more straightforward business motion for the Nice treaty was adopted without debate. Todays motion represents a significant innovation in procedure, and it is good that we have the opportunity to debate it fully.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the scope and nature of the Lisbon treaty on Second Reading, when he made it clear that it will improve the way in which the EU works. It will adapt the EUs institutions to a Union of 27; it will ensure that the voices of Europes nations are heard more loudly in foreign policy; it will bring national Parliaments into day-to-day EU decision making to strengthen subsidiarity; and it will focus the EU on the big external challenges, such as climate change and migration.
If the treaty is unique, then it is in this regard: it marks the end of the long process of institutional reformif the treaty is ratified around Europe, then that process is well and truly over. It will make valuable changes, and it will turn Europe from institutional reform to the real priorities of its citizens. We need to reflect that balance in our discussions in this House, which is something that the programme motion provides.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Howells: I am sorry, but I have very little time.
It is obvious from this evenings debate that hon. Members judge that certain clauses will require more time and in-depth scrutiny than others. Rightly, clause 2 will be the focus of our attention in Committee, but given that it introduces the Lisbon treaty almost in its entirety, it is important that there is a clear structure in place to help the Committee to debate the content of the treaty as efficiently and effectively as possible.
There will be two days of debate on clauses 3 to 7, which will include discussion of the passerelles. Time will also be devoted entirely to discussing amendments to the Bill. Furthermore, a full day will be set aside to discuss clause 8, as requested by the Select Committees.
It is time for the so-called themed debates on substantive motions to be understood as the innovation that they are. It is established practice when a Bill is in Committee or on Report to group amendments by theme. The motion provides a more structured and themed approach to the Committee stage. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made clear in his opening statement, it is important that, as with amending treaties, thorough scrutiny of the legislation is conducted by debate in Parliament, not by referendum.
There is an important case to be made: the Lisbon treaty is good for Britain and good for the British people. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained on Second Reading, the debate on Europe should move from institutional reform to delivery. The Governments structured approach to the Committee stage will enable the House to debate both the provisions of the treaty and the Bill. The structure of the Bill is one of the reasons why that is important. However, far more important is the wish to widen and deepen debate.
The new, so-called themed structure should make the process of scrutinising the Lisbon treaty much more open and accessible to the whole House. Some of the previous Bill proceedings have had the opposite effect and confused and discouraged rather than shed light and encouraged understanding and participation. The themed structure is good, and interventions by Members today have not convinced me otherwise.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister has listened to most of this debate. Surely he has gathered that there is an overwhelming feeling on both sides of the House that we should at the very least go to the three hour/three hour structure proposed in the amendment, rather than stick with the four and a half hour/one and a half hour structure. Will he meet us on that?
Dr. Howells: There is room for flexibility on the balance of time in each of the debates; I certainly would not deny the hon. Gentleman the justice of that. It is possible, and I shall try to explain how it might come about.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) quoted Erskine May at length. Long ago, Governments began to evolve programmes of business in response to public need and, increasingly, to democratic pressure. As the process developed, questions of balance between business and timethe commonplace of modern procedurebecame acute as never before. Thomas Erskine Mays fertile, if cautious, procedural imagination was there to help him to find solutions. He said that organisation was not less essential in a senate than in a factory. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who quoted May at great length, will agree that he should come to terms with that piece of wisdom.
Mr. Cash: I concluded my remarks on that matter by quoting from the current edition of Erskine May; there was no departure on the fundamental principles of government by discussion.
Dr. Howells: We could talk at great length about the editions of Erskine May, but I have just quoted the hon. Gentleman a bit of it.
Some right hon. and hon. Members have said that only amendments should be taken, but that would hinder the consideration of the treaty. The Bill is short and general; amendments cannot target treaty innovations adequately. We are concerned that we should scrutinise the treaty as well as the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe began to describe the flexibility that was mentioned a little earlier. Paragraph (6) of the motion gives the House the flexibility to alter the balance between themed debate and amendments, and between different days. Until as late as the rising of the House on the sitting day before an allotted day, the Government will be able to respond to requests to allow more time on themed debates or more time on amendments.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
The response would take the form of a motion amending the business motionspecifically, amending the table. Provided that that amendment did not reduce the overall time for debate on the treaty of Lisbon, the question would be put forthwith, and would therefore not disrupt business unduly.
The supplementary business motion amending the table to the business motion can be taken under paragraph (6) of the business motion. As I said, if it does not reduce overall time, it can be tabled as late as the night before the relevant allotted day.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
Hon. Members asked about the provision in paragraph (4) of the business of the House motion, which prevents an emergency debate from taking place on the day allotted to the treaty until after the conclusion of proceedings on the treaty. They complained that that was a novel way of proceeding that takes the initiative in the matter of emergency debates away from the Speaker, but that is not true. This is not a new provision in substance at all.
The existing provisions for programme motions under Standing Order 83I(4) already provide for delaying emergency debates until after the end of programmed business. Paragraph (4) of the motion simply replicates that for the proceedings on the treaty. The only reason that the motion had to make express provision for this instead of simply applying Standing Order 83I(4) is that when the House agreed to the present sessional experiment changing the arrangements for emergency debates under Standing Order 24, it failed to make the necessary consequential amendments to Standing Order 83I(4). Paragraph (4) of the motion therefore makes the necessary provision to make the existing procedure for programmed business work for proceedings on the treaty.
Of course, if some extreme emergency arose so that the House desperately wanted to abandon business on the treaty for the day and proceed to the emergency debate, it would be open to the House to conclude the days proceedings on the treaty very fast and get on to the emergency debate. In those circumstances, the Government would consider
Dr. Howells: I am not giving way.
In those circumstances, the Government would consider tabling a supplemental business of the House motion for the following day to restore the amount of time lost from consideration of the treaty.
Right hon. and hon. Members asked about protection of time on days 9 to 11. It is true that, as drafted, the motion does not guarantee any particular number of hours of debate on any of those days. The length of debate will be determined by the moment of interruption in the normal way. Given that we are allowing three days for debate on clauses 3 to 8, the House may think that this is sufficient. If it turns out
Dr. Howells: Conservative Members were very keen to know the answers to these questions because of course they are obsessed with themselves.
Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman can keep on but I will not give way.
If it turns out that there are no statements on those three days and if decisions have been made about guaranteeing six hours, then of course the debate will start at 3.30 pm and end at 9.30 pm, not at 10 oclock. There would be no point in the amendment whatsoever; it shows that hon. Members have not read the motion properly.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Howells: No, I will notthe hon. Gentleman must be deaf.
The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) alleged that there is not enough time to debate the substantive issues in the treaty. He backed that up with a raft of allegations and familiar scare storieswe have heard it all before. Let me take just a few examples. In relation to justice and home affairs, he said that the treaty will give Eurojust the right to launch prosecutions in this country. That is completely wrongit will not have the power to initiate prosecutions. Eurojust is not a threat. In June, the Home Affairs Committee concluded in a report:
Eurojust provides an excellent example of what can be done to build mutual trust between practitioners and through them Member States in one anothers systems. This kind of contact and practical co-operation is absolutely critical in enhancing trust and co-operation.
But the right hon. Gentleman never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. He also alleged that we do not support the creation of a European public prosecutor. That is absolutely rightwe do not. That is why we have ensured that we have retained unanimity, with a UK veto, on the creation of a European public prosecutor. If a smaller group of countries wishes to go ahead with that idea, it will not affect the United Kingdom unless we choose to opt in.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
As has been pointed out, the United Kingdom has a legally binding opt-in in every area of justice and home affairs. Therefore, we will participate in a justice and home affairs measure only if we choose to. That is why there is no ratchet in JHA matters. We will opt in only if it is in the UKs interest to do so. I very much commend this motion to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:
Next Section | Index | Home Page |