Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Bill immediately considered in Committee.
(Clauses 6 and 7, and any selected amendments to clause 8 other than those making commencement contingent on a referendum.)
[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair.]
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 48, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (1) and insert
(1A) A Minister of the Crown shall vote against or otherwise reject a proposed decision in the European Council or the Council to be taken by unanimity that would or could create obligations on the United Kingdom, unless Parliamentary approval for the decision has been given in accordance with this section.
(1B) A Minister of the Crown shall vote against or otherwise reject a proposed decision in the European Council or the Council in an area made subject to qualified majority voting by the Treaty of Lisbon, and which would or could create obligations on the United Kingdom, unless Parliamentary approval for the decision has been given in accordance with this section.
(1C) Any decision adopted by the European Council or the Council by unanimity, or in an area made subject to qualified majority voting by the Treaty of Lisbon, shall not create an enforceable European Union right, European Union obligation or an object of the European Union for the purposes of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 if Parliamentary approval was not given for a Minister of the Crown to support that decision in accordance with this section.
(1D) This section shall apply notwithstanding section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
(1E) In this section, the European Council means that European Union institution founded on Article 15 of the Treaty on European Union, and the Council means that European Union institution founded on Article 16 of the Treaty on European Union..
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 286, page 2, line 39, at beginning insert
(A1) The Prime Minister may not attend a meeting of the European Council without having laid before Parliament a statement on their negotiating mandate and receiving Parliamentary approval in accordance with this section.
(A2) A Minister of the Crown may not attend a meeting of any configuration of the Council (within the meaning of Article 9C of the Treaty on European Union) without having laid before Parliament a statement on their negotiating mandate and receiving Parliamentary approval in accordance with this section.
(A3) A Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support any legislative measure under any article of the Treaty on European Union or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that relates to the internal market, if it applies to, or could be applied in relation to, any of the following, unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with this section:
(a) health services provided by any NHS body,
(b) the statutory system of public education,
(A4) A Minister of the Crown may not vote either in favour of or against or otherwise support or oppose any legislative measure under Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with this section.
(A5) A Minister of the Crown may not authorise any person to represent the United Kingdom at a meeting of the special committee to assist the Commission in negotiating agreements with international organisations or third countries established in Article 188C of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union without having laid before Parliament a statement on their negotiating mandate; and where any person represents the United Kingdom at such a meeting, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement on the matters discussed at the meeting, the positions taken by all persons representing the United Kingdom and the outcomes of the meeting, within 30 days of the meeting taking place..
No. 47, page 2, line 39, leave out may not vote in favour of or otherwise support and insert shall vote against or otherwise reject.
No. 18, page 2, line 40, leave out from following to end of line 41.
No. 42, page 3, line 20, at end insert
( ) The provision of Article 82(2)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that permits the addition of new aspects of criminal procedure to those which may be the subject of directives decided by qualified majority voting..
No. 43, page 3, line 20, at end insert
( ) The provision of Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that permits the addition of new areas of crime which may be the subject of directives decided by qualified majority voting..
No. 44, page 3, line 20, at end insert
( ) The provision of Article 86(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that permits the creation of a European Public Prosecutor..
No. 45, page 3, line 20, at end insert
( ) The provision of Article 86(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that permits the extension of the powers of the European Public Prosecutor..
No. 46, page 3, line 20, at end insert
( ) The provision of Article 42(2) of the Treaty on the European Union that permits the establishment of a common European Union defence..
No. 49, page 3, line 20, at end insert
(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not commit the United Kingdom to new obligations, or alter the obligations of the United Kingdom, under the following provisions unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with this section
(a) Article 3 of the Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, permitting a notification of the wish to take part in the adoption of an act under the EUs area of freedom, security and justice,
(b) Article 4 of the Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, permitting a notification of the wish to accept an act under the European Unions area of freedom, security and justice,
(c) Article 329 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, permitting a request to take part in enhanced cooperation,
(d) Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union, permitting a notification of the intention to participate in permanent structured co-operation, and
(e) Article 10(5) of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions, permitting a notification of the wish to participate in police and criminal justice measures with full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice..
No. 66, page 3, line 20, at end insert
(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under any article of the Treaty on European Union or Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that relates to, or in so far as it relates to or could be applied in relation to, the provision of healthcare services by an NHS body unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with this section..
No. 283, page 3, line 20, at end insert
(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under any article of the Treaty on European Union or Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that sets a target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the European Union if it appears to him that the target is not compatible with preventing global average temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with this section.
(1B) A Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under any article of the Treaty on European Union or Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that sets a target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the European Union unless international aviation and shipping are included in the target, unless Parliamentary approval has been granted in accordance with this section..
No. 284, page 3, line 20, at end insert
(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under any article of the Treaty on European Union or Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that relates to, or in so far as it relates to or could be applied in relation to, the liberalisation of postal services unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with this section..
No. 67, page 3, line 43, at end insert , and
(i) a Strategic Health Authority;
(ii) a Special Health Authority;
(vi) an NHS foundation trust..
No. 287, page 3, line 43, at end insert
(i) a strategic health authority;
(ii) a special health authority;
(d) The statutory system of public education has the meaning defined by the Education Act 1996 (c. 56).
(e) Social housing means the provision of accommodation for rent by a local housing authority (within the meaning of section 1 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)), a registered provider of social housing, a county council, or a person controlled by a local housing authority or country council.
(f) Postal services means the service of conveying postal packets (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26)) from one place to another by post, the incidental services of receiving, collecting, sorting and delivering such packets and any other service which relates to any of those services and is provided in conjunction with any of them.
(g) Public transport means any of the following
(i) railway services as defined by the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43);
(ii) bus services as defined by the Transport Act 2000 (c. 38); or
(iii) any service provided by Transport for London..
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is a relief to return to the Bill after that excursion into the Liberal Democrats embarrassment, because there are substantial clauses ahead of us and a great many amendments to consider.
I have tabled other amendments in the group as well as the lead amendment, and I shall begin by describing their purpose. They cover the so-called passerelle clauses in the treaty. Passerelle means bridge or gangplank in French; it is, perhaps, an appropriate term, given the one-way nature of this treaty. The clauses allow alterations to the treaty with no intergovernmental conference and, most importantly, no referendum.
The European Union has learned over the past decade or so that it is always dangerous to ask people what they think, as they often vote no. We remember Denmark voting no to the Maastricht treaty and Ireland voting no to the Nice treaty. In both cases, they were not taken as final verdicts. No votes never are: when people vote no, they are considered only to be interim or provisional expressions of opinion. There is a lack of symmetry here: when people vote yes, that is taken to be a ringing endorsement of the European project, but when they vote no, they are asked to try again and try a little harder. In those two cases, those countries did change their minds in subsequent years, and those treaties proceeded.
Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): My right hon. Friend mentioned that when countries vote no in referendums, they are often asked to try again. Will he reflect on the fact that that is precisely what has just happened in this House? Last November, the House made a clear decision not to have a referendum on whether to be in or out of Europe; the majority was 400. The Liberal Democrats have chosen to ask the House again, and it has come up with almost exactly the same answer.
The Chairman:
Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I am at present having some difficulty in seeing these amendments reflected in the opening words of the
speech of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), and certainly in the remarks of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper). May I direct the right hon. Gentleman to the terms of the amendment and the group?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I will, of course, observe your strictures, Sir Alan, but it is necessary to dwell briefly on the question of referendums because, as I shall demonstrate, the passerelle procedure is an alternative. Therefore, it is relevant briefly to remind ourselves of the history of referendums. I have mentioned the Danish and Irish referendums that were not taken as final, and the same applies to the French and Dutch rejections of the constitutional treaty. In those cases, the electorates were never asked again. They will not be invited to vote on the equivalent treaty of Lisbon.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that the only nationwide referendum in this country was held in the 1970s, following Mr. Benns campaigning, when an overwhelming majority supported our membership of the European Union? The Eurosceptic element in our political class seems never to have accepted that result and indeed had pointedly ignored it within about two years of the event.
The Chairman: Order. That is certainly taking us outside the scope of the amendments and getting us ever closer to tomorrows debate, which we should not seek to anticipate. The right hon. Member for Wells said that he was providing some background. I hope that it will be somewhat closer to the amendments than the one he has painted so far.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Indeed, Sir Alan. I shall observe in response only that the European Union has altered out of all recognition since the 1975 referendum. I am not in favour of continuous or frequent referendums. Only when the rules of politics alter do we need to consult the peopleI take that from the writings of Tom Paine. He observed that Governments must not make constitutions because they would be writing their own rules. The rules must be approved by the people and politicians can then fight it out, promoting or opposing policies within those rules. That framework is rightly the subject of occasional referendums, and it is about time that we had a referendum on the European treaty.
The people are trying to say something. In these frequent no votes and judgments they are expressing dissatisfaction with the process of European integration. That was picked up in the Laeken declaration of December 2001, when Heads of Government recognised a need for profound reform. In that declaration they proposed not a constitutional treaty but rather a reformed mechanism to bring the European Union closer to its citizens, to simplify the treaties, to stop the European Union interfering in the minutiae of national life and, above all, to make the process more democratic.
The EU has reached a different conclusioncertainly at the top. Its conclusion is to say no to reform and no to asking the people ever again. It certainly does not want to ask the people of the United Kingdom. Democracy is too chancy and too uncertain in its outcome for the EU, but the process of European integration must proceed by other means. That has relevance to the
clause and the amendments. The Lisbon treaty thus includes a self-amending process to obviate the need for future intergovernmental conferences and referendums. That process is the passerelle clauses.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): Does not my right hon. Friends amendment touch on the problem? Are not the passerelle clauses a recipe for continuous incremental change in the EU on a case-by-case basis away from the spotlight of IGCs and well away from the spotlight of a referendum? Do not the supporters of those provisions have to dispel the suspicion that they are accelerators in the process of European integration on a case-by-case basis?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right; indeed, he anticipates my next remark. The rest of Europe has not abandoned the project of ever-closer integration. President Sarkozy has set up a group, which exists despite its being disowned by the British Government, to proceed to the next stage. Only the British Government fondly imagine that this is somehow the end of the process. Those of us who were in this place during the Maastricht debates remember Ministers stating from the Dispatch Box that that treaty was the high watermark of European integration. It is a process, not a destination. The moves towards ever closer union proceed. However, those involved have learned not to proceed by means of intergovernmental conferences, which lead to the danger of national referendums.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): I had the privilege of speaking at a conference on Friday, attended by several Members of the European Parliament, including Conservatives and representatives of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. It was addressed by Professor Sir David Edward, who is a judge and professor in Scotland and used to be a judge in the European Court of Justice. Without prompting, he described the treaty as a final act in terms of institutional change. He also said that it would draw Europe into a structure more like a United States-style federation than the ambition of those who wanted a constitution.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That may be the view of several commentators, but if one looks at the content of the treaty, one finds that it contains a self-amending process that will take us to the next stage of European integration, without the needcruciallyfor the traditional formation of an intergovernmental conference in which the Parliament and public are involved, and leading to a treaty that is then ratified, if necessary, by national referendum. That process had been abandoned in favour of incremental change.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con): In light of the comment by the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the point is that we have been told that every treaty is the culmination of the process. That was not done disingenuously, because every British Government have believed each treaty to be the last stage of further major institutional change. Every time, we come back with exactly the same arguments. The passerelle provision is the final step: there will be no need to come back to make more changes, and that is the problem. In Britain, we constantly believe the best of the process and we fail to realise that the direction was set long before we joined.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |