TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION (Hansard, 1 December 1992)

§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)
I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments
No. 108, in page I, line 9, after 'Titles', insert

'I (except Article F on page 8 Cm 934)'.

No. 313, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article E)'.

No. 344, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article A).'

No. 345, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article B).'

No. 346, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article C).'

No. 347, in page 1, line 9, after 'Title', insert 'I (except Article D)'.

No. 348, in page 1, line 9, after 'Title', insert 'I (except Article F)'.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
So we have begun at last, Mr. Morris.
It is worth recalling to the House that when the Danish referendum took place there was, two days later, a meeting of the Council of Ministers in Oslo at which all member states, including the United Kingdom agreed to proceed with ratification forthwith—something that we have notably failed thus far to do, although many other countries have so proceeded.
169 You said very early on in dealing with points of order, Mr. Morris, that this Bill is not about ratification. You emphasised that, and said that it is specifically not about ratification. In legal terms you are certainly right; I am the last person to argue with the Chair about that; but the consequence of not passing this Bill would be that the treaty would not be ratified, even if that is not in proper legal constitutional terms the real situation.
A limited number of amendments can be made without affecting the purity of the treaty. Many people have said that this short Bill can hardly be changed, and that, if it is, it will wreck the treaty and therefore Maastricht will fall.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Wouldn't that be wonderful?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
What the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) regards as wonderful and what I regard as wonderful are wide apart.
It cannot be said, however, that, if amendment No. 93 is passed, it will break the treaty. It can be argued—no doubt the Minister will do so—that it affects British domestic legislation. That is a different question, and I shall consider it, but it is worth stressing that the insertion of the titles does not change or breach the treaty or nullify ratification.
Interestingly, the same applies to the opt-outs that the United Kingdom has entered into. I am not sure whether it is proper to raise a point of order in the middle of a speech, but if, for example, the Committee decided that it wished to reinsert the social chapter which the Government have opted out of, it would affect other member countries, because they each would have to introduce a new short protocol in their own Parliaments reversing the opt out that they had previously agreed. It would not, however, affect the integrity of the treaty. I think that I am right in saying that. That point was not made in the many points of order, but we shall have to consider it. It certainly does not apply to title I or titles V to VII, which may be inserted without affecting the treaty.
We contend that hon. Members should have the right not simply to debate the treaty but to approve the title. We are arguing about ratification a la carte, whereby the Government choose the bits that they want to ratify. I think that Britain is the only country to have excluded Parliament's right to express an opinion or accept a part of the treaty. Most other member states introduced a simple Bill, to which the treaty was attached. That is not how we are proceeding. perhaps because of the nature or our legislative practice and the fact that, unfortunately, we do not have a written constitution.
The Minister will argue that title I is declaratory and therefore has no sense in law and that, as the other titles are intergovernmental, Parliament has no role. Ratification is a well-established process in international law. The 19th-century dictionary of diplomacy by Baron de Cussy defines it as the act by which the sovereigns in whose name a treaty has been negotiated and concluded, approve the provisions cif this treaty and undertake to put it into effect. The point about the sovereign is raised often enough by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The days have long passed when, in reality, kings were sovereign in this respect.
Dicey, writing on the United Kingdom constitution, took the view 170 that the sovereignty of Parliament is the dominant characteristic of our political institutions. On the subject of making treaties—a power in the hands of the Crown and exercised in fact by the executive government"— he took the view that this power is dependent on the will of Parliament, which may regulate it, abolish it or take a decision making the assent of the Houses of Parliament necessary to the validity of a treaty. That, essentially, is the argument that I am advancing. As long ago as Aristotle, it was argued that sovereignty in a democracy belonged to the citizens.
5.15 pm
Without wishing to enter into the arguments about a referendum, it must be noted that Ireland, Denmark and France held referendums on ratification—referendums on the whole treaty. When pressed by Members who support referendums, among whom I do not number myself, the Prime Minister said: It has always been my view that these matters are best dealt with by the House because we are ultimately answerable to the electorate for the decisions we take.—[Official Report, 4 November 1992; Vol 213, c. 292.]
That is fair and I agree with it, but, if that is true, surely the House has a right to express its view on the whole treaty, not just part of it.
Amendments Nos 108, 313, and 344 to 348 are being taken with amendment No. 93. Those amendments accept the insertion of the title, with the exception of a particular article in it. Amendment No. 108 which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, excludes article F, which deals with the European convention on human rights. The other amendments, which all stand in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who appears to have departed and is probably writing more amendments somewhere, deal with each of the various articles.
I should be interested to hear the argument advanced by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, because there is some suggestion that, if the House passed title I, including article F, it might have the effect in law of Britain having ratified the convention on human rights, which we have not formally ratified although we shadow it, rather as we did the mark. I should have thought that it was desirable to ratify—a point that was made in the Dimbleby lectures only a couple of nights back. I agree with that.

§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)
Last night.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction; he obviously knows which day it is, which is a positive step forward for all of us. I can assure him that, by the time the Committee stage is over, he will not know which day it is, but I suspect that few other hon. Members will either.
Article A of the title establishes European union, with the United Kingdom as part of it. That is an important decision, and many hon. Members passionately oppose the idea. Under that article, the Government became very excited about the union being "federal", and fought ferociously to get the word excised. Ultimately, they succeeded, and instead we have a union in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen—the famous word "subsidiarity", which appears in article B.
I should have thought that the establishment of European union is an extremely important matter and should not be slid round. In the Government booklet that 171 was produced miraculously in November to describe what they would do during their presidency in July, little reference is made to European union. It says a little on page 11 but is concerned mostly with the single market and says how exciting that all is.
The creation of European union is profound and exceedingly important, particularly as it is supposed to be organised to demonstrate consistency and solidarity in the future. I should have thought that the House should debate and decide on that issue.
Article B includes the first reference in the Maastricht treaty to issues such as promoting economic…union, ultimately including a single currency". It also includes the eventual framing of a common defence policy and the "acquis communautaire", about which the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) was so excited earlier. He is now bobbing up and down with even more excitement.

§ Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
I am not that excited, but will the hon. Gentleman translate "acquis communautaire" for the benefit of the House? It may be common parlance in his constituency and all his constituents may know immediately what it means, but why is it not translated in the article?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
Few matters are discussed more often in my constituency than the acquis communautaire. Asking me to translate it is rather like asking me to give the English for "spaghetti" or "blitzkrieg"—

§ Mr. Skinner
Or "bullshit".

§ Sir Russell Johnston
No, that is different. It is an English word with which the hon. Gentleman is deeply familiar.
The acquis communautaire, as the hon. Member for New Forest knows perfectly well, is the corpus—another foreign word—of Community law. It is the body of Community law, if the hon. Gentleman prefers. The expression "acquis communautaire" has therefore become an accepted description.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, had we had a common defence policy, we might not have been involved in many of the mistakes, which are ever more evident, of the Gulf war?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I remember long ago when we debated devolution in the House and the hon. Gentleman fought those proposals night after night. He had a good technique, which was to pick any policy—it did not matter which one—

§ Mr. Dalyell
It did matter which policy. I was very selective. I am extremely choosy about policies.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
The hon. Gentleman would find out from experts in the subject whether the matter might be worsened by devolution. Experts being experts, they would usually say that that was possible. The hon. Gentleman would then make a long speech demonstrating that it was probable.
The hon. Gentleman picks the Gulf war as a matter on which attitudes may go one way or the other if we had a common defence policy. I thought that the Gulf war was 172 necessary. If we had a common defence policy, I believe that we would have taken decisive action earlier in the former Yugoslavia, but that is a matter of opinion. One can never guarantee that structures, however more beneficial they are than existing ones, will necessarily produce the right political answers, although I hope that they would.
The essence of my argument is that matters as fundamentally important as article B, even if expressed in a declaratory fashion—as they are—should be emphasised in the House and made clear to the public at large, and Parliament should approve them specifically. If we declare that we wish to see the eventual framing of a common defence policy, the whole country is obliged to be committed to it through the treaty.

§ Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South)
The hon. Gentleman argues for including article B in the original Act of Parliament. He will be aware that article B, in a declaratory form, includes the three pillars of the Maastricht treaty: bringing the original treaty up to date; the pillar on home affairs; and the pillar on foreign affairs and security. He will know that the Government chose that form to exclude home affairs, foreign affairs and security from the European Community's competence. Would the amendment, which would include that in the original Act of Parliament, bring home affairs, foreign affairs and security within the competence of the Commission?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
No, the amendment would not have that effect. I simply contend that what already exists in the treaty as a declaration of intent should be approved of by Parliament. The amendment does not change the treaty in any respect. A number of other countries have approved the entire treaty.

§ Mr. Marshall
I realise that the hon. Gentleman and I have both been in Paris this week—perhaps he took an earlier flight than me—but he misses the point. The Government are keen to exclude foreign affairs, security and home affairs from the European Commission's competence, which is why they chose the three-pillar approach in the Maastricht treaty. Would the hon. Gentleman's amendment to the original European Communities legislation bring foreign affairs and security and home affairs within the competence of the European Commission?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
As far as I know, the answer is no—not because I do not want them to be brought within the competence of the European Commission and institutions, because I do, in respect of both foreign affairs and defence. However, the inclusion of article B in the Bill would not have that effect, any more than it has by being in the treaty signed by the Government.

§ Mr. Denzil Davies
This may be a point for the Minister, but I understand that the Bill creates within the United Kingdom certain Community rights and obligations. As title I does not need to be incorporated because it demands no rights or obligations internally in the United Kingdom, what is the point of including it in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman wants to do?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
For the very reason that I have already explained, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was dozing. As far as I know, the Parliament of every other 173 Community country has approved the whole, not just part, of the treaty. Even if we are talking about declarations of intent rather than specific legislative requirements, we have a right to express a view.

§ Mr. Davies
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, it is he who has been dozing. We are not talking about ratification. Ratification is for the Crown. The treaty can be ratified according to United Kingdom law. Other countries may ratify treaties differently. This Bill is not about ratification but about incorporating certain rights and obligations in the internal law of the United Kingdom so that courts can enforce them. I ask the hon. Gentleman again: on that basis, what on earth is the point of incorporating title 1?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
We had that argument at the beginning of my remarks. You, Mr. Morris, made it clear at the beginning, when dealing with various points of order, that the Bill does riot have the legislative effect of ratifying the treaty. The hon. Gentleman is correct:. I know all about that. It is also true that, if the Bill is rejected by the Committee, it will have the political effect of the treaty not being ratified.

§ Mr. Benn
Will the hon. Gentleman help us on one point? He is a fully declared federalist. He said so, and he would be in favour of the Bill including title I. Can he confirm again the view expressed so powerfully by the leader of his party, that the Liberal Democrats support the most federal development of Maastricht and, anyway, the Maastricht treaty as it is before us, and favour a referendum on the matter? There is all the difference in the world between people who favour a union but say that the public should have no say in the matter, and those who favour a union but say that they recognise its importance and think that the public should decide for themselves.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
There are two different questions there. One is whether one approves of federation; the other is whether one approves of a referendum. I take the latter point first. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has frequently expressed his support for a referendum; he has for a long time been consistently on record in that regard. However, that is not the official past conference policy of the party, and there are others within the party, including myself, as I said about 10 mintues ago, who do not necessarily agree with him or with the right hon. Gentleman that referendums are necessarily the best way of making decisions.
When one considers the Danish referendum and the fact that opinion polls have demonstrated that some 20 per cent. of the Danish population who voted in the referendum did not know what Maastricht was two weeks before the vote took place, one sees that that is not the wisest way to take a complicated decision.
I know perfectly well that there are strong and consistent arguments in favour of referenda. There are hon. Members who regard referendums as a desirable general part of the constitution, rather as is the case in Switzerland, which is the one country which uses referendums as a regular form of making decisions. But there are others who, for more substantial reasons, believe that representative forms of government are a better way of reaching such a complicated decision.

The Chairman
Order. The amendment is not about referendums. It is appropriate to make a passing comment on referendums, but it is not in order to develop the arguments for or against referenda.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Morris.

§ Mr. Marlow
The hon. Gentleman has just said that 80 per cent. of the Danish electorate knew what the Maastricht treaty was. The Maastricht treaty is being debated by the Committee. Would the hon. Gentleman like to give an opinion on how many right hon. and hon. Members know what the treaty of Maastricht is?
I have good news for the hon. Gentleman. Christmas has come early. He said that he would like the Community institutions to be involved in foreign and security policy, and probably home affairs and immigration. Article J.9 says: The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out in the common foreign and security policy field. Article J.7says: The Presidency shall consult the European Parliament on the main aspects and the basic choices of the common foreign and security policy and shall ensure that the views of the European Parliament are duly taken into consideration. If the Bill is approved, the hon. Gentleman has won the match. It is there.

§ Mr. Jim Marshall
On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I realise that you have just said that referendums are not to be included in the debate, but I draw your attention to title 1, article F, which says: The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member states, whose systems of government are founded on the principles of democracy. You and the House, will know that, in a number of member countries referenda are an accepted and legitimate means of making decisions. If people refer to referendums in other countries and in Britain as well, that would be covered by title I, article F.

The Chairman
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my ruling clearly. I said that it was perfectly proper for referendums to be alluded to or referred to, but not to have a substantive debate on a referendum.

§ Mr. Marshall
Why not?

The Chairman
It is not relevant to the amendment that we are debating. If the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier, he must have heard all the points of order about referendums, and if he was not, he should have been.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Morris. I think that you intend that we should refer to it en passant.

§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)
Or de temps en temps.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
Yes.
I was referring to article B and there is no point in referring in detail to the other articles. I have no doubt that we shall hear from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on article F. I find it difficult to understand why he would wish to exclude article F if he deserted title I. I should have thought that he, like myself, is in favour of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)
So that the hon. Gentleman does not go down a blind alley, I should say that that amendment was designed, as so many other amendments have to be designed, to allow a debate on the subject of the European convention on human rights, no more no less.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I wish to make only three more substantial points.

§ Mr. Richard Shepherd
Is it the hon. Gentleman's position, and that of his party, that the article could be brought into effect by prerogative power? As has been pointed out, it seeks to establish a union and citizenship. How could that be effected by prerogative power, when the very last paragraph of article F says: The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to obtain its objectives and carry through its policies. I am interested in whether the hon. Gentleman is moving the amendment because he believes that that title I cannot be achieved by prerogative power.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I am arguing that the title, which I quite accept is declaratory and sets out a number of desirable objectives—

§ Mr. Shepherd
But it is legally binding.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
Yes, but it is difficult to make an objective legally binding. An objective is an aim, a hope—a desire to move in a particular direction. In this day and age, Parliament ought to be able to pronounce upon the matter, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree.

§ Mr. Shepherd
My intervention was made in the spirit of inquiry, because I think that I will vote for the title's inclusion in the Bill. I was merely trying to establish the basis on which that proposition was being advanced. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was appropriate, whether it was justiciable by the European Court—in which case it would be legally binding on us—and whether the Government maintain that, through the use of the prerogative power, they can effect such a provision.
I am also interested to know why the hon. Gentleman does not think that article F—this point was seized on by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—does not require a money resolution.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I explained my position, and I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been convinced by my oratory and is likely to vote for the inclusion of the title. The aims set out in the title and the implications of establishing European union directly concern every one of us, and should be the subject of approval by Parliament.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
The initial provision in article A makes reference to the development of a union, yet the Liberal Democrats favour federalism. Are not the title's provisions a step towards a unitary system? Subsidiarity itself is a centralised notion that dictates that certain aspects can dribble down and be devolved, whereas federalism specifies particular responsibilities for national Governments and the federal body. Are not the Liberal Democrats' principles being eroded by the title? Other right hon. and hon. Members might want to vote for the amendment, but it is difficult to understand. why the Liberal Democrats proposed it.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
Although the word "federal" was removed by the Government in negotiation, the way in which the majority of our Community partners view the nature of an evolving union and the notion of subsidiarity is significantly different from the way in which the British Government view them. Chancellor Kohl talks about subsidiarity and union in terms of federalism.lb/> In that regard, I will quote from our debate last June, when the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) put the point extremely appositely: If we had a federal state in Europe today, we should have more sovereignty guaranteed for the House than we have at present."—[Official Report, 26 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 1076.] The hon. Gentleman repeated himself in December, saying: our federal position would be a step ahead of what we have now. At least when a country is federal it knows what belongs to it and what belongs to others."—Official Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 360.] I agree. I know that what was established at Maastricht is not yet a federal state, but I am convinced that it is moving in that direction.

§ Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West)
The hon. Gentleman knows that the word "union" evokes strong responses from Ulstermen and a different response from Scotsmen. The meaning of subsidiarity to a German may mean devolution for Scotland, unwanted devolution for the regions of Britain, and an unwanted disassembly of the Union for the people of Ulster.
We are addressing a constitutional point, and the hon. Gentleman has a good record of examining such questions. He has been consistent with his party's policy on devolution, so does he believe that the objective—to use his word—is the German style of devolution/federalism/ subsidiarity, or the citizenship of a monolithic state? The hon. Gentleman is opening up a key question.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I believe that the Community could not hold together if it became a monolithic state, given the diversity of its peoples. Almost inevitably—although perhaps more slowly than I would wish—one will see the development of federal institutions. The Community is already a sort of incomplete federation.
As to the different meaning of words to different people, one Conservative Back Bencher sensibly turned to his dictionary. If one looks up the word "federalize" in the "Oxford English Dictionary" one finds the following explanation: unite in a federal union…to decentralise; to take from the central authority and hand over to federal bodies in the state, or to federal states in a union. That is the OED definition, but the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs seems anxious to rewrite that excellent book.

§ Mr. Cash
The hon. Gentleman may have read the evidence given on 5 February by Paul Taylor, senior lecturer in international relations at the London school of economics to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in which he clearly stated, in relation to the Maastricht agreement: The expression a European union is a term that was included in the preamble and which appears at a number of other places, but which in practice appears to signify little that would not have been indicated by the term federalism in this context. 177 In other words, Mr. Taylor was saying that there is no distinction to be drawn between the arrangements provided by the treaty and a federal system.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones)
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Cash
My right hon. Friend, in his usual jocul ar manner, thinks that is wrong, but I look forward to hearing him explain—which I do not think he will find it easy to do—how the arrangements for which title I and the rest of the treaty provide—particularly having regard to the central banking arrangements for the whole of Europe—can easily be distinguished from a federal system.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will distinguish between the arrangements in this country—with a central bank at the centre of gravity for Europe as a whole, with unelected, unaccountable bankers having the degree of power that they will—and the word "federal".

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I will decline the hon. Gentleman's invitation, and take this rare opportunity to agree with almost everything he said. I thought that his definition was very accurate, and it is exactly what I would like to see.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for quoting me as an authority, and I glad that he agrees with me. I was seeking to make the point that a federal state would be a fundamental advance on what we have now and on what is in the Maastricht treaty—not the creation of a federal Europe in which they belong to something and we belong to something, but the creation of a unitary European union in which there would be central decision making and hardly anything guaranteed for national institutions.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those of us who are inclined to support his common-sense amendment to allow Parliament to debate title I would not in any sense be supporting that title? We would simply be saying that such a provision should be discussed by right hon. and hon. Members and not be a device used by some—perhaps erroneously—to have the Bill presented in such a way that amendments are not selected and issues are not properly discussed?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
Having heard the hon. Gentleman speak many times, I have a pretty clear idea of what he does and does not believe, so I do not accuse him as he suggests that other people may.
In my definition, subsidiarity is federalism, because it is written down, entrenched and guaranteed—and the hon. Gentleman asked me whether an institutionalised federal state would represent an advance on Maastricht. Yes, of course it would. We have never said that we regard Maastricht as an end point—far from it—but in the present circumstances we consider that it represents a notable advance, and that its rejection would have a severe adverse effect on the political situation in the Community and beyond, in the eastern countries and in the European Free Trade Association.

§ Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to congratulate me on using a French dictionary to try to unravel "acquis communautaire". As he has just mentioned subsidiarity, I wonder whether he could show me an English dictionary which contains a definition of that word.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could try the Library. I am sure that the people there would help him.

§ Mr. Marlow
rose—

§ Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North)
rose—

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I must bring my speech to a conclusion. I am not in the business of extending the debate. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has not intervened so far, so I shall give way to him.

§ Mr. Jenkin
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's victory in negotiating the words "federal vocation" out of the treaty has made no difference to the meaning of the treaty? Given his view that the treaty takes us towards a type of federal union, does he suggest that the Government, albeit inadvertently, seek to sell the treaty on a somewhat false prospectus?

Hon. Members
Say yes.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I could pretty nearly say yes—but, among other things, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's "victory". I wish that Conservative Members—and all hon. Members—would stop using such warlike language about negotiations within the European Community. Every time a Minister returns from Brussels, we are told, "We defeated them," or, "We beat them," or, "We did them down." One sees the image of Spitfires whirling in salute above. That is not the way forward. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Government have not been so successful in many areas of negotiation is because they approach matters in too confrontational a way.
The hon. Member for Colchester, North said that I believed that the rest of Europe wishes to move the Community towards the creation of a federal Europe. That is not my idea alone; I am sure that many independent observers would accept it. I realise that the British Government do not wish to move in that direction. They have made that quite clear, so they are not deceiving anyone. What emerges will be the result of interplay between the various political forces. That will determine the outcome for us.
The Liberal Democrats' goal is a democratic, accountable, federal Europe, embracing all the countries that wish to join and respecting their national and cultural identities.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
Oh, all right.

§ Mr. Mitchell
Mine is a more friendly intervention. I shall revert to the earlier argument, because I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) had a more correct assessment of what we are doing. Would the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) care to wade a little further into his pile of "acquis liberale" by telling me what will happen if we accept the amendment?
Paragraph 2 of article F of the treaty says: The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950". 179 If we incorporate title I, as the Liberal Democrats' amendment suggests, would the European convention on human rights be incorporated into British law, as many of us feel would be appropriate?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I do not think so, although I would wish—

§ Mr. Mitchell
Then what is the point?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
What is the point of what? I have already explained at length to the hon. Gentleman why I think that the title should be approved by Parliament—because it contains a series of declarations of considerable seriousness, on which Parliament should have the right to express a view. That does not mean that the provision goes as far as I would wish. I should certainly favour our recognising the European convention on human rights.

§ Mr. Barnes
As hon. Members who believe in open government and freedom of information, surely we must get the meaning of the word "federalism" correct, and understand what subsidiarity implies. Is it really being said that subsidiarity is a subterfuge being used to move us towards federalism? I stand for federalism, and I should like the Bill to provide for it, but that is not what we have been offered.
We are offered something else, which is described as subsidiarity, so subsidiarity must be clarified. If that cannot be done in such a way as to turn subsidiarity into federalism, subsidiarity should be recognised for what it is—an attempt to persuade us to accept moves towards a unitary system, and a union.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I believe that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Government have a record of centralising control within the United Kingdom. Does he also agree that, when they use the word "subsidiarity", they mean subsidiarity from Brussels to Whitehall? The Government want subsidiarity to stop at Whitehall. But my definition would mean subsidiarity from Brussels to Edinburgh and Liverpool, and to the various regions of England, Scotland and Wales. That is what we mean in connection with federalism, too.
Of course we know that the Government's definition of subsidiarity and their concept of decentralisation are different from mine—and doubtless different from those of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).

§ Mr. Barnes
The Liberal Democrats are supposed to be a democratic party.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
We are.

§ Mr. Barnes
A democratic party must opt clearly for a principle by which the various positions begin to become clear. The word "subsidiarity" has never been used in legal or constitutional documents, nor to explain democratic positions. It was used in a papal encyclical, and operated within structures such as the Catholic Church. The word was applied to fascist Italy, to define the rights of the individual.
The document in question contains the mildest of trickle-down provisions; some things might be dealt with at a lower level, but most things would be done at the. centre. That is like someone going to the monarch, or to 180 the tsar, with icons, and hoping that he will not be killed. What comes down to the lower level is entirely dependent on the centre.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that the Minister does, too.

§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
It is the long-standing policy of the Liberal Democrats to seek the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our domestic law, and that policy has been openly supported by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, in his annual address to the Bar Council, and—as recently as last night—by Lord Chief Justice Taylor, in his Dimbleby lecture.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, because the Government do not intend to include in the Bill matters which do not give rise to Community rights and obligations—in particular, the provisions of article L of title 7—which excludes from the consideration of the European Court of Justice all matters which do not directly arise from the original treaties of the European Community, even if we adopt title I into the Bill as the amendment proposes, we shall still not be able to incorporate the European convention into British law? That is regrettable, but unavoidable in light of the Government's policy, which has no doubt been imposed on other colleagues in the Community.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I agree with everything my hon Friend says. I also referred to the Dimbleby lecture in that connection. I have made the case as clearly as possible—

§ Mr. Marlow
The hon. Gentleman's advice on this issue will probably be very valuable and much more so than that of many other hon. Members.
It has been made clear to us that the Committee is not about ratifying the Bill: it is about incorporating parts of the treaty into United Kingdom legislation. In the amendment, the hon. Gentleman seeks also to incorporate title I into British legislation. I am tempted. I have a great deal of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve, and I may well support him in the Lobby later.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to advise the House. Let us suppose that we do not support his amendment. Let us suppose that even the Government oppose the amendment and it is defeated. Let us suppose that other amendments that seek to incorporate other parts of the treaty into British legislation at a later stage are also defeated. How, then, is the whole of the treaty ratified? Through this process, we are legislating only part of the treaty. How, therefore, is the rest of the treaty ratified?

§ Sir Russell Johnston
The short answer is that, because the Chair very properly decided that the amendment should be selected—the Chair has also selected other amendments concerning other missing titles—the House has the opportunity to express an opinion on whether it wishes titles to be included or not. The opportunity exists. We know that, in strict terms, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is right. We are not ratifying; we are talking about the parts of the treaty which have a direct consequence on British law. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the fact is that, if we defeat the 181 Bill, the effect will be that we do not ratify.I know that that is a paradox, but it is true, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I repeat that we should include title I of the treaty.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I seek in the first instance not only to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), but to seek to place in context the important debate that we are about to have. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris, I shall seek to respond to points made subsequently by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who will no doubt speak on the amendment he has tabled, and to the points raised by other hon. Members.
The House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber for tabling the amendment because it enables us to have a debate that is essentially about the structure of the treaty. It is important for us to have that debate and it is timely that the Committee should open with it.
I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will be persuaded by my remarks, and by what subsequently takes place in Committee, that the wisest course would be for him to withdraw the amendment. That is my objective. Curiously enough, the finger was put by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall)—

§ Mr. Jim Marshall
I hope that it was not my finger but the intellectual power of my comments that influenced the Minister.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
The hon. Gentleman, aided and abetted by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), went to the heart of what, as I hope that hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will accept after the debate, is the weakness of the argument.
There are two sides to the amendment. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber replied frankly when the hon. Member for Leicester, South said, rightly, that the purpose of the structure of the treaty—this is at the centre of the Government's negotiating position and I believe that the Opposition are not unsupportive of that position—is to separate out common foreign and security policy, and interior and justice policy, and to make them separate intergovernmental pillars and not part of the treaty of Rome. The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked whether that was not the purpose of the whole treaty.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber replied, perfectly frankly—this is the position of the Liberal Democrats and will come as no surprise to anyone—that he indeed wanted to bring those areas of intergovernmental activity into the treaty of Rome. He wants a single structure—what we here have come to call a federal state. I realise that in the course of the Committee we shall have some interesting debates about what the word "federal" means. It means different things in different countries. That is what the Liberal Democrats aspire to.
There is a certain amount of sense in what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber seeks to do. I do not want Conservative or Opposition Members to be confused about the matter. In seeking to move title I on to the face of the treaty, one is taking a step towards a 182 single-structured treaty. That is what the hon. Gentleman wishes to see. I hope that none of my hon. Friends will be deceived by that.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
rose—

§ Mr. Benn
rose—

Mr. Garet-Jones
I will give way, but I want first to complete this part of my argument so that the House well understands what we shall be asked to vote on when the Question is put.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and his party are clear about the matter. It must, therefore, have come as some surprise to the hon. Gentleman to find that the amendment enjoyed the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I will explain why I believe that my hon. Friend will give that support and why he will even gain support from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) whose intentions on the Maastricht treaty and on the Bill are well known to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and to the Committee. My hon. Friend's intentions are perfectly proper, but they are not the ones that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

§ Mr. Benn
Whether the amendment which seeks to incorporate title I is in the Bill or not—that is all that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) proposes—the Government intend to ratify title I. There is no objection to the words. It appears that the Government do not want too much of the attention of the House of Commons and of the country to be drawn to title I by incorporating it in the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course. If title I is in the Bill, everyone can see it.
People do not study treaties, including the aims and objectives. Acts of Parliament do not get studied very much, but at least they are looked at. Treaties are never looked at. I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will not be persuaded to withdraw the amendment. If he does withdraw it, the Government will go ahead and ratify the treaty.
The second point raises matters of tactics for the Edinburgh summit. What gain have the Government got from putting the Bill on today? When the Edinburgh summit meets next week, every other European Minister will see that the British Government do not want the objectives of the Maastricht treaty put before the British Parliament. That is what this is about—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course it is.
If the Minister had said that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber was right and that the Government would ratify the objectives, he could at least go to the summit as a "good European". However, in fact, the first thing that he will have to say to the others is, "You are ratifying and we are ratifying, but we did not want our Parliament to incorporate the objectives in the legislation." By moving the amendment, the hon. Gentleman has exposed the deception and the strategy of the Government in trying to deny to the British public the enormity of what they are doing. On a matter of language, I do not know what "la reine la vault" means, either, if the Bill has to receive Royal Assent in Norman French which, to the best of my knowledge, is no longer in the Oxford English dictionary.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is making a point that seems to be entirely misleading both to himself and to the Committee.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
Tell us why it is misleading.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I will seek to do so.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
Do it now.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I will seek to do so.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
I will listen very carefully.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
If my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will contain himself for a few seconds, I will seek to do so.
The right hon Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will be aware that the purpose of the Bill is to bring into British law those elements of the treaty of Maastricht that involve an amendment to the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act. Fortunately for the Committee and for its procedures, it is possible for us, in doing that, to have much wider debates and to debate those other elements of the treaty of Maastricht which do not necessitate a change or an amendment to the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act, such as the intergovernmental activities of the union. There will be a number of debates—I dare say that they will be very long and detailed—when the Committee considers all those aspects of the Bill, too.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
The point that I was going to make follows on from what was said by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), with whom I wholly agree. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that European law overrides British law when there is a conflict? In so far as title I has any legal validity in the courts of the land, it will be enforced by the courts of this land whether or not it is incorporated in the Bill. Therefore, what on earth is the point in preventing the Committee from debating the legal consequences of title I? What is the point of keeping it out of the Bill when the legal effect will be identical, whether it is in the Bill or whether it is enforced through European law?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
If the Committee will allow me to make the remarks that I am about to make, I hope to be able to answer my hon. Friend. As a quick reply—I hope that I am allowed to make a detailed explanation of the point—may I say that my hon. Friend will see in the response that the Government have put to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the common provisions of the treaty are not justiciable by the European Court of Justice by virtue of article L of the treaty. The common conditions that we are discussing are not justiciable under the European Court of Justice. I shall try to make progress, but I will, of course, take interventions.

§ Mr. Marlow
My right hon. Friend is being very tolerant, and I am grateful. If title I is not justiciable, what is the point of it and what effect does it have?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Title I describes the objectives of the treaty. It places the treaty in context, both those aspects of the treaty that are amendments to the treaty of Rome and those aspects of the treaty that are not part of the treaty of Rome. I welcome the amendment because it goes to the heart of the structure of the treaty and the Bill. It is important that we understand that from the outset.

§ Mr. Denzil Davies
We all understand that title I is not justiciable by the European Court because it is not incorporated into the treaty of Rome. It is quite different to say, however, that, if the British Government ratify title I, as they will have to if they ratify the treaty, the British Government are then bound vis-a-vis all other Governments by what is in title I. If title I is a federal blueprint—I do not know whether it is or not—the British Government are ratifying a federal blueprint.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
If the right hon. Member for Llanelli and my hon. Friends who are seeking to intervene will allow me to make some progress, they will realise that I am seeking to address the very questions that the right hon. Gentleman has put to me and that my hon. Friends wish to put. So far, I have not been able to get beyond the first paragraph of what I wish to say. I am perfectly happy to take interventions, but I should like to place my answers to the right hon. Gentleman and to the mover of the amendment in context.
It is important that we understand that the treaty structure—this is the point that the hon. Member for Leicester, South put to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber—was a significant negotiating success for the United Kingdom at Maastricht. It provides the separate intergovernmental pillars for co-operation on the common foreign and security policy and in home affairs outside the treaty of Rome. In those matters, the EC institutions will operate under different rules. For example, the Commission will not have the exclusive right of initiative. There were those—the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber is of this view—who wished—

§ Mr. Butcher
On a point of order, Mr. Morris. We now have a difference of view on whether title I would be justiciable. It is a very important matter because, if we are to incorporate something into law which will be justiciable, and if that is therefore to be part of our constitution, now written as opposed to basically unwritten, we should not proceed with the discussion of the amendment, given that it now sets a precedent—we should know the answer to this—for the proposal by the Government to exclude whole chunks of the treaty from the Committee's consideration unless covered fortuitously by amendments that you accept.
This is not a spurious point of order. We really need to know before we proceed further whether, having passed article 1, whether we discuss it or not, a European Court judgment could give flesh, meaning or obligations to this Parliament arising from its approval.

The Chairman
Obviously, there are powerful arguments at bay and they must be discussed on the Floor of the House, and they should proceed. I certainly cannot rule on them at this stage.

§ Mr. Butcher
Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. The Minister of State has given an assurance—of course, we have to accept in good faith that that is his interpretation—but there are serious doubts whether article L insulates us from decisions by the European 185 Court which bind the House of Commons and bind us constitutionally and which can have a significant effect on the way in which we view citizenship in this country.
I put it to you again, Mr. Morris, that this is a very serious point. If we approve article 1 without that discussion and without a judgment from the Law Officers we may have future discussions on many other parts of the treaty, not knowing the constitutional basis on which they might be implemented in this country.

§ Mr. Cash
On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman
I rule on one point of order at a time. The hon. Gentleman should know that by now.
The arguments are all of substance throughout the whole process of the Bill. Some may seem more important than others, but arguments have to be deployed and then we have to come to a conclusion. The Committee votes either for the amendment or against it. It is not for the Chair to advise one way or the other. I do not think that I can help the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) any further.

§ Mr. Cash
On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would it be convenient for the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, perhaps in rotation, to attend our debate' These are matters not exclusively of English law. We are now told that they are part European law and part English law. It seems to me that the Minister of State is having a little difficulty in explaining himself. It might be helpful if the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General could be brought in to bail him out.

The Chairman
Order. Ministers will have heard that; it is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I am not experiencing—

§ Mr. Benn
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to make a little progress. I will seek to deal with a number of questions, including the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has just raised on a point of order. I do not want to be discourteous to the Committee by refusing to take interventions, but I want to try to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and to address the questions which hon. Members wish me to address. We are in Committee and there will be no difficulty for hon. Members to intervene. They may intervene freely on each other. I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I put these remarks on the record now. When I have done so, hon. Members will no doubt raise a number of points.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I agree with almost nothing that has been said by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and indeed take a different view from some of my hon. Friends, but may I support the hon. Member for Stafford on one matter? There is a serious argument for having a Law Officer present.

The Chairman
I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already ruled that that is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
There are those in Europe who wish all co-operation between Governments and member states to fall under the treaty of Rome within the framework of 186 the existing Community rules and under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is in essence the position which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber seeks to defend. I think that is why he has sought to incorporate title I into the provisions of the Bill. There is a reason why he should not do so, but that is a respectable reason, well understood by hon. Members.
There are also a number of people in Europe who share the federal views held by the Liberal party. That is why, in the course of the negotiations leading up to the treaty, the Dutch Government sought to introduce a unitary text that would indeed have made all these matters areas where the Commission had the sole right of initiative, and would have made all the areas that we will discuss in Committee justiciable by the European Court of Justice.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
My right hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the Committee to article L. He must give his full attention to what article L(a) says. Is he telling the Committee as a legal fact that title I of the treaty is not a provision amending the treaty establishing the European Economic Community with a view to establishing the European Community?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Yes, Sir. The pillared structure that I was referring to represents a significant change of direction for the Community. For more than 30 years, since its foundation, the Community has developed in a centralising way, drawing more and more areas of policy and action under the central framework of Community institutions, operating under Community rules and enacting Community legislation. The introduction of the pillared structure of the treaty on European union represents moves away from that centralising trend and into more flexible forms of co-operation under the umbrella of European union. It is the distinction between co-operation in the Community and co-operation in the European union that lies at the heart of the treaty and therefore at the heart of the Bill.

§ Mr. Rowlands
Will the Minister point to anywhere in title I which makes those distinctions? is there anywhere in title I a reference to intergovernmental institutions? We read that the objective is the framing of a common defence policy, leading to common defence. That is not a pillared structure. Is there any reference in title I to a pillared structure and to the intergovernmental provisions of the treaty?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Title I refers at different points to the whole treaty; therefore, it makes reference to the treaty of Rome and the amendments to it and it makes reference to the intergovernmental aspects—

§ Mr. Rowlands
Where?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
The hon. Gentleman has just referred to one himself—defence. More importantly, it distinguishes which areas are aspects of the amendments to the treaty of Rome and which aspects are intergovernmental.

§ Mr. Cash
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I want to make more progress.

§ Mr. Rowlands
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I want to make more progress. I am about to address the very points that the hon. Member for 187 Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is putting to me. If he will allow me to make a little progress I will give way to him and to my hon. Friend.
It is important that I reply first to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and seek to place the debate in a context that will help other hon. Members who have tabled amendments. The treaty falls into distinct parts. Title II contains amendments to the treaty of Rome.

§ Mr. Rowlands
What about title I?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I will come to title I in good time.
Titles II, III and IV contain corresponding amendments to the treaties establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. Titles V and VI provide for intergovernmental co-operation in common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs respectively.
Hon. Members will recall the debate about the treaty structure before Maastricht—temples versus trees. That debate concerned whether Community rules in the treaty of Rome should apply in all areas of co-operation. Co-operation in separate intergovernmental pillars will not take place under the Community's normal rules. That is clear from article E. The Community institutions will operate according to the conditions laid down in the relevant sections of the treaty. For example, article L specifically excludes intergovernmental provisions from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Not at this point. I shall certainly give way later.

§ Mr. Cash
On the point about article L—

The Chairman
Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
For example, article L specifically excludes intergovernmental provisions from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice unless member states unanimously confer on it jurisdiction to interpret a specific convention adopted under title VI. Community legislation cannot be adopted under the intergovernmental provisions of titles V and VI. In those areas member states will co-operate as members of the union. The union is a wider concept than the Community, embracing both intergovernmental co-operation and co-operation under the treaty of Rome. Title I—

§ Mr. Cash
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I am answering the point about title I.

§ Mr. Cash
The Minister is not.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Since I am about to embark on the answer, it shows remarkable anticipation by my hon. Friend to say that I am not answering the point; perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to do that.
Title I, "Common provisions", and title VII, "Final provisions", apply to the treaty as a whole. Effectively they establish the treaty's structure. The structure of the treaty is reflected in the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to make effective as part of the corpus of the Community treaties in 188 the law of the United Kingdom those provisions of the Maastricht treaty which amend the European Community treaties previously enacted here by the European Communities Act 1972 and its successors.
We must give effect in our domestic legislation to the Maastricht treaty in such a way as to create a framework within our domestic law for recognising Community rights and obligations which arise from the treaty. We had to do the same with the treaty of Rome in 1972, and we did so by means of the European Communities Act. That is the framework of domestic law that we have followed ever since—notably in 1986, when the 1972 Act was amended to incorporate the Single European Act.
6.30 pm
I fully understand the motives of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, who moved amendment 93. As a European federalist, he wished to begin chipping away at the pillared structure of the union, which is what moving title I into the body of the Bill would do. If one is a European federalist, there is a point in that—most of my hon. Friends are not. As I shall explain in detail later, the purpose of the Bill is to incorporate into British law those narrow amendments to the treaty of Rome that we need to operate in the House and to operate our legal system in Britain. The amendment has the disadvantage of creating an anomalous situation in United Kingdom domestic law.

§ Mr. Benn
In respect of title I, the Minister properly says that those are largely objectives and are not justiciable. The end of title I says that the union—the new organism that we are setting up— shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies. Those words can mean only one thing. We are setting up European union and—with the assent of the Government when they ratify the treaty—the European Community will have the right to do things to us and to other countries. It is no good saying it is not justiciable. If the instruments of union take on board that remit, the question is whether it is legal in Britain and what remedy we have got. By ratifying the treaty, the Government are giving birth to a new executive which is even more powerful than the Crown. I think that that requires a proper answer.

§ Mr. Garel Jones
It is policies as defined in the treaty.

§ Mr. Rowlands
The hon. Gentleman repeated that title I establishes, describes and reflects the structure of the treaty. I asked him before, and I ask again, where in title I there are any references to the intergovernmental pillars. He referred me to the defence policy provision. Let me remind him that that is to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence". There is nothing intergovernmental or pillared about those words—they are all about federalism and the union of the European Community.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is contained in the third paragraph of article A: The Union shall be founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of co-operation established by this treaty. Intergovernmental union is one of the forms of co-operation that is established in the treaty.

§ Mr. Cash
Is my right hon. Friend arguing that the provisions of title I do not give rise to international legal obligations, irrespective of whether they are within the treaty of Rome and are therefore European Court of Justice applicable? Secondly, has it passed his notice that article L comes under title VII, which is not part—or sought to be made part—of the domestic law of the United Kingdom? The situation is therefore curious, as my hon. Friend invokes the provisions of article L, which will be dealt with exclusively by prerogative, to endorse his arguments for yet another prerogative power, when everyone knows that both provisions are international legal obligations, irrespective of whether they are in the treaty of Rome—unless he wants to deny that they are obligations. Will he comment on that?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Any international treaty that the United Kingdom subscribes to is an international treaty—

§ Mr. Cash
It is a legal obligation.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I said that it was not justiciable by the European Court of Justice.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Is the Minister aware that mine is probably the friendliest—or the least unfriendly—face that he is looking at on the Opposition Benches? That puts me in a position to say that if Ministers are going to talk about the incorporation of law—we have just heard that that is the main object of what we are discussing—it is at least wise that a Law Officer should be present to clarify such matters. I have some experience of constitutional Bills—although not experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) would entirely approve of—and, having spent 47 days on a devolution Bill, I ask, will the Government take it from me that it is a wise precaution to have a Law Officer present at an early stage because it makes a difference? This is not an insult to the Minister, but he will get into dreadful trouble if he does not do that.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I understand the friendly way in which the hon. Gentleman puts his case. He will understand that any legal matters that I seek to explain—if my hon. Friends will allow me to do so—are explained on the advice of the Government's Law Officers. If specific matters arose and the Treasury Bench felt that an intervention by a Law Officer would help the Committee, we would invite one of my right hon. and learned Friends to assist the Committee.

§ Mr. Dalyell
rose—

§ Mr. Denzil Davies
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I give way to the right hon. Member for Llanelli.

§ Mr. Davies
As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, title I refers to a separate pillar, which is not justiciable—the nasty European Court cannot consider it and nor can the Commission it is intergovernmental. In that case, why does the treaty refer to the "acquis communautaire", which is the corpus or body of EC law which has been built up until now and which will continue to be built up? Title I is made subject to all that.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that title I refers not only to the intergovernmental aspects of the treaty but to the whole treaty. That is the point that I am seeking to make. We are seeking to give effect to the Maastricht treaty in our domestic legislation, to create a framework within our domestic law, recognising Community rights and obligations which arise from the treaty. That is what we did when we introduced the Single European Act.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I shall intervene once again and then I shall be quiet. As a Member of the House for more than 30 years, I do not think that it is merely a question of parliamentary amour propre. I ask the Minister, gently and seriously, what more pressing business the Attorney-General could have than to be present on the Front Bench while we are discussing such matters. Former Attorneys-General would have been here automatically. My second Attorney-General was Sir John Hobson. [Interruption.] Yes, one could say that. Another was Lord Dilhorne. At least they would have been present on the Front Bench. Apart from anything else, this is playing down Parliament. There could be no more urgent occasion for the Attorney-General to support his hon. Friends.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, both because he is a senior Member of Parliament and because I know that he said it out of the affection that he and I have for each other, and that he did not mean any disrespect. I assure him that not only has everything that I say been agreed and cleared by the Law Officers but that if I or other Ministers felt that it was necessary for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to be here, I would certainly ensure that he came to give his advice.

§ Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston)
I am trying to offer some perfunctory advice. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others will remember that a Law Officer was present throughout the proceedings on the original Bill 20 years ago, and we made remarkable progress as a result. At that time the former Solicitor-General, now Lord Howe, was in charge of almost all the amendments and therefore was well equipped to answer some of the finer points that we seem to be making this afternoon. I ask my right hon. Friend to bear that in mind. I am trying to be helpful. Perhaps we would make more progress if a Law Officer were present throughout the proceedings.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) is a senior Member of the House, and I will bear in mind what he said. It is true that in 1972 my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) were present when we discussed the accession of Britain to the Community and our adherence to the treaty of Rome—I am not seeking in any way to minimise the importance of that debate—which was a momentous decision. Nevertheless, I take the point that my hon. Friend made.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I want to make a little more progress if I may. I have not finished my response to my hon. Friend. I listened respectfully to what he said, If, at any time, the Treasury bench feel that it is necessary for my 191 modest efforts to be supplemented by the presence of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I will certainly ask him to advise the Committee.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
I do not think that my right hon. Friend understood the point that I was trying to make in my previous intervention, which would explain why he did not answer it.
Article L(a) says that the European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction over the provision amending the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community with a view to establishing the European Community,". It appears that title I does precisely that. Does my right hon. Friend not share my fear that the European Court of Justice, when asked whether it has the right to intervene in such matters, will take a pro-European—pro-federal—stance, as it always has, and will decide that the interpretation of that clause enables it to decide matters which arise out of title I?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I shall make a general point first.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
I want an answer.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Underpinning what my hon. Friend said was the belief—I think well founded—that a number of judgments that the European Court has made in the past 30 years tended, in their thrust, to be centripetal. One of the outcomes of the way in which not only the treaty but article 3(b)—which the Committee will examine in some detail in due course—has been structured is that the court's judgments will be influenced in the future. I am not alone in my belief that the court's judgments are likely to be more centrifugal during the next 30 years than they have been in the past.
I turn to the specific issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). As he will have observed, the wording that he referred to in article L is identical to the wording in article A of the common provisions. The European Court is able to act in those matters contained in the treaty of Rome, as amended by the treaty that we are discussing—to quote from the Bill— so far as they relate to those Titles. So far as the titles relate to the provisions in the amended treaty, the European Court will act as a result of the articles in the treaty, not as a result of the common provisions.

§ Mr. Marlow
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I want to make a little more progress before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
We need to legislate domestically to incorporate those EC treaty provisions which can have a direct effect in the United Kingdom on Acts under which provisions may be adopted, and we must be able to make subordinate legislation to give effect to EC obligations. That means predominantly and overwhelmingly the provisions of titles II, III and IV plus the protocols which will become an integral part of the EC treaty. That is why those three titles are referred to in clause I of the Bill.
The position on the preamble to title I, the common provisions, and the position on title VII, the final 192 provisions, are different. The titles do not give rise to Community rights and obligations, but the preamble in the common provisions may play a role in interpreting other provisions in titles II, III and IV under which rights and obligations can arise. Thus the obligations are created elsewhere in the treaty. However, the preamble to title I may relate to the relevant provisions in some way. Article B is a good example as it sets in context the operational provisions elsewhere in the treaty.
The final provisions in title VII confer no powers to adopt Community Acts, but they clearly have an effect on the way in which the Community will operate. After all, the provisions are in many respects the same as the final provisions in the treaty of Rome, suitably amended for incorporation in a treaty on union. The arrangements for enlargement, article N, or further treaty amendment, article O, clearly fall into the category of being related to the treaty of Rome.
To return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, article L clearly relates to the treaty of Rome since it delineates the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, including within that treaty. Therefore, the article needs to be within the scope of the Bill. By contrast, article D in the common provisions, which refers to the make-up of the European Council, does not. To a large extent, it reproduces the equivalent article in the Single European Act—article 2 in title I—which was not included within the scope of the Single European Act. There is no reason to depart from that precedent.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I want to make three points relating directly to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friends, starting with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Northampton, North.
The Bill covers the common provisions, the preamble and titles I and VII, only as they relate to titles II, III and IV. Thus, the structure of the treaty is reflected in the Bill. To incorporate all the provisions from the intergovernmental pillars and the common provisions into the scope of the Bill—which amendment No. 93 seeks to do—would create a legal anomaly at the heart of the domestic legislation required to give effect to Community obligations.
To all intents and purposes, it would drive a coach and horses through the domestic legal framework that we have developed over the past 20 years for our Community membership. It would create confusion and is absolutely not necessary in terms of United Kingdom law. Indeed, it could be taken to mean that the intergovernmental agreements on, for example, asylum and immigration might have a direct effect in the United Kingdom, bypassing the House of Commons; it could be a first step in that direction.
Furthermore, it would give a false impression of the nature of the treaty provisions, suggesting that they are capable of having an effect that the terms of the treaty do not allow. It would mean that the United Kingdom moved in a more federal direction than the treaty of Maastricht seeks to do—a matter of concern to some of my hon. Friends. It would ultimately ignore the treaty's structure—with the clear differences between the treaty of Rome and intergovernmental provisions—that the Community and the union reflect, as negotiated at Maastricht.

§ Mr. Marlow
The Bill seeks to bring various parts of the treaty into United Kingdom law. Title I is not at present one of those parts. My right hon. Friend the Minister has said that title I is not justiciable by the European Court, but he also said that it would have impacts on other aspects of the Bill, some of which are to be incorporated in United Kingdom legislation. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Committee in detail how title I would be used, by whom and to influence what?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Title I is descriptive. It describes the framework within which the treaty operates. Because it seeks to describe the breadth of the union's action, it describes some elements that are within the treaty of Rome and some that are without. Therefore, the Bill uses the words together with the other provisions of the Treaty"— elements in the common provisions and others— so far as they relate to those Titles, and the Protocols adopted at Maastricht on that date and annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community".

§ Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan)
Instead of reading from his prepared brief, will my right hon. Friend answer one simple question? Why cannot we have a full debate on clause 1, which I am sure the British public expect us to do? If we do not have a full debate on it, the public will suspect that we are trying to sweep something under the carpet. May we please have an answer?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been present all afternoon—perhaps he has—but I hope that it has not escaped his notice that we are in the process of debating that issue. When I have finished speaking, a number of hon. Members will speak, no doubt I shall intervene in their speeches, and the Committee's debates will be illuminating, not just for the Committee, but for the country.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
I thank the Minister, who is being generous in giving way. He said that, if title I were included, it would create an anomalous legal position, but he did not tell us in what way. The only example that he produced was something to do with immigration. Surely, if the position is as anomalous as he said—he also said that it would "drive a coach and horses" through the provision—he should be able to give umpteen examples. However, he has been somewhat delphic so far.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I shall try to be a little more helpful to the hon. Gentleman. As he will be aware, the Single European Act sought to amend the treaty of Rome where necessary so that legal decisions could be taken in the United Kingdom—to give legal force in the United Kingdom to provisions of the Single European Act. That is how we have proceeded in the United Kingdom when faced with such treaties. We are seeking to incorporate into British law those aspects of the Maastricht treaty that require amendment to the European Communities Act 1972.
The amendment seeks to incorporate into the Bill—and therefore directly into British law—those elements of European activity that we have specifically sought to separate from the treaty of Rome to ensure that the Commission should not have the sole right of initiative and to ensure that such matters are not justiciable in the European Court of Justice. In one sense, the effect of the amendment would be that our domestic British law was more federal than the treaty of Maastricht.

§ Mr. Rowlands
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
That was the very point that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was seeking to make when he intervened—and I agree with him. I shall not give way to him.

§ Mr. Spearing
I think that the Minister will agree that, although he may take a different view on the request that I made to the Chairman on a point of order, it is germane to what we are now discussing. The Minister is seeking to tell us that the writ of the European Court is excluded from his famous intergovernmental pillars. However, article L specifically gives three instances where the Court of Justice writ will run—the foundation treaties under L(a), article K.3, 2(c) relating to possible conventions on justice and home affairs, and the final provisions of the treaty, L to S, which are intergovernmental.
We are discussing article E—under title I—which specifically mentions the Court of Justice. It states: the Court of Justice shall exercise … powers … on the one hand"— the title then mentions the foundation treaties of Rome, Brussels and Paris— and, on the other hand, by the other provisions of this Treaty". The other provisions must be outside the trunk, and be part of the intergovernmental section of which the Minister is so proud. Why is the second part of that section in article E? If the Court of Justice has nothing to do with title I, why is article L so phrased as to give it that power?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I believe—no doubt the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that I answered the question on article L when I said that I recognised that there were a number of articles, such as articles O and N, that referred directly to the treaty of Rome. The common provisions and the provisions at the tailend of the treaty are, in one sense, hybrid because they refer to provisions within and without the treaty.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)
Will the Minister indicate to whom he is giving way?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher).

§ Mr. Butcher
In his first comment on article L, my right hon. Friend said that title I would never be justiciable by the European Court. In a second comment, which he said that he had cleared with the Government's legal advisers, he said that in some circumstances title I might be justiciable by the European Court. My hon. Friend earlier spoke of incorporation in the corpus of the law of Europe. I appreciate entirely his willingness to help us in this interrogative process, but surely other Committees provide a precedent—I turn to the Chairman for advice on the matter. I believe that in other Committees judgments of the Law Officer have been circulated. That would be particularly helpful, as it is the first time that the Committee has heard the interpretation on which hinges so much of our subsequent discussion. We are now at the heart of the issue of what is and is not to be justiciable in the treaty, whether through the Government's bilateral arrangements outside the treaty or within it.
195 The Committee is not entirely sure whether title I ever will be justiciable. There is a hint that it may be, and if it is so, other parts of the treaty may be affected. We should get this clear before we proceed, because so much of the Government's case has depended on it hitherto.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I think I have answered that already.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)
Is the Minister not undermining title I when he says it is only descriptive? Is it not definitive? Does it not go right to the heart of the matter and is not merely descriptive?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. What we—

§ Mr. Benn
The Minister will appreciate that there is no filibustering going on; we are trying to explore a central question. What he is saying is that there are two sorts of law—parliamentary law and a prerogative law. My understanding is that whatever the provision may be under which laws can be made in Britain is irrelevant. For example, if the country goes to war, it does so under the prerogative. It is no use saying that, it is not justiciable in domestic courts, that because we are at war and the courts will recognise it. If we sign a treaty, it is the law.
Surely the European Court is bound to take account of the fact that, with the solemnity of the royal prerogative, the Prime Minister has ratified, in the name of the Crown, title I. We cannot go to the European court and say, "I'm awfully sorry but that is not quite the sort of law you thought it was". Similarly, if there is any prerogative power in this country, that is also the case. We cannot question who the Archbishop of Canterbury is, because it has not been in legislation; it is a prerogative power of appointment.
Without meaning to—that is why I desperately wish he would take our advice and have a Law Officer here—the Minister is pretending to the House, quite innocently, that there are two sorts of law, one which is justiciable and the other which is not. In fact, all law is justiciable because we are bound by all law, by prerogative, by statute, by custom and practice, and by judge-made law. All are capable of interpretation and appeal to any court that has any rôle in the matter.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I have done my best to explain this to the right hon. Gentleman once—in fact, more than once.

§ Sir Richard Body
rose—

The First Deputy Chairman
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman puts his question to the Minister, may I remind the House that, while I appreciate this is an important debate, many of the interventions are very long and are not directed to the Minister. If hon. Members bear that in mind, progress will be much sharper.

§ Sir Richard Body
I appreciate that we must make progress, but perhaps before the Committee sits again tomorrow my right hon. Friend will make inquiries of the Law Officers about this because the European Court of Justice does interpret legislation differently from our own image. I do not know about Scottish courts but that certainly applies to English courts. In the English courts, 196 there is what is called the golden rule, whereby the judges can look only at the section itself, and interpret that, whereas in the European Court of Justice on numerous occasions, in interpreting a section, the judges have gone back to the preamble of the Bill to assist them in interpreting the section—in other words, doing something which our own courts do not do.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will ascertain whether he is absolutely right in what he has just told the Committee, because he may find that the advice he has received is mistaken and that what he says applies to the English courts but not to the European Court of Justice.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
The advice I have received, of course, is from the Attorney-General himself, the legal adviser to the Government. The Bill is drafted in order to be compatible with our domestic legislative framework and with our domestic precedents and domestic practice. That is the principal reason why the Government will be unable to accept amendment 93—

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I am perfectly happy to discuss the many questions which hon. Members will raise in the course of the debate arising out of the general structure of the treaty. That is the debate which the amendment has prompted. I am happy to discuss the issues which it raises so far as the distinction goes between the treaty and the union and the way it is reflected in the legislation. To the extent that the provisions of title I need to be incorporated in the Bill, they are so incorporated. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will not press the amendment. If he does, I must invite the Committee to vote against it.

§ Mr. George Robertson
May I start, not by following the Minister's somewhat beleaguered speech but by making my own speech in which I shall try to look at the issue from a slightly different angle from that of the Minister. I may come to a similar conclusion, but I hope for different reasons.
I welcome the way in which the Chairman of Ways and Means has structured this debate, because it is very welcome. Once we are beyond this group of amendments it might be slightly more comprehensible to anybody who looks in from the outside world. We are also grateful for the split that took place to the proposed group of amendments on the general provisions which has allowed us to have this interesting and valuable debate on title I.
Opposition Members—I am sure that this applies to most others—want this debate on this lengthy Committee stage. I underline the fact that the length of Committee stage is determined by the Government and the Prime Minister's promise to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and not by any intention by the Opposition or, indeed, by the other side of the House to prolong the debate beyond what is necessary.
The debate will be exhaustive, but so it should be. The provisions of this treaty are enormously important and penetrate into very intimate parts of British life. It is right that the House gives proper debate and scrutiny to what has been agreed on the country's behalf and to what, if the House so consents, will be incorporated into British law.
The Government will find the experience uncomfortable. The Minister, I think, has tasted only a sample of what is to come during the weeks and months ahead. I 197 have to say that, for some crime of which I have not yet discovered the nature, this is the second European Communities Amendment (Bill) on which I have been an Opposition spokesman. I can scarcely imagine what the crime was. It may have escaped my notice, but it must have been extremely serious for me to have to go through this again. As we went through the expressions that pass for English but sound very foreign, the expression "deja vu" came to my mind.
The amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democratic party suggests that we should incorporate title I of the Maastricht treaty into the Bill. I judge it by a number of tests: why should we put it in? Is it necessary that we should put it in? Is there a benefit from putting it in today?
I have given considerable thought to the amendment, because I knew that it was likely to be the first one of the Committee stage; it was a laborious exercise, embarked on not easily, but by way of punishment.
There seemed to be immediate attractions to including title I in the Bill. One that struck me was the fact that the definition of "subsidiarity" in title I was better than the definition in article 3B, to which we shall come in due course. The subject of subsidiarity has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. The subject is close to the hearts of those of us from north of the border, because the Government seem enthusiastic about subsidiarity in the European Community but reluctant and grudging towards subsidiarity and decentralisation in the United Kingdom.
Article 3B is indeed complex. I cannot see that it is constructed in such a way that subsidiarity will be real—my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) makes the point endlessly—because it refers to it purely in terms of the exclusive competencies of the Community. On the other hand, subsidiarity is dealt with differently in title I, which refers to decisions being taken "as closely as possible" to the citizen.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will confirm that what we are discussing is a formulation on subsidiarity that is attractive to the British Government, and that when we come to consider article 3B, that might be taken as being a part of title I and will be considered relevant to the provisions of titles II, III and IV which will be incorporated in the Bill. As I say, that seemed an attractive aspect of title I which suggested that perhaps we should support the Liberal amendment.

§ Mr. Spearing
I will not follow my hon. Friend into discussing the advantages or disadvantages of subsidiarity, which he rightly says applies only to outside exclusive competence. Has he realised that the amendment would move title I into line 9 on page 1 of the Bill? The Liberals are using the series of amendments to discuss the merits or demerits, and some of the content, of title I. Indeed, my hon. Friend is doing just that.
Does my hon. Friend not realise that the place in the Bill where the amendment would appear—this was relevant to the point of order that I raised at the beginning of the proceedings—would add the obligations, be they justiciable or not, of the European Communities Act 1972, but would not add them to the Bill in respect of ratification? So although it might be good to debate the subject, the consequences would probably not be all that great.

§ Mr. Robertson
My hon. Friend anticipates me, because, perhaps laboriously, I was about to explain that while there seemed to be attractions to incorporating title I, we should not support the Liberal amendments, as those immediate attractions would not necessarily apply. In other words, I come to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South but by a different route.

§ Mr. Marlow
Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to have a crack at the point that I put to the Minister, who has not yet had time to answer it? Titles II and III will become part of British law, and we know that. Title I will not become part of British law and it will not be justiciable by the European Court. On the other hand, it will have an impact on our law, as has been pointed out. What will that impact be, how will it be used and to what instruments will it apply?

§ Mr. Robertson
If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a crack at his right hon. Friend, he should not try to use me to do it. His right hon. Friend is paid much more and, being a Minister, has more expert advice than is available to me—[Interruption.] If not expert advice, the advice available to him is more extensive than that available to me.
I am sure that the Minister will eventually get round to answering the point that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) put to him, and to all the other awkward questions that Conservative Members are raising. I am a mere humble toiler on the Opposition Benches, forced by the inadequacies of the Short money to work these matters out for myself. I am sharing with hon. Members in all parts of the House the results of my cogitations. I put them forward for their perusal, and I shall be interested to hear whether they agree with my conclusions.
The second superficial attraction of title I is the area to which an amendment of mine, No. 108, would apply—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the help of Conservative Members, but I gather that I need not move that amendment. It seems that my information, about that and other matters, is superior to that of the Minister and his hon. Friends.
That amendment is concerned with article F of the European convention on human rights. There seems to be a superficial argument for saying that if we incorporated title I in the Bill, by the back door we should have achieved the legal implementation into this country of the European convention on human rigths. In an environment in which the Government are hostile to taking that course, there is a superficial argument for taking that step—

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Robertson
I must get on, because I am anxious to limit my remarks to less than the hour that seems to be the average for speeches so far.

§ Mr. Butcher
The hon. Gentleman has referred to certain changes that may occur by the back door as a result of incorporating title I. Does he believe in Scottish devolution? There is an interpretation of subsidiarity that suggests that, if one takes decisions as closely as possible 199 to the people in relation to national institutions, one gets regional government, otherwise known in Scotland as devolution.

§ Mr. Robertson
If applied, the principle of subsidiarity leads to decentralisation, in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe. I believe in decentralisation. I do not believe in a unitary state in Europe. Europe can develop properly according to a principle which happens to be called subsidiarity—for the purposes of the treaty and the jargon of the moment—but it is a healthy and efficient principle which we should apply in the European Community. Britain would also be the better for having that principle applied to the way in which we take decisions.
Are the superficial attractions of title I real? The Chairman of Ways and Means made it clear at the outset that we, in the Committee of the whole House, are not engaged in the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. That may be a difficult concept for people outside to appreciate, but it should be fully comprehensible to hon. Members. We do not ratify treaties. We apply to British law, by separate legislation, whatever is necessary to implement the treaties that have been signed by royal prerogative.
I have complained about that method of legislating over the years. In the 10 years that I have been a Labour spokesman on foreign affairs, the only opportunity that I have had to debate major treaties signed on behalf of this country in the sphere, say, of arms control, has been when a statutory instrument has occasionally trickled down to the House giving diplomatic immunity to inspectors appointed under those treaties.
I had been in the House for only a year when Labour was last in power, but I have always made the point that something should be done about the Ponsonby rules and the way in which the House deals with treaties. Some of my hon. Friends, and certainly some Conservative Members who have been in government, could have done something about that over the years. Perhaps this is not the time to start complaining about it. We are taking the Maastricht treaty and removing from it those elements that require legislation in this country. We should ensure that the minimum legislation necessary is put into effect in British law.
We should not be trying to put into effect in British domestic law more than is absolutely necessary under the terms of the treaty. What we are concerned with here are purely and simply the rights and obligations imposed upon this country by the treaty signed at Maastricht. That would appear to include titles II, III and IV, but not the other titles, except in respect of certain key areas some of which have come up already in the debate and others of which I hope will be fleshed out.

§ Mr. Cash
rose—

§ Mr. Robertson
In a spirit of pure nostalgia, because we have gone through these debates so often, and since the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), known as "the loose change of European politics", is someone who cannot possibly allow a speech to go by without contributing to it, I will give way to him.

§ Mr. Cash
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer my question in that case. Does he believe that 200 those parts of the treaty that are not included for the purposes of the Court of Justice are titles that give rise to international legal obligations? In other words, title I would give rise to international legal obligations. Is that right or not, because the hon. Gentleman is making quite a lot of play of this?

§ Mr. Robertson
I am not making play of that at all. The Law Officers—one floated into the Chamber a short while ago and floated out again—who are paid large amounts of money, who have immense qualifications, who, it would appear from the bill they gave the Chancellor, charge rather a lot of money for them—and who will no doubt give the Minister a bill tonight simply for floating through the Chamber, asking how he is getting on and telling him that their invoice will be in the post, so to speak—can bend their minds to that question.
A real question has been posed this evening: what international legal obligations have been entered into under the Maastricht treaty? That, however, is not what we are principally involved in with this amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stafford will be able to persuade his colleagues to give that clarification, even if they send him a bill for it.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
If I understand the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) correctly, he is saying that we must not have too much unnecessary legislation, and that the Bill contains what is necessary for the adjustment of domestic law. In other words, he seems to be saying that, if title I is included, it will not make that much difference, whereas the Minister is saying that, if it is included, it will make an awful lot of difference. Which is right?

§ Mr. Robertson
I will come to the next part of my argument. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and I have shared so many debates that he thinks he can read my mind, but I am enunciating a principle that applies to this legislation and which I think is a good principle—that from these treaties that the Government care to sign we should put the minimum legal requirement into the legislation and we should not enter into anything else that is not required. I will come to the point of title I and whether it breaches my principle and whether it might create even more serious problems for the objectives that I have set out. This is where I come to the issue of the pillar structure.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and his party did not agree with the pillar structure; they wanted the European tree, with all decisions to come through the one institutional structure, with the right of the Commission to be involved in it. But that is not what was eventually agreed at Maastricht. The structure agreed there was precisely what I and my party officially wanted—that the elements within the treaty that require to be part of the European Community pillar, the EC pillar, should be that way, but that aspects such as foreign and security policy, with all its implications, and home affairs and justice should be separate, intergovernmental pillars.
Who knows what the future will bring about? Things may develop by way of negotiations, by way of the next intergovernmental conference, but we have to live with what we have now. I favour it; I think that it was the right outcome, and 12 Governments agreed that it was the best outcome in the circumstances.
201 In that respect, it is no different from the Single European Act that I and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber sat through in 1986, because that created an institution called European political co-operation; it was not part of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill that we discussed at such length at that time, because it was decided that it would remain an embryonic intergovernmental process that might perhaps build up eventually to a common foreign policy machinery. It has become that, but, as yet, the Community governments have not agreed that it should still be part of the full pillar.
That is what we have at present: three major pillars that will co-exist. It appears that title I, if folded into the Bill, will complicate the structure that has been created. I disagree with the way in which the Minister seemed to suggest that title I was the pillar structure and that, by folding it in, we would complicate what was coming afterwards; that is the impression he gave. What title I does, especially in Article C, is to talk about a general principle that does not relate to two of the pillars and, in not relating to them, will complicate not European Community law, which can live with complications and blurred edges, but British domestic law, which works on the basis of minimum legislation where it is required by any external treaty such as the Maastricht treaty.
I worry, therefore, that it will complicate the situation and will in practice lead to something which I do not believe the Liberal party would consider healthy and which my own party certainly does not consider healthy; encroachment on the principle of automaticity. Over the years, I have listened to my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) going on about section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. Section 2 is the one that they wanted suspended because it provides for the automatic implementation in Britain domestic law of European Community law as established through the principles of the EC treaty of 1972, subsequently amended by the Single European Act.
That automaticity is extremely important. It has given a status to European Community law in this country which is of great and sometimes controversial importance, as we found in the matter of the Spanish fishing boats. We choose; the Government in the first instance, when they sign the treaties, and eventually the House, when it considers the treaties in detail, make a conscious, precise and limited decision about what areas will be subject to the automaticity rule, because to do so is to give supreme importance to any law that is determined at European level in the British domestic context.

§ Mr. Benn
I have listened with great care to what my hon. Friend has said about section 2, but I hope that he has not missed the point, which is that laws that are brought into effect automatically under section 2 are laws assented to by the royal prerogative itself. The whole point about section 2 is that it has a domestic relevance quite apart from Europe; for the first time since 1649, a Minister can make a law that applies in Britain without the consent of Parliament. So it has changed the balance of power in Britain vis-a-vis Ministers, hon. Members, and electors. That is an issue which my hon. Friend should also address.

§ Mr. Robertson
I was not around in 1642. Nor was I around in 1972, but my right hon. Friend the Member for 202 Chesterfield was. It is a long time since then and a lot of changes have taken place, but no change has taken place in the important principle that he has just enunciated. He is right to say that it is a very important principle. In some ways it has been unnoticed. He was in the Cabinet for many of those years and had the chance, if he wanted, to change it, if change was possible. Perhaps it was not possible because the decision had been taken in 1972 and subsequently endorsed by a referendum that my right hon. Friend invented for the British people.
7.30 pm
I am making the point now that we want to be as sparing as possible about the areas in which that royal prerogative will be exercised. That is a principle with which I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree absolutely. If we are to be sparing we have to be careful about what might come out of an amendment such as amendment No. 93, putting title I into this Bill. We could be opening the door to automaticity of the law as determined at the European level in the other two pillars being put into British law.
The Minister made an attempt at an explanation, but was not allowed by his hon. Friends to finish it. It is possible that, under the intergovernmental pillar on home affairs and justice, a new law, perhaps on a common immigration and asylum policy, could be agreed by all 12 Governments in the Community. Under the pillar structure as it stands now, that would require separate legislation in each of the 12 countries before it could be implemented. If, however, it came under the single pillar of construction, the decision taken by Ministers sitting behind closed doors in the Council of Europe, perhaps by majority vote, would have automatic effect in British law.
I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. Some people would say that a common European immigration policy would be a good thing. I do not agree with that, but anyway it should not at this stage be susceptible to the possibility that it could automatically become British law.

§ Mr. Maclennan
I wonder if the hon. Member is right in his acceptance of the Government's view that these pillars are as separate as he makes out. It appears to me that under article C of title I, to which he referred, there are powers, exercisable by the Commission and indeed by the Council, which enable the institutions of the Community, as opposed to the union, to act in pursuance of the objectives described in title I but utilising the powers they enjoy under the treaty of Rome as amended in other articles. That appears to me to be the meaning of building upon the `acquis communautaire'". It also appears to be what is intended by the granting of power to the Commission to ensure consistency in respect of external relations. If the institutions of the Community, in exercise of these powers under title I, introduced regulations, directives, or whatever, would these not be self-executing in this country under the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972? And, if that is the case, why should not title I itself be incorporated in the Bill?

§ Mr. Robertson
This is probably the only place where one can tangle with lawyers and not receive a bill. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to cross my amateur sword with these great legal brains. But if the hon. Gentleman reads the last sentence of article C, he will see: They"— that is, the Council and the Commission— 203 shall ensure the implementation of these policies, each in accordance with its respective powers. Of course, there are bloodings involved, quite deliberate bloodings, between the Council and Commission in relation to the pillars, but as they stand at the moment they are still discrete. The Council does not have the single and unique right of initiation when it comes to proposals, and the automaticity rule does not apply. Further and separate legislation would still be required in these areas so long as these pillars exist.
That might start not to be the case if title I were folded into the Bill and title IV, the pillar on home affairs and justice, were there. It is a door which is beginning to open and I do not believe that the Committee would want it to open at this stage, although certain hon. Members might want to go in that direction.

§ Mr. Denzil Davies
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has a point, and it is the same point as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made in an intervention? It is arguable that, once title I is ratified under the prerogative, no internal legislation is needed. A court of England and Wales, and probably a court of Scotland as well, would enforce any directives coming under title I despite the fact that there is no legislation here, because, as a result of the prerogative, it is part of English law. That is the real worry and the real problem.

§ Mr. Robertson
Here we have another QC telling me—

§ Mr. Denzil Davies
I am not a QC; I am a Member of Parliament.

§ Mr. Robertson
I know that my right hon. Friend is a Member of Parliament. We will wait and see whether the Law Officers of the Crown can give us absolute clarification, but, in terms of what I have been able to read and the information provided to me by the House of Commons Library, it seems that the interpretation that I place upon it is correct.
These common provisions, like the common provisions of the Single European Act, which were never included in their entirety in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, may well have some force in law, because they have a status; they have been ratified. But because they are not specifically inserted into United Kingdom law, they remain in a completely different situation from those aspects that would fall under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. The advice that I had from the House of Commons Library was: It would perhaps be inconsistent to include Title I in the EC (Amendment) Bill and not the CFSP"— common foreign and security policy— and Justice and Home Affairs Titles, V and VI, which also do not require UK legislation for implementation. Perhaps I am going on too long, and undoubtedly other hon. Members will do so, but it is an extremely important subject. I am trying to help my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen by developing a thought process which is of some significance, I believe, in interpreting what is happening.
I did not think that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, when he went down the road of 204 amendment No. 93—all these amendments were tabled in June this year—was likely to be enthralled with the idea of folding in title I as an absolute matter of principle. I simply suggest to him that perhaps it is opening doors that he does not want opened. It is taking the House and the country in a direction on which they have not yet made a decision. Therefore it might be appropriate for him to withdraw his amendment. If he chooses to press the amendment, the official Opposition will not vote for it.

§ Mr. Cash
We have had a long discussion about whether title I should be inserted in the Bill. I believe that we have covered most of the ground that needs to be covered on that point. It does not seem to me that it will make as much of a difference as the Government have implied, for this reason. It is an international legal obligation either way. The fact that it is not within the precincts, as it were, of the Court of Justice has certain consequences, but in terms of what is contained in title I, articles A to E, if one asks oneself how this will affect the daily lives of the people of the United Kingdom, the whole thing takes on a completely different dimension.
I am rather surprised that, so far, no discussion has taken place about what is contained in title I and the impact that it will have on our constituents. Whether it is to be justiciable under article L, which itself is a prerogative power, or whether it is to be under the Court of Justice in part, is a good esoteric argument and has certain quite important implications. This is not a game, but a provision in a legally binding treaty, which we have solemnly signed and which, under the Ponsonby rules, will be ratified by prerogative at the end of the Bill.
The Minister of State kindly wrote to me some months ago when I asked the same question about the Ponsonby rules as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The bottom line is that, if this is a prerogative treaty, it comes into effect but parts of it need to be enacted to fall within the provisions of the European Communities Act and the competence of the European Court. This is all very interesting stuff, but I am interested in what impact it will have on the British people.
I tabled a number of amendments to article A. I was extremely grateful to The Chairman for listening to my representations yesterday and for agreeing to select the amendments, which I hope will give an opportunity to explain to the people of this country and perhaps to some other people the real implications of the treaty. If amendment No. 93 were made, the courts would have an opportunity to consider some of the issues in due course, but judging from the way in which the argument has developed, there appears to be little prospect of that. The article is important; it will still affect people, it will still be binding on our Government and it will still be implemented. Therefore, it will have a direct effect on the daily lives of the people of this country.
There is little information on article A in the Government's pamphlet "Britain in Europe". I have read it pretty carefully, but it makes no reference to European union. That is the usual sleight of hand that we have become used to. There has been no White Paper, despite there having been one in 1970, or statement of Government policy on what the treaty involves. Article A says: By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called 'the Union'. 205 That sets up a legal union that is binding upon the people of this country and, as I said in a book that I wrote recently entitled "Against a Federal Europe", is indistinguishable from a federation.

§ Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)
Is my hon. Friend saying that the term "European union" has suddenly appeared out of the blue under the treaty, or am I right that the treaty of Rome talked about the ever closer union of the peoples and the Single European Act, passed by the House, talked about transforming relations as a whole among their states into an European Union"— capital "E" and capital "U".

§ Mr. Cash
I shall quote Stuttgart, Hanover and all the rest. It is in the treaty of Rome and the preamble. The phrase is "ever closer union". I remind my hon. Friend that, in the debate last June on the Luxembourg draft, the Foreign Secretary gave the same quote as my hon. Friend, but I produced the draft. It appeared that I was the only hon. Member to have it, because, unfortunately, it was put in the Library only at 1.30 pm that day. There has been a considerable attempt to ensure that people do not know what is going on.
The words "ever closer union" are not what we are debating. We are debating the words with which I began: The High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union". That is what it means. It is a legally binding provision.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to the debate on the Single European Act, when Unionist Members such as myself—I was a Unionist before I was a Conservative, which was not odd in Scotland—asked Ministers what union meant. We were proved right: union was what was meant in the preamble to the Act. Greater union has followed, as we have seen in decisions taken by the Commission and the European Court. When anyone questions whether we understand the meaning of the union, we point out that we were questioning what it meant some time ago.

§ Mr. Cash
Absolutely: these matters have been going on for hundreds of years, but the bottom line is that the treaty creates a legally binding union within Europe, which is quite different from the treaties that are normally transacted between countries.

§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)
My hon. Friend has made a number of assertions without supplying any evidence for them. Will he provide us with the details that underscore the assertion that he has just made?

§ Mr. Cash
If my hon. Friend reads the treaty. which clearly specifies the nature of the union, he will find the answers to the questions that I have just put.

§ Mrs. Currie
Come on: my hon. Friend is fudging.

§ Mr. Cash
No, I am not fudging.

§ Mr. Budgen
Is not the difficulty that the European Court of Justice takes into account the title and preamble, whereas the House of Lords does not, and that we simply do not know whether my hon. Friend's assertions or those of the Government are correct? Unless the Government 206 invite one of the institutions of the Community to give objective advice on how the treaty is likely to be viewed by the European Court, we are stumbling in the dark.
That is disgraceful, because the Government have made many scandalous assertions about the treaty—for example, that it had nothing to do with immigration, one which they have subsequently retracted.

§ Mr. Richard Shepherd
And that it was decentralising.

§ Mr. Budgen
And that it was decentralising. If the Attorney-General is too busy, we want some objective advice from the European Community. Otherwise, we shall be thrashing around in the dark. My hon. Friend is doing his best, but many other Members are completely unequipped.

§ Mr. Cash
I am delighted to be able to respond not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) but to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). According to the Government, the original treaties aimed to achieve an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"; but, according to article A, "the High Contracting Parties" become ever closer and establish an actual European union.
The Government's position is based on the following proposition: whereas previously the peoples of Europe were engaged in trying to achieve an ever closer union among themselves, they now establish the European union itself. That clearly shows what is being done under these articles, yet, even though the European union is established by the first paragraph of article A, the second paragraph contradicts that assertion by stating that the Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe. Logically, if the union had already been established, as article A, paragraph 1, says that it has, the process of creating an ever closer union is superfluous as one cannot get closer than union itself. The process has reached its conclusion with the establishment of the union, which means that the process has ceased, although the second paragraph suggests that there is some way still to go.
That raises the next question: is the European union of article A, paragraph 1, the ever closer union among the peoples of Europe aimed at under earlier treaties and continued by article A, paragraph 2 of the treaty? Apparently not. The ever closer union is to be a union among the peoples. That is established under paragraph 1, which states that it is to be a union among the "High Contracting Parties".

§ Mr. Garnier
I am becoming deeply confused by my hon. Friend's argument. Paragraph 1 of article A says: By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called 'the Union'". According to my hon. Friend's argument, that suggests something central. Paragraph 2 says: This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen. My hon. Friend did not read out the latter part of that paragraph, which suggests moving away from the centre. How does he deal with those two paragraphs set together?

§ Mr. Cash
They can be dealt with simply as follows. Paragraph 2 of article B deals with the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency", 207 which presupposes the central bank arrangements that follow later. For practical purposes, nothing is more centralising than a central bank. Furthermore, the implications of that are that decisions on economic and monetary affairs, made by unelected, unaccountable bankers, will be taken away from the citizen. Those are the bases upon which people enter polling booths and vote in general elections. [Interruption.]
Therefore, if we are to set up a central bank under those arrangements, as part of economic and monetary union and a single currency, we shall take away from the citizen his most important right—his right to vote. All decisions on economic and monetary affairs, which are currently the basis on which people vote in general elections, will be handed over to unelected, unaccountable bankers.

§ Mr. Budgen
May I help my hon. Friend? While my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was saying in her usual charming and tactful way that my hon. Friend's argument was poppycock, the Attorney-General entered the Chamber. Had he put his mind to the matter, he could have given us his view about the meaning of those articles. We are all floundering around trying to understand, and getting extremely angry. We require an objective analysis, if not from the Attorney-General, better still from one of our new masters from Europe, who could tell us how he will proceed by high command in Brussels.

The First Deputy Chairman
Order. I remind the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that he has repeated himself two or three times. The point that he has just made was exactly the same as those that he made in previous interventions. It is becoming tedious repetition.

§ Mr. Cash
A further question arises under article C, which says: The Union shall be served by a single institutional framework which shall ensure the consistency and the continuity of the activities carried out in order to obtain its objectives". The creation of that single institutional framework is also part of the creation of that legal union, so we have central banking arrangement, which are about as centralising as anything can be and remove power from the citizen because decisions on economic and monetary affairs are taken by unelected bankers. That is clear to anyone who takes the faintest interest in the matter. We also have the creation, under article C, of a single institutional framework.
Clearly, a legal union being created. It is not simply a question of ever closer union, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough was trying to assert, but the creation of a union in itself.

§ Mr. Jim Marshall
Although I am opposed to the treaty, the more I hear the hon. Gentleman's arguments against it, the more I am tempted to support it.
The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House by seeking to imply that institutions will be created in a way that gives increased competence to the Commission. The point of the institutional framework developed at Maastricht was to limit the Commission's competence specifically in home affairs and foreign and security policy. That being so, how can the hon. Gentleman square that circle with the arguments that he is now developing?

§ Mr. Cash
The Commission's powers are already set out under the treaty of Rome. Further competences are granted to the Commission under the Maastricht treaty. Indeed, some 64 new majority voting arrangements will be associated with the Commission. The idea that the Commission will not gain new powers under the treaty simply shows that the hon. Gentleman has not read the treaty carefully. Even within the so-called "separate pillars" of foreign and security policy, the treaty says that the Commission will be fully associated with those tasks.
Clearly, the Commission will have an enhanced role. It may not be the role that it originally wanted, but that is not the point. It will have an enhanced role both within the provisions relating to the treaty of Rome and with regard to the so-called "separate pillars".

§ Mr. Jim Marshall
I am sorry, Mr. Lofthouse—I hope that my intervention does not become repetitious. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He accuses me of not having read the treaty, but I assure him that I have. I sometimes think that he has not read it, for he is led by his own point of view.
Within the two intergovernmental pillars, the Commission has a right to attend meetings of Ministers. That is fair, and limits the Commission's responsibility by making crystal clear the Commission's competence and Ministers' field of responsibility. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the fact that Ministers at intergovernmental meetings have a right to call on the expertise of the Commission in seeking information that they may need to reach correct decisions. That does not imply increased responsibility for the Commission but ensures that the Council of Ministers is adequately prepared to make correct decisions in the light of the union.

§ Mr. Cash
Article D specifies the new arrangements for the European Council and for bringing together heads of state. The President of the Commission is included in that. It is not simply a question of bringing him along as an amateur observer: he is given a completely new status under the European Council.

§ Mr. Garnier
My hon. Friend has just made a number of assertions without providing us with the evidence for them. Where in article 1 does it say that the President of the Commission has a new status?

§ Mr. Cash
Article D clearly states: The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof. It goes on to say: The European Council shall bring together the Heads of State or of Government of the Member States and the President of the Commission. At the moment, the European Council operates in an informal manner and under the arrangements—

§ Mrs. Currie
It does not.

§ Mr. Cash
Yes, it does. My hon. Friend obviously has no understanding of the basis on which these things operate.
At the moment, the arrangements are not within the precise legal framework which is prescribed by title I; otherwise, there would be no need for the provisions in the first place. They are being incorporated in this way to give 209 them that status within the framework of the Maastricht treaty which they did not have beforehand. Surely that is the reason for doing it.

§ Mr. Ian Taylor
My hon. Friend, who is an expert in these matters, knows only too well that the European Council has given proper status in the Single European Act. If one goes further, the arrangements for foreign policy which took place as a result of the changes in the Single European Act took place in European political co-operation, in which the Commission was also intimately involved. It did not have the power of initiation. There is nothing more intergovernmental than the European Council which, by definition, is a meeting of the Heads of State and Prime Ministers. My hon. Friend voted for the Single European Act. Now what is he worried about?

§ Mr. Cash
The short answer is that the Single European Act was a good Act, because it was based upon political co-operation. I voted for it because I believed that it was important to try to improve the quality of political co-operation within Europe, and because of its potential for increasing trade within Europe. Those were good reasons for voting for it. It is also true that it contained enhanced powers for the Commission. But the difference between the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty was that the former was primarily about co-operation and trading, whereas the latter is primarily about the manner in which we are governed. That is the fundamental difference between the two.
That is why I emphasised the centralising process of the central bank. It is that which transfers powers which at the moment belong to the British voter. It is important that people should bear that in mind when they are considering the assertions that the treaty is a decentralising process. It is not.

§ Mr. Ian Taylor
These are extremely important points. My hon. Friend, having voted for the Single European Act, needs carefully to consider his position. Under the Single European Act, the Commission's position was strengthened. The former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, was keen that that should happen, knowing that, in order to achieve the objective which my hon. Friend supports, which is the opening up of the single market, it was important for the Commission to have strong powers of initiation.
The interesting thing is that, in many defined ways, the Bill tries to restrain and clarify the Commission's powers and, by injecting for the first time the concept of subsidiarity, redresses some of the balances which went wrong as a result of the Single European Act. If my hon. Friend supported the Single European Act during its passage here, it is puzzling to Conservative Members why he is not an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill.

§ Mr. Cash
My hon. Friend's argument is a little disingenuous on that point. He tries to make out that there is no difference in substance between the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty; that it is yet another gradual movement, a little canter down the road. It is nothing of the kind. There is a massive and complete difference between the two measures. The Single European Act was much maligned but necessary. The Bill deals with completely different subject matter, and greatly enhances the centralising tendencies of the Single European Act.
210 On 3 April 1992, speaking to the Berkemann forum, Chancellor Kohl said: In Maastricht we laid the foundation stone for the completion of the European Union. The European Union treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the process of European union which, within a few years, will lead to the creation of what the founder fathers of modern Europe dreamed of following the last war—a united states of Europe. The Government, in their booklet "Britain in Europe", say that they do not want and will not have a united states of Europe, but that is the objective to which the German Chancellor has been moving as expressed in that Berkemann forum speech. The problem is that on European union we are at loggerheads with the Germans, as we are with other member states.
If one travels around Europe as many of us do, and asks about the nature of the treaty in which we are involved—I see the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) nodding his head, because he knows that it is true—everywhere people say that this is a European union which they want and like, and that it is either a federal or unitary system depending on what language they care to use. But for practical purposes, this is a European union. That is what they want, and that is what Chancellor Kohl said when he spoke on 3 April 1992.
Someone is not coming entirely clean on this, because the bottom line is that we cannot have it both ways. The truth is either what Chancellor Kohl is saying or what is being presented to us. I look now at my hon. Friends the Members for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and for Harborough, who try to claim that this is not a European union. They say that it does not have the characteristics that I have attributed to it, a belief which is clearly shared by other member states.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber knows that that is true. He wants a federal or unitary Europe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) made a speech the other day when he came clean. He said that that is what he wants too. The plain fact is that that is what lies at the heart of the whole problem.

§ Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston)
Does my hon. Friend agree that not only has Mr. Kohl expressed his views but Mr. Bangemann, Vice-President of the Commission, has put it succinctly? Perhaps my hon. Friend will say whether he agrees with Mr. Bangemann that the Maastricht treaty is a "fundamental step" towards a federal union?

§ Mr. Cash
Yes, that is precisely the language which is used, but which is camouflaged in these debates because there are a number of people who do not want the British people to know the truth. That is the problem.

§ Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)
The hon. Gentleman is right to criticise the Government. Last week, the Government were described as being like a gatecrasher going into a party backwards and pretending to everyone that they were on their way out. Article B sets out fully the objectives. The problem is that the Government do not have enough guts to say where they stand on the matter. They prevaricate, because they are trying to satisfy hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman and everyone else, instead of coming clean. The problem with the Government is that they know where they are going but they are trying to get there by subterfuge.

§ Mr. Cash
I find great difficulty in understanding the Government's position, which is one reason why I voted against the Government on the paving motion and on Second Reading. There is a great deal of disinformation, of which the pamphlet "Britain in Europe" is a prime example. It tells only half the story. It does not even refer to the fact that we are to be engaged in a European union.
As I have said repeatedly, we have not even had a White Paper. What on earth is going on? White Papers on important matters are pouring out of the Government all over the place. But when we come to something as massive as the change in the nature of British government on the scale that is envisaged and is carried out—we are talking about a treaty which has already been signed by the Government—there is no White Paper to explain the treaty to the British people. No wonder that, when Women's Own asked the good ladies, in a poll, whether they could define the ecu, nine out of 10 replied that they thought it was a bird.

§ Mrs. Currie
My hon. Friend does not have to be so patronising.

§ Mr. Cash
Not at all. The reason for confusion is that there is no White Paper stating precisely what the treaty is all about. I have been calling for one for several years. At the bottom line, if the public are to be asked to make a choice, and if right hon. and hon. Members are to be asked to vote on such a question, they should have enough information to know precisely what is the Government's policy—not just the verbiage in the treaty, with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State tried to deal earlier. There should be a declaration in a White Paper as to the treaty's objectives, policies and implications.
As to the type of union into which we are being taken, I invite the Committee to consider the provisions in the 1970 White Paper. That is another story, and is part of the process of disinformation, stealth, or whatever one likes to call it. Some would call it being more than economical with the actualité.

§ Mr. Garnier
When my hon. Friend is next under the dryer reading women's magazines, will he care to check whether the poll did not in fact relate to Emu rather than to the ecu? Also, he supported the Single European Act because it was good for British trade. Is he now saying that the Maastricht treaty is deleterious to the interests of British trade?

§ Mr. Cash
I am, and with good reason. One has only to look at the exchange rate mechanism. The International Monetary Fund has said that it does not think that it would be a good idea to go ahead, and so has the Bank of International Settlements and many distinguished economists—including 60 in Germany alone, who recently signed a letter to that effect.
A recent issue of Management Today published the results of a poll to which 3,000 business men replied, and 68 per cent. of them said that they would vote against the treaty in a referendum. That was their verdict. Only two weeks ago, I attended a Confederation of British Industry meeting in my constituency at which another hon. Member was also present, thinking that he would stage a bit of a coup against myself as a Euro-sceptic. He told those CBI members, "CBI policy is the exchange rate 212 mechanism, plus a single currency. Will you vote on that?" Only one person put up his hand in favour of a single currency.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and apologise for being absent when he rose to speak. I dare say that I will have many other opportunities in Committee to hear his interventions.
My hon. Friend will recall that the preamble to the Single European Act includes this statement: Moved by the will to continue the work undertaken on the basis of the Treaties establishing European Communities … and to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union in accordance with the Solemn Declaration of Stuttgart of 15 June 1983". Did my hon. Friend think that was a good thing, at the time that he voted for the Single European Act?

§ Mr. Cash
I have no difficulty with that, because the preamble referred to "a European Union". The question is the distribution of the functions prescribed by the union that we are asked to consider. I well remember that, in April 1990, when my noble Friend Lady Thatcher, then Prime Minister, was threatened with Britain's expulsion from the Community if the Government were not prepared to sign up to a union, she rightly asked, "But what union? What does it involve, and what will it contain?" Now we know.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
rose—

§ Mr. Cash
My hon. Friend the Minister, who seems anxious to return to the Dispatch Box, will remember that, at meetings of the Conservative manifesto committee, in March and February 1991, I put to him the same question that he now raises about the nature of the union. I said that if, by the end of that year, the Government signed a document containing functions that were inimical to Britain's interests, and that was the union they wanted, I would oppose it. That is what I am doing now.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's confirmation that he was prepared to subscribe to the objective of European union in respect of the Single European Act. I presume—it is useful to establish such matters as we move into what may be a lengthy Committee stage—that, unlike my noble Friend Lord Tebbit, my hon. Friend does not regard the Single European Act as a mistake, but continues to support it.

§ Mr. Cash
I do. I will go further and say that I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, has taken up a suggestion that I made to his predecessor last year—that the single European market should be investigated in respect of abuses that work against the interests of British business.
I return to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) in respect of the Single European Act. He has not long been a Member of Parliament, but I am sure that he knows from his constituents that there are problems with the working of that Act, such as stock exchange transparency, subsidies paid by various countries to some of their companies, and so on. A whole catalogue of issues must be sorted out.
I am delighted that, within the framework of the Single European Act, the Select Committee will take the 213 opportunity to investigate and reveal abuses. I like to believe that I played a small part in helping the Committee to examine those questions.

§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the words from the preamble to the Single European Act quoted by the Minister reflect one of the great follies committed at the time? Those words were then used to coerce or to push forward that which is now in the Maastricht treaty. If any lesson has been learnt from 1986, it is that we should carefully study such things as the preamble and title I to the Bill.

§ Mr. Cash
repeat that, when reference is made to "a European Union" but no description is given, that is a load of Euro-waffle. When it comes to what will be included, I was interested to get hold of a copy of the Luxembourg treaty. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) will remember that day in June 1991. He may have had a copy of that treaty as well, but very few people even knew that one had been deposited in the Library. We then began to realise that the intention was to take us clown a route exemplified by the Maastricht treaty.

§ Mr. Jim Marshall
We return to the question whether or not the preamble will be used in the courts to justify further decisions by the European Court. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to the Single European Act. Does the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) agree that similar sentiments were expressed in the original treaty of Rome, and that the European Court has been using them ever since? To give the Government their due—although I am tired of doing so—at least, by article VII, the Government are seeking to limit the European Court's future right to extend the European Commission's sphere of influence.

§ Mr. Cash
That returns us also to the question whether or not one interpretation is more valid than another. I do not happen to agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). He was keen to suggest that this was some kind of damage limitation exercise, but I view it as a deliberate attempt by other member states to centralise and therefore to accumulate more power at the centre of Europe. That case is easily made on the basis of the documents before us.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
My hon. Friend seems to be saying that he prefers a vague undefined concept of European union, as in the Single European Act, to a definition that specifically separates out important areas of political endeavour and makes them intergovernmental. He was content to sign up to an undefined union, but now he finds a union defined in such a way as to reinforce intergovernmentalism unacceptable.

§ Mr. Cash
Even I am pretty surprised by that little intervention. The phrase "a European union" in the preamble meant nothing. Because it has no functions attached to it, it was completely different from the Maastricht treaty, which goes into the functions that are allocated between the member states. That is the fundamental question.

§ Mr. Rogers
Does the hon. Gentleman not think it rather odd that the Minister should invoke article B of the Maastricht treaty to establish that we now have a union with defined parameters, yet that, at the same time, the 214 Government should try to obfuscate and generally mislead the British public, because they have not the guts to say what the treaty is?

§ Mr. Cash
I agree that there has been a good deal of obfuscation. I shall not go into the question whether there is a deliberate attempt to mislead, but in the 1970 White Paper to which I referred earlier, there was certainly a clear statement that the veto would continue, that the European Community would not develop into a federation and that we should retain our essential sovereignty. Some people may think that that was a long time ago—but there has never been any denial of what was said then. In one of our more recent debates, I asked the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup whether, as he is now calling for federalism—or a unitary system, or whatever—he would repudiate the words in his White Paper. He gave me no reply, because clearly that White Paper was misleading, and it took in many people.
That is the basis on which the process has tended to move, and I believe that the same thing is happening with the present treaty, too. The British people are not being told the truth; they are not being told exactly what is involved.

§ Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)
In the past few minutes, we have heard much about the beauties of the Single European Act. Does my hon. Friend believe that the raft of directives and regulations might be in any way connected with the fact that Europe's present share of world trade is only 20 per cent., compared with 25.5 per cent. 10 years ago? In the light of those statistics, does my hon. Friend believe that the Single European Act has had all the effects that were expected when it was passed?

§ Mr. Cash
That is one reason why I hope that the Select Committee inquiry will iron out some of those questions and bring out the truth to the British people.
For example, we are constantly told that the fact that 50 per cent. or 55 per cent. of our exports go to Europe is a wonderful thing. But the trade deficit is £12 billion against us. Another dimension then arises. I believe that much of that disparity and that deficit has come about because of the abuses of the single market, which I hope that we can sort out. That does not necessarily mean that we should not trade with Europe. Europe needs to trade with us as much as we need to trade with Europe.

§ Mr. Cryer
More.

§ Mr. Cash
All right, even more—I agree.
Also raised in connection with the Single European Act is the strange untenable proposition that, if we do not sign the Maastricht agreement, we shall be excluded from the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome. That is poppycock. Those are treaty obligations of the kind which we are now being asked to sign. They are binding upon the other member states and ourselves, just as the present treaty would be.
The Single European Act and the treaty of Rome are not options that can be tossed overboard if we decide to accept the threats about what will happen to us if we do not sign. Nor does the coercion effectively being imposed on Denmark mean that that country can be excluded from the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome. That cannot happen. If it did, the other member states would be in breach of their treaty obligations.
215 Those obligations are not like the title I obligations, which, as I have said, are of a prerogative nature. They are international legal obligations under the aegis of the Court of Justice and therefore they take on the character of being justiciable before that court. The other member states cannot simply turn round and say, "We do not like the way you behave. Although the unanimity rule under article 236 says that all member states have to complete their constitutional requirements and have to be unanimous, we shall fudge it all. We shall manage to make a new arrangement with Denmark, but we shall exclude you from the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act."

§ Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
In that context, as we are the largest payer towards the European club—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As we are the second largest payer, there can be no question of our being excluded. Until other people want to write cheques for the cost of the organisation, we are an essential part of it.

§ Mr. Cash
I am delighted that my hon. Friends have been dealing with the practical questions of the treaty's impact on the daily lives of our constituents. It is all very well to talk in esoteric terms about whether title I is in or out, and for what reason—but the real point is that we are dealing with people's lives. The question arises: who governs? The basis of our democracy is affected. Those are the matters of concern to our constituents.
I shall take the exchange rate mechanism as an example. Economic and monetary union is referred to in article B of the treaty, which says: The Union shall set itself the following objectives to promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable"— I shall deal with that idea in a moment— in particular through the creation of an area without internal frontiers, through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion"— I thought that we Conservatives had done a little damage to that idea, but it does not seem to have escaped inclusion in article B. The passage continues: and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty'. We have seen what happened when, for reasons which escape me, people decided that it was a good idea, on a piece of paper, to attempt to make totally divergent economies converge. That was done—on a piece of paper—and it was called the exchange rate mechanism. When it started in 1979, it was a voluntary arrangement between the governors of the various banks throughout Europe. There may have been some spurious merit in attempting to secure some co-ordination and co-operation, to which I have no objection.
However, then along came Mr. Delors, and turned it into a plan for part of an economic and monetary union. When the ERM collapsed on black Wednesday in September, interest rates rocketed up and caused immense damage throughout the land. The system was based on an absurd dogma, which had created massive havoc, panic and fear throughout the country. None the less, we find that we are still expected to sign up to it, in the form of article B. I shall consider our opt-out in a moment.
The article says—we are signing up to all this stuff and we are part of that union—that the objective of the union 216 is the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including the single currency. What is the connection between that and our so-called "opt-out"?
Let us consider the protocol, which clearly states that the process of stage 3, which is applicable to all member states including ourselves—the protocol is immediately adjacent to our so-called opt-out—is irreversible, irrevocable and comes into effect on 1 January 1999. I shall come on to stage 2 in a moment. The protocol says that we cannot exercise our veto in respect of any other member states.
It is said that we are to be at the heart of Europe and that it is better to influence from within than from without. If we connect that with the fact that we have also agreed that the process will be irreversible and irrevocable, and that we shall not veto it for the others, we are effectively saying that we have accepted the gravitational pull. The position is even worse than that. Under article 8 of the protocol of the European Monetary Institute under stage 2, our Governor of the Bank of England will join the EMI. He and the EMI members will not be allowed to take instructions from member states.

§ Mrs. Currie
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Cash
No. My hon. Friend must be patient.
The point is that article 8 cuts across section 4 of the Bank of England Act 1946, which clearly states that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of this House elected and accountable—he now has to answer some questions here and there—has the power and the right to be able to issue directions to the Governor of the Bank of England.
Under stage 2, the position changes the moment that we get into the European Monetary Institute. That is a completely different kettle of fish and that is the way in which our Government are being changed by stealth. Nobody refers to that.

§ Mrs. Currie
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Cash
I will not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Not for the moment. I will give way with pleasure in a minute. I want to complete my point first. There is not a word in the pamphlet about the matters to which I have just referred. There is nothing about the protocol's irreversibility and irrevocability. There is nothing about the EMI and the fact that it cannot take instructions from member states. That is the essence of the power that is being created, generated and centralised. Anybody who attempts to argue otherwise should simply look at the treaty.

§ Mrs. Currie
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy. He has now been talking for almost an hour. We have all got the message that he does not like title I.
My hon. Friend's problem, on which I should like him to comment, is that the outside world sees his position as strange. The Bill does not include title I, yet all six amendments that he has tabled seek to put title I into the Bill. If he thinks that title I is so awful, what is he doing proposing all the amendments that seek to put title I into the Bill? Is he just trying to filibuster and to delay the Bill?

§ Mr. Cash
I absolutely and totally deny that. That is a terrible slur. I am sure, Dame Janet, that you do not want to construe my hon. Friend's remark as an indirect 217 criticism of the Chair. The interesting point is that the amendments were selected by the Chair, for which. I am deeply grateful.
I will answer the question simply. If my hon. Friend looks at the amendments to which she has just referred, she will see that they say, "insert I"—that is, title I—and that it then says "except'. The exceptions are articles A, B, C, D and F. The object of the exercise is to demonstrate why I do not want the provisions in the Bill. The reason is precisely the devastating impact that I believe they will have on the people of this country and on my constituents.

§ Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockport, South)
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Cash
Of course. I always give way to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Devlin
My hon. Friend said earlier that he was really concerned about how Maastricht would have an impact on the man and woman in the street in Great Britain. I will quickly draw my hon. Friend's attention to what is actually in the Bill. Article 2 says: The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of standards of living and the quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States. How many of my hon. Friend's constituents, of my constituents or of any other constituents would object to anything in that? That is what is actually going into the Bill.

§ Mr. Cash
I will tell my hon. Friend quickly if I may, Dame Janet. The British people in a series of opinion polls have already made it abundantly clear that they do not want economic and monetary union. There is a massive majority of about 68 per cent. That is the basis on which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) seeks to fillibuster. I am sorry to have to say that to him. What he has referred to comes under title II We are dealing with title I.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
Does my hon. Friend agree that one difference is that the people of Britain no longer want to be taken in by all this twaddle about all the wonderful things that are happening? They remember that previous Bills said that the ERM would bring growth and stability. It was said that the CAP would bring fair prices for the housewife. The British people will not be taken in by all this nonsense and twaddle, unlike the minority of our pro-European hon. Friends.

§ Mr. Cash
May I add to that point, Dame Janet? To come back to what the objectives of the union are supposed to be, article B says that one objective is to promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable". What is balanced and sustainable about the ERM and the collapse of sterling? With the tremendous gravitational pull and with all the machinery that is being cranked up to the EMI, what will be the effect of taking the ERM into economic and monetary union and into the central banking arrangements that are at the heart of the treaty? When the ERM collapses—all the Parliaments will have 218 committed voluntary euthanasia, as we are being asked to do now—the whole damn thing will collapse. There will then be massive instability and there will no balance in Europe.
The EC may say, "We will compensate for such a collapse by the social cohesion contained in the articles"—that is, the transfer of resources and the cohesion fund. Let us look at the Delors 2 package and the way in which our Government are now trying to wriggle out of the competencies that were granted under Maastricht and for which they now say that they will not pay. We then begin to realise that the proposal will ruin the trust between the peoples of Europe because the people of Spain, of Portugal and of other countries will have been led up the garden path—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the Irish."] The Irish have been led up the garden path with the £6 billion that they were supposed to get.
Those countries will find that Germany does not have the money to pay for the fund, because Germany is preoccupied with its own affairs. The people in other parts of Europe are equally strapped for cash. We are the second highest net contributor, yet we are now apparently a qualifier for the cohesion fund.
It is crazy. We are supposed to be going into a system of convergence—the ERM—which has already been demonstrated to be completely incapable of working. Under our autumn statement, we do not have the faintest opportunity of being able to comply with the convergence conditions prescribed by Maastricht. That is compounded by the fact that convergence is also part of our "European policy" for the rest of Europe, so it cannot work. We qualify for the cohesion fund, yet we are net contributors. Now the Germans say that they will take away £2 billion of our rebate. That is an absolutely crazy situation.
The plain fact is that we are being asked to accept provisions that will create civil disorder in parts of Europe. With the budgetary arrangements proposed and with the monetary policies that the unelected, unaccountable bank will have the independence to be able to enforce, the poorer people in other parts of Europe will find that their public service sector and borrowing requirements will be slashed. Those countries will not have the slightest chance of being able to pay the fines that the Government propose should be imposed on them. As a result, the poor will get even poorer.
That is another of my fundamental objections. It does not apply only to Europe; it applies to the third world. The last line of the book that I recently wrote said: while the third world starves.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes)
Order. If I stand, other hon. Members sit. I wanted to make the observation that I know that this matter has caused some excitement, but I do not expect a lot of sedentary interruptions. Is the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) giving way?

§ Mr. Cash
I am giving way to my hon. Member the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).

§ Mr. Devlin
Going back to amendment No. 93, which is about whether title I should be part of the Bill, I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is speaking in favour of it or against it. I should like him to clarify that point. The treaty has written into it article 3B, which is the subject of the Bill, whereas title I is not part of the Bill. Why is my hon.
219 Friend opposing the treaty, given that it is the first one which prescribes a role for national parliaments, if he is so keen to preserve that?

§ Mr. Cash
The answer is simply that it is not in the treaty. We have only to look at the Government's own handouts to know that the declarations are not part of the treaty. I was at the assize last year, and I was darned glad that that matter will not be imposed upon us, because there was a vote after two days of idiotic discussion. People were brought from all over Europe at absolutely fantastic expense. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), who is a bit of a Europhile, said to me, when we had a bite afterwards, that even he did not believe that that crazy state of affairs could possibly have existed.
The assize passed 240 amendments to a treaty which nobody had been told was even going to be given to us, all in the space of about two hours, by pressing buttons. Nobody had the faintest idea what was going on. That is another good reason why we should keep well away from those aspects, and I am delighted that they are only in a declaration.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I hate to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but I assume that he is speaking to his amendments Nos. 313, 344, 345, 346, 347 and 348. Will he tell the Committee why he wishes to include those articles in the scope of the Bill, thus, as it were, supporting the federalist amendment?

§ Mr. Cash
I am more and more astonished by my right hon. Friend's interventions. The matter is very simple. Because it was not included by the Government, we had to include title I in order to be able to knock out all the noxious provisions. It is precisely for that reason that we are now considering the articles and demonstrating their inadequacy and the reasons why we do not want them. That is precisely what is going on. There is every conceivable reason for doing so. I understand that those on both Front Benches have already decided that they will not vote on this matter, or at any rate they will vote against the Liberal Democrats' amendment if they decide to press it to a vote.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
With respect, I do not think that my hon. Friend has answered the question. If he is saying that he wants to move the articles into the Bill to provide a peg for a debate, I would understand that. If he said, "This is a probing amendment on which we can debate the various articles," I would understand that. But his amendment would not eliminate the articles; it would include them in the Bill. If it is not a probing amendment to stimulate debate, which, Dame Janet, you know is the practice in Committee, my hon. Friend should tell us why he wants to do what he purports to want to do in the amendments.

§ Mr. Cash
The amendment also gives us the advantage of being able to demonstrate why the articles should not be included. Furthermore, it is a matter of international legal obligation. I am continually trying to get out of the Minister of State whether he regards title I as an international legal obligation. So far, he has not been prepared to give me an answer. I should be glad if he would—perhaps he will do so later. We are not discussing a casual piece of paper, and the Minister of State knows it. 220 It is the binding material for the treaty as a whole. That is the basis on which the matter is being considered. It is not being put in the Bill because the Government want to do it by prerogative. They are doing that by prerogative, but they are not coming clean.
8.45 pm
The provisions are fundamental to the Maastricht treaty. Whether they are justiciable under article L in certain respects is debatable. They are international legal obligations which are of profound importance. That is why it is important that these matters should be probed, discussed and considered in full depth. That is what we intend to do.

§ Mr. Knapman
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am sure that he wishes to make further progress. Could he refer again to the business of convergence? Is my hon. Friend suprised not to have had an intervention saying that convergence policies are a good thing? Is that possibly because at the weekend we found that, in Ireland, mortgage rates have gone up to 18.5 per cent., it was suggested that, if the Germans do not drop their interest rates by 1 January, Irish interest rates will go up to 40 per cent., and that overnight money has gone to 100 per cent? Is it perhaps that these are not the right few days to suggest that convergence policies are bringing the stability that some of us are told is the effect of such policies?

§ Mr. Cash
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) has hit the nail on the head—that is true. Hon. Members do not want to raise that point. They started by talking of trying to turn the debate back to title I and trying to turn it into a technical debate. The one thing that they do not want in any circumstances is for the people of this country to know the practical implications of this matter. That is what they do not want, but they will get doses of it as we proceed.

§ Mr. Jim Marshall
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has come back to that point. When he was talking about economic convergence, he put the classic monetarist argument that if convergence principles were implemented at the moment, they would lead to increased unemployment throughout Europe. That is why many Opposition Members are opposed to virtual convergence. What attracts me to article B is that, if one could have real economic growth throughout the Community, it would be much easier to reach the convergence principles, but that would be based upon growth and increased public expenditure.

§ Mr. Cash
I have much sympathy with the objective that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. We all want jobs and prosperity for the people of Europe. We do not want another war, and we do not want the difficulties that we experienced over 100 years. But the problem is that the treaty is completely out of date. The people who are advocating those policies are carrying the intellecutal baggage of the 1950s. Since the collapse of the Berlin wall, we have moved into a completely new Europe. Merely grafting on so-called new solutions to what appear to be old problems will create disunity in Europe and not the European union that some are claiming in the provisions that we are discussing. It will not be diversity; it will be disunity. The trust between the peoples of Europe will be ruined.
221 Also, there will not be an equal union; there will be an imbalance. We can only take German interest rates as an example and the way in which they have been manipulated to the disadvantage of the rest of Europe, on the one hand, and the way in which the French have behaved with regard to GATT and nearly destabilised and might yet destabilise world trade on the other hand.
The French may yet destabilise the whole of world trade. That is not communautaire. That is not operating on the basis of the provision to promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable. That is pursuing nationalistic, not even national, policies which are unfortunately a very sad and tragic reflection on their internal political systems.
For us to be drawn into the chaos that that will induce will be bad for us. That is another reason why we should make sure that we do not accept the treaty. It would lead to political instability. Let us consider the landscape of Europe for a moment. There are problems in Yugoslavia. There are problems in eastern Europe where the Germans have taken up 85 per cent. of all foreign investment; they also own half the Russian debt. There are disturbances in Georgia, problems in Kosovo and problems in Macedonia.
In that maelstrom it is proposed to impose a system of convergence which everyone knows will not work. The Westminster Parliament will be emasculated and our constituents will lose the right to make choices in general elections. As a consequence of convergence, the Community will create the very instability which it claims that it is seeking to avoid. That is one of my most fundamental objections to the treaty.
Furthermore, all this raises the question of the rule of law in Europe. Some influential people, including Ministers, have suggested that the system of law may collapse. We are told, "You do not have to worry about all this, because for practical purposes it will all collapse anyway." That is a disreputable argument. If individual member states lose their freedom and rule of law by the creation of a union, and a new rule of law, imposed under the European Court of Justice and other international obligations, collapses, that will be an act of massive political irresponsibility.
If the whole thing collapses, what will we put in its place? There is no secession clause. There is no way out. Therefore, somebody will have to enforce the system. I should like to know who that person or persons will be. The system will have to be disciplinary. That could be the beginning of a new fascism—something we should be fighting against.

§ Mr. Livingstone
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the core of the mistake? No one denies that those who are eager for European unification see tremendous economic benefits. There could be unification if Europe were achieving convergence. The idea that locking us into these structures will create convergence is nonsense. There are completely different levels of speed and development. When the whole thing does not start to work, the common defence policy will become the arm which imposes the order when the European Court finds that it cannot uphold decisions by the Council of Ministers that nations should cut their spending and their budgets. That is the danger.

§ Mr. Cash
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis.
222 Another strange, mysterious theology developed since the 1940s and 1950s is that these provisions will contain Germany. They will not do anything of the kind. Just as we found with the exchange rate mechanism, the economic muscle of Germany will prevail. We only have to look at the trade balances of Germany and other member states.
What I am saying is in no sense anti-German. Many people in Germany have made a massive contribution to peace in Europe since the 1940s, but when a country has such economic muscle and is effectively banking many other countries, it will be the most powerful. We have heard that France is virtually on the point of surrendering to the deutschmark. If Germany has control over the institutions and majority voting—other member states will be inclined to vote with Germany because effectively it controls their economy—far from containing it, we will have handed power to Germany on a plate.
That is the one thing we must not do with Germany. We must contain Germany by a balance of power and not by a spurious, academic, theoretical, theological attempt to contain it by pieces of paper. I remember Munich—at least I remember that it was the waving of a piece of paper—

§ Mrs. Currie
On a point of order, Dame Janet. I apologise, but many of us want to speak. Many of us would like to speak to the amendment that is before us. My hon. Friend has been speaking longer than anyone else in the debate. He would not have to put up with so many sedentary interventions, to which you rightly drew attention, or interventions if he would sit down and let somebody else speak.

The Second Deputy Chairman
Hon. Members will understand that unless an hon. Member engages in tedious repetition, I do not have power to decide on the length of a speech.

§ Mr. Cash
I am grateful to you, Dame Janet. What I am doing is going through the amendments that have been selected by the Chair and dealing with each one in turn. I should like to come back to the press release which was produced by the German embassy on 13 April 1992.

§ Mr. Wells
Can my hon. Friend tell us which of the items he is dealing with at present, which he has already dealt with and which he will deal with next?

§ Mr. Cash
Fortunately, as they are all grouped together, that decision has been taken by the Chair. I do not have to answer that question because they are all interwoven as part of the debate. I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend that I have no intention of attempting to separate them. I should have been delighted if each had been taken separately because there is more than enough meat in the words "economic and monetary union" to enable us to have a full debate on that alone.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Given the way in which the amendments are grouped, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that all the arguments on them are deployed? This is no ordinary legislation—if we get it wrong, we cannot put it right next year—it is a constitutional change and we must therefore ensure that it is debated properly and thoroughly.

§ Mr. Cash
I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. I am surprised that some of my hon. Friends are not prepared to allow an opportunity—

§ Mrs. Currie
Let other people have an opportunity.

The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. There are many sedentary interruptions—some from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). This is not satisfactory. As long as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has the Floor, he is entitled to be heard.

§ Mr. Cash
I am most grateful, Dame Janet.
A speech by Mr. Martin Bangemann, the Vice-President of the European Commission and a former German Cabinet Minister, was mentioned earlier. As it directly bears on the question of European union, it is worth reminding the House that he said: The inadequacies of European decision-making cannot be remedied by returning power to member states. The notion of subsidiarity presupposes the idea of a federal European state. That mirrors what Mr. Delors and everyone in Europe has said because their perception—

§ Mr. Devlin
On a point of order, Dame Janet. I hesitate to draw your attention to this matter, but I have listened to this speech for more than one hour and have heard the same section of Herr Martin Bangemann's speech referred to twice before. As you ruled that it was not in order to indulge in repetition, does that qualify as the requisite repetition?

The Second Deputy Chairman
The expression is "tedious repetition" and that must be the view of the Chair and not of hon. Members.

§ Mr. Cash
As often appears to be the case, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) is wrong. I merely mentioned Martin Bangemann before, whereas just now I quoted what he said. It is important that we make it clear that those people in Europe believe that they are creating a federal super-state. That is in direct contradiction to what the Prime Minister has been telling us we want for this country.
The press release from the German embassy on 13 April says: There are no differences of conviction between Chancellor Helmut Kohl and the Prime Minister. The second paragraph of the press release congratulates the Prime Minister on his election victory and says: This is a deserved accolade for you and a great encouragement for those of us who hold the same convictions. The press release is saying that the German Chancellor believes that the Prime Minister holds the same convictions as he does. Obviously, it is worrying to some of us if they share the same convictions on Maastricht, as Chancellor Kohl states that the treaty is a new and decisive stage in the process of European union, leading to a united states of Europe within a few years". That is directly contrary to what we heard at the Conservative party conference, and to the pamphlet "Britain in Europe", which unequivocally states that we are not on the slippery slope to federalism—

§ Mr. Milligan
rose—

§ Mr. Cash
I am delighted to give way to my hon. Friend, since he had the benefit of a trouncing in the debate the other day.

§ Mr. Milligan
My hon. Friend says that the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl appear to agree, which 224 seems to be the case. My hon. Friend has not noted that it is Chancellor Kohl who appears to have changed his mind, and who is now a supporter of subsidiarity and made a strong speech on the need for national identity. Will my hon. Friend welcome that conversion?

§ Mr. Cash
No, I do not believe that subsidiarity is worth the paper that it is written on. It is the biggest con trick of all time. It demonstrates the centralising features of the Community. If something is subsidiary, it automatically assumes that something else is superior. The central bank is superior. It is a granary of power, which will exercise undemocratic control over the people of Europe. When that system collapses, there will be real trouble.

§ Mr. Devlin
On a point of order, Dame Janet. My hon. Friend has mentioned that argument about the central bank once before. He has just mentioned the discrepancy between the Prime Minister's speech at the Conservative party conference and the booklet for the second time. I have no doubt that that is very tedious; what we are trying to establish is whether it is also repetition.

The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I must be allowed to be the judge of that. As long as the hon. Member for Stafford is constantly interrupted, it may make it easier for repetitions to slip in.

§ Mr. Cash
Again, I am most grateful, Dame Janet.
The pamphlet purports to deal with a range of issues concerned with the European Community and the Maastricht treaty, so it is not surprising that I might wish to dip into it from time to time, because it contains so many inaccuracies and so much disinformation and so many half-baked statements. As it has been distributed to the people of this country as some sort of alternative White Paper, it is very important to point those out.
It is all very well for us to think that there can be a bit of banter in this Chamber, but some hon. Members, including those who have made deliberate interventions, are overlooking the fact that their constituents are affected by what is contained in the treaty. Many of their constituents might not be too happy if they knew what their views on the subject were. I intend, without tedious repetition, to set the truth of what is in the treaty before the British public. That is worth doing, because the Government will not publish a White Paper.
I refer to the next comment, rather than the previous one, of Martin Bangemann. On 3 November 1992, the Prime Minister said that Mr. Bangemann was wrong. The report in The Times says: The Commission had already made absolutely clear that these were personal remarks and did not reflect the views of the Commission. Nor, can I assure you, are they my views, the views of this Government or any mainstream Government in Europe. Judging from some of the speeches that I have heard in the past year, certainly since the Maastricht treaty was signed, there is a strong sign that the leaders of the other Member States—Mitterrand, Kohl, Lubbers, and so on—have a federal agenda on their minds; that is what they want. It would not surprise me to learn that Martin Bangemann made the statements, because they are merely a reflection of the attitude of other leaders in Europe.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) said, the establishment of the social cohesion fund is terrible. The bottom line is that the treaty called for 225 a new cohesion fund for the poorest members of the European Community—Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain.

§ Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay)
Is not the cohesion fund the essence of a communist ideal of taking from the people to redistribute to the people? Is not that socialism, tooth and claw? Should not the Conservative party be opposed to it?

§ Mr. Cash
Bearing in mind the colour of the dress of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I am not surprised that the reference to the setting up of the social cohesion fund as a communist plot immediately sprang to her mind. The worst aspect of any policy is to engage in breaking promises which may not be fulfilled. It is clear that the other leaders of the member states are seeking to transfer resources on that socialist engineering principle, which will not work.
We must try, somehow or other, to give genuine help through fair trade with the other member states. The problem is that not all the member states will subscribe to the cohesion fund. We have heard that the Delors 2 plan has been jettisoned, in part because there is no money to pay for the cohesion fund. The structural funds—the regional funds—which I have not dealt with at all, have been cut back. A range of other matters have been presented to us as part of the package, but they simply will not work.

§ Mr. Livingstone
Does the hon. Member not agree that, far from being a communist plot—because that might change the opinions of some of my hon. Friends—it is a great redistribution treaty? When we are talking about 2 per cent., or perhaps 3 per cent. at the most, of the European total GDP being under control, that does not provide those powers. We oppose the setting up of the social cohesion fund, largely because it will have no capacity to cope with or pay for the restitution of damage that centralisation of the economy will cause.

§ Mr. Cash
It is intraordinary how much I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I never thought for a minute that that would be possible. There have been moments when I had the highest regard for many of the arguments of the hon. Member for Chesterfield, (Mr. Benn) about British democracy, but I never thought that I would agree with the hon. Member for Brent, East on economic matters.
It will not work. That is one good reason for not allowing it to happen, but it is being thrust on us. We have an opportunity in Committee to expose the inadequacies of the arguments and to be able to say that we are—we hope—rational people who will listen to the arguments and attempt to form a measured judgment.
I would not want to espouse Tory party policies if I did not think that they would work effectively. I have an instance in mind. I was delighted that the exchange rate mechanism collapsed—some of us said that we thought that it would not work. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during my speech in the recess, the measure was contained in our manifesto. It was not the Euro-realists—I am not sure about the phrase "Eurosceptics" and prefer to use the phrase "Euro-realists"—who destroyed it. We said that we did not think that the exchange rate mechanism would work; we thought that it would collapse, and it did. We did not tear up our 226 manifesto to get out of the ERM, we were driven out of it because the system was inadequate, insufficient, fatally flawed—

§ Mrs. Gorman
It was unsustainable.

§ Mr. Cash
As my hon. Friend says, it was unsustainable. We must be entirely realistic about what the treaty contains. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we must go through it clause by clause, line by line. It was also suggested that the Bill would have a bruising passage, and that may be the case. It will certainly have a thorough passage through the House.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
I agree with almost all that my hon. Friend has said, but is there not a danger of being too pessimistic about the cohesion fund? Does my hon. Friend not accept that the scope for spending anything on the cohesion fund has been greatly reduced by the fact that the cost-cutting reforms of the common agricultural policy—a triumph for the Government and the EC—have resulted in an increase in the estimated expenditure from £26,000 million to £31,000 million, so there should not really be anything left for the cohesion fund?

§ Mr. Cash
I find that an encouraging intervention, but I always feel that whenever I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is about to rise. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay wishes to say something.

§ Mrs. Gorman
Is it not a tenet of communism that it takes from people according to their means and gives to people according to their needs? Is not that, in essence, what the cohesion fund is about? Is it not also true that, while our net contribution to the European Community is now £50 million every week, with the cohesion fund—I do not know how the Government believe that they can take that from the same pot of money, although they have said that it will not cost more money—by 1994, our membership of the organisation will cost us the equivalent of £200 million every week. Is it not true that we could build roads, hospitals, schools, homes for the homeless and many other things in this country if we kept the money in our pockets where it belongs?

§ Mr. Cash
rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. Before the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) continues, he should appreciate that many of the issues that he is raising come under a separate and later group of amendments. I hope that he will address himself to the amendments that form the first group.

§ Mr. Cash
I certainly shall, Dame Janet.
The citizenship of the union arises under article B, which clearly states: The Union shall set itself the following objectives …to strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of its Member States through the introduction of a citizenship of the Union". Some of the statements that I have heard in support of that have been disingenuous and less than candid. Unfortunately, what is not made clear is the fact that the union provides not only for rights to be given to its participants, but for the duties imposed thereby.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State may or may not recall that I raised the issue with him in a written question to which I received one of the most extraordinary 227 answers that I have ever received during my time in the House. He said—I paraphrase—that such duties as were referred to would be those that emerged as the European Community evolved. His reply was something along those lines and I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong.
That is the sort of theme that was being pursued and there is very good reason for being vague in matters of this kind. I think that the Minister is very wise to be vague, because this is blank cheque territory.
What is the most important function, or certainly one of the prime functions, of a legal entity of the kind that this European union is to be? It is the call to arms. That is the direction in which this is going: to a common defence policy. What is the first requirement, the first duty to be imposed on citizens? It is that they may be conscripted. Labour Members may care to reflect on that, because a Franco-German army has been created and I believe that the Secretary of State for Defence was not even invited to some of the meetings because they were held in secret. They were obviously up to something or other and they did not seem to want to have him there. Be that as it may, one of the first duties of a citizen is the call to arms and I think that people ought to be reflecting hard on what that might involve.
9.15 pm
There is the further question of voting in elections. We have been told that the wording of the arrangements for voting for these new citizens will be confined to local and regional elections but that is not what it says. It says "municipal".
In English, according to "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" the word "municipal" would mean to do with a borough—perhaps a rotten borough or whatever—but the practicality of it is that it is to do with local government.
However, in the precedents of the Court of Justice there is a very important Italian case from a few years ago. Surprise, surprise—the word "municipal" as already interpreted by the court means "national". Translate that in the citizenship provisions. Translate municipal to national, in line with the precedents of the Court of Justice, and we have a big question mark. I hope that the Attorney-General or someone will come and explain these complicated legal things that I do not understand.
I should like to know whether the word "municipal", meaning national in that context, would refer to what a Liberal right hon. Member did when he went to Rome to stand for election there. We might find other nationals coming over for a test case. Then it will go to the Court of Justice. We will sign the treaty and suddenly they will say, "You thought you knew what you were signing, but, as is so commonly the case with this treaty, you thought it meant so and so, but actually, bad luck, it means something else." The Court of Justice could easily substitute "national" for "municipal" and we could find ourselves in difficulty. I should like to know why that matter was not raised when the treaty was being negotiated. That Italian case is quite a well-known one.
As I see the Minister of State thumbing through some biographies down there, perhaps he would be good enough to tell me whether he will answer the question, which I might put to him rhetorically, as to whether municipal means national as expressed by the Court of Justice?

§ Mrs. Gorman
Does my hon. Friend think it possible that, as a result of this legislation, we might end up with Sophia Loren opposing Shirley Porter for Westminster city council or if Mr. Delors fails to make it for the presidency of France, that he might stand for Durham or even that La Ciciollina might stand in Northampton for a seat on the council there?

§ Mr. Cash
All these things are marvellous and extraordinary in themselves. I have not the faintest idea which way they will go, but it conjures up some pretty amazing thoughts. Some of the people my hon. Friend refers to are the stars of some time ago, but we may find that other people who have been taking an active part in politics, but are also star quality of a younger generation, might come forward as well.
Important questions lie at the heart of the citizenship issue because we are being told that what is being done will not affect our rights as British citizens. It is said that this is an add-on, a little extra, when in reality it is fundamental and goes back to the whole question of the union. The union is a legal framework, and whether it comes within the Court of Justice or is a legal international obligation, what is proposed will be binding on us. It should be struck out of the treaty because it goes to the heart of the way in which we run our democracy and the rights which we are used to exercising.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
Will my hon. Friend remind the House that European citizenship is not static and that under article 8E there must be a three-year review to extend the duties of European citizens, in addition to which new powers and rights can be introduced? The idea that, by some means, voting in municipal elections represents citizenship is a load of rubbish. Instead, every three years there will be a review to increase the duties. We shall be well on the way to a single European state, even though the vast majority of hon. Members do not want to face up to that, do not want to read about it and do not want to hear the arguments on the subject.

§ Mr. Cash
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
Article B provides: The Union shall set itself' the objective to develop close co-operation on justice and home affairs". While we are told that that is a separate pillar, those provisions will be binding on us. We are bound to compare what was said on immigration at the Conservative party conference with the substantive provisions in the treaty.
It is not even as simple as that. If the unanimity rule is dispensed with and a joint action plan for immigration is brought in, we shall face the prospect of another enabling provision designed to allow the Court of Justice to have jurisdiction over immigration policy. That issue has not been explained to people, and considering what is going on elsewhere—

§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)
Including the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.

§ Mr. Cash
The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to that measure. Many of those who are responsible for putting the treaty together do not realise that people can read and do not necessarily believe what they are told. Indeed, the more incredibility that arises as the process goes forward, the more questions people want to be answered.
229 The British population is becoming increasingly concerned at the vast discrepancy between what they were led to believe and what is going on. As the currency of language is becoming more familiar to people, they are discovering that they do not like much of what they hear. That will cause greater difficulty for the advocates of the measure as time passes, for as the monetary system implodes, so the other provisions relating to justice and home affairs become clearer.
There are no doubt some admirable objectives, for example, in seeking to prevent drug abuse and the transfer of drugs across borders and so on, but is it necessary to have a Euro-poll? Where will the centre of power of that poll be, who will run it, what powers will they have and what effect will that have on the rights and duties of British citizens? Little information has been given on all those matters.

§ Mr. Allen
rose—

§ Mr. Spearing
rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. Could the hon. Gentleman make quite clear to whom he is giving way?

§ Mr. Cash
To the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the captain of our cricket team.

§ Mr. Allen
I presume that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will be aware that yesterday the ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers met in London, came to numerous conclusions and made numerous resolutions in respect of asylum and safe third countries, none of which has been or will be reported to the House. Will he make a brief comment on that in his remarks?

§ Mr. Cash
It is all quite disgraceful. It is not the slightest bit surprising, however, because many of these meetings take place in secret, as the Council of Ministers does. This is half the trouble: the European union will not be a new wonderland of democracy, anything but. It is my belief that the European Parliament cannot fill that void. If Westminster and other Parliaments are emasculated by the provisions of this treaty, we will have a democratic void and the power of government will grow greater.
In the July edition of a journal published by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, the official think tank of the Christian Democrat Party, Chancellor Kohl's party, there was a very interesting statement—that since the Danish referendum something very strange had been going on in Europe; voters were beginning to protest. It went on to say that this would make governing even more difficult than it had been in the past. This is the kind of language coming out of the Christian Democrat party. This is what was said by the editor of the official think tank journal.
Our Conservative MEPs—and this relates directly to the questions on the European Parliament contained in article D—have joined up with the European People's party, an exclusively federal organisation. That causes great concern among certain Conservative Members, but obviously not to the Minister of State, who is looking, in his usual way, totally bewildered by what he is hearing.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
Since it is such a federal party, which is obviously something that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) finds quite odious, why have all the Conservative Members of the European Parliament joined it?

§ Mr. Cash
The short answer is that they have federal inclinations of which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber would be more than proud. They want a federal system, and that is why many of them—

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
They do not.

§ Mr. Cash
Very well. I am more than happy to qualify that by saying that many of them do. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) because I happen to know that her husband, who is an MEP, does not.

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), but he is traducing many fine Members of the European Parliament, including his own Member and leader of the Conservative group, Sir Christopher Prout.

§ Mr. Cash
I said "they", but I was referring to a number of them. There are some who do, although I am more than happy to accept that there are others who do not. Unfortunately, irrespective of what they think privately, they have joined up with the European People's party, the constitution of which is exclusively federal. It is very difficult, on the one hand, to say that one does not believe in it, and, on the other, to subscribe to a constitution which is as federal as that of the EPP.

§ Mr. Cormack
Is my hon. Friend querying Conservative party policy?

§ Mr. Cash
My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, says that I seem to have doubts about aspects of Conservative party policy on this matter. I can say with absolute clarity that I do not believe in the exchange rate mechanism, although that was described as the centrepiece of our counter-inflationary policy and therefore the central plank of our economic strategy. I did not tear it up, but it was torn up, and it was the central plank of our economic strategy.

The Second Deputy Chairman
It does not seem to be the centrepiece of this group of amendments.

§ Mr. Cash
I would not for one minute, Dame Janet, wish to cross swords with you on any matter, and certainly not on that. Economic and monetary union and a single currency are included in these proposals but I have already dealt with them, so I would not want to go into that again.

§ Mr. Marlow
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is very tolerant and I know that he wants to conclude his remarks very shortly. He will make up his own mind on that, so perhaps I should say that I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend's introduction.
My hon. Friend sits with me on the European Select Committee. As regards title I, we have had before us recently a large number of documents arising out of the Maastricht treaty. The treaty has not yet been ratified. Perhaps it is not title I, but some other part of the treaty that entitles European institutions to put documents before the House based on the Maastricht treaty when the treaty has not yet been ratified.

§ Mr. Cash
As ever, the ingenuity and perception of my hon. Friend are quite magnificent. He has made his point. I have not the faintest idea how it can be done, but I 231 certainly share his deep reservations, worries and doubts about it. The plain fact is that on most of the matters which arise on this treaty we are being taken for a very substantial ride.
There is another provision in article B on which I have not yet touched, and that is the subject of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is described here as one of the main objectives of the union. It clearly states that the objectives of the union are to be achieved as laid down in the Treaty and in accordance with the conditions and the timetable set out therein"— some very important matters relating to the conditions and timetable for economic and monetary union arise on that— while respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined in Article 3b of the Treaty establishing the European Community. We all know that Lord Mackenzie-Stuart described subsidiarity as gobbledegook. There are serried ranks of European lawyers who take exactly the same view and are totally opposed to it. They include some of our most distinguished practitioners at the European bar. They know that subsidiarity is a con trick, and they say so repeatedly.
I see that you have now returned to the Chair, Mr. Morris, and I shall seek to keep within the bounds of order in line with the strong rulings that you have given on these matters. I am very gradually and carefully working my way through the provisions.
I shall leave it to others to elaborate on subsidiarity because I find that it is a theological concept of such complexity and confusion that it is much better left for the early part of a day—perhaps that will be tomorrow.

§ Mr. Knapman
My hon. Friend is moving on so fast that I am having a job keeping up with him. I wonder whether it is possible to believe in both market forces and a fixed exchange rate?

§ Mr. Cash
My hon. Friend asks whether it is possible to equate market forces and a fixed exchange rate. The answer is emphatically no, for this very good reason: what these proposals are attempting to do is to pay lip service to free trading arrangements. That is what the treaty of Rome, the original basis of the European Economic Community, was all about, and I thoroughly endorse and agree with it.
But then, because of this extraordinary desire to impose systems within it and then to redistribute in this social engineering way that we are expected to agree to under the transfer of resources, they want to have fixed exchange rates, not only to get a greater degree of control over the currencies but also to create one country. At the moment the Berlaymont seems to be closed, but anyone who managed to get in before that happened will have noticed the placards on the way in which say "Europe my country". No attempt is made to disguise that.
I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and his colleagues, who passionately believe in the virtues of a federal system and European union. They believe that it will enhance democracy, but those who hold the contrary view are equally entitled to develop their arguments. I am worried, however, about compromises being reached on issues that are not capable of being compromised—democracy, 232 voting and citizen' rights in the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom and whether Parliament will be able effectively to conduct its affairs. The budgetary arrangements proposed in the treaty will be imposed on our central bank—the Bank of England—and thereby on Parliament. We shall not then be able to hold the Chancellor accountable for the Budget.
There are other measures that I have not mentioned, such as multisurveillance budgets, which sound like something from outer space—which is where the treaty should be sent.

§ Mr. Winnick
The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility—to many of us it is more than a possibility—of going down the federal road. Should not we congratulate the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, on being so frank when he was challenged—

§ Mr. Spearing
By me.

§ Mr. Winnick
By my hon. Friend on one occasion—about his belief that Europe should follow the example of the United States? He justified that by saying that the states of America have some autonomy. If the Government were as frank as the right hon. Gentleman, we would know where we stood. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that when emphasis is on an ever closer union, as proposed under article A, whatever interpretation—

§ The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. I have noted that interventions have been very long today. They should be short and succinct.

§ Mr. Cash
rose—

§ The Chairman
Order. I have been listening all evening to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who has now covered all the articles and is beginning to be repetitious. The Committee is willing to listen to specific and new points, but he has dealt with the values of this Parliament at some length and is beginning to go down that route again. I hope that he will move on to new subjects. He has spoken—I have kept a careful check—to every article so far.

§ Mr. Cash
I am most grateful. I shall do all that I can to ensure that I do not transgress your rulings, Mr. Morris. I agree that sometimes it is better to stick to six-ball rather than eight-ball overs.
Article C says: The Union shall in particular"— this is very important and it ties in with another article that I have not dealt with— ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies. The paragraph goes on to say: The Council and the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring such consistency. They shall ensure the implementation of these policies, each in accordance with its respective powers.

§ Mr. Marlow
My hon. Friend was saying that, if the Chancellor were to announce his Budget at some future date, people would find it difficult to understand. But if, in three years' time, the Chancellor says, "I'm awfully sorry, but we must close 50 schools and 30 hospitals," the reason that he can give is perfectly straightforward: to promote economic and social progress that is balanced and 233 sustainable. We would have to spend more money for Greek and Portuguese hospitals and schools. It is clearly written in the treaty, so people will know why the Chancellor is doing that in three years' time.

§ Mr. Cash
One problem is that people will not easily forgive us if they discover that what they thought we had signed turns out to be something else. When they complain, it will be too late.
That is why, Mr. Morris, I am going gradually, but none the less carefully, through the provisions. In no sense do I want my speech to be regarded as a filibuster. I am dealing specifically with the provisions as and when they arise, and I am more than happy to justify every word that I have said.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
Although I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend is trying to hurry because of pressures from you, Mr. Morris and elsewhere, does he agree that it would be wrong to complete that part of his argument without telling all hon. Members present who may not have read the treaty that, if a future Chancellor of the Exchequer does not do what the central French institutions tell him, he and the British people can be fined in the same way as a rate-capped council?

§ Mr. Cash
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that observation. I do not need to repeat it, because it is now on the record. I hope that people outside will take note of that because I have discovered that people are discovering many things about the treaty and, as we go deeper into it, they will learn even more.
I return to article C about the consistency of external activities. We well remember what happened in the GATT round recently when France dug itself into a position which, even now, may induce a trade war. It is precisely because of the European Commission's role in that matter that those difficulties arose. It is not just bilateral trade. The provision says: The Council and the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring such consistency. The hon. Member for Leicester, South said earlier that I was claiming that the Commission would have more powers under the treaty than I could justify. This is yet another example, and there are many others. It is not simply an airy-fairy canter through "Alice in Wonderland" territory; it is about how the United Kingdom will be governed in future.
When we see that our business men, companies, partnerships and good, honest, decent hard-working people could find that they are afflicted with a massive trade war because of one country's intransigence and the fact that the European Commission is operating—

§ Mr. Cormack
As the country in question can be so intransigent and independent, does that not blow a hole in my hon. Friend's argument?

§ Mr. Cash
It certainly does not, because my argument is that, within a European Community that works effectively, people operate on the basis of mutual obligations. It is precisely because some countries are not interested in doing that that we are faced with the difficulty. It is a form of nationalism, not national interests, which is the subtle distinction that needs to be made.
We have had a similar problem with Honeywell Bull, Renault, Rhone Poulenc and Usinor. There is a stack of 234 examples—the creation of mega-Euro-champions. That is the kind of thing that causes difficulties. It is the job of the European Commission to sort out such things and, in relation to the external activities, it is found wanting. That is why we should not be making these massive transfers of power to it in relation to economic and development policies.
9.45 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was present a few moments ago and I should like to address some remarks to him. In the proposed energy policy under the treaty, there are already signs of greater control by the so-called union over our energy affairs. The pit closure programme and the disposition of the balance between nuclear, gas and coal power is a matter that we went into recently. The Vice-President of the European Commission, that tremendous advocate of free trade, Sir Leon Brittan, approved a DM3.3 billion deal between the heavily subsidised German coal producers and the German power operators.
That gives a tremendous advantage to German energy users at our expense. RWE, which I understand is the biggest energy concern in Germany, intends—and I have every reason to believe that it will be successful—to sell steam coal to our power generators when we are closing our pits. That is an incredible state of affairs. All that arises out of the movement towards a common energy policy.
I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when I met him why we did not sort out the European Coal and Steel Community regulations as a precondition to all this, because it is upon that basis that the German coal producers are so heavily subsidised. There are omissions from the arrangements every bit as much as there are matters which should have been sorted out as the negotiations went ahead.

§ Mr. Winnick
Again, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a point that I have made and on which he is dwelling. As a result of the treaty, by the beginning of the next century we shall be left with a British Parliament with little more power than a state senate within the United States. That may satisfy some, such as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), but I imagine that it does not satisfy the majority of hon. Members, and certainly not the British people.

§ Mr. Cash
I am sure that that is a sound point. The hon. Gentleman compared Britain and America. The harmonisation of our VAT arrangements has put us in a more disadvantageous position vis-a-vis the European Community, even before we enter into this union, than individual states in respect of the federal arrangements for sales tax in the United States. We are worse off even before we go into the union.

§ Mr. Barnes
Has not the hon. Gentleman persistently confused the development towards federalism with the development towards a unitary state, sometimes using the word "or" to put the two together? Some of us favour the establishment of federalism in Europe, a united states of Europe, but we are against developing a unitary state. We do not believe that we can get to federalism by going through a unitary state. That is the big mistake that the Liberal Democrats seem to be making.

§ Mr. Cash
I have enormous sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is no such thing as a simple, 235 overarching definition of federalism. I have read articles describing the treaty sometimes in relation to a unitary state, sometimes with a federal connotation. There is a tendency to intermingle the two. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the treaty has more of a unitary character than the commonly regarded federal system.
There is no way of precisely defining federalism. We must avoid becoming involved so much in semantics—which is why all the nonsense about taking the word "federal" out of the treaty does not amount to a row of beans. The issues are the distribution of functions, the extent of the centralising process, and where the power will lie. Those are the questions on which we should concentrate, and I intend to do so tonight.
I mentioned economic and development in respect of article C, but I have not yet referred to external relations and security. Common foreign and security policy raises big questions. Those are prerogative powers and, as with title I, it is not intended that they will be included in the Bill.
The extent and range of the powers that will be conferred on the Community are infinitely greater than people have been led to believe. Under a joint action plan or European guidelines, a completely different kind of foreign policy would be run in this country. No longer would we be able unilaterally to enter into the kind of bilateral arrangments that took us into the Gulf war.

§ Mrs. Currie
That is nonsense.

§ Mr. Cash
My hon. Friend says that I am speaking nonsense, and I shall be more than delighted to give way to her.

§ Mrs. Currie
I had my supper and returned to the Committee, and found that my hon. Friend was still talking. Britain did not enter into a bilateral arrangment in the Gulf war but served as part of the United Nations force of 30 countries. Nothing in the Bill will stop us doing the same in future.

§ Mr. Cash
I emphatically take issue with my hon. Friend, because the treaty clearly states that where a joint action plan has been created—

§ Mrs. Currie
That is not the same thing.

§ Mr. Cash
Yes, it is. I said that, in the context of a joint action plan or in relation to European guidelines, there would be substantial changes in the way that we carry out our foreign and security policy. I quote from article J.1(4) of the treaty: The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union"— and we are debating the union under title I— or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with. Article J.1(1) states: The Union and its Member States shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy"—

§ The Chairman
Order. I can read as well as the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members can. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the 236 Committee is debating not article J but amendment No. 93 and those associated with it. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted down other routes.

§ Mr. Cash
I agree with you absolutely, Mr. Morris, but I was dealing with foreign and security policy, and in the light of my hon. Friend's intervention, I thought that it would be helpful to explain why I thought that she was wrong. However, of course I accept your ruling.
Article D says: The European Council"— that is not the same as the Council of Ministers— shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof. That represents a curious but none the less dangerous movement towards greater union. When the European Council prescribes the union's general political guidelines that will have a significant adverse impact on the manner in which we in this country, through our elected representatives, decide the basis on which we want to run our affairs.
There is no definition of those general political guidelines. That should give considerable cause for concern. We often find that the treaty does not provide proper definitions of the expressions within it, and if we do not have those we shall get into deeper and deeper trouble. The expression "general political guidelines" is so vague as to mean almost anything to anybody, yet it is included in the treaty as a legal obligation to be exercised by the European Council.
No one has a clear idea what the functions of the European Council will be. It appears that, although it is effectively without a democratic base, that body will make decisions at summits, pronouncing on the political affairs of all member states. Apparently it will not be accountable within the new legal framework or specifically accountable to the House. To whom will it be accountable? Nobody knows. It is not set out anywhere how its functions will be implemented.
As I read through the treaty I find ever more grounds for disturbance and concern, as I imagine that we are about to transfer such powers to a treaty arrangement which has never been explained to the British people.
The last article that I shall discuss is article F. Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition tabled an amendment to that article that was identical to the one that I had tabled.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
Before my hon. Friend leaves article D, will he explain that the European Council, with all those wonderful new powers, will have a legal obligation to report to the European Parliament but not to national Parliaments?

§ Mr. Cash
As ever, my hon. Friend has made a most valuable intervention. The European Council will report only to the European Parliament. That is where the con trick occurs. In all the verbiage and garbage generated to try to justify the treaty we are told that the European Parliament will be given greater powers, yet all that the European Parliament will get here is a report after each of the council's meetings, and a yearly written report on the progress achieved by the union.
I do not believe that there is any good reason for giving the European Parliament enhanced powers. I believe that we should retain our powers as a sovereign independent state within Europe. But when I was working on the 237 Conservative manifesto committee, I was offered a suggestion that would have included the words "sovereign independent state" in the manifesto. Unfortunately, much to my concern, those words disappeared during the proceedings. That demonstrates the basis on which the treaty has been negotiated.
If the words "sovereign independent state" were taken out of the Conservative manifesto working party paper at about that same time that the Government were beginning to negotiate the treaty, one can begin to understand that the European union they had in mind was not a European union of independent sovereign states.
I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is here. He has repeatedly made profoundly useful contributions to the question of independent sovereign states within Europe. We are determined to maintain our position in Parliament and not to allow the treaty to overtake the ancient traditions of this House. I was about to turn to article F3, which I raised on a point of order before we started these proceedings. That—