HL Deb 29 June 1993 vol 547 cc793-8

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

[Amendment No. 306 not moved.]

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 307: Page 1, line 9, leave out ("and IV") and insert ("IV and VII (except Article Q)").

The noble Lord said: Provisions designed to move towards a single currency and the third stage of monetary union are stated to be irrevocable. The Treaty of Maastricht is said to be irrevocable. What surely must be the shortest article in the treaty (Article Q) asserts simply: This Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period". This place, one of whose functions is to protect our unwritten constitution, should remind the Government that no Parliament can bind its successor. The Bill may well be passed by this place, with or without amendments, and move on to Royal Assent, but there is nothing to stop a future Parliament or, for that matter, even this Parliament from passing a further European Communities Bill which would alter the matter yet again. There might even be a Bill to repeal this Bill and all previous Bills on the subject. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.

Indeed, if the Government persist in steamrollering through what are clearly unacceptable provisions in the treaty they may well reinforce popular reaction against not only Maastricht but the whole concept of the Common Market. That would be a pity. It is not impossible to imagine political pressure welling up during the next two or three years, in particular if the recession continues, which will require the Government of the day to abandon Maastricht and to revert to a genuine common market which embraces all of Europe and not just selected parts of Western Europe.

Under the British constitution—unwritten though it is—nothing is irrevocable or irreversible. Any Parliament can amend or reverse previous legislation, including this Bill. It would be dishonest of the Government to ratify the Maastricht Treaty on the terms that it is irrevocable. The Government do not have the power to deliver such a promise. Therefore, talk of moving to the third stage and to a single currency as being irrevocable is wishful thinking—thank goodness!

What then of Article Q of the treaty? It states: This Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period". I suppose that historians would say that all the great treaties of the past—the Treaty of Vienna, the Treaty of Versailles and so on—were concluded by the participants of the day for an unlimited period. In practice, that means until they were broken by one or more of the parties or by mutual agreement replaced by some new treaty. Those treaties did not actually state that they were concluded for an unlimited period but the aim was implicit in each and every one.

What then do we make of a treaty which specifies in one of its articles that it is for an unlimited period? The treaty is explicit in stating that there is no explicit period for the life of the treaty. That does not mean that the treaty will go on for ever; it merely asserts that it will go on for a period of time which at this juncture cannot be specified.

Why is it thought necessary to write such a truism into the treaty? Elsewhere in the treaty provision is made for this "irrevocable" move to the European system of central banks and to the third stage of monetary union. But it also provides for all the participants to come together for a conference in 1996 to reassess the whole matter. Article Q might well mean, therefore, that we hope the Maastricht Treaty will not fall apart at that conference in 1996; or, more realistically, that we know that the treaty will fall apart at that stage but with luck not before then.

It would be helpful if the Minister would explain, first, exactly what Article 2 is to mean and, secondly, why it was written into the treaty at all. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I wish to use this occasion to protest against what is nothing other than a manifest abuse of the process of this House. A series of prerogative amendments had been tabled. They were Amendments Nos. 407, 408, 414 and 306. They were fundamental amendments which affected the Monarch, the principles on which constitutionally our Parliament conducts its affairs and the way in which under the existing system adopted under the European Treaty the heads of state have conducted their affairs.

All those issues were brought into question and I was asked to come here to speak to the amendment. I arrive and I find "not moved"! Who are the noble Lords who set their names to Amendment No. 407? Let me name them. The first is my noble friend Lord Onslow; the second the noble Lord, Lord Jay; the third my noble friend Lord Beloff; and the fourth my noble friend Lord Tebbit.

I protest at the gross abuse of the procedures of this House in tabling an amendment of that kind, of that order, of that importance and of that consequence and then just not moving it without any word at all.

Baroness Trumpington

I have to say that I am totally in the hands of the Committee over the matter. If the noble Lords who tabled the amendments have not moved them, I believe that it is within their gift to do so. Indeed, according to information that I have just received, I am right in that assumption. All I can do is say that I am very sorry from the point of view of my noble friend. There is nothing else that I can say on the matter.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I totally accept the position. I ask for no corner, comfort or consideration: all I do is protest with all the power that I have at my disposal against the way in which this Chamber has been treated.

Lord Beloff

If I may, I should like to apologise to my noble friend. l was a minute late coming into the Chamber or I should certainly have moved Amendment No. 407. I did not realise that it would be taken as "not moved" if I was not present. I was, in fact, detained on the telephone.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater)

Before speaking to Amendment No. 307, I should say that it would of course he quite proper for any Member of the Committee to move Amendment No. 407 when we reach that stage. Perhaps in a few moments that opportunity may arise.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I am very much obliged.

Viscount Ullswater

I believe that that may resolve the difficulty in which the Committee has found itself.

I should like briefly to speak to Amendment No. 307. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, the amendment seeks to include within Clause 1(1) of the Bill Title VII (the final provisions) except for the one particular article—in this case Article Q. The final provisions of the treaty are already included within Clause 1(1) of the Bill to the extent that they relate to the amendments to the Community treaties in Titles II, Ill and IV. It would be undesirable to include them lock stock and barrel within the Bill as that would blur the distinction between the inter-governmental pillars arid the Community.

I turn now to deal with Article Q with which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, found some difficulty. The article says that the Treaty on European Union is concluded for an unlimited period, as he pointed out. He then made certain points about the position as regards our future generations and future Parliaments. However, I must point out that it follows a precedent of the Treaty of Rome. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to Article 2.40 where the words are exactly the same. The article reads: This Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period". The other treaties establishing the European Community, including the Single European Act, have not changed that position. I believe that the noble Lord also wondered whether the UK could withdraw from the European treaties. I think he may feel that that is a position with which we may need to deal. It has been the position of successive governments that, despite the absence of a specific withdrawal clause in the Treaty of Rome, it remains open to Parliament to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 arid to withdraw from the Community. Of course, it would follow that it would be necessary to negotiate the terms of any withdrawal with other member states. I hope that that explanation allays the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Monson

I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation. I must admit that I was unaware that there was one precedent—one only—but still it is important for including words such as, This Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period". On the face of it, that sounds rather defensive and, indeed, defiant. But, as the precedent exists (although in a limited sense) it would perhaps be silly to try to labour the point too much. I am reassured to have the noble Viscount's confirmation that Parliament could decide to withdraw. Of course, anything else would be unthinkable because of the fact that no parliament can bind its successor. Nevertheless, it is good to have those words of confirmation. I hope that it will not be necessary, but it is nice to know that the power is there should we ever need it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 308 to 327 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendments Nos. 328 to 331 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 332 to 338 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendments Nos. 339 to 349 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 350 to 375 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 376 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 377 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 378 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 379 to 386 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendments Nos. 387 to 391 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 392 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause I agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Baroness Trumpington.)

Lord Campbell of Alloway

May I ask why the House is being resumed and why this Committee does not continue?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

It may be for the convenience of the Chamber if I explain that I know my noble friend would like to speak to Amendment No. 407. However, before we reach that amendment there are other amendments on the Order Paper to which other Members of the Committee had expected to speak tomorrow. If we were to move across those amendments now and go directly to Amendment No. 407 to enable my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to speak, those Members of the Committee who were not expecting their amendments to be moved until tomorrow would lose the opportunity to move them. I believe that that is why my noble friend Lady Trumpington sought to resume the House. I hope that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will accept that explanation even if he is not happy with the outcome thereof.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I wholly accept the explanation and I am wholly satisfied with the outcome. However, one cannot expect Members of the Committee on these Back Benches just to accept things without an explanation. Now the explanation has been given, I find it wholly satisfactory.

Baroness Elles

I wish to ask the Minister a question. Will those amendments which have not been moved because Members of the Committee have not thought fit to be in the Chamber when their turn came be allowed to be moved on another occasion?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

I believe I am right in saying that if we have not reached those amendments on the Marshalled List they could be moved subsequently by Members of the Committee interested in so moving them. What we were seeking to do was not to spring what might be called in some places a fast one on those Members of the Committee who are not here and who had not expected amendments following on from the clause stand part debate, which we are now past, to be moved tonight. That was why my noble friend Lady Trumpington sought to resume the House.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Agreed, but Amendment No. 306 has not been moved and cannot be moved. Amendments Nos. 407, 408 and 414 have not been moved. They should be moved. They should be considered by the Committee tomorrow. Amendment No. 306 cannot be considered because it was not moved. Is that right?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

Perhaps I may explain the position again. I did not in any way intimate that those earlier amendments, which we are now past and which have not been moved, should be moved at some time in the future. Only Amendment No. 407 and the subsequent amendments on the Marshalled List which we have not yet reached may be moved if Members of the Committee so wish when we reach them. But that should be tomorrow and not tonight.

Baroness Trumpington

The House should now resume.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.