HC Deb 19 May 1975 vol 892 cc1011-3
Mr. Spearing

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely, the adequacy and availability of Government memoranda relating to EEC documents; in particular, those concerning the European Monetary Co-operation Fund and proceedings in this House related thereto, and the extent to which the United Kingdom is committed to the Fund's objectives of economic and monetary union and the progressive harmonisation of economic policies of member States. There have been many points of order raised with regard to the accuracy and availability of memoranda in general, but I wish to draw to your particular attention, Mr. Speaker, those related to the European Monetary Co-operation Fund and Regulation 241/1973 and Regulation 731/1973, which I have submitted to you and which, in my submission, have been incomplete.

Neither of those explanatory memoranda incorporated the phrase in the EEC regulation as passed by the Council of Ministers—that is, Regulation 907 of 1973—which contained these words: Whereas it is necessary to establish the Fund if Community objectives are to be attained, in particular as regards the progress- sive harmonisation of the Member States' economic policies, the proper functioning of the common market and the establishment of economic and monetary union; whereas the Treaty made no provision for the powers essential to the establishment of the Fund. Those words do not appear in the introductory memoranda. In the debate on 12th March I raised this matter but had no reply from the Minister. However, the Minister did give answers on 25th February before the Scrutiny Committee on European Secondary Legislation, in which he said that he did not think that the EMCF was a means to that particular end". The Chairman of the Select Committee interrupted the questioning at that point—that is, at Question No. 214—and said: If I may say so, that is not within the framework of this Fund … I submit, Mr. Speaker, that both the Minister and the Chairman of the Select Committee had been misled by the inaccurate and partial memoranda, since the objective of the fund is clearly stated in its preamble.

I gave notice to the Lord President and to the Treasury that I wished to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate, which I did, but the Lord President sent me a letter apologising for a mistake in his office which meant that he could not reply to that point in the debate. I am left, therefore, only with an opportunity to seek leave to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 to raise this matter, since it patently appears that both the Minister and the Chairman of the Select Committee have relied upon memoranda which have proved to be inadequate.

1 have, however, just received a letter from the Minister of State at the Treasury, in which, referring to the 1973 regulation which I have quoted, he says: It contained preambular word;, fashionable at the time, looking forward to the progressive establishment of economic and monetary onion. This is not a matter of legal commitment. If the preamble to an EEC regulation is not a matter of legal commitment, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this House should know why. The Long Titles of our Bills clearly show in the preamble the objective of the legislation, whatever it may be.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have given the hon. Member considerable latitude, but he must not go into the merits of the matter. He must merely convince me that there should be a debate on the matter this afternoon or tomorrow.

Mr. Spearing

I was coming to the end, Mr. Speaker, and I thought it right to quote from the letter which I had received from the Minister within the last half-hour.

I submit that this matter is obviously of importance, and is plainly urgent since various questions have to be decided after the House goes into recess for Whitsun, and I submit that it should have precedence over the Orders of the Day, possibly tomorrow when there is Treasury business. It may well be, if it is dealt with in that way tomorrow, that it will limit the number of amendments which we may wish to put down on similar business in the future.

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for having given me notice of his intention to make his application and for having submitted to me a considerable memorandum on the subject, which I have carefully studied. Moreover, I have listened with care to the submission which the hon. Gentleman has just made.

As I said a few moments ago, I gave the hon. Gentleman considerable latitude because this is a matter of some complication, and I thought it right that he should have an opportunity to state his case. It is not for me to pronounce on the merits of his argument, as to whether it is sound or not. I have simply to decide whether the business of the House should be disrupted so that the matter may be debated. The business has already been arranged—the Prevention of Terrorism Order later today, and the Committee stage of the Finance Bill tomorrow—and I am not prepared to disrupt the business already fixed. I regret that my answer to the hon. Gentleman must be "No".