SHORT TITLE (Hansard, 10 December 1985)

§ Mr. Beith
I am beginning to think that the Bill should not be cited as the European Communities (Spanish and Portuguese Accession) Act but the European Communities (Spanish and Portuguese Accession) Act that the Labour party did not vote for. Cited any other way it gives the misleading impression that the Labour party, having spoken so enthusiastically in favour of clause 1, were in favour of the Bill when, so far as I can establish, not one Labour Member brought himself to vote in favour of the key clause ensuring that Spain and Portugal can accede to 890 membership of the Community. That being the case, the Socialists of Spain and Portugal should be made aware of that extraordinary thing.
Therefore, although it may be late to put forward a manuscript amendment, we cannot let clause 2 pass without saying that in the citation of the Bill in the clause we are ignoring the extraordinary retreat of the Labour party. Faced with having to say that it wants somebody else to be a member of the Community that it does not want to be a member of itself, it fled in disarray.

§ Mr. Foulkes
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) seems rather perturbed for some reaaon. He seems to have joined the ranting tendency in the House of which, from time to time, I have been accused of being a member. The vote was not notable for the non-participation of the Labour party because the responsibility for getting legislation through the House does not rest with the Opposition; it rests with the Government. When we voted on clause one stand part, we were not voting on the principle of the Bill. The House was unanimous about the principle contained in the Bill. What was notable was that the Government, who have the responsibility to get the Bill through the House, were only able, with the help of the alliance, to muster 60 votes.

§ The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean)
Order. I know that the hon. Member was provoked, but I am finding it a little difficult to relate his comments to this short clause which deals with the short title. I assume that the hon. Member has now made his point.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Yes, Sir Paul.

§ Mr. Marlow
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said that as the vote was merely on clause stand part there was no necessity for the Labour party to vote. How will it react to a vote on Third Reading?

The Second Deputy Chairman
We cannot anticipate subsequent stages. Question put and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, without amendment. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.

§ Mr. Fallon
I am sure that the House would not wish the Bill to be read the Third time without giving the Opposition the chance to reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Minister of State (Mr. Rifkind) which is relevant not just to the Third Reading but to clause 2. Why have they encouraged the Socialist parties of Spain and Portugal for five long years to apply for membership of the Community while at the same time they were seeking to withdraw from it?

§ Mr. Marlow
The Bill despite, or even perhaps because of, the vote on clause 1 stand part is contentious. It has disadvantages not just for the United Kingdom but for the European Community.

§ Mr. Baldry
When did my hon. Friend think about that?

§ Mr. Marlow
My hon. Friend was not listening to my speech earlier. I do not blame him for that. It is his 891 privilege. That there is not wholehearted support for the Bill in this country has been signified by the fact that fewer than 10 per cent. of the Members of the House voted for it. Not only that, but the Opposition sat on their hands and abstained when they were given the opportunity to support the Bill.