European Court of Justice (Decision) (Hansard, 20 June 1990)

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall take the application under Standing Order No. 20 first.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, under Standing Order No. 20—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am taking the Standing Order No. 20 application in the hon. Member's name before points of order.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)
I beg to ask leave, under Standing Order No. 20, for an immediate debate on the following subject, namely, The consequences for the sovereignty of the House of Commons of the decision of the European Court of Justice on interim relief. Although there has appeared to be an all-party conspiracy in the House not to discuss dramatic European developments which have consequences for our sovereignty, I believe that the events of yesterday are so specific and serious that we must consider them now as a free Parliament.
The issue is certainly specific. Until yesterday, it was always considered that the task of our Parliament was to make laws and the task of the courts was to interpret them. Following our accession to the EEC, we had to accept that, under article 2, if a European Court decided that any of our laws were in conflict with Euro-law, we had to consider its judgment and then draft alternative laws or amendments to change our laws, in due course and taking account of all the other laws of our land. However, yesterday's judgment on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 creates an entirely new situation. The European Court has taken upon itself the right to declare that an Act of this Parliament becomes null and void if it receives what it regards as a justifiable complaint of damage or loss until such time as the Court makes a decision. [Interruption.] If hon. Members do not think that this is a serious matter, let them remember that, until yesterday, no court has ever told this Parliament to suspend or nullify the law.
924 The seriousness of the matter is abundantly clear. Any law that we enacted last week, that we will consider today or that we enact next week can be repealed in a flash by the judges in Luxembourg, the moment they receive a complaint from anyone in Britain or elsewhere which they consider serious enough to investigate. The immediate issue is serious for our fishermen and trawler operators, who were led to believe by the Government and the Opposition that the modest quota of fish stocks allocated to the United Kingdom by Brussels belonged to them, but it now appears that those stocks can be eaten up by the Spanish or other operators who have no link with the United Kingdom. This serious issue is only one of what may be a substantial number of similar cases in the future.
This issue should certainly take precedence over all other business. There is no point in our going ahead with passing laws when we have no guarantee that those laws will prevail. We might be able to cope with or to plan for a new situation if Euro-laws were clear and precise, but we have a special problem in that the wording of the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act is so general and so non-specific that it is almost impossible to anticipate what the European Court would say.
There are very few issues that deserve special priority, but this is surely one. It affects the sovereignty of this House, the rights of the people and, more importantly, the power of Parliament, which has always been to respond to the people, not to non-elected officials. We must have a debate. The issue is vital.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the implications for parliamentary sovereignty of the decision of the European Court of Justice yesterday on interim relief. I have listened with great attention to what the hon. Member said about this matter. As he knows, I have a difficult decision to take: whether his application should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow.
In this case, the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. Nevertheless, he has raised a vital matter concerning the sovereignty of Parliament. I hope that the House will address it in due time.