COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (Hansard, 4 May 1993)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones)
I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Madam Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendment No. 43.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
During our debates in Committee, it was made clear to the House that the Government would have much preferred not to be tied down by the limitations that are now contained in clause 1, in relation to the Committee of the Regions. However, as I also told the House on 25 February, the Government will now accept the principle that stands in clause 1 of the amended Bill. New clause 42 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which must be read with amendment No. 43, is not designed to change the principle contained in amendment No. 28, which was moved in Committee. It is designed simply to ensure that our own legislation is drafted to achieve the purpose of amendment No. 28 and no more, and is legally watertight and consistent with our obligations under the treaty.
As a matter of legislative drafting, the change made to clause 1(1) by amendment No. 28 would operate as a proviso, so that title II falls in and out of the definition of "treaties" in the European Communities Act 1972, depending on whether or not United Kingdom representatives were drawn from elected local government representatives. That clearly does far more than the proponents of the original amendment intended —hence new clause 42 transposes the substance to a new clause operating directly on the conditions for appointment to the committee rather than make a legal nonsense of clause 1.
Also, it must be made clearer that the United Kingdom is limiting the category of persons who can nominate for appointment to serve on the Committee of the Regions, not purporting to fetter the council's power of appointment itself. Finally, article 198a of the treaty provides that members and alternate members of the committee shall be appointed for four years. Local councillors also generally serve for four years, but their terms are hardly likely to be congruent. It is possible to read the Bill as drafted as requiring that a person remains a local government representative for the duration of his appointment as a member of the committee.
It would be a breach of our treaty obligations if our domestic law meant that a member of the Committee of the Regions could no longer serve on it once his term as a local government councillor expired. As the treaty provides that the term of office of committee members shall be renewable, we would have liked to be able to renominate an existing member who was making a worthwhile contribution to the committee's work, even if he had ceased to be a local government representative since his appointment to the committee.
That is why the last seven words of new clause 34 as originally tabled last week provided that existing members of the committee could also be proposed for appointment to the committee. However, discussions through the usual channels suggested that that might not be the will of the House, so we have tabled new clause 42 as it appears on today's amendment paper, without that alternative qualification for eligibility to serve on the committee.

§ Sir Roger Moate (Faversham)
New clause 42 makes it clear that a person may be proposed only if, at the time of the proposal, he is an elected member of a local authority. Are parish councils as well as all other councils included in the definition of a local authority? That seems an important point.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I believe that the definition includes any person who was properly elected under the democratic process to any local government authority in Britain. I am sure that that extends to parish councils but if, in the course of the debate, I have any reason to believe that is not the case, I will inform the House.
Several of my hon. Friends who represent, as I do, English constituencies have tabled amendment No. 34, which seeks to establish representation on the Committee of the Regions on the same lines as in the House. Amendment No. 32 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) takes a similar line.
As I told my hon. Friend on 25 February, it is not realistic that England should have 20 of the 24 seats, leaving four to be divided between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think that a majority of right hon. and hon. Members, including those of us who represent English constituencies, recognise that this would not be a satisfactory or reasonable way of establishing our regional representation on the committee. As I said in Committee, we want to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are appropriately and fairly represented.

§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)
I welcome the Government's surrender to, or acceptance of—however they would like it to be read—the vote of the House. There was some noise abroad that the Government would not accept their defeat in Committee and might seek to reverse it on Report. I cannot understand why that rumour got around, because the same majority that defeated the Government in Committee—when they were foolish enough to press it to a vote—would defeat them on Report or at any other stage.
I welcome the Government's rewording in new clause 42. As the Minister rightly admitted, this is not the original new clause that the Government wanted to submit. He says that the improvement follows consultation through the usual channels—by which he means, "I refuse to table the original new clause that I was going to suggest to replace the wording of the Opposition amendment." This is a considerable improvement on the original.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. Clearly he finds it reprehensible for the Government to accept the will of the House, and reprehensible that discussions should then take place through the usual channels in order for the Government to ascertain what those who tabled the amendment were seeking to do, and to comply with it. I do not regard that as reprehensible; I regard it as the proper way of conducting business.

§ Mr. Robertson
I never suggested that it was reprehensible; I said that it was welcome and surprising that the Government should listen to anybody other than their own echoes. If they are willing to take on board the views of the House in this regard, I hope that they will be willing to look at other subjects and listen carefully to what is being said.
It is entirely welcome—and almost unprecedented—that the Government should consult on these matters and abide by the outcome of that consultation. I have to say, without expressing any undue cynicism, that the 31 Government's willingness to obey the will of the House and listen to consultations has more to do with their fear of being defeated than with the bright new dawning of understanding in the field of consultation.
Let us be merciful, in the circumstances, and welcome what we have got. What we have got is quite significant —a victory for the House of Commons—inasmuch as the Government now accept the principle, which the Minister resisted through debate after debate, that the composition of the Committee of the Regions should be selected from among local government representives and not from that tiny who's who that makes up the Government's own list of respectable nominees to serve on everything from local health boards to the chairmanship of the largest quangos in the country. The Government had to accept that principle, and I am grateful that it is now enshrined in legislation.
Of course, other questions remain to be asked in relation to the Committee of the Regions. The Minister said in his statement—as he said to the House on 25 February—that of course the Government would accept the principle that those who serve on the Committee of the Regions should come from the ranks of elected local government councillors, but can he explain why he sent a letter to the president of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities only a few weeks ago suggesting that the will of the House would be only one of the methods that the Government were considering? If the Government have now accepted the principle, will the Minister say explicitly that they will accept the will of the House and choose only from elected councillors? I see that the Minister is nodding his head, which gives more clarification than his correspondence.
Now that the Minister has had time to consider the import of what has been said, following the Government's defeat, and to consult officials about the rewording of the new clause, may I ask him whether he has had time to think through how the British delegation will be chosen? We believed that it was important to establish here the principle that the Committee of the Regions representatives would be local authority representatives. We did not go beyond that.
Some have suggested that, by refusing to specifiy the method of selection, we have left it open to the Government to choose Committee of the Regions representatives from among the ranks of Conservative councillors—that is, if, after Thursday next, there are still sufficient Conservative councillors left to sit on the Committee of the Regions.
The Government, and especially the Minister of State, will, I know, have given some thought to this question. I hope, therefore, that he will tell us precisely how the Government intend to deal with this matter. Our strong view was that representation on the Committee of the Regions should not be laid down by the House of Commons—that its composition should be decided neither by Government Ministers nor by means of a provision inserted in the Bill.
If we believed in the principle of local government power and authority and the devolution of power to that level, the composition of the Committee of the Regions 32 should be left to the local government associations, which include representatives of all the major parties and which represent all the regions in the country.
Whom does the Minister of State intend to consult? The local government associations have devolved the power to take decisions on many issues to the Local Government International Bureau, which has been engaged in widespread consultations on the subject. It has put forward a number of ideas which it wants to raise with the Minister. Is the Minister of State willing to consult the Local Government International Bureau, with a view to establishing the composition of the Committee of the Regions?
Will the Minister of State ensure that representation of the regions is properly balanced? He said that he was not in favour of the amendment of one of his hon. Friends, which has not been selected for debate, providing for 20 English regional representatives and four representatives for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Since the Minister of State rejected that amendment and therefore told us what he is against, can he now, after all the detailed thought that has been put into it, tell us precisely what the composition of the Committee of the Regions is to be and how the regions will be represented? Can we be assured, as the House has the right to be assured, that local government representatives will come from the regions that they are expected to represent?
The Minister suggested that representation will be broken down region by region. Can we be assured that there will be no question of councillors being selected from one region nominally to represent the interests of another? This is not a hypothetical question. Allegations have been made outside the House that there may be some jiggery-pokery in the Government's handling of the issue.
Can the Minister give us some idea of the Government's thinking on the involvement of the political parties in nominating representatives to the Committee of the Regions? If it were thought desirable for the political breakdown to be either by region or nationally, can we be assured that the right of individual political parties to put forward nominees will not be pre-empted and that the Government do not intend to choose representatives from a selected list of representatives, or their own favoured candidates from individual political parties? Those are some of the detailed questions to which I should like the Minister to respond and to which the House has a right to expect answers.
One of the most intriguing and perhaps most mysterious aspects of the debate on the Committee of the Regions is what happened on the night the House came to its historic conclusion, and the involvement of the Scottish National party and the Welsh nationalists. The SNP found itself rather lonely in its support of the Government. The Minister says that it will not regret it, but I have a faint feeling that some members have already regretted it. It was a fateful evening. The Minister lost. despite the new friends that he had gained and, of course, the nationalist parties lost out. We are told that there was a deal. The Minister did not tell us, and I do not know whether he will tell us now—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Robertson
The Minister says no, but that could mean that he is not going to tell us or that there was no deal. However, apparently there was a deal.
33 The deal for Wales—or the alleged deal for Wales—received much more coverage, seemed much more explicit and had strings attached. It apparently meant that the Welsh nationalist party was to vote in support of the Government from here on in, on 10 o'clock motions, closure motions and the rest. It was to support the Government on everything, although I give credit to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for putting his name to amendment No. 2—that was perhaps the one dispensation that the party was allowed as part of the great deal, which was to ensure that there would be one Plaid Cymru representative on the delegation to the Committee of the Regions.

§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that by voting for Second Reading we showed our support for the principle of Maastricht and our enthusiasm to see the Bill on the statute book to ensure an end to uncertainty for industry in Wales? It is therefore not surprising that we vote for closure motions in order to make progress, but we are certainly not in favour of the social chapter exclusion because we want the social chapter provisions to apply equally in Wales and the rest of Europe.

§ Mr. Robertson
On the face of it, that sounds terribly reasonable, although the hon. Gentleman is sitting beside colleagues who have a very different point of view. I admit that, to the outside world, what he says seems reasonably plausible, but it does not bear examination against what he and his colleagues have been saying in Wales. They did a deal. They were not going to decide whether a closure motion should be moved after the appropriate period or after the shortest period in which the Government could obtain a closure motion from the Chairman of Ways and Means. The deal apparently meant a slavish devotion to whatever the Government Whip said—

§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mon)
rose—

§ Mr. Robertson
I shall give way in a moment. I am still replying to the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, but I shall give way to other Members, because everyone wants a chance to speak.

§ Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly)
He is the Chief Whip.

§ Mr. Robertson
My hon. Friend informs me that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) is the Chief Whip, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain. It is not a matter of an assertion or allegation, because we have done the calculation. The Welsh nationalists supported the Government in 52 of the 59 votes on the Bill. The Minister says that that is very good; they will get a gold star from the Government. Clearly their actions were part and parcel of the deal.
I shall come to the Scottish nationalists' deal in a moment. It is a "now you see it, now you don't" deal, but we should have to measure the enthusiasm for Maastricht displayed by the Welsh nationalists, which has led them to vote with the Government 52 times out of 59, against the enthusiasm shown by the SNP—

§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Robertson
No, I have not moved on yet. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I have not yet come to the Scottish nationalists, but am still dealing with the Welsh 34 nationalists. The deal led the Welsh nationalist party to vote with the Government in 52 out of 59 Divisions. It certainly did not lead the Scottish nationalists to do the same. If the argument is that that was not part of the deal, and was more to do with the Welsh nationalists' devotion to Maastricht, the outside world will not be convinced by it.

§ Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
The hon. Gentleman has done us a great honour. Obviously he has looked at our voting record and thought about it carefully in order to present his argument. May I ask him two relevant questions? First, will he tell the House how many of those votes took place before the amendment on the Committee of the Regions and how many afterwards? He can tell the House whether there was any change in the pattern of our voting. The second question is: how does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his support for the Bill with the fact that he has voted 38 times with the Tory rebels who want to wreck it?

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Robertson
Let us deal with those two questions. The first was about votes before and after the amendment, and I believe that we will find that the Welsh nationalist party's devotion to the speedy implementation of Maastricht was concentrated in the period after the amendment was debated. I accept that there will have been some occasions before—

§ Mr. Wigley
Look at the figures.

§ Mr. Robertson
We have looked at the figures; it happened on 52 out of 59 occasions. The nationalists north of the border are all telling us that they routinely vote against the Government, although there are occasions on which their devotion to Maastricht overwhelms their devotion to attacking the Government, but we have been told by the Welsh nationalists that the norm is to vote with the Government.

§ Mr. Wigley
On Maastricht.

§ Mr. Robertson
On Maastricht and everything to do with it, irrespective of the merits of the individual case, and of whether it makes sense for such votes to take place at 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning. The Welsh nationalists are tied, and we are supposed to believe that that is due to their enduring commitment to the treaty and not to any of the fine print of the deal that they allegedly did.

§ Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Robertson
Dear, oh dear. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is making a fleeting appearance. The only other occasion on which I remember his being present for any of the previous debates was when he represented the physical evidence to the House that the Government would not move a 10 o'clock motion one evening. We shall wait a little longer for the hon. Gentleman's pearls of wisdom.

§ Mr. Gallie
Will the hon. Gentleman give way, having referred directly to me?

§ Mr. Robertson
I referred directly to the hon. Gentleman only in order to tell him that I would not allow him to intervene at the moment. I know that he usually 35 jumps in at every opportunity when he is mentioned, but I am still attempting to answer the intervention by the Chief Whip of the Welsh nationalist party, who asked me why the Labour party had voted 38 times with the Tory rebels against the Government. We voted against the Government when we believed that the argument against the Government was right. If some Conservative Members cared to join us in the Division Lobby when we had protested at the brevity of some of the debates on key issues, if some Conservative Members wanted to vote with us when the Government sought to carry debates on in the middle of the night, and if some Conservative Members tried to ensure that debates took place at a proper time, they joined us. That displayed divisions on the Government side, not a lack of unity on the Opposition side.
We will continue to vote on issues on their merits. I give notice that if the Government seek to move the 10 o'clock motion this evening we shall consider that unreasonable, in view of the nature and importance of the subjects to be debated. We are not in favour of considering those important issues in the early hours of tomorrow morning.

§ Mr. Wigley
They want to wreck the Bill.

§ Mr. Robertson
We are not attempting to wreck anything. Proper sensible debate on the Bill can easily be accommodated within the normal hours of the House.
It is time for me to ask the Minister of State some questions about the alleged deal which received publicity in Wales and which led the Welsh nationalists to support the Government in voting against the principle that the composition of the Committee of the Regions should be made of locally elected councillors. It is important to establish against what the two nationalist parties voted and what they supported on that occasion. They voted in support of the Minister of State, who repeatedly said that he was not willing to accept the principle that the British delegation to the European Committee of the Regions should be made up exclusively of local authority councillors. He said he wanted it to comprise also Government appointees, such as business men. He treated us to the traditional phraseology. He wanted to keep some places for the business men who are jam-packed into every quango that the Conservatives establish. We now have many quangos taking power away from Parliament and local government. That is what the Minister said and that is for what the two nationalist parties voted.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
The hon. Gentleman is about to launch into his traditional debate with the Scottish National party and I do not want to intrude on that. It is difficult to know precisely what Opposition Members, such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who wants to know about the deal, have in mind, because they jump up and down as if a deal was something dirty and dishonourable.
We intend to consult precisely the people of whom the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is speaking. We intend to consult, to listen and to come to arrangements. We intend to come to what are normally called deals.

§ Mr. Robertson
If that was the beginning and end of it, I would not have to indulge in the part of the speech that 36 I am now making. But we know that there was an attempted deal between the nationalist parties and the Government over a limited aspect of the Government's package. The Government had no intention of consulting anybody except the nationalist parties about the composition of the Committee of the Regions and, had they won the vote that night, the Committee of the Regions would have been jam-packed full of the Government's usual old cronies, friends, partners and business associates.
But it would appear that there was a deal, though not a deal between Her Majesty's Government and local authority associations representing local councillors throughout the land. There was apparently a limited deal on offer to certain political parties at a national level. Some of those who were willing to do such deals are sitting in the House right now. They are willing to give away the principle of non-elected people on the Committee of the Regions in return for some squalid backstairs deal by which their positions would be protected. If the world is to know what the deal was all about and what they got, let the Minister speak now and tell everybody.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
There is a point that the hon. Gentleman clearly has not understood since we started discussing the Committee of the Regions. I hope that I made it perfectly clear in Committee that far from being opposed to local government representatives sitting on the Committee of the Regions, we thought that was a likely, indeed probable, event. I also made it clear in Committee that, while we were opposed to tying ourselves down exclusively to elected councillors, we were open to the proposition that the substantial majority of representatives would be local government councillors.
I assure the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)— I have never felt it necessary to apologise for what I believe is one of the finer characteristics of the House—that discussions between the Opposition and the Government take place every day through the usual channels. That enables the House to work. So I do not apologise in any way for discussions that we may have had with the nationalist parties. I assure him that the discussions with the Welsh nationalist party were predicated on the understanding that all the representatives would be from local government, and that caused us no difficulty whatever.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)
Before we proceed, may I remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief. The Minister's contribution was more like a speech.

§ Mr. Robertson
Yes, indeed it was, but it did not say anything—that is the difference. The Minister's contribution was interesting at the end. The Minister of State, who is in charge of the Bill, said that an agreement to base the Committee of the Regions on local government councillors was expected only among the Welsh nationalists. The Minister of State will no doubt say that he did not take part in the other deal—I wonder who did.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I am much too prudent to try to intervene on discussions within Scotland, which I left to other of my right hon. Friends.

§ Mr. Robertson
The Minister is here today representing Her Majesty's Government and all those who participated in the behind-the-scenes deals. I make a clear distinction 37 between the normal discussions that take place between the parties in the House on the running of the House. Last week, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I discussed whether her name should appear on amendment No. 2, and we reached agreement on that—

§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
That was a discussion.

§ Mr. Robertson
Yes, that was a discussion—consultation took place—[HON. MEMBERS: "A deal] There is a difference—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We cannot have lots of contributions, particularly from a sedentary position. We must listen to one person at a time.

§ Mr. Robertson
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
If the hon. Gentleman does not like deals, will he condemn the deal that was taking place between the deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party and the Conservative rebels outside the Chamber just after the statement? Once they saw that they were being watched, they went into a huddle, but initially they were bang in the middle of the Lobby.

§ Mr. Robertson
Dear, dear, the hon. Lady may not know about huddles, but they are not evidence of deals. We are discussing a conspiracy between two of the minority parties—the two separatist parties—and a unionist Government in order to defeat an Opposition amendment that would have established the important —one might say fundamental—principle that the Committee of the Regions should be composed uniquely of representatives from local government.
There is a clear distinction to be made. There was a conspiracy to defeat the Opposition amendment and support the Government, thereby supporting the Government's view that the Committee could comprise —as the Minister now says—a substantial majority of local government councillors, but could also include others, as the Minister repeatedly made clear throughout our debates, and again today. There was no question of the Minister's accepting the argument that all the representatives would be elected councillors, because there were to have been Government appointees—the words "business man" were continually on the Minister's lips. The question before us that night was whether the Government should have the right to choose from their cronies and not solely from elected councillors. The conspiracy to defeat our amendment was designed to deny the democratic right of local government councillors to represent this country on the Committee of the Regions.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
The hon. Gentleman is dancing on a pin. I do not know what the figures are now, but the last time that we discussed the matter, the only countries that had nominated their members to sit on the Committee of the Regions had chosen what I still regard as the more sensible option—to have the opportunity of making some nominations who were not local government representatives. For example, I was lobbied by representatives of the island communities, which was a matter we were considering until the hon. Gentleman's unwise amendment was carried.

§ Mr. Robertson
As someone who was born on an island, I can educate the Minister. Every island in the United 38 Kingdom is represented by locally elected councillors, who have a mandate, backing and authority. If the Minister is saying that selections would be made from isolated communities, he confirms our worst suspicions. The Minister advanced that argument in the earlier debate and, despite the new friends that he had gained, his argument was overwhelmingly defeated and the principle was accepted by the Committee of the House of Commons —as it will be again this evening—that the Committee of the Regions should be composed of those with a democratic mandate.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the amendment was carried with the support of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, island communities in Britain have an association of their own and they thought it sufficiently important and attractive to come to see me at the Foreign Office to suggest that island communities might have a representative on the Committee of the Regions. Those were the sort of representation for which we might have used any additional places, but, alas, our proposal was defeated. I do not regard it as a huge matter and, as the amendment was carried, we now accept the will of the Committee of the House. The hon. Gentleman must not work himself up into a lather.

§ Mr. Robertson
I am not working myself up into a lather. The Committee felt obliged to press the amendment to a vote and it voted against what the Minister said because he did not advance a reasoned view about a broad coverage of representation in the Committee of the Regions. The Minister specifically ruled out representatives with a local government mandate—an elected democratic mandate. He said that he wanted to retain places for, among others, business men. The amendment was carried as a principled objection to the Government's maintaining exactly the same selection process as they use in so many quangos. The Minister was not outvoted by the Opposition alone, but lost substantial numbers of friends among Conservative Members.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before any other hon. Members intervene or the debate continues, I must remind the House that the purpose of the debate is not to conduct an historical review of how we have arrived at this stage, but to debate the merits or otherwise of the new clause currently under consideration.

§ Mr. Salmond
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I do not want to add to the problems of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has a considerable number already. He mentioned conspiracy twice. Does he remember that the last time that word was mentioned in relation to the legislation was by his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould[) in the early hours a week ago last Thursday? He alleged that there was a conspiracy between the hon. Member for Hamilton and the Minister of State, with a view to saving the Government's skin on the referendum vote that morning. Was that a conspiracy?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Mr. Robertson and ask him to bear in mind my ruling.

§ Mr. Robertson
Any warning that you give, Madam Deputy Speaker, must be borne very much in mind, and I 39 shall narrowly restrict my answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). There was no conspiracy involved: the Labour party voted for its policy on a referendum—a policy which was established a long time ago—and the Government voted for their policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan are entirely wrong to assume or allege that there was any conspiracy between Front-Bench teams or anyone else on the referendum. The party positions had been established many months in advance.
We are talking about a clear-cut conspiracy relating to new clause 42. Had the Government got their way, and had the Welsh and Scottish nationalists been able to help the Government to victory on the matter, the Government would have won an entitlement to choose anyone they wanted from the British population to represent this country on the Committee of the Regions. We are being told—but not by the Minister of the Crown, who completely denies all knowledge of one of the deals—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have already issued a warning to the hon. Gentleman, whose speech is now becoming not only irrelevant, but tediously repetitious.

§ Mr. Robertson
I am sorry if it appears that way to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to select new vocabulary and, in order to stay within your level of tolerance, I shall resist the temptation to give way to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who, during the past few days, has been prayed in aid as a great supporter of the social chapter. However, that would be to pre-empt a later debate.
There was undoubtedly an attempt to preserve the Government's right to select their cronies and the two nationalist parties were part of that.
The House is entitled to some explanation of the detail that lies behind the new clause, especially what the people of Wales were told about the deal with the Welsh nationalists. We were told that Plaid Cymru is to have one of the three or perhaps four seats on the delegation to the Committee of the Regions.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)
Four.

§ Mr. Robertson
The hon. Member for Southend, East says four. Perhaps he knows more than others about the deal.
The Welsh nationalist party obtained only 9 per cent. of the votes in Wales at the last general election, whereas the Labour party obtained more than 50 per cent. How can the deal possibly be defended on the basis of arithmetic or equity? The Liberal Democrat party, with 15 per cent. of parliamentary votes at the last election, is apparently to get one seat on the delegation of four. The real question is how that criterion is to be extended to the rest of the country, or is the Minister of State about to tell us that he knows nothing about that either?

§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Robertson
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I do not wish to test the tolerance of the Chair again.
40 I should like the Minister, not the Welsh nationalist party, which was only one participant in the deal, and can deliver nothing at all, to tell the House of Commons precisely what has been agreed for Wales, what is the breakdown between the parties and who is to select the party nominees—will it be the parties themselves or will they have to draw up a sanitised list from which the Secretary of State for Wales or his possible successor, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will choose who will represent the party in the Committee of the Regions? That issue goes to the very heart of the debate and the new clause.
Before the end of the debate, will the Minister seek guidance from his officials about what the Secretary of State for Scotland was up to? Our only evidence of a deal with the Scottish National party—all they got in return for voting with the Government, apart from being cuffed around the head by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland in subsequent Question Times—was a letter addressed to the hon. Member for Moray saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland would try for six seats on the European Committee of the Regions, with no precise breakdown.
We in Scotland have received no further details of that deal. The hon. Member for Southend, East, who is usually knowledgeable about these matters and who is himself close to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, as they share authoritative views that I read regularly in the Glasgow Herald, says that there is no deal. However, following the fiasco of that vote, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan wrote in Scotland on Sunday that there was a written agreement. He has written to every Scottish nationalist councillor in Scotland saying that there is a deal. In Scotland on Sunday he said that the deal stood, irrespective of the fate of amendment No. 28. Of course, new clause 42 is the technical rewording of amendment No. 28. Irrespective of the fate of amendment No. 28, the deal with the SNP stood, but what is the deal? The SNP will not tell us what the deal is or any detail of it, so I am asking the Minister to tell us in all honesty.
We are the House of Commons debating the Bill on Report and the right hon. Gentleman is the Minister in charge of the Bill. Will he tell me, the House and the people of Scotland whether there is a deal and, if there is a deal, what it is? What did the Secretary of State for Scotland offer the SNP that encouraged SNP Members to go into the Lobby that night and vote against an amendment that proposed that the Committee of the Regions should be drawn only from councillors? I shall give way to the Minister if he will tell me what the deal was.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
When the hon. Gentleman's own party stops playing silly games with the Maastricht Bill and enters into discussions, as it has not yet done, he will find that the Government are open to listening to his point of view and making any arrangements that emerge from the discussions. Then no doubt, late, last and stumbling at the back of the queue as ever, he may discover what previous discussions have led to.

§ Mr. Robertson
If the carrot dangled before the Labour party is that if we get into dealing with the Minister we shall do as well as the SNP has done, it is not a very encouraging offer.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
rose—

§ Mr. Robertson
I am not giving the Minister a second bite of the carrot. Were it his good fortune to live in Scotland, he would know that if there were a deal we should have heard about it, because the only way that the SNP could possibly get off the hook that it has been hanging on would be to tell the people of Scotland what the deal was.
The Welsh nationalists have trumpeted their apparent deal loud and long enough, but we have heard not a whisper from the SNP, for the very good and simple reason—the Minister's silence confirms it—that there was no deal. He enticed them through the Lobby and they got nothing out of it at all. He enticed them to vote against the principle of local government representatives on the Committee—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman sufficient rope. Now he must come back to the point.

§ Mr. Robertson
You gave me the rope, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it was the SNP which was hanged in the process.
The House has the opportunity to hear what the deal was that persuaded the SNP to do it. We are hearing tiny fragments of the deal. We are debating the Government's new clause enshrining the principle that was forced on them in the House of Commons by one of the key votes in the parliamentary proceedings on the Maastricht Bill. This is our opportunity to hear about deals, if there are any.
The conspiracy appears to have come to absolutely nothing. The principle that we asked the House of Commons to enshrine carried the day without the assistance of the nationalists. This evening, the Minister claims ignorance of one deal and takes pride in another, although he is incapable of explaining what it is all about.
I return to the beginning of my speech by saying that I welcome new clause 42, which enshrines an important principle not just for the House but for democracy in Britain and for a European Committee of the Regions which will have, especially in the British delegation, a democratic legitimacy that will strengthen its worth.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
The debate on the Committee of the Regions has been one of the most pathetic examples of the House of Commons trying to pretend that something had importance when it had none whatsoever. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has spoken with much vigour and enthusiasm throughout these debates, would tell the people of Britain one simple fact: the Committee of the Regions will have no power to do anything at all; it will have no budget and it will not even have its own secretariat, but will have to share its secretariat with an existing function of the EC.
The fact that the poor old Welsh nationalists, for whom I have always had high regard, appear transformed into pathetic Lobby fodder ever since the strange deal was done makes me wonder about the intelligence—

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
rose—

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
The Minister has been interrupting all the time, holding up our discussions and wasting time, so I shall allow him to intervene only once.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
If the Committee of the Regions is, as my hon. Friend says, a matter of such little consequence, why did he find it of sufficient importance to wish to vote with the Opposition on this matter?

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
This, I am afraid, is rather typical of what we have had from the Minister of State. It is pathetic. When we try to make a point, he asks if we are agreeing with the Labour party or trying to help socialism. I hope that he will not interrupt me again, and I will come back to that specific point. I can remember an occasion when we were talking about the membership of the court and I asked what was the point of giving the court all these powers if there was no way of implementing them, at which point the Minister of State jumped up and asked me if I wanted to give more powers to the European Community. That is the level of debate that we have had from him.
I can only say, as someone who has been here for 28 years and who has no influence on anything at all, that, having been present at many debates, while I have a high regard for the speeches made by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), which have been well informed, comprehensive and sincere, the Minister of State's participation in the debates has been a disgrace to democracy and to the House of Commons.
5 pm
My point is a simple one. If we are sending people to organisations, of which the European Parliament is a good example, they should be elected. They should have the support of the people of Britain. If we are sending people to any kind of organisation which takes all power away from democracy, we should send elected people who know what they are about, especially if the organisation or committee has the power to spend money. If it has no power to spend money on its organisation, people should appreciate that we are setting up a committee which is almost identical to what they had in the Soviet Union, a huge organisation of people coming from all over the Soviet Union. They sat there in their countless rows and passed resolutions, and other people always came from the Government to say that the representatives were being most helpful and that they appreciated all the wonderful advice that they received from the Supreme Soviet. It was a pathetic organisation.
On the issue of the Committee of the Regions, we should make it clear to the people of Britain what is happening to our country. Democracy is dying, and their opinions on things will no longer matter. We are transferring power to boards, councils and commissions. People's views will be worthless and useless. This is typical of the Committee of the Regions, and I would again challenge the Minister of State, who is such a clever person. I talked about power. Has this committee any power at all? No, it has not. Does the Minister know of any power? What power does it have to do anything at all? A Minister of State who knows everything that there is to know about the European Community should be jumping to the Dispatch Box and saying that he has misled the House and that the committee has power to do this, that and the other. But it has none at all.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I confirm that the Committee of the Regions is an advisory body; but giving advice is not an 43 improper thing to do. It is what hon. Members do constantly. They give the Government advice and the benefit of their opinion. There is nothing wrong with that.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
There is a substantial difference if one is making decisions on the structure of the economy and on interest rates, on the welfare of our people, on whether they can have jobs and a reasonable standard of living, on things like the agricultural policy—which is entirely outside the scope of this debate—spending vast amounts of money, as much as £250 million a week, on dumping and destroying food surpluses. People should have some control over these things. But instead of giving the people power we are setting up a whole string of worthless, useless organisations, of which the Committee of the Regions is the perfect example.
Once we have decided to set up a body which has no power and no budget, that body will be able to spend lots of money on organising itself, perhaps holding seminars or going to some of these wonderful hotels throughout Europe for discussions, or paying official visits to Wales, exclaiming how wonderful Europe and Wales are and having a grand time. While democracy is dying, they will be spending the people's money on these worthless, useless Euro-junkets, telling people that they are doing a marvellous job.
As someone who has always admired minority parties, I am not in any way upset about the Scottish nationalists. They were effective for only a short time. Their healthy independence disappeared after what seemed to be a strange, anonymous semi-deal—I very much doubt if there was any deal at all. But something substantial has happened with the Welsh nationalists and those who were decent, honourable people have suddenly changed into pathetic Lobby fodder for the Government. It is appalling. And all they have received is the pledge that they can appoint one splendid person who will be able to go to this worthless Committee of the Regions and be able to exchange flags and cakes and invite people to come over to Wales and have a grand time.
Because the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, have decided to have representatives on this worthless, useless organisation, we must have lots of Welshmen, lots of Scotsmen and lots of goodness knows what. I wonder how Northern Ireland fares in all this. We must ask ourselves whether this is true democracy. If we are to have an organisation which is interested in talking about itself and putting forward resolutions, what about the rest of the country? Have the Government thrown out the baby with the bath water and forgotten other parts of the United Kingdom?
I am in rather a special position because, having been born in Scotland, I represented a Scottish constituency and I now represent an English one. The Government must remember that, while they are wheeling and dealing on these amendments about silly organisations which have no power, they are responsible for the whole of the United Kingdom. When they offer Welsh nationalists a special deal and they, in turn, say how wonderful it is and do what they are told ever thereafter—because they choose to do it —the Government appear to have forgotten their responsibilities to places like Tilbury, which I passed through today, Southend-on-Sea, Birmingham and 44 Yorkshire. But this seems not to matter. They only want to persuade the minority parties to vote for them and so they feel that they can chuck in any numbers that they like.
I find that appalling. It would be infinitely better to have no Committee of the Regions at all and for the Government to save Community money by not sending representatives. If, however, they must go, it is only fair that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—a place with special problems and outstanding representation in the House—should have fair and reasonable representation which takes into account the population and the problems of the place and not just how many people they can shove into particular Lobbies.
I have been here for 28 years. I have tried not to engage in filibustering or wasting time and I have probably just annoyed people sometimes by the things that I have said, but I feel that there is occasionally a need for troublesome individuals to tell the Government that some Back-Bench Members are being rather sickened by some of the things that are done. The Government obviously want to get the treaty through. They know that the Opposition Front Bench are on their side. But some of the pathetic deals and arrangements that they are making are contrary to democracy, and we would be much better not getting involved at all.
I should like to say a few words about another new clause to which I put my name, one in the name of the Scottish National party, in which representatives of all the parties have come together to say that there is a case for asking the people their view on some things which are rather important. I am not saying that this new clause and what it proposes are the ideal arrangement for a referendum, but I welcome very much indeed the fact that the Scottish National party, for which I have always had a high regard although I have disagreed with its views fundamentally and completely, accepts that there is a case for people giving their views on something. This call for a consultative referendum—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We are not considering a referendum in this debate.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
I am well aware of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just trying to say that I appreciate the fact that the Scottish National party has accepted that there is a case for people expressing their views. Long may they hold these views, and let them go from strength to strength in that particular regard.
I repeat: the committee is useless, worthless and ludicrous, and it will cost the taxpayers a great deal. [Interruption.] I am appalled that Labour party spokesmen should laugh at this: it will cost our people a great deal of money. They should know that many people in their constituencies are miserable, unemployed and homeless, paying too much tax and having their houses seized—much of this because we are flinging money at the European enterprise. Their attitude to public spending, therefore, is an affront. We have only to remember that the average family pays an extra £18 a week for food and that £500 million a week is spent on the common agricultural policy. There is huge, wasteful expenditure and extravagance, and it is appalling that we are going ahead with a treaty that will cost the people of Britain a great deal more.
I have two simple questions for the Minister. First, what estimate has he made of the cost of the Committee of 45 the Regions? Whatever estimate he has made will, I am sure, turn out to be an underestimate, not because Governments like to underestimate, but because European projects always turn out to cost much more than we expect them to.
I am sure that the Government have made some sort of estimate; Governments do not agree to these things without doing that first. We want to know everything: will the committee hold conferences and seminars and go on nice little visits to Wales to tell the Welsh nationalists that they are splendid people? So let the Government tell the House, perhaps in Hansard, what their estimate is. Then, in six years' time, say, if the wretched treaty has been passed, my hon. Friends will be able to ask Ministers whether the figures were accurate. This will be an educational process for the people of Britain.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
Far from finding out what it will cost to run the Committee of the Regions, I am having great difficulty in finding out the purpose of the committee. Looking at the treaty, I have yet to discover what that purpose is. Unless we know the purpose, how can we assess how much money should be spent on it.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
My hon. Friend should be well aware that it has no purpose, beyond allowing a large number of people from all over Europe—

§ Mr. leuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn)
And Wales.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
Certainly. Then they will pass resolutions. It will be almost exactly like the Supreme Soviet, to which people came from all over Russia and passed resolutions. Then people came from the Soviet Government saying, "We want to thank you for your splendid suggestions." I assure my friends from Wales that Ministers, perhaps even from the Foreign Office, will go to the committee and say, "What wonderful advice you have given us. You are giving us progressive and forward-looking ideas. We are more than grateful for them. Please carry on with your good work for Europe and the people of Wales."
This will be, as I say, a pathetic, useless, worthless organisation with no budget of its own—apart from the ability to spend lots of money on itself.
I am sure that the Government will be able to give me information on my second question too. What will people be paid for attending the Committee of the Regions? Will they get nothing, as those who serve on voluntary bodies receive? It would be nice to know. I have not the slightest idea as yet. I am sure that the Minister knows everything about this, and it would be helpful if he told us how much representatives will be paid. Will they receive only an allowance, and, if so, what kind of allowance? Will they be given an allowance for hotels and travel?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Shocking!

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
I cannot understand why the Minister says that, because it matters to every taxpayer in his constituency and in mine.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I do not regard it as particularly shocking that if someone goes to Brussels to serve on the Committee of the Regions he might be allowed to stay in a modest hotel. My hon. Friend clearly regards it as wholly reprehensible that the taxpayer should fund that.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
I would have no objection if people who were sent to this ridiculous and pathetic public relations exercise had to stay in modest hotels. I am not arguing about that. I am just asking the Minister what t he cost will be and how much people will be paid. Will they stay in modest hotels or in big hotels? Will they travel first or second class?
I have found time and again—I hope that Foreign Office Ministers will bear this in mind—that when Ministers come here to give us assurances or make pledges those assurances turn out to be a load of codswallop. When we agreed to the treaty of Rome, we were told that it was merely a question of freeing trade in Europe—it committed us to nothing. It did not turn out like that.
I believe that our previous, wonderful Prime Minister was partly misled about the Single European Act. She told me that it would merely allow majority voting to be used to encourage free trade ideas. I am sure that she now feels let down, because things have not worked Out quite like that. I can remember our present splendid Prime Minister telling us that the exchange rate mechanism would bring us growth and stability. Instead, it brought us unemployment, misery and horrendous costs.
I ask the Minister of State, who has nothing but contempt for the points that I am making, to bear in mind the fact that Ministers—not him, but others—have given us pledges and guarantees in the past which have unfortunately turned out to be largely worthless, to such an extent that our democracy is fading away.

§ Mr. Marlow
As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the Committee of the Regions will adopt its rules of procedure and submit them for approval to the Council, acting unanimously. What it will do, how it will do it, where it will do it and any other aspects of the running of the committee are thus subject to the vote of our right hon. Friend the Minister of State. So if my hon. Friend has any questions for him, I am sure that he will receive a full and complete answer today.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
Many organisations have grand ideas and like to talk about them—the women's institute for one —and no doubt they fulfil worthwhile roles. I am always interested to hear what they have to say. In this case, it is pretended that we are setting up some form of regional government along democratic lines. As my hon. Friend points out, it is bogus nonsense.
The Government's conduct in this matter has been terrible. They have persuaded the Welsh nationalists to throw away the healthy independence that minority parties should always have. The Government have also let down the rest of the country by giving special pledges to Scotland and Wales, just because they want the representatives of those countries to vote for measures which they know are a load of rubbish.
This has been a horrible debate. If the Minister of State chooses to disregard all the opinions that I have expressed, I hope that he will at least answer my two questions. If he gives us the figures, in five years' time when he, or perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton, is Prime Minister, we can ask them questions to find out whether perhaps once again the Minister has been misguided and has underestimated the total cost of this worthless Euro-nonsense.

§ Mrs. Ewing
It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), the more so since he managed to insult and compliment the SNP within the space of a few sentences. I have a high regard for his attitude to the European Community, in the sense that he at least has been consistent over many decades in political life. When I was a junior member of the body politic in Scotland, he was campaigning against the European Community, but I think that it would be more honest of him to admit that his argument is not really against the Committee of the Regions: it is against the whole concept of the EC. Therein lies the great difference between his attitude and that of the three nationalist parties.
Ever since the hon. Gentleman left Scotland—some people would say that he was sent from Scotland—he has become more and more an adherent of the sovereignty of the Palace of Westminster. Our contention is that sovereignty lies with the people and we will do everything to forward their right to exercise that sovereignty. Again, I do not think that that element is reconcilable between the hon. Gentleman and me.
Some hon. Members have said that they do not believe that the Committee of the Regions will have a great influence on what happens within Europe. Like my party, I believe that it will have a major influence on structural funds. That is of great interest to people in Scotland, particularly when they consider the arguments about article 1 and article 5b, which are important to many of our fragile economic communities, certainly in the north of Scotland. We must bear in mind the fact that eventually the Committee of the Regions will influence the European Parliament and the Commission on aspects of economic life. Therefore, we must not downgrade it.
I hear rumblings already from the Labour Front Bench. Under no circumstances do we see the Committee of the Regions as a substitute for a Scottish parliament or a Welsh parliament, whereby we would have direct representation in the Council of Ministers and in the Commission; indeed, we would thereby increase our representation in the European Parliament. Until we are in a position to deliver parliaments for Scotland and for Wales—the Labour party is in a shaky position here because, given its votes at the last election, it could deliver such parliaments—we will do everything that we can to enhance the role of our nations within the European Community, where we see our future.

§ Mr. Marlow
Does the hon. Lady see the Committee of the Regions as a means of bypassing the United Kingdom Parliament? Does she see it as a European device for loosening the cohesion within the United Kingdom and being able to deal directly with the individual parts of the United Kingdom?

§ Mrs. Ewing
As the hon. Gentleman and I serve on the Select Committee on European Legislation, he should know well my strong views about an independent Scotland within the European Community. I do not see the Committee of the Regions offering us the facility to dial Europe direct and bypass Westminster. Sometimes I wish it could. But until such time as we are an independent nation, I see the Committee of the Regions as part of a decentralising process within the European Community, whereby the views of the regions of Scotland and the regions of Wales—we are not saying that Scotland and Wales are regions—can be expressed and whereby they can 48 co-operate with people from other countries and try to influence the decision-making process, just as we come here, as elected Members, to represent not only the views of our constituents, which are of paramount importance, but the principles set out in our election manifestos.
I am conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you do not want a historical review—

§ Mr. Salmond
Or a hysterical review.

§ Mrs. Ewing
—or even a hysterical review of how we have reached the new clause. However, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) resorted to some unhappy hyperbole in his attack on myself and on my hon. Friends in the SNP and Plaid Cymru. If he wants an explanation of the discussions and consultations which took place, he need look no further than amendment (b) which we tabled to his amendment No. 28 and which he rejected. I will not reiterate all the arguments that I used in that debate, but it was clear that no hon. Member on these Benches was rejecting the principle of elected councillors throughout Scotland and Wales being representatives on the Committee of the Regions.
We were trying to ensure that due cognisance was taken of the mechanisms of nomination and appointment and the mechanism to ensure plurality within our democratic political societies. That amendment was rejected by the Labour Front Bench, which is now agreeing with the new clause. The hon. Member for Hamilton did not deal with the key principles which we regard as underpinning membership of the Committee of the Regions. He did not talk about the mechanisms for nomination or appointment, or for ensuring plurality within our democratic society. I wonder why? Is it because, on 5 March, at the executive meeting of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, a decision was taken on the appointment of three members of the Committee of the Regions and three substitutes? I ask hon. Members to bear that decision in mind when thinking about the plurality of our democratic system.
The president of COSLA, Charles Gray of Strathclyde, is to be a member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Labour"] The senior vice president, Rosemary McKenna of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, is to be a member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."] The vice president, Andrew Tulley of Ettrick and Lauderdale, who is an independent, is also to be appointed. The three alternates were named; they are all members of the Labour party.

§ Mr. Salmond
Name them.

§ Mrs. Ewing
I am happy to name them. They are Bob Middleton, the convenor of Grampian regional council —[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Baillie Jean McFadden of Glasgow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; and Keith Geddes of Lothian—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."] They are all members of the Labour party. Can the hon. Member for Hamilton say whether that is Labour party policy in Scotland on membership of the Committee of the Regions?

§ Mr. George Robertson
The hon. Lady is reading from a report of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which is not the Labour party in Scotland. The question is whether local government and councillors should decide how the representatives are to be chosen. The hon. Lady must not have been listening, because those are precisely the points that I put to the Minister earlier. Had her party 49 got its way in supporting the Government, there might have been no councillors representing Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom because the Minister wanted to keep representation to the Government's cronies—business men and friends of the Government. That is what the Government wanted and what the hon. Lady voted for.

§ Mrs. Ewing
The hon. Gentleman started digging a hole when he rose earlier and attacked hon. Members on these Benches. He is continuing to dig that hole. He should learn a lesson and stop digging so furiously. I am not reading from a report from the Scottish Constitutional Convention; I am reading from the executive minutes of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities held on 5 March this year. The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. It is strange that there has been no communication from COSLA to the hon. Gentleman to let him know that, out of six potential members of the Committee of the Regions, COSLA has nominated five Labour members.
In regard to the amendments which were discussed earlier, I wish to make it plain to the House and to anyone else that there was no attempt by the SNP to prevent the appointment of elected councillors to the Committee of the Regions. We attempted to ensure plurality and consultation to prevent the Secretary of State or other parties from appointing placemen. We wanted plurality because there is no point in arguing about democracy if there is to be a system of appointments by the patronage of the Front Benches. We in Scotland must take account of the results in general and local elections. We hope that Labour will eventually realise that we live in a pluralistic society and that it does not have a monopoly on local government in Scotland.
In conclusion, I re-emphasise—

§ Mr. George Robertson
I hope that the hon. Lady's conclusion will answer the question that has been repeatedly asked—what is the deal? She and her colleagues voted against a Labour amendment which would have left the Government with no flexibility about who it could appoint for the United Kingdom delegation. The amendment stated that delegates had to be locally elected councillors. The Government said that they wanted to reserve places for their cronies. What did the SNP get for voting with the Government against the principle of our amendment? The people of Scotland want to know that. Does the hon. Lady propose to tell us?

§ Mrs. Ewing
I have become increasingly depressed by the hon. Gentleman because he has not done his homework. He should look again at amendment (b) which we tabled to his amendment. That was the basis of our consultation and negotiations and it guaranteed plurality among elected councillors in the committee. The hon. Gentleman's amendment allowed the Secretary of State to continue to have the facility to appoint whom he wanted. The hon. Gentleman was allowing the Government to choose and the Conservatives are more likely to choose Brian Meek than Campbell Christie or Rosemary McKenna. Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen were allowing power to reside with the Secretary of State for Scotland. Our amendment (b) fully allowed for accountability and the plurality of our democratic system.
50 The hon. Member for Hamilton spoke about deals. He is always involved in deals and negotiations. It seems that consultation is acceptable to Labour only when it is involved. If other people dare to discuss with other parties in the House how they feel about issues, somehow or other it is wrong. There were discussions with the Labour party, but it refused to accept the principles that we were propounding.
Labour should not adopt such a pious attitude. Every hon. Member has the right to discuss and negotiate with those in authority to try to obtain the best terms for his constituents and his country. A great deal of hot air has been expended.

§ Mr. Gallie
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Mrs. Ewing
I shall do so briefly.

§ Mr. Gallie
The hon. Lady said that the comments by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) depressed her. Is she depressed by the fact that the hon. Gentleman continually refers to the business community in derogatory terms? Does he not see business men as wealth and job creators who have a part to play in Scotland's well being and perhaps in the committee?

§ Mrs. Ewing
I do not propose to enter into a debate on an intervention that was aimed at the Labour party. However, many people in our communities have many ideas about the expenditure of structural funds, for example, and they include trade unionists as well as business people. This weekend I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress as they passed through my constituency in the march for jobs and democracy. They are doing a fine job. The churches and voluntary organisations should have an input about how our communities develop and how money is spent.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) rightly says, business men and church people are all terribly nice-and do good work for everyone. However, the Government's new clause says that representatives will be councillors only, which means that business men and church people are chucked out. I hope that my hon. Friend is aware of what he has been told to vote for. He will be voting for councillors only and excluding business men and church people.

§ Mrs. Ewing
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) raised this issue. The councillors that I know in my area are very much in touch with business men, trade unions, churches and voluntary organisations and take serious account of opinions that are expressed to them.
It is unfortunate that the debate about the Committee of the Regions has been marred by attempts to score party political points. We see it as an important sphere of influence for people who represent the diverse areas of Scotland and Wales and the opinions there. We hope that the committee will operate in a European context for the benefit of our two nations as well as all the other nations of the Community.

§ Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston)
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was not very persuasive. She conceded that there were consultations between her party and the usual channels in Government. There is nothing wrong with that, but the outcome was that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends voted with the 51 Government. I suspect that there was some reason for her and her colleagues deciding to give carte blanche to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales to make all the nominations to the Committee of the Regions. I would be rather surprised if the hon. Lady and her colleagues did not obtain some concession in return for a generous offer to the Government.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), on accepting the principle that we adopted in Committee. It was right for the Government to concede that, and wise of my right hon. Friend to back track a little.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) asked whether parish councillors would be eligible to sit on the committee. That is an important question, but I doubt that the answer is in the affirmative, because a local authority is legally defined. I stand to be corrected about that, as on most things, but I think that I am right in saying that a parish council is not a judicially defined legal authority—certainly not in the English courts, although it may be different elsewhere.
There is no difficulty in finding good people to stand for parish councils. In Lincolnshire and in most other counties, people of real ability are willing to sit on parish councils. They may be managing directors, prominent farmers, senior solicitors or senior trade union officials who do not have the time to sit on local authorities but are willing to give time to parish councils. Parish councils contain a great deal of talent upon which to draw, and I shall be disappointed if they are excluded from the Committee of the Regions.

§ Mr. Marlow
Does my hon. Friend agree that, inasmuch as we need a Committee of the Regions, many people who would be valuable participants engage in many other activities? It is those other activities which would make them so good for the committee, but they do not have a great deal of time. However, they would have time to serve on a parish council near their home, although they would not have the time to serve on a county council or a metropolitan authority, which would require much greater commitment.

§ Sir Richard Body
That must be the case, but a great deal depends on what the Committee of the Regions will do. I shall return to that matter.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that he had contemplated representatives from the islands if the original provision had gone through unamended. I suppose that he had in mind the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, for example. Perhaps he would confirm that.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
Or Gibraltar.

§ Sir Richard Body
My hon. Friend takes the word out of mouth. I was going to mention Gibraltar. It is not quite an island, but those of us who have had the opportunity to go there in recent months know that there are strong feelings there about the way that it has been treated within the European Community.
It insists that it is in the Community and that it is trying to be communautaire, yet as soon as the single market came into effect on 1 January this year, the borders were closed by the Spanish Government. When I was there a 52 week or two after that closure, it was taking people from both sides four hours to cross the border. That is in conflict with all that was intended by the single market.
Gibraltar is saying that it cannot raise its voice. It has no voice in the House of Commons or the European Parliament. Therefore, might it not have a place on the Committee of the Regions?
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister would be good enough to tell me whether there is any prospect of Gibraltar having some voice in Brussels. At the moment, it is dependent on the Foreign Office. Whether the Foreign Office is willing to express forcefully and effectively the views of Gibraltar is not for me to say. If it advocates the case for Gibraltar as it advocates the case for this country, I may wonder about what is being said on behalf of Gibraltar.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
I compliment my hon. Friend on raising that vital point about Gibraltar not being represented anywhere on any body. Could not the Government, if they wanted to, allocate Gibraltar seats on this funny European Parliament? That subject may be going wide of the new clause, but the Government could, if they wanted to, do something for Gibraltar through the additional seats that have not been parcelled out to particular places but that we must parcel out ourselves.

§ Sir Richard Body
Indeed. The Government of Gibraltar have made that suggestion to Her Majesty's Government, and are awaiting a reply.
I wonder what France is doing over Reunion, Guadaloupe and Martinique. There is an analogy. It would be interesting to hear from my right hon. Friend what the French Government are proposing to do in selecting representatives for the Committee of the Regions.
As we know, metropolitan France extends across oceans and includes places that are often much poorer than mainland France, and worthy of representation on any Committee of the Regions, but still just as much part of the European Community as Lyon, Paris or Marseilles. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some news of what is happening on that score. If France is giving any representation on the Committee of the Regions to those faraway places, we should be doing the same for Gibraltar and, even closer to home, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

§ Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)
The case of France and Reunion is interesting, but an even more interesting example is the case of Ceuta and Melilla, the Spanish areas in Africa, where the people have votes to the European Parliament. Those African areas can be represented on the new Committee of the Regions. Is it not diabolical that areas in Africa that are Spanish can be represented on the Committee, but Gibraltar, which has been in the European Community since 1973—long before Spain ever joined—will be denied such representation?

§ Sir Richard Body
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The excuse given is that those two parts of Africa are parts of Spain, just as much as Barcelona, while Gibraltar is virtually independent and is not part of the United Kingdom.
We ought to hear a little more from my right hon. Friend the Minister about how seats are being parcelled 53 out in the other countries. It is obvious, whether or not there is a deal, that Scotland and Wales will have proportionately more than Northern Ireland and England.

§ Mr. Marlow
Why?

§ Sir Richard Body
I also ask why. I do not want to provoke the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), but we should recall why those differences exist. Northern Ireland always used to have fewer Members of Parliament because of Stormont. Not until after Stormont was abolished and Enoch Powell and others mounted a long campaign was representation in Northern Ireland extended to match that of England.
In the meanwhile, Wales and Scotland remained over-represented, because it was more difficult to get around constituencies there. That is no longer the case. The hon. Member for Moray has an attractive constituency, which I visited the other day. I got there much more quickly than I would have got to Boston in my constituency. One can fly to Inverness and get from there to Moray quickly. It takes me about three hours to get to Boston.
I well remember, when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) represented Glasgow, Cathcart, standing waiting with him at the Members' Entrance. I was amazed to hear that he would get to Glasgow in two hours, when it would take me three hours to get to Boston.

§ Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)
We have spoken about deals. Is it not a fact that, rather than a campaign waged by Enoch Powell, it was a deal done in Parliament to keep a Government in position for a little while longer that resulted in extra seats for Northern Ireland?

§ Sir Richard Body
I remember that. The hon. Gentleman is right. A deal was done. It was a necessary deal, and it gave Northern Ireland representation, as it was entitled to, on the same basis as that for England. That only reinforces my point. Northern Ireland and England are treated the same, and rightly so, but I do not see why Scotland and Wales should be treated more favourably than Northern Ireland, particularly when it comes to the Committee of the Regions.

§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
The hon. Gentleman might not find it so difficult to understand if, instead of representing the sort of constituency that he represents with such distinction, he represented a constituency such as mine, which, although it has a mere 32,000 electors—less than half the national average—covers an area of 2,800 square miles. Not even the miraculous modern transport systems will allow one to get around that in one day.

§ Sir Richard Body
I have travelled from Inverness to Scourie, almost to the far end of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, at a tremendous speed because the roads were quite empty. I had a delightful holiday when I got there, and I have envied him his constituency ever since. If he would like to exchange his constituency—but it is not for me to make the offer.
I emphasise the point, because the other countries in the Community will not resort to regional weighting. I doubt whether some parts of France will have greater 54 representation than others. I doubt whether the länder in Germany will allow some to have more than others, or whether the northern Italians will allow southern Italians, about whom they have strong feelings at the moment, to have more representation. Throughout the rest of the Community, representation will be proportionate to population.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that, because we should by now know what proposals other member countries are making.

§ Mr. Marlow
Another important point that my hon. Friend is probably about to come to is the fact that the United Kingdom has an allocation of 24 members for the Committee of the Regions, but Belgium, which I understand has one fifth of the population of the United Kingdom, has an allocation of 12 members—one fifth of the size, half the number. If there is to be a Committee of the Regions—many of us are not completely happy with the concept—why should each Belgian be two and a half times as heavily represented as each member of the United Kingdom?

§ Sir Richard Body
Poor old England will come off worst of all. That is bound to be the case, because we shall be giving proportionately more to Scotland and Wales. They will he much the same as the Belgians, whereas we in England will have to have a reduced number to enable that to come about.
That is of some importance, because I believe that we shall hear much more of the regions with regard to England. Those of us who have argued about the effect that the single market will have upon our economy have repeatedly said that we shall see a steady drift of industry away from all parts of the United Kingdom, including England and the south-east, to what has been called the golden triangle or what is nowadays being called the red banana—that banana-shaped area based on the Rhine, to which industry is now being attracted. We shall see the de-industrialisation of England continue and unemployment continuing at a high level.
Whether or not we adopt the social chapter, we shall find it more difficult to attract industry from the mainland of Europe. All parts of England will suffer the regional malaise that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have suffered for decades. That being so, it is wrong that England should be less well represented than those other regions of Europe which will be similarly affected and which may be outside the golden triangle or the red banana. Therefore, I regret the way in which the Government have done a deal with Opposition Members.

§ Sir R. Moate
I have listened most carefully, but I am puzzled about why it should be of any concern to my hon. Friend, me or anyone else whether the English regions have X-plus or X-minus members on the Committee of the Regions. I have listened to many debates on the subject, and I have heard no evidence that such a committee will be anything more than a talking shop, having virtually no influence on anything. What difference does it make to us whether we have 100 members or one.

§ Sir Richard Body
It is convenient that my hon. Friend should say that, because it enables me to go on to make what was my last point. That is that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East are remarkably naive 55 about the European Community. Both should remember what was said in the early 1970s about what was then called the consultative assembly.

§ Sir Roger Moate
indicated assent.

§ Sir Richard Body
I am glad to see my hon. Friend nodding his head. That assembly is now called the European Parliament. Of course, it is still not quite a Parliament, but it will get there given the chance.

§ Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)
This is the second Chamber.

§ Sir Richard Body
Yes indeed.
In 1996, we are due to have another intergovernmental conference, and all those institutions will acquire more powers and greater strength. That will include the Committee of the Regions. That is why I believe that the committee will be extremely important.
To use a rather tired old phrase, the Committee of the Regions is just the thin end of the wedge, just as the consultative assembly was the thin end of the wedge way back in the 1950s, when it was first established by the treaty of Rome.
Those of us who were federalists in those days—I must confess that I was—always knew that we would never achieve our objective in one move; it had to be done gradually. One reason why I departed from the federalist camp and ceased to be a federalist was that I felt that it was deceptive. It was always assumed that we would never get where we wanted in one move. Over the years we have seen a steady move towards federalism and the Committee of the Regions is one part of that move, just as the consultative assembly was to evolve into the supreme Parliament of western Europe.

§ Sir Roger Moate
My hon. Friend might be right: this committee might be the thin end of the wedge. That is the explanation of the support give to it, understandably, by all the nationalist parties. But if so, is that not even more reason to oppose the concept of only elected councillors being selected for membership of this regional council? Is it not that kind of thing that is designed to confer legitimacy; to build up the pretensions of such a committee? If my hon. Friend is fearful of it being the thin end of the wedge, surely, contrary to the way in which he introduced his speech, he should oppose the new clause and allow us to retreat to the position of nominated business men and other worthy people serving on the committee.

§ Sir Richard Body
That is a persuasive intervention. I might have to reconsider how I shall vote. I do not wish any democratic legitimacy to be accorded to any institution of the Community. However, I must concede that I am attracted by the idea of regionalism. I say that with great regret, because I do not wish the powers or status of this House to be diminished in any way.
But once we have ratified Maastricht, we shall have taken a step which will have so lowered the position of this House that we shall need to consider deeply which way we go from there. We shall have to have some kind of regional assemblies. We cannot have any true democracy or any sense of public accountability if more and more power is to go to the European Parliament, as it will after 1996 and 56 the next intergovernmental conference. At that point, we shall have to recognise that we shall have to have a large number of regional assemblies, and the Committee of the Regions will have to be considerably beefed up after 1996
Anyone who has studied the development of the Community knows perfectly well that this is just the first step. There is no strong regional authority to begin with. Powers are not given to the Committee of the Regions immediately. The idea is simply introduced to get people used to it. People are then elected to it who start to enjoy the journeys to Brussels, or wherever it may be, and being paid accordingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was rather light-hearted about the cost—

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
The Minister of State was light-hearted, not me.

§ Sir Richard Body
That is much more likely.
We now know that the average Member of the European Parliament costs us £500,000 a year. Perhaps a member of the Committee of the Regions will cost £100,000 a year. It is not unreasonable to assume that their total emoluments and expenses will be one fifth. However, I must not digress into the area of expenses.

§ Mr. Marlow
Does that £500,000 include the cost of interpreters and the running costs of the institution as well as a Member's expenses and emoluments?

§ Sir Richard Body
No, the cost of the European Parliament is much more than that. The expert on that subject is sitting on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) knows that it has always been a great deal more than that. The pantechnicons moving the papers around the capitals cost more than that.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not continue with that theme. A passing reference is one thing, but total consideration of that point would be out of order.

§ Sir Richard Body
I was tempted, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I must resist temptation.
I had made my point—that this is the beginning, starting with a form of regional authorities. I concede that, after Maastricht, they may be necessary—but I shall continue to oppose the treaty, because I do not want us to go that route. If we are to move towards a federal structure —as we are, whatever we may choose to call it—we will need committees established across the whole Community to represent each region. Equally, the regions themselves will need their own institutions.
If one is attracted by the argument for regionalism, as I know some Opposition Members are, it could be argued also that the sooner we recognise that case the better, and that that is the only democratic route for the Community to take. That is an attractive argument and, if the treaty is duly ratified, will probably be the route that I shall take. However, I shall much regret having to change my mind and to concede that the House will lose many more of its powers than it will anyway lose under the treaty.

§ Mr. John D. Taylor
In the debate on the Committee of the Regions in Committee, the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party voted in favour of elected local 57 authority representatives being appointed to the committee. It is only right to place on record our appreciation for the new clause tabled by the Government this afternoon.
Several references have been made to deals made at the Committee stage between the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the English Conservatives—all kinds of deals. Those of us from Northern Ireland—I note that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is in his place—are beginning to think, given that so many deals have been made by the Scottish and Welsh nationalists with the Government, that there will be hardly any seats left on the Committee of the Regions for Northern Ireland.
Unlike Scottish and Welsh nationalists, we are not open to deals on the Maastricht agreement because it means something much more important than just a few seats on the Committee of the Regions. It will mean surrendering many of the powers of our national Parliament, a common European defence and security policy, a common European currency and a central bank. Those major issues are not negotiable with Ulster Unionists just to secure a few seats on the Committee of the Regions.
Nonetheless, as there is to be that committee, and as the Government have decided that elected representatives shall serve on it, we must put down our marker so that Northern Ireland is fairly represented. What does the Minister consider to be fair representation for Northern Ireland? He has done deals with parties in other parts of the United Kingdom and we would like to know what is deemed to be fair representation for Northern Ireland. It is often argued that Northern Ireland's various political parties should be represented. As the Social Democratic and Labour party receives only 20 or 21 per cent. of votes in Northern Ireland, or 25 per cent. in a European election, Northern Ireland would need four seats on the Committee of the Regions for the SDLP to secure even one seat. If Northern Ireland representation is reduced to three seats, I fear that the SDLP will not be represented at all. I want to know whether Northern Ireland is to have four full members and four alternate members appointed to the committee.
As to the United Kingdom's overall representation on the committee, that should not be on a pro rata basis according to the United Kingdom's population, but should relate to those regions that receive moneys from the European regional development fund. That would naturally restrict the size of England's representation, but Northern Ireland would, pro rata, have more representation because it is an area of first priority for European development funding.
The problem for Northern Ireland in appointing elected representatives to the Committee of the Regions is that it does not have elected local government. Although Northern Ireland has 26 district councils, their powers are limited to the lifting of the bins once a week, the provision of cemeteries, and certain small tourist projects. Otherwise, all the major local government services of Northern Ireland are controlled by the English Secretary of State and his English Ministers, who come to Stormont once a week to govern us. Those Ministers have full powers in respect of roads, sewerage, water, and planning.

§ Mr. Mallon
It might be wise at this point for the right hon. Gentleman to state why local government in Northern Ireland does not have the power that people would like it to have. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman 58 will explain that it is due to the way in which his party abused power when it had it, to the extent that it had to be removed. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if there is a Committee of the Regions, it will be a good thing for the north of Ireland, in that whoever is appointed from local government might be subject to outside influences that could be reflected in the councils on which they serve —especially Belfast city council, which is dominated by the right hon. Gentleman's party?

§ Mr. Taylor
I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not want me to be tempted down that path. I shall stick to the facts. Major local government services in Northern Ireland are controlled by this Parliament and not by elected Northern Ireland councillors. Education, health, social services, roads, planning, housing, sewerage and water are all controlled by people who were not elected in Northern Ireland, yet who exercise total power in relation to those services.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has no say in those matters and nor have his district councillors. Regrettably, the hon. Gentleman wants to keep the nationalist people of Northern Ireland in a position in which they have no say in the Province's local government affairs. We have local elections in Northern Ireland at the moment and I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will have heard the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh remark that he does not want them to have real power.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House and to go on record as saying that the Ulster Unionist party dominates the city hall, when it accounts for fewer than one third of the council's members. No party dominates the city hall. It is important to retrieve proper power and for the people of Northern Ireland to elect their own representatives.

§ Mr. Taylor
As I said earlier, I do not imagine that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, want me to go down that path. However, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) is correct. I believe that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was being a little flippant in the way in which he made his case during his intervention.
In Northern Ireland, the main government services that benefit from the European regional development fund are controlled not by elected councillors in Northern Ireland but by the Northern Ireland Office and its Ministers. Therefore, elected representatives from the district councils representing Northern Ireland on the Committee of the Regions will not have the same important role to play as elected councillors from elsewhere in the United Kingdom—in England, Scotland and Wales—unless we get real democratic local government powers in Northern Ireland.
We must transfer back to the locally elected representatives the real issues that benefit from European regional development funding—in other words, roads, sewerage and water must be transferred back to the elected councillors—so that they can represent the people on the Committee of the Regions in Brussels and can argue their corner to obtain European regional development funding for these major infrastructure projects.

§ Mr. Wigley
If I understand correctly. the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that representatives from Northern Ireland will not have as much clout as 59 representatives from England, Scotland and Wales. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the argument put forward in Brussels recently that the United Kingdom representatives will not have as much clout as representatives from Germany or Spain? The representatives of those countries are representing elected Governments; our councillors must compete with, perhaps, former Prime Ministers of Bavaria in arguing the case that the right hon. Gentleman puts forward. Is not that a case for an elected assembly or parliament in Northern Ireland to give even stronger clout to those who go to Brussels to argue the case?

§ Mr. Taylor
That is an entirely different subject. We are talking about the Committee of the Regions and debating a proposal that the membership of that committee should be made up of elected councillors, elected members of local authorities. That is the issue.
I am saying that those who are elected to district councils in Northern Ireland have very limited powers compared with those elected to councils elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The European regional development fund, to which the Committee of the Regions is related, gives major grants for structural and environmental projects in which district councils in Northern Ireland have little or no say.
For example, a constituent came to me at the weekend to complain about a pothole on the Cairnshill road in Castlereagh borough. I cannot go to the district councillors to ask for the pothole to be filled, because they are not allowed to fill in the pothole. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, they would discriminate in how they filled it up. He said that they are not capable of filling up a pothole—that is his argument—so we are left with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as the only person with the right to decide whether that pothole is to be filled. That is a ludicrous situation which must be rectified. Until it is, the district councils who represent Northern Ireland on the Committee of the Regions will not have the same status and responsibilities as those from elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) mentioned the question of expenses for the members of this new Committee of the Regions. I suspect that it is going to be a committee somewhat similar in its role to that of the Economic and Social Committee in Brussels. The members of that committee—which represents the social partners in the trade unions, business and industry—receive expenses, and rightly so; they have to travel to Brussels and stay overnight there and it is an expensive city. The Minister should give the House some guidance on this—obviously he cannot tell us exactly what the allowances and expenses will he for members of the new Committee of the Regions— and tell us what the present levels of travelling expenses and attendance allowances are for members of the Economic and Social Committee; we will then be able to draw our own conclusions because the allowances will be somewhat similar for the Committee of the Regions.
Finally, I come to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Southend, East—that the Committee of the Regions is simply a consultative committee: powerless and, to a certain extent, a lot of nonsense. That is true. We already have an elected European assembly at Strasbourg—now 60 renamed the European Parliament—with elected representatives from the 12 countries of the European Community. Within that Parliament, there is the European Regional Policy Committee, consisting of elected members of the European Parliament from all 12 Community countries, which meets on a regular basis at least once a month, and elected representatives from Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and elsewhere in the Community deal with regional policies. The committee is consulted by the - European Commission and the Council of Ministers and expresses the views of the elected representatives of the regions on specific regional policies. Will the Minister explain adequately—he failed to do so in Committee—what gap the committee will fill in the consultative procedure, and in the whole evolution of regional policy in the Community, which is not already filled by elected representatives in the European Parliament who sit on the Regional Policy Committee?

§ Sir Roger Moate
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) concluded on a very powerful note indeed. He demonstrated that there is no answer that the Minister can give. The answer is clear: this committee is unnecessary. The point that the right hon. Member made about the flaw in the logic of the argument as applied to Northern Ireland is equally a strong argument, but I think that we can apply that logic to many of the features of the argument about whether we have locally elected councillors and whether that is an appropriate qualification.
I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) when he congratulated the Government on having accepted the will of the House and suggested that we should support the new clause. I do not believe that the House should accept it. I find it extremely difficult. I have heard very few arguments from my right hon. Friend the Minister with which I have agreed, but when he argued against this proposition in Committee I agreed with him. He was very persuasive and powerful. Now I have great difficulty when he comes before the House and asks me to accept the opposite argument. I do not change as readily as that. He was persuasive before and I accepted his previous argument. I think that the House, too, should accept that logic.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
What I was seeking to do in Committee, when my hon. Friend and other hon. Members intervened, was demonstrate the choices and dilemmas that lay before us. For example, I said that I thought that England ought to be entitled to 20 seats, but that, on the basis of some of the bids that we had received from other parts of the country, England would get none at all. I said that that was a ludicrous position, and that a balance had to be struck.
I see the point that my hon. Friend is heading towards. As an English Member, I would not want to see—anxious as I am to see that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are properly represented—England squeezed down to the point where it would worry him and me.

§ Sir Roger Moate
I am not sure that I agree with my right hon. Friend on that point, or whether it matters terribly if England is squeezed down. I accepted the Government's powerful argument that there was no logic in having elected councillors appointed and that we should 61 have worthy, powerful and influential people from all parts of the Community sitting on this committee—if there had to be such a committee. Now my right hon. Friend is asking the House to say that that argument no longer applies and that representatives have to be elected councillors.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that the Government would still prefer to retain the flexibility for this and future Governments to allow representatives from the business community, as my hon. Friend and others have suggested, to be part of our team on the Committee of the Regions. That is the position which the Government would have preferred. The House chose to prefer a system relying entirely on elected councillors, and the Government must bow to the will of the House.

§ Sir Roger Moate
I understand that point, but I disagree with it. I challenge the suggestion that, somehow, the will of the House is expressed by a single vote in Committee. It is a novel proposition. Do the Government intend to accept it in future? If they are defeated in Committee upstairs or on the Floor of the House, will they say, "The House has spoken; that is the will of the House; we accept it."? Will they make no effort to overturn that decision on Report, or in another place?
The will of the House, as we understand it, is expressed ultimately in the legislation that we enact, which involves a number of stages. The will of the House is not expressed simply in Committee. What my right hon. Friend should have done was to say, "All right, we accept that we were defeated in Committee, but we shall reverse that decision on Report." We have such an opportunity now.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
If my hon. Friend were able—I must admit that my efforts to do so failed—to persuade some of my right hon. and hon. Friends to reverse their view and support what I believe is my hon. Friend's view, which is also the Government's view, I am sure that the Government would seek to do what he suggests. I am afraid, however, that my advocacy failed. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has any good news for me.

§ Sir Roger Moate
I have seldom known my right hon. Friend to be in such a flexible mood: to be so anxious to accept a majority verdict and not to challenge it. Alas, I can offer my right hon. Friend no more than my own vote. No doubt he and I will be in the Lobby together to vote down the new clause. That, at least, is the logic of the argument. Further efforts should have been made to overturn the Committee's verdict.
I object in principle to the concept that appointment to the Committee of the Regions—its members will be appointed, for there is no new mechanism, as has been pointed out, for electing them—should be restricted to elected councillors. They do not even have to represent the region from which they come. Although I am delighted that there will be no regional elections, the horrible logic of all this is that if there is to be a Committee of the Regions and only locally elected councillors are to serve upon it, they ought to be elected to that committee. Such a proposition would be welcomed by the nationalist parties, or the minority parties, or the regional parties, however they may choose to be described. However, that is no part of the proposal, and I am pleased about that.
62 What I object to, in all logic, is the idea that election to a local council is, somehow, a relevant and necessary qualification for service on an appointed committee, an advisory and consultative committee, of this sort. What magic divinity is conferred upon a district councillor from, shall we say, the excellent borough council of Swale in my constituency that justifies his appointment as the British representative for a region that is called, for the sake of argument, the south-east of England—Kent, Essex, Surrey, Sussex, and perhaps Greater London?
The appointment of a Conservative Swale borough councillor, no matter how superb he might be, will not be accepted by Labour councillors in Essex, just because that man has been elected to Swale borough council. It does not mean anything.
One is elected to represent one's parish council, district council or constituency. That confers some rights within the area, but it does no more than that. It confers neither the status nor the credibility to represent the United Kingdom, or a large region of the United Kingdom, in Brussels. There is no logic, there is no sense, in that argument.

§ Mr. Gallie
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. I agree also with the comments of the Minister, who has to deal with the practicalities of the issue. If I may add to my hon. Friend's argument, I find it difficult to understand how local authority representatives, who frequently complain of the burdens of their local authority involvement, will be able to take on their shoulders this weighty exercise of travelling regularly to Brussels to take part in the deliberations of the Committee of the Regions. Can my hon. Friend comment?

§ Sir Roger Moate
I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I suspect that it will not be difficult to find local authority representatives who will be willing to go to Brussels. It will be a sacrifice for them, but I suspect that there will be some compensation. Their expenses will not be too inadequate. The influence and the status that will be conferred on them will be considerable. People will listen to their words. I suspect that, somehow, they will manage to tear themselves away from their borough council duties in order to spend time elsewhere. I do not think that that will be a problem.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend again, but his remarks provide me with the opportunity to respond to a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and other hon. Members asked regarding expenses and costs. Members of the Committee of the Regions receive no salary. They receive a per diem of approximately £100 a day, plus their travelling expenses. As for the costs of the Committee of the Regions, members of the committee will use the services of the existing secretariat. They will also use the buildings that the Economic and Social Committee occupies. There will be some additional administrative and personnel expenses, but we do not expect them to be too substantial.

§ Sir Roger Moate
I am sure that the House will be most grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said about the position at the beginning. Can he tell us that that state of affairs will continue for the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years? I 63 just wonder what the rewards might be in the years to come. The point is taken, however. I do not intend to labour the expenses point.
My right hon. Friend will find that locally elected councillors feel that they have gained considerable influence and stature as a result of going to Brussels to sit on the Committee of the Regions—influence and stature which, I suggest, is far beyond what is justified by the powers that they exercise. The real danger is that this committee has no responsibility but great influence. Its position is one of total irresponsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. The committee will have no responsibility, but, due to its great status, it will be able to lecture the Strasbourg assembly, Brussels and us and urge us to spend, spend and spend.

§ Mr. Marlow
My hon. Friend talks about the committee's status. Will its members have some title or designation? Will they be known as regional councillors? Will they have initials after their name? A more substantial point is that we have got it the wrong way round. We ought to know what this organisation is doing before we establish it. If it is not doing housing, education, social services and those things that are done by locally elected councillors, what on earth is the point of sending locally elected councillors to sit on that committee?

§ Sir Roger Moate
My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way. It was dealt with effectively by the right hon. Member for Strangford, who asked the same fundamental question: what on earth will this body be doing that is not already being done by properly elected Parliaments? I have, with regret, to include the Strasbourg Parliament, which I wish was not directly elected. The direct election factor to the Strasbourg Parliament conferred legitimacy on that body. It is a dangerous trend. It was the conferment of democratically elected status on the European Parliament that enhanced that concept of the European federal state. Therefore, I worry about the thin end of the wedge in this case—the conferment of legitimacy on the Committee of the Regions representatives.
My final point is linked to the one that I have just made. I object strongly to the Committee of the Regions being there at all. I accept that we are debating the qualifications of the people who are to be appointed to the committee, but the status of the Committee of the Regions will be deliberately enhanced by the fact that its representatives are elected. The two arguments are inseparable. It is right, therefore, to argue in this debate strongly against the Committee of the Regions and to vote down the new clause.
I am surprised that a Conservative Government and Conservative Back Benchers should argue in favour of something called a Committee of the Regions. I never believed that I would hear such an argument. Why? First, because the Conservative party and this Government have always fundamentally opposed the concept of regional government. I am not talking about Scotland or Wales, but I am certainly talking about England. We have opposed the proposals, especially those made by the Liberal party, for elected regions. We have opposed them for a variety of good reasons, but we are now accepting, almost automatically as a good thing, the Committee of 64 the Regions for the whole of the European Community and for our country. That is very dangerous, so why are we accepting it? 6.30 pm
Secondly, is it not the case that we are opposed to other bodies bypassing Westminster? Without a shadow of a doubt, the Committee of the Regions is designed to do just that. It is in its very nature. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Scottish nationalists say, "Hear, hear"—we do not have to prove the point because their support does that. The committee is designed to bypass Westminster, yet the Conservative Government are going along with it. Perhaps the committee will be merely an empty talking shop and we are setting up an empty consultative body. Even so, we should still oppose it, but we are apparently saying that it is a good thing and such a good thing that only elected councillors should sit on it.
It could be argued that we do not believe in the committee at all and that it is merely the price that we have to pay for the Maastricht treaty. When I suggested that to the Minister of State in Committee, he said that that was not so and that we believe in it. He said that it was a good thing and that we welcome it. Perhaps it is something in which my right hon. Friend believes, which the rest of the party does not like very much, but with which it has to go along for the sake of the deal in Europe. That would at least be consistent with the rest of the argument over Maastricht: most of the party does not like it, but it is the price that we have to pay to settle the big deal for which the Minister of State is waging a valiant and powerful intellectual fight by himself.
The Committee of the Regions is alien to the Conservative party's usual philosophy, and I object to it strongly. It is not a matter of doing things for the regions —there are other mechanisms for that through national parliaments and elected bodies. The committee is nonsense and rubbish. The new clause may tidy it up, but that merely makes it tidier rubbish which we should not accept.
I should dearly like to believe that we could have cut the committee out of the treaty. We cannot, but we can reject the new clause and eliminate the pretensions that the committee might gain by having elected councillors. We shall not then confer on this consultative body a legitimacy which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said, would represent the thin edge of the wedge, which would ultimately lead to regional government underpinning the federalist ambitions of many hon. Members and many in Europe.

§ Mr. Maclennan
The contributions of the hon. Members for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) have revealed a number of inconsistencies among the Adullamites of the Conservative Members below the Gangway. It has been interesting to hear them contradict each other about the potential importance of the Committee of the Regions.
I have no doubt that the committee can become extremely important; I have less doubt about advocating that it should do so. As the European union develops, it will become more natural for parts of that continent-wide political organisation to find common interests being expressed by different parts of Europe which are not always reflected in the historic national communities which are represented directly through the Council of Ministers. Indeed, there is already more in common, for 65 example, between the fishermen of Brittany and Jutland and of my constituency in the north of Scotland than between the fishing interests expressed by national Governments represented in Brussels in the Council of Ministers when they have sought to determine the common fisheries policy.

§ Mr. Gallie
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify how the Committee of the Regions could assist the fishermen to whom he refers, given the powers that it has?

§ Mr. Maclennan
I believe that it will help to focus on the practical consequences of proposals that are being made by, for example, the European Commission for regulations or directives which may affect their interests and which are not necessarily priorities for national Governments but which are priorities for the affected sectoral and local interests.
One has only to consider the debate about whether the highlands and islands of Scotland should be included in the objective 1 status for the purposes of assistance with structural development to recognise that there are, even now, issues of the greatest importance which it is difficult to get on to the agenda of the Council of Ministers because they are of regional but not national interest. Where there are allies to be found at regional level, the case for getting them on to the agenda of the Council of Ministers can be enormously strengthened. I hope that the Committee of the Regions will grow not only in influence but in authority and real power.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is always courteous.
If Scotland, for example, is to be treated as a region, does he accept that its representatives would not necessarily agree that the highlands should be the only part of Scotland to fall into the category to which he referred? Other parts of Scotland may be just as disadvantaged as the highlands, so that there may not be a unanimous view among the Scottish group.

§ Mr. Maclennan
It would be presumptious of me to look into that crystal ball, although I believe that the highlands and islands' special needs and problems have, on the whole, been recognised across the political parties and throughout Scotland, if not always by central Government at Westminster. I think it probable—I go no further than that—that elected representatives drawn from local authorities would always understand the peculiar needs of the geographical half of Scotland which is the highlands and islands. That is only speculative, and I am dealing with a more institutional point.
Should the committee have an important role? The Adullamite's view is that anything which enhances the effectiveness of the Community is not to be welcomed. Clearly, a body that draws its legitimacy in part from the fact that its membership, although appointed by the Government, has legitimate democratic roots is to that extent strengthened. Indeed, it is entirely consistent with the view of the hon. Member for Faversham who, although he has not exercised power over these matters in two decades, has nevertheless sought to exercise influence and is listened to with respect because his principles have been shining clearly during that time.
I hope that the committee will derive benefit from having a membership drawn from people who have subjected themselves to the arbitrament of election. That 66 gives people a degree of authority in affairs of state, a right to be listened to with some respect, which those who have simply been plucked out of the list of the great and the good by the Government of the day cannot possibly hope to enjoy.
Let me draw an example from close to home. At the general election I was opposed in Caithness and Sutherland by a Conservative candidate who had not stood for election before, certainly not to Parliament, and, if my memory does not mislead me, had not stood in a local government election either. Within a matter of months the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that if the northern unit of the Highland health board was to be established by the wish of those currently involved in running it, he had it in mind to appoint my Conservative opponent as its chairman; no doubt he was on the Secretary of State's list of the great and the good.
That is an issue of patronage. That is how the Government have proceeded for more than 12 years, and it causes some resentment. I have a great regard for my Conservative opponent, who is a man of sense in many matters, and a man of high public spirit—but he has not succeeded in being elected. Many people who have been involved in running hospital affairs in my constituency and in the rest of Scotland have stood for election and have been elected. It seems to me perverse that those people should all have been bypassed in favour of somebody who has not been elected, and it also undermines that person's authority. It does not strengthen the unit that is being set up.
I cite that local example in support of the case for appointing representatives from among those who have been elected, as the new clause specifies. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—

§ Sir Roger Moate
May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his example of the health authority? We can all think of similar arguments from other parts of the United Kingdom. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would not object so strongly to someone's being appointed to such a post if that person had been officially elected to any body? Would he prefer such a person to be a business man, for example, or to be someone else who had been taken from the community and appointed to chair the health authority? Rather than drawing an analogy with a defeated candidate, is it not fairer to compare an elected councillor with another leading, but non-elected, person in the community?

§ Mr. Maclennan
I do not think that people have to be either councillors or business men. Many of the most effective councillors I know are extremely effective business men in their own right. The field would not be seriously narrowed.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate)? The option that the Government would have preferred would have allowed for a substantial number of elected local government representatives, but we should not have been alone in the Community in our wish to keep a proportion of the representation so as to enable business men and environmentalists, for example, and representatives of other interests to serve on the Committee of the Regions. Other countries have so ordered their affairs.
I do not believe that there is a great issue of principle at stake here; it is a matter of judgment. Our judgment was 67 that it was not the wisest course to tie down future British Governments and restrict them solely to elected local government representatives.

§ Mr. Maclennan
I simply disagree with the Government's initial analysis. I may be revealing my hand when I say that I want the Committee of the Regions to develop, and that if it developed into a second chamber of the European Parliament I should not find that unwelcome. I have always taken the view that a Committee of the Regions could well develop into a senate of the European Parliament. That idea is in the back of my mind, and that is the direction in which I wish to see the committee develop, so naturally I should like it to start its life on something as close as possible to a democratic basis. Clearly it will not start on a wholly democratic basis because the Government will choose this country's representatives, so the democratic element could be introduced only at a second stage.
If we could start to invent a constitution for the United Kingdom, few people would dream up anything like the House of Lords, an upper House in which people who have not been subject to election legislate for us. In Europe we are at the beginning of that process and we have the opportunity to avoid creating unaccountable, unelected institutions which inevitably speak with less authority than they would enjoy if they had been elected.
Notwithstanding the rather peculiar way in which the Government have been led to introduce new clause 42, and the strange deals that they struck in Committee with the most unlikely people, I freely admit that I think that some progress has been made. I should like to think that we shall move towards a system whereby the Committee of the Regions will be established by either direct or indirect elections, to give it authority, so that the highlands and islands of Scotland can speak directly to, say, Sicily about the problems of remoteness and how the European Community's legislative process should take those problems into account in reaching its conclusions.
It is no use saying that that can all be ironed out at national level. No doubt Sicily will find Rome as unresponsive to its problems of remoteness from the centre as the highlands and islands find London.

§ Mr. John D. Taylor
I find it difficult to follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the highlands and islands of Scotland speaking directly within the context of the European Community to people from the island of Sicily. Surely that already happens. Elected members from Sicily and from Scotland—including Scottish nationalists—serve on the regional policy committee of the European Parliament. Why is it wrong that elected representatives from Sicily and from Scotland should speak together on the regional committee of the European Parliament yet right that they should do so on the Committee of the Regions?

§ Sir Roger Moate
Because that would be the hon. Gentleman's second chamber.

§ Mr. Maclennan
Exactly. It would reinforce the effectiveness of those representatives' voice. I do not see the issue as an either/or choice. It is certainly desirable that members of the European Parliament from the highlands 68 should talk to members of the European Parliament from Sicily, but how much more effective it would be if those interests were reinforced at another level of the Community legislative process, by the direct contact that I foresee in the new development. I believe that there is considerable enthusiasm for the idea, at least in the highlands and islands of Scotland. There had already been contact between elected councillors, who had meetings with their opposite numbers long before the Committee of the Regions was dreamt up, and sought to promote within the European Community the interests of what were called the peripheral regions.
That is entirely welcome to me, because most of the tendencies of the Community in its first few years—possibly for its first decade—were centralising. There was a failure to recognise that the needs of those beyond the golden triangle must be consciously protected by the legislative processes of the Community and that something more than mere lip service to those interests was required if the Community was not to be seen as a malign influence on the development of our country.
The new clause is a welcome measure. It does not go anything like far enough towards the establishment of a powerful part of a legislative process, but it will be useful.

§ Mr. Marlow
Local councillors are responsible for various functions, such as education, social services, housing and planning. They are responsible for others, but those are the most important. Europe is not responsible for housing, education, social services or planning. If the detested Committee of the Regions is to exist, why send councillors to it?

§ Mr. Maclennan
That is a good question to address to the Government. Why not send directly elected people to it? That would be the preferable route. We should have a Committee of the Regions with members directly elected by a fair and proportional system. That would secure a more suitable form of legislature.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
The hon. Gentleman might find it helpful to throw that question back to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) because when we debated an amendment in the same terms in Committee, he voted for the proposition that he is now questioning.

§ Mr. Maclennan
I am grateful to the Minister for prodding my memory. It is unusual to invite the hon. Member who has the Floor to ask another hon. Member to intervene in the way the Minister suggests, and I am not sure how the Chair would react to such a request by me. But the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is not usually slow to intervene if he sees an opportunity to get himself out of a hole that the Minister has dug for him.
I am satisfied that, so far as it goes, the new clause is to be welcomed. It is a modest step towards democratic accountability, to strengthening the authority of the Committee of the Regions and to giving it some influence, albeit modest, over the legislative process of the Community. To that, at this stage in its development, is perhaps as far as we can aspire.

§ Mr. Marlow
The Minister of State made, towards the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), an uncharacteristically ungenerous intervention. I did indeed vote for the 69 amendment in Committee, and I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would have been grateful to see a sinner turn to repentance. But I have not turned to repentance, because I knew precisely what I was doing when I voted in Committee.
I do not like the Committee of the Regions, and I do not like the Bill. I thought that we should have further debate about the Committee of the Regions and that we should certainly debate the Bill on Report. My right hon. Friend and I have discussed these issues before. On one occasion, we spoke about a tactical or probing closure. On that occasion, it was a probing vote.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I am seeking to establish, not just for the group of amendments now before the House but perhaps for others, that the votes that my hon. Friend casts are cast primarily for tactical reasons rather than For any attachment to a cause. He seems to be suggesting that, although I do not wish to lead him down a route that he does not intend to take.

§ Mr. Marlow
In common with my right hon. Friend, one votes in this place for a variety of reasons on a variety of occasions. On that occasion, rather than a tactical it was a strategic decision to vote for the amendment. We now have an opportunity to put the matter right.
Hon. Members may be aware that my name is attached to two amendments in the group now being discussed. Both are concerned with representation on the Committee of the Regions. I am in very august company on one, because the first name, after which mine appears, is that of the Foreign Secretary. That amendment would withdraw from the amended Bill the amendment to which the House agreed in Committee, and hurrah for that.

§ Sir Roger Moate
Would my hon. Friend vote for that?

§ Mr. Marlow
Most certainly. I would vote for it for strategic and tactical reasons, and with pleasure. It is my intention to vote for it should an opportunity arise at a later stage.
I have tabled another amendment about how and from where—from which parts of the United Kingdom—the members of the committee should be selected. I understand that the Committee of the Regions is basically a body that has been established for reasons that we have not been given. But we know, if we read the treaty in detail, that the committee will be consulted about the allocation of structural funds and regional development funds. In other words, where there is money to be spent, members of the Committee of the Regions will be guiding and directing, as far as they can, where that money should be spent.
That brings me to the important issue of who should be on the committee. I asked the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland what the organisation would do. One reads the treaty from beginning to end and one reads in Hansard, among other things, the remarks that the Minister of State made on previous occasions about the remit and role of the committee, but nothing can one find.
But one knows, having had a certain amount of exposure to European legislation, having read the treaty in some detail and knowing where European legislation will go in the future, that Europe does not have responsibility for education or local planning—

§ Sir Roger Moate
Or for social services.

§ Mr. Marlow
Exactly: as my hon. Friend points out, it does not have responsibility for social services. It does not have any responsibility for those activities for which local government is responsible. So if we are to send people to the committee, and if the Committee of the Regions is to exist, the last people on earth we should send at this stage are local councillors, because they will be talking about issues that have nothing to do with local councils.
It is clear that we must have another think aboul the matter. That is one reason why I am delighted to have voted as I did in Committee, because the House now has another opportunity to look carefully at that important organisation, the Committee of the Regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) said that he saw it as a potential second chamber, a sort of senate—

§ Sir Roger Moate
I did not say that.

§ Mr. Marlow
I apologise if I have misinterpreted my hon. Friend.

§ Sir Roger Moate
I hope that my hon. Friend will not credit me with such ambitions or fears. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), speaking for the Liberals, saw it, frankly and honestly, as a potential second chamber. Perish the thought. One has that very fear, for it could go in all sorts of directions and I do not for a moment want to think of it going in that direction.

§ Mr. Marlow
If I credited my hon. Friend with an interpretation that was not correct, I immediately discredit him with that interpretation. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, it is pregnant with potential—with great powers and potential damage—so we must be careful whom we send, and the last people we should send are local councillors.
Whom should we send? If there is to be local representation from the United Kingdom, we must look at the different parts of the country, at the different interests and think of the different sorts of people who should go. If London is a region, the best people to send are active professionals and financiers from London who know how the City of London and the guilds work and about the wealth-creating activities of the capital. They are best able to represent London, because they generate its wealth.
If we are to send people from the midlands region—the black country and Birmingham—where much manufacturing takes place, perhaps we should send representatives from the wealth-creating community there. In other contexts, we should send arts and heritage people and those concerned with culture and the environment. Consider the broad open spaces of Lincolnshire and the west country, where there is a great deal of agricultural activity. The best person to send from there might be a representative of the National Farmers Union or the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. Councillors are the last people we should send.

§ Mr. Maclennan
Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that Lord Plumb, who was elected to the European Parliament, was the president of the National Farmers Union? Election to an organisation does not preclude someone from having a knowledge of what he or she is talking about.

§ Mr. Marlow
That is a statement of the blindingly obvious. If we leave the Bill as it is at present, it means that members of the Committee of the Regions should be, first and foremost, local councillors. It is my view—after mature consideration I expect that it will be the view of Conservative Members, and possibly of the House—that those people are the least able to fulfil the role, particularly if it becomes an important one.
We want people from the regions who represent the most important things which are happening there, for which Europe has responsibility. Europe has responsibility for trade and agriculture, and growing responsibilities in other spheres, many of which I would resist. Europe certainly has responsibility in matters of trade and agriculture. Therefore, surely, if regional views are to be represented at the European level, it is vital to send representatives of the regional views who are members of the corporate state—the great and the good, trade unionists, manufacturers, those with commercial and agricultural interests, and industrialists. Of course, there is a European dimension to our cultural and environmental affairs.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in a previous debate—[Interruption.] He does not have to listen to what I am saying, it is not particularly important. There are organisations within our body politic where people with different interests and from different parties can come together, consult and decide on the most appropriate people to fulfil the functions. I am sure that that process could be put into action through the usual channels. However, I stress that the important factor is to send those people who will make the most impact on the policies decided at European level, and those people should not be councillors.
The amendment in my name—I think, amendment No. 32—covers how the positions should be allocated within the United Kingdom, which is to have 24 seats. I understand that the Scots and the Welsh have their eye on the lion's share of the seats, and I can understand why. They have always looked upon themselves as different and specific regions, and having done so, they expect to be treated better, pro rata, than the rest of the kingdom.
Even my right hon. Friend the Minister said on 25 February that he recognised that there would need to be some tilting towards Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 1064.] I do not recognise that, and I do not think that my constituents do. It has nothing to do with the states, principalities and nations that make up the United Kingdom, but with the fact that equal representation is available to all
We know that, for historical reasons, Scottish Members of the House represent fewer constituents than English Members. As I understand it, that was contained in the treaty of Union, and we cannot do a great deal about it —perhaps we should not. However, we do not have to extend that principle to the Committee of the Regions. Nobody has given any justification or reason why we should do so.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
My hon. Friend will notice that my name appears among those supporting his amendment. I speak as a Scot and ask my hon. Friend whether he believes that there is a danger of the separatists using the 72 vehicle of additional bodies in what they believe to be places of influence to undermine Parliament. That is why it would be wrong to base the representation of the Committee of the Regions on the representation in this place.

§ Mr. Marlow
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for my amendment, and I also concur with what he has said. I am sure that it is more than a twinkle or gleam in the eye of the Commission that the Committee of the Regions should include among its functions that of dissolving the bonds within the United Kingdom, so that Brussels can reach over the head of the House and seduce what it considers to be the regions away from Parliament, the House and the kingdom. Surely it must be our role to thwart that ambition.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I hope that it has not escaped the attention of my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that the way to have cast aside the fears now being expressed with such eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North would have beer to support the Government in defeating Labour's amendment in Committee. Had they done so, none of the fears that my hon. Friend is now voicing about elected councillors and deals with nationalists would have arisen.

§ Mr. Marlow
With respect, I think that I have covered that issue. I am now talking, not about whether elected councillors should be appointed, but about the regional allocation of seats.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Perhaps uncharacteristically, far from apologising for having discussions through the usual channels in the House, on this occasion I regard them as a good thing in themselves. However, such discussions would probably not have been initiated had my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North and for Tayside, North supported the Government on the amendment.

§ Mr. Marlow
I am not sure what my right hon. Friend is saying, but it could be very important. If my right hon. Friend is saying that he did not like the amendment in Committee, is not happy with new clause 42 which the Government have tabled, would be happy for it to be defeated and then propose a mixture of appointees to the Committee of the Regions which would do the job more effectively for the United Kingdom, I should be happy to support him.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
My hon. Friend—whom I hold in esteem and affection—is telling the House that he will now vote against precisely the same proposition as he supported in Committee. I beg him not to play games with me or the House. The Government were defeated in Committee. We are now acting as a Government should in that position. We had to decide whether to seek to overturn the decision—we believe that we do not have the support of my hon. Friend in doing so—or to comply with the will of the House. We are complying with the will of the House. I beg my hon. Friend not to play games with either the House or me. He supported one proposition a month ago and is now speaking and advocating a vote against the proposition.

§ Mr. Marlow
I genuinely hold my right hon. Friend in great esteem and affection—I am sure that my right hon. 73 Friend was also genuine when he made that remark of me. I explained in detail to my right hon. Friend what happened on a previous occasion. My right hon. Friend was saying with regard to our Irish friends in the Chamber that he would not want to start from here, but we are here, and we have to improve the position from here. The Government are apparently accepting what happened in Committee. If the Government have a better policy that they feel will better fulfil the United Kingdom's role than the solution produced in Committee.—[Interruption.] If my right hon. Friend wants to discuss possible alternatives that will gain majority support among Conservative Members and sufficient support within the House to gain victory, he should produce them.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I shall not intervene on my hon. Friend again, but he is playing games with me and with the House that do not deceive me or the House. It is clear that he played games in Committee and is playing games again. I think that that fact should lie on the record.

§ Mr. Marlow
That is my right hon. Friend's view. My right hon. Friend knows that the Bill is dynamite. There are many ways of resolving the problems that we face. There are opportunities for the Government, not only here but in another place, to resolve the problems over the Committee of the Regions. If the Government feel that the Bill, as presently amended, is wrong, they have plenty of opportunities to put it right. They will receive the overwhelming support of Conservative Members.

§ Mr. Mallon
I listened to the hon. Gentleman with some interest in Committee, as I have today, and I see that there is some misunderstanding between the Minister and himself. Let me give him the opportunity of clarifying matters. Will he confirm to the House—it would dispel the fears of the Minister and many others—whether, irrespective of how many would be on the committee, who they were, from where they were selected and how they were to operate, he would still be opposed to a Committee of the Regions—or are there circumstances in which he would support it? That would clarify the position for us all.

§ Mr. Marlow
To be quite frank, I do not like the Committee of the Regions. I am not sure what it is there to do, potentially what it might do in future, what its powers may be and how the House will be able to influence those powers at a later stage. If there is to be a Committee of the Regions, I believe that there may be a balance of members and a means of appointment that may be more satisfactory than that on the face of the Bill.

§ Mr. Mallon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for going some way towards clarifying his position. He voted against it on the last occasion and he is voting for it today, so we are becoming confused. I ask him again whether there is any set of circumstances, irrespective of the numbers on the committee and its personnel, in which he would vote for a Committee of the Regions.

§ Mr. Marlow
The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is that, if I could abolish the Committee of the Regions, I would do so. But if there is to be a Committee of the Regions and if I have any ability to influence its membership, I would seek to do so in such a way as not to have locally elected councillors and to look at the regional allocation of membership of the committee.
74 Luxembourg, which has roughly the same population as Northamptonshire, has been allocated six places on the Committee of the Regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) was talking about the red banana—the wealthy part of Europe with the fewest regional problems—and that includes Luxembourg.
In the House, there are six hon. Members representing Northamptonshire. Luxembourg is of similar size, but is to have six out of 189 members of the Committee of the Regions throughout Europe. That is totally disproportionate and unacceptable.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)
Luxembourg is a very small country with one full-powered Commissioner to balance it out. Why should it have six representatives on the Committee of the Regions when it has a full-powered Commissioner at the seat where decisions are taken?

§ Mr. Marlow
I could not agree more strongly. The powers of the small states within Europe are far too great in proportion to their population. Why should we reinforce and sustain that?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. This has very little to do with the Committee of the Regions.

§ Mr. Marlow
I certainly accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
With regard to the number of members of the Committee of the Regions, if I were to ask my constituents whether Northampton should be included with four or five other counties, they would not accept that. Why should Luxembourg have 20 times the representation of Northamptonshire? Has it regional problems additional to those in Northamptonshire? How can it he justified? How can we agree to the over-representation of Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland and Denmark?
The balance of the Committee of the Regions will come from the smaller countries of Europe. Countries such as Belgium and Holland are part of the wealthy heart of Europe; they do not have more problems, and they do not need more consideration and a higher profile on the Committee of the Regions. Why have we agreed to that? Returning to the membership of the United Kingdom allocation, surely it should be decided on a pro rata basis within the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield)
Does it follow from the hon. Gentleman's argument that he believes that Germany should have approximately twice as many representatives as the United Kingdom on the Committee of the Regions?

§ Mr. Marlow
I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has made some splendid speeches on the Bill, but he will know as I do that the population of Germany is not twice that of the United Kingdom. Under present proposals, Germany is getting the same allocation as the United Kingdom. That is wrong; there should be more German representatives on the Committee of the Regions than there are representatives from the United Kingdom. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to provoke me into agreeing with him, but we do agree.

§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)
Does the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument suggest that he is a late convert to proportional representation?

§ Mr. Marlow
I take the Italian view of proportional representation. I do not support proportional representation. It has nothing to do with proportional representation. If my hon. Friend thinks that to have similar-sized constituencies in Lincolnshire, Essex, the west country or Scotland is proportional representation, that is not my understanding. It is the first-past-the-post system in which each Member of Parliament has roughly the same number of constituents. We have the same job, and in this day and age, when much is done by telephone and through the media, the size of the constituency rather than the number of people in it is less relevant than it was in the past.
If we are to establish a new organisation, the most sensible way to do it is on a pro rata basis, not just between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but within England and the rest of Europe. I find it difficult to support a concept that does the opposite.
Having said all that, the amendment in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would delete the amendment made in Committee. I know it will cause great consternation to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but I shall have great joy in supporting it when the time comes.

§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
This has been quite a remarkable debate in one unique sense—that the integrity of myself and my colleagues has been attacked from a number of directions. We had a fierce attack from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), flanked as he was earlier by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). We had an equally fierce attack from those who have opposed the Bill throughout the Committee stage.
It is quite remarkable that we should have been subject to those attacks, bearing in mind of course that we supported the Bill on Second Reading. We made it quite clear on Second Reading and in Committee why we supported the Bill: we wanted to see the Maastricht treaty implemented quickly. We wanted to see progress being made towards its ratification.
I hope that the hon. Members who attacked us for voting in that way will at least acknowledge that we were consistent. Throughout the Committee stage of the Bill we supported ways in which quicker progress could be made and we voted to ensure that any amendment which sought to wreck the treaty and undermine it was voted down. That was an honourable position for us to have taken and we have been consistent in our view.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said, "Look how many times Plaid Cymru voted for the Bill." We make no apologies whatsoever for that because we are four square behind the principles enshrined in the treaty. It does not go as far as we would like in a number of respects, but our position is absolutely clear.
In responding to my interventions, the hon. Member for Hamilton failed to acknowledge that there was no difference whatsoever in the pattern of voting that I and my colleagues established prior to the vote on the Committee of the Regions and subsequently. He will find the same consistent pattern. What surprised me about the voting records of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. 76 Friends, particularly as the hon. Gentleman is an avowed pro-European, is that on more than 30 occasions they were prepared to walk through the Lobbies with Conservative Members whose avowed intention is to destroy the treaty. They consistently voted with them.
Why did they do that? Why do pro-Europeans find themselves in the Lobby with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? What did he tell us tonight? He wants to scrap the Committee of the Regions. He wants to see it destroyed. What did the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) tell the House? He said that the Committee of the Regions is a pathetic and absolutely useless body. Yet on that night he was in the Lobby with Labour Members. That is a contradiction. How can one say that one favours a principle and yet consistently vote against it?

§ Mr. George Robertson
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) says that he is voting on principle, but with his colleagues he is a signatory to amendment No. 2. If the Government put the Tellers in, he will be voting with us and with the Tory rebels on amendment No. 2. He has made an exception in that instance. Why should he criticise hon. Members who have made that discriminating choice on other occasions?

§ Mr. Jones
The hon. Member for Hamilton claims to have read our voting record and to have given the House the numbers. He spoke of 52 occasions out of 59. Did he read the vote in the House on his party's amendment to the social chapter on Second Reading? Where did he find us in the Lobbies on that night? He found us with himself and his hon. Friends because we are consistent and have always said that the social chapter should be included. [Interruption.] On Second Reading the Opposition put down an amendment which said that the social chapter should be part of the treaty. We voted with Labour Members on that occasion because we believe in it. That is the principle on which we stood.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Hamilton, I asked myself why he was attacking us. What does he find obnoxious in Wales getting at least three members, and possibly four, on the Committee of the Regions? What does he find obnoxious in my party's accepting that the members of the Committee of the Regions should be elected councillors or in the fact that the representatives in Wales should be answerable to a body?
Then I realised why he did not like the arrangement to ensure that Wales has a number of representatives to the Committee of the Regions which is more than his party would allow. A report in the Municipal Journal of 12 March 1993 shows that the Labour-dominated associations of local authorities have carved up the Committee of the Regions between themselves. This is the deal that the Labour party has done to stitch up Wales and Scotland. Let me tell the House about it: The associations have agreed how the committee places should he divided, with 10 for English shire areas; six (English metropolitan districts); two (London); two (Wales); three (Scotland) and one for Northern Ireland. Is that what the Labour party wants Wales to have—two representives on the Committee of the Regions? That was not good enough for us in March. It is not good enough for us today either. We are out to get the best deal that we can for Wales. We are out to ensure not only that 77 we get the highest number possible squeezed out of the House of Commons but that they do not come from one party.

§ Mr. Marlow
What the hon. Gentleman says is very interesting. Is he saying that the Labour party suggests that Wales should have twice as many members of the Committee of the Regions as London, which has four times the population of Wales? How does he justify that?

§ Mr. Jones
We have always accepted that there is a difficulty about representation in the House for Wales and Scotland. The hon. Member for Northampton, North has acknowledged that the House accepts that. The principle is enshrined in the way in which hon. Members are elected to the House. The hon. Member has said that there are more representatives from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for historical reasons. That, I believe, should be reflected in the way we send people to the Committee of the Regions.

§ Mr. Marlow
Why?

§ Mr. Jones
Because we are disadvantaged.
Let me return to the point that I was making about who should go to the Committee of the Regions. We made it clear that they should be elected councillors and that nobody else was acceptable. Let me go further. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Hamilton. He said that Labour Members did not want the House of Commons to decide who should select the representatives, that Labour Members were perfectly content for the House of Commons to state that they should be elected councillors and that they did not want to tie the hands of the House as to how those people should be selected. Under the Labour amendment the three, or two, representing the region of Wales on the Committee of the Regions could be Conservative councillors, and they could not have opposed that. That might be the Government's choice. Conversely—and this is the real reason why the Labour party did not want to tie anyone's hands—if it had its way, they would be three, or two, Labour councillors.
I say that because I listened with care to the hon. Member for Hamilton saying that because Plaid Cymru had less than 10 per cent. of the vote in Wales it should not have a representative and because the Liberal party had only 15 per cent. of the vote it should not have one. The Labour party had 50 per cent. of the vote in Wales. Does that mean that all the councillors should be Labour?

§ Mr. Ron Davies
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not being strictly accurate in his representation of Labour party policy. It has been made abundantly clear by me and by many of my colleagues who represent Welsh constituencies that it is our intention—and it is a fact, now that the House has accepted our proposal—that these representatives should come from local government. We have made it clear that the precise mechanism for choosing those individuals should be decided by the institutions of local government in Wales, either by the Association of Welsh Counties or by the Council of Welsh Districts.
Let me make clear a point that should be established at this stage. The proposition that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) has entered into by means of some covert agreement with the Government will now require members of Plaid Cymru to submit a list to the Government so that they can vet those nominees and make a selection from the 78 names. That is not the way the Labour party intends to do it. If it is the case that one representative is allocated to the Labour party, we will have a secret ballot. Why does the hon. Gentleman not decide that this is an appropriate course of action for him to follow?

§ Mr. Jones
Let me make it clear to the hon. Member that there would be no veto on anyone chosen if it should be a Plaid Cymru representative. I can tell him as well that there would be no Plaid Cymru, Liberal or any other representative if the Labour party had its way.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that as regards Wales the Labour amendment is wholly otiose because all the discussions that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends had with the Treasury Bench were at all times on the basis that all representatives should be representatives of local government? So there is nothing in the amendment for Wales.

§ Mr. Jones
Absolutely. The only arrangement that benefits Wales is the one made by Plaid Cymru, no thanks to the Labour party which would have let Wales down with two representatives, it seems, as Labour Members have not challenged the report in the Municipal Journal.

§ Mr. Salmond
Will the hon. Member reflect on the earlier part of the debate and the revelation of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, dominated by the Labour party, has suggested that five out of the six representatives allowed by the Labour party, that is, three representatives and three alternates, should be Labour councillors?
In an earlier debate, that seemed to come as something of a surprise to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). Does it give the hon. Gentleman any confidence that the Labour party would treat Wales any differently from Scotland, where it has tried to carve up the seats according to its liking?

§ Mr. Jones
My hon. Friend makes his own point. It is perfectly clear that the reason why the Labour party was so angry about the arrangement that we were able to secure for Wales was that it upset the little stitch-up that it had done with its friends elsewhere.

§ Mr. Ron Davies
The hon. Gentleman is giving the House entirely inaccurate information. If he consults the councillors who represent his party on the Council of Welsh Districts, they will tell him that I and my colleagues met them in January of this year and made it absolutely clear that the Labour party recognised that there would have to be a plurality of representation. Furthermore, we believed that the decision should be based on a secret ballot of all councillors in Wales, making up an electoral college devised in such a way as to provide proper representation for the north, the south, the east, the west, urban and rural districts, and men and women. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this and stop trying to misrepresent the Labour party's position.

§ Mr. Jones
The hon. Gentleman has spent six weeks misrepresenting the position of my party. All I have done is quote a report that appeared in a respected journal, showing what the Labour-dominated Association of Welsh Counties has said.
79 I would take all this much more kindly from the hon. Gentleman if everything that he has said about his wishes had been included in his amendment. Had it mentioned plurality and the sort of numbers that Wales should have, I could have accepted that.

§ Mr. Hoon
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and have tried to understand the basis on which he suggests representation should be allocated to the Committee of the Regions. I do not question his claim to be a man of principle from a party of principle, but what I have failed to understand from his speech is what exactly the principle of representation that he advocates is. I have been able to understand only that he says Wales should get more because Wales is disadvantaged. I do not dispute that—Scotland is disadvantaged, the east midlands is disadvantaged, and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent disadvantaged constituencies in the north. That is not a principle: I am looking for a principle.

§ Mr. Jones
That is a good point, to which I shall come later.
I would like to list what we consider important ingredients in the way in which the committee's representatives are to be selected. First, there should be some bias in favour of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Secondly, the representatives should be elected people. Thirdly, they should not be chosen by Ministers. Fourthly, they should not come from one political tradition; they should reflect the diversity of political tradition in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Finally, they should go to the committee not merely representing themselves but as representing Wales; hence, they should report back.
These are the principles on which we have fought the campaign, and I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly accepts that. I outlined all these points once or twice in Committee, and the Minister responded to them there. There was nothing secret about them, either.

§ Mr. George Robertson
The vote in which the hon. Gentleman sided with the Government was a vote about the United Kingdom's delegation to the Committee of the Regions. I know that the hon. Gentleman represents a separatist party, so he may have no interest in the general composition of that delegation. The hon. Gentleman alleges that the principles on which he bases his support for the Government include the idea that something positive is being done for Wales. I should like to know whether he has the agreement in writing, because that is more than the SNP has. I say this because what the hon. Gentleman did on the night in question was to throw the rest of the country back into the lap of the Government's attempt to put their cronies—business men and appointees—on the committee to represent the rest of the country. Does the hon. Gentleman's interest in local democracy end at the borders of Wales; or did he ignore the interests of the rest of the country when he sided with the crony-backing Tory Government?

§ Mr. Jones
I find the hon. Gentleman's turn of phrase offensive. He has accused me of being a separatist—an emotive word. How can someone who supports the Maastricht treaty be a separatist?

§ Mr. Robertson
My knowledge of Wales—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. This is going rather wide of the new clause. Hon. Members can hold their discussions and fights outside.

§ Mr. Jones
I just want to put it on record that I deny that I am a separatist: I support the Maastricht treaty and this European Bill, which moves in a direction giving Wales a greater voice in the European Community, not on its own but in partnership with other small nations in the EC—

§ Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
But many of the EC institutions are run from the centre.

§ Mr. Jones
I know that there is a distinctive voice in the Labour party that disagrees, and I understand and respect it—but I also want to make clear where I stand. Unlike Conservative Members, I believe that the Committee of the Regions has a valuable role to play. Certainly it is only a consultative body, but in time it will become a powerful voice for the regions and historic nations of Europe. I hope that that time will come soon.

§ Mr. Mallon
The debate began with an exposition of the nationalist parties' position, and it is ending on the same note. At the core of the debate have been several principles. It is remarkable how, in politics, when we discuss principles we soon get on to numbers—to do with representation or with pounds—but that seems to apply the world over.
In Committee and again today, we have often heard terms such as the nation, the state and the region. That is why this is an interesting part of the Maastricht debate. Nationalism has been debated in relation to the committee in four different ways. I can understand the position of the Scottish National party; I can understand the position of Plaid Cymru, which has presented its nationalist, if not separatist, ideas quite clearly; I even think that I can understand our party's nationalist position on this. The position that really intrigues me, however, is that of the English nationalists, as expressed by Conservative Members throughout these debates.
As a nationalist myself, I think that people are entitled to be English nationalists, just as I am entitled to be a separatist from Northern Ireland who believes that nationalism is a potent, creative and outgoing force. The problem with the English nationalist position, as expressed in these debates, is that it is introverted, inward looking and blinkered, refusing to look beyond itself and using this innocuous Committee of the Regions as an excuse to defend that inability to look outwards and see that there is a world in which it can flourish.
One good thing about the Committee of the Regions is that the representatives of each country will be in a minority. There will be nothing but minorities. Therefore, alliances will be forged and arrangements will be made to suit regions. There will be an agricultural lobby, which will be good for agriculture, and an industrial lobby, which will be good for industry. There will be lobbies for business and for labour.
It is likely that the representatives from this country, from Wales, from Scotland or even from Northern Ireland, if we have representation, will not all go in the same direction at all times. That will be good, because the Committee of the Regions will lead to a new type of debate about our involvement in Europe. Representatives will not consider matters from a national, a state or even a regional 81 position, but much more broadly. They will deal with matters more constructively than under the accepted Anglo-American system of a parliamentary democracy governed by a Whip system. That will be to the benefit of every country.
The new clause proposes that representation be confined to those elected to local authorities. I have reservations about that in relation to the north of Ireland. I wish well those who will have to endure the attitudes taken by members of Belfast city council, if they happen to be representatives. Again, there would be an advantage because it is rumoured that travel and involvement in Europe broaden the mind. We have only to look round this Parliament to see evidence of that. People come back from the European Parliament with broader views, especially if they represent Northern Ireland constituencies. That could contribute enormously to Northern Ireland.
I do not want to be parochial, except on one point. Some people refer to themselves as a nation or as a state, and look upon themselves as a state within a nation, but no one can argue that Northern Ireland is a nation., a state or a state within a nation. If ever a piece of legislation was framed to suit an area, it is the European Communities (Amendment) Bill because we truly are a region and we want to be part of the Europe of the regions because of the benefits which can accrue from it.
There will be not just financial benefit but other benefits too: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. The interchange of ideas can only be good for all of us, whatever regions we represent. A cultural interchange is surely worth developing within Europe. There is also political interchange. Are we so perfect that we cannot learn from other countries? Whoever we are, or wherever we come from, surely we can learn from other political or governmental arrangements within Europe. Or are we frozen in time and in our attitudes to the political process? We should not think of the benefits simply in monetary terms; there is more to it than that.
7.45 pm
The European experiment is growing and I support it fully. I support the Maastricht treaty because I am a nationalist and want to see the nationalisms that exist on both sides of the House developing in a creative, constructive way. We know what it is to have nationalism that is not constructive. Let us take the meaning of the words "Sinn Fein"; translated literally, they mean "ourselves alone". That is not the way in which to create a future. That form of nationalism is destructive and introverted, and it will not contribute to the wider Europe which we all want.
If there is one reason why we should want a wider Europe with an interchange of views, cultures and experience, it is what is happening in Yugoslavia. If it is thought that the new Europe should have a role in European defence, surely it is better that representatives from all parts of the region should add to the views of Governments. I welcome that as well.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned nationalists in different guises, shapes and forms. He leaves me bemused because he told us that he wants to see Europe working and the greater involvement of all countries. Those are splendid 82 aspirations, yet he comes from a part of the United Kingdom where there is much trouble and he is part of a political system which wishes not to be part of the United Kingdom. He seemed to be making a case for being part of Europe which could equally be made for being part of the United Kingdom. He talked about working together. All the things that he said about Europe should be said about the United Kingdom and the benefits of the United Kingdom.
I wonder what category the hon. Gentleman would put me in. I am a Scot who has been concerned from the outset that the Maastricht treaty is an instrument that may, and probably will, lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is why I, as a Scot, oppose in principle the setting up of the Committee of the Regions.
Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is not here. Earlier he chastised my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for being inconsistent and playing games. I trust that I am neither inconsistent nor deemed by anyone to be playing games. I do not support the setting up of the Committee of the Regions because I have a clear view of its possible impact on Scotland. But when it became clear that there would probably be a majority in favour of the Committee of the Regions, I had to examine carefully its composition and the way in which membership was to be allocated. I had in mind the possibility of a Report stage, and I wanted to ensure that we had the opportunity to consider the composition again. That seemed tactically to be wise. We were successful in both attempts. That is hardly playing games. Surely that is what Parliament is for.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
Does my hon. Friend agree that the real playing of games was referred to by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), in his sincere speech, when he talked about Yugoslavia where there was the same artificial federation, without democracy, as is proposed for Europe?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We must not discuss Yugoslavia.

§ Mr. Walker
I shall not be tempted to do that. It is arrogant for politicians of my generation, who have been unable to resolve Northern Ireland's problems, to assume that we can resolve the problems of Europe and the world. I have never been able to understand that arrogance, because, as a Scot, I live with a constant constitutional problem. I fight every election on it and have been involved in it throughout my adult life because the constitution is important to all Scots from whatever side of the political spectrum.
No one doubts the integrity of the nationalists who clearly state that they want a separate Scotland with a separate Parliament, although I do not agree with that view. Nationalists see the Committee of the Regions as a vehicle by which they can further their aims. They make no secret of what they are attempting to do and I do not argue with the principle of that. However, those of us who oppose that should look carefully at the composition of the committee and how its members are selected because that will have a bearing on future events, especially if the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has his way and it becomes what he called a senate, a second chamber to the European Parliament.
That is the route to separation. The European Parliament is trying to draw more powers to itself, and it 83 is proper for it to do that, although I do not agree with it. Our job in looking carefully at how the committee will be established and at the people who will serve on it will be to ensure that we do not pander to situations and circumstances that could lead to the creation of a vehicle for breaking up the United Kingdom.
No one should be in any doubt about the impact on the Scottish media when Brussels starts to deal directly with Edinburgh. That will be exploited by those who wish to break up the United Kingdom, and they will do that honourably and properly because that is what they want to do. This unitary Parliament with all its failings, including me with all my failings, and despite the fact that none of my amendments has been selected—which is my fault and not the fault of Parliament—is still the best legislative assembly anywhere. That does not mean that it is not vulnerable, because one of the great problems with democracy is that if we get things wrong we are in danger of setting up structures that may destroy what we set out to protect.
The problem with the Committee of the Regions is that it will become more than a talking shop, just as the European Parliament became more than just a talking shop. For those who do not know, the proportions in which we elect people to this place were laid down in a treaty signed in 1707 but which was the Scottish Act of 1706. Article 22 of that treaty of Union clearly sets out the numbers and it has nothing to do with Wales or Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Mallon
I should like to respond as sincerely as possible to the points made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are not debating Yugoslavia.

§ Mr. Mallon
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the arrangement between Scotland and England. That is the same type of federalism that was referred to in another context.

§ Mr. Walker
I do not propose to enter that area. I have spent my adult life debating constitutional issues and I would welcome any opportunity to debate that matter anywhere with the hon. Gentleman. I know the contents of the treaty of Union and the changes that have been made since 1707. I have spent a lifetime studying it.
Parliament is drifting into a situation which will lead to those who follow me waking up one day and saying, "Good heavens, we have created a monster which will break up the United Kingdom." As I said in another speech, there is no point in saying, "I didnae ken", because, as the Scots say, "Ye ken noo." I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has returned to his place, because I dealt with his intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.
One of the great problems in attempting to address this massive constitutional issue is that some people have trivialised it and have attempted to categorise people by putting them into suitable pigeon holes. Those of us who care about this Parliament and about the Union between Scotland and England, which created the finest country in the world in which to live, and which I want my grandchildren to enjoy, will recognise that, throughout the 84 passage of the Bill, I have been motivated by my concern about what the Bill and the treaty, if they are enacted, will do to the unity of the United Kingdom. The Committee of the Regions will be a Trojan horse.

§ Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South)
I think that all my hon. Friends will be consistent in the way that we vote. We voted for the amendment in Committee because we believe in a Committee of the Regions with elected members. We shall vote for the new clause because we welcome the proposal to have those elected members.
I welcome the committee because it will put decentralised government on at least the agenda of the European Community. Although the committee has an inadequate basis and an inadequate task, the expectations of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) are more likely to come to pass than those of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
Irrespective of whether the United Kingdom elects to the committee people of considerable ability, there is no doubt that European regions will put forward such people. Those people will be capable of addressing the issues of Europe and the influence and status of the committee will increase. It signals the beginning of a regional input to European decision making.
If the new clause is accepted the members of the committee will be elected and that will strengthen the United Kingdom and its representatives on the committee. If we had unelected members and a large majority on the committee were elected representatives from the other member states, our position would be weak. Most member states will have elected participants and if we do the same the United Kingdom will have a greater influence.
How can we be sure that those who are selected, however it is done, will do the job effectively and be valuable members of the committee and properly represent the needs of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish regions?
Over the past 12 years, much of my experience has been in regional representation. I have spent all that time as the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside development association, which is the regional organisation used by the Department of Trade and Industry to attract inward investment. The Department accepts that the most effective way to promote the country abroad is to do so at the regional level. Much of my task as chairman of that organisation was to ensure a commitment from all parts of the region to promoting the region and to seek inward investment.
8 pm
We have to work at regional representation. Because of the fragmented nature of our local government, many of the regions, which are technically European regions, have an existence that is rarely cohesive and coherent. Part of the job of anyone who heads a regional organisation is to bring together different bodies to achieve regional representation. The success of Yorkshire and Humberside in attracting inward investment, for which the Conservative party has claimed the credit, has been due in no small part to the fact that one has worked to get people throughout the region committed to the regional view of the task to be undertaken. I have also headed Yorkshire Enterprise, which is a regional venture capital company. Again, its strength comes from operating on a regional basis.
85 Once we recognise that getting a regional base is subject to voluntary co-operation, we see how having regional representation on the Committee of the Regions can benefit us and give us more effective representation. However, our representation will be effective only if the representatives are able genuinely to exercise a regional mandate. For that reason, the question posed by Conservative Members about whether a member of a parish council represents an elected member appropriate to go on the Committee of the Regions is an empty one. We need people with a breadth of regional experience and a breadth of understanding of the needs of their entire region and we should be selecting people to undertake that task because we believe that they will have a mandate that encompasses not a narrow interest but all the interests of the region.
One of my experiences over recent years has been my involvement in international inter-regional work. I have been saddened by much that has been said tonight because I know from experience that there is value in working together with people from other regional organisations in other European countries. The formation of the organisation RETI—the Association of Traditional Industrial Regions of Europe—and the Assembly of European Regions shows that such organisations, once created, will develop and strengthen.
The Assembly of European Regions, which was formed in 1984, has influenced today's events. The proposal for a Committee of the Regions to be a senate for the regions was made by the assembly to the original meeting considering revisions to the treaty of Rome. That organisation has consistently pushed for the formation of a committee and it will continue to push to ensure that that committee gains stronger powers.
My involvement has shown, first, that in the varying strengths of regional governments among our European partners there is often a link between the strength of regional government and the strength of regional economies. When we last debated the Committee of the Regions, the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said that the United Kingdom, in part, determined the formation of the German Lander. The aim then was to divide the country and weaken its national basis. However, in creating the Lander, we provided the basis for the stength of the German economy. Its form of regional government has helped it to develop a diverse and strong economy.
In the context of the Committee of the Regions, the Germans do not face our difficulty over representation. Already, they have determined that each of the 16 Länder will have one member on the Committee of the Regions, with a further five members being allocated one each to the five Lander with the greatest populations, some of which are considerable; for example, North Rhine-Westphalia has a population of 17 million. The strength of the European regions has been a factor in developing the Assembly of European Regions and in pushing for the development that we are debating today.
There has been value in direct representation. Many of the English counties have become involved in the Assembly of the European Regions, as have many metropolitan areas, with the joint agreement of their district councils. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) may pooh-pooh the Committee of the Regions, but he may have noted that Essex county council sends representatives to, and is a member of, the assembly. It has 86 found that there is value in direct representation. It is extremely important in the decisions that we take that there is a form of direct representation from each of the accepted European regions. We have to devise a method whereby the selection of those people who represent the regions has the widest possible acceptance.
A number of practical consequences flow from inter-regional work in terms of the contacts between people and ideas and of the joint working between people faced with similar environmental, economic and industrial problems. I am convinced that the committee will be of good value.
It is obvious that Britain's decentralisation is a handicap in participating in regional forums, and therefore in terms of the balance that is struck in the decisions that the Government take about the composition of the committee. I urge the Government to follow up that proposal and the new clause with widespread consultation on the different balances that will need to be represented on the committee. There must be a fair distribution of seats, which includes representation from each of the European regions acknowledged as part of England, in addition to representation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
There must be a proper balance that reflects the strength of the political parties in the regions. There must be a balance between levels of authority where, as in Scotland, there are regional councils and local authorities. Each of the participating countries faces similar problems. I believe that the Committee of the Regions will develop and as it develops we may need alternative mechanisms for selecting representatives.
In due course, the Labour party's proposal for regional government will strengthen Britain's economy and democracy. With the introduction of genuine regional government we shall have no difficulty in sorting out the mechanism whereby we fill the places on the Committee of the Regions.
The committee's development and strength, its debates and decision, may help a Government who have consistently centralised to see the value of decentralisation. We shall in due course see the Labour party's proposals for regional government come to fruition in Britain.