§ Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East)I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 2, line 1, after 'Article 2', insert 'of the Treaty establishing the European Community'.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 47, in clause 3, page 2, line 4, leave out from first 'of' to 'and' in line 5 and insert
'the Treaty establishing the European Community'.No. 48, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, leave out from second 'of' to 'information' in line 11 and insert`the Treaty establishing the European Community'.
§ Mr. SmithThe purpose of the amendments is simply to bring the language into conformity with the references to the treaty made elsewhere in the Bill.
I am moving the amendments because they amend the successful amendments to the Bill which the Labour party has already had accepted. By the end of our deliberations on the Bill we will have rewritten around two thirds of it, a considerable achievement for the Opposition.
§ Mr. SpearingHad I known two hours ago that I would be speaking on what appear to be, and probably are, procedural amendments, I would have been surprised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) knows, the amendments relate, indirectly, to a number of questions which I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to answer. It is a pity that the Attorney-General has fled the Chamber because the issues are much more in his line than that of anybody else.
As my hon. Friend said, amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 respectively refer to clause 2, which deals with the change from stage 2 to stage 3 of economic monetary union; clause 3, which relates to a report by the Bank of England; and clause 4, which deals with information for the Commission.
When one looks at clause 2 it is obvious that, without the insertion
of the Treaty establishing the European Communityan anomaly would be created because it might be thought that article 2, as mentioned in the clause, referred to the article of the treaty on European union, to which the whole Bill is consequential.I noted that the amendments tabled to clauses 3 and 4 did not follow, so I made some inquiries as to why the articles referred to in clauses 3 and 4 did not appear to match up with the text of the treaties that we have before us. Those inquiries produced, at first sight, a simple answer 241 —that the treaty establishing the European Communities will be the continuing title of the consolidated treaty that will result from the marriage of the existing treaty establishing the communities, popularly known as "Rome", with the treaty establishing a European union, popularly known as "Maastricht". This is a mystery because the Government were requested on many occasions, both in writing before the presentation of the Bill and in Committee, to print and distribute the consolidated treaty as it is designed to emerge. In other words, we have before us two treaties which will be pushed into one. The Government have persistently and consistently declined to meet that request. A number of hon. Members were surprised by this because, since the Government are committed to public informal ion, we wanted to see the treaties as they will be once the Act is passed and assuming that those treaties are ratified. Only an ingenious, private entrepreneur produced such a volume. It has not been referred to in the course of the debate because, quite rightly, we have been using the HMSO version of both treaties.
A question arises as to what will happen given ratification and the production of the third or fourth treaty—whatever number one would like to give it—which has no name but is now being named precisely by the amendments. I cannot understand why that specific title has been chosen. At the present time the treaty establishing the European Economic Communities is that signed originally at Rome—the present version is Cm 455—and it will be amended. I assumed that the treaty, as amended, would have some other title—perhaps the "Treaty on European Union and the Communities"—but no, it appears that on advice, which I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East and other hon. Friends have taken, it will be called, quite simply, in the words of the amendment,
the Treaty establishing the European Community".How can that be when, for months, we have been discussing a treaty on European union? It is bad that a Foreign Office Minister is not on the Front Bench, or somewhere handy, for this penultimate debate of the important Report stage.The Foreign Secretary has said time and time again that two great edifices are involved; that we are beefing up the European Communities—that is the core of the Bill—and we will have some intergovernmental pillars, that is, the union. The Foreign Secretary—I am sorry he is not here—has been peddling this week after week, month after month. Some of us have said that, in practice, we will end up with the same, original edifice. We have also said, further, that the Community will enlarge into something much bigger than we were used to in the old Common Market and the old Community; it will be a union that takes on most of the characteristics of a nation. "Oh no", the Government said, "It will not be like that at all." But we have two parts to the treaty: we have titles II, III and IV which under articles G, H and I, will clearly create a beefed-up "Rome" and, indeed, establish the European Communities. But those communities are within and part of what will be the intergovernmental union. The articles of the treaty which relate to that—I refer to the treaty on the union—are titles I, V, VI and VII. They comprise all the articles A to F, inclusive, and J,K,L,M,N,O,P,I),R and S.
242 As a result of the drafting of the treaty signed at Maastricht it is clear that we will have a single, consolidated treaty. The amendments, however, tabled as a result of good advice, will result in the treaty being called
the Treaty establishing the European Community".Clearly, as those of us who have been here in the past weeks know, that is not a correct title. It is a treaty that will establish European union within which there will be an inner core of the European Community—and that comes straight out of the mouth of the Foreign Secretary and his Foreign Office colleagues, who are not here. How can it properly have such a title when it will establish that union? As some of my hon. Friends and I have already said, that union will be a much bigger and more important entity than the communities inside it.The Minister on duty in the Chamber is from the Treasury. What is the House coming to when we have an important treaty before us and the Foreign Office is not represented? What are the Secretary of State for Health, the Financial Secretary and two other members of the Cabinet doing here, trying to answer for the Foreign Secretary and his Minister of State? Those right hon. Gentlemen are in enough trouble already, having had to climb down from their respective positions.
What will be the name of the final treaty? Will it take the title of the Bill or that offered in the amendments? If it takes its title from the amendments, it will be inaccurate; if not, will the Government table further amendments in another place to give the accurate name of the treaty? Why was it that the Government would not print the consolidated treaty so that it could be laid before the public and the House before we embarked upon our deliberations on the Bill? Were the Government being open with the public and the House? Are they being open with the House by tabling such amendments, or rather suggesting to my hon. Friends that they should regularise their own amendments?
The Financial Secretary is now, I believe, able to shed some light on this. I appreciate his difficult position, but I am also aware that the Government have mishandled this matter, because in this penultimate debate on the Bill no member of the Foreign Office or the Cabinet is present who could answer what I believe to be some important questions.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell)I am happy to accept the amendment. It was odd to hear the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) claim credit for more than half—indeed, he mentioned two thirds—of the words in the Bill, as amended, as having been written by the Opposition. The Government are normally, in the legislative process, under criticism for prolixity. It is a happy state of affairs when I can return the charge to the Opposition Benches. We regard the amendments as an improvement to the Bill and I am happy to accept them.
I admire the extent to which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) can build a conspiracy into the title that is put over the treaty. The answer to his question is straightforward and it is made clear by the description of the purposes of the different titles contained in the table of contents in the published version of the Bill. That explains that titles II, III and IV are, as their name implies, titles which amend the treaties that established the European Communities, while titles I, V, VI and, to a large measure, VII, are a treaty that was signed at Maastricht 243 —with force in its own right under international law—and do not aspire to amend the treaties that established the European Community.
Two separate things were done at Maastricht, one of which involves the amendment of the treaties establishing the Communities, the other of which involves the establishment of the pillars on which the Minister of State rightly placed considerable stress during the passage of the Bill.
§ Mr. SpearingI am grateful for the Minister's description and perhaps I was a little hard, although hopefully not conspiratorial. Matters are totally different for those who know the answers from the start compared with those who are discovering them only as we go along.
Is he suggesting that we shall have two treaties? Will there be the central titles, II, III and IV, to which he referred as the treaty creating the Economic Communities, as amended by the amendments made at Maastricht, as one treaty, plus another called the treaty on European union comprised of titles I, V, VI and VII and the other lettered articles to which I referred? That might make some sense, although it would mean two volumes of treaties rather than one. If there is one, it cannot be given two titles, particularly as the central part is sandwiched between two thick slices of bread on the outside.
§ Mr. DorrellThis is a semantic argument which is not getting the House far. We have signed a succession of treaties, the effect of part of one of which—that is, the treaty of Maastricht—is to amend the terms of earlier treaties signed at Rome and other places. The effect is made clear by the textual development contained in the terms of the relevant treaties as they were signed.
§ Amendment agreed to.