APPLICATION OF EC LEGISLATION (Hansard, 21 October 1993)

The Chairman
With this we shall consider new clause 5—Report to Parliament— 'A Minister of the Crown shall lay before Parliament every six months a report setting out all transactions Her Majesty's Government has undertaken in the preceding six months in pursuance of the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Agreement including those undertaken on its behalf by the Commission of the European Community, together with a description of any agreements reached or decisions come to under the Agreement during that period by the European Community or its Member States and such countries as have ratified the Agreement or any body acting on behalf of those countries.'.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I do not want to detain the House. I have referred to the massive amount of Euro-legislation that the unfortunate EFTA countries will have to abide by, even though they played no part in drawing it up. This matter could be resolved if the Minister would say that he will send me a note, perhaps next week or the week after, giving a list of the Euro-directives and legislation that the EFTA countries will have to adopt now. Perhaps he could put a copy in the Library. It would be helpful to know whether it is three or four measures or nine or 10 measures. I am not asking the Minister to do this every year, but if he promises to send that note and put a copy in the Library, I should be happy to withdraw the motion and let hon. Members get away. It is a simple request.
All the EFTA countries will have to have such a list because they are now obliged to obey that Euro-legislation. I appreciate that democracy is now almost totally dead in this country and that Parliament is almost totally irrelevant in that respect, but the people should be told what is happening. If the Minister will send me a note, prepared with the help of all the clever people in the Foreign Office, that will do me fine. For the one or two Members who are interested, a copy could be placed in the Library. That would be a satisfactory conclusion to the debate.
Throughout the debate we have had a helpful, constructive and positive Minister. He has helped us to conclude our discussion much earlier than would otherwise have been the case. I should be grateful if he could make a positive response to a basic question, and we could then pull stumps.

§ Mr. Cryer
I should like to speak to new clause 5. It is much the same as that tabled by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
It would be helpful if, instead of writing notes to hon. Members, the Minister were to accept one of the new clauses so that he could formally lay one note in the Library, which is the convention. We merely seek a record of the progress—if that is the right word—or the regression as the Oporto agreement is implemented.
New clause 5 involves a more frequent requirement: it asks for a report every six months rather than every year. The report would note the transactions undertaken by the Government in the previous six months in pursuance of the obligations laid down in the very fat volume of the treaty. The new clause would also require that anything undertaken by the Commission should also be listed because it is important that we are able to keep track of what the Commission is up to.
In theory, the Commission does only what the Council of Ministers requires it to do but, of course, the Commission also presents reports and makes suggestions 469 to the Council of Ministers, either on its own initiative or in response to the Council of Minister's proposals. We should like a note of what the Commission has undertaken in the previous six months. New clause 5 also calls for a description of any agreements reached or decisions come to under the Agreement … by the European Community or its Member States and such countries as have ratified the Agreement or any body acting on behalf of those countries. It is a reasonable requirement.
A criticism accepted by members of all parties is that the Common Market is too remote. We know that legislation is being passed by directive. Hon. Members do not see the directive but see a statutory instrument which implements the directive. As the Committee knows, I am in a more privileged position than most hon. Members because I have to read most of the statutory instruments produced by the legislative blunderbuss of the Common Market.
New clause 5 would require a simple report twice a year to tell hon. Members what is happening. We may approve or deplore what is happening, but at least we would know. What other way is there of finding out? It is true that we have an excellent department in the Library which deals with EC affairs, but it sometimes gets things wrong.
I remember when we received the first outline of the Maastricht agreement. I received a copy from the Library but, within a few days, I received a hasty note saying, "Terribly sorry, that draft is out of date. We have another." It is a difficult job for the Library department. As the Government are involved, they could easily place a report in the Library as suggested in the new clause.
Not all 651 hon. Members would make a beeline for the Library but those who were interested could do so. The Common Market is not the most stimulating topic of conversation. Indeed, if one wants people to go away, one has only to turn to them and start talking about it and one will find that crowds will break up easily. What I am suggesting would be a service to all hon. Members but, in practice, only a few would go to the Library. Those of us who are interested are not being unreasonable in suggesting that Ministers should provide the necessary information regularly.
The new clause would enable Ministers to reach out to the rest of the nation. If something proves useful, we can publicise it. If something proves difficult or onerous, we could highlight that, too. We could also use the procedures of the House, as we already do for other matters: if something listed in the report were disadvantageous to the United Kingdom, an hon. Member could secure an Adjournment debate or raise the issue by the various methods that Parliament affords to hon. Members.
The Minister likes to say often that I served for five years—I was elected on an anti-Common Market basis, I might add—in the EC Assembly. It was an experience. This House affords us many more opportunities to raise issues than the rigid, authoritarian European body which, 470 in reality, is run by the leaders of all the political parties. Although we were not in fact prevented from doing so, critics like myself had great difficulty in airing our views. The House offers many opportunities which we cherish.
If hon. Members were to receive the necessary information in a bi-annual report, we would be able to take advantage of it if we wished to do so. That is a small request, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister's brief says.

§ Mr. McLoughlin
It is always a pleasure to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), although I do not know whether he will want me to write to him in the way that he suggested. However, I can go some way to meeting his request and that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
I share the concern that Parliament should be properly informed of developments in the European economic area. However, the new clause is not necessary as, under the Bill as it stands, Ministers will make two types of report to Parliament on the EEA. Moreover, the new EEA Acts extending to EFTA will be subject to scrutiny under our normal procedures and will be published in the new EC section of the Official Journal.
Once the agreement comes into force, the Government will report twice a year to Parliament on the operation of the EEA in a six-monthly White Paper on developments in the European Community. There will be a new section in the White Paper exclusively for the EEA. That follows a recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, made in its report on free trade with EFTA on 25 July 1990. I hope that I have proved how we shall meet the request of my hon. Friend and that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South without the need for the new clause.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor
I am grateful for the Minister's kind and considerate answer. It is very interesting to know that we shall receive so much information in various reports but I was not looking for all that. I merely wanted a list of legislation. We can reach a compromise. I shall table a written question on Monday asking the Minister to list legislation by which EFTA countries will have to abide as a consequence of the Oporto agreement. I shall read the answer in Hansard, which will save the Minister trouble. If he really wants to do all that he has offered, I shall be grateful and pleased, and so will everyone else, but there is no need for him to go out of his way.
I thank the Minister for being so understanding. He has done a grand job tonight. I shall table a written question, which will satisfy me and which will, I hope, interest the democratic community. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.