Sir Patrick Cormack FSA

Conservative Party | Staffordshire South

European Union (Amendment) Bill Debate

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): I will be very brief. It seems to me that this is an extraordinary example of sanctimonious chicanery. [Interruption.] What we had last week— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

4 Mar 2008 : Column 1610

Sir Patrick Cormack: Last week, we had—

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): You’re the president of the club.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I would certainly not wish to be a president of any club that that gentleman could join. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!] Last week, we saw an attempt by this shower to bully the Chair. Because they did not succeed in bullying the Chair, we now have this motion before us this afternoon. It comes side by side—and this is the answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson)—with something that I have never known in all my time in the House: a three-line Whip to abstain. Frankly, the Liberal Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves. They gave promises to their constituents, on which they are indeed resiling. Other Members have done the same, but for sheer two-faced effrontery, the third-rate biscuit is won by the Liberal Democrats.

 

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend remind himself and the Committee that this Government introduced deferred voting, which involves filling in little forms? The next step will be deciding matters of enormous importance on a Wednesday afternoon by filling in bits of paper.

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Under the terms of the Bill as drafted, there might be a short debate late on a Tuesday night or Thursday afternoon. In that case, the rules of the House provide that the motion should be decided by a deferred Division, in which case the House of Commons, as a body, would not even be sitting here attentive to the debate when such matters went through. Once again, the case for primary legislation involving a series of debates and votes in this House and in Committee is clear.

The changes that could conceivably be brought about under those passerelle rules are potentially as important as the changes currently contained in the treaty. If they were exercised, it would breach the assurances given by Ministers during the passage of the Bill. If they or their successors abandon those assurances, they should at least have to pass another Bill to the satisfaction of both Houses of Parliament. I put it to the Committee that for decades the amendment of European treaties, whether provided for in the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam treaty, the Nice treaty or this treaty has been a matter for primary legislation. To allow the amendment of such treaties, possibly on a considerable scale, without recourse to primary legislation is a further diminution in the role of Parliament and its power to control the Executive of the day.

Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend and neighbour has taken us a little beyond the point at which I wanted to intervene, but I would like to say that nobody was quite as rough with Parliament as Cromwell was. My hon. Friend ought to remember that.

Mr. Cash: Yes, indeed. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston has been reading about the Putney debates. An extremely good book by Mr. Yerbey describes in great detail everything that took place between 1640 and 1649, and demonstrates that the principle of common consent included trying to save the King but unfortunately, the Government and, I have to say, my right hon. Friends, rather like the EU, sometimes get into a position that is indefensible. In those circumstances, it is necessary for some people to get up and say, “So far and no further.” We have to protect the House and our voters by using the formula I have described.

 

Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not want to make a long speech; nor do I wish to embarrass the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), although I endorse the encomiums delivered so magniloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). She served this House without regard for party on the European Convention. She went to it thinking she would come back commending and endorsing what was agreed, but instead she returned convinced that what had been agreed was not in Parliament’s best interests, and she has spoken out consistently and bravely on the subject ever since.

I do not share all the views on Europe that have been expounded ad infinitum by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), with great passion and sincerity. Nor do I share the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, whom I greatly respect as a parliamentarian of real stature, to come out of the European Union. However, I do believe that what has been done over the past few weeks in this place has done a great disservice to the European Union and to Parliament.

10.15 pm
We have been taking part in a parliamentary farce. The Government decided that debate was to be time limited and have allowed little opportunity for proper debate of the actual substance of the Bill. Tonight is one of the first occasions when Parliament has had the chance to say, “Hold on a minute, we are going to retain certain matters within our own jurisdiction.” My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made a magnificent speech, with which I agreed entirely. He spelled out clearly what an utter farce it would be to allow the treaty to be changed darkly, at dead of night, with a pink slip of paper handed in the next morning. That is what we have to reckon with unless the Government accept the amendments.

The Minister can choose to accept the amendments or he can give a pledge that something similar will be introduced in the other place. Unless he does one of those two things he will be taking part in a ministerial abdication of parliamentary authority that should shame any Government. I put it to him, quietly and soberly, that if he has true regard for parliamentary government—and a real regard for this place—he will accept these amendments in spirit, if not in substance. If the Government steamroller this clause through this evening and ignore the substance of the amendments, it will constitute a handing over of parliamentary sovereignty.

I cannot plead with the Minister too earnestly to have regard for the position that he holds and the people whom he represents—just as we should all have regard for the people whom we represent. We know that the people of this country feel cheated. As I have said before, I am not a great advocate of referendums, but we have established the precedent for them in constitutional issues. This is a constitutional issue, and the people were promised an opportunity to pronounce on this treaty. That has been taken away from them. It would not have been quite so bad if there had been proper, exhaustive parliamentary debate, but instead we have a parliamentary charade and farce.

The least that any self-respecting Government—or Minister speaking for that Government—could do is to say, “This House will always have the opportunity, through primary legislation, to decide on any subsequent changes. We will not allow such changes to be made in this quiet, hole-in-the-corner manner.” One of the worst innovations produced by this so-called modernising Government was the deferred Division. I would be ashamed to think that this Parliament would, by deferred Division, change its whole substance and stature and reduce itself to the level of a county council. That is, ultimately, what would happen. I hope that the Minister will speak tonight not for the Government, but for Parliament.

 

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister must acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said a moment ago and what I said earlier, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) agreed with me from the Front Bench, about such votes becoming the subject of deferred Divisions. That new procedure was introduced into this House by this Government, so there is no reason why such votes should not take place. Will the Minister acknowledge that fact?

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is well regarded by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I say to him that the new power is established in the Bill, but that the exact detail on the timetabling of the debates is not stipulated in it. Clause 6 stipulates simply the power and protection for Parliament.