European Union (Amendment) Bill

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. 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.