---

Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty)

I have always been concerned about the common fisheries policy, which has been a disaster for this country in every environmental and economic sense. There certainly ought be opportunities for us to debate that, along with the other matters that I have mentioned, and if the Government were to withdraw the motion and respond to the views of the House, I am sure that that would allow us to do so. We are, of course, in favour of debating such topics as energy and international development, but it has to be said, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out, that the relevant treaty provisions are thin. Let us debate them, but the Government should not pretend that the provisions relating to them require more parliamentary scrutiny than the highly controversial implications of the charter of fundamental rights, the future role of national Parliaments or the distribution of competences between nation states and the European Union. So why are the Government proposing to give less time to those matters either than was previously advertised or than is genuinely required? Is it because they have a vital, heavy and ambitious legislative programme that will be disrupted by an extra six days of debate on this treaty? Of course not. Is it because they are worried that any more sitting days will increase the workload of Parliament to an intolerable extent? No. Is it because they do not want certain parts of the treaty to have an entire day of debate in their own right because people inside and outside Parliament might notice what is being done in their name? That is nearer the mark. The more detailed consideration there is, the more clearly the treaty will be exposed as the almost identical copy of the constitution on which the people of Britain were promised a referendum. Every detailed examination of what is in the treaty has failed to support the Government’s arguments that it is fundamentally different, as the reports from the European Scrutiny Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee have shown. Further proof of another reason has emerged over the weekend. As we have repeatedly said from this Dispatch Box, this treaty’s importance relies not just in the clear-cut extension of the EU’s powers or abolition of national vetoes but in the processes it sets in train. The document leaked at the weekend shows that EU leaders plan to make a series of important decisions—on subjects such as the role of the EU President; the structure, operation and field of action of Europol; the new powers of Eurojust; the rules governing the European public prosecutor; the powers of the new operational committee on internal security; the nature of structured co-operation in defence; the role and power of the EU Foreign Minister; the organisation and functioning of the EU diplomatic service; and other subjects, too—only after the ratification of the treaty in those countries that are called difficult countries, such as the United Kingdom. Ministers, it seems, are engaged in trying to hide from Parliament not only the extent of the measures to which they have agreed, but the extent of the measures to which they have not agreed and to which they intend to sign up once these debates are out of the way. There could not be a more cynical approach to the conduct of Government policy, deeply lacking in openness, transparency or honesty. The Government’s concern throughout has not been to listen to the public or Parliament but to do their best to exclude both from any decision making about the European Union. The motion is of a piece with that attitude. That is why it is unacceptable to those of us who are opposed to the EU treaty and why it should be unacceptable to those who are in favour of or indifferent to the treaty but want to see the functioning of Parliament and the scrutiny of an important treaty carried out in a way that lives up to the traditions of Parliament and the history of democratic debate. No parliamentary consideration of the treaty can be adequate without the referendum to which 40 million voters are entitled. A longer time for consideration that allowed more thorough discussion of amendments, was focused on the most far-reaching provisions of the treaty and allowed greater time for the Government to explain those many aspects of the treaty that they have not yet explained would be a great improvement on what they have proposed. That is why, if the Government will not take their motion away, I ask the House to support the Opposition amendment when we come to vote on it.