| Previous Section | Home Page |
The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman's strictures would have been better directed to France and Germany, which have taken an isolationist stance on agricultural subsidies for three years. It would have been very much better if they had come along with the rest instead of sticking out for their own farmers against the good of the EC as a whole. It was those countries which were isolated on that most urgent matter.
As for investment, Wales--like the rest of the United Kingdom--has benefited enormously from the economic policies of this Government. We have brought in tons and tons of investment from overseas to Wales, to Scotland and to the north of England, greatly to the benefit of jobs here. People have great confidence in this Government, which is why they invest in Britain. What a pity the hon. Gentleman cannot speak up a little more for his own country.
Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : Next Wednesday, the doors of this Chamber will be closed to Black Rod as a symbol of the independence of this House. What would be the effect on the independence of this House and on the nation that elects it if the power to veto proposals affecting social affairs, the environment and taxation were to be removed?
The Prime Minister : I hope that, when the next election comes, people who want to come to the House will come to uphold its powers and its responsibilities, and not to denude the House of them. We have surrendered some of them to the Community, and in my view we have surrendered enough.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Is the Prime Minister aware that what we are really discussing is not economic management, but the whole future of relations between this country and Europe? This issue is not best expressed in 19th-century patriotic language or in emotive language about which design is on the currency. The real question is whether, when the British people vote in a general election, they will be able to change the policies of the
Column 882
previous Government. It is already a fact, as the House knows full well, that whatever Government are in power, our agricultural policy is controlled from Brussels, our trade policy is controlled from Brussels and our industrial policy is controlled from Brussels. If we go into EMU, our financial policy will also be controlled. It is a democratic argument, not a nationalistic argument.However, given that the right hon. Lady is a member of the Government who took us into the European Community without consulting the British people, given that she was Prime Minister in the Government who agreed to the Single European Act without consulting the British people, and given that she has now agreed to joining the exchange rate mechanism without consulting the British people, we find it hard to believe that she is really intent on preserving democracy rather than gaining political advantage by waving some national argument around on the eve of a general election. That is why we do not trust her judgment on the matter.
The Prime Minister : I think that I would put it just a little differently from the right hon. Gentleman, although I recognise some of the force of some of the points that he makes. When the Delors proposals for economic and monetary union came out, it was said immediately by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was not really about monetary policy at all but about a back door to a federal Europe, taking many democratic powers away from democratically elected bodies and giving them to non-elected bodies. I believe fervently that that is true, which is why I shall have nothing to do with their definition of economic and monetary union.
We shall continue the co-operation that we have come to establish, as nation states. The Act that enabled us to go into Europe was passed on Second Reading by eight votes and it was made very clear then that we would not surrender our national identity, that it was a matter of co-operation. It was on the strength of that that many people went in. I am afraid that it would be quite different if we went for a single European currency and a central bank and for their definition of economic and monetary union.
Mr. Churchill (Davyhulme) : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how far she believes that, when the moment comes, Germany will be prepared to see the transfer of its monetary policy from the Bundesbank to a European central bank on which it will have one voice out of 12?
The Prime Minister : I think that it is wrong to think that all the Twelve have similar votes or influence in these matters. I think that some in Germany--only some--are backing the scheme because they know that the dominant voice, the predominant voice, on any central bank would be the German voice. If we did not retain our national identities in Europe, the dominant people in Europe would be German. The way to balance out the different views of Europe, as we have traditionally done throughout history, is by retaining our national identity.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : In view of the imminent deaths of thousands of young men--Arab, European and American--would it not be more compassionate and realistic of the Prime Minister to abandon her adamant refusal even to contemplate a negotiated solution to the Gulf crisis?
Column 883
The Prime Minister : I have not noticed much compassion about Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, about the way in which our hostages, our embassies or the nationals in Kuwait have been treated. There is nothing to negotiate about.Mr. Faulds : There is everything to negotiate about, you stupid woman--
Mr. Faulds : You stupid, negative woman.
The Prime Minister : I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air--the rather nauseating stench of appeasement.
The United Nations has clearly said that Iraq must come out of Kuwait--
Mr. Faulds : Have your war. You would love a war. You love war.
Mr. Speaker : Order. That is very bad behaviour from the hon. Gentleman. He has asked a question and he is getting the answer. He may not like it, but he must not shout in that way.
The Prime Minister : Saddam Hussein started a war, and it continues day after day with the killing, murder, torture and brutal treatment of people. Some people--and most Members of the House--have the guts to stand up to him.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Prime Minister, may I ask you why you have been so modest this afternoon? In the past, have you not stood alone on European matters and been proved right? I am thinking of United Kingdom contributions, of the reform of the common agricultural policy, of mortgage cartels and of exchange controls. Each time, Prime Minister, you have been right. Why should the House not trust you today?
The Prime Minister : May I thank my knight in shining armour? I could not have put it better myself.
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : When preparing the statement on the Gulf that the Prime Minister has said was agreed in Rome, was the right hon. Lady aware of the existence of publicly available estimates by American chiefs of staff that within 12 days of combat there would be 30,000 allied casualties, and that 10,000 of them would be fatalities? If she disagrees with the American estimates, can she tell us what estimates have been made by the British chiefs of staff?
The Prime Minister : I remember when this country had to send forces down to the Falklands. Chiefs of staff were frequently asked what were their estimates of casualties. No one can make such an estimate.
Mr. Nellist : The Americans have.
The Prime Minister : No one can make such an estimate. There are people who can guess, but those guesses have turned out before to be very wide of the mark. It is not a question that I ask, because I know the impossibility of answering it.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South) : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the valiant stand that she has been taking to fight for Britain's economic and
Column 884
parliamentary independence in Europe? Will she emphasise that standing apart from the eleven's plans for European monetary union may bring positive economic benefits to Britain? Does she agree that the country with the strongest currency, one of the highest per capita incomes and one of the strongest financial services industries in Europe, is economically and politically independent Switzerland? Does she also agree, therefore, that economic independence is no barrier to economic success?The Prime Minister : I entirely agree. Switzerland has a marvellous record on currency, manufacturing and services, and we too shall continue to do so if others go for a single currency and we stay outside.
Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North) : The right hon. Lady has referred to the 11 other European leaders as living in cloud cuckoo land. Has it not occurred to her that she may be living in cloud cuckoo land if she thinks that the majority of the British people are likely to go along with her short-sighted proposals on economic and monetary union, which are likely to lead to Britain's being excluded from Europe's first division?
The Prime Minister : No, I think that that is totally wrong. I note that the hon. Gentleman believes in a single currency regardless of the many consequences that it would have for this country--regardless of how much we would have to transfer, and regardless of the enormous consequences for our securities. I do not believe that his view is shared by many of the people.
The Prime Minister : Indeed we shall, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that most people prefer to have the pound sterling and our Parliament. If he does not wish to have either, why does he want to come here after the next election?
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : Will my right hon. Friend continue to bear in mind that the success of the Uruguay round and the GATT is vital to the economies of the new democracies in Latin America and the third world? Does she not agree that fine words in Rome butter no tortillas?
The Prime Minister : I agree. We can always talk about the generalities. When it came to getting down to a detailed negotiation, they did not even want to address the subject there. They ran away from it. They then said that they should set a stage 2 without having decided on its contents. We do not know what we are going to do in stage 2 yet, but they have set a date for it. That is very different from what Delors said in his report, when he stated clearly : "The conditions for moving from stage to stage cannot be defined precisely in advance : nor is it possible to foresee today when these conditions will be realised. The setting of explicit deadlines is therefore not advisable."
What a pity he did not stick to that advice, but tried to change it at the last meeting in Rome.
Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) : On the question of hostages, will the Prime Minister accept that many hundreds of families in this country, including my constituent Mrs. Maggie Ross, whose husband Alistair has been held hostage at a military installation for three months, will have listened with great care to what she said, and in particular to what she said
Column 885
about there being no question of negotiation? Many of those families will have been bitterly disappointed because, although they may understand her reasons, many of them fear that, where military adventurism is concerned, the lives of the hostages are expendable.The Prime Minister : I always understand people's anxiety about relatives who are hostages. In my constituency I have perhaps been fortunate in that we were able to welcome home again a young girl aged 12. Of course one understands that anxiety. However, if we were to take it that we could never take action against a brutal dictator because he held hostages, we should never take action against such a dictator and he would be free to continue his ways. He would always take a few more hostages to prevent justice being done and to prevent territory and people's homes being recovered.
Mr. Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West) : Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the prosperity of all the people within the European Economic Community is more likely to be achieved by the successful achievement of a single market without barriers than by dreaming dreams of a federal Europe, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) so courageously said earlier this afternoon? Will my right hon. Friend never stop reminding her colleagues in Europe that Britain has actually implemented more of the single market measures than any other country and that we have therefore been the best proponents of prosperity in Europe?
The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the reason for founding the treaty of Rome was not only to bring down barriers within the six countries which joined it at the time, but to be an example to the rest of the world to bring down barriers without as well, so that we should genuinely have much freer trade and a much freer flow of trade to the benefit of trading countries and also to third world countries.
It is therefore vital that we complete the single market and the Uruguay round. We have got on fairly well with the directives. My hon. Friend's recollection is correct. We and Denmark have not only passed the directives but have implemented most of them. We have only 15 or 16 to implement, while Denmark has 15. As I have said, the record of the rest of the Community varies very much in spite of the grand words. When it comes to the practical deeds, they do not match up to the grand words. The chair was taken by Italy and Italy has yet to implement 62 directives. Perhaps that explains why we went to grand words and not to specific practical suggestions.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : In one of the emollient passages of her statement earlier, the Prime Minister said that she believed that solutions could be found for the Community so that it could advance as 12. As the Prime Minister is aware, changes to the treaty are required in order to advance monetary and economic union. Those amendments to the treaty will come forward at the intergovernmental conferences in December. Is she now telling the House that she will not be using her veto power at those conferences?
The Prime Minister : We have been through one intergovernmental conference before. That was the one which led to the Single European Act, which the hon.
Column 886
Gentleman will recall. It started up with very grandiose and rather vague designs. It finished up as a very much more modest document which we were able to sign up to. I believe that that is what will happen in the intergovernmental conferences here. Many, when they look more closely at it, will not want to have a single currency unless they can have enormous transfers of money, and I do not think that those would be forthcoming.Many will look at some of the other divestment of powers and not want to do that. Undoubtedly, there are some who are prepared to divest their powers and put them over to someone else. They would prefer not necessarily to have the responsibility for some of the difficult things that have to be done. I believe that most of the nation states would prefer to keep their nationality and their national identity. Therefore, there will be a great deal of negotiating. As the hon. Gentleman said, we can have a new treaty only if all Parliaments ratify it.
Mr. John Browne (Winchester) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that a single European currency is not a soft option but a harsh option and that the introduction of a single currency, without first achieving a single European market and then a single European economy, would be an extremely harsh option? Does my right hon. Friend accept also that it would benefit neither the consumer nor the producer fairly but merely the bureaucrat, and therefore lead us down a trail towards not only a federal Europe but an undemocratic, bureaucratic federal Europe?
The Prime Minister : I agree wholly with what my hon. Friend has said. When the discussions about the currency and the economic and monetary union get to the Finance Ministers, they will be very much more practical than some of the Heads of Government are about these matters. I am sure that our colleagues will have heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor say many times that many of his colleagues are very worried about any suggestion of a single currency before we have almost a common economy or an economy with about similar prosperity. It just would not work. Once one goes to a single currency, all the differences would come out in heavy unemployment and in massive movements of people. [Interruption.] Socialist countries such as France already have much heavier unemployment than we have. All the differences will come out in even heavier unemployment and massive movements of people from where they had previously been living to where they work.
Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : Since today the Prime Minister is a great advocate of democracy, will she allow service men and service women the democratic right to join a trade union? If she agrees with that right, she will find that service men and service women in the Gulf would vote against war in that area because they believe in negotiation rather than confrontation.
The Prime Minister : No, our present arrangements have served this country supremely well.
Mr. Robert Hicks (Cornwall, South-East) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the past 20 years or so many people, particularly young people, have been persuaded to support the Conservative party instead of the Labour party because of our commitment to Europe? In that context, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is increasing sadness among those people about this
Column 887
country's apparent inability to respond in a positive manner to any proposals involving political and financial convergence and environmental issues?The Prime Minister : On environmental issues, my hon. Friend will see that we reached agreement yesterday, and he will find that 95 per cent. of our rivers are rated good or fair, which is better than any other European country's record. We have a programme for looking after our beaches and also for improving the quality of water--about £28 billion. We are the only country with such a programme. My hon. Friend will find many places in Europe which have nothing like the quality of water that we have.
My hon. Friend will find also that the question is not whether we are Europeans and key Europeans, as we are, but what sort of Europe we want-- that is, whether we want a democratically responsible Europe, or whether we want a Europe of nation states which freely co-operate together. That is every bit as honourable and worthy an objective as trying to make it less democratic and trying to dissolve one's natural loyalties to one's country.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Is it not true that, on Europe, the Prime Minister is in the minority in the Cabinet and is not so much the leader of the Tory party on these issues as the leader of one of its many factions? On the Gulf, does the Prime Minister agree that all those who talk about attempts to resolve conflicts and difficulties arising from the invasion of Kuwait by negotiation, surely what has been demonstrated over the past weekend is that all the efforts of the Soviet representative in his mission to Iraq to try to persuade the dictator to give concessions have totally failed? There is not the slightest sign that Saddam Hussein intends to withdraw from Kuwait. Why should one of the most notorious of all dictators, who has committed a criminal act in the invasion of Kuwait and who has committed untold crimes and atrocities in Kuwait since 2 August, be allowed to get away with it?
The Prime Minister : Precisely--but perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better address that question to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. I shall allow three more questions from each side. I regret that we must then move on.
Sir Ian Lloyd (Havant) : Many hon. Members and, I suspect, many people in Europe will have the most profound respect for the discipline and informed pragmatism that the Prime Minister brings to the discussion of these matters. Does she agree that there is a great danger that the vision of a united Europe bequeathed to us by the great founders, including Winston Churchill, whom I believe was a federalist, could be at best blurred and at worst damaged if, in contemplating the complex, difficult procedures of integrating Europe we dare not consider at any stage any change, however small and however slowly achieved, in the balance of powers between this House and the European Parliament?
The Prime Minister : That is not quite correct. We went in on the basis that was clearly set out--that we were in fact not in any way going to lose our national identity and--if my hon. Friend looks back over the debate, nor would any strong national interest be overriden. That was the
Column 888
fundamental basis on which we got a majority of eight for the Second Reading of the Bill which took us into the Community. I believe that that was a very honourable way to go about it, and I believe that it is a very honourable objective to keep our national identity and have co-operation.When it came to things like wanting a single market, if we were to get some of the directives through, we had to get a little bit more majority voting. That particular batch of majority voting under that single European Act, should cease when we have the single European market. Apart from that, it is better if we go forward by agreement between us all, because we have to get agreement anyway for changing the treaty. As my hon. Friend knows, we have recently completed the European monetary system by joining the exchange rate mechanism. That is for us an extra discipline for keeping down inflation, and it is also very welcome in Europe.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : During her discussions on the Gulf when, presumably, the Prime Minister was pressing for the Baghdad leadership to pay compensation for war crimes in the destruction of Kuwait, did the Prime Minister make any proposals to recompense the victims of the other illegal occupation in the middle east--that of the West Bank and Gaza? In her concern--I paraphrase the Prime Minister--for the unity of the international community on United Nations decisions, did she press the case of the Palestinians for decades have been having their land stolen, their homes demolished and their citizens killed? Why is Kuwaiti blood more precious than Palestinian blood? Is it because it is tinged with oil?
The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady will be aware that both situations are extremely serious and that both are very different. Kuwait had never threatened to attack or attacked anyone. She wanted only to live in peace. Unfortunately, Jordan attacked Israel. I think that she was begged not to, but she did, and that finished up by Jordan losing part of Jerusalem and losing the West Bank. The West Bank is not annexed to Israel. It has been the subject of many United Nations resolutions, some of which the Arab world did not accept for a long time, but which have been accepted more recently, in the past two years, by the Palestinians and Mr. Arafat. We have been working together, as has the Community for years, from the Venice declaration, to try to find a solution to that problem. It is not easy. It is easier to talk about it than to find a solution on the basis of resolution 242, but we continue to do so.
If the hon. Lady looks at the communique , she will see that we discussed this matter and that we are taking forward our previous policies. When this matter is settled and when Kuwait has been restored to the people of Kuwait, we shall continue to go ahead on the basis of our previous policy, which is negotiation. We have previously said that we would be in favour of an international conference so that the previous policies could be taken forward.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people both here and elsewhere in Europe are concerned about the predominance of Germany in the European Community, but that the answer does not lie in a federal Europe because the majority voting system already contains Germany, and to move down the federal route and to go for a central bank would do no more than ensure that that central bank was
Column 889
dominated by the economic realities and the strength of the deutschmark? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are far better off making sure that we have a wider Europe in which we have a balance of interests, including people from east, west and central Europe?The Prime Minister : I am totally against a federal Europe and believe that the overwhelming majority of people in this country are against a federal Europe. We should not take any steps in that direction, but should uphold co-operation between our peoples. Of course, Germany will continue to be a very important country in the Community. Chancellor Kohl is always very European in his approach and very generous in his help to the eastern European countries. It is better that we negotiate with Germany as it is now and with the United Kingdom as we are now and that we do not try to have a kind of united states of Europe. It is one thing to have a United States of America from a newly settled country, but it is a different thing for ancient nation states, each with its own traditions.
Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : Although the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party sits at present on the Opposition side of the House, is the Prime Minister aware that we are shocked at the somersault of policy that has taken place in the British Labour party, which is now prepared to sacrifice the democratic rights of the British people and to accept instead economic policies that are imposed by a bureaucracy based outside this country? In her statement the Prime Minister said that the Government's policy was to oppose a single currency, but I notice that she is now qualifying that with a new adjective and referring to an "imposed " single currency. Has the Prime Minister really shifted her position slightly, and is she now saying that she is prepared to negotiate for an agreed single currency? The matter needs to be clarified.
The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman looks at our debate, he will find that it was clearly spelled out that we have proposed a hard ecu, which will be inflation-proofed, and that that is a parallel or common currency and not a single currency. However, by choice, if people used it, it could evolve into a single currency. Before any single currency comes about, it would be for future Parliaments and future generations to decide if they wished to abolish the national currency. This Government are against a single currency, but it is not for us to bind our successors in 20 or 30 years' time.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) : What evidence does my right hon. Friend have that the bulk of industry and business, upon the success of which our national livelihood depends, is in any way reluctant to see the ordered emergence of a single currency as a logical consequence to the completion of the single market?
The Prime Minister : A single market and a single currency are two totally different things, as a short study of them would reveal. Some of the great manufacturing nations, such as Japan, the United States and Switzerland, do not have a common or a single currency with anyone else. They have a single currency of their own, and that does not hinder or affect their manufacturing position. Neither does it affect our position as the greatest financial
Column 890
centre in Europe that we are not like the yen, but we are sterling and that we are not like the dollar, but we are sterling. We trade in them all.Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) : Surely the Prime Minister understands that virtually every Member of the House of Commons agrees about the absolute necessity of securing Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. Does she agree that the unanimous Council declaration on the Gulf crisis, with its references to "a peaceful solution" and to the importance of maintaining consensus in the United Nations Security Council is to be warmly welcomed? Is it not clear from the declaration that the Governments of the European Community would not support early military action led by the United States? Can the right hon. Lady therefore give us the assurance that the Government's policy will be consistent with that declaration and that they will give mandatory economic sanctions proper time to work?
The Prime Minister : This matter was dealt with when we debated it in the House. We do not believe in letting any aggressor know what action we propose to take or when. We already have full legal authority under article 51 and through the request of the Emir of Kuwait. The position would undoubtedly be best resolved if Saddam Hussein withdrew totally from Kuwait, if the legitimate Government of Kuwait were restored and if Iraq agreed to pay compensation. Through the United Nations, we could then negotiate with Saddam Hussein about ending the manufacture of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and about Iraq having a much smaller armed force so that we would never be put in the same position again. Whether this matter can be resolved peacefully depends totally on Saddam Hussein unreservedly accepting the United Nations resolutions.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible for me to call all the hon. Members who wish to participate--
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. It is no good getting frustrated about it. I have done my best today to call hon. Members who were not called when the Prime Minister last returned from a summit--
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am on my feet. I have done my best today to call hon. Members who were not called when the Prime Minister last returned from a summit--that at Houston on 12 July. I shall keep today's list equally carefully.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : I hope that it is not a point of frustration, but I fear that it may be.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we spent five and a half hours on dogs, but now an hour and twenty minutes seems to be enough to spend on the most important thing that is likely to happen to this
Column 891
country in this generation. Why can we not have a proper sense of balance? Why have you cut short this important issue, when dogs were worth five hours?Mr. Speaker : Order. As I sensed, that was really a point of frustration. I am sorry, but I have to keep a proper balance-- Mr. Skinner rose --
Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I have to keep a balance of the business before the House. The Prime Minister has been at the Dispatch Box for an hour and a half, which is longer than I would allow for most statements--
Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I shall bear him in mind in the future.
BILL PRESENTED
Established church
Mr. Michael Latham presented a Bill to abolish the General Synod of the Church of England, on a date to be appointed ; to provide for the creation of a Church of England Assembly, consisting of a House of all Diocesan, Suffragan and Assistant Bishops, and a joint House of Clergy and Laity, to be directly elected by all clergy and lay persons on parochial electoral rolls ; to empower the Assembly to decide on all appropriate matters, except those within the responsibilities of the Church Commissioners, without further reference to Parliament ; to provide for the election of new Bishops by members of the House of Bishops, saving the right of final approval of the chosen candidate by the Crown ; to abolish the Ecclesiastical Committee ; to abolish the automatic places of Bishops in the House of Lords ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 1 November and to be printed. [Bill 209.]
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is my understanding correct that you have laid some stress on hon. Members being called on subjects in
Column 892
which they have some specialist interest? Is there any point in me being a vice-chairman of the European Affairs Committee when I am never called to ask a question at times such as this? Do you intend to disfranchise meor--Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I am not having that. I shall send him his computer printout.
Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice that I would raise again today a point that I raised yesterday about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). I note that she was in her place until I rose, but that she has now left the Chamber. I have also given the hon. Lady notice that I would raise this matter. Now that you have Hansard in front of you, Mr. Speaker, and can read what it says, you will note that on several occasions--in fact, on no fewer than 11--I clearly asked the hon. Member for Ladywood to withdraw the allegations that she had made against my hon. Friends.
When I raised that later, after you had had the opportunity to read part of Hansard --although not the part to which you took exception--no opportunity was afforded to the hon. Lady finally, on a 12th occasion to note what she had said and realise the offence in the remark that she had made. We have just talked for two hours about the sovereignty of the House. If it means anything, it should also mean the dignity of the Chair and respect for it. For that reason, I ask you to instruct the hon. Lady to return to the House and apologise in accordance with your wishes.
Mr. Speaker : Order. Yesterday's proceedings brought no credit upon the House or upon the hon. Lady. I received the extract from Hansard containing the allegation made against the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). Once the matter had been resolved--in the end it was resolved almost as a matter of farce--I took the view that that was the time to leave it where it was. I have no authority to deal with it again today.
Column 893
Labelling (Environmental Effects and Safety) 5 pm
Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West) : To move to more tranquil waters, I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for products other than food and drink to carry information about environmental effects and safety ; and for connected purposes. In the normal course of events, when a consumer wishes to make a purchase, I am content to let quality, price and delivery jostle together in the decision with a little touch of caveat emptor thrown in for good measure. However, with the advance of science today and the spread of products, unless one has a chemical degree and a knowledge of the effect of chemicals on the environment, the present labelling and ingredient labelling requirements are worse than useless. That is, of course, assuming that one can read the label in the first place. More often than not, the purchase of such products is made on environmental grounds on the basis of the information on the can or the label.
You will be glad to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not brought a series of samples into the Chamber today. Cans often carry bucolic scenes. There may be birds, bees and butterflies all twittering around on the can, yet inside there will be a chlorofluorocarbon propellant. Courtesy of the Consumers Association, I have information that other claims are put on the side of containers, some of which are completely meaningless. Such claims include, "Product contains no phosphates or nitrates of ammonia", when one cannot buy any brand of that product which contains those ingredients. The case continues in that way.
My Bill for non-food products will help to give the consumer more relevant information when making an informed choice about the purchase of non-food products, particularly with regard to their effect on the environment. The Bill does not tread new ground. I am not breaking forth into the wilderness. The west Germans have had their "Blue Angel" scheme for several years, since 1978. Later, the Canadians introduced their scheme. The logo consists of three doves, intertwined--surprise, surprise--with a maple leaf. The Canadians are promoting the scheme as part of their "Buy clean" campaign. The Japanese have an eco-mark to promote the same, based on a cradle-to-the-grave assessment.
In moving my Bill, I would be wrong to give the impression that the Government have been sitting on their hands and that all the other countries have done the necessary work. My researchers have discovered that a senior official at the Department of Trade and Industry--I shall spare his blushes by not mentioning his name--has been seconded to the Commission to work out a scheme within Europe. A labelling scheme such as I envisage would be operated through public service agencies at arm's length and would operate more through regulation than legislation. Of course, it would need initial pump-priming but in time the fees that would be generated should make it self-financing. The cachet of having the label put on the product would be a powerful selling aid in this country, which at long last is becoming environmentally conscious.
| Next Section
| Home Page |