| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 56
6.7 pmMr. Anthony Steen (South Hams) : My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spoke about the potential for war in the Gulf and the problems there. The matter has obviously occupied the House in the immediate aftermath of the Gracious Speech. We were enthralled by both speeches on the Loyal Address, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not continue with that argument.
I should like to speak specifically and shortly about the fifth paragraph in the Queen's Speech which deals with domestic policies and the proposed planning Bill because there has not been such a Bill in the House for 22 years. This is a great opportunity for hon. Members to take an interest in a matter that concerns them all. Another problem is that we have no allocated day in which to discuss local government, and this evening presents us with an opportunity to debate the contents of the proposed Bill. The Bill gives us an opportunity to make major changes rather than, as is so often the case with planning Bills, tinkering with and tidying up the system. The priority must be to facilitate the building of sufficient homes for the population, wherever people wish to live and where jobs are, and to do so without destroying the countryside, while using land in the most efficient and effective way.
We need more houses, but how many more and what size should they be? The Government statisticians told us a few months ago that we shall need 464,000 houses in the south of England alone by the turn of the century if we are to house the people who want to live there. In the last few weeks, others have said that the Government statisticians are wrong because the population is falling. Another problem is one of size. The general view is that there are many more single people living alone--the elderly, single parent mothers and young people in their teens and early twenties. However, the baby boomers having families require three-bedroom homes. There is a dispute about whether we should build more single homes or more three- bedroomed houses.
Where shall we put them all? In the past, planners stuck new houses on the periphery of existing towns and villages, but people do not like this. It eats into the countryside and overloads the infrastructure. Perhaps we should consider the arguments put forward by a number of planners that we should build new, small villages and towns like the new towns built in the 1930s and 1940s, so that they can be well planned and designed and have proper infrastructure. This brings me, like the Prince of Wales, to the question of design. As he pointed out, poor design is at the root of people's dissatisfaction with modern developments. They object more to the design of buildings than to expansion of towns.
My view is that design should not be left to developers. Some people believe, as I think the previous Secretary of State for the Environment believed, that the market should decide design, but that would mean no planning constraints, because, for real choice, people buying homes would have to be able to choose between a well-designed or a badly-designed house. As the planning regime is so strict, people have no choice. They have to buy whatever is available. Therefore, the whole community must be involved in design and even if we cannot legislate for design, we can legislate on quality. Both should be part of
Column 57
local plans and local plans should be compulsory. Only 10 per cent. of local authorities have local plans, and they should be under a statutory obligation to have them.If there are current local plans, Department of the Environment inspectors should follow exactly what they say and should not depart from them. Enforcement must be tightened up because there is no point in having local plans if they cannot be enforced. Too many people in South Hams build first and seek retrospective planning permission. Some 90 Back-Bench Conservative Members representing rural communities have formed what is loosely known as the SANE planning group. All of us have the same problem of people building first and then seeking retrospective planning consent. We have to do something about that so that developers no longer buck the system.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) : I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying and I recognise the problem that he described. Would he go so far as to say that penalties should attach to people who develop without planning permission, as that is the only way to deter them from acting outside the law?
Mr. Steen : My hon. Friend has set out one device--the market device of charging people if they do not obey the law. There are also problems with stop notices, which the forthcoming Bill must strengthen. The stop notice procedure is so lengthy and laborious that the person could have built the house by the time that the notice is served. If developers build without planning permission, local government must have the power to take down such a building. In my constituency, in the village of Moreleigh, it took about six years for a building to be taken down. It was then found that the local authority had not carried out the procedure exactly as the law spells out--these matters are always complicated--and now it is being sued. We must find a way to strengthen the system so that developers do not buck the system.
We must ensure that the countryside remains the country. Some 87 per cent. of the country is countryside. Let us keep it that way. Already, in the south of England, only 83 per cent. of the country is countryside, so efficient land use must be a priority.
In the cities, about 150,000 acres of land is vacant, derelict, dormant or under-used, and it is all in the public sector. There is also a lot of unused land in the private sector, but there are 88,000 acres on the land register set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment to highlight how much land was in the public sector and not being used. The Government would increase that figure if they extended the criteria by which derelict, vacant or dormant land in the public sector could be added. There are tight conditions on this, and local authorities can avoid putting land on the register by saying that it will be needed in two years' time for building roads. The categories of land should go, and all land in the public sector that is vacant, dormant or under-utilised should be on a land register so the House knows how many acres of public land is available for development.
At the same time, the private sector should list how many acres of under- used land that it has, although there will not be the same compulsion to do something about it. The Government may have to use a stick and carrot approach with the private sector so that, for example, if it does not use land, it will be charged additional rates.
Column 58
Measures should be taken to ensure that public sector land is fully utilised. Totally wasted land must be used up first, certainly before any more green field sites are developed. I hope that the Bill will enable some of the vacant land to be sold off fast.Planning is a major political issue. We have not got it right. It is getting worse, and we need to do something about it fast. I am delighted, for myself and for my constituents, that the Bill foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech may give us a chance to tackle the problem.
6.18 pm
Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport) : Not for the first time, we face a Session that is unlikely to be dominated by legislation, although if I looked at the legislation programme for one thing it was to find provision for no-fault compensation for haemophiliacs who have the HIV virus, almost certainly as a result of a blood transfusion from the national health service. It is regrettable that they should have to be going through the courts and that we are not legislating to help them in this Session.
On the dominating issue, many hon. Members are aware of the significance of what the Prime Minister said about Iraq and the invasion of Kuwait. The Prime Minister has, quite properly, put the House on warning that, without notice, we could find ourselves engaged in a war in that region. It was Clausewitz who said that surprise is the root of all military activity. It is an action where there can be no major warning. Indeed, if there is a major warning, our forces will be put at serious risk. There must, of course, be a measured approach. Before the point of entering into combat, it is always possible that a negotiated settlement will suddenly and surprisingly emerge as a possibility, but the judgment has been made--I think it is a fair one--that, on present prospects, Saddam Hussein has no intention of withdrawing from all the territory of Kuwait, that sanctions, though they have been supported by the world community, are not biting in the time scale that was thought to be sufficient, and that the outrages that are taking place day by day in Kuwait make it necessary for us reluctantly now to consider seriously the possibility of having to take up arms against Iraq. If that decision is taken in the next few days or weeks, it will have my full support, sadly. I believe that it is necessary now to contemplate that.
The dominating issue is Europe. Perhaps for the first time in the House, the vast majority of us are not debating whether Britain should or should not be a member of the European Community. Instead, we are considering the type of Community in which we want to be fully involved and the sort of Community to which we want to contribute constructively.
Over the past week I have read the press--the top people's press, particularly--and listened to the BBC and there were times when I came close to despairing of this country. It seems that we have begun to generate an atmosphere where it is not possible to negotiate on behalf of the country without that being trivialised, with such negotiations being seen entirely in terms of party politics or what they mean in the context of a general election.
Given the situation that developed in Rome, were the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary right, in substance, in rejecting the document to which the other Eleven were only too happy to put their names? I say
Column 59
emphatically, even to the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who recently resigned as Leader of the House, that they were correct. There are substantive and vital issues that affect Britain and the House and, more importantly, the entire European Community, and they had to be addressed. To the members of the chattering classes, who have never negotiatedanything--practically none of them has ever negotiated within the European Community--I say that there are times, regretfully, when it is necessary to make it clear that there are issues that might raise the likelihood of exercising the veto.
We cannot have it both ways. Let us be blunt and call a spade a spade. A federalist Europe is now on the political agenda. Jacques Delors, the President of the Commission, is an out-and-out federalist. Michel Rocard, the French Prime Minister, is a federalist. The French President, for the first time since President de Gaulle, who prevented a federal Europe developing when there was the original Six, is showing some signs of being ready to take steps that might lead inexorably to federalism.
These are substantive issues which are not really related to sovereignty, which I think is a bad word. The question is what structure could we happily live with and from which Europe could contribute to global values. There are some who believe that a tight Europe of 12 countries with a defence element and a security element would be a super-state. They believe that they are signing up to be a great power again. That might tempt me if that is what I thought would be the result. If a federalist bureaucratic dream or nightmare, depending on how individuals regard it, were ever to take place, what would emerge? In my judgment, we would see a neutered animal, not an ogre. It would be an entity that would never be able to challenge from time to time the one super-power that is likely to dominate over the next 30 years--the United States. If the United States were to retreat into isolationism, it would not be possible for such an entity to replace it. We would have lost the sinews of nationhood, which allow great decisions to be taken.
Within a community of Twelve, I think that the consensus would lie with Germany. It would not be German in the sense that some people fear a Germany of the past. The Germany of the present is reluctant to exercise global responsibilities and to take risks. It would be a mercantilist Europe. It would be an insensitive, rather inward-looking and introspective Europe.
Let us say that such a federalist state existed in 1980. How would it have responded to any of the great challenges that have emerged over the past decade? Can anyone believe that that federalist Europe would have deployed Pershing missiles and cruise missiles in negotiating first with Brezhnev, secondly with Andropov and thirdly with Gorbachev? Forget it. It would have ducked those issues. Would it have been possible in such a structure for Britain to respond to Argentina's invasion of the Falklands? Forget it. We would have been locked into a consensus that would have been in favour of negotiations. It would have lacked the steel, the sinews and the capacity for nationhood to be exercised in what I believe was a just cause.
Column 60
We now face Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Would a federalist Community of Twelve have responded in the just sufficient level of Britain and France? Forget it. It would not have dreamt of doing so. There are those--the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is one ; unfortunately he has left the Chamber--who would not wish a federalist Community to respond in that way. The right hon. Gentleman is against the European Community for other reasons. I want to see the Community become a unique organisation. I hope that it will not try to be a united states of Europe. That would be nonsensical. The way in which the United States of America emerged from the original 13 founding states with a common ethos, a puritanical morality and a common language was very different from the way in which the European Community developed and will develop.Is it a crime for a British Prime Minister to say some of those things? Is that something for which we have to castigate her? She makes it clear that she believes--she is right to believe--that the British view of the European Community must be listened to and that Britain will not be bounced by 11 other nations.
I do not want to go back to the 1940s at any length, but it must be said that, at a time of grave peril, nationhood gave us sinew, strength and courage. I remember my mother telling me that throughout the second world war she never once believed that Britain would be defeated. When we read the history of that period, it is amazing that anyone could have gone through it without believing that we could be defeated. My mother was not alone. I believe that we all had the same feeling. Even I as a young child never thought of defeat. That attitude stemmed from being proud of the nation and from a readiness to take a lone stand. Let us not decry nationhood, for that is not the way that Europe will develop.
From time to time, Europe will curb the powers of independent nations, and rightly so. Those powers can be called sovereignty if one wishes. The subsidiarity principle that has been brought forward is a right one. We should determine to do at a European level only what needs to be done at that level. I hope that Mr. Delors, the great advocate of the subsidiarity principle, will start practising it. The European Community still gives us the opportunity to develop a unique structure that will lead to greater unity, greater integration and a defence identity, but it should still respect nationhood.
Countries do not always know when they are losing their nationhood. As has been said, it is not like virginity lost. We soon sniff out the important issues. That was de Gaulle's genius--he sniffed out what was on offer and sensed that it meant that France could not exercise the powers and the prerogatives of a proud and independent nation. I hope that President Mitterrand discovers that quickly, because he has made a mistake about what Germany is likely to become over the next 20 years. He fears a Germany of the past.
I ask Jacques Delors and others : are we really expected to contemplate what is currently on offer? Is associate status to be given to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia without the promise of full membership of the European Community? That would be a moral outrage. This and other European countries have a moral responsibility to offer Community membership to Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Chancellor Kohl, who has shown great wisdom during the past few years, reminded the Heads of Government that there would not have been a breakdown
Column 61
of the Berlin wall had not the Hungarian Foreign Minister and Government been prepared to lift the border restrictions and allow people to cross into Austria.Are we to forget what we acquiesced in during that most disgraceful period- -the destruction of Czechoslovakia? Are we to forget that the German-Polish border is one of the most sensitive in Europe? It was right that the present border was ratified in treaty form, and will remain. However, if there is an economic difference across the border, if there is a marked discrepancy in the prosperity of the German people and the Polish people, there will be tensions across the border.
Is it a crime for the British Prime Minister to point out those issues in Europe? Is it wrong to say that enlargement is a vital necessity, morally and strategically important, and economically and demographically necessary? We should tell the leader writers of the top people's newspapers that during the past week they have written more rubbish than is right or proper. If I were a Tory, I would say something to the BBC about its nine o'clock news. Are anonymous Tories to be the top item on the news, when they do not have the guts to come forward and say that they will stand for the leadership of the party, or even to admit that they might be possible names? I have some contempt for that sort of journalism.
I wish to highlight the real and essential questions for the intergovernmental conference. The combination of the Prime Minister's abrasion and the skills of the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor will be good. One of the tragedies is that, for too long, the hinge of foreign and economic policies has not been operating properly. A former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, rightly took the view that the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister should not disagree in Cabinet without each knowing full well beforehand that they disagreed, and without their having tried seriously to resolve their differences.
It is difficult to conduct negotiations in the Community unless the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary are a tight and compact team. That has not been the case during this Government's term of office. Perhaps that is now to be the case, and perhaps better arrangements have now been made. The fundamental issue is the imposition of a single currency. We must explain what that means. Business people say that we must have it because of transaction costs. However, once we explain that transaction costs are a phenomenon of a moving exchange rate, and that if exchange rate stability is achieved by other means transaction costs will be less of a problem, they begin to show some interest. We must also explain that there is a world of difference between a common currency and a single currency.
I disagree with the Prime Minister in that I can envisage circumstances in which it would be in the British national interest to join a single currency which the majority of the large nation states agree to sign up for. On a calculation of advantage, we might decide that not to do so would do so much damage to the City of London that it would be worth taking a risk on some of the other issues--such as whether Euro-Fed would impinge too greatly on the way that successive Governments have conducted their monetary and fiscal policies. However, that is a decision for the sovereign state. I do not decry the views of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, or the fact that his party is federalist. Of course, one of the differences between the former Liberal
Column 62
party and the SDP was that the SDP resolutely refused to become a federalist party. Nevertheless, it is good that our political party puts forward that argument. I do not share its view, but I accept that it is sincerely held.If we decided to join a single currency, as we decided to join the exchange rate mechanism, I would accept that. However, there would be two consequences of being forced to sign a treaty that states that on a certain date we will take on a single currency. First, we cannot anticipate the circumstances in which that treaty, on that date, will come into being ; and, secondly, we would surrender all exchange rate control. Until we can see clearly the nature of the beast in operation in phase 2, it will be hard to be certain that a system comprising central banks--or Euro-Fed-- which will be the tighter organisation needed for those that enter a single currency, are operating independently and actually have an anti- inflationary bias. The detail is everything. Is it a crime to hold out for the detail and to argue that those are fundamental questions? Of course it is not. The way that we discuss such issues is getting out of all proportion.
What of the European view? A sensible senior European recently told me that Britain would never use its veto. I told him not to be kidded by reports in our press and by the gyrations and absurdities of the Tory party during recent weeks. We will be ready to use the veto. Indeed, when the Labour party fully considers the issues it, too, may want to use the veto. I profoundly hope that it will study these issues. Strongly though I welcome the conversion of some of its leading figures to the European Community, I am always wary of a convert. There is an enthusiasm for the convert's cause that may carry away the Labour party. It would be wiser to stick to its traditional view that these issues are fundamental and need to be closely monitored. We should not, like the Prime Minister, imply that Britain will never be part of a single currency, but instead accept that it is an option, as was joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. If Britain so wished, such a further grouping would carry with it membership of Euro-Fed.
There are other questions. If, as I profoundly hope, the Community is to be enlarged, we must deepen the institutional mechanisms for making decisions and make other changes within the Community. If we want a Community of 20- plus, it would be absurd to believe that every nation, let alone the larger nations, should have two Commissioners. However, there is a great deal to be said for changing the nature of the Commission. I should not mind getting rid of the idea that each country should have its own Commissioner. The concept should not be linked to national representation.
The balance between the powers of the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the national Parliaments is all-important. It is again an issue where detail matters, and it would be wrong not to give our partners warning of that. Italy is quite happy to sign up for a federalist state. Mr. Andreotti is only too happy to do so. Many Europeans and, indeed, many prominent Members of this House--such as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)--are federalists. There is no question about that ; he does not often say so, but he is one. There are others, too.
Unfortunately, this is the word that dare not speak its name. Now let us have it out. The Liberal party is a party of federalists : we know where its members stand. Let us hear where more people stand. The leader of that party has
Column 63
a perfectly reasonable view, although I do not agree with it. It is an honourable view, and we should discuss it. It is the responsibility of Parliament to explain the issue to the people, not to trivialise it and say that it is all a question of Mrs. Thatcher's style. For goodness' sake, if the Tory party is not used to her style, it has had a long time to get used to it. Of course it is abrasive ; of course it is sometimes counter-productive.There was a time when Lord Carrington negotiated an extremely good agreement--indeed, it was the best available. However, the Prime Minister rejected it. Then the European Community said that it had had enough, and three or four months later he--poor devil--was sent back to accept the very same agreement. There will come a time when the Prime Minster will have to know when to compromise, and to recognise that she is not going to get everything. It is a tough negotiation ; it is a matter of give and take.
Europe is a vital question for the Labour party. It hopes to win the next general election, and if the Conservative party continues to conduct itself as it has done in the last few weeks, the Labour party's chances will be raised considerably. It is in the Labour party's interest for this issue to be dealt with on a non-partisan, non-political basis. If the Labour party gains power with a narrow majority--and it certainly would be narrow--it will find it immensely hard to face some of the difficult questions. It is essential that we build a degree of bipartisanship on this crucial issue.
The issue of Europe often goes across party lines. I am delighted that I voted against a three-line Whip in 1971, when we were deciding whether to enter the European Community. I relish the idea that the issue can be discussed--in the House, at least--on its merits, and on the substance.
We have been charged with a major responsibility in the House : to stop trivialising this great issue, and to discuss it in a serious and constructive way. In the process, perhaps we can give a little education to the Press Gallery, the television pundits and others. We should make it clear to the EC that a British Prime Minister will be entitled to negotiate, along with the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor, with the authority to exercise our one safeguard--that we will not sign a treaty that we think takes us in a direction in which we do not wish to go. The Community must proceed by consensus when big treaty steps are being taken.
I hope that we will not shirk the necessity to have a defence element within the Community, but not to exclude NATO. Heaven knows, with Turkey acting as it has recently over Iraq, there is a great need for an organisation that links us with Asia Minor and the United States. A genuine Community will have a defence element, and there is nothing for us to be ashamed of in that. In my judgment, the majority of its members will operate a single currency by voluntary commitment ; Britain may well be one of them. However, a single European currency, by statute and on a certain date, is designed to stop the enlargement of the Community to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. That, in this House, of all the Parliaments in the EC, should be totally unacceptable.
Column 64
6.43 pmMr. David Knox (Staffordshire, Moorlands) : Let me add my voice to the congratulations that have been expressed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). In my 20 years in the House, I have heard most--if not all--of the proposers and seconders of the Loyal Address. Today we were given a treat : both speeches were--by any standard--of a very high order. If at any time the electors of Richmond and Barnes were foolish enough to dispense with the services of my hon. Friend, there would certainly be a career open to him in the profession of which his parents were such distinguished practitioners.
The House has just listened to a very interesting speech by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). I am bound to say that I found his speech rather depressing. The right hon. Gentleman left the Labour party over defence and Europe ; I find that strangely inconsistent with some of the remarks that he made today. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about some of my hon. Friends and their conduct. I remember that vote in 1971, when he voted in favour of the principle of our membership of the Community. I must remind him--before he becomes too righteous--of what he did on Second Reading of the European Communities Bill later that year. We all have things that we would like to hide, but that was not the right hon. Gentleman's finest hour. He is, however, quite right about the nature of nationhood. As one who was born in Scotland but is no longer living there, I do not think that the Scots have in any way lost their sense of nationhood, although they are--and have been since 1707 --part of a unitary state in this country. Nationhood is not incompatible with membership of a closely integrated larger political unit. It is just as well to remember that, and to realise what might eventually happen in Europe.
It is, in fact, about Europe that I wish to speak. When I spoke in the debate on the Loyal Address last year, I said that, in the international sphere, there was no doubt that Europe would be the dominant issue in the forthcoming Session, and probably for some years to come. Clearly, I was wrong to limit that to the international sphere. Since then, the domestic scene has been rocked by the resignation over Europe of two Cabinet Ministers, one of whom was the deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps I may say how deeply I regret the resignation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). There can be no doubt that the Cabinet has been weakened by his departure.
The Gracious Speech states that the Government
"will contribute constructively to the inter-governmental conferences on Economic and Monetary Union and Community institutions".
I hope that that will be the case ; however, recent events have cast at least a little doubt on the matter.
It is now nearly 30 years since Dean Acheson said that Britain had lost an empire but had not found a new role in the world. I thought that we had found a new role in the world, and that that role was in the EC ; and that we were participating and playing a full role in the building and development of the new Europe. However, during the past two years--and especially during the past fortnight--some doubt has been cast on that. Instead of trying to deal with the problems of the real world--which, for Britain, are its problems in Europe--there seems to be a growing
Column 65
tendency for some of the popular press and others elsewhere to wallow in nostalgia about a day and age that is long past : a day and age when Britain could stand on its own. We cannot do so now, and it would be folly to try. Future generations will not forgive us if we do.Consequently, I have no doubt that the most important question facing Britain today is our relationship with the EC. It is far more important than any of the legislative proposals in the Gracious Speech, important as some of them are ; it is far more important than the outcome of the next general election, important as that undoubtedly is. It is important because it is through the Community--and only through the Community--that Britain can effectively achieve its political and economic aspirations, and fulfil its destiny. It is important because the Community is in the process of implementing decisions in connection with the single market. That, after all, is now just over a year away. It is important because the Community is about to take decisions about economic, monetary and political union, and Britain must be in a position to make a positive and constructive contribution in the negotiations and to ensure that Britain's real interests are protected.
I find it astonishing that the issue of sovereignty should have been resurrected once again. That issue was widely discussed in the great debates that took place in the House in the early 1970s about our membership of the EC, and I thought that the argument had been laid to rest. I thought that, apart from a few nitpicking lawyers and hardline anti -marketeers, it was accepted that what was important was not the form of sovereignty but its substance. I also thought that it was generally accepted that in the world of interdependence, where the most important economic, monetary and political decisions are heavily influenced, if not determined, beyond the boundaries of nation states, in anything other than small matters it is only the form of sovereignty that rests with nation states ; the substance rests with the continental powers, such as the United States of America, and the developing unions of nations, such as the EC. That means that, if we wish to exercise real sovereignty over our affairs, we can do so only through full membership and full participation in an integrated EC. It is only by pooling sovereignty in the EC that we can gain influence over its substance and so have influence over what happens to us. If anyone doubts that, I remind him of the events of 5 October last year. On that day, British interest rates were increased to 15 per cent. immediately after and as a direct consequence of an increase in German interest rates. We enjoyed the form of sovereignty by raising interest rates, but neither the Government nor even less Parliament exercised any sovereignty on the substance of that decision. It was determined in Germany by the Bundesbank.
At this stage, no one knows exactly what form a European central bank will eventually take. But had there been one last October, there would certainly have been a British presence there. Britons would have been involved in the decision-taking process on interest rates. Indeed--who knows--the governor may even have been a Briton. A European central bank would certainly have involved a bigger British input than we had because we had none at all in the substance of that decision.
Commenting on the argument about sovereignty in the spring/summer 1990 issue of Crossbow, Sir Leon Brittan wrote :
"I suspect that that is a view"--
Column 66
about sovereignty--"put forward by politicians for politicians, rather than one that has deep popular roots and, in any event, what sort of expression of sovereignty is it to have to chase after the Bundesbank within minutes of its unilaterally deciding to put up interest rates?" That leads me to the question of economic and monetary union. As I understand the position, successive Governments have accepted the principle of economic and monetary union going back many years. In the communique issued by the Heads of State and of Government of the countries of the enlarged Community at their meeting in Paris in October 1972--I repeat 1972--there was a commitment to establish an economic and monetary union. According to the communique , the necessary decisions were to be taken during 1973 to allow the transition to the second stage on 1 January 1974 with a view to its completion not later than 31 December 1980. There appears to have been some slippage in that timetable.
Further commitments to EMU were made in the solemn declaration at Stuttgart early in the 1980s, in the Single European Act, and again at Madrid last year. I assume that those commitments were not entered into lightly. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an interesting and constructive contribution to the EMU debate with his proposal for a hard ecu. He accepted that that proposal might lead to a single currency. In the light of the Chancellor's proposals and his speech, I am afraid that I just cannot understand the strong opposition in some quarters to a single currency. It is the inevitable logic of the Chancellor's proposal.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East) : Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that taxation, monetary policy, interest rates and the money supply would be determined not by this Parliament, and not even by the European Parliament under my hon. Friend's suggestion, but by an unelected, unaccountable body of civil servants and bankers?
Mr. Knox : When we were on the gold standard, most of those problems were determined by precisely the sort of people my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Mr. Sayeed : So we came off it.
Mr. Knox : As Lord Jenkins said in the Observer on Sunday, "the question is whether the deutschmark dominates under purely German control or whether we and others share in a European control."
The nature of that European control has not yet been decided. We do not know its precise nature, but whatever else is true, it is manifestly the case that at present, as the example that I have just given of what happened in October last year shows, no control is exercised within Britain.
It is clear that British industry and commerce, and particularly our banking and financial sectors, will be gravely disadvantaged if the Eleven proceed with economic and monetary union and we are left out. I hope that the Government intend to play a full part in the intergovernmental conference and in all other negotiations on economic and monetary union. Following the Rome summit, that will not be easy. A much more positive and
Column 67
constructive approach must be adopted. A willingness to compromise must be exhibited and a different mood must be struck, to use a well-known phrase.Far too often in the past we have mishandled our relations with Europe. We have stood aloof of negotiations, had no influence on them, and then been forced to accept the decisions reached because we had no alternative. Had we participated in the negotiations, British interests would have been taken into account and the outcome would have been more to our pleasing and more in our national interest. Economic and monetary union is vital to Britain. Britain probably has more to lose if we are not involved in it than other countries. Britain certainly has more to gain from it than other countries. Exclusion from any arrangement, even if it was only temporary, would do immense damage to British interests--and I emphasise British interests. It would certainly prevent the City of London from achieving its full potential in Europe. This time, we cannot afford to be left behind.
I want to make a final brief but important point about Europe. I frequently hear hon. Members, including members of the Government, expressing concern about the democratic deficit in the EC. As a strong supporter of the Community, I share that concern. But what is being done about that? Britain, because of its history, has a unique contribution to make in the democratisation of the Community and its institutions. We have more experience of democracy than have any of the other member countries. Instead of complaining about the lack of democracy in the Community, is it not time that we started to do something about it? A constructive British initiative in that respect is long overdue.
6.58 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on their speeches, which represented a pleasant episode of a kind that does not happen often in the House. They lived up to the speeches that I have heard over many years. Neither the right hon. Member for Ayr nor the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes is in his place, but my remarks are meant most sincerely.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), and especially so on this occasion, because I agreed with most of his remarks, particularly in respect of Europe. That topic, and to a lesser extent the Gulf crisis have monopolised today's debate, so I shall not dwell too much on either subject tonight.
I do not claim for one moment to be a expert on Europe or the Gulf, but the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), for all his expertise and experience as a former Foreign Secretary, must acknowledge that we are in Europe as the result of a national referendum. While we must continue to negotiate the best terms for Britain, I am sure that the 11 other members of the Community will not allow this country to bring progress to a standstill--and I am equally convinced that no one in this country wants progress to be halted.
I opposed Britain's entry into the Common Market, but I accept that, as we are now a member, we must be realistic
Column 68
and get the best out of it that we can for this country. How that is to be done is another question. However, I hope that the Prime Minister will get off her high horse. We all know about her personality, and no doubt she meant it the other day when she said "No, no, no" to surrendering British sovereignty, but she must realise that someone else could be leading the negotiations in the not too distant future, when it could be a different ball game. I do not argue with the constructive advice given by the right hon. Member for Devonport, but now that we are in the Common Market, we must take a more positive attitude and secure the best possible deal for Britain.My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spoke persuasively, as he often does, but I have never heard him or any other right hon. or hon. Member who shares his views explain satisfactorily what will happen if the negotiations and diplomacy over the Gulf crisis fail. I am sure that no one in this country really wants war. It is a prospect too dreadful to think about, and everything possible must be done to prevent war. However, what is to be done if diplomacy fails? Are we to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in Kuwait, saying, "We have done everything that we can, and we must not start a war," or are we to remove him by force?
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : I share with my hon. Friend the hope that war can be avoided and, like him, I hope that sanctions will be given time to work. However, I share also my hon. Friend's view that under no circumstances should the criminal regime be allowed to get away with invading and occupying Kuwait. Where is the slightest evidence that Saddam Hussein is prepared to negotiate about withdrawing from Kuwait? Has he not made it clear time and time again over the past few months that he considers Kuwait to be the 17th province of Iraq and that under no circumstances will Iraq withdraw, now or in the future?
Mr. Lofthouse : I share my hon. Friend's views. We must never forget that, if Saddam Hussein is not removed, he will one day be in possession of nuclear weapons. What room will there be for negotiations under those circumstances, knowing his character as we do? Now is the time to settle the Gulf crisis, hopefully by negotiations and diplomacy.
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : Is the hon. Gentleman speaking of settling the Gulf crisis or the situation in the middle east?
Mr. Lofthouse : The Gulf crisis was really the subject of earlier speeches. Hussein has occupied Kuwait by force, with the intention of seizing control of other Arab states and the oil wells that go with them.
I must admit to disappointment at what has been omitted from the Gracious Speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) intervened during the Prime Minister's speech, in his usual manner, to express concern about the Bill on mining subsidence, which, while not the subject of any promise, was expected to be included in the new Session's business. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will call me to order if I start to refer to a Bill that is not part of the Gracious Speech, but perhaps I may continue, given that the Gracious Speech concludes with the words,
"Other measures will be laid before you."
Since 1957, British Coal operated a policy on mining subsidence compensation that existed until 1975, when it
Column 69
was superseded by the Coal Industry Act 1975. That legislation placed an obligation on British Coal to restore houses damaged by subsidence to their former state as soon as possible. In special cases, national compensation was payable where the cost of the repairs was in excess of the value of the property.For many years, that scheme did not operate satisfactorily, because different British Coal areas interpreted it in different ways and people in certain areas allegedly received better treatment than others. The scheme's shortcomings were highlighted in evidence given to the Select Committee on Energy in 1986 by the Coal Board's chairman, Sir Ian MacGregor, when it was shown that the cost of the scheme to British Coal was £250 million, and that £200 million of that had gone in compensation payments in Nottingham--and only £50 million for the rest of the country. I know that Nottingham suffered from severe damage, but criminal charges were made against some individuals, and I understand that some people went to prison. The Government had already decided to set up an inquiry--eventually called the Waddilove inquiry--prior to the problem in Nottinghamshire. In 1983, the Waddilove committee reported and made 65 recommendations, many of which were welcome to people in mining communities whose properties had been damaged. In 1987-88, the Energy Select Committee inquired further into the subject of subsidence and found that the Government were still sitting on the Waddilove report and had failed to take any action on it. The Committee decided that it would make a further investigation into mining subsidence problems caused by British Coal.
The Committee set about its inquiry by taking evidence from experts from various parts of our coalfields, from people whose property had suffered from subsidence, and from British Coal. The Committee reported on 17 July this year, and made 21 recommendations. The Government's response to some of the Committee's
recommendations has been encouraging. The then Minister acknowledged the problems and promised that a Bill would be introduced at the earliest opportunity. He did not specify when, but people in mining communities expected it to be this year. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
I hope that the Government will introduce legislation on subsidence as part of the other measures that are to be brought forward. I had some encouragement from one of the Prime Minister's answers this afternoon. If that is the case, I ask the Government to take the recommendations of the Select Committee into consideration. That Committee had the privilege of listening to the experts. While I do not expect any Government to legislate on everything that a Select Committee finds, much of the advice and the recommendations by such Committees is wise. I feel sure that, if the Government had taken the slightest bit of notice of the Select Committee's report on the privatisation of electricity, they would not have got themselves into the mess that they got into in the early days. The Committee advised the Government to put the reins on and to go steady. If they had done so, they would have produced more satisfactory legislation. The Committee did not consider one important aspect of subsidence--the blight which affects the damaged areas. I accept that this is a difficult problem. For example, two or three homes in an area can be badly damaged while
Column 70
neighbouring houses are untouched, but owners of the neighbouring properties will be unable to sell their homes because they are in a blighted area.An example has come to light in recent weeks in a litte village called Darrington in my constituency. Homes are expensive there, and most of them belong to people in the professional classes, who now find themselves in difficulties because their expensive homes have been damaged. British Coal has dealt with their claims. However, a gentleman came to se me the other day and said that bungalows on either side of his property had been marketed at £125,000--that is a high price for my constituency--but had been damaged to such an extent that British Coal had bought them. His bungalow lies in between them. He has been made redundant from the mining industry and has found a job in Lancashire, but because his bungalow is situated between those properties and is in an area which is subject to subsidence, he cannot sell it. That is a major problem. I hope that, if and when the Government introduce a Bill to deal with subsidence, they will consider that matter.
In some cases, houses have been repaired but have been left with a tilt. British Coal has no obligation to pay for that. British Coal has offered two of my constituents, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Wilcox, £2, 500, which it later increased to £3,500 to pay for the tilt. That would appear to be fair, until one considers that houses in the area are valued at between £33,000 and £35,000. British Coal has had to buy some of the houses in the area because of the tilt. There is no obligation upon it to do so, but it has taken that decision in the case of certain houses.
British Coal is advertising for sale three of the houses which have suffered subsidence. In the advertisement, it states that, owing to mining subsidence, it is selling the properties for £11,500, £12,000 and £10,000--houses which had a market value of £33,000 before they were damaged. However, British Coal is only offering my constituents £3,500 in compensation, despite the fact that its advertisements acknowledge that it will only be able to get £10,000 or £11,000 for them. That is unjust. It is not fair that an owner-occupier can only get £11,000 or £12,000 for his house but is offered only £3,500 in compensation by British Coal. That is not on.
I hope that the Government will seriously consider introducing a Bill which will give British Coal the statutory obligation to rectify the matter. It does not seem as if they will, but politics is a funny old game. If a Tory Government return after the next election, British Coal will be privatised. If that happens, private owners will have no obligation--according to my legal advice--to compensate under present legislation in the same way that British Coal has an obligation to do.
This is a serious matter. I hope that the Government will note the points that I have made and introduce a Bill as soon as is humanly possible that incorporates them.
7.19 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |