House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Dec 1990

Column 491

European Parliament? It cannot be given a greater role without being given more powers and that may need legislation in this House and in the other areas of the Community.

Mr. Cash : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman : I have already told the hon. Gentleman that, because of the pressure on time, I shall not give way again.

Whatever the Foreign Secretary means by monitoring by the European Parliament of Community expenditure, will he propose such an innovation at the intergovernmen-tal conference next week? What about the widening of the Community? Austria's application for membership has been lodged, and Labour thinks that it should be accepted right away. There is no good reason for delaying Austrian accession to the Community until 1992 or any other year. The Foreign Secretary made a brief reference this afternoon to widening the Community, but he did not say whether the Government are in favour of immediate Austrian membership. He spoke again about negotiations on the European Free Trade Area. Will the right hon. Gentleman propose in Rome not only that Austria be admitted immediately, but that applications be invited from Sweden, whose Government have shown great and positive interest, and from the remaining EFTA countries? We should welcome all the EFTA countries into the Community as soon as they positively want to join.

The Government have failed to state their policy clearly and without equivocation--and having heard the Foreign Secretary's speech, I am not even sure that the Government have a policy. Like the former Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary has spoken at length about the accession of eastern European countries--and when the necessary conditions are fulfilled, we should welcome their membership as well. However, the Government do not appear to have a clear policy on the accession of other western European countries.

The Government's confusion in relation to political progress is as nothing compared with their total disarray over economic and monetary union. The Government promised a debate at some stage, but it is disgraceful that the House will not have that opportunity before the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to the intergovernmental conference next week. The Foreign Secretary says, "I shall not refer to that aspect, because the House is to debate it." However, that will be after the intergovernmental conference, at which the Government may have made unequivocal commitments or even threats--and that could be very dangerous.

Mr. Spearing : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, although there may be a debate on economic and monetary union, it will not be arranged for next week--and that because there will be one of two conferences next weekend, today is the last opportunity to debate economic and monetary union before that conference? Does not it follow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that any speeches about, or references to, that aspect will be not only in order but central to the subject of this debate?

Column 492

Mr. Deputy Speaker : It will be for the Chair to make a ruling when that question arises.

Mr. Kaufman : Perhaps I, too, may respond to my hon. Friend's point of order. The Opposition amendment, which Mr. Speaker selected, makes specific reference to the Government's

"failure to produce a coherent policy towards the

Inter-Governmental Conferences"--

plural--

"due to be held next week."

Therefore, any of my right hon. and hon. Friends who want to address the economic and monetary aspects will surely be in order.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), could not we resolve the issue and reach a specific conclusion on economic and monetary union by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) withdrawing the Opposition amendment to allow debate of the alternative amendment concerning constitutional, political and economic significance of the proposals?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The House cannot consider altering now the business of the day. I have heard nothing so far that is out of order.

Mr. Kaufman : On the face of it, the new Prime Minister seems to be maintaining the uncompromising attitude displayed by his predecessor. Replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said, in a written answer :

"The Government remain opposed to the imposition of a single monetary policy managed by a European Central Bank as prescribed in stage 3 of the Delors report."-- [Official Report, 3 December 1990 ; Vol. 182, c 45. ]

That answers a question that was not put, but it nevertheless states the Prime Minister's position. Like most of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on that and other issues, it is meaningless. The Prime Minister asserts that the Government remain opposed "to the imposition of a single monetary policy".

However, no one organisation can impose a central bank or a single currency on the United Kingdom. The question is whether a British Conservative Government would accept either or both. The answer is far from clear.

In the rewarding interview that he gave to Mr. Walden, the new Prime Minister himself posed the question :

"Could we accept an independent, non-elected central bank with external control over our domestic monetary situation?"

The right hon. Gentleman provided the answer to his own question : "My answer to that is that the House of Commons will not accept that at the moment, and I do not think we should concede that at the moment."

Will there be a moment when the Government will concede either or both? We have not received an answer this afternoon.

Mr. Cash : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that specific point?

Mr. Kaufman : No, I have said that I shall not give way again. However, if the Foreign Secretary sought to intervene, I should naturally feel obliged to give way.

The outgoing Prime Minister certainly had an answer to that question. Asked whether she would veto any arrangement that jeopardised the pound sterling, she

Column 493

replied simply, yes. In that fatal exchange on 30 October that led to the resignation of the deputy Prime Minister, the then Prime Minister was questioned by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)--a former Euro-fanatic who is now a Euro-negativist.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover) : That was nasty.

Mr. Kaufman : Nasty, but accurate.

The right hon. Member for Devonport has become a kind of clone of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes)--though happily not yet Cheltenham. His whole vision of the future of British politics to the turn of the century is governed by the burning question of whether Labour will have a candidate running for the Woolwich and Greenwich constituencies at the next general election. The answer to that question is clearly yes.

During questions on the former Prime Minister's statement about the Rome summit, the right hon. Member for Devonport asked whether Britain, if faced with the imposition by treaty of a single currency, would be entitled and right to use the veto. The right hon. Lady replied :

"I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman."-- [Official Report, 30 October 1990 ; Vol. 178, c. 877.]

Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what is the Government's position under their new management?

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) : The Government's policy remains unchanged.

Mr. Kaufman : No, I am talking about the latest Government--who will be in power for a short period yet, and whose Ministers will be attending intergovernmental conferences next week with no policy having been put to the Cabinet, let alone approved by it. For a little while longer--longer than we hoped, in view of the poll tax time scale offered by the new Secretary of State for the Environment--we have to consider the policies of the present Government. The problem remains that we still do not know what they are. Will the Government use their veto against the imposition of a central bank or a single currency? Answer from the Foreign Secretary comes there none.

That is hardly surprising, because the Government have already accepted the principle of a central bank. Last Sunday, in Monza, the Governor of the Bank of England, Robin Leigh-Pemberton, signed draft statutes for the proposed central bank. He is a Government servant, and it is a nationalised organisation. There was no need for him to do that, yet he did it. In any case, the Government have already made it clear that they do not, in principle, oppose a single currency. As we all know, they have proposed the hard ecu--common currency.

Mr. Cash : The right hon. Gentleman should be accurate. He avoids saying that there is a reserve by the Governor of the Bank of England on those statutes. He is misleading the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We have had a lot of bogus points of order. Many hon. Members seek to take part in the debate, and that process is not helped by interventions and bogus points of order.

Mr. Kaufman : The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has a copy of the statutes. It has been reported in the press--and not denied--that Robin Leigh-Pemberton, as Governor of the Bank of England, signed the statutes. The

Column 494

question is why did he do so, if the Government are not yet committed to a central bank. In any case, the Government have already made it clear that they do not oppose a central currency in principle. They proposed the hard ecu, what they call the common currency--a half-baked nonsense with no future, as was shown by the meeting of Finance Ministers at Monza.

The new Chancellor of the Exchequer was quoted in The Daily Telegraph after that meeting as follows :

"Mr. Lamont claimed that one other country had shown interest' in the British alternative."

How pathetic. I am sure that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office would be in favour, because that country is Spain and he has a great affection and affinity with Spain. A little interest by one out of 11 countries is not exactly encouraging. If Britain is almost entirely alone in espousing the cause of the hard ecu, there is no doubt about how Ministers see its future. In his Mansion house speech as Chancellor, the new Prime Minister said : "The hard ecu could ultimately evolve towards a single currency." In an interview with Mr. Jonathan Dimbleby on 25 November, the Prime Minister said :

"The hard ecu could develop into a single currency."

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury--whose survival as a Treasury Minister must have some significance--has gone even further. A couple of months ago he said :

"The hard ecu could easily develop into a single currency." Speaking to the House of Lords Select Committee a couple of months ago, the Financial Secretary said of the hard ecu policy : "The next stage of having a single currency could actually happen more quickly by going down this path"--

the path of the hard ecu.

Earlier this year the Foreign Secretary said that the hard ecu plan

"does not rule out a single currency in the longer term". As for the new Secretary of State for the Environment, he said : "At last we have recognised that a new central institution is inevitable and that a European currency is likely to come". Perhaps he would like to talk with the Opposition parties about that.

So, the Government are clearly not opposed to the principle of a single currency. How could they be when they see their own pet notion of a hard ecu leading to that? The game was further given away by the Chancellor at Monza on Sunday when, talking about a central bank, he said :

"We do not see any need for institutions of that kind unless there was a single currency."

Once again the Government are entering the intergovernmental conference on EMU next week with no clear idea of what they are in favour of, or against. They will be jeopardising Britain's interests and the economic and political future of our country because of that imprecision and a lack of any clear policy at that crucial conference.

If the United Kingdom has nothing to propose at those meetings, others will make the running. If the United Kingdom does not put forward proposals for others to consider, accept, modify, vary and compromise with--with the aim of reaching ultimate agreement--that will not stop the other countries from agreeing and going forward, leaving the United Kingdom not only isolated but damaged.

Column 495

If I and my right hon. Friends were taking part in those conferences, we would go there with clear proposals. We would propose the extension of qualified majority voting in the ministerial Council when we went to the political intergovernmental conference, and for a clearly enhanced role for the European Parliament, as specified in our policy document. We would go to the economic and monetary union intergovernmental conference with proposals for sensible conditions for further economic and monetary progress, in a manner that best serves Britain's long-term interests, and those of the Community. We would propose building on the strength of existing, well-tried institutions, such as ECOFIN, the Economic and Finance Council. We would be arguing for progress to be conditioned by progress on economic convergence. The Prime Minister cannot argue with that, because he has repeatedly spoken about the importance of convergence, for example, in his speech on 20 June, when he launched the hard ecu and said :

"Without greatly increased convergence, monetary union simply would not work."

In an interview in the Financial Times a few days ago, he specifically argued for what he called

"the right form of economic convergence"

as a condition for proceeding to a single currency.

The Labour party argues for economic convergence as a necessity for progress on all those issues. We would also be arguing for matters for which the Government show no interest whatever--for growth policies ; and for enhanced regional and structural funds. I recognise that the Government laugh at growth, having plunged us into a recession under this Prime Minister. Yes, growth is a joke for the Government ; but it is a not a joke for our partners in the Community. We should also be arguing for stronger social policies, including the social charter. We would be arguing for Britain. Instead of arguing for Britain, the Government have spent the past 12 years arguing among themselves. As the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East pointed out in his resignation speech, the consequence has been grave damage to British interests. Having been Foreign Secretary and Chancellor during that period--until he was humiliated by the right hon. Member for Finchley last year--he should know.

The fact is that, even after the change of Prime Minister, the Government have no idea of where they are going on European issues. They have no idea of what they want to do, and no idea of what they intend to say at the intergovernmental conferences. The Cabinet have not discussed it. The promised Cabinet paper has not been produced, and may not be produced. The present Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister have said that they value the House of Commons so much, that its sovereignty is so important, but we have not had a tittle of information to consider today so that we can give the advice of Parliament to Ministers who are going to the intergovernmental conferences in Rome next week to represent this country. The House has had no opportunity to give the Government any clear advice, based on declared Government policy, because there is no Government policy- -all there is, is muddle, temporising, patching-up and trying to keep their split party together for a little longer.

The Government have failed the nation on Europe, as on the poll tax, the national health service, education and

Column 496

the economy. The nation wants a new start. It will not get it from a Prime Minister who merely mouths the same old cliches in less memorable words. Britain will get a new start only with a new Government, and that means a Labour Government.

6.8 pm

Mr. David Howell (Guildford) : I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say this afternoon--as he did in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing yesterday--that there is to be no revolution in Government policy dealing with matters related to the European Community. Indeed, he affirmed that Britain's policy will continue to be based on practical steps towards our proper place in Europe, and proper development in Europe. In short, our policy would be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I am sure that that is the right approach. Anything else would lead to extremely inadequate developments in the European Community.

You have suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the question of European monetary union should not be central to the debate, but we cannot avoid discussing it, because monetary union raises fundamental political issues. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, along with others, will discuss those when they go to the European Council, and also at the two intergovernmental conferences that will begin immediately after that.

I do not see the difficulties in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) seemed to be wallowing. A common currency of a sort already exists, with an inadequate ecu ; the markets clearly want a more substantial ecu, which is exactly what the so-called hard ecu will be. It will mean a currency that is managed, and a central institution--the European Monetary Fund--will be set up. That is the policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Over the next decade or so, we shall be able to see whether markets and people, customers and industry, really want to proceed to a huge, centalised single currency and monetary policy, to be run by an autonomous central bank. Personally, I doubt it very much : that would go entirely against history, leading to more centralism when what we want is more diffusion and decentralisation. There is no need, however, for the right hon. Member for Gorton to become obsessed with whether that will happen in 10 years' time. The inner deutschmark zone of Germany, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria and one or two other countries will probably stick together in a kind of union for many years to come ; a sort of "multi-speed" arrangement will probably develop, and I do not think that we need spend too much time worrying about it, because we have proposed our own common currency, managed by the European Monetary Fund. That will give everyone in Europe a decade or so to decide whether they want to move on, and, if so, how.

Mr. Spearing : In view of the importance of economic and monetary union--which he has emphasised, despite its omission from the discussion by the Foreign Secretary--does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in accordance with our universal desire for more parliamentary input in European Community matters, a special Select Committee should be appointed to look into the potential benefits of EMU, potential methods of organisation and, perhaps,

Column 497

some of the risks. Would that not be a wise step, in view of the fact that past Community treaties have sometimes not turned out quite as they were advertised?

Mr. Howell : The Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service has already conducted an inquiry, and will no doubt conduct more : the IGC opening next week is only the beginning of many months--possibly years--of discussion. Existing Select Committees will certainly has the opportunity to look into the matter very closely. Let me return to the question of political developments in Europe. My party's policy is, very properly, cautious and evolutionary ; the Opposition's policy appears, in a sense, to have evolved already. I congratulate them : they have come up with a very clear policy, which some of us had the privilege of glimpsing when we attended the Rome parliamentary conference last week.

I freely confess that, among the Conservatives, there were and remain divided views on how fast and how far we should go with all these complex issues. On the whole, however, we take the view that the calm and common- sense evolutionary approach of my right hon. Friend will allow matters to develop at the right speed. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will no doubt confirm and explain to his Back Benchers, the position in the Labour party was very different. Although one Labour Member --the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), displaying his usual integrity--dissented from the very federalist declaration passed by the parliamentary groups in Rome, I understand that the official Labour party, led by its official spokesman, voted for the full centralised, federalised socialist ticket.

The document to which the party gave full support includes not merely union on a federal basis, but approval for an autonomous central bank, approval for arriving at a single currency, approval for the Commission to become the executive of the entire European union, a vast extension of qualified majority voting, approval for the president of the Commission to be voted in by the European Parliament, approval for the European Parliament's initiation of legislation, a vast extension of the Community's powers over social environmental matters--in fact, the full federal arrangements. Just to ram the point home, the document ends with a call for all those measures to become the official policy of all member Governments and of the forthcoming IGCs. Labour Members voted--openly and, as I appreciate, very bravely--for that as the official policy of their party.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : The right hon. Gentleman is making rather less than his usual contribution. As he must know very well, he has produced a complete caricature of the Labour document, which is a united document.

Having labelled the resolution "socialistic", the right hon. Gentleman should take account of some people who supported it and who would reject the application of such a term. This is partly why his party is so isolated in the European Parliament, and on Europe generally : it uses labels that are wholly separate from the major course of the current political developments in Europe.

Mr. Howell : With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has got that upside down. What concerns me as we advance in European terms--I freely confess to being pro-Europe--is not the difficulties that we encounter in our enormous task, which is forcing us to face many new

Column 498

issues which we seek honestly to face ; what concerns me is the uncritical and facile welcome given to a general, massive centralisation of power in a kind of United States of Europe, something that belongs more to the 18th and 19th centuries than to the 21st. I suppose that, in a way, it is no surprise to me that a socialist Labour party should go along with that.

The details--everything that I have said--appear in the document that I have in my hand, which was fully supported, officially, by the Labour party.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : I think that there has been a genuine misunderstanding. It is my clear view that those who went to the so-called assize were speaking entirely for themselves, and could in no way claim to represent either their parties or, even more important, the House of Commons. Responsibility for supporting the shameful propositions listed by the right hon. Gentleman belongs entirely to those people, as individuals.

Mr. Howell : I hate to cross swords with the right hon. Gentleman, for whose views and integrity I have the profoundest respect, but I must regretfully tell him that the picture that he has tried to paint is not the true one. I freely confess that those on my side acted as individuals ; indeed, scorn may be poured on us because we did not all go in the same direction. Some were in favour, some were against and some abstained. Labour's official spokesman, however, said that Labour representatives had received word from London that they were authorised to support the document. Let me say in their defence that, when their spokesman supported the document, he expressed some reservations--and, my goodness, reservations are needed, for this is the full, old-fashioned federalist ticket, with no qualifications.

Mr. Anderson : To an extent, the right hon. Gentleman has put the record straight. He should say, however, that his party's representatives-- including him--were split three ways ; and, having said that we accepted the whole federalist package, he should stress that substantial reservations were expressed by the Labour party spokesman. With the exception of one Member, we spoke with a united voice, while the three-way split among the Conservatives reflected the massive division in the party.

Mr. Howell : This does not bode very well for the future. If a possible Labour Government's approach would be to accept everything, vote for it and then, in one and a half minutes, say that they have some reservations, there is not much hope of them defending the country's interests.

Some of us went to Rome with rather higher hopes than were justified to try to establish and strengthen the role of national Parliaments in the process of European development. That was the real purpose. I am afraid that we did not really get down to that. However, inside the document, among all the generalised federalist aspirations, there are one or two ideas that we should examine further on how this Parliament and other national Parliaments can rightly play their decisive and central role in the future development of Europe and its democratic structure. As I have said, I am afraid that we did not get very far because of the long list of centralising aspirations which had such enthusiastic support from certain quarters.

We need to have a clear way of deciding who does what in the Community, where the powers are to lie and how the

Column 499

people who hold the powers will be accountable. Hon. Members who are trying to focus on the central issue should keep reminding themselves and others that we do not see this as a matter of tiers and pyramids, with the Community institutions being a higher tier and the national Parliaments being a lower tier.

I reject the analysis, even of distinguished people such as commissioners in Brussels, when they grandly talk about subsidiarity meaning that the big strategic issues will be held by something called the Community and that lower levels will manage national affairs. That is the wrong way of seeing things. There is no superior or inferior body in the future structure. Powers and functions may be handled at different levels and that may change over time because nothing is fixed about the arrangements. We must remember, as must our friends in the European Parliament and officials in the Community institutions, that the Community is at our disposal. It is not the master. The nation states are the fundamental units of politics and any question of powers must be settled on that basis.

Sir Ian Lloyd (Havant) : I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend's interesting speech. He referred to the term "nation state". Is he aware of a remark made not long ago by the recently deceased Andrei Sakharov, who was a great man, a great political leader and one of the greatest scientists? One of his last remarks was that there is no problem facing the modern world that can any longer be solved by the nation state.

Mr. Howell : That is fine, and it diverts me fascinatingly, because that man was a sad child of a gigantic empire that is far too large and is now falling apart. We in Europe are thinking in rather different terms. I shall come back to why the nation state, far from belonging to the 19th century, may be the appropriate administrative unit for the 21st century. I am talking about the nation state as we understand it and not as it was understood by the poor harassed Soviet citizens and the heroes who sought to dissent from the Stalinist empire.

The guiding principle that we are offered to try to sort out who does what at which level has been the matter of subsidiarity. Some of my hon. Friends and people throughout the European Community have rightly pointed out that there are real practical difficulties in pinning that down and defining it. If one tries to put it into the preamble of the treaties, which is proposed in the declaration supported by the Labour party, there will be problems about how it is judged and how it is made justiciable in the courts. There is always the difficulty that, if it is the European Court that makes the judgments, there will be a drift towards the centre, the judgments will be in favour of a central power and we will not have got much further in ensuring that the centralising tendencies of European affairs are countered by proper democratic forces. Therefore, subsidiarity is difficult ; we cannot simply say, "Fine, put it in the treaty." We must do much more work, and perhaps Britain can contribute to the work of trying to bring home the enormous practical difficulties of giving it a legal sense and definition.

The central issue for this Parliament must be accountability. It was at the conference in Rome that I and some of my hon. Friends tried to put forward some ideas as to how the affairs of the European Community, the

Column 500

decisions of the Council of Ministers and the activities of the Commission could be made much more accountable and democratic. We have done more in this Parliament through parliamentary scrutiny. The hon. Member for Newham, South has set a towering example of energy and application with his Committee in showing how parliamentary scrutiny can be extended. I greatly admire him for that. We can do that, and other Parliaments throughout Europe should do the same. We can seek to have earlier information and an opportunity to discuss issues before they are, as it were, cooked and baked into policy, so that the sensation of being bounced and having a ready-made policy from Brussels delivered on our plate can be ameliorated.

One suggestion is that, when the presidency changes every six months, it should circulate its intentions to all member Parliaments, so that they can be discussed. Another suggestion is that the Commission should put forward its annual work programme in great detail for member Parliaments to discuss. Another possibility, which we have all analysed, is that the European Parliament and national Parliaments should work much closer together. That is right but, as I have said, the European Parliament is not the centre of all this but merely a part of the democratic procedure. This is not a federal Government, so the European Parliament could not play the sole role in filling the so-called democratic deficit.

I do not feel happy about the idea--again, it is apparently official Labour party policy--that the European Parliament should initiate legislation. I can see all sorts of difficulties in that. We want our colleagues in the European Parliament to be more effective in controlling Community expenditure. They are able and equipped to do that. It may be that a degree of co-decision between the national Parliaments and the European Parliament is desirable, but that is for us to decide here. Perhaps we should seek an inter-parliamentary agreement stipulating minimum standards of scrutiny, control forewarning and advance information required by all national Parliaments in the Community so that there is effective input and control from national level.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) : The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his friends in the European Parliament. Is it not true that the majority of Conservative Members of the European Parliament supported the Rome document which the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) has referred to as socialistic?

Mr. Howell : I said that Conservative Members had different ideas about it ; I did not disguise the differences of view. It is a bit of a curate's egg and, like the curate's egg, it is excellent in parts. My judgment remains--it will be shared by many in the Labour party--that it is a pretty hot federalist stew. It remains a matter of amazement that the Opposition Front Bench representives should put their imprimatur upon it. They had their reasons, and no doubt they will be explained later ; however, it looks a little odd. We should be concentrating on seeking to bring true and reassuring democracy to the European process. There is a place in that for the Community institutions and the European Parliament. There is also a vital place for national Parliaments. We are closer to people. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we need political reform. We need such reform in the United

Column 501

Kingdom as well, and I have no doubt that we will get some. We need reform that spreads and does not centralise power.

We need reform that reverses, not accelerates, the drift to the centre that is bound to go on. Everyone in Brussels can see that it is going on. It needs to embrace and not reject the new democracies of eastern Europe and the new applicants. I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton about the position of Austria. Above all, we need political reform that refreshes and does not suffocate and stifle national identities and national differences and diversities. Those must be the guiding principles, not those sometimes reflected in the sort of document to which I have referred.

I am sorry if I have taken a long time, but there have been many interruptions. I apologise for detaining the House so long. Such political reform should be rooted in nation states, not--I emphasise this to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd)--because nation states are part of the old order that Mr. Sakharov feared but because they are part of the new order and because they provide a sensible administrative unit--a comfortable size of administrative power--in this age of global generalities and mega-organisations and institutions, which many people feel to be extremely remote from them.

Those are the principles that I believe and offer to my hon. Friends as the ones that we should enshrine in our approach to political reform in Europe. As with monetary reform, to which our evolutionary approach is correct, all we need is the intellectual vigour and power to persuade others who are ready and open to persuasion that this is the sensible way forward.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Next Section

Home Page