House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Dec 1990

Mr. Lord : Will the hon. Gentleman come to the heart of the debate and tell us why he voted for a united Europe last week in Rome?

Mr. Robertson : The hon. Gentleman sat on the opposite side of the hemicycle of the Italian Parliament last week with his Conservative party delegation to the conference. Out of that delegation, three voted for the declaration that has become a point of controversy.

Mr. Lord : How did the hon. Gentleman vote?

Mr. Robertson : The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the leader of the delegation, could not find it in himself to vote against it, but he did not vote for it--he deliberately abstained--and three Conservative Members of Parliament voted, along with every Tory

Column 542

Member of the European Parliament, for the declaration. I voted for the declaration and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) did the same. We did so with reservations that we expressed. This was a unique meeting. This was not a resolution of the House of Commons ; it was a conference of European

parliamentarians, using the rules of the European Parliament and, we voted for the general sentiments of the resolution--whatever the imperfections of the resolution and the procedure--believing that that conference was a chance and an opportunity for parliamentarians-- Mr. Nicholls Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson : The hon. Gentleman will simply reiterate the question, so he should sit down.

We believe that Britain should have its say in the discussions that are going on and the conference provided a unique opportunity. We made our view and our reservations on the subject known, and that is the end of the story.

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

Mr. Robertson : No, I shall not give way. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney talked earlier about the small change of the argument, I thought that he was referring to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), whose speeches we hear time and again, and which add nothing either to this Parliament or to the Italian Chamber of Deputies.

But the confusion in the Government goes deep and I give just one example to add to those given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The new Chancellor of the Exchequer--the previous Chief Secretary, one of those who pretended that there was a common policy- -went to the ECOFIN meeting in Monza on Sunday last. He briefed his fellow Finance Ministers and the press. What, therefore, is the new policy of the central issue of this debate?

The Independent on Monday morning said :

"Lamont hopes for a deal on EC monetary union."

But The Times said :

"Lamont reaffirms policy on currency."

The Guardian headline said :

"Lamont signals EC deal."

But The Daily Telegraph said :

"Lamont stands fast on monetary union."

The Financial Times said :

"Shift in tone on monetary union signalled to EC."

We are back again to the confusion described by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East--stretching the meaning of words beyond what is credible.

What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean--this is of central importance to what will happen in Rome next week--when last Sunday he said :

"I have every hope that the intergovernmental conference can reach an agreement acceptable to us and to our Community partners and which will keep us moving forward together"?

Mr. Hurd : It is simple.

Mr. Robertson : The Foreign Secretary, who comes from a stable of fiction writing, tells us that it is simple. Of course it is if one is writing fiction, but not if one is living in the real world. In the same press conference the Chancellor said :

"We do not accept the need for the European central bank."

Column 543

But since the European central bank is the very foundation of the EMU intergovernmental conference, either the Chancellor is stupid in pretending that there is any hope of getting an agreement or--despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton says, no one could be that stupid--it is yet another example of the meaning of words being stretched beyond what is credible.

The policy was no, no, no. Now it is perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, and it will be yes, yes, yes. Plus c a change, plus c'est la me me chose, as they say every day in Hamilton. This pantomime of twisted words and convoluted, confused policies would be a joke if the issue before us was not so deeply serious. Europe now faces some of its most important decisions for a generation, which will affect the whole way of life of the people of Britain and of the continent for many years to come. Our debate has highlighted the importance and gravity of the decisions that must be made.

The GATT talks, on which the world's trading relationships are based, and on which thousands of jobs and livelihoods depend, are in crisis--even as we debate. There may be a final climbdown. That will be something else for the fiction writers. The Foreign Secretary wrote an enthralling novel about life in the European Community. He is the only man who could possibly have written a thriller about the European Community. That must have given him the qualification for becoming Foreign Secretary, but obviously it was not enough to become Prime Minister.

In one week's time, two intergovernmental conferences will open, and they will determine not only the economic and monetary framework that will dictate the way in which this and future generations live, but set an ambitious pattern for the political dimension of the future Europe.

Even more serious is the situation to the east of our continent, as the Soviet Union enters an unprecedented winter of discontent. Its people are hungry, its shops are empty, and its ruling party is without authority. Its very integrity as a nation is in question. Its leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, has--in common with only a very few figures in history--changed the whole world for the better, yet he is now being condemned and may even be replaced because he cannot get bread and meat on to the shop shelves.

The Foreign Secretary rightly drew attention to that situation, and to the need for the British people to rise to the challenge of providing food aid to the Soviets. Just as the German people have risen to that challenge, so too should the British people. A country that was once the greatest power in Europe and a nuclear super-power is now in a shambles, and after 70 years of being held behind barriers, its people are about to spill into the wastelands in considerable numbers, and that could easily overwhelm us. If that were not enough to bring sobriety to us over the next few weeks, the newly democratised states of central and eastern Europe, whose freedom we have celebrated all year, urgently need our help. If their economic experiments are not to die, and if their bright new dawn is not to vanish in an anarchic tide of nationalism, we must extend the assistance which those new nations need, and which help to secure our own stability as well.

That is a tough enough agenda, but it is especially tough for a Government who will not tell us where they

Column 544

stand on the monetary and political union intergovernmental conferences. I refer not just to EMU, which brought the Thatcher statues tumbling down in Tory committee rooms across the land, but to all the other key issues that must be resolved.

Is our future to be left to the bankers? Where do the Government stand on regional transfers? Are they willing to allow unprosperous areas of Europe to be swamped by the market place? What is the Government's view on convergence? Where is their agenda for the political union intergovernmental conference that was promised so long ago? Why are the Government so reluctant to address the essential and central questions of decision-making and accountability in respect of the European Parliament? Why is Britain alone resisting the social charter and so many of the features of European legislation that would be to our advantage?

The Tory party has discarded a leader whose European policies it viewed as a liability and a millstone. It was right, and it did Britain a service by removing the right hon. Member for Finchley. However, she left a bitter legacy. She stoked up the fires of isolationist nationalism on Conservative Benches, and they will not easily be extinguished--least of all by a new Prime Minister who has so long and strongly been identified with the former premier's failed Bruges approach. The Prime Minister will certainly be unable to mend the splits before next week's conference.

There is a new mood in Europe today. Those of us who were privileged enough to attend the conference of the Parliaments in Rome last week can testify that across the Community, from left to right, people are committed to a process of closer integration. We cannot wish that mood away. They do not think that that process challenges their own precious national identities, and neither should we. Britain can be part of that process--shaping it, influencing it and moulding its outcome. We can choose to stay apart, uncontaminated. The choice is ours. What we cannot do is fool the British people into believing that their lives will not be for ever affected intimately by what others agree on.

I fear that this divided Government, with no clear vision, unprepared for the new mood, and criminally responsible for the fact that our economy is not prepared for what it is about to join, are no Government fit to face Europe's future. It is time that they stepped aside and allowed a Government with commitment to take over. 9.40 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones) : This has been a valuable debate and, despite a late start, 18 hon. Members have spoken. I shall do my best, in the course of my remarks, to touch on the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening remarks dealt with aid to the Soviet Union and to eastern Europe. He also touched on the Community's approach to the Gulf, progress on the single market, the European Free Trade Area negotiations and enlargement, as well as defence and security aspects of the future of our continent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), with his well- known persistence, remained to the very end of the debate, and asked a question about the

Column 545

general agreement on tariffs and trade which I am delighted to be able to answer. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that some progress has been made today on services and intellectual property rights, and that the Council of Ministers authorised the Commission to continue negotiations on agriculture on the basis of a text tabled by the chairman of the negotiating group. Negotiations are again joined, and are likely to continue through the night.

A number of hon. Members referred to the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made a brisk but distinguished speech, and I should like to touch on that and on those made by the hon. Members for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer).

The right hon. Member for Llanelli made it clear that an imposed single currency would cause massive damage in the weaker regions. He mentioned south Wales and Spain--two areas to which I am especially attached. That is precisely why the Spanish Government have shown interest in our hard ecu proposals, which would move with the grain of the market, and avoid the sort of dislocations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

The majority of hon. Members have concentrated their remarks on the other IGC conference, and I shall do likewise. There will shortly be a debate on the intergovernmental conference on European monetary union, and although it meets on 15 December, that is a short ceremonial meeting which will deal with organisational matters only, and the conference will not begin its work until January. The Government's starting and finishing point at these conferences is the House. Those of us who live and work here, Mr. Speaker, would not claim perfection for it. Nevertheless, few would deny that it has a unique ability to express and give voice to the concerns of those we represent.

No EC directive--whether it deals with asparagus, fishing, or standards for lawn mowers--can hope to slip past the beady eyes of the Scrutiny Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). If any constituency or group interest is affected, then the Minister concerned can expect to be bombarded by early-day motions, written and oral questions, speeches and visits. That is not always convenient for the Executive, but we believe that democratic accountability begins at home. No British Government who sought to undermine or diminish the House's ability to carry out its duty on behalf of its Members' constituents could claim to be taken seriously. That point was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It is to the House that we must ultimately answer.

Why do we feel so strongly? The fact is that this country is the only member of the Community whose democratic institutions have not been entirely uprooted at least once in the past 100 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) pointed out. Consequently, hon. Members on both sides of the House feel pretty attached to them. As I have said, we do not claim perfection for the House or for our institutions, but we feel that they have an intrinsic value, which, with no sense of presumption, we commend to our Community partners.

Column 546

Our general approach, then, is one of respect for this House and a hope that what is best about it may commend itself to our partners, coupled with a willingness to listen to other ideas, wherever they may come from.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am afraid not. I have very little time, and I should like to touch on speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

That, then, is the spirit in which we shall enter the intergovernmental conference. We believe that the institutional balance within the Community between the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament is broadly right, and our proposals are aimed at building carefully on those institutions. There will, of course, be a lot of high falutin' language flying about--the maximalist proposals in the Commission paper provide a good example. We shall consider proposals on their merits, resisting those that we dislike and pushing those that we want. I remind the House that no treaty amendment can be made without unanimity, and that the final outcome of our discussions will have to be ratified by the House.

I will outline some of the principal proposals that we shall be presenting. The first relates to subsidiarity, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Like any other organisation, the Community tends to build a momentum of its own, and seeks to extend its competence ever wider. We want to impose a simple test. The treaty already sets limits on Community competence, but, even where it allows for Community action, that may not be the right way of taking such action. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his opening speech, the first test should be whether it is necessary to act at Community level, or could things be done as well or better at national level? We would like that principle of subsidiarity to be built into the treaty and, of course, we shall also need an effective mechanism not necessarily the European Court of Justice--to apply that principle.

Mr. Shore : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have very little time, and I want to cover a good deal of ground.

My next point concerns implementation and compliance. Of the 284 single market measures, two thirds have been adopted by the Council, but of the 107 requiring transposition into national law, only 20 have been implemented in all member states. The United Kingdom and Denmark have the best record, with fewer than 20 still to implement ; half the member states still have more than 30 to implement, and one has more than 60. That is why we need stronger measures to ensure that Community legislation is implemented.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hill, West) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : No, I will not give way.

We also need to ensure that laws are correctly applied. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his opening remarks, at the end of last year more than 80 judgments against member states by the European Court of Justice were still outstanding. Only one involves the United Kingdom, whereas in one member state no fewer

Column 547

than 37 adverse judgments still have not been implemented. We want to improve compliance throughout the Community, which may well mean enabling the European Court of Justice to enforce its judgments more effectively.

I will deal next with the question of democratic accountability. As the House will know, we have just improved our systems of scrutiny and we now need to see how they work. They may be susceptible to further improvements and some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and my hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles), have made suggestions in that direction. Mr. Randall rose--

Mr. Garel-Jones : No, I shall not give way. I want to continue. We believe that all the people in Europe are entitled to have these matters scrutinised at home. I am sure that other national Parliaments think about setting minimum standards of democratic scrutiny even if they do not want to go as far as we do.

That brings me to the question of the involvement of the House and other national Parliaments in the Community's affairs. I have already referred to scrutiny and we would like to see the House play an increasing role inside the Community. Already the Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, South, has met its opposite numbers throughout the Community and there may be ways in which that can be developed and built upon.

Unlike the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who was thrilled, we were disappointed by the parliamentary assembly in Rome last week. We were disappointed that instead of making any practical suggestions for the involvement of national Parliaments in the Community's work, it presented us with a maximalist wish list. The House is interested to know--the hon. Member for Hamilton was not very forthcoming--about the role that Opposition Front Bench Members played at that meeting. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who led the British delegation, that there was a telephone call from Walworth road--

Mr. Robertson : Oh.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Someone else suggested that there may have been a telex. Whatever instructions were issued, whether from the national executive committee or from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Members for Hamilton and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) signed up to more executive powers for the Commission and co-decisions for the European Parliament and the Council. They signed up for a federalist charter which is not acceptable to the House or to the British people. I can do no better than to read from a press release issued by the hon. Member for Newham, South, who did not vote for the federalist charter. He said that what his hon. Friends signed up to destroys self- government and

Column 548

"gives a diminished degree of democratic accountability at the price of giving assent to the emergence of a new European super state. No party or Government in the United Kingdom has any mandate to give away the rights of its citizens."

We agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Hamilton was not able to give us more of an explanation.

We will not be deterred by that. We shall be making proposals of our own after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, the hon. Member for Newham, South and others on both sides of the House. We shall be proposing ways in which the House and its Members can become directly involved in the European Community on behalf of their constituents. The role of the European Parliament can be pivotal to scrutiny and control of the Commission, not in passing new laws but in monitoring Community expenditure. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Gorton experienced great difficulty in making a distinction between security and defence. I despair of the right hon. Gentleman understanding even the most simple propositions.

Next year's Community budget will total about £38 billion in commitments. With that sum, we need to improve financial management in the Community, maximise value for money in the use of Community resources, and ensure proper accountability. To that end, at the intergovernmental conference we shall propose an enhancement of the role of the European Parliament in scrutinising the implementation of the budget and the discharge procedure and, in tandem, a streamlining of the organisation of the Court of Auditors to increase its efficiency and to extend the value of its work.

That underlines the Government's wish to play an active and central role in the debate on Europe's future, in contrast with the unprincipled approach of the Opposition--an approach which has consistently damaged the interests of Britain for the past 20 years.

Mr. Randall : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Randall rose --

Mr. Garel-Jones : No, I am not giving way.

I am delighted to see the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in their places, but I regret that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is not with them.

Mr. Randall rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat if the Minister does not give way.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Those three hon. Members are generally in their places like the three witches from Macbeth--bubble, bubble toil and trouble.

Mr. Randall : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like your advice--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member knows better than that. I do not give advice on a point of order.

Mr. Randall : I should like your ruling. Is it because the Minister is making his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box that he is not prepared to give way? Can you make him--

Column 549

Mr. Speaker : Order. I thought that I heard a cry of "Bogus", and I am afraid that it was.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Those three hon. Members represent what I would call Labour party thinking on the matter. The hon. Member for Bradford, South, who represents what we can now confidently call a marginal seat--a Tory gain at the next election--has been consistent in his opposition to the Community, but he has not let that stand in the way of his ambition. He did not hesitate to take the place in Government vacated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who resigned over the Community--

Mr. Leighton : No, he did not.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Yes, he did.

Having lost his seat in 1983, the hon. Member for Bradford, South crawled away to draw a Euro-salary before returning to the House to inflict on us his own special brand of sanctimonious claptrap. His constituency will be a Tory gain at the next election, and we very much hope that it will be "adieu" and not "au revoir" to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Bolsover has at least been consistent--

Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am not giving way to the hon. Member. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) wants to hear what is being said, he should invite his hon. Friends to listen.

Mr. Cryer : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : No, I will not give way.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Gentleman should sit down.

Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Member for Bolsover is a Euro-phoney and a Euro-cynic, and he is led by a Euro-phoney and a Euro-cynic. The House expects the Opposition to answer the questions raised in Rome. Mr. Allen rose --

Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to. Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made :-- The House divided : Ayes 215, Noes 308.

Division No. 23] [10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Adams, Mrs. Katherine

Allen, Graham

Anderson, Donald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Armstrong, Hilary

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Ashton, Joe

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barron, Kevin

Battle, John

Beckett, Margaret

Beggs, Roy

Bell, Stuart

Bellotti, David

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Benton, Joseph

Bermingham, Gerald

Boateng, Paul

Boyes, Roland

Bradley, Keith

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Next Section

Home Page