House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Nov 1991

Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston) : Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)? What on earth will our constituents think of parliamentary democracy if so many of us are deprived of the opportunity of debating the subject?

Mr. MacGregor : In the run-up to the Maastricht negotiations, we have endeavoured to enable hon. Members to debate the matter in as wide and lengthy a manner as possible in the House. Obviously, there has to be some limit to the length of debates, but by extending last night's debate I endeavoured to allow as many Members as possible to contribute.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) rose--

Mr. Speaker : Was the hon. Member present for the business statement?

Column 432

Mr. Faulds : Yes, all the way through. I did doze off once or twice.

Will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister to use his powers to remove from the board of trustees of national institutions those guilty of criminal offences? I refer of course to Gerald Ronson, who was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.

Mr. MacGregor : I do not think that there will be a statement or debate on that matter next week.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. As the House knows, I dislike cutting short business questions. I shall allow them to continue until 4.10 pm, and I hope to call everyone. However, Members should make their questions brief.

Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) : In view of the serious deterioration of the services provided by Network SouthEast on the Kent link and Kent coast lines which is causing serious dislocation and discomfort to my constituents and many other people, will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement next week on what plans he has to improve those services urgently?

Mr. MacGregor : I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. However, I do not think that there will be an opportunity for a statement on the subject next week.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the police next week to enable the House to send congratulations to Harrow police who, through their calm and efficient work yesterday, brought a siege at Pinn medical centre, in my constituency, to a peaceful conclusion ? A debate would enable hon. Members to congratulate and thank PC David Nicholls, who, although a married man with two children, offered to take the place of the hostage at great risk to himself.

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that the House agrees with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. I am glad that he has had an opportunity to make the point.

Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South) : May we have a debate next week on local government to give me the opportunity to point out that, following its disastrous investment of £6.5 million in BCCI, Bury's Labour council now proposes to close three old people's homes ? Is that not an absolute disgrace and a foretaste of things to come if Labour is ever given power in this country ?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right about that being a foretaste of things to come if Labour ever comes to power. I am glad to say that I do not think that it will. My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully, and there is no need for a debate next week to take it further.

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford) : Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time in the not-too-distant future for a debate on parliamentary language ? There is a pressing need for a debate in view of the petulant outburst by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. MacGregor : I think that that is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.

Column 433

Mr. Speaker : I think that it is, and I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to Peterborough's column in today's issue of The Daily Telegraph.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Would my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the work of the national health service trust hospitals ? Is he aware that, following the good news from Guy's hospital last week, it has been reported that since it became an NHS trust the Royal Free Trust hospital, which serves part of my constituency, has been able to increase the number of patients it treats and reduce its waiting lists ? Any debate on NHS trusts will have to take place in Government time and not in Opposition time.

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that we shall have an opportunity in future to debate the work of NHS trusts. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that these are important matters and that the trusts are already demonstrating the value of the change that we made. There will not be a debate next week, but I am sure that we shall have other opportunities to debate the subject.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that to the people of this country the freedom of the press is every bit as important as democratic accountability? Does he know that at the moment there is a campaign throughout Europe and in all the other member states to preserve the freedom of the press? Is he aware that a British agency was recently summoned to the Commission and told that if it did not withdraw from that campaign its Commission account would be stopped forthwith ? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a severe--

Mr. Speaker : Order. We are on the subject of the business for next week.

Mr. Cash : Will my right hon. Friend consider making sure that the issue of the freedom of the press in relation to the European Community is debated as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to pursue that matter in other ways. I cannot see the prospect of a debate next week.

Column 434

Points of Order

4.7 pm

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning the statement made to the House by the Home Secretary on 8 July. The statement purported to describe the break-out from Brixton prison on the previous day. We now know that material, crucial facts were omitted from the Home Secretary's statement and account of what happened. As a result, the country was not so much informed as misinformed about the matter.

The Home Secretary has had many opportunities to rectify what I shall describe as his errors of omission. He has not done so. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, attempts have been made to require him to make a corrective and further statement to the House. All efforts have failed. The House and the country will make their own judgment about the reason for the Home Secretary's behaviour. What can be done to ensure that a report is made to the House, both of the full facts and on the Home Secretary's conduct?

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that I need any help on this. Hon. Members heard the Leader of the House say that an investigation has been set up. In due course the Home Secretary will have to make a decision about the matter.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is unsatisfactory for the Government to hide behind an inquiry into the involvement of Staffordshire police? The point at issue is the behaviour of the Home Secretary in the House. The House is entitled to a statement from the Home Secretary, who ought to be responsible to the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker : That point was raised by the hon. Member with the Leader of the House. It is not a matter for me.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : Further to that point of order, Mr.Speaker. As a separate point has been raised, I should make it clear that the Home Secretary has not misled the House and the allegations about him are wrong. There are some security matters involved in this. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has been offered a full briefing on Privy Council terms, and he has refused it.

Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may not be within your knowledge that this week my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Banks) and I sought to table parliamentary questions to the Home Secretary on this matter, but it transpired that there was a blanket refusal to answer questions on any matter relating to the secret service, irrespective of how divorced they were from current operations. While I fully understand the reluctance of a Minister to give information about operations currently in progress, as that was not what we were seeking to elicit, if the Minister comes to the House and makes a statement purporting to deal fully with a matter, is he entitled to hide behind a blanket refusal that he has virtually waived? If not, does the House have any remedy?

Column 435

Mr. Speaker : I have no responsibility for answers to questions. This is not a matter for me.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in answer to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), you said : "I have just said that I think jerk' is not among the list of unparliamentary expressions but I asked the Leader of the Opposition to refine it."-- [Official Report, 20 November 1991 ; Vol 199, c.283.]

I want to make a submission to you, Mr. Speaker, which is of some substance. The list to which you refer only gives examples of what, in the past, Mr. Speaker has ruled to be unparliamentary expressions. That list has grown up by Mr. Speaker ruling each time-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop : The list has grown up, Mr. Speaker, by your predecessors ruling each time a new expression is used which, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, is unparliamentary. It is important that you should remind the House that that list does not and cannot constrain Mr. Speaker not to rule that expressions which are grossly offensive are not unparliamentary purely because they have not appeared on the list in "Erskine May" before.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has raised a serious point concerned with a judgment that I made yesterday. He is correct in saying that there is no list in "Erskine May". It was removed some time ago, because many expressions, such as "cheeky young pup", are no longer considered to be offensive. I said yesterday that I did not think that "jerk" was an unparliamentary expression. I was not absolutely certain what the word meant, but I found out from the Peterborough column today that it means a useless person but also covers a "hornyhead" and a "chubb-like fish".

Mr. Hattersley : Speaking in more or less that capacity, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to what the Leader of the House said about the Home Secretary's offer to me to discuss in Privy Council terms the matters with which I was concerned in my original point of order. I want to make it clear that that offer was made, but I refused it as I did not think that this was a matter that could be discussed in private by a coterie of senior Members of Parliament. I felt that it was a matter for the House and for the country.

Mr. Speaker : That has now been made clear.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Value Added Tax

That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 2569) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. MacGregor.]

Question agreed to.

Column 436

Orders of the Day

European Community (Intergovernmental Conferences)

[Second Day]

[Relevant document : Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 19th November (House of Commons Paper 35-i)] Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [20 November] :

That this House, believing it is in Britain's interests to continue to be at the heart of the European Community and able to shape its future and that of Europe as a whole, endorses the constructive negotiating approach adopted by Her Majesty's Government in the Inter-Governmental Conferences on Economic and Monetary Union and on Political Union ; and urges them to work for an agreement at the forthcoming European Council at Maastricht which avoids the development of a federal Europe, enables this country to exert the greatest influence on the economic evolution of the Community while preserving the right of Parliament to decide at a future date whether to adopt a single currency, on issues of Community competence concentrates the development of action on those issues which cannot be handled more effectively at national level and, in particular, avoids intrusive Community measures in social areas which are matters for national decision, develops a European security policy compatible with NATO and co-operation in foreign policy which safeguards this country's national interest, increases the accountability of the Commission, enhances the rule of law in the Community including improved implementation, enforcement and compliance with Community legislation, improves co-operation between European governments in the fight against drugs, terrorism and cross-border crime, and through these policies secures the long-term interests of the United Kingdom.-- [The Prime Minister.]

Which amendment was : to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :

regrets that Her Majesty's Government's preoccupation with divisions in its own Party has meant that in the Inter-Governmental Conferences is has not taken the negotiating approach necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom exercises decisive influence on the future of the Community in ways which will help to advance the living and working standards of the people of this country in company with other peoples of Europe ; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to work for an agreement at the European Council which ensures inclusion of the Social Charter, qualified majority voting on social and environmental matters, powers for the European Parliament to hold the Commission to account in ways that complement the role of national parliaments, decision-making at the level--local, regional, national or Community--where maximum democratic control is at all times exercised, foreign and security policy co-operation without the development of a European Community military role, widening of the Community as rapidly as practicable, co-operation to combat terrorism and other crime, and strengthened powers for ECOFIN as the politically responsible counterpart to any European Central Bank system ; and urges the Government to work to secure agreement to, and adopt policies for, high levels of employment, sustainable non-inflationary growth, balanced regional and national economic development and social cohesion, and for the fundamental reform of the CAP, in order to achieve real economic convergence in the years leading to economic and monetary union and a single currency as the essential foundation for those changes and to safeguard the long-term interests of the people of the United Kingdom.'-- [Mr. Kinnock.] Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Column 437

Mr. Speaker : I have already said that 82 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to participate. I shall put a limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock, but I ask those who are fortunate enough to be called before that time to bear the 10-minute limit in mind.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I raised a point of order about whether an amendment to the amendment in the name of the official Opposition would be eligible to be called before 10 o'clock. Since that now appears on the Order Paper, I should be grateful for your comments.

Mr. Speaker : I have not found it possible to select it. 4.14 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : This debate is crucial for us and it is a crucial part of the debate in the Community. It is natural for the European Community to consider from time to time its institutions and its working methods to see whether they can be bettered, and that is the purpose of the two intergovernmental conferences leading to Maastricht.

My own view is that the conferences come rather too soon after the last one. The previous examination led to the Single European Act, which was signed in 1986 and came into force just four years ago. If we had waited three years longer, the single market would have been up and running, one or two new members might have come in and we would have been able to see more clearly the future shape of eastern Europe. But the Community decided to start last year and, that done, we in Britain, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), rightly decided that we would take a full and energetic part in the two conferences.

As Mr. Delors often says, Britain is the only member state in which there is a lively and sometimes passionate debate on Europe. That is normal here. We felt it again yesterday and it is an asset to Europe as a whole, but I also think that the weakness of our debate is that it is sometimes too defensive. We too often represent ourselves as in some way under siege, as if we were concerned only about the pace at which we yield to opinions and interests across the channel which are basically unsatisfactory and hostile. That defensive note is well astray if one looks at some of the main decisions of the Community in recent years, many of which owe a great deal to the debate in Britain and to British proposals.

First, there was the Fontainebleau settlement in 1984 where Britain obtained a rebate and the Community got a fairer means of financing itself. The Community's budgetary system is still far from rational in the way in which it distributes resources, but the most glaring injustice of Britain's unacceptable net contribution was resolved by that agreement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley played it right. She argued, she argued hard, and she signed once she had a good agreement for Britain and for Europe.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose --

Mr. Cryer rose --

Mr. Hurd : I shall get on a bit before I give way to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Or take the impetus for the single market through the Single European Act to make the job of selling throughout the Community easier for all businesses in the

Column 438

Community, to increase the choice and the quality available to all the Community's 340 million consumers. Once again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley argued, argued hard, and signed once she had a good agreement.

I am told that there were 29 outstanding issues on the day that my right hon. Friend went to the summit in Luxembourg in 1985. She sorted those issues out--perhaps, I do not know, with a little help from her Foreign Secretary of the day--and the agreement was signed. We are still in the arguing stage before Maastricht, but we hope that the rest will follow and the result will be satisfactory. The last example was the opening up of the Community to the emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe. That began as soon as the east began to choose democracy in 1989. It is now accepted by everybody that we started with trade and co-operation agreements--limited but important access to Community markets to countries which had overnight lost their biggest market in the Soviet Union--but as democracy and the market economy took hold, more help was needed. My right hon. Friend proposed the association agreements. I pressed for an early completion. We obtained a political commitment to finish negotiations in time for their entry into force in the new year, and those negotiations-- with Poland, Hungary and

Czechoslovakia--are on course.

I have used those three examples because they are examples of undoubtedly good achievements by the Community which stem from our initiatives, and our persistent pressure, in this country.

Mr. Skinner : I think that we ought to have the full picture before the Foreign Secretary concludes what he has to say about initiatives. The truth is that, although we were indeed promised barrel loads of money back when the last Prime Minister went to negotiate about the money, this country has paid more than £14,000 million to the common market since that date. The United Kingdom taxpayer has been handing over money to the tune of £18 a week for every family in Britain to prop up the discredited common agriculture policy. Let us have the full story, not just part of it.

Mr. Hurd : That is the hon. Gentleman's speech. What his party's Front-Bench spokesmen propose would increase the burden substantially, while the actions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley would lighten it substantially. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has proved my point.

The Leader of the Opposition described us as being stuck in the defensive mud. I think that I have proved that that is not true, but I fear that something similar can be said about the amazing speech that the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday. At times, it seemed as though Conservative Members were pouring salvoes into a grievously stricken vessel. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, I came to the conclusion that we would never hear him make a good speech about Europe, partly because he finds the subject matter confusing--I do not criticise him for that ; I often share the feeling--but mainly because he is fatally weighed down by his own past. The vessel is waterlogged before it even leaves the harbour.

Labour has changed its policy on Europe seven times in recent years. It might have been expected that, according

Column 439

to the rules of mere chance, Labour Members would light on some good arguments at some stage. Not at all : they are consistent only in that all their arguments are wrong.

When the Community was anathema to Labour its most attractive facets were the ones that it attacked and detested, such as the commitment to freer trade and competition. Three years ago, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that the Single European Act was a

"breathtaking reduction in British sovereignty which the Labour party fought tooth and nail to prevent."

Today, he is about to call for a breathtaking reduction in British sovereignty which the Labour party will fight tooth and nail to surrender.

What attract both the right hon. Member for Gorton and the Leader of the Opposition, now that they have learnt to love the Community, are precisely the aspects of some Commissioners' instincts that are the most unlovable and the most dangerous for Britain--the itch to intervene in industry, the itch to regulate at the expense of jobs and the itch to impose worker representatives on company boards. The Labour party rejected the Community for the wrong reasons, and now embraces it for the wrong reasons. That is why Labour is wholly unconvincing on the subject--incredible, even--both at home and abroad.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : What is the Foreign Secretary going to do about my itch to bring about a solution to the problem of RECHAR additionality?

Mr. Hurd : I knew that the hon. Gentleman would raise that point, and I am therefore particularly glad that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury dealt with it at length in his winding-up speech last night. My hon. Friend advised the hon. Gentleman--particularly as a Scottish Member--to address himself to Commissioner Millan, and to try to get him to change his indefensible policy.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Hurd : I would rather get on. The hon. Gentleman has already had a go this afternoon.

While I am being a tiny bit controversial, I should like to add a word on the proposals for a referendum simply to underline the answer given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Naturally, there have often been arguments in the House about referendums. I am instinctively against them. In our parliamentary democracy, the line of democratic accountability runs from the Government to the House and from the House to those who send us here. If we take ourselves out of that line because the decisions are particularly important or difficult, it seems that we are dodging part of our responsibility. I respect the counter-argument, although I disagree with those who say that a referendum should be part of our constitution. Those, such as Dicey, who favour that argue consistently that it should be a considered change and that there is no case for introducing a referendum because of a particular issue.

Nowhere has the case against introducing a referendum on a particular issue been argued with more energy than in the House on 11 March 1975 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley. She led us into the Lobby against

Column 440

Harold Wilson's device of a referendum on Europe. In that speech, she quite correctly said that Dicey could be used on both sides of the argument. She also quoted Lord Attlee's saying that the referendum was a device of "demagogues and dictators". I am just a little sad that my right hon. Friend seems to have become a shade wobbly on the subject since then.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford) : Does not my right hon. Friend understand that, at the time of the discussions on whether we should enter the European Community, it was possible for an elector to vote for a party that had a chance of forming a Government which would reject the proposition or a Government that would accept it? Does not my right hon. Friend understand that at the next general election the voter who wishes to vote against the proposed treaties will not be able to find a party to vote for that has a remote hope of forming a Government?

Mr. Hurd : I do not think that my right hon. Friend is historically correct. In 1975, the leaders of all parties were in favour of a yes vote. Therefore, the position is not as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) described it.

I am not dismissing the argument, because it is a serious argument that has been suggested seriously. As I have said, I believe that in a parliamentary democracy the line of accountability runs as I have described it. It runs through us and we are responsible to people who can, rightly, throw us out if we pursue policies with which they disagree. However mighty, parties have to pay careful attention to that.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : Will my right hon. Friend accept that since we have already had a referendum on the European Community and referendums on devolution, referendums are now part of the British constitution?

Mr. Hurd : I may be wrong, but I suspect that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) may have joined me in voting against the idea of referendums on those matters. For the reasons that I have given, I do not accept that they are part of our constitution. I do not think that it is the right way to proceed in a parliamentary democracy.

We shall face decisions and tough choices at Maastricht. Part of the value of the debate is the chance that it gives to send a signal--I hope a clear signal--of the chief concerns of the British Parliament as we all enter the final stages of this negotiation. We want to take advantage of the negotiations, not defensively, but to press the Community down the path that we think most sensible. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that means putting ourselves at the heart of the Community, persuading different partners on different issues and using a style and a language that make it possible to persuade others of the value of our ideas for the future of Europe. I want to illustrate that with three principles that we regard as necessary for the Community and on which I believe the House will agree. We want to ensure the rule of law and a level playing field, we want to strengthen Europe's voice worldwide and we want an open and liberal Community.

I want first to consider the proper application of Community law. When we agree in this country to do something, we stick by that agreement. When the Community agrees new legislation, we have procedures in

Column 441

this country which turn that legislation quickly into British law and our Government and courts enforce it. One of the main criticisms of the Community often heard in the House, and one that I have heard in my constituency, is that this country acts in that way, but others do not.

Our record in obeying our legal commitments is second to none. The most recent figures released by the Commission show only one European Court of Justice judgment outstanding against us. In delivering a recent judgment, the court referred to Britain's exemplary conduct in complying with EC legislation. We would regard it as progress if others began to compete with our record. Some lag far behind--12 for Germany, 13 for Belgium and 37 for Italy.

At present, the only sanction against a member state that fails to comply with a judgment from the European Court of Justice is to bring that state before the court again. The present draft treaty will give substance to that second appearance by allowing the court to impose a fine on any member state found not to have taken the necessary measures to comply with its earlier judgment. That was our proposal and it is accepted. It will give the court the teeth that it needs to ensure compliance, and none too soon.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli) : That is an important point and according to a recent judgment, individuals may now be able to sue Governments who fail to carry out directives. What would happen if the House genuinely voted not to accept a directive? Would the British Government then be fined?

Mr. Hurd : A judgment was given against the Italians a few days ago, but I have not yet had an opportunity to study it.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : Do not all supranational bodies of an incipiently federal nature have some form of power to enforce the overall decisions of the group, whether through an international police force or international army? There is no suggestion that the Community could ever use force to enforce its decisions against a member state.

Mr. Hurd : That is why the proposal that I have just outlined is important. It gives the court the power to fine for the first time. If my hon. Friend is suggesting a corps of Euro Commissioners to enforce that, that would be a new and interesting suggestion, but I am not sure whether he is suggesting that.

We must also strengthen the protection of the citizen. Chancellor Kohl is quite right to argue, as he did at the last European summit, that the European citizen needs better protection against the international criminal, the Mafia, the drug trafficker and the terrorist. When I was Home Secretary, we proposed a European drugs intelligence unit, and that is now being set up. The German Chancellor wanted to go further and establish a Europol. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we agree with that and we will support him. However, there is no need to impose a Community structure on that European work among police forces and agencies. It is important to concentrate on the substance of the matter, which is the protection of the citizen, rather than on the procedure and jurisdiction.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Column 442

Mr. Hurd : I promise to give way to my hon. Friend later. One of the most difficult problems that Europe has to cope with is the increase in asylum seekers. In order to protect the sysem and to safeguard genuine refugees, we must prevent abuse of the system--hence my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's Asylum Bill. In recent years, there has been an increase in such abuse. When an applicant fails in one country, he crosses a frontier and tries again. Last year, intergovernmentally--with agreement between Governments--we agreed the Dublin convention to put an end to that, but we must do more.

The 1951 United Nations convention was not written and ratified to protect the opportunists. The problem is a European problem. We want to see the Twelve better equipped to respond, with better co-ordination, but not central direction.

All that comes within the work of the Trevi group, in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary joins. The work of that group shows that intergovernmental co-operation is no less effective and no less European for being outside the framework of the treaty of Rome--outside the jurisdiction of the European Court. The Community--the Commission--does not need competence in order for an initiative to work.

Let us concentrate on the substance. I believe that police forces work best together when they work directly together. In any case, given our differing legal traditions and judicial systems, the case is simply not made for generalised supranational enforcement. Member states need to remain responsible for law and order on their territory. It is certainly right for there to be more intense international co-operation. We have a long way to go before we can be sure that that is adequate.

Next Section

Home Page