House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 May 1992

Mr. Paul Tyler (Cornwall, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. What is your attitude to a ministerial statement on Friday, in the light of the latest news from Brussels that an accord has been reached? Do you intend to allow a statement to be made on that tomorrow?

Madam Speaker : Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman. The Speaker does not initiate ministerial statements. The Government tell the Speaker when they want to make a statement. Once that is known, the Speaker is at the disposal of the House to hear the statement. That is our procedure.

Column 509

Orders of the Day

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [20 May] That the Bill be now read a Second time.

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

"declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which keeps the United Kingdom outside the scope of the Protocol on Social Policy, thereby excludes the United Kingdom from the Social Chapter and prevents the people of the United Kingdom from being part of the full social dimension of the European Community to which its eleven partners have agreed in order to facilitate greater protection for employed people in their working conditions, better rights of consultation and information, equality of treatment and opportunities for men and women and the integration into the labour force of long term unemployed people, including disabled workers, deeply regrets the Government's failure to make any attempt to build into the Maastricht Treaty convergence criteria which emphasise the need for balanced development, a high level of employment and sustainable growth in the regions and countries of the Community ; deplores the fact that the opt-out provisions of the Treaty on the approach to Monetary Union would mean that neither the European Monetary Institute nor the proposed European Central Bank are likely to be located in Britain ; and regrets the fact that the Bill does not include provisions to strengthen co-operation between the sovereign nations of the Community, within a structure of subsidiarity, to enhance political, social, environmental, economic and technological progress throughout Europe and in the developing countries, or to ensure the maximum of democratic accountability of current and future Community institutions to national parliaments and to the European Parliament."

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

[Relevant documents :

Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act (Cm 455)Treaty on European Union (Cm 1934)Fifteenth Report from the Select Committee on European Legislation (House of Commons Paper No. 24-xv of Session 1991- 92)Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 223 of Session 1991-92) on Europe after Maastricht and Observations by the Government on the Report (Cm 1965)Third Report from the Health Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 180 of Session 1991-92) on the European Community and Health PolicyMinutes of Evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 5th, 12th and 26th February 1992 (House of Commons Paper No. 215 of Session 1991-92) on Migration Control at the External Borders of the European CommunityMinutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on 19th February 1992 (House of Commons Paper No. 285 of Session 1991-92) on Economic and Monetary UnionFourth Special Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 334 of Session 1991-92) on European Community FinancesThe White Paper on Developments in the European Community, July- December 1991 (Cm 1857)

Column 510

The White Paper on Developments in the European Community, January-June 1991 (Cm 1657).]

Madam Speaker : I must inform the House that there are still a great number of right hon. and hon. Members wishing to speak and that I have therefore had to place a time limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm. I would appreciate it if those speaking before and after those times would limit their speeches accordingly. 4.7 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : This is the third time that the essential European question has been debated in this Chamber since last November. As the debate moves on, so does the world. The facts of Europe were very different when these debates began more than 20 years ago. There has been a huge increase in the proportion of our trade carried on with our fellow members of the Community ; and a huge increase in the number of journeys made by our citizens inside the Community--22 million such journeys last year.

Our companies are increasingly organised to treat the Community as a single market. One thinks of a company such as Airbus Industrie, with its 20 per cent. British share, which was made possible by the Community. It is now the world's second largest manufacturer of civil aircraft.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : Airbus Industrie was competent and active during the 1970s, and the Labour Government were responsible for getting the company to agree to manufacture the wing of the airbus in this country. With all his resources, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be a great deal better briefed.

Mr. Hurd : But we were in the Community in the 1970s. I had forgotton that the right hon. Gentleman was briefly in charge of these arrangements during one of the periods of his European journey, when he was, I think, in favour of our membership of the Community. I stand by what I have said.

These are just a few of the facts of Europe, created mostly not by Ministers or Members of this House but by our constituents. These facts grow daily stronger around us as we negotiate and debate, and they help to account for the magnetic effect of the Community on its neighbours to the north, the south and the east. The proof of that is the lengthening queue of applicants. There are six applications for full membership on the table already, and others will surely follow. These applications are not for membership of some vague future confederation but for membership of the existing Community, with all its failings.

Alongside these facts runs the debate--our debate and that in other countries--about the future of the Community. The Community proceeds by debate, by argument, by negotiation and, we hope, by agreement. We argue because we hope to agree. In democracies, argument is not a disaster or a crisis but a necessary prelude to agreement. Usually, although not always, after we have argued in Europe we agree. That has been true under all three of the Conservative Prime Ministers for whom I have worked on European matters.

This agreement, this Maastricht treaty which we are asking the House to ratify through this Bill, is the product of the same process--18 months of hard and often

Column 511

argumentative negotiation. In the end we have an agreement--this is our case--that is good for Britain and for Europe.

From the speeches yesterday, it is clear that the worry of the doubters on both sides of the House is partly about the treaty itself, but perhaps even more about what might lie ahead. The worry is that Maastricht, like other agreements, will lead us relentlessly to a centralised Europe, in which eventually there will be a single executive holding all worthwhile power, and a single Parliament, with national Parliaments being steadily stripped of substance. Some newspapers have reported a Commission plan to move in this direction without delay. Therefore, it is worth pausing for a moment on this question of the institutions of the Community and its enlargement. At Maastricht, the European Council, the summit, asked the Commission to write a report on the enlargement of the Community. The Commission met last week to discuss for the first time what that paper might contain. It knows our view, which is widely shared. It is that Sweden, Austria and Finland should be welcomed soon. It is conceivable that one or two others might join at that time--Norway, for example, and, which is becoming more likely, Switzerland. In 1992--that is, during our presidency--we would aim for a mandate prepared by the Commission for negotiations with these countries. In 1993, there would be negotiations, and in 1994 ratification. This first wave would enter the Community in 1995.

The press reports that I mentioned suggested that the Commission would use this opportunity to reopen the Maastricht agreement--the agreement that we are asking the House to ratify--arguing that any enlargement of the Community needed the more centralised institutions, including the stronger executive Commission, that were argued for but not agreed at Maastricht. We have warned against this approach. As my predecessor Ernest Bevin said of something else, if we open this Pandora's box, we will find it full of Trojan horses. We believe that this first wave of new entrants can be accommodated without reopening the main Maastricht discussion before 1996. I hope and believe that this view is increasingly accepted.

As the House knows and welcomes, other new entrants will come later, but not, we hope, much later. We must give a constructive reply to Malta, Cyprus and Turkey. Thinking especially of Turkey, our links should be much stronger than those that exist today. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we want Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland to join the Community by the end of the century at the latest.

In 1996, as was agreed by Maastricht, there will be a fresh review of institutions. The House will have noticed that, at Maastricht, we successfully held off any attempt to prejudice that review, or any prejudicial prescription of it. Nothing in Maastricht, either in the review clause or in the treaty, dictates the next step.

On the one hand, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out, Maastricht provides for some wider definition of competence and some extension of qualified majority voting but, on the other hand, the treaty establishes in treaty the worth of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign and security policy and on home affairs. That is to say that the Maastricht treaty recognised that these things do not need to be done centrally, with a common line dictated at the centre and going right across the board. The principle of subsidiarity is likewise established by treaty.

Column 512

Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South) rose --

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) rose --

Mr. Hurd : I am coming to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). First I shall give way to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Hall : Article 198a in the original treaty of Maastricht sets up a Committee of the Regions to provide a forum for consultation between local authorities in Europe, the Commission and the Council of Europe. I understand that, subsequent to the original article being signed, the wording has been changed to remove local authority representation. Will the Foreign Secretary make a statement on that issue?

Mr. Hurd : The clause does not specify that those concerned need to be representatives of local authorities. It goes wider than that. The Committee of the Regions will be established--the clause is there--and we, the Government, are now considering how that should be done in United Kingdom terms. Obviously policy needs to be made and an announcement made, but it is a matter for the Government to settle in accordance with the treaty.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Hurd : I have nothing more to say on that point. I know that, if I start to give way on this subject, I shall have to give way to several representatives of constituencies in different parts of the Kingdom. These interventions started yesterday. This is a legitimate forum and a place for argument but not, I think, on Second Reading. I shall illustrate the point that I am making about centralising and non-centralising tendencies by saying something a bit more specific about foreign policy and the way that it is made. As the House knows, an enormous amount of foreign policy business is now done among and between the Twelve. We aim to reach agreement and to act together when we can, not because there is a legal obligation to do so but because it usually makes sense to try.

I shall give the House an example. Faced with the confusion and rapid change that we now see in central and eastern Europe, the traditional response of the west European powers 100 years ago would have been to pick sides, choose clients and deepen trouble by transferring their own rivalries to the new scene. That process went on and reached its climax, which was the great war. It arose out of a shooting in Sarajevo.

By contrast, when the Soviet Union was breaking up last year, we discussed in the Twelve how we should act. We agreed to recognise the emerging republics together, and together we accepted Russia as the successor state in the Security Council of the United Nations. They were all difficult problems. What could have taken months of discord was quietly and amicably settled.

I readily acknowledge that it does not always work as well as that. This process among the Twelve depends on agreement by all, and it is therefore sometimes slow and frustrating. Sometimes member states have to decide, and are free to decide, whether to compromise or to go off on their own.

Yugoslavia is an example, and it was often mentioned during the debate yesterday. Once, last summer, we had said a goodbye--a sad goodbye in my view--to the hope that there might still be a Yugoslavia by consent, it was

Column 513

clear that in principle the republics of the former Yugoslavia would become independent. As I said last autumn, the argument from then on was about timing, not principle. Germany recognised Slovenia and Croatia later. Britain and France recognised them earlier than each of us would have preferred. I think it was right, however, to compromise on timing rather than split, take sides and further aggravate the trouble in Yugoslavia.

Listening to the news, reading the news and reading the reports that I receive, my worry now about Yugoslavia is not about who recognised whom and when but about how we can help to bring the tragedy to an end. No country is willing to send in its troops to impose a settlement by force. So we have to keep alive the peacemaking efforts, we have to pile up the pressure on those, particularly the Serbs and the JNA, the national army, who at the moment are mainly responsible for violence, and we have to bind up the wounds with help for the casualties and the refugees.

Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel) : Does not the illustration that my right hon. Friend has just given add force to his earlier comment about the real need for some practical deadline for the admission of countries from central and eastern Europe? In the case of the Czech and Slovak Republic, is there not a worry that, unless there is some firm time in our minds, the problems that my right hon. Friend outlined could, sadly, spread in that direction?

Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend is right. Under a British initiative, we now have association agreements with Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. During our presidency, I propose to invite all three to a political meeting so that they feel that it is not just a matter of trade concessions, but that from now on they are part of the discussions and they can talk frankly to us about the issues on their minds, even before they are full members. It is for them to decide when to apply for membership, but of course that involves certain obligations that they will take time to meet. We have set a target, and we do not mean to stand still and do nothing in the meanwhile.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : The question of frontiers must be fundamental to the EC and its individual member states. Should frontier control be a national responsibility or an EC responsibility as a result of the treaty?

Mr. Hurd : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with that point when he opened the debate yesterday, and it also arose later. It relates to article 8a of the Single European Act, not of the Bill or the treaty. My right hon. Friend clearly set out why and in what way we intend to argue fiercely, and I believe successfully, on both legal and common- sense grounds for our ability to maintain our arrangements.

I want to return to the argument about the formulation of foreign policy. The centralists argue that the discussions on its substance should be cut short, because they are sometimes slow and frustrating, and the matter resolved by majority voting. I spent much of last year disagreeing with that argument. Currently the EC is discussing Macedonia, one of the republics of the former Yugoslavia, and there are strong feelings in one member state about that.

Column 514

I am sure that it would be a mistake at the present time to try to ram through by majority voting the recognition of Macedonia, under its present name, against the passionate opposition of Greece. The principle must be one of agreeing and acting together if we can --and if not, member states are free to act separately. That is the principle on which we operate today and the principle that my right hon. Friend preserved at Maastricht.

The CFSP chapter of the treaty is about member states taking decisions by unanimity. There is strictly limited provision for qualified majority voting, tightly defined, over which every member state has a veto. For a decision on implementation to be taken by QMV, all the member states have to agree to that procedure. The principle of unanimity is preserved and will certainly be used on all important decisions.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : It is interesting that, when referring to the recognition of Macedonia, the right hon. Gentleman regards the attitude of the Greek Government as reasonable and not to be overridden by a majority. The Greeks are objecting to what they see as a possible territorial claim by Macedonia. Would it not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to apply a similar approach to the Irish Republic ?

Mr. Hurd : The hon. Gentleman has discussed with me and other Ministers articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which have been in place for a long time. They are open to argument and controversy, something in which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends take the lead. I do not think that even his argument would be advanced if I were to act in the way that he suggests.

Nothing in the CFSP stops us acting independently. Indeed, there may well be occasions on which we or other member states feel strongly or need to act quickly, and we can decide to take independent action should we wish to do so. Anyone questioning that should study article J.3.6 of the treaty. Our position on the Security Council is reinforced and that was a satisfactory arrangement that we worked out, particularly with the French. I think that the balance of it is right.

The European Court of Justice came up often during the debate of the past 24 hours, and I should like to deal with that frankly. There is no doubt that, during the past 35 years, the treaties on which the court operated have set out an integrationist approach, and the court's decisions have reflected that. Arguments put by my right hon. and hon. Friends yesterday, which have been reflected in many speeches in the House, suggest that the thrust of the Maastricht treaty is different because of the test of subsidiarity and the rejection over a wide area of the centralising principle. For example, in the new treaty, we have expressly excluded the Community from taking "harmonising measures" in the new articles on culture, health and education. In the past, that drive towards harmonising legislation has caused many problems, with the Community, and the Commission in particular, trying to inveigle their way into the nooks and crannies of national life.

Now the Community's objectives have been more clearly circumscribed. We have article 3b on subsidiarity. That covers all areas of Community policy and, when the treaty is ratified, it will form a backcloth against which the

Column 515

court will have to make its judgments, particularly in those areas where there is a challenge to the Community taking action at all. Yesterday, not for the first time, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) went over that ground in some detail. He is right to say that the only definition of subsidiarity that matters is the one in the treaty. But he is wrong to claim that, in areas of exclusive Community competence, subsidiarity, whatever its principle and whatever its definition, does not apply.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the final sentence of article 3b, he will see that it says that :

"Any action by the Community"

is covered by the principle. We had a good deal of discussion about that at Maastricht. I am glad that we managed to achieve what we did, and I am drawing it to the hon. Gentleman's attention, because he is always fair- minded.

Over-regulation is now under attack both in the areas where it is accepted that the Community has a role and in those many areas where the Community and member states both have a role to play. Of course, we must test it in practice. Article 3b is a beginning ; it is a definition in the treaty. However, the House should not underestimate the importance of the change.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : We all agree that this is an important matter, and I thank the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), for what he said earlier this morning. Will the Foreign Secretary review what he has just said? Surely there is no definition of subsidiarity in article 3b, only a reference to the principle, whatever that be. The last sentence to which he has just referred, which I shall not quote because it appears in yesterday's copy of Hansard, and to which the Minister of State referred in the early hours of this morning, talks about what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty. That surely is not coterminous with subsidiarity, because "necessity" and "subsidiarity" are two different words with the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in whatever context it is brought to their attention.

Mr. Hurd : Those hon. Members who wish to pursue the argument will have to read article 3b in the quiet of their studies and offices and make a judgment about whether that is important. The article certainly contains a definition of subsidiarity. It says : "the Community shall take action only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States"--

and so on. That is a definition of subsidiarity.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because I am most interested in the consideration of the difference between subsidiarity and centralisation. I am concerned about article 99, which states that there shall be

"harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation".

That important matter is of great concern to the House. The whole history of the House and of Parliament has to do with who levies taxes on the people and spends that money. Is it conceded that that will now be controlled from the centre, or can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that it will be put back under the articles of subsidiarity?

Column 516

Mr. Hurd : The article to which my hon. Friend refers does not contain any change of substance compared with the Single European Act. The principle of unanimity remains. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has heard my hon. Friend's remarks, and he may reply to them more fully when he winds up.

It is clear that we are not just talking about an article in the treaty that has no back-up. The Commission is taking the concept of subsidiarity seriously. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister quoted it yesterday. The President of the EC Commission in particular is on the record in that respect. On French television last weekend, he was asked whether the Commission would propose ceding a number of competences that are now Community competences back to member states. He said :

"I will do it next year, if I am there. Or it will be in my will and testament if I leave."

He cited the example of the environment, and said :

"I am in the process of preparing all this. It's what is called a more rigorous application of the principle of subsidiarity." That was said by the President of the EC Commission before the treaty has any effect. I am making the point that that is now in the debate and is increasingly accepted as a principle. It is now in the treaty, and I hope that means that over-regulation is going out on the ebb tide.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : My right hon. Friend says that the European institutions are imbued with the spirit of subsidiarity. If that is the case, why are they seeking to enforce a 48-hour working week on the United Kingdom? Under the Single European Act, we thought that question would be decided by unanimity. Why does not the Community row back on that?

Mr. Hurd : I am saying that there is in the new treaty, which is not yet in force, an article of subsidiarity that is important. I am saying that the President of the EC Commission and other people are increasingly referring to that as a guiding principle, even before it is in effect. They have a long way to go before it is in effect. As to the 48-hour week, my hon. Friend knows the position. Quite apart from the merits of that proposal, which is bad from the point of view of this country and of Europe, the article on which it is based, from the Single European Act, is inadequate.

The structure of the Maastricht treaty will affect European Court of Justice activity. Although there have been some comments outside the House to the contrary, the pillars--by which I mean foreign policy, justice and home matters--are excluded from the court's jurisdiction. It has no say in those matters. Article L of the treaty is clear about that. The only exception is if member states choose, in any given convention, to ask the court to be the arbiter. That would be a sovereign decision reached by all 12 member states for any given convention.

The Community is an evolving structure. At each step, there is a new framework within which the existing treaty language is to be interpreted.

The European Parliament plays an important part in reinforcing the efforts of national Parliaments and contributing to filling any democratic deficit. We supported changes in Maastricht to give the directly elected European Parliament more control over the Commission and the scrutiny of the Community's finances. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled out those details.

Column 517

There were also modest changes that will give the European Parliament a blocking power over certain Community legislation, but with the last say on content being reserved for the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament will not have the power to initiate legislation or to impose laws on member states.

The treaty of Maastricht reinforces the position of national Parliaments, which, as far as I am aware, is a new development in the history of European treaties. It does that in two ways. First, it uses the structure of pillars, limiting the areas of Community legislation and therefore leaving the national Parliaments in charge of the intergovernmental pillars of policy. Secondly, the two declarations made at Maastricht expressly encourage greater involvement of national Parliaments.

It is not for Governments to say how Parliaments are to pursue those opportunities, because each of the 12 Parliaments is sovereign. I hope, however, that the House will continue to give a lead in this regard, not least during our presidency. I note, for example, that in the ratification debate in Paris, the French Assembly secured commitments from the French Government to more rigorous scrutiny arrangements, along the lines of those that we have here.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : Under economic and monetary union, what subsidiarity would there be in monetary policy?

Mr. Hurd : I think that I will leave that to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has conducted those parts of the negotiations. Let me say something that my right hon. Friend cannot say, however. It was a remarkable achievement for him, and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to preserve an absolute freedom to take a full part in the preparation of this project, while reserving for this country the right to decide whether to join stage 3. Uusually one or the other is obtained ; to obtain both the freedom to decide at the right time and the right to take a full part in preparation was, as I have said, a remarkable achievement. Let me say a few words about defence, which has come up quite often in discussion and is in the newspapers today. It is important to be clear about the position. At Maastricht, we reaffirmed the principle that European activity in defence should complement the common defence that we have through NATO. NATO is, and will remain--as Chancellor Kohl has said-- the anchor of European security. At the same time, however--this has been clear in the debate and, indeed, for some years now--the Europeans need to shoulder a greater share of the burden of providing their own security, while keeping the critical link between the transatlantic and the European dimensions of our defence. That is why we agreed at Maastricht to make the Western European Union, with its close treaty link to NATO, the vehicle for developing a genuine European military capability to act in areas where NATO is not engaged or chooses not to be. In a speech made in London last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence set out our practical British proposals--which have been widely endorsed by our allies and partners--for giving the WEU that capability and building on what is in the

Column 518

Maastricht treaty, by enabling the WEU to call on a wide range of national or NATO-assigned forces to suit the tasks in hand. NATO would have a prior claim on such forces in any NATO contingencies, but making them available for possible use by the WEU would avoid the need for elaborate separate structures, and is a flexible and realistic way of generating that defence capacity.

As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the forces available to the WEU under those arrangements might include the United Kingdom/Netherlands amphibious force, the new NATO air mobile division and, of course, the Franco-German corps, which is now being discussed at the Franco-German summit. That, we think, would be one of the forces at the disposal of the WEU ; we do not think that it makes sense to put all European eggs into a Franco-German basket. We hope that, as the discussion continues, proposals on the lines that we have suggested--our suggestions have been widely welcomed by allies and partners--will be adopted by the WEU Ministers when they meet on 19 June.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : The Germans--against whom the British fought in two world wars, laying down many lives--are now setting up a super-force to trample all over Europe, and to use their power in a way they have already used it when annexing East Germany. What steps will the Foreign Secretary and the Tory Government take to ensure that the Germans do not arm themselves to the teeth once again?

Mr. Hurd : By continuing and strengthening the membership of NATO, which the hon. Gentleman has consistently opposed, and by continuing the process that he will see in the treaty and the co-operation with Germany and with others on foreign and security policies. That is the right way. It has worked. Even the hon. Gentleman, with his deeply old-fashioned views, will eventually come to realise--or the next generation will come to realise--that that is the way to solve what he and some others still regard as the German problem.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North) : Perhaps I might raise a slightly different point, which I hope will be more helpful to the House than the last one. The relationship between the Western European Union and NATO, as outlined last week in the speech by the Secretary of State for Defence, is a welcome advance by the Government, although it has been long awaited. It deals exclusively, however, with defence in terms of the military proper and military organisations proper. The complex composition of Europe is a much wider matter and has to be dealt with as a security problem rather than just as a defence problem. What was missing from the Secretary of State's speech was the relationship not only between WEU and NATO but between those two organisations and the conference on security and co- operation in Europe. Can the Foreign Secretary say a word about that?

Mr. Hurd : The trouble is that not just a word is needed but a speech. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right ; it is a huge subject. The countries of central and eastern Europe are anxious about their security. They have the CSCE--a large organisation with more than 50 members--but what they do not yet have is a vision and a plan by means of which they could plug into the resources and the will of the organisations of the West, whether that be the European Community, NATO, or the Council of Europe. That is

Column 519

what I hope we can begin to thrash out in a more orderly way than we have done so far at the Helsinki CSCE summit in June. It is a big and important subject, but I do not intend to go any further down that path now, important though it is.

The Maastricht treaty emerged from long, exhaustive negotiations. In a large number of areas--subsidiarity, the rule of law, financial accountability and defence--it reflects our initiatives. It was seen as a success for this country among the press and politicians on the continent. Against that background, a failure to ratify the treaty would be incomprehensible to our partners. It would be a savage blow at the authority of the Government and of the Prime Minister--that is obvious-- just at a time when we are particularly well placed to make good use of that authority.

The issues addressed at Maastricht will not go away. In any attempted renegotiations, our position would be diminished, not strengthened. Many of our recent gains would be at risk. Enlargement of the European Community, settlement of the financial issues, reform of the farm policy, now looking brighter--all these prospects would wither. Europe would lapse into months, and I would guess years, of bad-tempered impotence and confusion.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) rightly said, Europe is entering a new phase in its history with the collapse of communism. The old, certain dangers with which we lived in this House for so many years are gone. New uncertainties have replaced them. Therefore, the Community, like the other institutions that I listed in answer to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), needs to evolve, especially to meet the challenge of enlargement.

However, the changes do not cast doubt on the fundamental achievements of the Community, or argue for an unpicking of its essential fabric. Maastricht was an important step away from an increasingly centralised, and therefore arthritic, Community towards a new Europe in which Britain has a central place. The day when, last autumn, the negotiators rejected the Dutch draft of the political union treaty, which would have centralised all co-operation between member states in the Community institutions, turned out to have been a watershed.

We have before us an opportunity to take a lead and to promote a clear, coherent view in the period running up to the next intergovernmental conference in 1996, the next time that there is to be a review of the institutions. The ball is at our feet. We have a treaty that more closely-- I do not say completely--mirrors British priorities than any of its predecessors. We have a new Government with a firm mandate for a positive but distinctive approach to the Community. We are shortly to take over the six-months presidency of the Community. The Government therefore hope that the House will endorse the treaty and the Bill.

On that foundation, but only on that foundation, this Government, this House and thinking people throughout the country can do what is necessary. We can prepare our minds and our proposals for an enlarged Community of 20 or more members by the end of the decade--a Community that cannot be tightly centralised on those lines but that can and must work together on those matters where Europe must work together, if it is to be effective.

In its most recent report to this House, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said :

Column 520

"The European union will be a wholly new institution, a unique structure with no equivalents elsewhere in the world."

We are building something unique. There are no blueprints. There are no precedents. We are building not a superstate but a Community of member states, upholding diversity and serving rather than dominating its citizens. We now in Britain, at this moment, by good luck and perhaps, along the way, a little good management, have an opportunity to set that course, beginning with a vote for the Bill tonight.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), may I gently remind Members that many hon. Members have said that they wish to speak in the debate? Those who intervene must stifle the impulse to make full-blown speeches.

4.46 pm

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : As the Foreign Secretary pointed out in his last words to the House, the Bill enacts the Maastricht treaty and its protocols into United Kingdom law. Therefore it is to be judged on that basis, but not on that basis alone. The Bill and the treaty must also be judged on the kind of Europe that they will help to produce, and on the kind of Britain that they will help to bring about.

The treaty contains many provisions that the Labour party has advocated for a number of years--in the policy reviews approved by our party conference and in policy statements approved by the Labour party's national executive committee. Some of those provisions have also been advocated by the Government.

For example, there is common ground between the Government and ourselves about the need for subsidiarity, as provided for in article 63b of the treaty. Both parties have advocated interparliamentary contacts. Those appear in the treaty, in the declaration on the conference of the parliaments. Both the Labour party and the Conservative party have called for common foreign and security policies, though without qualified majority voting. Here, too, such policies are provided for in title V of the treaty. However, in its official policy statements, the Labour party has advocated further measures that are to be found in the treaty but that have not been put forward actively by this Conservative Government.

For example, the Labour party has called for an enhanced role for the regions. The Conservatives have been silent on that matter. However, we are very pleased to see, in article 198 of the treaty, that provision is made for a Committee of the Regions. I hope that in Committee the way in which that Committee is to be appointed will be clarified in order to alleviate the misgivings of the local authority associations.

The Labour party called for enhanced voting rights for the citizens of Community countries in local elections and in European Parliament elections. Such voting rights have not been noted as Conservative party policy. Still, they appear in article 68b of the treaty and we welcome them. If, however, there are policies in the treaty that the Labour party has advocated, with Conservative party concurrence, and if there are policies in the treaty that the Labour party has advocated but on which the Conservative party has been silent, there are even more policies in the treaty

Next Section

Home Page