House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 May 1992

Column 532

sorry about what has happened, but I am sure that, with the new Secretary of State's assistance, we shall be able to solve the problem.

The Government's attitude to open boundaries within the Community also perturbs me. We agreed on boundaries when we signed the treaty of Rome in 1972. The agreement has been there all the time. Some of my hon. Friends seem never to have read the treaty--of course, they must have read it. We intended to open our frontiers to everyone. Mr. Budgen rose --

Sir Edward Heath : Let me finish my argument about open frontiers--I shall have more to say to my hon. Friend.

As has been said, other countries have other ways of dealing with open boundaries. Why is it so impossible for us to use other ways? It is extraordinary that, because of the unity of the United Kingdom and its former constituent part--now Eire--there are no controls between the two countries. Yet apparently we must have controls on the borders with the rest of the Community. No Minister has given a logical explanation for that.

How do we deal with people coming from Eire? Of course, there are people out of uniform who know perfectly well whom they want to identify, and they act accordingly. Why can we not do that in our relations with the other countries of the Community?

Mr. Budgen : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Edward Heath : No, I am sorry, but I want to finish. It would be perfectly possible for us to operate such a system, exactly as the other countries do. Germany has got on top of its terrorists, and so have France and Italy. They did not choose other means. We have not got on top of our terrorists, and we have some open doors. That hardly seems logical. We could use other methods--

Mr. Budgen : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Edward Heath : No, I have not finished.

We could use those other methods, and deal with the problem satisfactorily. The courts may say, "You have got to do that." Of course there are vested interests. There are vested interests among the corps at the gates who carry out customs checks. They must be re-employed somewhere else, and the same applies to any of those now on check duties who cannot be absorbed.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : My right hon. Friend referred frequently to the contents of the European Communities Act 1972 and to the treaty of Rome. He will recall that his own White Paper contained a number of significant promises to the British people, such as the promises that there would not be a federation of provinces in Europe, that essential national sovereignty would be retained and that we should always be able to exercise a veto. That was set out expressing and explicitly in the White Paper. Is my right hon. Friend now telling us, on this important day and in this important debate for which we have not had a White Paper, that he repudiates what was said in the White Paper that he produced in 1971?

Column 533

Sir Edward Heath : I certainly have regard to the 1971 White Paper. I believe that the social chapter is acceptable to us. If there are points on which we want to make reservations, we have a means by which to do so.

Mr. Budgen : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having said so frankly that he had always anticipated that our domestic system of immigration controls would not be possible after 1972. Did he tell the British people that before 1972? I am sure that he understands that those of us who are sceptical about all that has followed 1972 have a lurking suspicion. We have been told time after time after time that we have nothing to worry about, yet we then find that those who have led us into Europe have deceived us and have denied the House of Commons their true belief about the consequences of the steps that have been taken.

Sir Edward Heath : I forgive my hon. Friend his language, because I know how passionately he feels about these things. He has nothing to worry about now. Maastricht means that there is nothing to worry about, because there are other ways in which to deal with the problem. We may now move on and-- [Laughter.]

We come to the question of foreign policy and defence. One phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary slightly worried me. He said that we were "moving away" from what the Community is at present. I do not believe that we are moving away, and I do not believe that it is possible to move away. I will come to the answer in a moment.

In foreign policy, it is not only a question of meeting to discuss events and seeing whether we agree. What has proved to be so necessary and what is lacking everywhere--in the United Nations, in the United States and in the Community--is any foresight or pre-planning for events that may occur. That was the case in the Gulf. The danger of President Saddam Hussein should have been foreseen, and we should have recognised that we had supplied him with all the weapons he needed. We should have recognised that there was a permanent feud between Saddam Hussein and Kuwait, and we should have ensured that the war was prevented.

Is there to be a special secretariat, which is purely European, to deal with foreign policy? We have not heard about it. It is said that nothing must be put under the Commission. Very well : there should then be an entirely separate organisation which could do the pre-planning, the analysis and everything else required on a joint basis.

The same applies to defence. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that defence was not part of the issue. He is labouring under a misapprehension when he says that a European arrangement could interfere with NATO. There is an American pillar in NATO, and we could have a European pillar in NATO. Of course there are vested interests. The hundreds of people we keep in Washington do not like the idea, but that must change, and it will change, because the Americans will withdraw many of their forces from Europe. That is understandable, and I do not complain. We must recognise that it will happen and prepare ourselves for it. We must also recognise the dangers that still lie towards the east. That is why it is important to have a military element--a defence force-- which is European. That has certain consequences. One consequence is that such a force must be organised in a European fashion. The Foreign

Column 534

Secretary says that, under Maastricht, there will be separate columns. It will not be possible to carry on with that, and that is why the fears expressed by the right hon. Member for Gorton give me such encouragement.

One cannot imagine organising any country in the world in which the economic and social section is under Parliament but a separate Foreign Office section is in another part and a separate defence section is in yet another part. No one would dream of doing that. Europe will move towards a position in which, because of the connections between all three sections, all three will be dealt with together. It may be said that the matter can be settled in 1996 ; I hope it is. We must face reality in all this.

I deal now with the expansion of the Community and with the central European countries. It has been said that we should stretch the Community from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with the inclusion of Russia. That is entirely unrealistic ; it is fantasy. We hear about Europe stretching to the Urals. What will happen to the rest of the former Soviet Union east of the Urals where so much of its wealth lay--the gold, the minerals and the timber? No one has a suggestion to make. It is said that the expansion of the Community will be at the top of the agenda for the British presidency. We must be realistic. We cannot say that we like to have lots of friends, so we welcome them all.

I deal first with the European Free Trade Association countries. From the point of view of the economy, I have no doubt that Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland can match the requirements. We should be careful about Switzerland. It has been a federal country for centuries, which is very dangerous. We must sit apart so that we do not get contaminated by federalism.

One essential point in terms of the new defence situation is that those countries cannot be neutral. If they become members of the Community, they must share the defence of the Community and the cost of that defence--[ Hon. Members :-- "The Irish Republic?"] I hope that the Government will accept that and will not merely say, "Come in, we do not mind what you do." I know about Eire. I believe that Eire will be prepared to join a European defence. It has always objected to being tied up in an American-dominated NATO defence.

I now come to the former Soviet countries. It worries me that they are being misled by the things being said. I give two figures. The standard of living of the former Soviet-controlled territories is 32.1 per cent. of the Community average. The figure for Russia is 29.6 per cent. How can those countries be welcomed in, and how can they live on equal terms with the rest of the Community? It is just not possible. What is their maximum possible rate of growth after being suppressed for 50 years under Soviet tyranny? Even if it averaged 4 per cent., like the growth in the Pacific countries, how many years would it take before those countries could match the Community? That is the reality of life ; we must deal with that. I worry intensely about misleading those people and about causing them to think that they can come in after a couple of years. Those countries can be associated with the Community and we can help them in every way possible. However, they do not have democracies. The President of Poland now says that he must have plenary powers so that he can deal with the Polish situation. How does that fit in with the democratic addition to the Community? We must be as helpful as possible, but at the same time as realistic as possible.

Column 535

I have been absolutely disgusted by the bigoted, xenophobic, rabid statements made about Germany. I do not wish to enter into personalities, as the right hon. Member for Gorton did ; I will make only a few general statements about what has been uttered. Those of us who fought through the second world war and across Germany and who helped in the rebuilding of Germany feel ashamed of what has been said. We gave the Germans their constitution--a federal system ; it is called the Federal Republic of Germany--so why should we damn federalism? The recovery that the Germans have achieved is incredible, and their contribution to Europe has been immense. It continues today. They have taken complete responsibility for 18 million people in eastern Germany. They are rebuilding it ; they have given it democracy--what more could we ask of them?

When the Hungarians opened their gates and the refugees came through, they went into Austria and Germany in their hundreds of thousands. The Germans accepted them and got jobs for them. We did nothing like that ; we did not take these people or welcome them. I heard it muttered on the Government Front Bench that we won the cold war and won freedom for all these people. That is not entirely true, and in any case we did nothing to solve their problems for them. What about the Germans' contribution to the former Soviet countries? We have achieved nothing of the sort. These are the hard facts of life. I do not understand how people can damn the Germans and suggest that we join forces with the Americans to stand against them. I hope that this House will have nothing to do with such sentiments.

The future is clear : the Maastricht treaty will be ratified, the Bill will be passed and we will spend many days discussing it. This has been a well- attended debate, which I understand continued until breakfast time. I do not think that the Leader of the House can have read the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House recommending that we abandon all- night sittings. Perhaps during the Whitsun recess someone will give him a copy, so that, when we debate amendments to the Bill, we can observe the Committee's wishes. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on their achievements. Let us continue to be positive and thereby bring about the Community that we all want.

5.52 pm

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : It is a great pleasure to follow the Father of the House-- [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Will Members who are leaving the Chamber do the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor the courtesy of leaving quietly?

Sir Russell Johnston : It is a great pleasure to follow the Father of the House, whose contribution to the European Community over so many years has been so special, and whose remarks this evening, apart from being sharp and often extremely amusing and direct, were also extremely wise. I hope that Ministers heard them clearly. I must admit that, after dawn this morning, I had begun to find the call of Morpheus rather more seductive than even the most well-constructed arguments. Nevertheless, I

Column 536

have no hesitation in saying that this has been an excellent debate, with powerful differences forcefully and articulately set out--including some first-rate maiden speeches. I must also pay tribute to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is looking rather pale and not entirely interesting, and to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), both of whom summed up in the morning sunshine with a lucidity and humour which, at that hour, I could not match.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) set out our position yesterday and made it clear that, while we will support ratification of the Maastricht treaty and can see no justification in logic for voting against, for supporting reasoned amendments or for abstaining, we also believe that the treaty could and should have gone much further, and that because it did not, it failed the Community and its aspiring members in several ways.

The treaty accentuates the well-rehearsed democratic deficit and enhances the power of national Ministers--the Government welcome that--more than that of European parliamentarians. It advances qualified majority voting far too cautiously. Liberal Democrats want a wider but deeper Europe ; not the spurious spectre of the single united states of Europe which Mrs. Thatcher advances, but a decentralised federal Europe of European states, with national sovereignty pooled in the European Council and Council of Ministers, and popular sovereignty pooled in the European Parliament. Liberal Democrats are federalists, with a long and consistent position on this matter. By federalism, we mean what everyone else in Europe, apart from most United Kingdom Conservatives but including the other European Conservatives, means : a dispersal of government between different levels of democratic authority--supranational, national, sub-national--in which all levels are co-ordinated but none is subordinated. That is the view taken by the European Conservatives in the European Parliament who have joined a group committed to a federal Europe.

It is strange that we hear so much in this House about federalism meaning centralisation. That is the opposite of what it represents--as the Conservatives' wiser brethen in Strasbourg know. I do not say that British Conservatives are reactionary nationalists opposed to sharing power with foreigners, although some of them are. The problem is that they oppose sharing power with anyone at all. Federalism means devolution of powers and separation of powers. The Conservatives oppose federalism in Scotland and decentralisation in England and Wales. Naturally enough, therefore, they oppose it in Europe.

For many Conservatives, the British state is centralist and authoritarian and sufficient unto itself. Modern forms of democracy, which is what federalism is about, threaten that monopoly of power. Conservatives have long mistaken strong government for single-party government. They oppose electoral systems in which seats won, match votes cast. They oppose citizens' rights written down and asserted in constitutional law, much preferring archaic convention. They oppose democratic decisions in the European Council, preferring the craft of negative consensus--which they call the veto.

Conservatives oppose the widening of the competence of the European Community's jurisdiction, preferring the old-fashioned, diplomatic conventions. They dissemble

Column 537

over sovereignty and puff up their claims that the Westminster Parliament controls matters that it no longer controls. That is certainly true of macroeconomics.

Then they seek to bolster the so-called nation state. What is a nation state? Was Yugoslavia a nation state? It contained six or seven nationalities--Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians. Here we have four--the Scots, Welsh, English and Irish. Mrs. Thatcher was very quick to call for recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, and she was right to do so. Incidentally, she agreed on that occasion with Germany. I brought a newspaper today which contains the headline "No substitute for the nation state", accompanied by a picture that launched a thousand vetoes.

There is no consistency in that, because Mrs. Thatcher, like many Conservatives, rejects any devolution within the United Kingdom when there are calls by clearly established majorities for self-government, which is, after all, well short of independence. The really important development is not, although many people talk about it, the revival of nationalism in central and eastern Europe--that is a reaction to the escape from communism --but the burgeoning of cross-border political co-operation. Tomorrow's Europe will be more concerned about whether individuals are Liberals, Socialists, Conservatives or Christian democrats than with whether they are German, Dutch, British or Scots.

Maastricht leaves the so-called common foreign and security policy and the entire dossier of judicial and interior affairs separate from the European Community. The Father of the House has already referred to this. Even though some pragmatic convergence between the Community and the political co-operation procedure is proposed, the union's external arm is left too weak for systematic and decisive action. Many controversial internal matters, such as immigration and asylum, which were mentioned in particular yesterday, are left outside the legal competence of the court of justice and the European Parliament.

The pooling of national sovereignty in both internal and external security matters requires us to call forth the European citizen elector. In place of the secret manipulation of national Ministers and civil servants, we want open government and democratic accountability. What is needed is nothing less than to turn the European Community into a parliamentary democracy. We must have ambitions, ideals and goals, and our ambition is to make the Government of the European Community an improvement on the existing old nation states.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)--I am sorry that he is not here--that, with this Bill as with other measures, we are talking about democracy. I would also contend that the Liberal Democrat concept of democracy is much more open, pluralist and decentralist than that of the political forces with which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has been long associated and whose views he espouses.

We must introduce a uniform electoral procedure in time for the elections of June 1994. There could be no more dramatic way to redeem the United Kingdom's reputation and end its isolation than to enhance the representative

Column 538

capability of the European Parliament by ensuring that seats won are matched by votes cast. I believe that there is support for that reform on both sides of the House.

We must also take urgent action between now and 1994 to build up European Community citizenship in terms of social, cultural, civil and electoral rights, not least the implementation of article 8b of the treaty on the rights of European Community citizens to vote and stand in municipal and European elections. We have to allow people to identify with the communities in which they live. These duties and entitlements must be developed hand in hand with good information policies, with improved access by all to legal redress and with the full accomplishment of freedom of movement of people, to which the Father of the House referred, through the abolition of all internal border controls.

The immigration policy may have to be tough, but it must be based on a common legal base that is also explicitly anti-racist. We normally use the word "racist" in connection with attitudes to people who are black or a particular colour, but one can be racist about the Germans. I endorse every word spoken by the Father of the House on that subject.

At the end of this morning's debate, at about 7 o'clock, the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) made an extremely interesting speech on mobility within the European Community and external immigration controls. I urge the Minister to look at that speech. After all, the two basic principles of the Single European Act are the free movement of people and mobility of labour. When Britain signed the Single European Act, she subscribed to these principles. I was exceedingly disappointed to see the Foreign Secretary, who has now left the Chamber, going to Brussels with what amounted to a Thatcherite series of demands, which boil down to an attempt by Britain to retain the full panoply of customs and immigration control.

The Government's justification for this was that it was necessary so as to regulate drugs, the illegal importation of weapons, terrorist activities and the spread of rabies. Rabies is certainly a separate case, and the movement of animals can be separately supervised. However, it is wrong for the Government to imply that drugs and terrorism are effectively controlled at main customs points. If this were the case, as the Father of the House so rightly said, we would not have open borders with Ireland. The control of drugs and terrorist activities depend on much more effective police and security co-operation within the European Community. The Government should be talking about going way beyond the limited co-operation that they established at Trevi.

Immigration control presents serious problems of definition and of common standards of implementation. However, it is in our interests to achieve this rather than to resist it, and the Germans, who have the problem of an enormous number of people flowing in every day, would be our strong allies.

Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West) : Does the hon. Gentleman see any connection between the fact that southern Germany accepted most of these immigrants from eastern Europe and the fact that it is also the place where Die Republikaner, which is a Nazi organisation, has had the most growth and impact in electoral terms? Does he accept that there is a link between immigration in southern Germany and the rise in extremism there?

Column 539

Sir Russell Johnston : Southern Germany has traditionally been more right-wing than northern Germany, but the hon. Gentleman has a point. If a large number of people flow in, putting pressure on housing and jobs, there will inevitably be a reaction on politics. I do not deny that. [Interruption.] I am not arguing with the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he is missing my point. I am simply saying that the European Community as a whole must sort out a common policy and it must operate, as the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding said, external borders and ensure consistency of policy. It is much better to spend money on this than on controls within the Community, which will create costs for travellers and businesses. There was some progress on foreign and security policy, but there was a bit of confusion. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said in reply to a question I put to him :

"would he"--

that is, me--

"prefer our foreign policy to be determined by the majority vote of other countries? That is not a proposition to which I am prepared to agree on behalf of this country."--[ Official Report, 20 May 1992 ; Vol. 208, c. 267.]

However, the Maastrict treaty has a number of declarations at the back of it. For example, there is the

"Declaration on voting in the field of the common foreign and security policy".

It reads :

"The Conference agrees that, with regard to Council decisions requiring unanimity, Member States will, to the extent possible, avoid preventing a unanimous decision where a qualified majority exists in favour of that decision."

I should have thought that that and what the Prime Minister said yesterday were at variance. In foreign and security policy, there should be an end to the separation from the judicial and parliamentary processes of the European Community. In 1998, the treaty of Brussels will expire, and the Western European Union should be rolled up inside the EC. Likewise, on interior affairs, the protection of our civil liberty requires decisions to be taken inside the union.

Lastly, we must recognise the financial consequences of Maastricht. Practically nothing has been said about that. The cohesion fund is needed to complement existing structural funds, and both better financial control and better democratic accountability are required in the use of the funds. European monetary union is impossible without greater economic and social convergence. One might well suspect the Government's motives. Are they set already on rejecting the Delors 2 package? We are talking about 21 billion ecu over five years, which is 0.25 per cent. of Community gross domestic product. That is a relatively small percentage.

The burden on the United Kingdom would be eased if we moved from the regressive value added tax to the progressive GDP formula. We must support the Commission--I am sorry, but I must drink some water. Fortunately, I am finishing my speech. Finishing is not the same as finished.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) : It would be dramatic if the hon. Gentleman were to faint.

Sir Russell Johnston : If I fell on the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that I would not be the first thing to fall on him.

All the reforms of which I speak require courage and flexibility. My colleagues and I believe in them and believe that they offer hope. We Liberal Democrats are firmly

Column 540

resolved to continue to work for a new Europe that will inspire its people. We believe such a Europe to be an aim that is fully possible and achievable.

6.11 pm

Sir Rhodes Boyson (Brent, North) : I am grateful to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker, in this interesting and important debate. Before the Maastricht meeting, I was concerned about three issues and what would emerge following their consideration. First, I was concerned about whether there would be exemption from the social chapter. Secondly, I was concerned whether there would be a single currency to which the United Kingdom would be tied automatically, along with a single bank. Thirdly, I was concerned about where we were going with federalism. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated splendidly on those issues, and that he carried the day. Those of us who are Euro-sceptics, as I am to an extent, owe my right hon. Friend a great tribute for his negotiating skills at Maastricht.

During a general election, there are difficulties when it comes to how one stands on Europe and the attitudes of the parties. The electorate vote on issues other than Europe. In the final week of the campaign, however, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he did not support a united states of Europe and that he was not a federalist. I believe that that statement was one of the reasons why the Conservative party won the general election.

My right hon. Friend demonstrated his ability to defend the constitution. He said that there would be no proportional representation. He made it clear that he would not have assemblies scattered around the United Kingdom, and nor would he have devolution. He said that there would be no federalism. Conservative Members are sitting on the Government Benches because my right hon. Friend made his position clear on those issues.

I am still concerned about some issues. For example, I am concerned about over-regulation, which seems to be a disease in Europe. It spreads like measles. Over-regulation will be resented by the British people, and it could make economies in Europe uncompetitive with those in the rest of the world. If that happens, the United Kingdom will suffer more than the other countries of Europe. That is because we export and import worldwide to a greater extent than any other country in the Community.

There are growing second-level economies within a free market in the Pacific basin and south-east Asia and we must compete with them. If we burden ourselves with regulations galore, we shall be unable to compete and over 20 years Europe could become a relatively depressed area.

I am still concerned about the social chapter. I am glad that it was cut out, as it were, in the Maastricht treaty, but I do not want it to come back to us in penny numbers. When it came to the number of hours that could be worked in a week, we won the book only to have certain chapters removed from it. The Government seem to be weakening on the 48 hours proposal.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : And on the parental leave directive.

Column 541

Sir Rhodes Boyson : I do not want to become involved in footnotes and other minutiae. Much as I respect my hon. Friend, I want to confine myself to three or four general principles.

I trust that we are all firm on the basic individual factors that are set out in the social chapter.

I am still concerned about the exchange rate mechanism. I believe that our link with it has stopped us reducing interest rates to the level at which they should now rest. Our emergence from the recession is being delayed because of that. Japan and America seem to be picking up more quickly. Both have real interest rates only 40 per cent. of those which apply in the United Kingdom. We had to reduce the real interest rate, which is what I am talking about, to 2 per cent. to get out of the 1929-31 recession.

It seemed when I listened this morning to "Today" that some progress has been made with the GATT negotiations. However, the fact that we have to pay so much for our food reduces the United Kingdom's competitiveness and handicaps the third world. Trade as against aid is the way in which third- world countries can pick themselves up and become prosperous. We want them to have the ability to grow crops and to sell them here, not Oxfam collections and the rest.

Our financial services are the best in the world. When the GATT negotiations have come to an end, we must ensure that our financial services are allowed to blossom in every way.

Our bit-by-bit movement in Europe is rather like blind men engaging in a tug of war. We have six on one side and six on the other. The person in the middle is the umpire. We are pulled backwards and forwards and suddenly there is the cry, "It has gone--it is over." It seems that at Maastricht we won yet another tug of war. Well, overall we did not win and we did not lose, but there is the opportunity of a Europe with which I could go along.

Sir Teddy Taylor : No.

Sir Rhodes Boyson : I could go along with it. I am not speaking for my hon. Friend, and I would not have the arrogance to do so. He speaks for himself as I speak for myself.

I have always been a referendum man on important issues and I am sorry that we are not having one on the treaty. About 10 or 12 years ago, I wrote a chapter in a paper recommending the use of referendums.

Mr. Tony Marlow : (Northampton, North) : My right hon. Friend can vote for an amendment.

Sir Rhodes Boyson : If there is an amendment on the issue and a Division is called, I shall be sorely tempted. My hon. Friend and I may find ourselves in the same Lobby.

I have made it clear where I stand on the issue that is before the House. I am against federalism, single monetary policy and the social chapter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with his superb negotiating skills, returned with a package that has caused me to decide--it has taken me several days to work this out--to vote with the Government this evening. I shall do so "on approval," rather as one sometimes buys stamps. That approval will not be confined to a week because I think that we have one or two years to decide these political matters.

My instinct tells me that the United Kingdom is much more sceptical about Europe than it was two or three years

Column 542

ago. It is moving that way. That pulls me in one direction. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister achieved far more than I expected at Maastricht. Our presidency of the Community begins in July and I shall be fascinated by what happens then. Over the next year or two, I shall have again to make a judgment. I shall do so on each individual occasion, but I have made my judgment for tonight. 6.20 pm

Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North) : I will not follow the explanations of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) ; perhaps I should give my explanation of what I intend to do tonight.

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) made an impressive speech. He has a real sense of perspective on these occasions. I salute him as one of the architects of the modern European Community, and certainly of Britain's entry into it. We need to consider these European matters with some perspective. The Maastricht treaty is the culmination of an enormously creative surge of European co-operation and integration. The period that began in 1985 with an agreement on a Single European Act has seen progress in a number of areas--for example, the drive towards a single European market of 324 million people, a number that will be increased through the agreement with the EFTA countries.

There was adoption of the social charter in 1989 by 11 member states, although unfortunately not the United Kingdom. There is now the agreement of the same 11 to the social chapter in the treaty. New EC competences have been adopted in a number of areas, including the environment, transport, aspects of education, culture, public health, consumer protection and the development of co-operation.

There is the staged introduction of economic and monetary union, the development of common foreign and security policies, co-operation in justice and home affairs, and last but not least, new powers for the European Parliament. That is a considerable body of achievements over the past seven years.

There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who, like the right hon. Member for Brent, North, are Euro-sceptics, and they view all those developments as unwarranted interference by the centralising hand of Brussels, which they believe is against the best interests of this country. They are profoundly wrong. The moves towards greater integration have come about not because of pressure from Brussels or from Jacques Delors, whatever his diplomatic skills, but because the representatives of the nation states of the European Community, including the United Kingdom, voluntarily agreed not only to co-operate, but to pool sovereignty. That is what has happened. The leaders of the nation states have agreed to that pooling of sovereignty because they think that it is in the best interests of their peoples. They all believe that a strong internal European market will create the background to a new economic advance, and that a single European currency will provide the necessary economic and monetary stability.

With the exception of the United Kingdom, those nation states, which include a number of right-of-centre Governments, believe that a framework of social rights

Column 543

will ensure that European employees share in economic prosperity. They also understand that effective environmental policy must be at least Europewide.

The national leaders of Europe rightly consider that the best way to maximise the influence of their particular countries is not by standing alone, but by creating a common foreign and security policy. They also understand that the democratic deficit cannot be repaired nationally. The only effective way to make European institutions more accountable is by increasing the powers of the European Parliament. In other words, the recent astonishing advance of the EC has been the response to the common needs of and the pressures from the peoples and nations of the EC--not the work, as is sometimes suggested by some Conservative and Labour Members, of power-crazed bureaucrats in Brussels.

In the 1990s, the EC will face new pressures and challenges, and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned some of those. Above all, those challenges and pressures will come from the collapse of the Soviet empire in central and eastern Europe and from the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself. The argument of the anti-integrationists-- [Interruption.] Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North- East (Mr. Leighton) would be quiet for a moment ; he might then acquire some wisdom.

Mr. Richard Shepherd : It is a measure of the speech.

Mr. Radice : I hope so.

The argument of the anti-integrationists is that reaching out to the peoples of central and eastern Europe will rule out further European integration. That was the argument made by my pair, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). That view is profoundly mistaken. Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary all want to join the EC by the end of the century, and they are right to hope to do so. The reason that they want to join the EC is not because they believe that they are joining a very loose association of nation states but because the EC is economically, socially and institutionally coherent and dynamic.

Those countries also understand that, if the EC is not to collapse under its own weight, it will have to adapt its institutional framework to a membership that is likely to expand from the current 12 to at least 20 by the end of the century. We must consider the institutional arrangements, and we must have more majority voting. That is the reality. In short, deepening and widening will have to go hand in hand.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister for the first time attempted to set out-- albeit in his usual prosaic fashion--a post-Thatcherite agenda for Europe, which was certainly a welcome development. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's affirmation of what he called the

"core beliefs of the Community : its commitment to democracy, its framework of law, the creation of a genuine single market and"-- I noted his words carefully--

"the fact that the Community exists to promote the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe."

That is a far cry from the nationalistic knee-jerk reaction that we heard so often from Mrs. Thatcher. Many of us appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's recognition of the key role of the EC in managing what he called

Next Section

Home Page