House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 May 1992

Column 544

"the biggest transition to democracy in our continent in its entire history."--[ Official Report , 20 May 1992 ; Vol. 208, c. 272-3.] Although many of us welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's new tone and his move away from the negative carping of Mrs. Thatcher, the problem that the Bill presents for the Opposition is that parts of it were designed specifically to appease the Thatcherites, and in particular the two opt-outs negotiated at Maastricht. The right to opt out of European monetary union was patently a device to buy Mrs. Thatcher's support and that of a number of Thatcherite Members. I do not believe that that is necessary any longer. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly said yesterday in his excellent speech, the Government will have to decide on their attitude to EMU within the lifetime of this Parliament. The delay in committing ourselves to the principle of EMU creates unnecessary uncertainty--among investors, about the future of the City, and among our European partners.

On the other hand, commitment in principle would show that we were serious about EMU. It would lend credibility to our anti-inflationary strategy and it would strengthen our bargaining position not just on the siting of the Eurofed--we are in a weak position at the moment--but on the crucial question of the timing of the introduction of the third stage and the conditions that should be attached to it. If we could decide on the principle, we would be in a much more powerful position as a country.

The Prime Minister yesterday called the Labour party's objection to the opt -out from the social chapter "a triumph of ideology over common sense". In fact, his phrase accurately described the Government's attitude to the social chapter. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the social chapter is about the improvement of the working environment and working conditions, information for and the consultation of individual employees, the equality of men and women and the integration of the long-term unemployed into the work force. So far from being a corporatist tract, as the Prime Minister and, apparently, the leader of the Liberal Democrats seem to believe, it is about improving individual rights. The Liberal Democrats should have a more careful look at what is contained in the social chapter. It might be good for them. I have been a committed supporter of the EC for at least 30 years, but even so, because the Bill contains the two opt-outs, I cannot support it as it stands. I strongly back the reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I shall vote for it tonight.

On the other hand, once the reasoned amendment is rejected, it would be wrong for the Labour party to vote against the Bill, and I am glad that it will not do so. The Bill is about much more than two opt-outs. It enacts a large part of the treaty agreed at Maastricht, including majority voting on environment, youth training and public health, the establishment of a cohesion fund, the strengthening of regional policy and the role of the regions, which has been mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends, the new European citizenship, the entrenchment of subsidiarity--

Mr. Spearing : Oh.

Column 545

Mr. Radice : Yes, indeed. However, I shall not get involved in hair-splitting with my hon. Friend, because I know that I would lose.

The Bill also enacts a useful increase in the powers of the European Parliament. Therefore, a vote against the Bill would be seen as a rejection not just of the two opt-outs but of the whole Maastricht treaty, and that would be wrong.

Sir Russell Johnston : Does that mean that, if the hon. Gentleman thought that the reasoned amendment would win, he would not vote for it?

Mr. Radice : No, it does not mean that. I would vote for the reasoned amendment because it is a sensible amendment. It is an amendment, not a vote in principle against the Bill.

A vote against the Bill would be seen as a rejection of the Maastricht treaty and as reversing Labour's hard-won position. I have been a pro- European for many years, and I have watched the Labour party change, so I know that that has taken some time.

If we voted against the Bill, it would cut off the Labour party from our sister parties in the Community, all of which are to vote for the Maastricht treaty. Whatever the provocation for us of the Prime Minister's opt-outs, our sister parties would not understand if the Labour party joined the followers of Le Pen in France, the Republicans in Germany and the Thatcherites in Britain in voting against Maastricht. Those who do so should be aware of the company they are keeping.

There is no salvation for Labour as an anti-European or even a reluctantly European party. We must continue to develop our strategy and our policies within a European framework. Labour's future, like that of Britain as a whole, lies in the European Community. 6.34 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : I listened with great interest to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), telling of the enthusiasm and freedom with which Members of the House gave a Second Reading to the European Communities Bill.

I was a Member of the House at that time. I have talked to Tory Members whose association chairmen were warned by telephone that there would be serious consequences if they did not vote for the Common Market. I was also present at a meeting when great pressure was put on certain Unionist Members of the House to ensure that they joined the Common Market lobby.

Feelings in the House at that time were as wild as I have ever witnessed, yet the former Prime Minister tells the nation that in that debate there was a wonderful freedom. I saw one Labour Member beating up another Member of the House with his Order Paper. It is wrong, in laughter and as a sort of sneer, for the former Prime Minister to bluff the nation and tell them that we were all willing to go down the Common Market road. I was never a Common Marketeer, and I never will be. My experience after 12 years in the European Parliament convinces me more and more of what Europe is really all about.

When we were going into Europe, the former Prime Minister's great sell was the veto : nothing could be done unless Britain agreed. That was the great hard sell. Many

Column 546

people thought that within Europe we would have the power of veto. We see today how much that power has been diminished. We will lose more and more as the Maastricht treaty comes into operation. What amazes me is that some of the things that I have heard, especially from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) today, are not up to date. A new leaflet has just been published telling us what is really about to happen. I attended the European Parliament last week and I was amazed to see huge posters on every pillar and in every nook and cranny of the Palace of Europe saying :

"European Parliament. Towards a new world partnership." The EC has lifted its eyes far above the nations of Europe ; it is now going to take over the world. Jacques Delors is not thinking in simple European terms ; he is thinking in terms of the whole wide world. I shall not weary the House with all the nonsense that is in the new leaflet, but one thing that it says is :

"It is the European Parliament's intention, on the basis of the Community's existing achievements in development co-operation, to initiate a process of fundamental change."

So all that we have been talking about tonight is really in the past. The leaflet continues :

"Thus, through discussion, proposals can be formulated, in the mutual interest of all participants, that would enable Europe to achieve the objectives of its development policy."

There will be a new world order.

In addition, the European Parliament intends to set up in association with the United Nations

"an appeal court representing the conscience of the peoples of the world."

That is the great thinking. Some say that it is a dream. To me, it is more like a nightmare. Super-states and super-powers have always represented a menace to individual nations. The House ought to be aware of current European thinking.

We are being asked tonight to set out seal on the treaty. I willingly pay tribute to the Prime Minister for achieving some damage limitation at Maastricht, but when the treaty is implemented, his achievements will soon be whittled away. At the time of Maastricht, he wrote to me :

"I can assure you that there is no question of my accepting federalism, and I shall continue to negotiate robustly in the interests of the United Kingdom."

I accept that. However, centralism and federalism is at the heart of the treaty. In a press interview, Jacques Delors commented that he wanted to tell our Prime Minister that the word "federal" does not matter. Call it by another name, and then it will be all right. He said :

"The Community is on course to a federal future."

The President of the EC Commission made it perfectly clear what he hopes to achieve.

Some right hon. and hon. Members are critical of the United Kingdom's membership of the Community, but it has a good record. Although other members may boast of being good Europeans, they have not dealt with many vital Single European Act directives. Some that boast loudly and criticise our activities fall far short of being good member states themselves.

The United Kingdom's trouble is that it always keeps to the rules, whereas others do not. When a fishing quota was imposed on the south of Ireland, the southern Government turned a blind eye to it, allowed as many tonnes of fish to be pulled out of the Irish sea as possible, and flooded the market.

Column 547

I asked the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who happened to be a naval man, whether he could turn a blind eye to fish catches in Northern Ireland. He replied, "No, we keep to the rules. Every fishing boat that takes one fish more than its quota will be prosecuted." And that is what happened. European member states should keep to the European rules. No matter what may be the views of individual right hon. and hon. Members, we should not listen to those who would run down the United Kingdom's role in the Community. To the south of that part of the United Kingdom in which I live there is the Irish Republic. It receives £3 million a day from Europe, and it will receive £6 million a day under the cohesion fund. Who is to pay for that support? We know perfectly well that Britain and Germany are the paymasters. We have only to look at the figures showing Britain's contribution.

We remember the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, going to Europe to demand her money back. It was a good thing that she did get part of it back, because otherwise this country would be in an even more grave financial situation. The official EC budget figures published by the United Kingdom central secretariat show that, in 1990, we lost £2,475 million down the drain. Altogether, we have paid out £15,681 million.

We are financing the European set-up, but are criticised for not being good Europeans. There is an old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune. It is time that this Parliament placed on record the fact that, as its money is involved, it should have some say in how it is used. I have only to consider how much per head my own country has paid into the Common Market to know--this is borne out by answers to parliamentary questions that I have tabled--that it does not get value for money.

What will happen after the treaty is signed? It will give Jacques Delors and those who share his vision even more impetus to push ahead. We may soon find that we have no control over matters over which we have some influence today, as we did when we entered the Common Market. The talk in Europe is that the European Parliament will be the centre of power, and that the other Parliaments of Europe will serve only as small administrative bodies that will have no say-- [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber is laughing. I know that he has attempted to enter the European Parliament, and perhaps he will do so eventually. I notice that he lost his voice when he came to say something about the Commissioners. When the hon. Gentleman enters the European Parliament, he will learn at first hand what is really happening in Europe, and its attitude to the Parliaments of member states.

We all know that this Parliament has lost power, and that it will lose more. The present European leadership is dead set on introducing the federal concept, which will practically do away with our real decision- making powers. As to the European Court, it always finds in favour of an extension of the powers of the Community. All those matters should concern us when we cast our votes at the end of tonight's debate.

6.49 pm

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me say how pleased I am to see you in the Chair.

Column 548

The question before us is not whether we are in or out of Europe, or whether we are part of it ; of course we are. The question is what sort of Europe we are talking about, and what basis of co- operation will endure. The treaty has been described as a great leap, but I think that it was a great leap in the wrong direction. I know that the words "federal vocation" have been removed ; but the people who put those words in the treaty still believe that they should be there, and are determined to get what they want. That is what the debate is about.

I do not think that "federalism" is a very good word. We use it as shorthand for a centralised super-state, but we are really talking more about a unitary state. I think that we use the word "federlism" rather loosely. Some people try to lull us into a sense of false security by telling us that federations push power down to the people and the regions ; but what of economic policy ? Earlier, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether, under economic and monetary union, there would be any subsidiarity in monetary policy, but he told me to wait for an answer from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I look forward to hearing that answer.

What we know is that all the most important powers--the bread-and-butter powers relating to taxing. spending and borrowing--are to be removed from us, and to be raised to Brussels level. The public do not want that : there are large majorities in this country against ceding more powers to Brussels, and large majorities against a single currency.

There seems to be what the psychiatrists call a role reversal in the House. The Conservatives tend to move in a crabwise direction, but they appear to be saying, "We do not want to give away too many powers ; we want to decentralise." Labour, meanwhile, seems to be saying--at least from its Front Bench--"Give more powers, and do it more quickly." I am not sure how that came about, but I believe that we, as Members of Parliament, have no right or mandate to surrender the essentials of self-government.

We have no right or mandate to transfer the economic, political and legislative powers of the British people to EC institutions without the consent and agreement of the electorate. What we are really talking about is democracy. It is proposed that most of the important decisions-- according to Jacques Delors, 80 per cent. of our economic and social policy --should be decided in the Community, by people whom we do not elect and cannot remove.

Of course, the treaties that we are discussing are not the end of the matter. There is another inter-governmental conference lined up for 1996, and that will mean another big pull on the ratchet. We know--Jacques Delors has said it in public--that the Commission wants a new executive. Delors wants to change the institutions ; he wants a sort of putative Government. That is being kept on ice at present, because a referendum is to take place in Denmark on 2 June. What the Commission wants, however, is the centralising of power in the executive.

We know the destination of this train. We know the aim and intention : it is the creation of a super-state. The question is, do we want that? If we do not want it, it is about time we said so. We should get rid of all the "here and there" and all the ambiguity ; our Parliament should be absolutely clear that that is not what it wants.

What I find most objectionable and worrying is the question of economic and monetary union. The treaty includes a timetable--a very short timetable and, in my view, a very unrealistic one. We know that the fashions of

Column 549

economic theory come and go. At Maastricht, however, the drafters took the tenets of a particular economic theory--Euro -monetarism--and entrenched those tenets by enshrining them in a treaty that is supposed to endure for all time.

I hear that someone has written a book called "The End of History". This seems to be the end of economics ; certainly it is supposed to be the end of debate and discussion about economics. With what I consider breathtaking arrogance, people purport to have devised a blueprint for the future of the continent--or, at least, for half the continent--which is to be put into a monetary straitjacket with permanent deflation. We shall all suffer ; there will be hard labour. The objective is to squeeze all of us into a single currency run by an unelected, unaccountable central bank.

I have no doubt that the Father of the House--the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who spoke so eloquently--feels able to support the idea of a community run by bankers. What I do not understand is how those of us who are on the left--members of the Labour party--can support the idea that all our economic policy should be run by an unaccountable central bank.

When stage 1, the exchange rate mechanism, first came up, Labour considered it and laid down four conditions. None of those conditions was met, but-- inexplicably--Labour nevertheless accepted and supported ERM entry. I do not wish to be over-rhetorical or to provoke hon. Members, but let me ask this : has anyone observed any benefits resulting from our joining the ERM? Unemployment has risen by 1 million ; the economy has not grown, but has shrunk by 2.5 per cent.; investment in the economy is falling. Now we are going to move on : we are coming to the second and third stages.

What does the Labour party say about that? Before Maastricht, Labour issued a statement in the name of the national executive committee. That statement, issued on 29 November 1991, laid down the conditions for convergence that the NEC believed should apply. The treaty said that the objective of the bank was price stability ; the criteria are entirely monetary, exactly like those of the Bundesbank. According to Labour, however, that was not enough. Labour said that there must be real convergence : it was necessary to deal with growth and employment.

I agreed with everything that the Labour party said in its statement. The point is that none of that is in the treaties. That being the case, I do not see how we can possibly do other than vote against the treaty. Let me quote a couple of sentences from the NEC document :

"Unfortunately, the Commission and the British Government have concentrated only on the need for nominal convergence, i.e. convergence in the rate of inflation and in interest rates. This is incomplete and unsatisfactory."

If it is unsatisfactory, why should we not vote against it? The document continues :

"As British experience demonstrates today, it is possible to attain some convergence in inflation and in interest rates between Britain and Germany, but only in circumstances in which the Germany economy is growing at 3.5 per cent. a year and the British economy is shrinking by 2.5 per cent. a year. This Tory policy of convergence by recession is totally unaccceptable."

If it is totally unacceptable, will someone please tell me why we should not vote against it?

Column 550

According to the document, without the conditions that it has laid down,

"convergence of inflation rates and interest rates can be attained only by recession."

That is the Labour party's document, not mine, but I agree with it. If that is the case, I am minded to vote against the Bill ; I do not want recession.

The document also says that we must have a strong regional policy on the scale and pattern of transfers involved in national monetary union. There is none of that in the treaty. How on earth can we abstain?

The clock will start ticking away in January 1994. Then we shall start to find out whether countries can join, initially by 1997. We shall have to abandon control of the Bank of England ; that is part of it. I do not know how the Labour party will vote for such a development. Clem Attlee, in the post-war Labour Government--knowing what Montague Norman had done for economic policy--said that we would never have that again. We would not allow bankers to run our affairs ; it would be nationalised and placed under democratic political control.

We shall be asked to vote for a Bill to end the nationalisation of the Bank of England. I do not know how we can do that. Clem Attlee must be turning in his grave. The central bank would issue the currency and control monetary policy. There would be one interest rate. There is no subsidiarity in monetary policy. There would be one short-term interest rate in Glasgow, Berlin, Lisbon and Naples. That is crazy. Where is the flexibility?

Germany's problem is inflation. Here it is recession. We need different interest rates. Even an O-level or A-level economics student would surely know that. The central bank is to be even more independent than the Bundesbank. At least the Bundesbank has a Government breathing down its neck, as we saw with reunification. The central bank, though, will have no Government breathing down its neck and will be beyond any democratic control. The people who run the bank will be in situ for eight years--much longer than we are elected for. Nobody can remove them. They will have more power than the politicians.

I shall not run through all the criteria, but the one that upsets me is that the planned or actual central Government deficit--the public sector borrowing requirement--must be no nore than 3 per cent. of gross domestic product. Under a Conservative Government, what is the GDP percentage of our PSBR now? It is 4.5 per cent., and rising. It is nearly 5 per cent. If we were under that regime, we should have to cut our PSBR and the automatic stabilisers. We should prolong the recession and make everything worse in this country.

That is what monetarists propose, but I do not understand how the Labout party can support that proposition. There is nothing about growth in the criteria. As with the Queen's Speech, there is no mention of unemployment in the criteria. Unemployment does not seem to matter these days. It does not matter whether there are 1 million, 2 million, 3 million or 4 million people without jobs. They do not get a mention, either in the Queen's Speech or in the criteria. It would mark an historic break with everything that the Labour party has believed in--all the things that brought most of my hon. Friends and I and people such as Clem Attlee into the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) agrees. I am a great fan of his. He

Column 551

writes articles for Tribune. Conservative Members probably do not read Tribune. I am sorry if they form an audience for a discussion within the Labour party, but in other European debates it is the other way round. We are having a democratic debate on these issues. My hon. Friend, in his article in Tribune, referred to the draft of the treaty and said :

"This quite simply isn't on. We must not allow the European Right to institutionalise monetarism in this way. Economic and monetary union should facilitate growth, not enshrine deflation."

My hon. Friend is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. If he believes that, I should have thought that he ought to vote against the Bill.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made a speech in this House in November last year in which he said :

"The Labour party has argued consistently for the bank to operate in a stronger framework of political accountability than the present draft treaty proposes."--[ Official Report, 21 November 1991 ; Vol. 199, c. 50.]

If the treaty is wrong and is not what we want, why on earth are we not voting against it? We are abstaining. We are saying that we do not have a view, that we do not know, that we cannot make up our minds. What am I supposed to do? When I go back to my constituency and my constituents ask me what the Labour party thinks about this, what shall I say to them? I shall have to tell them that we do not know.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : I think that it ought to be made absolutely clear that what my hon. Friend has just said is not the case. The Opposition have tabled a reasoned amendment that deals with a number of the points that he raised. Therefore, my hon. Friend can go back to his constituents and say that that is what we believe in. That reasoned amendment was tabled by the Labour party after three discussions in the parliamentary Labour party, most of which he participa-ted in.

Mr. Leighton : We must not talk about our private meetings. No vote was taken at those meetings. The majority of those who spoke agreed with my point of view. My hon. Friend is always helpful to me. He has given me some advice. If, therefore, I go back to my constituents and say, "We didn't agree with any of this, so we put down a reasoned amendment," they will ask me what happened to it. I should have to tell them that we lost it. Then they would ask, "What did you do then? Did you vote against the motion to which you put down the reasoned amendment?" I should then have to tell them, "We couldn't make up our minds." That is not good enough, is it?

When we say that we are being 200 per cent. communautaire and that the Conservatives are not ceding powers quickly enough, I do not think that that wins us any medals. It did not do so at the last election. That is not a good enough explanation for me to give to my constituents.

Most of the treaty is old hat. It is outdated ; it is outmoded. It was drawn up before the Berlin wall came down and before the collapse of communism in the east. Those new democracies are struggling to find their feet. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, said openly and honestly--he is one of the few Members who has always been open and honest--that the treaty means that we should have to give up

Column 552

passport control at frontiers. He said that that was clear in 1972. He also said that Poland, Bulgaria, Russia, and Czechoslovakia could not become members of the Community. That is wrong.

We have a great historic opportunity to unite the whole of Europe, but we cannot do it on the basis of this treaty--on the basis of economic and monetary union, with these financial criteria. If the pound is going to be in difficulties under economic and monetary union, what would happen to the lev, the zloti or the rouble? We are raising new economic barriers when the political barriers are coming down. We are turning our back on central and eastern Europe, on Russia and the ex-Soviet countries. Why on earth are we doing that? What is the advantage? I do not understand it, I cannot vote for it, and I shall not do so tonight.

7.6 pm

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : In my brief speech I shall comment specifically on home affairs matters. I shall not follow the line of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). I shall support the Government in the Aye Lobby.

Co-operation at European level in the home affairs field, especially in the fight against serious crime and in the prevention of illegal immigration, is highly desirable. That is something that the Home Affairs Select Committee has looked at in a variety of contexts. I refer to its reports on practical police co-operation, hard drugs, policing football hooliganism, safety and security on the channel tunnel, and its aborted work on external frontier controls. These are but examples. I very much hope that when the Select Committees are re-established the Committee may think it appropriate to look again at the question of external frontier controls. Co-operation does not, however, necessarily mean that the lowest common denominator has to be sought. A good illustration of that is the desirability of maintaining border checks at British ports and airports. Why sacrifice the advantages of being an island in the interests of a piece of Euro-dogma? I very much support the thoughtful and clear speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker).

The provisions on co-operation in the spheres of justice and home affairs in the Maastricht treaty are to be thoroughly welcomed. Some of their implications are explained in the Government's evidence, which is referred to on the Order Paper as relevant to today's debate.

The provisions give no new powers of initiative to the Commission on judicial co-operation in criminal matters, or policy co-operation in fighting international crime and terrorism. The European institutions--I refer specifically to the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court--have new rights in some areas, particularly policy on asylum, frontiers, visas, drug addiction and fraud, but with the exception of visas, the rights of individual member states are fully safeguarded.

I believe that to be correct. The tasks performed by the Home Office and other agents of the system of justice are perhaps the most important manifestations of sovereignty, but I have several specific questions to ask. I appreciate that Ministers may not be able to answer them tonight, but I should appreciate a letter, in the near future, a copy of which could perhaps be sent to the Library.

Column 553

When is Europol, as envisaged in article A9, likely to be established? How will the growing co-ordination between member states be monitored and the growth of ad hoc groups kept under control? How will reports be made to domestic Parliaments? Under article G of the title, it is envisaged that bilateral co-operation in matters relating to home affairs will continue--is that regarded as likely to be more or less important than Communitywide co-operation? When are the common visa lists and the common visa format likely to be in place? Are any difficulties being encountered? Are all member states as competent as the United Kingdom in the control of the issue of visas? They are very important questions, and they represent the detail to which the House must be privy and which it must play a part in deciding. There are a number of important issues on which national Parliaments and national Governments should be responsible for making decisions, and I have mentioned some of them.

I welcome the establishment of Europol, provided that it is used as a clearing house for information and does not have operational powers because the best way forward is for the 12 existing member countries and any prospective new member countries to be better equipped to respond to organised or cross-border crime and for there to be better co-ordination but no central direction.

I especially welcome the fact that, when the United Kingdom assumes the presidency of the Commission in a few weeks' time, it will concentrate on four initiatives in respect of home affairs--improving information gathering on terrorist incidents, greater harmonisation of radio communications, increased fingerprint recognition, and developing information on cross-border crime.

On increased fingerprint recognition, we had better put our own house in order as each of the United Kingdom's 52 police forces are seeking automated fingerprint retrieval systems, some of which may not be compatible with each other. Before we consider Europe, we had better make certain that our arrangements are as effective as they should be.

I believe that those arrangements arise better within the work of the Trevi group, although we should not ignore the important contribution to be made within the European section of Interpol and we should continue to monitor the progress of the Schengen agreement. I am concerned that there are, in effect, three

intelligence-gathering institutions in Europe--Trevi, Schengen and Interpol. At some point in the fairly near future, we shall have to decide which structure the United Kingdom police system is to regard as the lead organisation.

However, I assert the general principle that police forces and police systems work best together when they work directly together. In any event, the often sharp differences between the two United Kingdom legal systems and those of continental Europe make a general approach to judicial arrangements most unlikely for some time to come.

A further illustration of the importance of subsidiarity in the treaty is the need to maintain our 700-year-old legislation which helps to fight crime through the hallmarking of gold, silver and platinum articles. The system of hallmarking was introduced in 1300 in the reign of Edward I and is one of the oldest forms of consumer

Column 554

protection in existence. That could all change if the European Commission refuses to recognise the value of compulsory hallmarking because it maintains that all member states already protect consumers against false markings and therefore sees no need for an obligatory mark. I do not believe that the Commission has the evidence for such a contention, but our compulsory system of hallmarking has benefited the consumer. I assert that the assay offices fulfil a valuable function which should be allowed to continue.

I conclude on an important practical point about the currency, which will be of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. As we know, it is for Parliament to decide whether the United Kingdom should opt to participate in a single European currency. Should that course be taken, however, it will be essential to consider in detail and well in advance the practicalities of changing to a new currency.

The experience of decimalisation in 1971 suggests that the changeover will take a long time to implement even once the decision to adopt a common currency has been made. I want the Government to confirm that the Queen's head would remain on the obverse of our coins and on the bank notes and that we would maintain our own designs on the reverse.

7.16 pm

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : I do not know whether "humbug" is a communautaire word, but there has certainly been a fair bit of it on display in the past 24 hours. The tone was set by the Prime Minister's introductory speech yesterday, when he claimed that the Maastricht agreement was an enormous success. I could have understood if he had been talking about success in terms of the Tory party's internal management--an attempt to persuade the more naive and gullible Tory Back Benchers that nothing much was happening and postponing the day of decision until after the general election. However, that was not what the Prime Minister was arguing--he was claiming it as a success for the rest of Europe. He argued that the failure to agree certain extended powers for the European Community represented a success for the whole of Europe, which was a quite remarkable argument.

From a European perspective, one can regard Maastricht as an achievement or as a disappointment--a report for the European Parliament regards it as a bit of both. One can regard it as either, but one cannot regard it as a success in the matters in which it was a failure. The Prime Minister should learn to separate what is regarded as an achievement to satiate the appetites of the little Englanders on his Back Benchers from what could be recognised as an achievement in the wider interests of the European Community. Humbug is not restricted to the Tory party--we also heard a fair amount from the Labour party. I was fascinated by the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who cleverly argued that the social chapter was very important. He said that the Labour party had tabled a good amendment, which the SNP will be more than willing to support, but he went on to argue that, once the amendment had failed--as it almost certainly will--the Labour party's position would be to do nothing.

Column 555

That is remarkable, because the right hon. Gentleman made a very good case for voting for the principle of the Bill but then went on to make a case for voting against the principal of the Bill. The one argument that he did not successfully make was that for abstention-- Mr. Foulkes rose--

Mr. Salmond : No, I shall not give way, because I have only 10 minutes. The hon. Gentleman and his party have had more than enough time in the past 24 hours.

The negotiations are over, for better or for worse--I think for worse. If the amendment fails, we come to a vote on the principle. One can be either for it or against it, but one cannot sit on one's hands and claim that the matter can be resolved by abstention--even the Labour party has to have a view on this issue.

It is also a bad idea even in terms of internal party management. If the Labour party had decided to vote for or against the Bill, it would no doubt have split two ways. In fact, tonight in the Lobbies, it will split three ways. As a technique of internal party management that displays incompetence.

The sub plot of the debate is how much power will be transferred from this place to the European Parliament. The technique adopted by those on the Government Front Bench has been to pretend to their Back Benchers that not all that much is happening. That argument is not sustainable. So far, the anti-Europeans have carried the argument by demonstrating that the Maastricht agreement and the Bill transfer real powers from this place to the European Parliament.

If hon. Members are in favour of keeping the powers in this place, they should vote against the Bill. If, like me, they think that the removal of powers from this place is not a bad idea, they will be sympathetic to the Bill. I admit that I am attracted by the idea--I make no secret of it--of this place losing powers to the European Parliament, to European institutions and to the people of Scotland. I want to see the Parliament of Westminster squeezed between those two elements. I shall certainly vote for the Bill.

We should not accept the elaborate pretences that have been engaged in by those on the Government Front Bench to the effect that the Bill will change nothing much and that--this is even more fantastic--that the Prime Minister, single-handed, has transformed the direction of the European Community from the rather nasty "F" word "federalism", to the nicer "S" word "subsidiarity". Such pretences are insulting to the intelligence of Conservative Back Benchers--if, like military intelligence, that is not a contradiction in terms.

The anti-Europeans have made a reasonable case in some of their arguments. They are right to be cautious about the implications of economic and monetary union. The irrevocable linking of exchange rates will create major problems. Currencies will have to level out and converge to an extent that goes beyond the financial indicators in the Maastricht agreement. There will also have to be substantial fiscal transfers, which will, I suspect, go beyond the amount in the cohesion fund, also set out in the Maastricht agreement.

However, that problem will not be solved by the Government's opt-out clause. If, in 1997 or after, Europe decides that a single currency cannot be sustained, whatever is in the agreement, the Government's opt-out

Next Section

Home Page