| Home Page |
Column 281
Privatisation of Gipsy Sites
3.31 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Caravan Sites Act 1968 ; to make further provision regarding illegal parking of caravans ; and for connected purposes.
This is clearly a matter that will be dealt with under the motion that follows this Bill, in that it will be the subject of the subsidiarity which is enshrined in the Maastricht Bill.
This Bill is about protecting the human rights and civil liberties of the law-abiding, property-owning resident population from the people known as travellers who seek to trespass, molest, vandalise and to intimidate others in self-righteous pursuit of their chosen way of life--at the expense of all other people.
At the same time, the Bill seeks to protect and enhance legitimate gipsies who lead a traditionally nomadic life by selling them local government- owned sites for them to control and manage in their own way. The Bill seeks to put the citizens of this country on an equal footing before the law-- [Interruption.] --while respecting the liberties of all to lead the lives of their choosing.
My Bill was stimulated by the anger and fear instigated by the arrival of huge numbers of shiny and expensive caravans, hauled by Range Rovers, Jaguars and other expensive motor vehicles, on green belt land near the town of Hertford and near other villages and towns in my constituency. These people then encamped illegally, without sanitation, and in full view of a council house estate, many of whose residents had waited months and years to gain a council tenancy. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker : Order. It is most unfair that the hon. Gentleman should be having such difficulty in making himself heard. That remark applies to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will those hon. Members who wish to have conversations please leave the Chamber and have them elsewhere?
Mr. Wells : Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your protection. Many people on the housing estates, who were so affronted by these trespassers on green belt land, had waited months and years for the opportunity to gain a house with a lovely view. They could not even allow their children to play on the playing fields for fear that they would be injured and bullied by the children of the travelling families encamped in those fields. They cancelled their holidays because they could not leave their property, knowing that it would be burgled and otherwise interfered with if they did.
When we eventually managed to get rid of these people by legal means, a month later, they left behind them huge
Column 282
mounds of filth, dirt, broken cars and refuse of all kinds, which we in the local community had to pay to clean up. That has happened not once but three or four times on the same land, and these people subsequently moved on to other land in my constituency and constituencies nearby.Clause 1 would repeal the section in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 that requires local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies. Clause 2 would require local authorities to sell by auction, within 12 months of the passage of the Act, all the sites they own. They must first, however, be offered to recognised gipsy organisations such as the National Gypsy Council at valuation, less discounts equivalent to the maximum discounts allowed to council house tenants buying their homes.
On passage of the Act, the whole of England and Wales should then be designated under the 1968 Act, which would enable local authorities to require the police to remove those trespassing on private and public land and would make such trespass a criminal offence. Powers should be given to the police to impound caravans and other vehicles and property of the trespassers, subject to the payment of fines determined by the clause.
The National Gypsy Council very much wants to own and manage its own sites, and would make certain that they did not attract travellers other than genuine gipsies. That would force any others wishing to lead a nomadic life to use regular private sector sites in the same way as any other citizen who owns a caravan. The Bill would put gipsies, caravan owners and residents on the same basis. I hope that the Bill will strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate rights of residents and the legitimate rights of those who traditionally lead a nomadic life, such as gipsies who lead a gipsy life in the traditional manner. It will provide for the more effective enforcement of the law for the benefit of all the citizens of England and Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bowen Wells, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Michael Spicer, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Dr. Liam Fox, Mr. Mark Robinson and Sir Michael Grylls.
Privatisation of Gipsy Sites
Mr. Bowen Wells accordingly presented a Bill to repeal the Caravan Sites Act 1968 ; to make further provision regarding illegal parking of caravans ; and for connected purpose : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
Column 283
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Madam Speaker : Before we come to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, I must inform the House of two things. First, more than 90 hon. Members have intimated to me that they wish to speak in the debate ; I therefore ask all right hon. and hon. Members who are called to exercise a great deal of restraint. I am sure that it will be obvious that I have had to impose the 10-minute limit on speeches between the hours of 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock. Secondly, I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, so let us get on with it.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Surely it is wrong that the procedures of the House do not take into account what is clearly a multi-party system. The amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party--a motion of no confidence in the Government's blundering handling of the Maastricht treaty--has widespread support in the House and in the country. What steps can be taken to protect the rights of minority
parties--especially when our amendment of no confidence has the support of the majority in the country--and to ensure that their rights are upheld? Our amendment deals with the issue that is at the heart of today's debate.
Madam Speaker : All the authority I have--through our Standing Orders and procedures which have been handed down for centuries--is used to protect the rights of minority parties. The hon. Gentleman is right. He has been to see me about the matter and I am sympathetic to what he said, but I have to make a decision to protect the rights of majorities as well as those of minorities.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a solution to that problem, and it is very easy. If that minority party there--the Scottish nationalists--will tell this minority party here--the Liberals--to vote with us tonight on our amendment, they can have a vote of no confidence tomorrow.
Madam Speaker : Would that all my problems were solved as easily. Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) rose--
Madam Speaker : Is the hon. Lady seeking to raise another point of order?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows that he was out of order, because he had no seat in the House when he raised his point of order.
Madam Speaker : There are so many Members crowding into the Chamber that I could not see whether he was in his place at the time. We must now make progress.
3.42 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I beg to move,
That this House notes that the European Communities (Amendment) Bill received a majority of 244 at its second reading and was committed to a Committee of the whole House ; acknowledges that the House was promised a debate prior to the committee stage ; notes that the Danish Government's intentions have now been clarified ; recalls the Lisbon Council's commitment to subsidiarity, the
Column 284
Birmingham Council's agreement on a framework for decisions to implement that principle and the practical steps already taken to achieve it ; recognises that the United Kingdom should play a leading role in the development of the European Community to achieve a free market Europe open to accession by other European democracies, thereby promoting employment, prosperity and investment into the United Kingdom ; and invites Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Bill in order that the House should consider its provisions in further detail.I should like to turn in a moment in some detail to the provisions of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and the agreement at Maastricht, but I should like, for a moment, just to put this afternoon's debate in context, for I think that that is relevant. The past two years have seen massive changes, both within Europe and beyond it in almost every part of the world. The Soviet empire has collapsed. Russia has 1,500 per cent. inflation, and the Ukraine higher still. Across the whole of eastern Europe, new democracies are looking to the west and trying to rebuild their countries in a democratic image.
In Europe, in the former Yugoslavia there is a brutal war. The United States--the mightiest economy in the world--has been struggling for the past two years. Japan has falling growth and severe problems in the financial sector. Within the European Community, Italy, France, Germany, Greece and Spain all face increasing economic difficulties as well as those that we face in the United Kingdom.
The world has not seen such a whirlwind of events coming together for many decades, and that is an important background to the debate today. The motion before us is about the treaty agreed at Maastricht, but the substance is about Britain's priorities in Europe, and the essential question there is quite simple : in this country, are we or are we not to play a central role in Europe's future development? I believe that the answer that this House gives to that question is fundamental to our future well-being--both economic and political. I have no doubt about the anwer to that question. The answer, in our own national self-interest, must be yes-- we will play a central part in the future of the European Community.
Several hon. Members rose--
The Prime Minister : If Opposition Members will have some patience, I will give way when I have made a little progress, but I should like to set the scene and make some progress first.
I do not believe that it is credible for this country to sit by on the sidelines of Europe and let other people determine policies. That is frankly no way for the United Kingdom to behave. It is not in our interests --not now, not in the future, not at any time. I believe that I carry the majority of people in the House in the belief that very few people would advocate leaving the European Community ; so let me take our future membership as a point that is accepted across the House.
The question is, what sort of Europe is it that we wish to help build? The Community today is at a crossroads. No one should duck, dodge or weave around that question. There are important decisions to be made, now and in the immediate future, about the way in which the Community develops. We can develop as a centralist institution, as some might want, or we can develop as a free-market, free-trade, wider European Community more
Column 285
responsive to its citizens. I am unreservedly in favour of the latter form of the Community, and I believe that that is the overwhelming view of this country.But there is only one way in which we can bring that Community about, and I believe that it is this--by Britain playing a full part in the Community, by arguing its case, by forming alliances, by exercising its influence and authority, by persuading, by pushing, by fighting for its interests and, sometimes, by digging our toes in and saying no as we did over the social chapter and the single currency. There is a second question of equal importance. How can a centralist federal Europe develop if some people wish to develop it? The answer to that is equally clear. A centralist Europe is most likely to develop if Britain has no influence in the Community, if it is sidelined, and if we do stand aside and let others run Europe while Britain scowls in frustration on the fringes. That is not the sort of Community that this country wants, and it would not be in the interests of this country or any political party in this country if Britain were to stand on the sidelines and let others run the Community.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : As one who voted in favour of the Maastricht treaty on Second Reading, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he accepts the advice of the House authorities that, even if he were to lose the vote tonight, he could put the Bill into Committee on Monday or any time that the Government please? Is that not fact?
The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that the answer is not as straightforward as he may suppose. Technically he may be correct, but perhaps only technically. Our position on the timing of the Committee stage is clear. We will seek to make some progress before the Edinburgh summit--we need to do so if our views on subsidiarity, enlargement and other vital issues are to carry the day when we get to that summit in Edinburgh.
The hon. Gentleman's views on Europe are well known--he has held them for many years--and he may be trying to comfort himself with the thought that a vote against Maastricht today will not compromise his principles, because the Government can still move ahead with the Committee stage. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, in the unlikely event that the Labour party amendment were carried, we would obviously listen to the views that had been expressed in this House. The hon. Gentleman cannot shrug aside the amendment that his own right hon. Friends have put down.
To return to the question that I was developing, I cannot believe that the House wants a European Community with minimum influence for this country.
Let me now deal directly with the motion and the Bill before the House.
Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister : Not upon this point, because I should like to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to develop many questions of substance later, and I will wish to give way when we reach some of those points.
Column 286
On 3 June, I indicated to the House that there would be a debate before resuming the Committee stage. I did so in response to the then Leader of the Opposition. Despite the amendment put down by the Opposition, the roots of this debate were a request by the Opposition in the summer. Since then, we have had the French referendum, the Danish White Paper and specific proposals and, of course, the Birmingham summit. By Christmas, 10 of the 12 member states expect to have ratified the treaty, leaving only Denmark and Britain to do so. It is against that background that the Opposition amendment proposes that we delay ratification on the grounds that we do not yet have sufficient clarity about the Danish position or certainty about the implementation of subsidiarity.On subsidiarity, we secured the principle in the Maastricht treaty, and it is justiciable. In Lisbon, we made progress and agreed that subsidiarity should be integrated in the work of the Community as a legally binding rule. In Birmingham, we agreed a framework for specific decisions in Edinburgh.
That framework provides for a clearer understanding of what member states should do and what needs to be done by the Community. It provides for action by the Community only where member states have given it the power to do so in the treaties, and only where proper and necessary. It also provides for the lightest possible form of legislation, with maximum freedom for member states on how best to achieve the Community's objectives.
We made more progress in Birmingham than we foresaw when we went there. Implementing decisions will be agreed in Edinburgh, and the House will probably debate subsidiarity in Committee only after Edinburgh, when the outcome of Edinburgh will be known to the House. As regards the position of Denmark, the Danish Government have now put forward a memorandum with firm policy proposals. We shall discuss that memorandum with the Danish Government and other member states. Some of the work called for by the memorandum is already in train, and was set in train not least in Birmingham. The task that lies ahead is to find ways of accommodating the needs of the Danish Government while respecting the intention of all member states, including Denmark, not to reopen the substantive text of the Maastricht treaty itself. That is a task that will very much involve Britain as President of the Community.
Let me turn for a moment to the Opposition amendment. In June, the then Leader of the Opposition said that, before the House resumed discussion on the Maastricht Bill, we should have a written report on the Danish position and a debate. The House has the report, and this is the debate.
Against that background, it can be seen that the amendment which the Labour party has put down today is a fraud. It is a very odd amendment from an allegedly pro-European party. The amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) might usefully be called a "Napoleonic" amendment. "Not tonight Josephine," is the message from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, "we'll debate it at some other time." That is not the politics of principle. It is the politics of political expediency-- [Interruption.] We are told that the Leader of the Opposition is a man of great principle. We are told that he has deeply held views about Britain's place in Europe. As long ago as 1971, he said :
Column 287
"Ministers are in a better position to secure national interests and bolster up the country's sovereignty when they are inside the conference room, not waiting outside."--[ Official Report, 26 July 1971 ; Vol. 822 ; c. 128.]I could not agree more with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Then, last May, he said :
"I do not think that we"--
the Labour party--
"should oppose the Maastricht treaty".
Then, in September, he said :
"I have always believed Britain's future lies in Europe and that we must take a confident and leading role in the European Community". A leading role, but he is seeking to hide behind Denmark and the splits in his own party.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said just over a month ago :
"I want to see progress in the European Community as set out in the Maastricht treaty".
He wants to see progress. That is why his amendment proposes delay--so that we can see progress. These are said to be deeply held views--principled views, honourable views. Yet now all is set aside in the interests of an expedient amendment.
The Opposition would do well to recall what the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said recently, which was as follows : "Another Labour flip-flop over Europe would not only rob the party of all credibility but would be against the best interests of Britain and the European Community."
He added that it
"would cost Labour dear."
I agree with him. He then said--the Labour party should bear this in mind--
"there would be a heavy domestic political price to be paid for yet another volte-face over Europe."
There will be.
Mr. Ashton rose--
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) rose--
Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North) : Will the Prime Minister give way?
Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
The Prime Minister : What is the effective message from the Leader of the Opposition? It is : "Lord, give me Europe--but not yet."
Mr. Radice : I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by his technical ineptitude, he has provided the circumstances in which the pro-Maastricht majority in the House can be dissipated, and ensured that pro-Maastricht Members can go with anti-Maastricht Members into the Lobby against the Government? Does he not understand that it is not the job of a Labour Member to prop up a discredited Government by supporting a motion that is procedurally unnecessary and expressly designed as a vote of confidence in himself and his Administration?
The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has said that he is proposing to vote for something that he does not believe in, and against something that he does believe in. If this were truly a vote of confidence, why did the Leader of the Opposition not table a vote of confidence? So much for principle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has
Column 288
his principles cast adrift on a sea of expediency. When that happens when he is in opposition, he deserves to stay there. It is the sort of contemptible wriggling that will earn him no plaudits either here or in the Community.I turn directly to some of the genuine concerns about the treaty that have been expressed in each and every part of the House. Sometimes people have said of the Government that we have talked too much of what is not in the treaty and too little of what is in it. I make no apology for talking about what we managed to keep out of the treaty, for I believe that it would have been damaging to the interests of this country. I took the view at Maastricht, as I do today, that a single currency cannot necessarily be in our interests, and certainly is not in our interests at this time.
The timetable that was set at Maastricht was too ambitious. I think that that is becoming increasingly apparent to nations across Europe as week succeeds week. We were therefore right to have our special protocol. It is doubtful that the necessary degree of economic convergence will be there in the time scale set out in the treaty, and I have made that point to the House on many occasions. The danger that now exists on that issue is not that we shall get economic convergence across Europe. In present circumstances, there is a genuine danger of economic divergence.
We have made the point often enough that the social chapter would damage jobs, and I am happy to reiterate that. There is, however, much in the treaty that we want. There are both large and small things that are very much in the interests of this country. As for some of the more modest things in the treaty, we have long sought fines on member states that do not comply with Community rules. This country complies with Community rules, and the Attorney-General would say something smartly to us if it did not. However, that has not been universally the case throughout Europe. Now, under the terms of the treaty, others must comply or they will pay a financial penalty for not doing so.
One of the matters that concerned us most in the run-up to the negotiations was that, hitherto, each and every development in the Community could go only through the central institutions--the treaty of Rome and the Commission, and justiciably through the European Court of Justice. At Maastricht, we developed a new way, and one much more amenable to the instincts of this country--co-operation by agreement between Governments, but not under the treaty of Rome. It covers interior and justice matters, foreign affairs and security, and the option is available for it to cover wider matters in future. Some member states--I make no secret of it--had ambitions for that co-operation to be through the traditional route. We resisted that, and in doing so set a pattern for further co-operation.
Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West) : Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been a leak of the Maastricht treaty minutes? They have appeared in a Dutch newspaper, which basically says, "Major wants opt-out from EMU and he gets it," and "Major does not want an immigration policy from Brussels and he gets it." The paper asks, "Why is it that Major always gets his own way?" Can my right hon. Friend enlighten us on what appears to be an admirable performance by him?
Column 289
The Prime Minister : I do not know about the article, but I like the principle.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Will my right hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.] I have horns and a tail, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He mentioned the pillars. Why is it that, under them, the Commission has rights of policy initiation? Does not the Commission have enough powers already without giving it more?
The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, under the pillars any decision must be unanimous ; therefore, we have an absolute block on any decisions taken. That is the critical point in preserving our national interests.
Mr. Ashton : As an ex-Whip, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even if he wins the vote tonight, he will still need a guillotine to get the Bill through the House? Is he prepared to make deals to obtain that guillotine? Will he accept amendments relating to the social chapter or to other parts of the treaty, or does he intend to go ahead with the Bill as it stands?
The Prime Minister : I cannot anticipate what will happen when we reach the Committee stage, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so. I certainly do not anticipate accepting amendments that would bring the social chapter within the ambit of our proposals. I was dealing with the question why we should co-operate with our European partners, either through the twin pillars or by other routes. I tell the House that it is very much in our interests to have that co-operation. There are issues throughout Europe that cross frontiers and can be dealt with only internationally, such as drugs, crime and illegal immigration. There is the exchange of intelligence on terrorist threats, the Dublin asylum convention something of great importance to us--and the co-operation in the fight against drugs, with 60 per cent. of heroin being seized at United Kingdom frontiers after it has passed through other countries in the Community. Those are practical reasons for the co-operation that we agreed to enter into under the Maastricht treaty.
I know that many hon. Members throughout the House are concerned about ensuring that we keep immigration issues under the control of this House and out of the competence of others, including the European Community. That is the effect of the references to immigration and asylum issues in the Maastricht treaty. Those matters will be kept out of Community competence and dealt with under separate intergovernmental pillars--that is, by unanimous agreement between Governments. Only two limited aspects of visa policy are transferred to Community competence, and I shall explain to the House the rational reason for that. The two aspects are : a visa list and agreement on the format of visas.
Several hon. Members rose --
The Prime Minister : I shall not give way, as I am in the midst of advancing an argument that is relevant to many hon. Members, and I should like to conclude it.
The purpose of that co-operation is clear. We may need at any time in the next few years to deal with the possible difficulties of large-scale migration, either from across eastern Europe to western Europe or from north Africa, up through the southern states of Europe into northern
Column 290
Europe. The Maastricht treaty equips the Community as a whole to deal swiftly and effectively with such problems, should they arise. I know that the following matter concerns some hon. Members--not least some of my hon. Friends. The test alludes to the possibility of further Community competence, but that is subject to a double lock : first, the agreement of all member states--that would require the United Kingdom's agreement--and, secondly, the specific approval of national parliaments, including this Parliament. Therefore, there is a double lock to protect our authority over immigration matters. I shall mention another matter of concern to the House : the number of issues of competence that fall under the control of the European Community. One of the greatest concerns has been what many hon. Members in the past few years have referred to as the "creeping competence" that comes about either by the abuse of articles in the treaty or by judgments of the European Court of Justice. I shall illustrate the issue by using the health and safety article to pursue wider social legislation. That is by no means the only illustration, but it is an important one.Due to provisions contained in the Maastricht treaty, the article codifies, clarifies and limits competence in the sectors of health, education, culture, vocational training and others. It closes down the difficulties that we have faced with creeping competence in a way that has not previously been done.
I shall give but one illustration to the House, as I know that it is one of concern. A number of hon. Members have expressed the fear that the treaty gives the Community a greater say in education. The reality is that article 128 of the treaty of Rome was an example of an article subsequently used for creeping competence.
That article is abolished by the Maastricht treaty, and the new article spells out that it is the responsibility of member states to deal with the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems. The action that the Community can take is spelt out clearly, and stipulates that the Community is specifically debarred from any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of member states. There are many such illustrations that the House will wish to discuss in Committee when we embark on it.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Will the Prime Minister help the House with the context of the debate? Who authorised the briefings held the weekend before last, at which the Prime Minister threatened a general election if he lost today's vote?
The Prime Minister : I am talking about the substance of debate today.
The difficulties and concerns that some people have expressed about the relationship--
Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn) : Last week, the Foreign Secretary said that tonight's vote would decide whether the Prime Minister leads the British representation at the Edinburgh summit. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary? If he does, does that not make tonight's vote a confidence vote?
| Next Section
| Home Page |