House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Nov 1992

Column 355

redistribution of wealth, which is effectively what the nation state is? How would Britain have survived if we had redistributed only 2 per cent. of GDP by central Government activity? Britain would have fractured long ago, and that is the flaw of the treaty. If we were creating a Europe that was going to take vast amounts of wealth from the most wealthy parts of the European Community and use them for the poorest parts, we would be creating a mechanism that could function, but that is not what is on offer. The small amount of funds, in relative terms, which is available may assist Greece, Portugal and Ireland--nations with relatively small economies--but Britain stands to suffer most in the move towards European integration unless its economy is re-energised and there is manufacturing growth. There will not be enough wealth from Brussels to save our people from the pain of this treaty.

In a sense, this debate has many of the echoes of the debate when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Prime Minister, took us into the exchange rate mechanism. What were we told then? There was an overwhelming majority in favour, a huge consensus. Sadly, most of my party went along with the consensus. It was the biggest consensus in British politics since the consensus to appease Hitler, and it was as devastatingly bad. We have lost two years of our life as a nation. We have seen 1 million people added to the unemployment figures, as those who criticised the level at which we joined the ERM accurately predicted. We are now seeing stage 2. We are in an incredible mess. I hope to God that enough Conservative Members will put their nation and constituents before their loyalty to propping up a broken- backed Government who are locking us into a treaty that will devastate their constituencies, as it will devastate ours.

8.29 pm

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : We have had a debate as distinguished as the hour deserves. We have heard historic speeches from both sides of the House.

The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) warned us of the financial consequences of the ever-greater integrating approach of the Community to the management of our economies. He pointed out that it has been a vain attempt because the economies of western Europe are not converging but diverging and to seek artificially to bring them together, which is what the Maastricht process is all about, could lead only to further disasters following that of our withdrawal from the ERM and the withdrawal of Italy, which were wholly predictable and which the Government were warned about in advance. Then we heard the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) whose credentials in these matters are second to none. He pointed out the serious problem of citizenship. Citizenship is not something for us to wish away. We cannot vote in this matter without the assent of the British people. Who are we to say that they should have additional citizenship of the union--and I quote from the proposed treaty-- with its attendant duties and responsibilities, unless they, the British people, assent thereto? In this debate, certainly from the Government side, there has been all too little reference to the British people. So many people allege that there is a democratic deficit in Europe. The democratic deficit is here in Westminster, and if we tonight, on behalf of the British

Column 356

people, allow this proposed treaty on European union to proceed, we will betray the trust which is ours and which was conferred upon us at the last election.

I sought, in what may have appeared to be an arcane intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to point out that the action of parliamentarians, acting according to their conscience in what they regard as the national interest, can be for the greater good not just of their country but of Europe as a whole, and I referred to the decision of the French National Assembly on 30 August 1954 to vote on a procedural motion--funnily enough, it was not on the issue but on a procedural motion- -not to go ahead with the ratification of the European defence community. It was a community which was more political in intention than militarily practicable, and the French deputies had the good sense to realise it and vote it down.

The Western European Union, with its assembly, with its armaments control agency and its standing armaments committee, ensued and the WEU, as a bulwark of our western security in Europe, has endured to this day, so much so that it is to the WEU that, under the proposed treaty of union, the execution of union policies--I say that deliberately, the entity's policies --in defence could ultimately be assumed if the Maastricht treaty were approved.

It was, with hindsight, a development that everybody could approve of because it strengthened Europe's defences and strengthened our mutual co- operation, and it did so on a basis which could endure--that is, of co- operation which is freely sustained by the will of independent sovereign states.

If the union, that integrated entity, goes ahead as the proposed treaty suggests, we know that an artificial creation of this kind without the majority assent of the peoples of the 12 countries of Europe cannot endure. We have seen artificial unions and they do not last. The union that is most akin to what is proposed is paradoxically the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was not a federal structure but a union, and a union is what Maastricht proposes. The glue was a common ideology and, apart from the ideology, there was, of course, the threat of coercion, the big stick of the party apparatus, the KGB and the military.

There is nothing like that in this, but all I can say is that it is not even a federation. If a federation were proposed, with appropriate checks and balances between locally elected legislatures in the constituent countries of the federation and with a central parliament with appropriate competencies, all would be well, but it is not to be like that. The proposed treaty on European union suggests a highly integrationist approach. There is almost nothing in it about the role of national parliaments ; there is more in it about the role of the regions, funnily enough, than there is of the national parliaments.

I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to let this opportunity for a historic decision on behalf of our people slip by. If Her Majesty's Government, in winding up this debate, were wise enough to say that they would bring legislation to the House to make possible a referendum so that the British people could decide, they would have my support ; but unless they can do that, I shall vote for the Labour amendment and against my Government. Some will say that in so doing I am being disloyal. Those who say that should have heard the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss).

Column 357

He spoke many home truths. A number of home truths have come out in the debate--truth will always out. Commissioner Dr. Bangemann's intervention in Berlin was a home truth that needed to be expressed, and he is at the heart of Europe, after all. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who has a long and respected experience of European affairs, said that Dr. Bangemann spoke with authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth spoke with the authentic voice of conservatism and for the principles that can on occasion transcend transient party loyalty.

We must make sure that what we do tonight is the will of our constituents. In the general election campaign there was a virtual conspiracy of silence on the proposed treaty of European union because at the time it suited the three main parties that it should not come up. I even voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. Only when the Danes, by their brave action in the referendum, caused me and others actually to read what the treaty proposed did I change my view. If anybody has any doubts about what this debate is all about, I ask him or her to read the treaty, the treaty and nothing but the proposed treaty.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wilkinson : Not at this moment.

Read not what right hon. and hon. Members say is not in the treaty or what derogations we have secured, but the treaty, because in it is spelled out the irrevocable objective of the signatories of the treaty : an ever-closer union from which there will be no withdrawal without the great pain and grief which attend upon any divorce, particularly of parties who have gone into an enterprise with good will but perhaps without sufficient appreciation of what is at stake.

Mr. Allason : I share many of my hon. Friend's reservations about the Maastricht treaty which he has urged the House to read. Would it be incorrect to say that he should read the Government's motion? It is tremendously anodyne and there are many of us who voted against the Maastricht treaty and will continue to do so but who find it perfectly possible to support the Government this evening.

Mr. Wilkinson : There is much sophistry around in the Palace of Westminster and at no time more so than when a debate of this nature is forced upon us.

I was about to say that loyalty works both ways. We should not be put into a position where we are made fools of. The anodyne motion--supposedly anodyne--is gravely deficient on two cardinal points to the extent of being blatantly disingenuous. First, we cannot presuppose what the Danes will ultimately democratically decide in their second referendum, and until that second decision the treaty is dead ; it does not exist. Secondly, with regard to subsidiarity--

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : Is not the central point of the Government's motion that it progresses the Bill which ratifies the Maastricht treaty? I, for one, do not want that to take place.

Mr. Wilkinson : My hon. Friend is right.

Column 358

I thought from reading the Evening Standard, which as a London Member I do, that the Prime Minister had his reservations after our withdrawal from the ERM about pressing ahead regardless. Everyone has his or her formative influences. Those of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were probably in the bank and those of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were, rather as today, on the diplomatic cocktail circuit in Europe and elsewhere. Those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)--well, when the Prime Minister spoke of creeping competencies, I understood what he was talking about.

I had my formative influences flying aeroplanes. No pilot would press on regardless, letting down through cloud, knowing that there were mountains underneath, if he wanted to survive. We are being asked in the Government motion to do something that is clearly foolish. All it can achieve is to unite the Labour party, which is fundamentally divided on Europe, against us and so discredit the Government who were paradoxically seeking thereby to enhance their reputation and standing for the forthcoming Edinburgh summit. How bringing a majority of 21, and one of more than 200 on Second Reading, down at best to single figures and probably to a minus quantity would somehow enhance our credibility at Edinburgh, I cannot for the life of me understand. That is why it is not acceptable for the Conservative party to be made fools of. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth was right when he spoke those home truths so eloquently. I hope and pray that we will take our destiny in both hands and do what we know to be right by voting for the Labour amendment and against the Government tonight.

8.43 pm

Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool) : When we speak of Britain being at the heart of Europe, we should consider for a moment what that means to our constituents. What should they reasonably expect? For the people of Hartlepool as for others it should mean, above all, employment opportunities. It should also mean standards of living that match those of Germany, a quality of infrastructure on a par with that of France and public services that compare with those enjoyed in Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Yet we in Britain are at the bottom of the European league on jobs, divisions between rich and poor, falling spending power and deteriorating public services. We are, in short, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) observed earlier, in a desperate mess in this country.

I do not blame the Government and their present head entirely. They are the enthusiastic inheritors of a slide that they have done nothing to reverse and, in most senses, have made worse. They have failed to use the economic opportunities available to us in the 1980s and, as a result, have failed to prepare us for the challenges of the 1990s. They have also signally failed on what this debate is ostensibly about--their record on Europe and, in particular, their attitude to Maastricht.

As they are asking us to vote tonight in favour of their policy on Maastricht, it is as well to ask precisely what that is. Maastricht has become for the Prime Minister a totem, not of his European policy but rather of his personal credibility. I do not mean simply the absence of the word

Column 359

Maastricht from the motion, though that surely has its own symbolic significance. It is that he defines the nature of his position on Maastricht not by how much he is participating in its processes, but by how little ; not by the parts of the treaty to which he has opted in, but by the parts from which he has opted out.

The Prime Minister is bitterly opposed to the social chapter. Even now, he cannot or will not say what his views are on a single currency. He is even unable to say definitively whether he still believes in managed exchange rates even though, a few weeks back, that was supposedly the crux of the Government's economic policy. Therefore, Maastricht for him is little more than a legal document, a treaty to which he is committed without, aparently, being committed to what it means. It has become, in his hands, a mere paper transaction.

We have reached the absurd position where the Prime Minister's justification for the Maastricht treaty rests on almost nothing more than his having given his word to his European partners that it would be ratified and his desire that that promise should not suffer the fate of all his other promises. But on the actual issues, the moves that give meaning to the process of Maastricht, he is silent, agnostic or opposed.

The key point that I want to make, therefore, is that the Government, under the Prime Minister, are now incapable of leading this country towards the greater European co-operation that Maastricht seeks to implement. This is the pro-Maastricht, pro-Europe case for opposing the Government's record on Europe in line with my party's official conference policy.

The result of the incompetence and machinations of the past few weeks is to leave the Conservative party in the position where it can do no more than offer grace words in support of Europe, while making it clear that no practical action will follow as a result. Therefore, I want to argue not why Maastricht should be ratified under this Prime Minister who does not believe in its essential elements, but why Maastricht itself is right for Europe and, most important of all, right for Britain.

Whatever its imperfections, the treaty is the best way forward for the European Community. It enshrines the social chapter in Community law. It creates a social cohesion fund for the benefit of less prosperous regions. That will be crucial for my town and the north and needs to be strengthened if we are to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the single market.

Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson : The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am speaking against the clock.

The treaty improves environmental and consumer protection-- Mr. Whitney rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) has been here long enough to know that if another hon. Member does not give way, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Mandelson : The treaty improves environmental and consumer protection and makes a significant advance in overcoming the EC's democratic deficit. It is vital that

Column 360

the European Parliament's ability to oversee the work of the Commission is enhanced and that the power of co-decision with the European Council is strengthened.

We must, however, ask another question, about our own work in the House. Maastricht extends the scope for intergovernmental co-operation, which is desirable and gives the lie to the claim that the treaty creates a federal Europe. None the less, we must also strengthen Westminster's ability to hold the Commission and the Council properly accountable. Without that, the Community's bureaucracy and democracy will remain badly out of balance, which will make it difficult for us to win the necessary popular support for the Community's development.

I do not underestimate the difficulty of achieving that, in relation to the economic and monetary aspects of the treaty, which are the foundation of the Maastricht process. That is particularly true in the wake of black Wednesday. The forced withdrawal of sterling from the exchange rate mechanism--which is, after all, the key building block of economic and monetary union set out in the treaty--made many suppose that it was the Euro-system, not the weakness of sterling and the surrounding events, that was at fault. Let us be clear about this. The crisis of black Wednesday was born out of the fundamental weaknesses of the British economy. It was as much the product of 11 years of Thatcherite neglect as that of two years of Majorite incompetence. Public doubts and disinformation about Maastricht, however, have been fed further by those who argue that, having left the ERM, in one bound we are free and can now insulate ourselves from further European economic and monetary integration. That is a deeply dishonest message to peddle. I share the strong feelings of all hon. Members who are in despair at the scale and depth of the recession--who daily witness in their constituencies the destruction of Britain's manufacturing base, and who daily see the victims of unemployment.

Mr. Cormack : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson : The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me if I do not : others wish to speak.

Opposition Members want action now, and action at home, from this weak and feeble Government. We want action to kick-start recovery, to begin to return the unemployed to work and to make householders secure in their homes again. There is so much that the Government could do to lift the economy out of recession, if only they had the will to do it. Yet, in the long term, it is the gravest of illusions that Britain can solve its economic problems by acting alone. It is disingenous to argue that the way out of our economic decline is to operate within a purely national framework of policy that ignores the huge interdependence of Europe's economies. That applies particularly to monetary policy, and to the levels of interest and exchange rates.

When it comes to monetary policy, national independence of action is as much a part of history as is the British empire. That is why the Government need to plan now--as soon as is reasonably possible, and at a level that can be sustained--to resume Britain's membership of the ERM, within a practical timetable. That remains necessary

Column 361

for the achievement of macro-economic stability, without which long-term planning for investment and growth under any Government will certainly be undermined.

Although the Government have not specifically ruled out a return to the ERM at some point, they certainly seem to have cooled on the idea. If that is true, the Government's support for economic and monetary union, and their stated desire to be part of the Maastricht process, can hardly be taken seriously. The Labour party has consistently argued that, for Britain's membership of the ERM to work successfully, accompanying policies are required to strengthen the industrial base of the economy. That is all the more true and all the more necessary now, as part of any timetable for re- entry to the ERM.

The choice facing Britain is clear. We can wish away the growing interdependence--

Mr. Whitney : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all understand that hon. Members are reluctant to give way when the ten-minute rule is in operation, but surely at this stage, in the interests of debate, an hon. Member who is reading out an essay ought to give way, as every other speaker has done.

Madam Deputy Speaker : The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) knows very well that it is entirely up to the hon. Member who has the floor to decide whether to give way. That is well established, and there is no doubt about it.

Mr. Mandelson : Had the hon. Gentleman been present during any part of our earlier proceedings, I might have been more inclined to give way to him.

As I was saying, the choice facing Britain is clear. We can wish away the growing interdependence of Europe's economies. We can try to set out our own interest rates, unaffected by levels in the rest of the European Community--as long, of course, as we are prepared to suffer the devaluation that will be necessary to sustain them. I strongly believe, however, that, in the long term, such independence is unsustainable. We are not free agents outside the ERM, any more than we were free agents inside it. Inflation would follow from the depreciation of sterling, and an interest- rate premium would be demanded by the money markets as a result.

The alternative route is for us to play our part in building cross-national institutions to cope with that economic and monetary interdependence within Europe. We can have our say in developing the policies that dictate the European benchmark. Instead of railing at the power of German monetary policy, and seeking to insulate Britain from it by staying outside the ERM and eventual monetary union--

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understood that the rules of the House permitted hon. Members to refer to copious notes, but the hon. Gentleman is definitely reading every word of his speech.

Madam Deputy Speaker : It is certainly the practice of the House for Back Benchers, at least, not to read speeches ; but I defy anyone to determine precisely when an hon. Member is reading and when he is using copious notes.

Column 362

Mr. Mandelson : Thank you for your support, Madam Deputy Speaker. Instead of railing at the power of German monetary policy and seeking to insulate Britain, we should seek to Europeanise that policy. A monetary policy implemented by a European central bank, acting within a framework of objectives set by the ECOFIN Council, has a far better chance of achieving rational co-ordination of policies--including interest rate reductions across the board--than the present arrangement, in which, like it or not, the Bundesbank determines its own priorities and others must simply respond. That approach is at the heart of the Maastricht process. That is why, rather than opting out of those crucial developments in Europe and putting Britain on the sidelines of monetary union, the Government should use the moves forward in the treaty to construct a long-term strategy for truly sustainable growth and employment. That is where Britain's true interests lie--and that is where secure employment for my constituents will come from.

It is tragic that the Government's lamentable lack of vision and purpose in their European and economic policies is putting that prospect further and further out of reach.

8.58 pm

Mr. Hartley Booth (Finchley) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you would tell me how long we have before the closing speeches. I want to make my speech brief and to the point.

Madam Deputy Speaker : My understanding is that the Front-Bench speakers would like 25 minutes each, which means that the first should begin at 9.10. However, that does not mean that the hon. Gentleman has to fill the time between now and then.

Mr. Booth : I shall bear that in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your guidance.

The debate has demonstrated the feelings in the country. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that they are in favour of Europe and yet against Maastricht--or that they are for their party but do not intend to go down its main line. It has been a case of tip-toeing not so much through the tulip fields of Maastricht as through the poppy fields of Ghent.

Hon. Members will be grateful to hear that I have consulted the people of Finchley on the issue--[ Hon. Members :-- "What did she say?"] I shall support the Government. We cannot play ducks and drakes with our exports ; 57 per cent. of our exports go to Europe, and we cannot play risky games with those. As other hon. Members have said, our trade is the life blood of our nation. Nevertheless, I recognise the deep feelings not only among Conservative Members but among Opposition Members. I recognise the depth of agony that runs right through the nation on the issue.

We have been told that we had a debate last December, but that was six months before a certain document--Cm. 1934, the "Treaty on European Union"- -was published in May. We have been told that we had an election--but both sides agreed on Maastricht. We have been told that we had a main debate in the summer. Yes, but that was before the Danes made their decision.

On 23 January 1975, the then Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, set out two grounds when he announced

Column 363

his referendum. He said that, on an issue of deep constitutional importance, on which there was a deep division in the Government, there might be a referendum. There are benefits from a referendum. My people in Finchley would have the benefit of more information. There would be more debate and more choice, and we should give more power to our negotiators in Europe.

I have listened carefully to all the objections to a referendum. On a previous occasion, one of my right hon. Friends said that no one read referendum papers--or at least that only 10 per cent. of people did. But nowadays, such debates are conducted on television. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, understandably, has said that we as a nation must make our decision on the issue before Edinburgh. That is quite right--but there are four weeks before then. It took only three weeks to hold a general election. Why can we not have a quick referendum?

Then there is the "mixed up" argument that the issue would be mixed up with other issues such as the economy, as happened in France. But in France, one of the main parties argued against Maastricht, whereas in this country all the main parties are in favour of it. Some of the people who oppose a referendum say that the question is too complex. That is an insult to the British people. Are we really saying that our people are less intelligent than the Danes, the Irish and the French? Of course we are not. [Interruption.]

Some say that there may be drafting problems with a referendum. We had one before in 1975, so why can we not have one again? It is also said that to have a referendum would involve a U-turn by the Government. I and many other hon. Members go--or at least, used to go--to the Court of Appeal every day. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must observe that there is an increasing buzz of conversation in the Chamber--and it is not confined to one side of the House.

Mr. Booth : Many hon. Members have been to the Court of Appeal. No one would regard the decisions that it takes every day as U-turns. Its decisions to change its mind are based on new information. We in Britain and Parliament have new information about the depth of anxiety about Maastricht among the people whom we represent. That is a new circumstance, and we must learn from it.

It is said that to call a referendum would be weakness. It is never weakness to trust the people. The House of Commons has been in existence for almost 800 years. It has grown great and become the mother of parliaments by trusting the people. We should do that again in this crisis. I call on both Conservative and Opposition Members to support me.

There is nothing to fear from a referendum but fear itself. If the vote is tight tonight, I call on my colleagues, particularly on the Front Bench, to use courage and common sense and to show confidence in their case, which I shall support.

9.5 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : In the five minutes that I have, I wish to call into question the central theme that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State,

Column 364

Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), have put to their party, the House and the country in the past few months.

They have suggested that, for the first time in the evolution of the European Community, they have rolled back the advance of centralism ; they have cabin'd and to some extent confin'd the scope of the European institutions, especially the Commission and the court. I hope quickly to prove in two ways that what the Foreign Secretary and the Minister have suggested is not the objective truth.

In the past year or so of negotiation, the Government have slowed down what would otherwise have been a faster advance towards centralism. They rest their case on two issues--subsidiarity and the erection of pillars of the union separate from the trunk of the Community.

Mr. Hurd indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing : I see the Foreign Secretary nod.

There is enormous doubt about subsidiarity. Even if the principle is defined, after competitions and 20-page documents from Mr. Delors, the Foreign Secretary knows that it is not applicable to matters in which the Community has exclusive competence. I tabled a written question in which I asked the Government to define exclusive competence. The Minister of State replied on 23 October. He said that topics within the exclusive competence of the Community included single commercial policy and single agricultural policy. Undoubtedly they would include the single market, too. However, he said : "It is not possible to draw up an exhaustive hypothetical list."-- [ Official Report, 23 October 1992 ; Vol. 212, c. 409. ]

In other words, subsidiarity--if it is successfully defined--will apply in a relatively small area and, I suspect, at the margins. The other issue is that of the pillars--A to S at either end of the treaty. They apply to single foreign and security policy. Can the Foreign Secretary separate foreign and security policy from defence policy? I do not believe that one can separate them. They are two sides of the same coin. As the Foreign Secretary is aware, article J.2 of the treaty makes it possible in certain circumstances for majority decisions to be made in such matters.

I put it to the Foreign Secretary that our armed forces would not be loyal simply to the Government and the monarch of the day : they would be loyal to the policy of the European union and its president for that six months. That is absolutely essential to the concept of citizenship also found in the new treaty. Curiously enough, it is found in the trunk of the treaty of Rome, in article 8.

There, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) reminded us, we find the duties of citizenship. If there will be no change, as the Prime Minister misleadingly implied at Brighton and again today, and if we all remain British citizens, what is the purpose of making us union citizens in a twinkling of an eye on the stroke of midnight at some future date?

I assert that the citizen of the union would also be the monarch of the day, and that the monarch in Parliament would assume the duties of the citizen of the union. So the theoretical sovereign power would assume these duties, whatever they turn out to be and whoever interprets them.

The idea that we have rolled back the advancing powers of the European Community is false. Their advance may be slowed down by Maastricht, but it is because the Government have tried to give the House the wrong

Column 365

impression that we should vote against proceeding further with this Bill--unless and until the Danes have decided whether they can ratify it. If we proceed before that, are we not undermining the principles of democracy itself?

9.10 pm

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : I have sat through almost the whole debate. Once we had got rid of the boorishness and the false points of order made by Conservative Members during the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, it became a good-natured and enjoyable debate.

Many of the speeches from both sides were well worth hearing, and I shall refer to some of them in detail shortly. The arguments about the need for the House to debate today's motion and the significance of its outcome have been kaleidoscopic : give them a shake and they all appear to change before our very eyes.

Some have argued that the debate is about some huge and fundamental principle. I do not believe that. Others have argued that it is about the whole future of the Maastricht treaty. I do not share that view, either. Even wilder allegations have it that the future of the British economy is at stake tonight. Would that that were so, with a discredited Government facing possible defeat.

In many respects, the House would have been better employed debating the various crises that our country faces in economic, industrial and social policies. There seems to be a Cabinet meeting every day, and still Ministers cannot get things right. Just as the Government have failed the British people at home, so they have failed and continue to fail our country in Europe.

The British presidency of the Community has been a fiasco. The British Government have sought the lowest common denominator in the European Community time after time. This Conservative Administration has failed to give a lead. I heard a speech claiming that Britain was leading Europe. I wonder what our European Community partners think of such arrogance on the part of supporters of the Conservative Government.

Far from taking the lead, the Government have failed to give a lead. They have failed to take any initiative during their presidency--on economic recovery in Europe, on the disastrous unemployment in the Community, and even, tragically, on the Community response to the appalling conflicts in Yugoslavia, which was misjudged.

Stripped of the hype and misrepresentation of recent Community events and their significance, this debate is really on a motion about procedure, but a motion with the prime objective of trying to re-establish the authority of an increasingly accident-prone and embattled Prime Minister, who is trying to establish his authority over his increasingly querulous party. We do not intend to help him in that objective, and those who do so intend will be required to account for their actions to an angry and incredulous British public.

As the Prime Minister has struggled over the results of his own misjudgments, of which the coal crisis is merely the latest in a long and sad line, and as the Cabinet meets to consider public expenditure cuts and possibly a public sector pay freeze, who really believes that an incompetent Conservative Government deserve the support of opposition parties?

Column 366

Mr. Stephen Milligan (Eastleigh) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Next Section

Home Page