| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Cash : To the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the captain of our cricket team.
Mr. Allen : I presume that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will be aware that yesterday the ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers met in London, came to numerous conclusions and made numerous resolutions in respect of asylum and safe third countries, none of which has been or will be reported to the House. Will he make a brief comment on that in his remarks ?
Mr. Cash : It is all quite disgraceful. It is not the slightest bit surprising, however, because many of these meetings take place in secret, as the Council of Ministers does. This is half the trouble : the European union will not be a new wonderland of democracy, anything but. It is my belief that the European Parliament cannot fill that void. If Westminster and other Parliaments are emasculated by the provisions of this treaty, we will have a democratic void and the power of government will grow greater.
In the July edition of a journal published by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, the official think tank of the Christian Democrat Party, Chancellor Kohl's party, there was a very interesting statement--that since the Danish referendum something very strange had been going on in Europe ; voters were beginning to protest. It went on to say that this would make governing even more difficult than it had been in the past. This is the kind of language coming out of the Christian Democrat party. This is what was said by the editor of the official think tank journal.
Our Conservative MEPs--and this relates directly to the questions on the European Parliament contained in article D--have joined up with the European People's party, an exclusively federal organisation. That causes great concern among certain Conservative Members, but obviously not to the Minister of State, who is looking, in his usual way, totally bewildered by what he is hearing.
Sir Russell Johnston : Since it is such a federal party, which is obviously something that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) finds quite odious, why have all the Conservative Members of the European Parliament joined it ?
Column 230
Mr. Cash : The short answer is that they have federal inclinations of which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber would be more than proud. They want a federal system, and that is why many of them
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : They do not.
Mr. Cash : Very well. I am more than happy to qualify that by saying that many of them do. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) because I happen to know that her husband, who is an MEP, does not.
Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), but he is traducing many fine Members of the European Parliament, including his own Member and leader of the Conservative group, Sir Christopher Prout.
Mr. Cash : I said "they", but I was referring to a number of them. There are some who do, although I am more than happy to accept that there are others who do not. Unfortunately, irrespective of what they think privately, they have joined up with the European People's party, the constitution of which is exclusively federal. It is very difficult, on the one hand, to say that one does not believe in it, and, on the other, to subscribe to a constitution which is as federal as that of the EPP.
Mr. Cormack : Is my hon. Friend querying Conservative party policy?
Mr. Cash : My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, says that I seem to have doubts about aspects of Conservative party policy on this matter. I can say with absolute clarity that I do not believe in the exchange rate mechanism, although that was described as the centrepiece of our counter-inflationary policy and therefore the central plank of our economic strategy. I did not tear it up, but it was torn up, and it was the central plank of our economic strategy.
The Second Deputy Chairman : It does not seem to be the centrepiece of this group of amendments.
9.30 pm
Mr. Cash : I would not for one minute, Dame Janet, wish to cross swords with you on any matter, and certainly not on that. Economic and monetary union and a single currency are included in these proposals but I have already dealt with them, so I would not want to go into that again.
Mr. Marlow : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is very tolerant and I know that he wants to conclude his remarks very shortly. He will make up his own mind on that, so perhaps I should say that I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend's introduction. My hon. Friend sits with me on the European Select Committee. As regards title I, we have had before us recently a large number of documents arising out of the Maastricht treaty. The treaty has not yet been ratified. Perhaps it is not title I, but some other part of the treaty that entitles European institutions to put documents before the House based on the Maastricht treaty when the treaty has not yet been ratified.
Mr. Cash : As ever, the ingenuity and perception of my hon. Friend are quite magnificent. He has made his point. I have not the faintest idea how it can be done, but I
Column 231
certainly share his deep reservations, worries and doubts about it. The plain fact is that on most of the matters which arise on this treaty we are being taken for a very substantial ride.There is another provision in article B on which I have not yet touched, and that is the subject of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is described here as one of the main objectives of the union. It clearly states that the objectives of the union are to be achieved as laid down
"in the Treaty and in accordance with the conditions and the timetable set out therein"--
some very important matters relating to the conditions and timetable for economic and monetary union arise onthat--
"while respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined in Article 3b of the Treaty establishing the European Community." We all know that Lord Mackenzie-Stuart described subsidiarity as gobbledegook. There are serried ranks of European lawyers who take exactly the same view and are totally opposed to it. They include some of our most distinguished practitioners at the European bar. They know that subsidiarity is a con trick, and they say so repeatedly.
I see that you have now returned to the Chair, Mr. Morris, and I shall seek to keep within the bounds of order in line with the strong rulings that you have given on these matters. I am very gradually and carefully working my way through the provisions.
I shall leave it to others to elaborate on subsidiarity because I find that it is a theological concept of such complexity and confusion that it is much better left for the early part of a day--perhaps that will be tomorrow.
Mr. Knapman : My hon. Friend is moving on so fast that I am having a job keeping up with him. I wonder whether it is possible to believe in both market forces and a fixed exchange rate?
Mr. Cash : My hon. Friend asks whether it is possible to equate market forces and a fixed exchange rate. The answer is emphatically no, for this very good reason : what these proposals are attempting to do is to pay lip service to free trading arrangements. That is what the treaty of Rome, the original basis of the European Economic Community, was all about, and I thoroughly endorse and agree with it.
But then, because of this extraordinary desire to impose systems within it and then to redistribute in this social engineering way that we are expected to agree to under the transfer of resources, they want to have fixed exchange rates, not only to get a greater degree of control over the currencies but also to create one country. At the moment the Berlaymont seems to be closed, but anyone who managed to get in before that happened will have noticed the placards on the way in which say "Europe my country". No attempt is made to disguise that.
I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and his colleagues, who passionately believe in the virtues of a federal system and European union. They believe that it will enhance democracy, but those who hold the contrary view are equally entitled to develop their arguments. I am worried, however, about compromises being reached on issues that are not capable of being compromised--democracy,
Column 232
voting and citizen' rights in the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom and whether Parliament will be able effectively to conduct its affairs. The budgetary arrangements proposed in the treaty will be imposed on our central bank--the Bank of England--and thereby on Parliament. We shall not then be able to hold the Chancellor accountable for the Budget.There are other measures that I have not mentioned, such as multisurveillance budgets, which sound like something from outer space-- which is where the treaty should be sent.
Mr. Winnick : The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility--to many of us it is more than a possibility--of going down the federal road. Should not we congratulate the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, on being so frank when he was challenged--
Mr. Winnick : By my hon. Friend on one occasion--about his belief that Europe should follow the example of the United States? He justified that by saying that the states of America have some autonomy. If the Government were as frank as the right hon. Gentleman, we would know where we stood. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that when emphasis is on an ever closer union, as proposed under article A, whatever interpretation--
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. I have noted that interventions have been very long today. They should be short and succinct.
Mr. Cash rose --
The Chairman : Order. I have been listening all evening to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who has now covered all the articles and is beginning to be repetitious. The Committee is willing to listen to specific and new points, but he has dealt with the values of this Parliament at some length and is beginning to go down that route again. I hope that he will move on to new subjects. He has spoken--I have kept a careful check--to every article so far.
Mr. Cash : I am most grateful. I shall do all that I can to ensure that I do not transgress your rulings, Mr. Morris. I agree that sometimes it is better to stick to six-ball rather than eight-ball overs.
Article C says :
"The Union shall in particular"--
this is very important and it ties in with another article that I have not dealt with--
"ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies."
The paragraph goes on to say :
"The Council and the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring such consistency. They shall ensure the implementation of these policies, each in accordance with its respective powers."
Mr. Marlow : My hon. Friend was saying that, if the Chancellor were to announce his Budget at some future date, people would find it difficult to understand. But if, in three years' time, the Chancellor says, "I'm awfully sorry, but we must close 50 schools and 30 hospitals," the reason that he can give is perfectly straightforward : to promote economic and social progress that is balanced and
Column 233
sustainable. We would have to spend more money for Greek and Portuguese hospitals and schools. It is clearly written in the treaty, so people will know why the Chancellor is doing that in three years' time.Mr. Cash : One problem is that people will not easily forgive us if they discover that what they thought we had signed turns out to be something else. When they complain, it will be too late.
That is why, Mr. Morris, I am going gradually, but none the less carefully, through the provisions. In no sense do I want my speech to be regarded as a filibuster. I am dealing specifically with the provisions as and when they arise, and I am more than happy to justify every word that I have said.
Sir Teddy Taylor : Although I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend is trying to hurry because of pressures from you, Mr. Morris and elsewhere, does he agree that it would be wrong to complete that part of his argument without telling all hon. Members present who may not have read the treaty that, if a future Chancellor of the Exchequer does not do what the central French institutions tell him, he and the British people can be fined in the same way as a rate-capped council?
Mr. Cash : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that observation. I do not need to repeat it, because it is now on the record. I hope that people outside will take note of that because I have discovered that people are discovering many things about the treaty and, as we go deeper into it, they will learn even more. I return to article C about the consistency of external activities. We well remember what happened in the GATT round recently when France dug itself into a position which, even now, may induce a trade war. It is precisely because of the European Commission's role in that matter that those difficulties arose. It is not just bilateral trade. The provision says :
"The Council and the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring such consistency."
The hon. Member for Leicester, South said earlier that I was claiming that the Commission would have more powers under the treaty than I could justify. This is yet another example, and there are many others. It is not simply an airy-fairy canter through "Alice in Wonderland" territory ; it is about how the United Kingdom will be governed in future.
When we see that our business men, companies, partnerships and good, honest, decent hard-working people could find that they are afflicted with a massive trade war because of one country's intransigence and the fact that the European Commission is operating--
Mr. Cormack : As the country in question can be so intransigent and independent, does that not blow a hole in my hon. Friend's argument?
Mr. Cash : It certainly does not, because my argument is that, within a European Community that works effectively, people operate on the basis of mutual obligations. It is precisely because some countries are not interested in doing that that we are faced with the difficulty. It is a form of nationalism, not national interests, which is the subtle distinction that needs to be made.
We have had a similar problem with Honeywell Bull, Renault, Rhone Poulenc and Usinor. There is a stack of
Column 234
examples--the creation of mega-Euro- champions. That is the kind of thing that causes difficulties. It is the job of the European Commission to sort out such things and, in relation to the external activities, it is found wanting. That is why we should not be making these massive transfers of power to it in relation to economic and development policies.9.45 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was present a few moments ago and I should like to address some remarks to him. In the proposed energy policy under the treaty, there are already signs of greater control by the so-called union over our energy affairs. The pit closure programme and the disposition of the balance between nuclear, gas and coal power is a matter that we went into recently. The Vice-President of the European Commission, that tremendous advocate of free trade, Sir Leon Brittan, approved a DM3.3 billion deal between the heavily subsidised German coal producers and the German power operators.
That gives a tremendous advantage to German energy users at our expense. RWE, which I understand is the biggest energy concern in Germany, intends-- and I have every reason to believe that it will be successful--to sell steam coal to our power generators when we are closing our pits. That is an incredible state of affairs. All that arises out of the movement towards a common energy policy. I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when I met him why we did not sort out the European Coal and Steel Community regulations as a precondition to all this, because it is upon that basis that the German coal producers are so heavily subsidised. There are omissions from the arrangements every bit as much as there are matters which should have been sorted out as the negotiations went ahead.
Mr. Winnick : Again, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a point that I have made and on which he is dwelling. As a result of the treaty, by the beginning of the next century we shall be left with a British Parliament with little more power than a state senate within the United States. That may satisfy some, such as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), but I imagine that it does not satisfy the majority of hon. Members, and certainly not the British people.
Mr. Cash : I am sure that that is a sound point. The hon. Gentleman compared Britain and America. The harmonisation of our VAT arrangements has put us in a more disadvantageous position vis-a-vis the European Community, even before we enter into this union, than individual states in respect of the federal arrangements for sales tax in the United States. We are worse off even before we go into the union.
Mr. Barnes : Has not the hon. Gentleman persistently confused the development towards federalism with the development towards a unitary state, sometimes using the word "or" to put the two together? Some of us favour the establishment of federalism in Europe, a united states of Europe, but we are against developing a unitary state. We do not believe that we can get to federalism by going through a unitary state. That is the big mistake that the Liberal Democrats seem to be making.
Mr. Cash : I have enormous sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is no such thing as a simple,
Column 235
overarching definition of federalism. I have read articles describing the treaty sometimes in relation to a unitary state, sometimes with a federal connotation. There is a tendency to intermingle the two. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the treaty has more of a unitary character than the commonly regarded federal system.There is no way of precisely defining federalism. We must avoid becoming involved so much in semantics--which is why all the nonsense about taking the word "federal" out of the treaty does not amount to a row of beans. The issues are the distribution of functions, the extent of the centralising process, and where the power will lie. Those are the questions on which we should concentrate, and I intend to do so tonight.
I mentioned economic and development in respect of article C, but I have not yet referred to external relations and security. Common foreign and security policy raises big questions. Those are prerogative powers and, as with title I, it is not intended that they will be included in the Bill.
The extent and range of the powers that will be conferred on the Community are infinitely greater than people have been led to believe. Under a joint action plan or European guidelines, a completely different kind of foreign policy would be run in this country. No longer would we be able unilaterally to enter into the kind of bilateral arrangments that took us into the Gulf war.
Mrs. Currie : That is nonsense.
Mr. Cash : My hon. Friend says that I am speaking nonsense, and I shall be more than delighted to give way to her.
Mrs. Currie : I had my supper and returned to the Committee, and found that my hon. Friend was still talking. Britain did not enter into a bilateral arrangment in the Gulf war but served as part of the United Nations force of 30 countries. Nothing in the Bill will stop us doing the same in future.
Mr. Cash : I emphatically take issue with my hon. Friend, because the treaty clearly states that where a joint action plan has been created--
Mrs. Currie : That is not the same thing.
Mr. Cash : Yes, it is. I said that, in the context of a joint action plan or in relation to European guidelines, there would be substantial changes in the way that we carry out our foreign and security policy. I quote from article J.1(4) of the treaty : "The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union"--
and we are debating the union under title I--
"or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with."
Article J.1(1) states :
"The Union and its Member States shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy"--
The Chairman : Order. I can read as well as the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members can. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the
Column 236
Committee is debating not article J but amendment No. 93 and those associated with it. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted down other routes.Mr. Cash : I agree with you absolutely, Mr. Morris, but I was dealing with foreign and security policy, and in the light of my hon. Friend's intervention, I thought that it would be helpful to explain why I thought that she was wrong. However, of course I accept your ruling.
Article D says :
"The European Council"--
that is not the same as the Council of Ministers--
"shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof."
That represents a curious but none the less dangerous movement towards greater union. When the European Council prescribes the union's general political guidelines that will have a significant adverse impact on the manner in which we in this country, through our elected representatives, decide the basis on which we want to run our affairs.
There is no definition of those general political guidelines. That should give considerable cause for concern. We often find that the treaty does not provide proper definitions of the expressions within it, and if we do not have those we shall get into deeper and deeper trouble. The expression "general political guidelines" is so vague as to mean almost anything to anybody, yet it is included in the treaty as a legal obligation to be exercised by the European Council. No one has a clear idea what the functions of the European Council will be. It appears that, although it is effectively without a democratic base, that body will make decisions at summits, pronouncing on the political affairs of all member states. Apparently it will not be accountable within the new legal framework or specifically accountable to the House. To whom will it be accountable? Nobody knows. It is not set out anywhere how its functions will be implemented.
As I read through the treaty I find ever more grounds for disturbance and concern, as I imagine that we are about to transfer such powers to a treaty arrangement which has never been explained to the British people.
The last article that I shall discuss is article F. Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition tabled an amendment to that article that was identical to the one that I had tabled.
Sir Teddy Taylor : Before my hon. Friend leaves article D, will he explain that the European Council, with all those wonderful new powers, will have a legal obligation to report to the European Parliament but not to national Parliaments ?
Mr. Cash : As ever, my hon. Friend has made a most valuable intervention. The European Council will report only to the European Parliament. That is where the con trick occurs. In all the verbiage and garbage generated to try to justify the treaty we are told that the European Parliament will be given greater powers, yet all that the European Parliament will get here is a report after each of the council's meetings, and a yearly written report on the progress achieved by the union.
I do not believe that there is any good reason for giving the European Parliament enhanced powers. I believe that we should retain our powers as a sovereign independent state within Europe. But when I was working on the
Column 237
Conservative manifesto committee, I was offered a suggestion that would have included the words "sovereign independent state" in the manifesto. Unfortunately, much to my concern, those words disappeared during the proceedings. That demonstrates the basis on which the treaty has been negotiated.If the words "sovereign independent state" were taken out of the Conservative manifesto working party paper at about that same time that the Government were beginning to negotiate the treaty, one can begin to understand that the European union they had in mind was not a European union of independent sovereign states.
I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is here. He has repeatedly made profoundly useful contributions to the question of independent sovereign states within Europe. We are determined to maintain our position in Parliament and not to allow the treaty to overtake the ancient traditions of this House. I was about to turn to article F3, which I raised on a point of order before we started these proceedings. That
It being Ten o'clock The Chairman-- left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress ; to sit again tomorrow.
ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [26th November] of the Liaison Committee.-- [Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.
| Next Section
| Home Page |