House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Dec 1992

Mr. Garel-Jones : I hate to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but I assume that he is speaking to his amendments Nos. 313, 344, 345, 346, 347 and 348. Will he tell the Committee why he wishes to include those articles in the scope of the Bill, thus, as it were, supporting the federalist amendment?

Mr. Cash : I am more and more astonished by my right hon. Friend's interventions. The matter is very simple. Because it was not included by the Government, we had to include title I in order to be able to knock out all the noxious provisions. It is precisely for that reason that we are now considering the articles and demonstrating their inadequacy and the reasons why we do not want them. That is precisely what is going on. There is every conceivable reason for doing so. I understand that those on both Front Benches have already decided that they will not vote on this matter, or at any rate they will vote against the Liberal Democrats' amendment if they decide to press it to a vote.

Mr. Garel-Jones : With respect, I do not think that my hon. Friend has answered the question. If he is saying that he wants to move the articles into the Bill to provide a peg for a debate, I would understand that. If he said, "This is a probing amendment on which we can debate the various articles," I would understand that. But his amendment would not eliminate the articles ; it would include them in the Bill. If it is not a probing amendment to stimulate debate, which, Dame Janet, you know is the practice in Committee, my hon. Friend should tell us why he wants to do what he purports to want to do in the amendments.

Mr. Cash : The amendment also gives us the advantage of being able to demonstrate why the articles should not be included. Furthermore, it is a matter of international legal obligation. I am continually trying to get out of the Minister of State whether he regards title I as an international legal obligation. So far, he has not been prepared to give me an answer. I should be glad if he would--perhaps he will do so later. We are not discussing a casual piece of paper, and the Minister of State knows it.

Column 220

It is the binding material for the treaty as a whole. That is the basis on which the matter is being considered. It is not being put in the Bill because the Government want to do it by prerogative. They are doing that by prerogative, but they are not coming clean. 8.45 pm

The provisions are fundamental to the Maastricht treaty. Whether they are justiciable under article L in certain respects is debatable. They are international legal obligations which are of profound importance. That is why it is important that these matters should be probed, discussed and considered in full depth. That is what we intend to do.

Mr. Knapman : My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am sure that he wishes to make further progress. Could he refer again to the business of convergence? Is my hon. Friend suprised not to have had an intervention saying that convergence policies are a good thing? Is that possibly because at the weekend we found that, in Ireland, mortgage rates have gone up to 18.5 per cent., it was suggested that, if the Germans do not drop their interest rates by 1 January, Irish interest rates will go up to 40 per cent., and that overnight money has gone to 100 per cent? Is it perhaps that these are not the right few days to suggest that convergence policies are bringing the stability that some of us are told is the effect of such policies?

Mr. Cash : My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) has hit the nail on the head--that is true. Hon. Members do not want to raise that point. They started by talking of trying to turn the debate back to title I and trying to turn it into a technical debate. The one thing that they do not want in any circumstances is for the people of this country to know the practical implications of this matter. That is what they do not want, but they will get doses of it as we proceed.

Mr. Jim Marshall : I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has come back to that point. When he was talking about economic convergence, he put the classic monetarist argument that if convergence principles were implemented at the moment, they would lead to increased unemployment throughout Europe. That is why many Opposition Members are opposed to virtual convergence. What attracts me to article B is that, if one could have real economic growth throughout the Community, it would be much easier to reach the convergence principles, but that would be based upon growth and increased public expenditure.

Mr. Cash : I have much sympathy with the objective that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. We all want jobs and prosperity for the people of Europe. We do not want another war, and we do not want the difficulties that we experienced over 100 years. But the problem is that the treaty is completely out of date. The people who are advocating those policies are carrying the intellecutal baggage of the 1950s. Since the collapse of the Berlin wall, we have moved into a completely new Europe. Merely grafting on so-called new solutions to what appear to be old problems will create disunity in Europe and not the European union that some are claiming in the provisions that we are discussing. It will not be diversity ; it will be disunity. The trust between the peoples of Europe will be ruined.

Column 221

Also, there will not be an equal union ; there will be an imbalance. We can only take German interest rates as an example and the way in which they have been manipulated to the disadvantage of the rest of Europe, on the one hand, and the way in which the French have behaved with regard to GATT and nearly destabilised and might yet destabilise world trade on the other hand.

The French may yet destabilise the whole of world trade. That is not communautaire. That is not operating on the basis of the provision to promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable. That is pursuing nationalistic, not even national, policies which are unfortunately a very sad and tragic reflection on their internal political systems.

For us to be drawn into the chaos that that will induce will be bad for us. That is another reason why we should make sure that we do not accept the treaty. It would lead to political instability. Let us consider the landscape of Europe for a moment. There are problems in Yugoslavia. There are problems in eastern Europe where the Germans have taken up 85 per cent. of all foreign investment ; they also own half the Russian debt. There are disturbances in Georgia, problems in Kosovo and problems in Macedonia.

In that maelstrom it is proposed to impose a system of convergence which everyone knows will not work. The Westminster Parliament will be emasculated and our constituents will lose the right to make choices in general elections. As a consequence of convergence, the Community will create the very instability which it claims that it is seeking to avoid. That is one of my most fundamental objections to the treaty.

Furthermore, all this raises the question of the rule of law in Europe. Some influential people, including Ministers, have suggested that the system of law may collapse. We are told, "You do not have to worry about all this, because for practical purposes it will all collapse anyway." That is a disreputable argument. If individual member states lose their freedom and rule of law by the creation of a union, and a new rule of law, imposed under the European Court of Justice and other international obligations, collapses, that will be an act of massive political irresponsibility.

If the whole thing collapses, what will we put in its place? There is no secession clause. There is no way out. Therefore, somebody will have to enforce the system. I should like to know who that person or persons will be. The system will have to be disciplinary. That could be the beginning of a new fascism--something we should be fighting against.

Mr. Livingstone : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the core of the mistake? No one denies that those who are eager for European unification see tremendous economic benefits. There could be unification if Europe were achieving convergence. The idea that locking us into these structures will create convergence is nonsense. There are completely different levels of speed and development. When the whole thing does not start to work, the common defence policy will become the arm which imposes the order when the European Court finds that it cannot uphold decisions by the Council of Ministers that nations should cut their spending and their budgets. That is the danger.

Mr. Cash : I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis.

Column 222

Another strange, mysterious theology developed since the 1940s and 1950s is that these provisions will contain Germany. They will not do anything of the kind. Just as we found with the exchange rate mechanism, the economic muscle of Germany will prevail. We only have to look at the trade balances of Germany and other member states. What I am saying is in no sense anti-German. Many people in Germany have made a massive contribution to peace in Europe since the 1940s, but when a country has such economic muscle and is effectively banking many other countries, it will be the most powerful. We have heard that France is virtually on the point of surrendering to the deutschmark. If Germany has control over the institutions and majority voting--other member states will be inclined to vote with Germany because effectively it controls their economy--far from containing it, we will have handed power to Germany on a plate. That is the one thing we must not do with Germany. We must contain Germany by a balance of power and not by a spurious, academic, theoretical, theological attempt to contain it by pieces of paper. I remember Munich--at least I remember that it was the waving of a piece of paper

Mrs. Currie : On a point of order, Dame Janet. I apologise, but many of us want to speak. Many of us would like to speak to the amendment that is before us. My hon. Friend has been speaking longer than anyone else in the debate. He would not have to put up with so many sedentary interventions, to which you rightly drew attention, or interventions if he would sit down and let somebody else speak.

The Second Deputy Chairman : Hon. Members will understand that unless an hon. Member engages in tedious repetition, I do not have power to decide on the length of a speech.

Mr. Cash : I am grateful to you, Dame Janet. What I am doing is going through the amendments that have been selected by the Chair and dealing with each one in turn. I should like to come back to the press release which was produced by the German embassy on 13 April 1992.

Mr. Wells : Can my hon. Friend tell us which of the items he is dealing with at present, which he has already dealt with and which he will deal with next?

Mr. Cash : Fortunately, as they are all grouped together, that decision has been taken by the Chair. I do not have to answer that question because they are all interwoven as part of the debate. I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend that I have no intention of attempting to separate them. I should have been delighted if each had been taken separately because there is more than enough meat in the words "economic and monetary union" to enable us to have a full debate on that alone.

Mr. Bill Walker : Given the way in which the amendments are grouped, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that all the arguments on them are deployed? This is no ordinary legislation--if we get it wrong, we cannot put it right next year--it is a constitutional change and we must therefore ensure that it is debated properly and thoroughly.

Mr. Cash : I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. I am surprised that some of my hon. Friends are not prepared to allow an opportunity--

Column 223

Mrs. Currie : Let other people have an opportunity.

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. There are many sedentary interruptions--some from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). This is not satisfactory. As long as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has the Floor, he is entitled to be heard.

Mr. Cash : I am most grateful, Dame Janet.

A speech by Mr. Martin Bangemann, the Vice-President of the European Commission and a former German Cabinet Minister, was mentioned earlier. As it directly bears on the question of European union, it is worth reminding the House that he said :

"The inadequacies of European decision-making cannot be remedied by returning power to member states. The notion of subsidiarity presupposes the idea of a federal European state."

That mirrors what Mr. Delors and everyone in Europe has said because their perception--

Mr. Devlin : On a point of order, Dame Janet. I hesitate to draw your attention to this matter, but I have listened to this speech for more than one hour and have heard the same section of Herr Martin Bangemann's speech referred to twice before. As you ruled that it was not in order to indulge in repetition, does that qualify as the requisite repetition?

The Second Deputy Chairman : The expression is "tedious repetition" and that must be the view of the Chair and not of hon. Members. 9 pm

Mr. Cash : As often appears to be the case, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) is wrong. I merely mentioned Martin Bangemann before, whereas just now I quoted what he said. It is important that we make it clear that those people in Europe believe that they are creating a federal super-state. That is in direct contradiction to what the Prime Minister has been telling us we want for this country.

The press release from the German embassy on 13 April says : "There are no differences of conviction between Chancellor Helmut Kohl and the Prime Minister."

The second paragraph of the press release congratulates the Prime Minister on his election victory and says :

"This is a deserved accolade for you and a great encouragement for those of us who hold the same convictions."

The press release is saying that the German Chancellor believes that the Prime Minister holds the same convictions as he does. Obviously, it is worrying to some of us if they share the same convictions on Maastricht, as Chancellor Kohl states that the treaty "is a new and decisive stage in the process of European union, leading to a united states of Europe within a few years".

That is directly contrary to what we heard at the Conservative party conference, and to the pamphlet "Britain in Europe", which unequivocally states that we are not on the slippery slope to federalism--

Mr. Milligan rose --

Mr. Cash : I am delighted to give way to my hon. Friend, since he had the benefit of a trouncing in the debate the other day.

Mr. Milligan : My hon. Friend says that the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl appear to agree, which

Column 224

seems to be the case. My hon. Friend has not noted that it is Chancellor Kohl who appears to have changed his mind, and who is now a supporter of subsidiarity and made a strong speech on the need for national identity. Will my hon. Friend welcome that conversion?

Mr. Cash : No, I do not believe that subsidiarity is worth the paper that it is written on. It is the biggest con trick of all time. It demonstrates the centralising features of the Community. If something is subsidiary, it automatically assumes that something else is superior. The central bank is superior. It is a granary of power, which will exercise undemocratic control over the people of Europe. When that system collapses, there will be real trouble.

Mr. Devlin : On a point of order, Dame Janet. My hon. Friend has mentioned that argument about the central bank once before. He has just mentioned the discrepancy between the Prime Minister's speech at the Conservative party conference and the booklet for the second time. I have no doubt that that is very tedious ; what we are trying to establish is whether it is also repetition.

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I must be allowed to be the judge of that. As long as the hon. Member for Stafford is constantly interrupted, it may make it easier for repetitions to slip in.

Mr. Cash : Again, I am most grateful, Dame Janet.

The pamphlet purports to deal with a range of issues concerned with the European Community and the Maastricht treaty, so it is not surprising that I might wish to dip into it from time to time, because it contains so many inaccuracies and so much disinformation and so many half-baked statements. As it has been distributed to the people of this country as some sort of alternative White Paper, it is very important to point those out.

It is all very well for us to think that there can be a bit of banter in this Chamber, but some hon. Members, including those who have made deliberate interventions, are overlooking the fact that their constituents are affected by what is contained in the treaty. Many of their constituents might not be too happy if they knew what their views on the subject were. I intend, without tedious repetition, to set the truth of what is in the treaty before the British public. That is worth doing, because the Government will not publish a White Paper.

I refer to the next comment, rather than the previous one, of Martin Bangemann. On 3 November 1992, the Prime Minister said that Mr. Bangemann was wrong. The report in The Times says : "The Commission had already made absolutely clear that these were personal remarks and did not reflect the views of the Commission. Nor, can I assure you, are they my views, the views of this Government or any mainstream Government in Europe."

Judging from some of the speeches that I have heard in the past year, certainly since the Maastricht treaty was signed, there is a strong sign that the leaders of the other Member States--Mitterrand, Kohl, Lubbers, and so on--have a federal agenda on their minds ; that is what they want. It would not surprise me to learn that Martin Bangemann made the statements, because they are merely a reflection of the attitude of other leaders in Europe.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) said, the establishment of the social cohesion fund is terrible. The bottom line is that the treaty called for

Column 225

a new cohesion fund for the poorest members of the European Community--Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : Is not the cohesion fund the essence of a communist ideal of taking from the people to redistribute to the people? Is not that socialism, tooth and claw? Should not the Conservative party be opposed to it?

Mr. Cash : Bearing in mind the colour of the dress of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I am not surprised that the reference to the setting up of the social cohesion fund as a communist plot immediately sprang to her mind. The worst aspect of any policy is to engage in breaking promises which may not be fulfilled. It is clear that the other leaders of the member states are seeking to transfer resources on that socialist engineering principle, which will not work.

We must try, somehow or other, to give genuine help through fair trade with the other member states. The problem is that not all the member states will subscribe to the cohesion fund. We have heard that the Delors 2 plan has been jettisoned, in part because there is no money to pay for the cohesion fund. The structural funds--the regional funds--which I have not dealt with at all, have been cut back. A range of other matters have been presented to us as part of the package, but they simply will not work.

Mr. Livingstone : Does the hon. Member not agree that, far from being a communist plot--because that might change the opinions of some of my hon. Friends--it is a great redistribution treaty? When we are talking about 2 per cent., or perhaps 3 per cent. at the most, of the European total GDP being under control, that does not provide those powers. We oppose the setting up of the social cohesion fund, largely because it will have no capacity to cope with or pay for the restitution of damage that centralisation of the economy will cause.

Mr. Cash : It is intraordinary how much I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I never thought for a minute that that would be possible. There have been moments when I had the highest regard for many of the arguments of the hon. Member for Chesterfield, (Mr. Benn) about British democracy, but I never thought that I would agree with the hon. Member for Brent, East on economic matters.

It will not work. That is one good reason for not allowing it to happen, but it is being thrust on us. We have an opportunity in Committee to expose the inadequacies of the arguments and to be able to say that we are--we hope--rational people who will listen to the arguments and attempt to form a measured judgment.

I would not want to espouse Tory party policies if I did not think that they would work effectively. I have an instance in mind. I was delighted that the exchange rate mechanism collapsed--some of us said that we thought that it would not work. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during my speech in the recess, the measure was contained in our manifesto. It was not the Euro-realists--I am not sure about the phrase "Euro-sceptics" and prefer to use the phrase "Euro-realists"--who destroyed it. We said that we did not think that the exchange rate mechanism would work ; we thought that it would collapse, and it did. We did not tear up our

Column 226

manifesto to get out of the ERM, we were driven out of it because the system was inadequate, insufficient, fatally flawed

Mrs. Gorman : It was unsustainable.

Mr. Cash : As my hon. Friend says, it was unsustainable. We must be entirely realistic about what the treaty contains. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we must go through it clause by clause, line by line. It was also suggested that the Bill would have a bruising passage, and that may be the case. It will certainly have a thorough passage through the House.

Sir Teddy Taylor : I agree with almost all that my hon. Friend has said, but is there not a danger of being too pessimistic about the cohesion fund? Does my hon. Friend not accept that the scope for spending anything on the cohesion fund has been greatly reduced by the fact that the cost- cutting reforms of the common agricultural policy--a triumph for the Government and the EC--have resulted in an increase in the estimated expenditure from £26,000 million to £31,000 million, so there should not really be anything left for the cohesion fund?

Mr. Cash : I find that an encouraging intervention, but I always feel that whenever I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is about to rise. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay wishes to say something.

Mrs. Gorman : Is it not a tenet of communism that it takes from people according to their means and gives to people according to their needs? Is not that, in essence, what the cohesion fund is about? Is it not also true that, while our net contribution to the European Community is now £50 million every week, with the cohesion fund--I do not know how the Government believe that they can take that from the same pot of money, although they have said that it will not cost more money--by 1994, our membership of the organisation will cost us the equivalent of £200 million every week. Is it not true that we could build roads, hospitals, schools, homes for the homeless and many other things in this country if we kept the money in our pockets where it belongs?

Mr. Cash rose --

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. Before the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) continues, he should appreciate that many of the issues that he is raising come under a separate and later group of amendments. I hope that he will address himself to the amendments that form the first group.

Mr. Cash : I certainly shall, Dame Janet.

The citizenship of the union arises under article B, which clearly states :

"The Union shall set itself the following objectives to strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of its Member States through the introduction of a citizenship of the Union".

Some of the statements that I have heard in support of that have been disingenuous and less than candid. Unfortunately, what is not made clear is the fact that the union provides not only for rights to be given to its participants, but for the duties imposed thereby. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State may or may not recall that I raised the issue with him in a written question to which I received one of the most extraordinary

Column 227

answers that I have ever received during my time in the House. He said--I paraphrase--that such duties as were referred to would be those that emerged as the European Community evolved. His reply was something along those lines and I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong.

That is the sort of theme that was being pursued and there is very good reason for being vague in matters of this kind. I think that the Minister is very wise to be vague, because this is blank cheque territory.

What is the most important function, or certainly one of the prime functions, of a legal entity of the kind that this European union is to be? It is the call to arms. That is the direction in which this is going : to a common defence policy. What is the first requirement, the first duty to be imposed on citizens? It is that they may be conscripted. Labour Members may care to reflect on that, because a Franco-German army has been created and I believe that the Secretary of State for Defence was not even invited to some of the meetings because they were held in secret. They were obviously up to something or other and they did not seem to want to have him there. Be that as it may, one of the first duties of a citizen is the call to arms and I think that people ought to be reflecting hard on what that might involve.

9.15 pm

There is the further question of voting in elections. We have been told that the wording of the arrangements for voting for these new citizens will be confined to local and regional elections but that is not what it says. It says "municipal".

In English, according to "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" the word "municipal" would mean to do with a borough--perhaps a rotten borough or whatever--but the practicality of it is that it is to do with local government.

However, in the precedents of the Court of Justice there is a very important Italian case from a few years ago. Surprise, surprise--the word "municipal" as already interpreted by the court means "national". Translate that in the citizenship provisions. Translate municipal to national, in line with the precedents of the Court of Justice, and we have a big question mark. I hope that the Attorney-General or someone will come and explain these complicated legal things that I do not understand.

I should like to know whether the word "municipal", meaning national in that context, would refer to what a Liberal right hon. Member did when he went to Rome to stand for election there. We might find other nationals coming over for a test case. Then it will go to the Court of Justice. We will sign the treaty and suddenly they will say, "You thought you knew what you were signing, but, as is so commonly the case with this treaty, you thought it meant so and so, but actually, bad luck, it means something else." The Court of Justice could easily substitute "national" for "municipal" and we could find ourselves in difficulty. I should like to know why that matter was not raised when the treaty was being negotiated. That Italian case is quite a well-known one.

As I see the Minister of State thumbing through some biographies down there, perhaps he would be good enough to tell me whether he will answer the question, which I might put to him rhetorically, as to whether municipal means national as expressed by the Court of Justice?

Column 228

Mrs. Gorman : Does my hon. Friend think it possible that, as a result of this legislation, we might end up with Sophia Loren opposing Shirley Porter for Westminster city council or if Mr. Delors fails to make it for the presidency of France, that he might stand for Durham or even that La Ciciollina might stand in Northampton for a seat on the council there?

Mr. Cash : All these things are marvellous and extraordinary in themselves. I have not the faintest idea which way they will go, but it conjures up some pretty amazing thoughts. Some of the people my hon. Friend refers to are the stars of some time ago, but we may find that other people who have been taking an active part in politics, but are also star quality of a younger generation, might come forward as well.

Important questions lie at the heart of the citizenship issue because we are being told that what is being done will not affect our rights as British citizens. It is said that this is an add-on, a little extra, when in reality it is fundamental and goes back to the whole question of the union. The union is a legal framework, and whether it comes within the Court of Justice or is a legal international obligation, what is proposed will be binding on us. It should be struck out of the treaty because it goes to the heart of the way in which we run our democracy and the rights which we are used to exercising.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Will my hon. Friend remind the House that European citizenship is not static and that under article 8E there must be a three-year review to extend the duties of European citizens, in addition to which new powers and rights can be introduced? The idea that, by some means, voting in municipal elections represents citizenship is a load of rubbish. Instead, every three years there will be a review to increase the duties. We shall be well on the way to a single European state, even though the vast majority of hon. Members do not want to face up to that, do not want to read about it and do not want to hear the arguments on the subject.

Mr. Cash : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Article B provides :

"The Union shall set itself"

the objective

"to develop close co-operation on justice and home affairs". While we are told that that is a separate pillar, those provisions will be binding on us. We are bound to compare what was said on immigration at the Conservative party conference with the substantive provisions in the treaty.

It is not even as simple as that. If the unanimity rule is dispensed with and a joint action plan for immigration is brought in, we shall face the prospect of another enabling provision designed to allow the Court of Justice to have jurisdiction over immigration policy. That issue has not been explained to people, and considering what is going on elsewhere--

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : Including the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.

Mr. Cash : The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to that measure. Many of those who are responsible for putting the treaty together do not realise that people can read and do not necessarily believe what they are told. Indeed, the more incredibility that arises as the process goes forward, the more questions people want to be answered.

Column 229

The British population is becoming increasingly concerned at the vast discrepancy between what they were led to believe and what is going on. As the currency of language is becoming more familiar to people, they are discovering that they do not like much of what they hear. That will cause greater difficulty for the advocates of the measure as time passes, for as the monetary system implodes, so the other provisions relating to justice and home affairs become clearer.

There are no doubt some admirable objectives, for example, in seeking to prevent drug abuse and the transfer of drugs across borders and so on, but is it necessary to have a Euro-poll? Where will the centre of power of that poll be, who will run it, what powers will they have and what effect will that have on the rights and duties of British citizens? Little information has been given on all those matters.

Mr. Allen rose --

Mr. Spearing rose --

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. Could the hon. Gentleman make quite clear to whom he is giving way ?

Next Section

Home Page