House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Dec 1992

Rev. Ian Paisley : On a further point of order, Mr. Morris. On the point made to you by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about a preamble, are you suggesting to the Committee that, although we are on clause 1, you could take a proposition for a preamble to the Bill?

Column 294

The Chairman : I am not suggesting anything. When I have something in writing, I can have a look at it ; until it is in writing, I cannot.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : Last night, just before the Committee reported progress, I said that I was about to turn to article F3, which I had raised on a point of order earlier, but which I had not dealt with in my speech.

I am deeply concerned about the provisions of article F3, which incidentally are also covered by an amendment which has been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. I think that due weight needs to be given to that.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) rose--

Mr. Cash : I will give way, because I am always willing to play some kind of game with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robertson : I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not playing games, nor will I ask him a question which would prolong his speech. I simply repeat the point that I made yesterday. Amendment No. 108 in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, other hon. Friends and myself is purely a probing amendment. At the appropriate time, we will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw it. The hon. Gentleman should not read anything more into it than the fact that it is a probing amendment.

Mr. Cash : That is typical of the cowardly way in which the hon. Gentleman treats these matters. This is an important provision in title I. I will read it out :

"The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary"

The Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into the well- known habit of reading from the Bill or a text. Hon. Members have read the treaty. All he needs to do is refer to the point and make his comment. He does not have to keep quoting from the treaty.

Mr. Cash : Indeed, Mr. Morris. As I have said, the union shall provide itself with the means necessary to carry out its objectives and to be able to carry out its policies. That is what article F3 says. If I happen to remember it, Mr. Morris, I hope that you will forgive me for repeating the point that I have already made. When the article refers to "the means necessary", we are dealing with questions which go to the very heart of these matters. Will the money be made available to achieve the objectives of the treaty and carry out its policies? Will it require disciplinary action? For example, we know of a proposal that the European Court of Justice should be able to fine countries which do not comply with the requirements of parts of the treaty. Disciplinary action may not be just a question of a fine.

If the title includes such a vague provision, which is introduced under prerogative powers but is at the same time an international legal obligation, who is to say that it will not include in certain circumstances the use of force? What about the power to tax? In order to carry out a policy in line with an objective, and in order to be able to comply with that objective, money will be required. That raises another question which I raised earlier on a point of order, which is why and to what extent we are not being provided with a money resolution to cover these provisions. That is a very important point.

Furthermore, a booklet entitled "Europe after Maastricht" has been published by the Foreign and

Column 295

Commonwealth Office as a memorandum to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I have made allegations that we have not been given the whole picture when, in the absence of a White Paper, there are documents like the notorious pamphlet written in Europe, which gives only half the picture.

"Europe after Maastricht" is not merely a pamphlet but a memorandum to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which purports to describe Europe after Maastricht. What does it say? I shall not have to refer to the document, because I can remember that it states that article F provides for the implementation of the European convention on human rights and that European union shall subscribe to ensuring that national identities and democracies shall be sustained.

However, paragraph 10 of that important memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee does not mention the matter that I have just raised--the fact that the treaty says :

"The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary" to ensure its economic objectives and to carry out its policies. Some people might say that that is misleading. Why should not the attention of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee be drawn to that important provision? The pamphlet is going to be published for the public--in the absence of any White Paper- -so why are such things left out?

The same argument applies to the pamphlet "Britain in Europe", which contains no reference to article F3. I included it in one of my amendments for that reason.

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington) : My hon. Friend is talking about giving information to the public so as not to mislead them. Perhaps he should explain why he voted in favour of Europe in the six votes before the Maastricht vote. He was in favour of passing all those pieces of legislation--including the exchange rate mechanism. I have heard a story that he wants to become a Member of the European Parliament. Perhaps he can clarify that for public consumption, so that we understand the background to his arguments.

Mr. Cash : I have no problem about that--I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I voted for the Single European Act because I genuinely believe in the European Community and want it to work properly. People want to participate in the processes of the Community because they want that Act to work properly. That is why I made recommendations to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry last year, to help it to look into the single market.

The Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted down a route that he should know better than to be tempted down. He should get back to the Bill.

Mr. Cash : I assume that that was a no ball. If I hit it for six, I can make sure that it is notched up on my score.

Mr. Ian Taylor : Does my hon. Friend appreciate that his view is far from unrepresentative of the people of Britain, who previously thought that all those Bills were a good idea and now realise that Maastricht will be the end of liberty and freedom? Does he appreciate that, instead of being attacked by hon. Members shouting from the Back Benches, he should say, "What I'm saying and doing is

Column 296

what the people of Britain are saying--that this treaty is bad for Britain," and that the people want the right to have a say.

Mr. Cash : In opinion poll after opinion poll, 68 per cent. of the British people have said just that.

Several hon. Members rose --

The Chairman : Order. No one has taken any vote anywhere yet on amendment No. 93. I ask the hon. Member for Stafford to make progress on his speech. He was making an important point about article F, and I think that the House wishes to hear it, rather than to hear him accepting diversions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I heard the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) talking about this, that and the other regarding the amendment. I was listening carefully. Then he was knocked off his subject by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).

Are you saying, Mr. Morris, that, when hon. Members are challenged about whether they are pro-European or pro-Common Market, they are not allowed to answer, because that was what the hon. Gentleman was attempting to do? He gave an answer with which I do not agree, but he should be allowed to answer. If you want to stop the debate, stop him--but remember the people of Northampton.

The Chairman : Order. The people of Northampton remember me very well.

Mr. Skinner : They do not like Maastricht.

The Chairman : Order. I am enjoying it immensely.

I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and all hon. and right hon. Members that the hon. Member for Stafford was straying beyond the intervention. Mr. Cash--back to amendment No. 93 please.

Mr. Cash : If I can deal with article F3--

Rev. Ian Paisley : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no Member of the House has any right to impute motives to a Member of the European Parliament and say that, because he is an MEP, he cannot be against Maastricht? That is ridiculous.

Mr. Cash : I could not agree more. The issues we are dealing with in the treaty and in the Bill are essential to the future of this country. It is a slur to imply such things of MEPs and I regard it as disgraceful, but I shall get back to article F3 immediately, Mr. Morris.

5.15 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has made a comprehensive and distinguished contribution to the debate so far. I hope that I may assist him in ending on a high note.

Has he noticed that the provision of necessary resources in article F makes no mention of money and taxation? Nor is there any provision in the remainder of the treaty for the amendment of the treaty. Does it occur to the hon. Gentleman that many of those resources and powers might well be obtained under article 236 of the treaty of Rome,

Column 297

and that those institutions might well expand their competence, powers and finances to fulfil the treaty of union- -the two being close together?

I hope that the Minister who replies to this debate, after full consideration, will respond to my queries : first, on the amendment ; secondly, on resources ; thirdly, on relations with the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Cash : I am grateful for that intervention, which speaks for itself, and I agree with the basis upon which it was put. Article F is an important provision in the treaty. I saw Chancellor Kohl on the television this morning, stipulating the basis on which the Bundestag is proceeding. It does not surprise me that he gave economic and political union as its vision for Europe. That is the basis for the provisions of article F3, which talks of the "means necessary" to achieve those objectives and to carry out those policies. Those policies are part of the union which is referred to in title I--economic and political union.

Furthermore, it does not surprise me to discover that the Bundestag has imposed another restriction on the powers of the German Government. It now insists on at least a two-thirds majority in both Houses of that Parliament to ensure that such provisions do not go through without its consent, and it will have a veto over a single currency. It is seeking to get that put back into the provisions-- [Hon. Members :-- "Illegally."] Yes, it is seeking to do so illegally. That raises essential questions on the money -raising powers of the union.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : Does my hon. Friend agree that article F3 has the most dire political implications for this country? Is it not a paradox that the article is wholly inconsistent with the lack of a money resolution attached to the Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that article F3 and the inclusion of a cohesion fund, which is all part of Maastricht, will have political, economic and financial consequences for every family in this country? Can he explain why there is no money resolution?

Mr. Cash : My hon. Friend is bang on the nail, as he always is, in both his public and his private life. No money resolution is attached to the provision because title I is dealt with under prerogative. Because it is not a part of the Bill, there will be no requirement for a money resolution.

Article F3 is representative of my main objections to the Bill, as it represents political and economic defeatism. It is a withdrawal of political responsibility and a denial of parliamentary

accountability. For those reasons, I object to the treaty.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has made a useful contribution to the debate. He has opened up the subject matter of the treaties in a way that was not done by Front Bench spokesmen. Whatever may be said about the length of speeches, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has helped significantly our understanding of the treaties.

This group of amendments, more than any other that has been selected, enables us to focus on the treaty's nature, character and purpose, which has eluded discussion. We are all capable of talking about the minutiae and major provisions of the treaty, but the totality of the treaty--what it is about and what sort of

Column 298

creature European union is--is at the heart of the debate. Ultimately, that will determine not only how hon. Members feel about and react to the treaty, but how our fellow countrymen outside the House will come to judge the treaty of Maastricht, this treaty of union.

Yesterday, several points were made about the Attorney-General's absence. I should like to reinforce those points because I believe that we are faced, almost immediately, with the character and legal personality of the union that is being created by the treaty. It is not simply a further amendment, although it may partially take that form, of treaties with which we have become familiar, such as the European Community and various amendment Acts to that ; it is a new creature--a European union.

I submit that it is the aim of the new European union to become a new state embracing the 12 existing member states of the European Community. I also submit that I am not certain whether the treaty's existing provisions create such a state, but there should be no doubt about the purpose. That leads me to the paramount issue facing us all : whether we are content to see our future as a province of a united states of Europe or as an independent, democratic nation state.

Mr. Winnick : Are not my right hon. Friend's arguments strengthened by article F, which contains the nearest reference to member states' national identities? Article F1 says :

"The Union shall respect national identities of its Member States".

That is all that it says. There is no mention of respecting member states' national sovereignty or institutions. Surely that illustrates only too well what my right hon. Friend has said. The treaty takes the federal road, which will lead to one state whereby national Parliaments, including the House of Commons, will have little more power than county councils.

Mr. Shore : Furthermore, the phrasing of that paragraph--"the Union shall respect"--implies that that new entity, that superior body, will kindly respect nation states' national identities. That shows that a new creature of immense significance is facing our country.

Sir Trevor Skeet (Bedfordshire, North) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore : No. I would rather make some progress.

I do not intend to conduct a lecture on the treaties because that would carry my speech far beyond the compass which it is fair to inflict on the House after the admirable speech that we have already heard. I am conscious of the fact that I am only the second Back Bencher to be called and it is important that many more hon. Members are heard in this significant debate. The Committee must have an opportunity thoroughly to decide what kind of treaty we are dealing with and what its implications are.

It is extraordinary that so many hon. Members--I am thinking in particular of the interrogation of the hon. Member for Stafford yesterday--fail to recognise that the Bill's purpose is to set up a European union and create a quasi state in the reasonably near future. We should understand that the House of Commons and the British public generally are totally out of tune with the thinking and discussions taking place on that issue in Europe today. It is only here that the assertion that a new state is being

Column 299

created is being made, where the character of that state is open to discussion, and people seek to challenge it. Everywhere else in Europe it is taken for granted that we are at least talking about a federal union.

Naturally, I understand why so many people are anxious not to accept that reality. Those include the people who are most enthusiastic about that purpose. The federalists long to conceal their commitment to federalism and the unitarists long to conceal their dedication to a European union. We therefore get the pretence at every stage of the European Community's development that nothing significant is happening and that those great issues are not involved.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones) : I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but the "unitarists", as he calls them, throughout Europe have made it perfectly clear that they regard the Maastricht treaty as a significant setback for them. They have said so in public on numerous occasions.

Mr. Shore : That is frankly open to the greatest dispute. The Minister is not the only Member of this House who has had contacts with European leaders in the past two or three years, indeed in the past year. I shall give evidence of the difference of view in a few minutes.

Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West) : Is it not fair to say that Chancellor Kohl has said that the treaty is an essential step towards a united states of Europe?

Mr. Shore : Yes. That was quoted only yesterday in the speech by the hon. Member for Stafford.

What has eluded so many people in the country and the House has been the sea change in the Community's attitude towards federalism in the past two or three years. Federalism was always in the original treaties but it was a recessive rather than a dominant element. The dominant element was the view put forward, above all, by General de Gaulle about a "Europe des patries". That was the dominant view, but there was a great change and we should recognise it. It was the abandonment, by the French in particular, of a belief in a Europe de patrie following the reunification of Germany.

5.30 pm

One of the consequences of bringing down the Berlin wall and uniting east and west Germany was the abandonment by the French of that belief. They decided that they had to enwrap and enclose a united Germany in the bonds and other restrictions that they hoped a European federal treaty would impose upon an otherwise too powerful Germany. That is the basis of the whole change and if we do not understand that we shall not understand what is really happening. I shall illustrate the point. In December 1990 on the eve of the opening of the IGC on political union a joint letter and communique was issued by Mitterrand and Kohl. They said :

"We express the wish that the IGC should establish the basis and structures of a strong and mutually supportive Political Union, which pursues firmly, and with the people in mind, the course that corresponds to its Federal Vocation."

The Commission opinion on political union which preceded that letter and communique by a couple of months refers without a blush to the course charted by the treaty of Rome leading eventually to a federal type organisation. Mr. Andreotti, at that time Prime Minister

Column 300

of Italy, addressed the European Parliament on 22 November 1990. Speaking about the single currency, he said :

"For the first time in the history of Europe we shall confer upon the Community one of the distinctive and essential competences on which national sovereignty is historically built."

That is fairly clear evidence of intent, but what about the European Parliament itself? A report of its Institutions Committee dated 21 May 1992 refers, continually of course, to the federal purpose and intent and describes how it sees the evolution to the next stage, perhaps the final stage. Dealing with the Council of Ministers, which after all is the one remaining instrument, as it were, of a non-federal character among the European institutions, the committee states :

"Its development into a second legislative chamber in the sense of a genuine chamber of states and alongside the European Parliament must be accelerated, with the Council of Ministers becoming a standing body of the union, its meetings on legislative matters--being held in public"--

I agree with that,

"and taking majority decisions with equal co-decision with the European Parliament, the qualified majority being redefined using new criteria "

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : The right hon. Gentleman must remember as well as any hon. Member the immeasurable damage that was wrought in Europe by independent, competing foreign and defence and other policies. The whole of the past 50 years has been devoted to trying to find ways to achieve a different form of order in Europe that will avoid such damage. In view of his anxieties about the debate on the form of those structures, what are his alternative proposals for preventing Europe from again tearing itself to pieces?

Mr. Shore : Oh, really. The guarantee of peace in Europe and in the world over the past 40 years or more has been the existence of NATO of which we are a member. It would be absurd to pretend that our future security within a European union which excluded the United States and Canada would be better than it is now. Peace has been due to NATO's existence and the fact that there is no separate German high command. The hon. Gentleman should think about that. There is no possibility of France, Germany, Britain or Italy ever engaging in aggression against each other. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman. I was not seeking to establish merits and demerits but to offer the Committee evidence of the nature and purpose of the current union treaty. The hon. Gentleman's intervention did not in any way disprove my contention.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that his definition of federal is different from that of the Italians, Spaniards and Germans? Government in Germany is greatly decentralised and the system was introduced with the support of the British and other occupation forces and the British trade union movement. That system was designed to be internally decentralised. Does he also agree that many people in other European socialist parties fail to understand Britain's peculiar obsessions with some historical feelings and words? Almost every other socialist party in Europe is in favour of the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Shore : It is extraordinary that other European socialist parties are in favour of the Maastricht treaty and that they have agreed to a document which, apart from

Column 301

anything else, inflicts by treaty deflation upon the whole of western Europe and undermines the central purposes for which democratic socialist parties exist. [Interruption.] I shall not be diverted because I wish to cover the subject in an orderly way. My last piece of evidence in support of what I said about the nature and character of the treaty is to remind the Committee that the first article in the treaty, right down to Maastricht itself, speaks about the federal destiny or goal of the treaty. The Prime Minister was desperately anxious to have those words removed and at the last minute he managed to persuade Europe by saying, "If I have to take that back to Britain I shall be in desperate difficulty, not only with my own side but with the British people and the British Parliament."

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : The objective of France, Germany, Spain and Italy and other European countries was to create a federal union. However, the Maastricht treaty that emerged after the negotiations is far from being a federal treaty. It faced in both directions, but our Prime Minister managed to negotiate a treaty that is a step away from the federal objective.

Mr. Shore : I do not think so, but I shall certainly deal with that matter later in my speech. The so-called pillars, which I prefer to call buttresses of the treaty, go a long way towards European union. I accept that they have not gone as far as to be totally incorporated within the machinery of the Rome treaty, but there should be no doubt about what our partners are up to or that resumed pressure will fall upon us.

It is not only the sources that I have mentioned that give credibility, I hope, to my claim about the purpose and nature of the treaty. The other leaders of European countries are admitted federalists : they do not argue about it. The Prime Minister of Holland, Mr. Lubbers, is being considered, quite naturally, as a successor to Mr. Delors in the European Commission because he is a proper person for the Commission to choose. He shares every bit of the federal purpose, he wants it and wills it. So does Felipe Gonzales, the Prime Minister of Spain. We know from my quote from Mr. Andreotti's speech that that is also the purpose of the Italians. Beyond that there is a fringe of what one might almost call client states of Brussels which receive large subsidies and hope for even larger ones and are anxious to make progress with European treaties. We are in a difficult and isolated position, backed only by those stalwart people, the Danes.

Sir Russell Johnston : The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I agree with what he is saying, but does it lead him to conclude that title I should be inserted in the Bill? That is what the amendment is about.

Mr. Shore : The danger of inserting it into the Bill in the proposed manner--I hope that ingenuity can find a different way to deal with the treaty--is to make it a Community treaty ; in other words, to make those parts that are not Community treaties into Community treaties and therefore even more binding and having even greater impact on our powers. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity, through the

Column 302

amendment, to discuss the purpose of the treaty. However, I shall not be supporting him in his efforts to incorporate it, for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Marlow : Is not the beauty of including, through the amendment, title I in the Bill that there will be further debates on Report and that whereas it might be helpful to the Committee that title I was in the Bill and made things clearer, on Report we could pass amendments to take certain parts of title I out of the Bill? Therefore, we could select those parts of title I that the House then thought to be the most appropriate. Mr. Shore : I know that the hon. Gentleman has a liking for danger, but it would be a hazardous procedure to put in something that is clearly unwelcome in the hope that we may be able to remove it at a later stage.

Against this background of trying to define what the treaty purpose is about, I move on to the provisions of title I.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : I have been listening to the debate and I cannot see what difference the insertion of title I will make. I have heard the Minister talk for an hour and I have heard Members of the Opposition talking. Apart from the psychological factor involved in that it will make us feel more European, will the insertion of title I make any difference to anyone, in Britain or in Europe? I shoud love to know the answer.

Mr. Shore : It would have not only a psychological but a practical and legal effect if it were included as one of the Community treaties.

Sir Teddy Taylor : How?

Mr. Shore : It would then come within the normal procedures of the Rome treaty and be subject to the European Court, the Commission and so on even more strongly than would the treaty as it stands. For that reason, I am opposed to the amendment.

I have made the case to establish the nature of the treaty because I believe that the articles in title I, from A to F, clearly spell out the federal intent. There is not only what it says about the union. It goes on to say :

"This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union".

It is a "new stage", and not just another amendment to European Community Acts. That new stage is union.

The treaty then spells out the essence of the new stage. The first factor that it cites is economic and monetary union, and economic and monetary union, with a single federal bank and a single currency, is one of the most unifying of factors. According to Prime Minister Andreotti, previously that right has belonged only to a sovereign state, but now it characterises the new union.

Secondly, the treaty speaks of establishing a Europe without frontiers. Although frontiers can be a nuisance, I am fairly relaxed about them. To abolish them and to say that we are all part of the same zone in terms of the movement of people, goods and everything else is to abandon one of the essential purposes and powers of a separate state. We would pass that power over to a new state, which would define who and what has the right to come into our country. That carries me far beyond my interest in the proper movement of trade and goods and of people looking for jobs, finding them and taking them. Our rights are to be shared with over 300 million Europeans.

Next Section

Home Page