| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Garel-Jones : My hon. Friend has told us about the importance of whisky distilling not only in his constituency but throughout Scotland. Can he tell us of any major whisky distilling or exporting company in Scotland that, as a matter of policy, is opposed to the ratification of the Maastricht treaty?
Mr. Walker : A major United Kingdom whisky company director--the chief executive ; without asking him I cannot say his name--at a function in the House which was run by the Scotch Whisky Association, told me that I was right. That is all that I can say. He wished me luck. He said that I was right. [Interruption.] He happens to be the chief executive. As for my views on Maastricht--that is what we are debating. That is the question that was put to me, Mr. Morris. I was responding to the question. I have lived long enough to know that, more often than not, one is rarely right. I live in a house full of women, and one is regularly reminded that one is not right.
Sir Teddy Taylor : Will my hon. Friend tell our right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that we will never know what the people of Britain think about the Maastricht treaty, and we will never know about the damage to their jobs and their freedom and liberty until the Government have the courage to hold a referendum so that, instead of-- [Interruption.]
The Chairman : Order. I appeal to hon. Members to stick to the amendment. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) knows that there is an amendment on a referendum to be discussed later in our proceedings. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will want to catch my eye, not least because he has the lead amendment. I do not believe that it is appropriate that we should bring the referendum amendment into the other amendments.
Sir Teddy Taylor : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I do not cause trouble by making unrealistic points of order. Surely, if the Minister brings in something relating to the views of people, it is fair for someone else to make the same point.
The Chairman : I heard the Minister refer to the whisky industry, which was the point that the hon. Member for Tayside, North had been contributing to. Both were entirely in order.
Mr. Walker : The whisky industry, like the rest of the United Kingdom, has different views on the European Community. The country is divided, just as France was divided when it was given the opportunity to show how it felt.
Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West) : On the opinions of industrialists, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Minister could tell us of that famous evening when a letter was circulated at a Confederation of British Industry dinner at which, apparently, 60 industrialists were present. About 15 industrialists were prepared to sign that letter and others, for private reasons, did not do so.
Column 115
Does that mean that more than 50 per cent. of industrialists who were especially invited to back the Government's position could not bring themselves to do so? Surely all such matters are nonsense. It is not entirely fair for my hon. Friend to say, "Find an industrialist to take one position or another," because, for very good reasons, many wish to keep their opinions to themselves.Mr. Bill Walker : The point has been well made. The country is divided and there are different views at all levels. It is nonsense for either myself or Ministers to suggest that we have a monopoly on the views- -we do not, and we do not know the position. Anyone who suggests--as was suggested earlier--that we fought an election and have now given way is incorrect. I fought the election on the basis that I would oppose the treaty. I want there to be no question about that--my integrity is not in doubt. Others may doubt my judgment, but not my integrity.
Between 1981 and 1990, the United Kingdom's overseas investment outside the European Community was 76.4 per cent. of all investment. There was far greater investment outside the European Community, and it produced a surplus of £40,100 million. Within the European Community, 23.6 per cent. of United Kingdom overseas investment created a deficit of £75,400 million. That means that more and more Scots--not just fishermen and farmers--will feel that they are not receiving many of the advantages that they were promised in 1972. Consequently, when I look forward, I am concerned. I consider my good fortune and the ghastly future in store for so many other members of the human race. I wonder if my good fortune will continue. I live in a country called Scotland, which is free and democratic. I am an elected Member of one of the few Parliaments where membership cannot be bought--in a country where the Government are changed by the ballot box, not the gun.
I also reflect that, for many people, last year was ghastly, and many of them will face famine, drought and other problems. My constituency faces flooding, but no one seriously believes that many of my farmers will die next year as a result of starvation caused by flooding. Many of them will be in terrible financial straits, but they will not die.
I consider how different it is in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. Despite the substantial difficulties caused by unemployment--to which I have drawn attention--and the world recession, the young and the old in Scotland will not face famine, pestilence or war. However, Scotland's good fortune was not created by chance, but by our forefathers, who fought for Scotland's and the United Kingdom's democratic rights, and defended our right to be free. They also negotiated a Union, where the leadership, courage and talents of the minority population from Scotland would be employed to the advantage of the new country that had been created : the United Kingdom.
I know that we are changing United Kingdom law, but my view is that, if substantial amendments are accepted and the treaty is changed as a result, so that the treaty has to be renegotiated, the original treaty will be dead. I believe that the time has come for us to look at how the United Kingdom population has benefited and 9 per cent. of that population--the Scots--have always enjoyed much more representation in agricultural, industrial, consumer,
Column 116
commercial, political and trade union matters. They have enjoyed a greater share of the key positions. Scottish power and influence has been greater than its percentage share of the United Kingdom population. Any possible future Labour Cabinet would consist of more than 20 per cent. of Ministers from Scotland, even though Scotland has less than 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population. I am worried that all this is liable to change. Hon. Members can ask Ministers questions about all relevant matters, but if we give away these powers to Europe--the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) drew attention to the dubious nature of our authority to do that--the European Court will base its judgments on the political intent as well as on the contents of the treaty, as we know from the preamble to the Bill and from elsewhere.9.45 pm
Unless the House agrees to these amendments, the Maastricht treaty and its amendments to the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome will give away massive powers that have hitherto belonged to this Parliament. Members representing constituents will no longer be able to ask Ministers questions on behalf of those constituents. The cornerstone of our unwritten constitution, which is part of the cement binding the United Kingdom together, will thus be eroded. That cornerstone consists of a Member's right to ask questions and to have them answered. Already, more often than not, we are told by Ministers that our questions have nothing to do with them : "Hard luck, this matter has to do with Europe."
As Scottish constituents see their Members of Parliament becoming less able to pursue their interests
The Chairman : Order. I have been very tolerant of the hon. Gentleman, who keeps on using the phrase, "If these amendments are agreed to". That, however, is really not sufficient to keep him in order. He must speak specifically about the amendment--not generically.
Mr. Walker : I wish you had not asked me that, Mr. Morris, because I was coming directly to the amendments. This House is the key to maintaining the Union of the United Kingdom. There are more separatists on the Opposition Benches than wear the nationalist colours. Once they see they no longer have an opportunity to become Ministers after the next election it is just possible that we may find ourselves facing the end of this Parliament as we have known it.
Mr. Devlin : My hon. Friend knows as well as we all do that Scotland has far more representations in the House than it is due given the nature of the population. But Scotland also has Members in the European Parliament. Just as my hon. Friend can scrutinise the actions of Ministers who make up the Council of Ministers, so Members of the European Parliament will be able to scrutinise the work of Commissioners and others--
The Chairman : Order. That has nothing to do with industry.
Mr. Walker : Like you, Mr. Morris, I shall treat that intervention with the contempt it deserves-- [Laughter.] Hon. Members may find that amusing, but we Scots grew up on a diet of the constitution and some of us have spent
Column 117
all our adult lives trying to protect it. There is not a Scottish Member of Parliament or politician who does not have a view on the Maastricht treaty as it affects the CAP, unemployment, commerce or industry--or who does not from time to time discuss the issue of representation in Edinburgh in some guise or other.I am certain that, if we do anything to weaken the powers of the House, we will enter on the slippery road to separation. That may lead to Scotland remaining inside the United Kingdom as we know it, or in Europe as some Scots wish, or outside Europe. Denmark has clearly shown what a small country can do to the European juggernaut, and that has not gone unnoticed in Scotland.
Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East) : The Minister spoke about Britain being a wealthy country, but that wealth is not being well shared. We seem to be wealthy enough to afford 3 million people on the dole, according to the official statistics. Of course, the real figure is far higher. That in itself is a shocking indictment. We have been in the EC for 20 years and unemployment in the EC is no fewer than 17 million : that is hardly a fact to cheer about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) spoke about the need for more research and development and education and training. I agree with that, but I have reservations about those functions being under the EC umbrella. This country certainly needs an industrial policy, and market forces will not cure the mass unemployment from which we suffer. Article 130 deals with "speeding up the adjustment of industry to structural changes". What does that mean? I look upon it with a good deal of fear and foreboding.
I am a Welsh MP of long standing. In Wales, we know from experience what structural change can mean. Thousands of jobs have been lost in Wales, but the Maastricht treaty does not contain a social chapter--so what are the safeguards for working people? Wales lost many thousands of jobs in the steel industry because of structural change. Ebbw Vale no longer produces steel. The community there has never got over the experience of losing all those jobs in that vital industry. In north Wales, the Shotton works lost thousands of jobs, as did Port Talbot, Llanwern and many other areas.
Steel is allied to the motor car industry, which is next for rationalisation : it is top of the list for the structural changes referred to in the treaty. There is already speculation about the German company, Volkswagen, taking over Rover. I read about that in the press. What will that mean for jobs in this country? What will it mean for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)? There are ominous signs for Vauxhall in Luton. Could the work there go to the continent to join the rest of the General Motors organisation in Europe? Such developments would be highly damaging to the British economy.
Wales relies heavily on the motor components industry. We have major concerns in Wales : Ford engines in Bridgend, the Bosch plant in the Vale of Glamorgan, Lucas Girling in Cwmbran, and many more besides. If the assembly plants were to be wound up, would the component sectors go as well? It would be a disaster for employment if that were to happen.
The engineering sector of industry in Britain today is largely dependent on the motor industry for work. That
Column 118
industry is the key to the future economic success of the country. Vehicles of first-class quality are being produced here, but if the structural changes take place, the quality of our products would count for nothing. We know that we have an efficient coal industry, but the Government cannot close it down fast enough. I cannot over-stress the importance of the motor industry to our economy. That must be born in mind when we consider the structural changes set out in the Maastricht treaty. The economies of Germany and Japan are heavily reliant on their motor industries. It is not without significance that those two countries also have strong currencies. We must examine the implications of the proposed structural changes. According to official statistics, our unemployment rate stands at no less than 3 million. That figure involves many factors. For example, it is directly related to our crime rate. It is as true now as it ever was that the devil finds work for idle hands. Unemployment has brought about social and domestic difficulties, with an increasing divorce rate and more marital difficulties. Those out of work are demoralised.The structural changes could be a further step to the deindustrialisation of Britain. We have been in the European Community for 20 years. The Government must intervene in industry. They must not leave industrial policy to the vagaries of market forces, because unemployment is the most important issue facing us. The sooner we tackle it, the better.
Several Hon. Members rose --
The Chairman : Sir Teddy Taylor.
Sir Teddy Taylor : There are two amendments listed here--
The Chairman : Order. Is this an intervention or a speech?
Mr. Hughes : I have finished my speech.
The Chairman : In that case, I apologise. I thought that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was making an intervention. I call Mr. John Butcher.
Mr. Butcher : I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris, for allowing me to start my speech so close to 10 o'clock and, I hope, to continue for some time afterwards.
I begin by addressing a point raised by three hon. Members in the course of the debates that we have held on the general principles of the treaty. My hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) have all said that the treaty is no different to those which set out our defensive alliances with NATO or our agreement to UN conventions. I never thought that I would see the day when there was such a fundamental misunderstanding by any parliamentarian of the nature of this treaty as compared with treaties, such as the NATO treaty, signed by sovereign states for mutual defence. It is in the very nature of the NATO treaty that we bind each other one to another to defend the sovereignty of individual nations. Yet the Maastricht treaty is about the passing over of powers away from sovereign nations. I hope that we never hear that canard--that fundamental misunderstanding--mentioned again in the Chamber.
The amendments deal with industry and consumer affairs. We have had no reassurance from the Government
Column 119
Front Bench that the treaty implies that we should re-enter the exchange rate mechanism. We have had no reassurance that that is not within the implications of the treaty. If history--It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman-- left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[ Mr. Robert G. Hughes. ]
The Committee divided : Ayes 304, Noes 271.
Division No. 112] [10.00
AYES
Adley, Robert
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Aitken, Jonathan
Alexander, Richard
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Alton, David
Amess, David
Ancram, Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Ashby, David
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkins, Robert
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Baldry, Tony
Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bates, Michael
Batiste, Spencer
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Bellingham, Henry
Beresford, Sir Paul
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Booth, Hartley
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Bowden, Andrew
Bowis, John
Brandreth, Gyles
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Browning, Mrs. Angela
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butler, Peter
Butterfill, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Churchill, Mr
Clappison, James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coe, Sebastian
Colvin, Michael
Congdon, David
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Cormack, Patrick
Couchman, James
Critchley, Julian
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Dafis, Cynog
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Deva, Nirj Joseph
Devlin, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey
Dicks, Terry
Dorrell, Stephen
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Dover, Den
Duncan, Alan
Dunn, Bob
Durant, Sir Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Eggar, Tim
Elletson, Harold
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Evennett, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Faber, David
Fabricant, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Fishburn, Dudley
Forman, Nigel
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Forth, Eric
Foster, Don (Bath)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Freeman, Roger
French, Douglas
Gale, Roger
Gallie, Phil
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Garnier, Edward
Gillan, Cheryl
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Gorst, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Grylls, Sir Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Hague, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Hanley, Jeremy
Hannam, Sir John
Hargreaves, Andrew
| Next Section
| Home Page |