House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Feb 1993

Column 1049

Chancellor is well aware of that. He warned us in a debate in the House on economic and monetary union in which he quoted Karl Otto Po"hl, the director of the Bundesbank. He described the German experience of trying to level out the income of the east and the west, as a drastic object lesson of the dangers that follow these glorious, euphemistic and utopian ideas of making everybody equal. In fact, transferring funds on that scale can have devastating effects on the economy. The Chancellor made the comparison. He said that our average manual wage in this country is approaching £15,000 a year, while in Greece it is £4,500 and in Portugal £2,000. So transferring funds from our manual workers to bring these people up to much the same level will inevitably cause a drastic cut in the income of working people in this country.

Mr. Watson : The hon. Lady surely chose a most inappropriate example by quoting Karl Otto Po"hl. Is she aware that, in Germany, one of the functions of the la"nder through the Bundesrat is to achieve an economic sharing out of resources. They have been very successful in doing that. Is that not an example of how the poorer regions can be helped successfully by the richer regions?

Mrs. Gorman : I suggest that the hon. Member tells that to the people in west Germany, because they have a different view of what is happening, with taxes going up, inflation rising and all the other problems that come with one of these artificial schemes. Our own Chancellor said how much greater those strains and tensions will be if 12 very different states with different economies try to adapt themselves to a single standard. This is our own Chancellor warning us of the dangers inherent in this policy.

Who will get all this wonderful amount of money? Do we all remember that little shadow boxing match that went on in Edinburgh when Felipe Gonza lez, the Premier of Spain, said that he would not sign the Maastricht treaty until he got some concessions. The concession he wanted was a guarantee of a very large amount of money for a massive hydrological plan in Spain. He wanted £17.7 billion for this scheme. We conceded at Edinburgh that Spain will get more than half that money from the cohesion fund.

The rain in Spain falls mainly on the gravy train. These people stand to benefit enormously. What will Spain use that money for? It will be used for more irrigation schemes. Spain already uses more water for irrigation than any other country in the European Community. It will grow more grapes and olives, and anything and everything to add to the butter mountains, the wine lakes and the olive mountains which we already have. We shall be corrupting and distorting the economy by allowing all this money to go to the so-called hard-up regions.

Mr. Randall : I thank the hon. Lady for giving way to me twice. Is she not aware that the British contribution to the cohesion fund is only 5 per cent., so that in that sense her constituents will not be that much affected? Abatement cannot be changed until the end of the century. I am not sure what she is so worried about.

Column 1050

6.15 pm

Mrs. Gorman : The hon. Member is making a point. I have heard Ministers assure us that by 1999 we shall add only another £200 million to the amount of money we give them, but we all know how these sums suffer slippage. There was a time when we were the second lowest in terms of economic growth and income and we got a substantial rebate. However, since we took in all these poorer countries, we are in the middle position and are not even likely to get the rebate we currently get under the common agricultural policy.

The structural fund budget is made by reducing the amount spent on CAP from 80 per cent. of the budget to 60 per cent. That will have a profound affect on whether or not we get the rebate and will also affect the amount of money we have to spend on our own citizens.

Mr. Barry Legg (Milton Keynes, South-West) : I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware that, at the last meeting of the Committee about three weeks ago, it was agreed that £750 million would come from British taxpayers up to 1999 to fund the cohesion fund. I wonder whether she thinks that this amazing generosity is somewhat inappropriate when we are looking at running a budget deficit in this country of some £50 billion in the coming year.

Mrs. Gorman : My hon. Friend makes a splendid point. We are dealing with pie in the sky or money that apparently grows on trees, money which we all know we can manufacture by borrowing from international banks, until the point will come when they will step in and say, "Enough is enough." We cannot spend what we do not earn. If one does not invest one's money in one's own economy, the economy will not grow. That is the plain truth, and the people in Essex know that, even if Labour hon. Members do not.

Mr. Wilkinson : And in Middlesex.

Mrs. Gorman : And in Middlesex ; and good Conservatives throughout the country know it. That is why they want a referendum and to have a say in the matter. That is why they are so concerned.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : I am listening carefully and attentively to the hon. Lady ; she extended the same courtesy to me. She has given important reasons why the structural, regional, and cohesion funds should not be applied to the poorer regions of the Community, but would she explain how she would deal with regional disparity in the Community?

Mrs. Gorman : The hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to tell him my regional policy. I would not have one, because I believe that, left to itself, the free market will shift funds to where there is a good labour supply available and where the facilities merit it. When one starts directing money to regional funds, one gets the equivalent of peanut schemes--and we all know what happened to that money in Africa.

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith (Chingford) : Is not that the difference between the two sides of the Committee? We see redistribution taking place through the market, through mechanisms where people exercise their free choice, with companies getting their costs down by competing and

Column 1051

bidding in the market place, which is free, and they therefore transfer the money back to their regions. That is the difference between the Opposition's attitude and ours.

Mrs. Gorman : I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I find it tragic that a Government and a party which have committed themselves to getting out of all these interfering schemes should be caught in the idea of getting involved in what is pure socialism.

Mr. Legg : Does my hon. Friend agree that the regional and cohesion funds are now being advocated because of the exchange rate mechanism and of the efforts to develop economic and monetary union? The effect of that is to create more unemployment in the regions. To balance the loss of the shock absorber of the currency, Jacques Delors and his colleagues are advocating that funds be transferred to these areas.

Mrs. Gorman : I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. A great lady who used to sit not far below where my hon. Friend is sitting now constantly reminded us of that fact. Rather than establishing artificial monetary schemes, currency must be allowed to float and find its own level. That policy stood Britain in good stead throughout the 1980s and helped it to recover its economic respectability. If we try to buck that system, we shall experience grave difficulties.

The amendments will commit funds to the social chapter. Under the protocol, the Government have not committed themselves to the social chapter, but this group of amendments will commit us to funding that policy. How do Ministers reconcile that with our stated policy? The European investment bank will get £7.6 billion of taxpayers' money to back schemes that are chosen by bureaucrats in Brussels. Most of them could not manage to back the loser of the donkey derby, let alone the winner, but this vast amount of money will be commited to schemes that are agreed by horse trading among members of the European Community late at night : "I will give this to you, you give that to me. I will get money for my hydro- electric scheme and you will get something in exchange."

Money will be allocated not according to market forces but by favours, which will have a distorting and corrupting effect. One of the lessons that we surely have learnt from handing vast amounts of aid to third-world countries is that such money goes into the pockets of the rich. It goes from the poor of the rich countries to the rich of the poor countries.

Spain and Portugal are examples of the devastation that such policy wreaks. I spend holidays on the Algarve, where vast tracts of what was beautiful countryside--the ecology which all the greenies want to save and which, apparently, is covered by the European policy--are scarred by roads that have been cut through areas where literally nothing happens. Quiet country villages with beautiful stands of eucalyptus and cork oak are being smashed down because Portugal is getting £2 million a day from the Community, and under these proposals it will get a lot more. The tourist industry is suffering because the Portuguese Government no longer invest in tourism ; they are getting the gravy straight from the European Community.

Mr. Wilkinson : My hon. Friend is making a very serious point. She is striking at the illusion of cohesion

Column 1052

within the Community. The only thing, surely, that British people do not want is for Britain to be turned into one great big Belgium, with motorway from end to end, little country and the sort of devastation, which she is so eloquently describing, that has been perpetrated in the Algarve.

Mrs. Gorman : My hon. Friend makes an admirable contribution. The Conservative party enhanced its reputation by embracing the doctrine that we should leave people to spend or invest their money as they see fit. Although mistakes will be made, they will be trivial and minor compared with the devastating mistakes that will flow from massive amounts of so- called public funds being manipulated and engineered by bureaucrats. That is what will happen under the treaty.

I want to say a couple of words about the Committee of the Regions. Are we not already seeing the spoils being fought over on the Opposition Benches : "You give us four more people and we may do a deal and vote with you on amendment No. 27 ; we might slip in the right Lobby if you give us a couple more seats"? This afternoon, I have witnessed the bones being handed to the dogs--give a dog a bone and he will come running home.

The Committee of the Regions could, at best, be a waste-of-time, quango- type talking shop, but at worst it could be a means by which the European Community will seek to bypass the wishes of hon. Members. I sometimes think that we have 650 turkeys in this place voting for Christmas. If these proposed organisations are set up, with all the money that they will take from our taxpayers--our working population ; the very people whom Opposition Members seek to represent--we shall pay for it. All that lovely money will be distributed beyond our countrol to schemes approved by politicians and bureaucrats--the last people who can make such decisions and get them right. As we all know, by and large, regional aid in Britain has been a disaster. That is why we shifted our policy.

The Committee of the Regions could have a sinister purpose. It could be part of the demise of the House of Commons. I have sat through our 13 days of debate, and I oppose this wretched Maastricht treaty because I think that this is the place where my constituents expect me to represent their views. It is the only place where I can do so. This is supposed to be

"government of the people, by the people, and for the people" here ; not by delegation to Maastricht, Brussels or wherever. If we agree to that, we shall all soon be getting our P45s. The public will not pay us to sit on our backsides nodding things through in the afternoon.

That is the essence of the treaty--other people making our minds up for us. We should have discarded the treaty long ago. We are grown-up people ; we do not need the crutch of Maastricht to sustain us as a nation. People outside do not expect that of us, and if the Labour party had any real feeling for working people or anybody else it would support the concept of the British people having a say. It is not easy for Conservative Members like me to oppose the Government--we sacrifice more than most hon. Members by doing so--but we do so because the principle involved is robbing the British people of the right to spend the product of their labour on the things that they want. People in Essex are famous for their hard work and for pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, even though they are often traduced in the House of Commons and

Column 1053

insulted. They are the salt of the earth, and I know how hard they work to pay their taxes. They do not want to see Britain's income being shifted down the line to a lot of other countries.

Let those countries work their own way up and do what people in mine and other constituencies do--look after themselves, their own interests and those of their country. That is how we shall make progress.

Ms. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : It is always a bit difficult to follow the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Although I did not agree with her views, I enjoyed the manner in which she delivered them.

I should like to speak briefly to amendment No. 273, which I tabled and which several of my hon. Friends support, on the composition of the Committee of the Regions. Before doing so, I should say that I am getting confused messages from Conservative Members about that committee. On the whole, the message so far has been that it is not important and that it is only a talking shop, but having listened to the hon. Member for Billericay, it now seems that it will lead to the demise of the House of Commons as we know it. I do not believe that that is correct, but nor do I think that the Committee of the Regions is a meaningless talking shop.

Amendment No. 273 seeks not a share of the action but balanced regional representation on the Committee of the Regions across the United Kingdom. Obviously, there must be representation from Scotland and Wales, but I should also like representations from each of the standard planning regions of England to ensure a regional balance. That would mean having a representative--or possibly two--from each of the following regions : the north, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside, the east midlands, the west midlands, East Anglia, the south-east, which it is important should have a London dimension, and the south-west. It is important that this commitment to regional balance be built in. It is alarming that, so far in the debate, the Government have failed to give any assurance that there will be regional balance in the representation on the Committee of the Regions. I am glad that my amendment is being sponsored by Members from throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that this means that it will be considered favourably by other hon. Members if, as I hope will happen, the Committee is given a chance to vote on it. 6.30 pm

I was very alarmed by what the Minister said in introducing the debate on the Committee of the Regions. He seemed to take the view that the representation on the Committee might be restricted to Government appointees or business people. I have nothing at all against the notion that business people should be allowed to express their views very strongly in the European Communities, but they are already represented on other EC institutions and would therefore be getting a double dose of representation, whereas regional representatives and local authority representatives from the regions would be likely to miss out altogether.

That is a matter for great concern. The business community is already very well represented on the Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities and the business voice is heard in Europe

Column 1054

through UNICE, the employers' organisation at European level. Indeed, the latter has proved to be a very effective lobby in the context of the European Commission. However, it would be highly inappropriate to have such representation on the Committee of the Regions, too. I hope that the Government will give this point very serious consideration.

Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South) : Does my hon. Friend agree that, if this country selects, rather than elects, members of the Committee of the Regions, the committee, when it chooses its bureau or executive consisting of 30 members, will not include anyone from the United Kingdom, as almost all members from other countries will be elected? In other words, by selecting, rather than electing, members, this country would be putting itself at a disadvantage in the Committee of the Regions.

Ms. Quin : That is a very important point. We would cause needless resentment by approaching our representation in the manner that the Government seem to be considering.

I was alarmed when the Minister of State, in response to an intervention from me some time ago, failed to deal with the need to respect the political make-up of each region and nation of the United Kingdom. I believe that my region is the only one in which the Labour party clearly obtained more than 50 per cent. of the vote. It would be quite wrong of the Government to undertake a frantic search for the few Conservatives who might be found in the northern region so that they could be put on the Committee of the Regions. That would be an insult to the region.

I urge the Government to take into account the political complexion of each region when deciding the representation on the committee. It is very worrying that the Government have failed to appreciate the need for regional balance. I hope that, before the end of the debate, they will give us some assurance on this point.

The Government have failed completely to understand the regionalisation process that is already going on in the United Kingdom, under their own nose. The district and county authorities in my region have come together voluntarily in an organisation called the Northern Regional Assembly of Local and District Authorities. That assembly would be a very suitable body to choose the northern region's representative on the Committee of the Regions. By making this point I am giving my response to a question that has been raised by a large number of Members during the debate.

My amendment is really a supplement to one tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). It would be best, certainly in the short and medium term, to have local authority representation on this committee. If, ultimately, we move to a regionalised system of government in the United Kingdom as a whole, with devolved government in Scotland and Wales, those regional governments could choose their own representatives. It seems to me, however, that, in the interim, the most satisfactory method would be the one that has been proposed by my hon. Friend. At the same time, I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the need, indicated in my amendment, to ensure that there is balanced representation from England, Scotland and Wales so that the best use may be made of this committee.

Column 1055

I should like to respond briefly to hon. Members who have said that the committee will be just a talking shop and will not, therefore, have a worthwhile role. The same was said of the European Parliament when it was set up, yet most people now realise that, even if it is a talking shop, many of the amendments on which it votes are incorporated in European Communities legislation. In my opinion, the Committee of the Regions will play a valuable role by putting forward ideas likely to be taken on board by the Commission in its draft directives. There will be a clear line of communication into the European institutions. That is something which must be stressed.

Mr. Wilkinson : How democratic does the hon. Lady think the European Parliament is? Do the majority of her constituents even know who their MEP is? Do they regularly go to his surgery? Does he receive 20, 30 or 40 letters a day, as we do? Is he as accessible as the hon. Lady and other Members of this Parliament are? Does not the hon. Lady agree that members of the European Parliament are seen by their constituents as being abroad and very remote? Surely it is pure imagination to think that the European Parliament can exercise any effective democratic control over the other institutions of the Community.

Ms. Quin : As I was a member of the European Parliament for 10 years, I hope that I am in a good position to respond to the hon. Gentleman. In many ways MEPs fulfil a role that is not fulfilled by any other body but may be fulfilled to a certain extent by the Committee of the Regions. The European constituencies are very large. They tend to comprise either regions or sub-regions. Very often members of the European Parliament look at the directives emanating from Brussels and evaluate their effect not just on the United Kingdom as a whole but on the parts of the United Kingdom that they happen to represent.

When I first went to the European Parliament, the details of the common fisheries policy were being negotiated. Although I opposed that policy, I realised how important it was to have representatives evaluating the details of the legislation to see how they affected not just British fishermen as a whole but fishermen in various areas of the United Kingdom, who might fish for different species, or at different times of the year, or on the basis of different regional or local traditions.

I therefore feel very strongly that regional and local issues should be considered seriously at European level. Although the House of Commons can do a great deal of worthwhile work in evaluating European legislation, there is a direct regional input which can be complementary to, and not in conflict with, what Parliament does. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that response to his point. I do not believe that the Committee of the Regions is simply a matter of securing funds. In many ways, there has been far too much emphasis in this debate on the question of funds. I see the Committee of the Regions as making a contribution to the European policy-making process and introducing an element that would otherwise be overlooked or neglected. It should consider the regional impact of all European Community policies, not only those dealing with funds. It should consider not only what we can get out of Europe but what we can contribute to it.

The European Community is, of course, a Community of member states, but it is also a Community of nations and regions. We should stress that point and ensure that it

Column 1056

is part and parcel of the European decision -making process, not something which has no place in a Europe where, at the end of the day, the main decisions are taken, as we know, by the Council of Ministers. We must stress that it is not only a Europe of nation states but a Europe of regions and localities. I hope that the amendment Nos. 13 and 273 will receive wide support.

Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute) : I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), who gave an excellent and interesting explanation of her stance on this issue.

Although article 198 is thin in content, and may be regarded by many as being of little significance when compared with the weightier social chapter, it is an interesting concept. The potential exists for a Committee of the Regions to have substantial influence on the future direction of the Community, which I welcome. Although at this stage it will have only advisory and consultative status, it has the ability to become a force for good within the Community.

The Committee of the Regions will form a link between Europe's variously defined regions, from Germany's federal states to Scotland and Wales and the autonomous communities of Spain. It should also bridge the gap between those levels of government and the Community, which is at present dominated by the 12 member states. Of course, Scotland does not have its own Government, but perhaps more of that later.

When compared with Germany, the House, with its belief in centralisation and its own sovereignty, is no doubt uncomfortable with the idea of the Committee of the Regions, because there is no history of subsidiarity within the United Kingdom. The House has been unable to transfer powers to its component parts, so it can envisage no easy way of allocating seats. Although the Minister has explained that, it appears that that is why the Government have not yet given any idea of their thinking on this issue. [Interruption.] Article 198-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Salmond : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. It seems that some hon. Members who claim to be most interested in the Bill are the least interested in the debate--I am finding it very difficult to hear the hon. Lady, whom I very much want to hear.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : It has not gone unnoticed

Mrs. Michie : Article 198 has been welcomed with various degrees of enthusiasm or lack of it. The latter was noticeable in the Minister's cautious evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 19 January, but I think that he has since become a little more enthusiastic. He said that it was difficult to predict, but that the Committee could become an organisation of some importance and consequence. I am glad that he accepts that, and I endorse what he said.

However, in a speech at St. Andrews on 23 November, the Secretary of State for Scotland was quite positive. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has already referred to it, but it is worth repeating. He said that it was an exciting initiative, which would strengthen beyond recognition the representation of the countries and regions of Europe which are represented at the top table by member states at the moment.

Column 1057

It would be churlish to question the Secretary of State's keenness, although I have a suspicion that the Committee of the Regions will appear as part of the conclusions of the stocktaking exercise. His commitment will be proved by the number of seats that he manages to deliver for Scotland, which leads me to the composition of the Committee.

New clause 63 calls for Scotland to have at least eight of the 24 seats allocated to the United Kingdom. That would bring Scotland into line with its counterparts in Germany, where the Bundestag agreed to allocate 21 seats to the la"nder and with the autonomous communities of Spain, which are campaigning to take all 21 seats there. 6.45 pm

Some would argue that eight seats for Scotland would mean over- representation, but that is not so. As we have already heard, in population terms, over-representation is a principle of the European Community. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but the obvious example is Luxembourg, which, with a population of 380,000, has a vote at the top table of nation states and an allocation of six seats on the Committee of the Regions. More representation for smaller units is also a good federalist principle.

The Secretary of State for Scotland agreed when he gave the assurance that he was bidding high. He also said that smaller units have invariably had more representation than the larger, in a bid to compensate for their smaller scale.

Article 198(a) refers to representatives of regional and local bodies being members of the committee. In the absence of a Scottish Parliament, the new clause states that the representatives "shall be elected members of Community, District or Regional councillors, elected by an electoral college or college of councillors".

It is essential that the Scottish representatives are democratically accountable to the people of Scotland. It would be wrong and unacceptable for the Secretary of State for Scotland to nominate them, especially if they were chosen from the multitude of quangos which have now been created there.

He should certainly not consider that they should all be members of the Conservative party.

Mr. Garel-Jones indicated dissent.

Mrs. Michie : I see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is shaking his head, which I take as agreement that they would not all be members of the Conservative party.

There may be some raised eyebrows at my inclusion of community councillors. I deliberately included them because we do not yet know the outcome of the restructuring of local government. I like community councils and believe that they are a good concept. Some have worked well and others not at all, but that is because they have had no power although they should have had it. I hope that the Secretary of State will take that into account when considering reform of government in Scotland.

Suffice to say that some community councillors are extremely competent people. I could name many in my

Column 1058

constituency who would have no problem in dealing with the Prime Minister of Bavaria or anyone else on the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : A little earlier, the hon. Lady made some comments about the possibility of Conservatives being chosen to be members of this ghastly committee. Let me make it quite clear to her that, if I were eligible, if I were selected, if I were ordered to, I would not in any circumstances wish to be associated with it.

Mrs. Michie : That is an interesting observation from the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I am hearing comments around me to the effect that perhaps he would not be asked to serve on the committee. But I make the point, because it has not been ruled out yet, that they may be selected or nominated by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson (Aberdeen, South) : Will the hon. Lady tell the House how many community councils in Scotland she has visited touting her idea that they should be responsible in part for electing Scotland's representatives to the Committee of the Regions? Does she honestly believe that those often very genuine people who have gone into community councils to do something about pavements, roads and street lighting want that responsibility?

Mrs. Michie : I certainly do not say that they all want that responsibility. I will not name names, but I know people who would serve very well on this Committee of the Regions, and I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland knows them as well. They are elected community councillors and there is no reason why they should not be on the Committee of the Regions. The hon. Gentleman's allegation demeans people who are concerned with pavements.

A system of proportional representation is at the heart of my new clause. It is a constant source of embarrassment that the United Kingdom Government have persistently refused to bring us into line with our European partners by having a fair system for the European elections. Here is an opportunity to move away from the outdated and undemocratic first-past-the-post system. Proportional representation would allow a wide representation of political opinion and include independent councillors--although I have always wondered what those councillors are independent of.

I welcome the article in the Maastricht treaty, because I see it as a step, albeit a small one, towards Scotland moving closer to Europe. We need to be there. We have much in common with the national regions that will make up the committee and, because of our geographical position and peripherality, we need a more powerful role, to influence EC policy and decision making and to focus on underdeveloped areas for co-operation and assistance, particularly from the centre to the periphery.

Perhaps, if the Committee of the Regions had been in existence at the time, there might not have been what I hope is just a muddle about the question of objective 1 status, when it appeared to be announced from Brussels that my constituency of Argyll and Bute--and, indeed, that of the hon. Member for Moray--was being left out of the traditional highlands and islands areas. I am hoping very much that the Secretary of State will see to it that this

Column 1059

is resolved by the Council of Ministers. I believe that, if the Committee of the Regions had been in being, this would not have happened.

Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West) : I am most grateful for the hon. Lady's courtesy in giving way. She is now, I think, implying that one of the criteria for representation, in line with the regional aid criteria, should be the relative prosperity or poverty of particular regions. If three English regions have lower per capita income than Scotland, and if the Welsh region has a lower per capita income than Scotland, does this mean that they too should have eight representatives each? If so, have we not run out of representatives to be distributed across the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Michie : That is an argument that should be put to the Government, not to Europe. As for Scotland being underdeveloped, certainly there are areas of Scotland that require assistance, and, like other hon. Members, I see nothing wrong in trying to get the assistance to where it is needed, whether it be in Scotland, Greece, Portugal or Wales. [ Hon. Members :-- "Or England. Or Merseyside."] Well, fine in England, but England has its Government here. [ Hon. Members :-- "So has Scotland."] We will come to that ; do we indeed? But certainly England has its Government here, and it ought to be able to support the regions that hon. Members are talking about. Judging by what has been said by hon. Members--some of whom have been described as backwoodsmen, although I would not call them that--it sounds as if England does not want to be at the heart of Europe, but I believe that Scotland does. Good grief, is Scotland to lose simply because there is an attitude in the Committee against closer co-operation and being at the heart of Europe? I hope that that will not be the case, and that we will ratify the Maastricht treaty.

Mrs. Gorman : It troubles me that the Scots seem to have the attitude that they are victims of this place. Surely the hon. Lady is aware that there are more Scottish people sitting in the House representing either Scottish or English constituencies than there are members of any other single group in the country. They should be pleased about that. If all the power goes to Europe and to the committee on which the hon. Lady is madly trying to get extra seats, this place will become impotent, and the Scots here with it.

Mrs. Michie : I believe that the hon. Lady does not understand that the Scots want to have their own parliament to look after their own affairs. They do not want to be here ; they want to have a parliament of Scotland looking after their own affairs. That, I hope, answers the hon. Lady's question. It would be no problem to be in Scotland looking after our own affairs, rather than here. It is the right of every country, every nation, to look after its own affairs. That should not be denied to the nation of Scotland, and it is denied in this place. That is what the Scottish people find it so hard to take.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, because I believe that her contribution and that of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) have touched on a very sensitive point. I have listened to the terms "nation", "state" and "nationality" being used right through this debate, not just today but previously. Is there not something very worrying here?

Column 1060

We can easily define Welsh nationalism as something that is looking out towards Europe, which wants to be part of it. The same goes for Scottish nationalism and for Northern Ireland's nationalism as expressed throughout constitutional politics--an outward- going thing. But English nationalism? Think of the term Sinn Fein, which means in English "ourselves alone". That is the type of nationalism that we are hearing from some of the people on the Conservative Benches : narrow, introverted and refusing to play its role in the world.

Mrs. Michie : The hon. Gentleman makes the point very well, and I can follow that.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) rose--

Mrs. Michie : I would just like to develop this point, because it follows on from what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Leighton : Will the hon. Lady give way on this point?

Mrs. Michie : In a minute, please.

Mr. Leighton rose--

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. If the hon. Lady does not resume her seat, the hon. Gentleman must resume his.

Mrs. Michie : As I said, Scotland needs its voice to be heard--and listened to--as a nation. That is something which the House of Commons has singularly failed to do. In Scotland we have a different political tradition. Here in the House of Commons, Members of Parliament believe in the sovereignty of Parliament, and that is fine, if that is what they want to do. But in Scotland we believe in the sovereignty of the people ; we believe that the people have the right to determine how they will be governed.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : Does the hon. Lady understand the frustration of many English Members listening to her, knowing that they represent constituencies with 75,000 or 80,000 electors-- mine has nearly 84,000--and that not one Scottish seat has anything like that number? Most Scottish Members represent electorates half that size. If we are talking about

over-representation, Scottish seats have a lot to answer for. 7 pm

Mrs. Michie : All I can say to the hon. Lady is that the Members of Parliament representing English seats can always outvote any other block of Members, and that they continually outvote the majority of Scottish Members in the House. I am sorry that some of the constituencies in England have problems, but that is the Government's problem, Parliament's problem, or the problem of the hon. Lady who looks after her constituents. It is not an excuse

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. It seems that we are now going very wide of the group of amendments. No doubt the hon. Lady feels that she has been provoked, but perhaps she could now draw her remarks into the scope of the grouping before us.

Column 1061

Mrs. Michie : Thank you, Dame Janet. Perhaps I was led further that I should have been by some of the interventions.

Next Section

Home Page