House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Mar 1993

Mr. Gapes : Does my hon. Friend agree that the interpretation of federalism in the Federal Republic of Germany is not centralised union or a super-state? It is inaccurate, therefore, to suggest that the European concept was based on a centralised European super-state. The concept of Europe is clearly different in various countries, but the German federal model, which owes much to the democratic changes that were made by British and other occupation forces after the second world war, is one of decentralisation without a centralised super-state.

Does my hon. Friend further agree that, unlike last year's Conservative party conference, the Labour party conference held a vote on whether to endorse the Maastricht treaty? It said that the treaty was the best obtainable measure, whereas the Conservative party uses a clapometer to gauge how many people applaud Norman Tebbit and how many

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. Interventions should be short. The hon. Gentleman's intervention sounded more like a speech. 5.45 pm

Mr. Robertson : I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. His words are extremely wise on both counts. He and I have attended many European meetings, at which we did not spot the federalising, centralising obsession about which some hon. Members speak. He rightly states that the Labour party agreed its policy on Maastricht in a democratic vote at its conference. That represents our policy, and we consulted the people, which I am sure would appeal to the hon. Member for Southend, East.

Mr. Cash : At its last conference, the Labour party decided to oppose a referendum on the Maastricht treaty and that, apparently, is the position of its Front-Bench spokesmen, but we understand that the Leader of the Opposition has now said that Labour would like a referendum on proportional voting. Can he reconcile those two completely different positions?

Mr. Robertson : I am not aware that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he wants a referendum. He has not said that

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. This is a broad debate, but that seems to be stretching it far too wide. We shall debate referendums later, not now.

Mr. Robertson : I appreciate and respond instantly to your interpretation, Dame Janet.

I always welcome an intervention from the hon. Member for Stafford. I referred to him in the House Magazine this week, because the week before last I

Column 495

attended a Scottish Statutory Instruments Committee considering the Lanarkshire enterprise zone, believing that I had escaped the dreadful world of Maastricht. I was horrified to see the hon. Members for Stafford and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) sitting on the other side of the Committee. I thought that they were being permanently mobilised around the House of Commons to scare me, but I realised that they had to attend as a punishment.

I described them as the Hale and Pace of the Maastricht debates, not as a simple point of abuse but because I recall the famous Hale and Pace sketch, which I am sure hon. Members will remember vividly, in which they were acting the part of two cooks testing a microwave. At one point, to the horror of the watching audience, they took a cat and said, "The microwave is extremely useful for cooking cats : all you do is open the door, put the cat in, close the door and turn on the microwave. Here is one that we prepared earlier", and this frazzled object was put up to the audience of children and animal lovers, who were horrified by the low taste of the sketch. It seems that some Members on the other side of the argument continue to hold up the frazzled cat as an example of what would happen if Maastricht were ratified, just as they held up frazzled cats in the debate on the Single European Act

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I have had enough of frazzled cats.

Mr. Robertson : I now appreciate, Dame Janet, that to choose the day when the occupant of the Chair is a former president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Animals--[ Hon. Members :-- "Cruelty".]--for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was perhaps not a master stroke of timing.

The hon. Member for Stafford was in favour of the proposal and did not produce the frazzled cat on that occasion. However, horror stories are endlessly put about ; it would be better to concentrate on reality rather than the powers of imagination.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) rose --

Mr. Robertson : I know that my hon. Friend wants to intervene, but I must make progress. I am sure that he will find something to object to in the rest of my speech and I shall be glad to give way to him at that point.

The European Parliament is not popular in the House. It still does not command wide popularity in the country or the same voting enthusiasm as domestic parliamentary elections, but few people who watch Europe would doubt that the calibre of its membership has improved considerably and that its role and influence have increased and will inevitably become greater.

We dismiss, ignore or ridicule the European Parliament, its members and its powers at our peril. We must set about ensuring that the role of its Members is built into what we do here because the future of our country in Europe is not an issue on which we can afford to delude ourselves into thinking that our two institutions are separate, independent or distinct for the carrying out of the tasks before us.

I wish to ask the Minister of State to answer one question. Following the Maastricht decision, it was decided at Edinburgh to increase the number of European Parliament seats by six. The Government have still not

Column 496

said how the seats are to be created, although we have been told that a new Boundary Commission might have to be instituted for the purpose. That will require primary legislation. This afternoon, the Leader of the House was unable to answer my right hon. Friend the deputy leader of the Labour party, but I hope that the Minister of State, who is more intimately involved in these affairs, will be able to tell us when the urgent need--urgent for all political parties--will produce an answer as to when the primary legislation can be introduced.

Sir Russell Johnston : If the hon. Gentleman were faced with a proposition that the six seats were to be treated as added member seats, similar to the German electoral system, in order to correct the lack of proportionality in elections to the European Parliament, how would he react?

Mr. Robertson : The Government have already decided that the matter will be decided by a Boundary Commission and by an extension of the number of existing seats. The Labour party is currently engaged in a major study of electoral reform, and I do not want to pre-empt its findings. However, speaking personally, I believe that the worst way of introducing any type of electoral reform or proportional representation would be to say that the creation of six seats was to cause a major change to the British constitution merely because we did not have time to establish a Boundary Commission. There would be plenty of time if the Government would start now and then consider the future role for European Parliament seats when we are clear about what will happen.

The European Parliament gains some new and significant powers under the Maastricht treaty. Of course, that is despite animated opposition from the Government to any extension in European Parliament powers. In December 1991 the Foreign Secretary said :

"We are not persuaded by the case for adding again to the powers of the European Parliament".

However, it has new powers. It gains a new power of veto. The negative assent procedure is the Euro-jargon method of dodging the difficult word "veto", but, in certain restricted, although important, aspects of law making, a veto is exactly what the European Parliament will have.

That means that the European Parliament now has a total of five co-decision powers to influence policy in the Council of Ministers. All are complicated and dense and virtually all are incomprehensible, even to the Members of the European Parliament. The Maastricht treaty provides it with a new influence over the appointment of the European Commission, its President and its programme. There is a new right of citizens to petition the European Parliament, and the creation of an ombudsman to allow individuals to have Community maladministration investigated.

However, these powers are in no way sufficient to fill what is fashionably called the "democratic deficit". They in no way properly reflect the fact that there is more qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers-- and there is a big extension of qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers despite opposition from the Government.

In Glasgow in 1991 the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the Government were opposed to

"significantly extended qualified majority voting".

However, there have been 61 new extensions of qualified majority voting in the treaty signed at Maastricht. Decisions on laws are now taken and implemented without

Column 497

any further reference to the elected representatives of the people who will be affected by them. That has to be unacceptable and, at the 1996 intergovernmental conferences, the accountability of the Council to elected representatives must be high on the agenda.

The European Commission came out of the Maastricht process virtually unscathed. Despite the fact that it is unelected and has considerable power and influence, and despite the fact that there is growing concern at its monopoly on initiating legislation, its powers were scarcely trimmed and it was not made more accountable. In fact, having been given the new power to fix penalties for not complying with European Community laws and decisions, the Commission has been handed significant influence and control.

It will remain one of the ironies of contemporary European history that it was largely Lady Thatcher's enthusiasm for penalties and fines against Governments for non-compliance with Community laws which will now give the European Commission, which she so hated and loathed, the most remarkable new power to enforce Euro-policy.

Mr. Spearing : Is not that an example of the greater central powers which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) cited a moment ago? We already have a single market and a single Council determining what that market shall be. We have a prospective single currency, a prospective single bank and a commitment, if the Bill is passed, to a single foreign policy. How can my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) deny that that is the most extreme form of centralism?

Mr. Robertson : It is centralism only if the other institutions do not have the proper balance to allow the will of the people to be heard. We are creating new institutions where we believe them to be appropriate at a European level. There is nothing wrong with that. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has a deep interest in environmental policies. I am sure that he will agree that national policies alone on airborne pollution make no sense in the modern world. Laws relating to pollution, and air pollution in particular, must be made at a European level. The decision has been taken--

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) rose

Mr. Robertson : I shall answer my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and then I shall happily give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).

The decisions were taken, and we are now considering how Community institutions can be sufficiently strengthened to ensure that the will of the people is expressed in relation to what powers we, as a nation or group of nations, choose to concede at a European level. That is why so much of my speech, which has already gone on too long, has been devoted to the powers of the European Parliament. We cannot say that decisions have been ceded to the European level and, at the same time, say that we shall not give added power to the European Parliament--although the House has already given them away.

Mr. Shore : My hon. Friend is obviously ready to transfer to the upper tier of new authority being created in

Column 498

Europe virtually all the major powers of self government, and he justifies that on the grounds that there they will be taken at a more appropriate level. He cites the environment. If we are serious about the environment, we should look for a solution not at the western European half-continental level, but at the global level. Does my hon. Friend advocate our becoming part of a world government, part of an expanded United Nations? What would he say, for example, to the proposition that we should be better defended by a huge European army or a combined European defence force? Would he be happy to hand over our powers of self defence to such a body? Would he not prefer such arrangements to come under NATO rather than being taken away from us to be decided by a supranational law-making body?

6 pm

Mr. Robertson : I have been through all that before with my right hon. Friend. In the days when we used to agree, when we stood side by side in the internal battles in the Labour party of those times, we stood on defence and on protecting the cause of NATO, to which this country long ago voluntarily ceded one of the most important elements of sovereignty. Now, as ever, if there were an attack on one of the nation states in NATO the armed forces of all the nation states would automatically and immediately be put under an integrated military command. That is the principle--a principle which my right hon. Friend stood by, and one which we safeguarded within the Labour party at that time.

I believe, and I believe that my party believes, that we should cede sovereignty only where appropriate and relevant. That is what we have done in the past. Where sovereignty has been ceded, whether previously or now, we must ensure that we have created the democratic institutions in the Community that will give the people of Europe the right to say what the new laws will be.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) rose --

Mr. Robertson : I intend to finish my speech shortly, so, however tempting it may be to have a generalised debate, I shall resist the temptation. I see that my speech has already outlasted three different occupants of the Chair, and that serves as a reminder for me.

The debate on the institutions of the European Community is not simply about remote organisations loosely referred to as, and sometimes seen as, "Brussels". The institutions, their strengths, their representativeness, their openness and their closeness to the people of Europe will determine, by and large, whether the successful system of western European co- operation, from which this generation has benefited so much, will be sustained and will survive the new pressures facing Europe and the world.

The Foreign Secretary was right when he told the Financial Times that we needed a British blueprint for European Community reform, and that this country has been too negative and reactive, and not nearly constructive and positive enough, in what we say and do. The right hon. Gentleman was also right to say that as a result

"we are constantly being shifted by foreigners".

He is correct, even if his awakening to that fact is belated. The drawing up of that blueprint, that vision--the definition of British interests in Europe--must not be the business simply of the committee combining Foreign Office and Cabinet personnel that the Financial Times tells

Column 499

us has been set up. That task, which is so crucial to the future of this country, must include other political parties, and the House and its Committees.

One of the clearest and most depressing failures of the British role in Europe--here, we are markedly different from other partner states--is the Government's unwillingness to reach a national consensus at least on the objectives of Britain in Europe. We must look positively not only at what can be achieved at the European level--the whole of the European level--but at what the price of failure would be.

Today we face economic turmoil unprecedented in modern times, with soaring unemployment, deepening recession, destructive economic competition and beggar-my-neighbour attitudes all combining to leave the whip hand with the bankers and speculators. We also face a growing political crisis, which derives partly from the recessionary pressures, with political instability, vicious nationalism and pernicious forms of racism on the march. Those are formidable and immediate dangers for our continent. If we are ever tempted to ignore those perils and problems, we risk something quite horrible happening.

We must not underestimate what is happening in our continent and to our people today. That is why it is crucial that the creation and reinforcement of robust, democratic, popular institutions for European unity should remain the collective objective of all who care about the future of our continent.

Mr. Cash : The speech by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) showed a complete lack of observation and interest in what is really going on in the Committee. He made no serious attempt to tackle the real questions which lie at the heart of the provisions that we are supposed to be considering.

The hon. Gentleman blithely and absurdly referred to European institutions as if they are just another piece of paper that does not matter much. He says that the amendments are only probing amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech to say that Labour Members were posturing, but the hon. Gentleman's speech was not so much posturing as imposturing--an attempt merely to probe a matter which goes to the heart of the democracy of the House and of the relationship between the people of this country and their Government. The hon. Member for Hamilton and many of his colleagues make no serious attempt to investigate the basis on which the charade of the Maastricht treaty and the Bill has been constructed, or the deception that lies at its heart.

What is really taking place is a deliberate attempt to drain away the real powers of the House. Attempts--albeit fairly modest--have been made to sustain the overall thrust of a move towards a unitary state, as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said earlier : towards the creation of a European union and the construction of all the framework necessary to achieve that objective.

Mr. Garel-Jones : My hon. Friend has postured pretty effectively throughout the Committee's proceedings on the reasons why he felt able to support the Single European Act. Can he posture a little further and explain to the Committee precisely in which respects the group of

Column 500

amendments under consideration breaks new ground that was not broken by the Single European Act, which he supported?

Mr. Cash : The simple answer is, because this is a gravitational pull, which is moving the whole process from the basis of the Single European Act, which was a perfectly reasonable basis to start from, into a relationship which has been materially changed by the provisions on economic and monetary union, especially those connected with stage 2. The Minister understands that perfectly well, as he has been a party to it throughout.

The Minister appeared before the Select Committee on European Legislation the other day. As will be seen from the transcript of the Committee's proceedings, he went to considerable lengths to attempt to divert attention from the provisions of stage 2 on economic and monetary union. He did so because he knows that they are having a profound impact not only in their gravitational pull but in cutting the umbilical cord through the creation of a European Monetary Institute, which in turn will require the Governor of the Bank of England neither to seek nor to take instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House, and thereby from the people of this country--the people who put us all into our positions as Members of Parliament, and put the Government into power. If the Minister does not think that those provisions go beyond gravitational pull and actually create a completely new dimension, I should like to know what his answer would be.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I should like my hon. Friend to address himself to the question that I put to him. As he now seems to be alleging that the Maastricht treaty is the greatest constitutional outrage, theft and deception in his political lifetime and in mine, and as he voted for the Single European Act, in respect of which there was a timetable motion, may I ask at what point it became apparent to him that the gravitational force to which he refers was pulling him in the wrong direction? Was it just after he voted for the Single European Act, or when he fought the last election

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. This is all very well, but we really ought to get back to the powers of the European Communities.

Mr. Cash : I am always very glad to observe a Minister receiving a rebuke from the Chair. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has retained his sense of humour, which was evidenced by his question. The Single European Act is quite different from these provisions. There is a huge difference between what is provided for in the Act that we passed in 1986 and the enormous changes resulting from this treaty's impact on our democratic rights--not only the rights of Parliament but the rights of the country as a whole.

The provisions with which we are dealing commence primarily with the European Parliament. Following what my right hon. Friend the Minister said a moment ago, I should like to make a point about the way in which the powers being granted by this treaty to the European Parliament dovetail with the arrangements under article 138a, which says :

"Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union."

Column 501

Contrary to what the Minister of State has just said--as if this were a matter of no interest or consequence to anybody--what we have here represents a complete change from the Single European Act. The fact that we are dealing with political parties at European level--something to be regarded as a factor for integration--is a completely new dimension.

Let us consider for a moment the status of the European People's party in the European Parliament. That party's constitution is unashamedly and avowedly federal. Its objective is a united states of Europe. It has no doubt that that is the direction in which it wants to go.

Mr. Hoon : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cash : I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he knows a good deal about the EPP.

Mr. Hoon : As the hon. Gentleman was referring to the European People's party, it occurred to me that, since the Conservative party has joined the EPP, it is likely that he will be a member of that organisation.

Mr. Cash : I am delighted to be able to respond to that point. Indeed, I was just about to give my reasons for wanting to have nothing to do with the EPP. In fact, I do not want my party to be directly associated with any such organisation. The avowed objective of the EPP is a federal and/or unitary Europe. Furthermore, it is tied to the Christian Democrats, which has many policies quite at variance with those upon which we, as Conservatives, expect to represent our constituents.

It caused me considerable concern to note that the application for membership of the European People's party--the letter that was written about a year and a half ago by the then chairman of the Conservative party, Christopher Patten, with the full consent of the Prime Minister--was couched in terms making it quite clear that a marriage was taking place. These vestal virgins had been taken to the altar, and had consummated a marriage with the European People's party. Surprise, surprise--the EPP's press release came out in the middle of our general election, lest anyone should notice what was going on. Thus Conservative MEPs are in a rather difficult situation. They constitute a political party operating at European level. This is indeed important as a factor for integration into the union. They are pursuing a policy--apparently endorsed by the Government : something that I find it very difficult to understand and hope may yet be unravelled--that amounts to support not only for integration and European union, as described in article 138a, but for the whole concept of a united states of Europe. In fact, some of the documentation goes even further by saying that the European union would be a state with all the characteristics of sovereignty. I view these developments with considerable concern, and I regard the Minister's remarks of a few moments ago as quite extraordinary.

Mr. Knapman : If the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is right in suggesting that federalism is decentralising, would it be a good idea to substitute federal union for even closer union? I thought that we had spent a great deal of time trying to get rid of federalism and introduce even closer union. We seem to be in a muddle in this matter.

Column 502

6.15 pm

Mr. Cash : Indeed we are in a muddle--some less so than others. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Only a few weeks ago, Mr. Bangemann said that we ought to face up to the fact that we were moving into a federal system. In every European capital, one finds a perfectly straightforward and honest position. People in European capitals, like people in the institutions of the European Communities, say that they want and intend to achieve a united states of Europe, with a federal and/or unitary system. At least they have the honesty to admit that that is what is going on. I cannot understand why people in this country do not say the same thing. There are, of course, exceptions, like myself, who have every intention of resisting this all the way down the line.

Sir Russell Johnston : The hon. Gentleman is always courteous, and is normally very clear, even if one disagrees with what he says. He said a moment ago that he is against muddle. That being the case, will he please stop using the words "federal and/or unitary". He has now used them twice. A system could be federal or unitary, but not federal and unitary. The two concepts are fundamentally different.

Mr. Cash : As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gentle rebuke. However, I chose my words carefully. It is almost impossible to give a precise definition of any one federal system. The division of the functions, powers and duties that are transferred upwards and downwards, particularly having regard to the concept of subsidiarity--which we shall discuss later--creates the very confusion and contradiction to which I am referring. The problem was not created by me ; it is inherent in the way in which the whole package has been put together.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : It is interesting that the remarks of Martin Bangemann, a vice-president of the Commission, have not been the subject of any controversy outside Britain. None of his colleagues, and no one in Germany, has said that he is wrong. He is saying out loud what others, for obvious diplomatic reasons relating to Britain, are reluctant to say. We should therefore be grateful to Martin Bangemann for warning us about what is involved in this treaty, which is why many of us are quite determined to vote against it at every opportunity.

Mr. Cash : I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The resolution passed by the Bundestag uses the word "federal" as the basis on which it is intended that the Maastricht process should be construed. A similar position arises on the other aspects of the argument.

Dr. Godman : We are discussing the powers of the European Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the powers of that Parliament should be enhanced, diminished or left as they are? Is it not the case that the Members of the European Parliament, when given additional powers under the treaty, will not remain satisfied with those enhanced powers? They will want more and more, which makes good sense from their point of view.

Mr. Cash : I am sure that it makes good sense from their point of view. The real question is whether it makes good sense in terms of the European Community. I re-endorse my enthusiasm for the European Community as it stands.

Column 503

My concern is that the entire treaty is about improving--or, as the treaty puts it, enhancing--federalism throughout the Community. The treaty seeks to turn what is basically a trading arrangement combined with political co-operation, which I can accept, into an arrangement that is based on a massive increase in the transfer of governmental power. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the European Community to pretend that we can increase the powers of the European Parliament in the ways that are intended. That is practising a deception on the people of Europe.

We should be creating an enhanced power for the national Parliaments and improving the quality of scrutiny of European legislation in a way that truly reflects the relationship between the voters and the Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who, like me, was a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, knows that perfectly well. The Minister is accountable to the voters and to Members of Parliament as a whole, and thence to the Council of Ministers. To produce an increase in the powers of the European Parliament, which will not work, is practising a deception on the people of Europe. Indeed, such an increase will make even greater the problems that we shall face as Europe falls into greater turmoil, when economic and monetary union and all the other aspirations are seen to have collapsed.

The treaty is perpetrating a fraud on the people of Europe. There is a pretence that the increased powers will fill the democratic deficit ; they will not.

Mr. Richard Shepherd : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a pantomime, which seeks to give the illusion that there is a democratic element in the treaty. The very word "Parliament" creates that illusion. The European Parliament has no legislative or other powers of any substance. The deceit of the institutional arrangement is to pretend that there is a democratic input into the European Community. Maastricht does not fulfil that function.

Mr. Cash : There is a role for Members of the European Parliament--I do not deny that--but that role has already been defined, in terms that keep it under some control. The problem is that, under the new arrangements in the treaty, the position will become significantly worse. The centralisation of the process of economic and monetary union is taking away from the voters the power to determine their monetary affairs. The decision -making on the raising of revenue and the dispensing of public expenditure, which will cascade all the way down from the decisions taken by the unelected, unaccountable bank, is directly contrary to the interests of the voters, who will not have the compensation of knowing that they will be properly represented in the European Parliament.

The voters in this country will be properly represented in this Parliament only if we ensure that the centralising arrangements, and economic and monetary union, do not come about. Once we can see that economic and monetary union is to take place, we shall put a lance through the heart of the democracy of this country and deprive the voters of the opportunity to exercise a meaningful choice when they freely elect the people who decide these matters in the House, as Ministers, on behalf of the electorate.

Mr. Hoon : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because, for the first time in these debates, I almost agree with him. If the solution in terms of the centralising

Column 504

tendencies is to provide more democratic control over the institution, which is what the hon. Gentleman is saying, is it not right to enhance the powers of the European Parliament, working in conjunction with national parliamentarians? The solution is not to criticise the very modest changes proposed in the Maastricht treaty which would enhance the ability of the European Parliament to control the activities of the European Commission, but to work more closely with the democratic elements in the Community.

Mr. Cash : I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure six years ago, when I said that I thought that there was a case for more contact between Members of the European Parliament and Members of this Parliament. That point was entirely without prejudice to what additional powers the European Parliament might get. Contact, yes ; increased powers, no. The changes wrought by the treaty will create a completely new dimension.

The creation of the unelected and unaccountable bank poses a serious problem for the effectiveness of the individual voters of this country and for their freedom to exercise their choice. The institutional problems are also tied up with the question of subsidiarity.

Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the essence of democracy is accountability? Each Member of the European Parliament is to represent 500,000 people. If we eventually have a far wider Europe of some 35 countries, as some of us wish, each Member will have to represent 1 million electors. Can we believe that those who seek to represent 500,000 people can do so in full justification? Will they make themselves accountable?

I find it difficult to represent 70,000 people and to be accountable to that number. To be accountable to 500,000 people is a sheer impossibility. There is the added danger that, in seeking to represent that 500,000, one would tend to meet only those who had most influence and power in the constituency, and such people would be manifestly unrepresentative of the whole.

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. Interventions are becoming longer, and are becoming not mini-speeches but minor speeches. All hon. Members should take note of the fact that interventions are meant to be brief.

Mr. Cash : I very much agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). When people come to see us at our surgeries, there is direct contact which is immensely important to our constituents. With the best will in the world, it is impossible for Members of the European Parliament to perform a similar function.

There is a further problem about scale, as my hon. Friend rightly said. The remoteness of people from Parliament will be a massive problem. It is utterly irresponsible of those who advocate the new arrangements to duck the question, not to take part in these debates and to attempt to obfuscate and to camouflage what is really going on. When the central banking arrangement for the whole of Europe comes into effect, it will affect the voters, and there will have been no compensation, for good reasons, in terms of an increase in the powers of the European Parliament.

These powers, important though they are, would not go anything like far enough for those who advocate a federal

Column 505

system. Therefore, the democratic deficit would be increased, but the amount of power that would be centralised and the lack of decision making by the voter in general elections would be enhanced.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Is not the size argument really nonsense? As things stand, it is not possible in this country for one hon. Member to deal with a constituency of 70,000 people and the problems they have ; it operates only if there is some devolved system and some other involvement. Similarly, on a wider level, it is possible to have a much larger constituency, because, again, there should be devolved organisation for representing them. 6.30 pm

Mr. Cash : I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says on that point. To go down the path of devolution would be straying outside the ambit of this debate.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) rose --

Next Section

Home Page