House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 May 1993

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : This disastrous Bill is based on a treaty which can only do immense harm to Britain and the other countries of the Community. Even if the treaty did not contain the most rigid monetarist policies, I would remain totally opposed to it. My hon. Friends who are in favour of the treaty vote on every occasion against the monetarist policies of the Government, but they hide from themselves what I shall

Column 438

later describe in detail--the monetarist policies that will undoubtedly cause tremendous suffering to many people in our country.

However much I oppose the policies of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), I have some admiration for him over this matter. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) spoke about the right hon. Gentleman's foolish remarks on Sunday about Tory critics, but at least I admire the fact that he makes no secret of his desire for a federalist, centralist Europe and, moreover, that he sees the treaty as a basis for that. However, I cannot admire those Ministers who pretend that the treaty has no such significance. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup makes his views absolutely clear at every opportunity and looks upon the United States as a federal model for Europe. I wish that Ministers were as frank about the matter as the right hon. Gentleman.

The treaty is quite clear. It provides for economic and monetary union, although I accept that that will not happen immediately, a single currency, and a common defence and foreign policy--all of that leading in time to a single state. Euro-enthusiasts who believe that such a Europe is desirable will vote for the treaty. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is nodding, holds that view, but those who do not share his enthusiasm are, I believe, in the majority.

At 10 o'clock there will be a large majority for Third Reading, and that majority will be made even bigger by the fact that my party intends to abstain. However, that vote will not accurately and fairly reflect the views of the House. If there was a free vote the treaty might still receive a majority, but it would be narrow and it is likely that the Bill would be defeated. Therefore, I do not see the vote at 10 o'clock as reflecting the House's view on the treaty. It is unfortunate that there will not be a free vote.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) made a good maiden speech, and like him I do not think that we have any mandate to give up large chunks of economic and political sovereignty to the European central bank and other Community institutions. We were not elected to do that. The Government say that the treaty was mentioned at the last election, but the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is critical of the measure and of many other aspects of the European Community, said that in his borough his colleague here who represents a different view entirely got the same percentage of the vote. Therefore, how can it be argued that at the last election any of us received a mandate to give up so much of our economic and political sovereignty?

There will not be a referendum, but not for all the reasons that have been given by Front-Bench spokesmen. It will be because there is a feeling, I hope justified, that it would not produce a majority in favour of the treaty. That is why Britain, unlike other countries such as Denmark, will not have a referendum.

I do not challenge the fact that in future the House will be able to debate, as it has debated over the centuries, all the issues. The difference will be that crucial decisions for our country will no longer be taken in the House but elsewhere. Those who think that that is desirable may see it as another reason for supporting the treaty. When debating this measure I am reminded of how, at the very end of the 18th century, the then Irish House of Commons voted for union with Britain. Every sort of

Column 439

bribe and promise was used to get a majority of 46 for the measure. A leading opponent of the union, Henry Gratton, said at the time : "The constitution may, for a time, be lost, the character of the country cannot be so lost."

How right he proved to be, and how disastrous that union was. The fight for Britain to retain its national sovereignty will continue, irrespective of tonight's majority and the passing of the Bill by the Lords. Those of us who hold the view that I have expressed will not give up our belief that the House has a right, a duty and an obligation to the people to carry on as we have done throughout the centuries to ensure that the important and crucial decisions affecting our country are taken in this House.

Like our predecessors on the Opposition Benches, I have always passionately believed that countries governed by Britain should have their independence. I argued for that and our predecessors argued for it even more strongly. That attitude was unpopular and at times Conservative Members accused Labour Members of speaking for every country but our own. If, like our Opposition predecessors, I believe so strongly and passionately that other countries should have had their national independence, how can I take any other view about my own country? We should retain our important national independence. It is not only a question of national sovereignty because article 104C of the treaty, for example, sets out the monetarist policies that I have mentioned. Governments will be expected to comply with measures such as a deficit of no more than 3 per cent. of GDP. That percentage is contained in a protocol. Bearing in mind the present deficit, reaching that 3 per cent. would mean a cut in public spending of about £33 billion-- virtually the amount that is currently being spent on the national health service. What possible justification could there be for pursuing such a policy?

A Conservative Government use every excuse to cut public spending. They do not need excuses, but would use the treaty by saying that they were trying to achieve convergence. A Labour Government, moreover, would be imprisoned by such policies. When they wanted to promote employment and training and spend money on our welfare services, they would be told time and again that they could not do so, that there was a limit in the treaty to the deficit. They would have to go to Brussels to explain, justify and grovel.

Do those of my hon. Friends who favour the treaty want such measures? That is why, apart from anything else, the treaty is wrong. It is deflationary. The Community has 17 million unemployed. Does anyone imagine that the treaty will deal with the problem? It can only make it worse. It embodies all the rigid, monetarist, deflationary policies which are so wrong and which the Labour party has opposed on so many occasions.

The treaty is disastrous. I find it difficult to understand how the Labour shadow Cabinet decided that our party should abstain tonight. We should vote against the Bill. I hope that at 10 o'clock, together with those Conservative Members who oppose the treaty, there will be many Labour Members in the "No" Lobby. However small the minority, it will more greatly reflect the opinion of the country than the majority that the Government will undoubtedly achieve.

Column 440

8 pm

Sir George Gardiner (Reigate) : I join in the congratulations that have been heaped upon my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North- East (Mr. Butler), who has now left the Chamber to take some well-deserved refreshment. He made a charming, witting and most informative maiden speech. He began by almost teasing himself for having left it for so long. He has shown that that is our loss, not his. Of course, there was once a newly elected Member called Margaret Thatcher who took 18 months to make her maiden speech--after that she never stopped. Whether or not my hon. Friend follows in her footsteps, he will be able to look back with some pride on his maiden speech tonight.

I have always been a strong advocate of our membership of the European Community. I was a founder member of the Conservative Group for Europe. I warmly supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when he took us into the Common Market, as it was then called. During the referendum I campaigned vigorously for a yes vote. I supported the Single European Act. Indeed, I have no regrets.

However, I cannot accept the Maastricht treaty, or the Bill that would give it effect in our domestic law. Support for the single market and for joint action on such shared concerns as protection of the environment is one thing ; support for the centralising tendencies and loss of democratic control embodied in this Bill is quite another. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spells out his view of the sort of Europe that he wants, I have no difficulty agreeing with him. The problem comes when I try to match those worthy ambitions with the contents of the treaty. I am afraid that the two do not match.

I listened to most of the debates during the Committee stage of the Bill, and what a revelation they were. The concept of subsidiarity has not lived up to the claims made for it and it still has no precise legal definition. The dice are loaded against any member state taking a case to the European Court when it is in dispute with the Commission over the application of subsidiarity. We heard all the arguments, and there will be more, about the social chapter, yet it has been shown that our voluntary exclusion can be got round by other means by a majority of member states--possibly by using articles 1 and 2 in conjunction with article 118a of the treaty of Rome. Whether or not they want it, we are conferring on the Queen's subjects a European citizenship with rights and duties, yet no one has been able to say precisely what those rights and duties will be. We have the opportunity to opt out of a single currency, but I foresee that when we come to make that decision we will be subjected to exactly the same arguments as those which we have heared during our debates on the Bill.

I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in whatever capacity he might then hold, will say that if we do not embrace a single currency international investment will flood away. We will be warned of the dangers of setting ourselves aside from other states in Europe. There is no opt-out from the obligations to achieve monetary union, in particular the obligations of stage 2, which begins next January. By slow degrees, the British people, through the British Parliament, will lose control of our economic policy.

Column 441

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently made some comments, which I welcome, about our obligation to rejoin the ERM. I think that he is underestimating the pressure under which he will come from the rest of Europe for Britain to rejoin the ERM during stage 2.

With such far-reaching implications, the Government are most unwise--I put it no stronger--to proceed to ratification without granting any say to the British people. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup signed up Britain to the treaty of Rome, he at least believed--he had good cause for doing so--that he had the full-hearted consent of the British people. That was subsequently challenged by the Labour party and a referendum was held, which showed beyond any shadow of doubt that continued membership had our full-hearted consent.

I challenge any Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and assert that the Government have the full-hearted consent of the British people to ratify the Maastricht treaty of union. They will not do that, because they cannot do it. It was never an issue in the general election and it has never been put to the British people. Ratification by the United Kingdom has no democratic legitimacy. As the debate has proceeded, deep wounds have been inflicted on the unity of my party, both in the House and in the country. It has given me no joy to vote in the opposite Lobby to respected hon. Friends on what I judge to be an issue of principle. I very much hope that, after tonight, we can begin to heal the wounds. I have said previously that there must be life in the Tory party after Maastricht and we have many other important things to do.

However, for that to happen there must be mutual respect between those who have taken, and will continue to take, different views on a matter of such deeply held principle. There must be no talk of hatred for the rest of our lives. The argument over Maastricht will continue, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, until such time as ratification acquires some domestic legitimacy.

I fear for the future--not just for this country, but for the 12 nation states that are bound together in the Community--as democratic power is slowly shifted from national Parliaments to Community institutions. That shift of power will start next year when we enter stage 2 of monetary and, in consequence, political union. I can foresee the time when I, as a Member of Parliament, receive submissions from, for example, my local chamber of commerce. It will say, "Sir George, we believe that interest rates are too high for the efficient conduct of our business. Will you undertake to press the Chancellor to bring them down?" I will reply, "Yes, interest rates are too high, but I am afraid that there is nothing I can do to help you. You see, under the Maastricht treaty, power and decision over interest rates effectively lies with the unelected members of the European central bank."

"But surely," they will say "you can at least ask the Chancellor to press the case for British business." I will have to reply, "No, because even if I did, the Maastricht treaty prevents him from offering advice to those unelected bankers. They are cocooned against such advice and pressures. Nor is it any use going to your MEP, because he is not allowed to make representations on your behalf, either.

Column 442

Then, I am sure, my constituents will look at me with incredulity and say, "But don't we live in a democracy? When were we consulted about whether we wanted to surrender this influence over our own future?" I shall have to say, "No, you weren't consulted. The powers have been signed away and we can never get them back." I have to warn the Government that when that comes to be generally recognised, the backlash will be terrible to behold.

I have three adult children and no grandchildren as yet, but when I have, never will they be able to come to me and say, "Grandpa, why did you vote to make the House of Commons irrelevant?" That is why I shall vote against the Bill.

8.10 pm

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : The House of Commons has a basic function to fulfil and that is not only to represent the views of the people who vote for us, but to tell those same people what is being done in their name by elected Governments.

I have been here a long time now and I have learnt to appreciate that, whatever the difficulties of this institution, it fulfils precisely that role. It is the link with the constituencies and the direct ability of our electorate to tell us their views which gives us our strength when we speak in the Chamber of the House of Commons. It is our commitment to protect their interest which gives us a legitimacy. Therefore, I shall vote against the Bill tonight because it is profoundly anti-democratic.

I have listened carefully throughout the debate. I have listened to those far more informed than I, including former Treasury Ministers such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), putting forward cast-iron arguments about the movement of control of our economy from Westminster to an unelected group of officials in Brussels.

I have listened to those who understand better perhaps than I do the finer points of constitutional law, and I have tried to understand how it can be that the House of Commons, which for so l done in this Chamber and at this time, because it is such a wide-ranging change in our law.

Many people outside the Chamber do not understand constitutional law. Why should they? But they understand the connection between the gathering of taxes and the spending of taxes. That is so basic that they make their views known. It is frequently the basis on which they decide their votes in a general election. Yet here we are, as protectors of that fundamental right, being cheerfully prepared to hand it over without making it clear to the people who have put us here what we are doing.

One of the saddest things for me throughout the debate was to sit here and to regard our free press, noticeable by its absence, listening to Members of Parliament putting forward detailed arguments, knowing that they were, in effect, talking to a limited number of people.

We have been told by Ministers, even, I am sorry to say, by the Opposition Front Bench, "Don't worry about this legislation. It really isn't terribly important. After all, a lot of countries that signed up to the treaty didn't really mean

Column 443

it. There has been a change in the Government. There has been a change in the economic situation. All will be well if you just have trust in letting the legislation go through."

I am not the youngest Member of this Parliament, and I am too long in the tooth to believe that any legislation should be allowed on to the statute book on the assumption that it will not count. Every bit of legislation counts. Legislation that takes powers from the House of Commons anywhere else counts more than any other.

After all, we are dealing with our economic control. How can members of my own party support loss of control over their own planning rights? How can those of us who care about the national health service, education, and housing, let decisions on those be taken by others elsewhere, over whom we have no control? "Don't worry," we are told in that pseudo-English that is the protector of those who wish to confuse rather than illuminate any argument, "we will correct the democratic deficit." By that they mean that they will transfer even more powers to even more people who will have the right to initiate legislation that we shall not have the right to correct. The refusal of members of both Front Benches openly to debate the rights and wrongs of the legislation is, at the very best, unhelpful, and at worst, demeaning. There has been no correct exercise of our responsibility. Many women outside the Chamber say to me, "I don't know about politics." But they know what politics does to their families. They know what legislation means in terms of taxation, and they know that if they are taxed wrongly, if their views are not taken into account, and if the obvious legislators who should be voicing their opinions are not doing so, others will begin to take direct action. That is what I fear most.

The House of Commons developed because people believed that they had a right to say how their money should be spent, how their votes should be cast, how their Government should behave and how their future should be planned. I do not see anyone, on either Front Bench, telling my people in future, "You will be the citizen of a union--a union that you did not pick, a union that you were not asked about, a union to which you will have responsibilities that no one has even spelt out." To me, that is a most dangerous thing.

I do have grandchildren. I have six. They are being brought up to speak several languages and I find it sad, because language has always been my only facility--I had a father who said that I was frightened of stopping talking somewhere--to hear people in the House of Commons decide that those of us who oppose this legislation are little Englanders. With a Welsh father and a half-Irish and half-Norfolk mother, I find that description difficult to understand.

But I am a proud member of the United Kingdom, which is a free association of four different nations which work, live, argue, fight, support and are taxed and represented here within these islands. They are my concern. My party has served them ill and I shall vote tonight feeling firmly that the future of democracy is not served by those who impose political structures from above.

People decide what political structures they want, people create Parliaments, people demand rights and cast their votes, and we are tonight underplaying their interest and serving them very badly. I am ashamed of the role of the House of Commons.

Column 444

8.19 pm

Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East) : The only notable contribution that I have made to the Maastricht debate so far was to support the Government in a crucial Division in my pyjamas. I could have remained downstairs in the ambulance and have been nodded through on that occasion in March, but I made that effort--which was quite painful--to demonstrate support for the achievements for Britain of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at Maastricht and for their vision of the Europe of the future. In common with my right hon. Friends, I want to see a decentralised, less bureaucratic and widening Community that will embrace EFTA and the new democracies, and a successful and expanding single market without a premature commitment to a single currency. I suspect that many of those who intend to vote against the Government tonight want the same--my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) confirmed that.

The judgment the House must make tonight is whether those objectives are more likely to be achieved with Britain remaining at the centre of the Community by ratifying the treaty or by Britain abandoning the principles of co-operation and compromise that brought us here tonight. I well understand the fears of some of my constituents at the possible consequences for Britain of the treaty. Much of its terminology is unfortunate ; it is misleading ; and it is certainly open to much misinterpretation. There are also fears that it is all irreversible if we sign.

There is nothing that the House cannot change if a majority of right hon. and hon. Members believe it to be in Britain's interest to do so--although I appreciate that not every right hon. and hon. Member will agree with that statement.

Much of the treaty is based on a bygone age. It was negotiated when the Soviet Union was in being, and agreed before the recession really hit Europe and the full consequences of German reunification were realised. It represented a negotiated compromise, but it has kept the Community together. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the opt- outs that he achieved, for Britain the treaty is more symbolic than of substance.

We remain a leading and influential partner in the European Economic Community, and British business has been calling for that. My local Dorset chamber for industry and commerce regards that as essential for jobs and prosperity in our county. It wants an end to all remaining barriers to trade in the single market, with fairer competition. It wants the earliest- possible harmonisation of value added tax and duties.

In my constituency, tourism is the main provider of jobs. Hoteliers complain that VAT on tourism-related items in France and other Community countries is nearly three times lower than in Britain, and that is unfair competition for them. Off-licences, tobacconists and small corner shops complain that they will be put out of business by imports of duty-free goods from across the channel, and I hope that that situation will not continue to be ignored. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is listening.

The principal reason that I want a ratified treaty to be put behind us is that we should seek with all possible speed a wider Europe, as opposed to a deeper, federal Community. As some of my hon. Friends know, I am greatly involved in bringing the new democracies into full

Column 445

membership of the Council of Europe, as chairman of its Committee for Relations with European Non-Member States. In Strasbourg last week, we welcomed the accession of Slovenia, Lithuania and Estonia, and we anticipate the membership next September of Romania and Latvia. We are currently considering the applications of nine more newly democratising countries.

My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Tebbit was exactly right in March to warn against a new iron curtain between the rich post-Maastricht Community and the poorer democracies. But where he is wrong is that successfully to accommodate the wider Europe without compromising all that the Community has achieved to date requires it to be kept together by ratifying Maastricht now.

Thanks to the initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before and during the British presidency, that process is already under way, with negotiations with some EFTA countries and association agreements with some new democracies. I am particularly encouraged that talks have begun between the Community and Russia about a free trade zone. It will be a close-run thing as to whether the Russian federation follows the break-up of the Soviet Union. Every one of the new democracies expects to join the European Community one day. For them, a Community in which Britain does not have a central role because it did not sign the treaty is inconceivable. It would be a disaster for them, as it would be for democracy, human rights, and all for which we stood alone against Hitler in 1940. Since the last war, five pan-European institutions have been established with different roles and differing memberships to encourage peace and co-operation. If we were to start from scratch today, probably the Conference on Security and Co- operation in Europe would be the only organisation closest to that required to promote security, trade, democracy and human rights throughout the continent.

Instead, the Maastricht treaty paves the way to greater unity and security with the Community as the core, and a common foreign and defence policy as the means--as Churchill and others foresaw--to guarantee peace in Europe. Without British membership and influence, that wider, more secure Europe is less likely to be achieved. As none of my hon. Friends who oppose Maastricht has produced any credible constructive role for Britain, I have no hesitation supporting the Government tonight.

Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. We have about 40 minutes before the wind-up speeches. I make a plea for five minute contributions. Mr. George Howarth.

8.26 pm

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : It is just a year since this process started, with the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to ratify the Maastricht treaty. I spoke on that occasion, but not at subsequent stages. As a result, I have much to say, but as I am conscious of the number of my hon. Friends who want to contribute, I shall be brief.

Column 446

My problem with the treaty and with the Bill is that I consider myself to be pro-European, but honour-bound to oppose the treaty. If that sounds inconsistent, I shall explain why I hold those conflicting views. I believe that Britain's future is in Europe--there is no alternative, and I can conceive of no circumstances in which, in this day and age, we would want to withdraw from the Community. However, it does not necessarily follow that one must support the treaty because there is nothing to take its place. That was the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson).

All the strong arguments in favour of the treaty hinge on an enormous lapse of logic. Even the Foreign Secretary and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee produced excellent examples of that today. They do not say, "This section of the treaty is so good, and the whole process of economic and monetary union is so sound, that you must support them." Instead, they say, "These things will never happen. They are all there in the treaty, but you must support it because there is nothing to take its place--but because those things will never happen, it will not hurt you to vote for the treaty."

I accept that it is not explicitly stated in the treaty that its purpose is to create a federal Europe. However, all the apparatus for that--or architecture, as the Foreign Secretary would probably more eloquently describe it--is present.

The Foreign Secretary would perhaps refer more elegantly to the architecture of a federal Europe. There is the whole drive towards economic and monetary union ; there is the central bank ; there is the move towards a single currency ; and there is the attempt to recreate the institutions in a more federalist mode.

But we are told that these things will never happen. I find that a very difficult proposition to swallow. As a realist, however, I accept--with a heavy heart, as I am not one of the Labour party's natural rebels--that I must vote against the Third Reading. I accept that the current mathematics of the House of Commons means that the Bill will receive its Third Reading. Unlike other hon. Members, I do not think it likely that the measure will be significantly amended in another place. Indeed, any amendments at all are unlikely to originate there. Unless something inconceivable happens, the Bill is likely to end up on the statute book.

Given that, without the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself or of several Conservative Members, the measure will pass into law, there is an important function ahead for its opponents, especially my colleagues who will abstain tonight. Some of the central problems of Europe will have to be addressed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to a document. I realise that several of my hon. Friends have not seen it, as it is going through a particular process. The document is about prosperity through co-operation and a new European future, and its headings sketch out the important features that must be considered--the extension of equality rights in a people's Europe, the lifting of the burden of the common agricultural policy, consumer rights, and democratisation of the Community. There is an excellent section about a wider Europe. Those are the issues that must be addressed.

This treaty is not the answer, but I hope that people--particularly members of my party--will ensure that the excellent objectives that we have set for ourselves will have flesh put on them. At present, there is a real fear that

Column 447

Europe is moving in a direction that does not have the wholehearted support of its peoples. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the backlash against such movement could be horrendous. 8.32 pm

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : The only thing that this hour proves is that Privy Councillors are not always given the preference that other Members believe they receive.

Like many people, I am delighted that we have reached the Third Reading, and I hope that the Bill will be passed by the largest possible majority. The legislation sets out a formula by which the European Community can advance positively. Forty-five years ago, in the late spring of 1948, the first branch of United Europe was formed at Oxford. Among the people supporting that organisation with me were Peter Kirk, Sir Edward Boyle, Jeremy Thorpe and someone known as Richard de Taverne, better known to us as Dick Taverne, a previous Member for Lincoln.

I cannot understand the little Englanders, on either side of the House, who perceive Britain's playing little part in Europe but want and expect to be able to gain everything possible from the trading benefits that the European Community may provide. If they think that we shall benefit without playing our part, they might as well believe that Mitterand is a German in disguise.

As a member of the North Atlantic Assembly, I should be in Berlin at the moment. However, I remained here to speak and vote in this debate. As the treasurer of the new parliamentary assembly of the Conference on Co- operation and Security in Europe, I am in contact with many members of the parliaments of all the EC member states. Those people--perhaps not the French and the Germans, though even the Germans to some extent--have often asked me why Britain is not playing a more major role in the European Community. They appreciate the role played and the leadership given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister while he was chairman of the Council of Ministers and at the Edinburgh summit. Perhaps those in Britain who criticise the Prime Minister's leadership should listen to the admiration expressed by members of the parliaments of other countries.

I want to speak about two financial matters and one other topic. It appears to me that there are merchants of gloom who reject the appeals and the statements of many people, especially the President of the Board of Trade, who clearly show that, with Britain playing its full part in the European Community, we shall be massively attractive from the point of view of enticing foreign investment to these shores.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lindsey, East (Sir P. Tapsell) has expressed the fear that Japanese investment could well be discouraged--even withdrawn --if we continue with Maastricht or let Maastricht overcome our thinking. My experience is exactly the opposite. As a director of an Anglo-Japanese company in this country, I have many Japanese connections here and in Japan. I can say absolutely that my entire experience of those people is that they are interested in Britain because Britain is playing a major role in Europe. [Interruption.] I do not mind what other people say, and I believe that people with first-rate experience in this field ought to be listened to.

Foreign investment here has other benefits. It brings business people, and often their families, on visits to this

Column 448

country ; it encourages interest in British goods ; it facilitates contacts which, if properly used, can stimulate trade abroad. The Prime Minister is correct in his view that it will be impossible for us to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism unless its inadequacies are corrected. However, anyone who is associated with exporting or importing, with international commerce, must understand and advocate the benefit of knowing of the stability of exchange rates in the context of the currency in which he has to conduct his business. The exchange rate variations that we have seen over the past few years cannot necessarily be covered or insured against affordably.

To those who advocate complete freedom in the open market in foreign exchange I say carefully and concisely that they are friends of the international speculator. It is ethically wrong and morally indefensible that a few international speculators are able to make massive multi- fortunes at the expense of ruin for a nation's currency. That type of outmoded free market is indefensible, and we must find a way to limit it.

Is that possible? I believe that it is. The most entrepreneurial market in the world--the American stock exchange--has stop controls which ensure that, if the market moves more than 50 points in either direction, it closes down. That also applies to a number of the commodity markets. I urge the Government, particularly finance Ministers, to get together with G7-- not just our European colleagues, as we need Japanese and American co- operation as well--to consider the structure of foreign currency rates, which should be reviewed to a much greater extent than they ever were in the ERM.

When that structure is set, should there be movement above a prescribed and agreed level the settlement date ought to be put back for between seven and 10 days. That would stop the speculators and short term-borrowing. It would go a very long way towards ensuring that foreign currency rate variations were avoided. It would also mean that the speculators would be unable to ruin a currency. Subsidiarity--that ghastly word--will ensure that power is not passed to the Commission, but remains the absolute right of the member state. There will always be organisations and civil servants who wish more power to pass into their hands. That is why Maastricht is so important. It puts an end to that happening by slow absorption. The European Parliament will be given more control over the Commission than it has ever had before. It will take back certain powers that have been assumed by the Commission in Brussels.

I urge my right hon. Friends who will serve on the different ministerial Councils to guard against power slipping away to the Commission. Equally, Ministers must ensure that when European Commission regulations are promulgated by means of regulation in this country, there is no extension of those regulations, either for the sake of clarity or, even worse, because they have been hanging around Departments for a long time. We must watch that like a hawk. Anybody who understands what has happened in the House ought not to hanker after a referendum. The referendum motion was defeated by a majority of 239. Hon. Members in all parts of the House voted against it. It is important to emphasise that point, so that the other place, an unelected Chamber, does not try to override that

Column 449

very strong expression of opinion in the lower House. To do so would be absurd and would lead to further delay in signing the treaty.

The single market means that Europe will become a constructive federation of nation states, not a single state in itself. Britain will play a positive role in the centre of the European playing field. In years to come, the treaty will be seen as a treaty that ensures the future of Europe. It will also ensure that wars between European nations will never again be fought. It will mean that Europe has a better and more unified economic structure. A united Europe will then be able to play a major role in the history of the world. 8.42 pm

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : The public do not support the treaty. It is not demanded by the people. It is being imposed from the top down by an arrogant elite who are going too far and too fast down a road that most people do not want to go. It is being imposed by a grisly gang of old men, like Mitterrand and Kohl, who have lost support in their own countries and whose time is up. They are the men of yesterday, seeking to foist their outmoded and outdated straitjacket on Europe.

I had wanted to say something about economics, but I intend to obey your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, apart from saying that the exchange rate mechanism, with its high interest rates, has pushed the whole of western Europe into recession. It has caused massive unemployment. At the moment, 20 million people are unemployed. There will be zero growth this year, which means that unemployment will rapidly rise to 30 million. That will be the effect on the whole of western Europe of the exchange rate mechanism.

If we are to make these major constitutional changes and set up a European union, of which we are all to become citizens, and if we are to transfer power over our economy to unelected bodies, which we cannot remove, including the autonomous central bank, it would be wrong and a grave constitutional impropriety and outrage to do so with no mandate and without the consent and agreement of the British people.

No one can say that the Government have explained to the British people what is envisaged or involved. The issue was not discussed at the recent election. The Bill is being pushed through a whipped House of Commons, with the important parts of the treaty having been debated in the dead of night while the nation slept and the media did not report. That is not only wrong but dangerous.

If we were to rejoin the ERM and conformed to the convergence criteria, which would lead to deflation, economic stagnation and even greater mass unemployment--which has already led to our constituents coming to us with their grievances--what should we say to them? We should have to tell them that their Parliament no longer had any powers over these matters, that those matters could no longer be affected by voting and that we, without consulting the voters, had given all these powers away when we passed the Maastricht Bill. What would happen then? What would be the response and the reaction of the British people? Would it be in the least surprising if there were a growth of extremist

Column 450

movements? Democracy would be threatened and Parliament undermined. That is why it is dangerous to push the Bill through without consulting the voters.

Those who want the treaty and who want to make these changes would be wise to ask the electorate to share the responsibility, so that if things go wrong they can say to them, "You voted for it." It is in everybody's interest that, if this is to be done, it should be done only with the whole -hearted consent of the British people. All else is improper and dangerous. That is the case for a referendum. Another reason why it is dangerous is that we as parliamentarians have always told people to obey the law, because it has been democratically decided and can be changed democratically through the ballot box. But what if the law is to be made by institutions outside this country, by people who are not elected by us and who cannot be removed by us? If matters such as the running of our economy cannot be affected by voting and if Parliament and the people are to be robbed and stripped of their powers to determine their own future, that will be very dangerous. If it is to be done, the country should do it with its eyes open, consciously understanding what it is doing.

Under our system of parliamentary self-government, the only restricton on the sovereignty of Parliament is, by definition, that no Parliament can bind its successors. I regard that as one of the glories of our constitution. It means that each new generation can do its own thing in its own way. It can make changes peacefully and legally, without violence or bloodshed. All that would go. The treaty would rob future generations of those rights and powers. It even purports to tell future Governments and Parliaments--Governments not yet elected, even--what their budget deficit should be.

We are arrogating, binding, restricting and shackling future generations and Parliaments by seeking to extend our dominion into the future, thus robbing our successors of their freedom of choice. I want no part of that. It is outrageous that Parliament is purporting to do it without consulting the people.

8.47 pm

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South) : You have asked, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for five-minute speeches. For me to give the reasons why I intend to vote against Third Reading in five minutes is a bit of a tall order, but I shall do it in this way, if I may. I have had the honour to listen to almost every speech in the past few months during which we have debated the issue. I have detected four arguments in favour of the Maastricht Bill. I intend to spend one minute on each.

The first argument is that Maastricht is a step towards the reassertion of national independence. Two points have been made in favour of that argument. The first is subsidiarity ; the second is the intergovernmental agreement.

Subsidiarity seems to me to be the opposite of decentralisation. In order to have subsidiarity, one must have a central organisation that can determine what is subsidiary. Therefore, the Commission and the European Court will determine that we can build the Winchester bypass in return for us letting them run our economy. Somebody has to determine what subsidiarity is, or what

Column 451

things are to be subsidiary. It has to be done by a central organisation, and that is the opposite of how subsidiarity has been presented to us.

Under European law, the intergovernmental agreement does not work in the way that it has been presented. Title V of the treaty, which proposes a common foreign policy, is subject to the intergovernmental agreement, but in the preamble to the treaty, article B says that a common foreign policy is an objective of the treaty. One fault of our lawyers is that, in negotiating treaties, they ignore the importance of the preamble in European law. That point has been made several times by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). A preamble to a treaty determines how lawyers reach their judgments. The core of the treaty is what matters. The core is a single currency. A single currency means a single Government, not only because a country hands over control of its coinage, money and banking system, but because a single currency means a single pricing system, and since we shall have unequal wages the Greeks will be unhappy about paying German prices on Greek wages. There will therefore have to be a single compensatory authority, a single taxation authority and a single expenditure authority, which are provided for in the Bill. Once a country has handed over control of all that, it has handed over control of most of what is the essence of an independent state.

Those in the institutions of Europe who have really considered the matter concur with that, and once the Maastricht process is completed more people will come out who really know what is going on. For instance, the European Parliament's constitution for European union dropped off the back of a lorry into my lap. It is produced by the Committee on Institutional Affairs. The preamble states : "With Maastricht", which it assumes to have been passed, "the European Union (EU) has reached an advanced status and a degree of complexity which calls for a codification and with regard to the changing world order for a progressive new step for the realisation of an integrated Europe."

It goes on to spell out what i authorities should be given adequate room for manoeuvre so as to avoid the pitfalls of centralisation ; the system should be sufficiently cohesive to prevent the watering-down of joint rules."

The European Parliament is clear that, once Maastricht is passed, we shall move towards codification into a union of Europe. The second point that is raised in defence of the treaty is that it is so absurd it will not happen and, in particular, that the Germans will save us because they do not want the deutschmark to be subjugated. It is argued, "It does not matter if we pass the thing. We might as well get on with it because it is the best damage containment job that we can do."

One can only say what has been said before : we must accept that this treaty will become the law of the land, and the law of the land will include, for instance, article 109j, which says :

"If by the end of 1997 the date for the beginning of the third stage has not been set, the third stage shall start on 1 January 1999."

That will be the law of the land. We can argue about whether the opt out will apply and whether it matters in the long term--I shall battle for the continuation of the

Next Section

Home Page