House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Oct 1993

Column 300

of transplant doctors showed that 40 per cent. were in favour of an opt-out system ; 31 per cent. were in favour of the present system ; and 29 per cent. were prepared to work with either system. I agree that that result is not conclusive, and that there is no overwhelming majority. However, in all the reviews carried out during the past few years, the public seem generally to accept the idea of opting out, and it gets more support as time goes by.

The most recent public poll, conducted by the British Kidney Patient Association, shows that 61 per cent. of the population are in favour of an opt-out scheme for donors. On top of that, the overwhelming majority of recipients of organs are in favour, as are people who are waiting for an organ. I think that such a scheme is sensible.

When hon. Members decide about the Bill, I want them to concentrate on two things, because this is what it all comes down to. The first is the needs of recipients and the second the wishes of donors. The needs of recipients are fairly clear. Any hon. Member, or their wife, daughter, son or grandchild, may require a transplant, so I hope that they will bear that in mind when they decide. The idea that, as a donor, when I die my eyes could give someone sight, my kidneys could give someone a better quality of life and my heart could give someone life itself is very reassuring to me. It means that death has less of a sting. I want hon. Members to give me the chance to make that choice and to have that consolation. The Bill will do just that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Paddy Tipping and Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

Human Organ Transplants (Amendment)

Mr. John Heppell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 further to provide for the circumstances in which an organ may be retrieved from a dead person for the purposes of transplant ; to require the anonymity of the donor and the recipient ; to define death for the purposes of that Act of 1989 as the total and irreversible loss of brain function ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 November, and to be printed. [Bill 254.]

Column 301

European Economic Area Bill [Lords]

4.57 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I beg to move

That in respect of the European Economic Area Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Since the two motions on the Order Paper are related I can allow them to be debated together and so it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion :

That, if the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolutions come to by the House on the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] [Money] and [Ways and Means] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Newton : In the light of what you have just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak briefly about the second motion at the same time.

I do not need to detain the House for a great length of time. It is perhaps unusual for the House to be debating the motions in this way and I shall give the background as a fact, rather than as a conclusive argument. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Bill should be taken through all its stages tomorrow [Interruption.] --I said that I was stating it as a fact and not an argument, but the House should be aware of it.

In the light of that agreement, it has also been agreed that we should make what are well-established procedural arrangements--that is what the resolutions do--for that to be done in a way that Members have historically found helpful and with which the House is familiar, so that the debates can proceed in an orderly fashion. I again emphasise that they are well precedented and in line with the practice that has been used on many occasions. However, as there were objections on two occasions when we sought to move them at other times--and I make no complaint about that--I have to ask the House to spend some time on them today.

The first motion allows amendments to be considered in Committee to be tabled before Second Reading. As I have said, the House is familiar with that procedure, which is used when all stages are proposed to be taken in one day. That allows the orderly tabling and printing of amendments in time for the Committee stage, which will immediately follow tomorrow's Second Reading. The second motion simply allows the Money and Ways and Means resolutions to be considered. That is again normal after Second Reading.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : These would be starred amendments. Has my right hon. Friend heard from Madam Speaker or from the Speaker's Office whether they would be treated as normal amendments and therefore automatically taken tomorrow?

Mr. Newton : It is for the Chair to determine that, but it is well within the experience of many hon. Members that in such cases and against the background of the resolution, the Chairman would not wish to rule that out. Perhaps it would be helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have some guidance.

Column 302

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Perhaps I may assist the House by saying that as Chairman of Ways and Means I am prepared to accept starred amendments.

Mr. Newton : I hope that that helps my hon. Friend : it is certainly helpful to me in dealing with this matter.

The whole of tomorrow has been set aside for proceedings on the Bill and the associated financial resolutions. I understand that that was agreed through the usual channels, and the time allowed should be adequate properly to consider the principle and detail of a Bill whose straightforward objective is to incorporate into United Kingdom law an agreement between the European Community and EFTA to extend the benefit of the free movement of goods, services, capital and people throughout the area.

That agreement has widespread support, and its supporters include the overwhelming majority of Opposition Members. I did not say all Opposition Members in view of the muttering that I hear from time to time. All that we seek to do is to advance discussion of that matter in an orderly and sensible way.

Several hon. Members rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the House that the motions are fairly narrowly drawn and that the debate on the merits of the Bill is for tomorrow.

5.2 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Of course I shall not attempt to discuss the Bill's merits today. However, in view of the nature of the Bill and of the treaty to which it refers, perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to make some animadversion. The Leader of the House let the cat out of the bag when he spoke at least two or three times about the usual channels. That phrase was first used in the 1920s or 1930s and referred to a procedure that was not even officially in operation. This House is not for the Front Bench of either party ; it is for the representatives of the people, and long may that be so.

The Leader of the House and those associated with him have said that people should have realised that the Government intended to take the Bill in one day. In his notice of 22 July for this week's business--we all remember 22 July because it was the great social charter day--the right hon. Gentleman gave details of proceedings on the Bill. One would have needed a highly attuned ear to know that his announcement was about all stages of the Bill being taken in a day. I admit that textually and in pure terms one might have inferred that, but in the circumstances of that day and other circumstances that I put to the Leader of the House, I do not think that that was so. The right hon. Gentleman has been here for some time and will know that it is not altogether unknown for a Leader of the House to say when announcing the following week's business that following Second Reading of a Bill other stages may be taken. However, he did not say that on 22 July. Therefore, even for those of us who try to keep up with these matters, Monday was the first day on which we saw on the Order Paper textual amendments or rules that would override the normal Standing Orders or courtesies of the House and permit the Bill to be taken tomorrow in one go. That was why I took the liberty of objecting on Monday

Column 303

after 10 o'clock. I was trying to prevent that happening, and if I had not objected the dye would have been cast at 10 o'clock on Monday night or yesterday.

I do not object to the first motion, which simply alerts us to when the Government will allow amendments to be tabled. Perhaps they could have been tabled yesterday, which would have been short notice. The second motion contains the guts of the matter. It says that after Second Reading tomorrow, however long that may be, and after the accompanying money resolution--and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has often said, such resolutions are important--and after the relevant Ways and Means motion, which is not just gobbledygook, the House will grant permission to expand the area of taxation. That matter is central to the historic powers of the House. The debate is open ended, although the closure can be moved. The motion says that after that the

"House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill."

Second Reading entails discussion of principles and explanations. I agree that some Bills could be taken in a day. One such Bill was the one that nationalised Rolls-Royce, but in that and other cases there was a need for speed and the intention, method and principle were clear. Although the details of such Bills are matters for dispute, agreement is usually between all hon. Members, not simply a matter of Front-Bench speakers ganging up.

This is not such a Bill. It contains only five clauses, but I defy any hon. Member to say what it is all about. It is twice as obtuse as the famous Maastricht Bill, and the treaty to which it relates has 550 pages and is about three times as obtuse as that Bill. It is not an ordinary Bill, nor is the treaty an ordinary one, yet we are being asked to take it in one day.

Bills are taken in stages to enable their purpose, effects and results to be properly debated. If a Bill is not taken on the Floor of the House by resolution it goes to Committee, and by convention two weekends elapse before the Committee meets. The Committee of Selection has to appoint a Committee and there is time for the Bill's purpose--in this case the purpose of the treaty--to be advertised and for people to make inquiries and table amendments. That leads to proper scrutiny in Committee. No such opportunity has been made available in this case and there are many questions about the treaty. I shall not go into all of them, but Switzerland is mentioned, although I understand that that country will not be party to the treaty in the same way. Many issues arise.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill requires a Special Standing Committee so that it may be scrutinised effectively?

Mr. Spearing : My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue. I have not thought of such a Committee, but my hon. Friend may be right about that, although I do not think that this is the type of Bill for which such a Committee should be established. Of course, such a Committee would enable us to ask Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers to give evidence. However, the Government have not considered that, and in any case I object to the speed and not to the procedure. That time scale does not give anyone time to think, to find out, to write letters or to make telephone calls. If we are properly to scrutinise matters relating to our relationships with the Community to which

Column 304

the Government have committed themselves, why the need for speed? Why could not we have had the Committee stage even- -I am not suggesting an ideal--after 10 o'clock some time next week or a few days later, let alone within only a few hours or minutes of the Second Reading?

I was accosted when arriving this morning by a colleague who said, "I hear you objected last night. You have precipitated a debate tomorrow. What mischief are you up to now, Nigel?" It is not my mischief, but the mischief of the Government. We do not have conventions in the House or ways of conducting business without good cause. When they are dispensed with, there must be a motion to do so. If it is a genuine reason, there is usually no problem. But there is a problem here and the Leader of the House should tell us why because the Bill is about the prerogative. Not only is the treaty conducted, and the negotiations to which it relates, by prerogative, but the consequence is that we will mix Foreign Office prerogative powers with obligations in legislation and, indeed, obligations in taxation. We all know from experience what that prerogative is. I quote from the explanatory memorandum to the Bill :

"Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act will apply so as to give legal effect in the United Kingdom to present and future provisions of the Agreement"

--that is the treaty--

"which, under the Treaties, are to be given legal effect without further enactment."

I remind the Leader of the House that the House does not have a good record in regard to proper scrutiny. I understand that the Select Committee on European Legislation wanted debates about general post office matters in the Community and did not get them. Rushing the Bill through in one day without an opportunity for reflection or to table amendments after Second Reading at least raises the big question "why?". The Government are devoted to open government, so they say. This looks like a closed shop between the two Front Benches.

5.12 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : I hope in all sincerity that the Leader of the House will think carefully about the wisdom of shoving through a massive and important Bill and effecting the equivalent of a treaty or agreement in one day with Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, money resolutions and Third Reading. There are only three reasons of which I can think for doing all that in a day. The first is that everyone agrees to it. The Leader of the House correctly said that everyone is agreed, but why? He specifically said that the Labour party had agreed with the Government that all the stages should be completed in a 24-hour sweep. We should pay attention to that. We understand that the Labour party, for the same reasons as the Conservative party, has found EC issues rather divisive of late--partly because of the failure to have a referendum on Maastricht. As long as we are discussing the EC, members of the Labour party and Conservative party will disagree, fight Whips, use obscene words in all kinds of places and, when we vote, all kinds of things will happen. The wish of the Government and the Opposition to hurry through the Bill is not valid.

The second reason for doing all that in a day would be if the Bill was non- controversial. The Government could argue that it is non-controversial, but they should ask themselves why. We know that the countries of EFTA say that they want an agreement in the same way as the

Column 305

Government. That is as if, for example, the recipients of social security were to give £1 to the Conservative party and £1 to the Labour party and were then asked if that were preferable to not having social security. Most people would say that even if they had to give money to the Labour and Conservative parties, they would rather have the remaining social security. EFTA countries are anxious to have the agreement not because they regard it as a bonus, but because it is the only way in which the EC is prepared to allow them continuing free trade.

To the countries of EFTA it is a significant agreement. They will become involved in a mass of bureaucracy. Clearly we cannot consider the merits of the Bill in this debate, but if the Leader of the House considers title V on page 59 of the agreement, he will see that, as a consequence of the Bill, poor countries will have to go through the most absurd, ridiculous bureaucracy to engage in normal trade. The second thing that he will see if he looks at the agreement properly is that the countries of EFTA will have to change a mass of laws to abide by European laws. The House of Commons Library has said that about 60 per cent. of all the laws passed by the EC must be adopted by EFTA, whether it wants to or not. Article 4 of protocol 31, for example, says that all the education, training and youth provisions will have to be adopted by EFTA, even though the Parliaments and Governments may not want them.

Page 212 says that all the social provisions passed by the EC will have to be applied to EFTA whether the countries want it or not, as well as all the laws on consumer protection. Page 215 shows that there is a pile of cash that will have to be paid out in an assessment of contributions. All that is significant for Europe as a whole and for Britain in particular.

If we are to pass a Bill which is linked to an agreement that forces the countries of EFTA to adopt a mass of laws, directives, rules and requirements that their Parliaments are not going to take part in deciding, it should be discussed at length.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : I do not wish to prolong the debate, which is on a point of procedure, but my hon. Friend should recognise that the matter of which laws are attached to the treaty is one for the individual countries. Is not it significant that the EFTA Governments want to join the European Community ultimately, not just the European economic area, because they understand the importance not only of the economic beXZ Sir Teddy Taylor : My hon. Friend is totally out of date. If he considers the recent elections in Norway and the opinion polls there, it is apparent that the last thing in the world that the Norwegians want to do is to join theEC--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. It is not possible under the motion to discuss the merits of the present political feelings in Norway.

Sir Teddy Taylor : I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was misdirected by my hon. Friend. It is rather unfortunate that my hon. Friends say silly things to force me to contradict them and be out of order, which never happens

Column 306

to me under my own volition. I am always glad to receive interruptions, but it is unfair of my hon. Friend to interrupt me and try to drive me out of order.

Is the agreement significant for Britain? I am sure that we know, as we have all had communications with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, that the Bill will have devastating consequences for Gibraltar and its economy by introducing further discrimination. That is certainly what the Chief Minister and his Cabinet think. They are worried that throughout the proceedings Britain has been neglecting Gibraltar shamefully. We should discuss such an issue in good time and not late at night. It stands out a mile that the Bill is significant. It is not non-controversial, but it is a measure of great constitutional significance which involves a change in democracy in Europe and is of great significance to Gibraltar. The third reason that may be given for rushing the Bill through in a day is that it is of no consequence to Britain, the Treasury and its policy. I could give a multitude of examples why that is not the case, but I shall mention just one.

From looking at the financial effects of the Bill, one can see that it will add enormously to the Government's social security costs. I hope that all the civil servants have looked at that point. The Bill refers to the fact that there will immediately be about £1 million extra for social security. My constituents and your constituents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have to pay for that.

I want to talk about that point, especially in reference to what is loosely called "one of our Cabinet Ministers" at the Conservative conference. I do not know whether any hon. Members here today heard him. He talked about "Euroscroungers" and alleged that people were coming from the EC to have a holiday in Britain at the taxpayers' expense. That would now appear to apply to people from EFTA. If a Bill that will increase the extent of Euroscrounging is passed, will the Government tell us what they can do about it? We heard a statement from a Minister at the party conference. Although Ministers are all splendid people who have high principles, and who are very kind to children and to dogs, I have sometimes found that Ministers' statements do not turn out exactly as one would think.

We should decide on and discuss this matter so that we have policies that are important for Europe, policies that are desperately important for Gibraltar and policies that are important for the British taxpayer, who will have to pay a lot of extra money as a consequence of the Bill.

A fourth argument that could have been used was that there was a tight timetable. Let us suppose that the Government were rushed off their feet and that we had no time because of a mass of legislation that was to be discussed very soon. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know what the score is. We have had a very long summer break. We are told that we shall have another big break before the Queen's Speech and that we shall have a long Christmas holiday. Largely because of the massive surrenders of power to Brussels, there is not really much to do here.

I dare to suggest to the Government that the one argument that they cannot use is that we do not have parliamentary time. We have had loads of parliamentary time with precious little to do, so there is no reason why we cannot have Second Reading one day and the Committee stage the next.

Column 307

Apart from the point about democracy, I ask the Government, "Please can we start to look for solutions?". All we are asking is to have Second Reading tomorrow and to have some time next week or the week after for the Committee and Report stages. We are asking only for two days : one for Second Reading and one for the Committee. What is wrong with that? If the Government agreed to that, everyone would be happy. In fairness, I point out that the majority of hon. Members are not listening to this debate and have probably never heard about the agreement about which we are talking. However, if the Government agreed to my suggestion, the problem would be solved and finished. With the Maastricht treaty, the whole problem could have been solved if we had had a referendum, but the Government chose not to do so. We could solve the problem with the Railways Bill tomorrow if the Government said that there would be no foreign railway companies as well as no British Rail. I appeal to the Leader of the House, "Please start looking for solutions." All we are asking is for one day for Second Reading and one day for the Committee and Report stages. I and many other older hon. Members--it is mainly older hon. Members here today, with the exception of one or two of my hon. Friends--have seen democracy dying in this House. There is no point in people trying to forget about that ; we all know that it has been happening. There was a time when we used to discuss things, when we used to debate them and when we used to have fights. Sadly, with the help of, I am afraid, the Foreign Office, democracy is largely dying. Here we have legislation that is terribly important for Europe, terribly important for the taxpayer and terribly important for democracy. With the agreement of Labour Front-Bench Members, Ministers and, possibly--I do not know--Liberal Democrat Members, we are being asked to shove the Bill through in one day. They say, "Let us get it over with. Let us get it finished. Do not talk about it. Do not vote on it."

I have been appalled to hear that the Government have tamed the Labour party with a one-line Whip. The last thing in the world that I want to do is to attack parties and to say, "We are the goodies and they are the baddies," but I must say that that is not the way to run a democracy. I tell the Leader of the House that something worrying has been happening in Britain. We are shoving through legislation using brutal methods. We are shoving it through at a breakneck speed. Probably at 3 am or 4 am, we shall be talking about something fundamental to the future of the people of Gibraltar, fundamental to British taxpayers and fundamental to the future of Europe. We shall also be passing legislation that will require the good people of Norway, of Sweden and of the other EFTA countries to adopt and to implement laws which they did not discuss and to which they did not contribute. That is not right.

I know that the Leader of the House is a fair person. I had the pleasure of sharing a platform with him at the Oxford Union last week. We had much in common and we agreed on at least one point. I say to him in all sincerity, "Surely, for the sake of democracy, we should have two days to discuss the Bill." It is a massive treaty and a very important Bill. It will cost my constituents a lot of money. It will cause a great deal of injustice. Surely we can talk about that and debate it. I can see no reason for not

Column 308

agreeing to what we want, except for the fact that Labour Front-Bench Members and the Government have done a deal. Surely that it not a proper explanation.

I make it clear that the last thing in the world that I intend to do is to cause trouble over this matter. We know that when the bells ring, the vast majority of the troops will pour in, and will go into the Lobbies and ask what they are voting about. There is no point in having a row. I simply appeal to the Government to remember that democracy matters and to remember that freedom matters. Even though fat Whips will sit smiling away and will use abusive language to try to get legislation through, that is not what matters. What matters is the power belonging to the people. We represent the people and we are meant to decide matters properly and fairly. We are not supposed to have dirty, squalid deals being done between Front-Bench Members of each party.

Let us, therefore, have a proper and reasonable solution. Let us have two days instead of one. Let us cut down our extra, glorious holiday by one day. Let us represent the people and stand up for the people. Once again, we should remember what Bob Marley said in his great song. It is time for us to stand up, to wake up and to start fighting. If we do not do that, we may as well close down this place, we may as well all go home and we may as well forget about the whole idea of democracy.

5.25 pm

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said that there should be two days of debate. I have reason to believe that, before the long recess, Labour Front-Bench Members put forward the proposition that there should be two days. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) may intervene in this debate and he may be able to confirm that. The fact that that was the proposition needs to be put on the record.

When I came in here, I thought, "Here we go again." It is like Maastricht all over again. It is as if the House of Commons in recent years is besotted with the idea of the Common Market. There is an alternative argument to the argument that we should have a long time for the Bill, which is what the hon. Member for Southend, East has just proposed. There is an argument that we should not be messing about with this thing at all.

Everybody knows that the Common Market has been an unmitigated disaster. We have just had a short debate and questions and answers on the coal industry

Mr. Spearing : It was a statement.

Mr. Skinner : We had questions and answers about the demise of the coal industry. One point which was not made then but which has been made many times is that the Common Market was set up, presumably, to produce economies of scale so that countries could trade with one another. Yet they do not buy a single cobble of British coal even though it is the cheapest in the whole of the Common Market. The whole thing has been a fraud from beginning to end.

Here we are, going off again on another tangent to deal with EFTA. It is always the same with these Common Market fanatics. They always say that one can never get perfection in the Common Market unless one does something else. In the beginning, they said that the Common Market would produce jobs. They said that if we passed the Common Market Bill in 1971, when the grocer

Column 309

was in charge, unemployment would be written off the map. What happened? When we went into the Common Market in 1973, there were about 700,000 people out of work. With the help of this Tory Government and the Common Market, more than 4 million people in Britain do not have a job--I do not believe the fiddled figure of 3 million.

What do the Common Market fanatics, including Liberal Democrats, who are besotted with the idea say? They say that we shall have to have direct elections to the Common Market. They say that if we have direct elections, we shall be able to produce all the jobs about which we talked before. They say that we shall feed the third world. Do hon. Members remember that story? All those people said that we would feed the third world. There are now more people in Africa and in other third-world countries starving than at any time this century. What is being done with Common Market food? It is being destroyed.

After that, the Common Market fanatics tried another gamble, and that was to increase the number of nation states. First it was six, then it was seven and now they have upped it to 12 and still we are not reaping the so- called benefits from the Common Market. The truth is that we can never have the benefits.

As a socialist, I want to make it clear to everybody, including the Labour Front Bench, that I do not believe that we can resolve the problems of the working class in Britain with the help of that Tory Helmut Kohl and that Tory in France, Balladur. I believe that we have to build socialism wherever we are. If that means association with other people, so be it, but we have to prove that it was there in the first place.

We have had the Maastricht treaty that was supposed to produce wonderful things for Britain and get people back to work. They are still on the dole. We have a massive balance of payments deficit with every Common Market country, yet when we started we had a trading surplus with those countries. We have a public sector borrowing requirement of more than £50 billion. What is the Common Market contributing to that? Nothing--it is making it worse all the time. What is it all about? Is it doing the British citizen any good at all? It takes £20 a week from every family in Britain to prop up a tinpot common agriculture policy to line the pockets of the rich farmers.

Sir Teddy Taylor : That figure was reviewed by one of the Treasury Ministers last week. It is now £24 extra a week for the average citizen, not £20. The hon. Gentleman's figures are wholly out of date.

Mr. Skinner : There we have it. That proves my point. We discussed it in the Maastricht debate, and the figure was £20 a week. Parliament has been in recess--our euphemism for a holiday--for about 11 weeks and what has happened? The amount has gone up to £24 a week. It is no wonder we have a public deficit on the PSBR and the Government want to enlarge it even more, at least on the economic front.

They talk about a level playing field. There is no such thing in world economics. It is impossible. How can we produce food on the same basis as Mediterranean countries and fruit like they can in California? I have never heard

Column 310

such claptrap as people saying that we need the EFTA countries in to produce a more level playing field. As a socialist I believe in intervening in the economy.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Shame.

Mr. Skinner : The hon. Gentleman says, "Shame" because he believes in the market system. I do not believe that it is possible to produce things in the same way in every single nation state.

The British people know that the Common Market has failed. They know that it is not what it was before. They can see mass unemployment in all the Common Market countries. They can see the rise of neo-fascism in Germany, Italy and France and now it is beginning to rear its ugly head in Britain. What has the Common Market done for them? Nothing at all.

It is time that people understood that there comes a moment when we have to accept that treaties such as the Common Market treaty, the Maastricht treaty and the one they are proposing now do not last any longer. Treaties between nation states do not last for ever and we have seen the best inside the Common Market.

I am not hoodwinked by the business of incorporating the EFTA countries to make it all better. It will not make things better ; it is defunct. We can talk about it, we can talk a donkey's hind leg off for three or four days, or even a fortnight--I will be here. I do not mind seeing the Tories ripped apart on this issue. In fact, I am on the horns of a dilemma. Would it be a good idea to spend a fortnight discussing this matter? We would have to have a splash-plate in front of us to stop Tory blood splashing us.

The Labour Front Bench should have been smarter. They should have said, "Let us have a fortnight on it. We can get all the Tory rebels back into business and Lady Thatcher could have little seminars to tell them what to do. It would be hilarious." I am beginning to think that it would be a good idea. We could scrap the fortnight's recess. Is anybody in favour of that?

They tell us that on 4 November we are to pack up again for another fortnight. Will anybody volunteer to talk about the EFTA thing for a fortnight? I can see one, two, three volunteers, and I shall be here. It would be better than VAT on fuel. I would settle for debating this thing instead of having VAT on fuel. I would settle for debating it instead of shutting the pits or taking action against some of the impoverished people in Britain, in the knowledge that it will not get us anywhere but at least it will divide the Tory party even more. You heard it all before, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you where chairman of the Committee on the Maastricht Bill. They were pulling the wool over people's eyes. We are now at it again, all because 30 years ago some people had the daft idea that somehow or other we could call on other nation states to resolve problems that we did not have the guts to resolve ourselves. That applies to both sides of the House. That is roughly what it is about.

People are elected here to be Members of Parliament in Britain. They say, "We would love to get you better pensions but we cannot, we would love to find you employment but we cannot, we would love to be able to do all these things to make your lives better"--but in the real world we have to go with a begging bowl to Helmut Kohl, to France and to the rest.

Column 311

It is an abdication and a dereliction of duty. We are about to debate another piece of that escapism that makes my blood boil. 5.36 pm

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : On 25 September, the Prime Minister wrote an article in The Economist saying :

"Some differences in the Community are stark and simple. We counted the financial cost of our membership. Others counted their financial gain."

He continued with the point I want to emphasise :

"We subjected each proposal to the scrutiny of Parliament. They relaxed in the sure knowledge that their public opinion uncritically endorsed the European idea. Hang the detail. Never mind the concession of power to Brussels. Maastricht changed all that." We seem now to be faced with yet another enormous raft of legislation. It is impossible for anybody to begin to imagine how much there is in the papers we are expected to get through in one sitting tomorrow afternoon. Although I personally do not believe it would be necessary to have an extended debate of the kind that we had before, we must consider the sheer volume of this stuff.

One has only to look at the references, each one of which is absolutely massive in its own right, and then realise that it is being amended in its application to the European economic area as well as to the United Kingdom, to realise that this rather shabby, behind-the doors deal between the Front Benches is a travesty of our democratic system. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made a very important point about the way in which democracy in the House is being drained away. This is a typical example.

It may come as a surprise to many hon. Members that I did not particularly enjoy much of the debate on the Maastricht treaty, but I knew that it was essential that, in procedural terms, we ensured that we examined properly the detail and matter in the Bill and the treaty.

I shall make just one more point, because there is no need to go into matters in great detail today. In the preamble and the provisions of this massively complicated agreement, there is a reference to the relationship between Parliaments. We are being asked in this sittings motion to consider the impact upon our democracy when the matter is debated at short notice and in short time tomorrow.

Hon. Members may not know that it effectively bypasses the British Parliament for the following reason : it deals with the relationships between the European Parliament and EFTA national Parliaments, yet we are being asked to implement the provisions in a Bill which affects our constituents.

If I could find any excuse for that, it would be--this may have escaped the notice of some hon. Members--that the Bill came here from the House of Lords on 25 November 1992, 11 months ago. Surely, in the aftermath of, and having regard to, the debates on Maastricht, we could at least have been given an opportunity to consider the Bill in a reasonable and proper manner. "Maine's Ancient Law" contains the maxim :

"Justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure." The motion is a travesty of that maxim.

5.40 pm

Next Section

Home Page