| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.43 am
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I appreciate this opportunity to take part in the debate. This is the season of good will, but on the first Christmas people were too busy with their own interests to care about others, and there was the murder of the innocents. I do not say whether the person who was murdered last evening in my constituency was innocent, but that murder reflects the issue that we must keep before us--there can be a tendency in society to excuse certain events because people might have deserved what happened to them. The House should give a clear signal that lawlessness in any guise is unacceptable in a democratic society. I know that we will sympathise with the widow and children who in this Christmas season have the harrowing experience of such a tragic loss.
Just before the House rose last Christmas I had an Adjournment debate on traffic flows in Belfast. Is the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland serious about dealing with some of the road congestion that remains? One of the blights in my constituency that affects housing and health is the Broadway roundabout for the west link and the Donegall road. Is it the Department's policy not to have flyovers? If it is, it has never been stated publicly. Is the Department concerned about the topography and geology in the area: I understand that there are two underground rivers there? There is also an electrical cable and that causes similar problems. We have
constantly been told that the delay in taking action is due to lack of finance. Are there other reasons that the Department is not prepared to reveal?
I should like to speak about the problem of vetting procedures, especially as they affect people from Northern Ireland. One of my constituents went to Edinburgh university and volunteered for the officer training corps and encouraged one of her room mates to join. The room mate was accepted, but because my constituent had a Northern Ireland background she had to be vetted and, despite letters to the Minister about the issue, she has not been cleared.
I understand the need for vetting, but I also understand the deep hurt that is felt by my constituent's father, an Englishman who served in the Royal Navy for 18 years, and by her grandfather, who served in the Royal Ulster Rifles for more than 30 years. They are dismayed that she is so vetted that she cannot take her place with her friends. The same pattern was evident in a London constituency when the granddaughter of a former councillor and high sheriff of Belfast, who never lived there and whose father was an Englishman, was subjected to long vetting procedures simply because of the Northern Ireland connection.
A colleague engaged an aide in his constituency office and sought to get him a pass so that his bona fides were acceptable here. Although that aide had 30 years' service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, vetting took three months. I am not sure whether it is a matter of job protection or whether some people with cosy jobs, even part-time ones, do not realise the impact of such vetting. Perhaps they do not give the matter the attention that is necessary, although I am convinced that much of the vetting is unnecessary.
Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham):
I wish Madam Speaker, her three deputies and all the clerks and servants of the House a very peaceful Christmas and a happy new year.
In the short time available I would like to say a few words about Britain's relations with Europe. Britain is a European country, but it is very different from its continental neighbours. It is a maritime country. Our world interests are far-ranging and go back a very long time. Britain is a pragmatic country. Our common law is built on practical decisions made by judges in actual cases throughout the years, step by step--not for us the grand design, the "code Napoleon".
The exchange rate mechanism was a very good example of European grand design that ended in disaster. Instead of trying, as we would have done step by step on a pragmatic basis to build up a system of aligned currencies firmly based in the economies of the countries concerned, the imposition of an artificial structure from above with deadlines and timetables was attempted, and it collapsed under its own weight, as most of us knew that it would. It was rather like fiddling with the oil pressure gauge on a car instead of attending to the engine. Market rates cannot be rigged, as King Canute would have told us if he had still been here. Perhaps it is not insignificant that King Canute was a Dane.
Britain has had to go to the rescue of Europe three times in recent history--in 1815, 1914 and 1939--and, throughout the ages before 1815, Britain's policy has always been to maintain the balance of power in Europe. We have not been pro-French or anti-German. We have not been pro-German or anti-French. We allied with the French if the Germans began to get too powerful, and with the Germans if the French began to get too powerful. It worries me that such a strong Franco-German alliance is developing in Europe and I worry about the future balance of power in Europe. That ought to worry the French, the Germans and all the other Europeans too.
As for external security, it has not been the European Union that has protected us from war since 1945 but NATO, and the involvement of our American allies. Let no one ever lose sight of that or ever think that the Western European Union could take the place of NATO.
We are good Europeans and, as such, it is our duty to advise, to warn, and, if necessary, to say no. A single currency is a matter of enormous political significance. It is being sold to people on the basis that they will not have to pay exchange costs when they change their money. If they think that the banks will not find another way to extract that amount of money from their pockets, they are very naive.
The single currency would prevent us from setting our own interest rates, tax policy, public borrowing policy and exchange rates. Since the economies of Europe would not be able to move in relation to each other by shifting their exchange rates, massive subsidies would be required. It could all end in tears, just like the ERM.
We fought a civil war in this country 350 years ago to place in the hands of the elected representatives of the people the control of the purse strings, and we should not lightly allow that control to slip into the hands of bankers-- who have not covered themselves with glory during the past 20 years--and certainly not foreign bankers.
The opt-out that the Prime Minister negotiated for us at Maastricht was one of his greatest achievements. It may well be that if other countries decide to go ahead and form a single currency, we might be better off outside it--no one can tell at this stage. The City of London is used to dealing with all manner of currencies; it would not matter to the City whether we were in or out of a single currency. What matters to the City is the cost of doing business in London--the cost of regulation.
The questions that the Prime Minister put in Madrid were pertinent, and we need answers to them before we can decide whether to take this momentous step. It would be very foolish to rule in or rule out Britain's membership of a single currency at this stage, as the Prime Minister is often urged to do. Although it seems almost inconceivable that we will join a single currency in the foreseeable future, it is a constitutional principle in this country that no Parliament can bind its successors. Therefore, even if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wished to rule out Britain's membership of a single currency within the lifetime of the next Parliament, he could not do so.
I am concerned, too, about the activities of the European Court of Justice. It proceeds by virtue of the civil law tradition, not the step-by-step, pragmatic approach of our common law judges. Continental judges adopt what is called a purposive construction. Put simply, it means that, by basing their judgments on general principles, they can make the treaties mean anything they want them to mean,
which is very dangerous. It means that we are forced to comply with rules to which we would never have agreed had they been spelled out in the treaties.
For example, we would never have allowed the European Court to interfere in relations between the Ministry of Defence and serving soldiers, whether male or female. The European Court of Justice must be put on the agenda of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, and some effective way must be found to clip the wings of these judicial legislators.
I am also concerned about the European Court of Human Rights, an organ not of the European Union but of the Council of Europe. We signed the European convention on human rights just after the second world war to protect the peoples of Europe against gross abuses of human rights perpetrated by fascists and communists. We did not sign that convention to allow foreign judges to interfere in every nook and cranny of our national life, so that we could be told whether we could cane schoolboys in our schools. There are hon. Members on both sides of the argument on caning, but it is a matter for this country to decide. This Parliament is perfectly capable of deciding such matters and it is no business of European judges to tell us whether we can cane our schoolboys.
It is also no business of European judges to tell us whether our courts martial system can continue. It has been the basis of our military discipline and, partly as a result of it, we have some of the finest armed forces in the world. Defence is entirely outside the competence of the European Union and I do not know how it could be argued that the European Court of Justice has any right to interfere in defence matters in relation to pregnant service women or anything else.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |