| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Cook: I am addressing the issue of enlargement, and I am anxious that hon. Members should not lose sight of what is an important challenge to Europe.
Mr. Dykes: In respect of enlargement and of the other matter that we have just been discussing, will the hon. Gentleman try to answer the questions more accurately, as they are so important? Do not his evasive answers to interventions from his Labour colleagues show that the divisions in the Labour party on Europe are much greater than the divisions in the Conservative party?
Mr. Cook: There is no evasion in my replies. We are quite clear that Britain can join a single currency only with the consent of the British people; that that consent may be judged by a general election if it is fought on that issue and it is a fair choice for the British people--the hon. Gentleman would not dissent from that--and, if not, it could be established by a referendum. That is not an evasion: it is a perfectly clear statement of the position--and it is a much clearer statement of the position than he will get from his Front Bench on the issue.
Sir Michael Spicer (South Worcestershire) rose--
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye) rose--
Mr. Cook: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye.
Mr. Kennedy: I think the hon. Gentleman is characteristically trying to make a fair point, but will he clarify it a little more? If the next general election--at a time and in circumstances that none of us can predict--does not meet this pristine criteria of clarity of choice, will Labour, if it is in a position to so do, definitely offer a referendum? Would not that clarify it once and for all?
Mr. Cook: If the next general election does not provide a fair choice to the public, and if a subsequent Government join the single currency, a referendum would be a way of establishing that consent. Plainly, the decision on a referendum would follow a decision on whether we were joining the single currency.
I remind hon. Members that I am seeking to address an issue of immense importance to the countries of central and eastern Europe, the people of whom, were they listening to this debate, would be depressed by the little interest that is being shown in their application to join the European Union. I remind the Foreign Secretary that his enthusiasm for enlargement appeared to play no part in the position he has adopted on qualified majority voting--he has adopted a position of no surrender.
The Foreign Secretary was unfair to himself in saying that the Labour party had invented the idea that enlargement provides the case for expansion of qualified majority voting. It was not the Labour party, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In 1985--the last time the European Union was enlarged--he said to the House:
Mr. Rifkind:
If the hon. Gentleman were honest enough to read the rest of my speech, he would see that I was not suggesting that we should extend the area where qualified majority voting applies--I am positively against that. I said, as is quite clear from the speech, that where there is already QMV we will need to use it more often the larger the Community becomes.
Mr. Cook:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then sat in a Government who, at that very time, expanded qualified majority voting.
Mr. Rifkind:
The hon. Gentleman might now have the decency to withdraw the original charge that he made, now that he recognises that--either deliberately or inadvertently--he was misleading the House.
Mr. Cook:
I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I have nothing to withdraw, except his words. I quoted his words to the House of Commons in 1985, at the time Spain and Portugal joined the European Union. It may be embarrassing for him to be reminded of those comments now, but they were his words. The Government expanded qualified majority voting at that time.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said during the course of his White Paper that we will have to amend the structural funds as part of the process of enlargement. He will know that voting on structural funds is a matter of unanimity. I put it to him that there is no prospect of getting
serious reform of the structural funds if Spain and other countries retain a veto on the structural changes that will be necessary. It is also unlikely that the other countries of the European Union will admit countries such as Malta--which has a population that is one tenth of 1 per cent. of the European Union--on the basis on which Malta gets the full present range of the veto.
The reality is that, as the negotiations proceed, the Foreign Secretary will have to choose--either he will have to shift his position on qualified majority voting or he will have to drop his support for enlargement. There is no prospect of enlargement happening without expansion of qualified majority voting.
I now turn to the third of the criteria by which we judge the White Paper. Will it restore public legitimacy for the European Union by reconnecting the solutions offered by the Union to the problems faced by the peoples of Europe? It would be wrong to accuse the White Paper of failing in its answer to the question--it does not attempt to answer it. The major problems facing the peoples of Europe at this time are high unemployment and low job security. The White Paper recognises those problems. It says that the need to create more jobs is one of the highest priorities of Europe. However, the sole practical measure it offers to create more jobs is to keep Britain out of the social chapter.
Mr. Llew Smith:
What likely job losses and cuts in public expenditure would have to come about for us to meet the convergence criteria?
Mr. Cook:
My hon. Friend anticipates a point to which I shall come. If he is patient, I shall give way to him again when I reach that point, and I assure him that he will not be disappointed.
As I am sure that my hon. Friend would not like me to let the Government off the hook by allowing them to say that they will keep Britain out of the social chapter, may I tell the Government that, for purely party reasons, I have a sneaking welcome for the fact that the Government do not intend to sign up to the social chapter?
The Conservative party is lining up to fight the next general election, telling workers in Britain that they will have less right to know the future strategy of their company, and parents in Britain that they will have less right to unpaid leave to be with their newborn children, than workers on the Continent. That suits us fine. We will offer to help with the leaflets to communicate the fact at every workplace. In case the Conservatives fail to produce the leaflets, we will do it ourselves.
I will go further: I will keep a place in my diary so that the Foreign Secretary and I can tour the workplaces of GKN, Coats Viyella, United Biscuits and Marks and Spencer--all companies that have ignored the Government's opt-out and set up works councils under the social chapter--so that he may explain to those work forces why the Government wanted to deny them a legal right to measures which they have found helpful, which allow them to participate in the future of their company.
Mr. MacShane:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook:
I think my hon. Friend has already intervened, so, if I may, I shall continue.
At this late stage in the Parliament, I say to the Foreign Secretary, I would request the Conservative party to keep opposing the social chapter and keep opposing better rights
for working people, until working people have the chance to let the Conservatives know what they think of that position through the ballot box--but do spare us the humbug that deregulation is the only thing that creates jobs.
Mr. Cook:
I give way to the hon. Member for Dover.
Mr. David Shaw (Dover):
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in Italy, non-wage labour costs are about £40 for every £100, that in Germany they are about £32 for every £100, but in Britain they are considerably less than that? Does he accept that every country in Europe that has higher non-wage labour costs than Britain has, as a result, higher unemployment?
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk):
That is right. How does one answer that?
Mr. Cook:
I will answer that by referring to the Government's record. Since the Conservative party came to power, employment creation in Britain has been 1 per cent.; in Italy, 6 per cent.; in Germany, 7 per cent.; and in the Netherlands, 36 per cent. After a decade of deregulation from the Conservatives, we have a bigger trade deficit with the rest of Europe than any country except Greece, we are bottom of the investment table and we are third from the bottom in the skills table. How can Conservative Members possibly claim that that validates their case that deregulation makes us more competitive?
"With 10 member states it is not surprising that the Community takes a considerable time . . . to reach agreement . . . Clearly a Community of 12 member states will find it even more difficult to reach agreement on a wide range of issues.
The Government believe that it is desirable to encourage more majority voting within the Community."--[Official Report, 20 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 470.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |