| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.30 pm
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Visual aids are not normally allowed in the Chamber. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would desist.
Mr. Gill: I am glad that hon. Members were able to see that before you intervened, Mr. Lord, but I bow to your judgment on that matter.
I was trying to point out that we are talking about an organisation that says that it believes in conservation, among many other things, but that what it is doing is the antithesis of conservation. I am glad to say that the Council has now agreed that the size of plaice that can be caught will be increased from the size that I was demonstrating, but there will still be a reduction of 20 per cent. on the size that is allowed now. In other words, we are going to catch smaller fish in the name of conservation. Everything is the opposite of what it seems, rather like another fairy tale.
Only through the continual and consistent misrepresentation of what the European Union stands for and what the treaties mean has this country progressed so far down this road, in the opposite direction to democracy, and the people of this country have not been consulted.
Will the Minister please be honest when he sums up tonight? Will he address the serious and important questions posed on both sides of the House and answer them? Unless he does, we shall not be having a debate at all. We want answers to those questions, and the British people deserve no less.
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow):
It is fascinating to observe the fundamental change in the Conservative party since the general election. Tonight, the former rebels who had the Whip withdrawn in the previous Parliament for opposing the then Government's policy on Europe are strongly represented. All those hon. Members here this evening have argued passionately and with conviction against Europe, and by implication, I believe, against membership of the European Union, and they have clearly been supported from the Opposition Front Bench. Clearly, that shows the way things have changed since 1 May within the Conservative party.
Also, we have heard a deep degree of fantasy, not reality, about what the Amsterdam treaty is about and what was agreed there. After all, that is what we are meant to be talking about. It is difficult to reconcile some of the assertions by Conservative Members and by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman about the Amsterdam treaty with the views of other prominent Conservative Members and Conservative party supporters.
Mr. Jenkin:
Can the hon. Gentleman clarify to which amendment he is referring?
Mr. Rammell:
I am referring to a number of the amendments tabled on foreign and common security policy, the social chapter and the single currency, among others, as other hon. Members have done.
Interestingly, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said of the Amsterdam treaty:
Mr. Bercow:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. I invite him now, without a moment's delay, to cite exactly which example of a xenophobic statement he has in mind. Which hon. Member uttered the statement, at what point in the debate, and will he quote it?
Mr. Rammell:
The general tone of the comments put forward this evening stems from a little Englander attitude that is based on the concept that we in Britain know best, that we can achieve everything on our own but cannot do so in concert with other nations. That is the failure of some of the views expressed this evening.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rammell:
No, I will do so later.
Given the tone of this debate, it is also disappointing that it so little represents the majority view in the House and the country. People will look on this debate and wonder what sort of discussion we are having of these crucial issues when the arguments are so unrepresentative.
Mr. Letwin:
I certainly would not want to say anything remotely controversial. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the most remarkable feature of this debate is the entire absence of the Liberal Democrat party from our proceedings--a party which apparently has no interest in Europe and which he will agree has also not represented itself in European Standing Committee B.
Mr. Rammell:
That comment has been made before, both this evening and in the Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman makes it effectively, although we have an hour and a half to go and perhaps--who knows?--we shall have a view from the Liberal Democrats.
Concerns have been expressed about the item in the treaty referring to penalties for persistent abuse of human rights and the fact that those penalties will be used in some way to disadvantage Britain and the British Government. The shadow Foreign Secretary even implied that that element of the treaty would be used to block Britain's view on a minimum wage or other social legislation. That sort of scaremongering does no credit to the people who put it forward. There is no evidence in the treaty or any of the discussions at Amsterdam or elsewhere that anyone intends to use that element of the treaty in that way.
Concerns have also been expressed about the European Court of Justice, in particular about instances when it has gone beyond its remit, over-interpreting certain elements of the treaty legislation. One of the difficulties that the judges at the European Court of Justice face when interpreting the treaty is having access to the debates and discussions that take place when treaties are formulated. One mechanism that could help with the process would
be to open up the meetings of the Council of Ministers so that people can be aware of the basis on which the original decisions were made when interpreting them. I would welcome Opposition Members' comments as to whether that view is shared across the House.
Mr. Letwin:
That is a very serious point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the fact that all Conservative Members share that view. Why does he believe that the Prime Minister made no allusion to even a desire to achieve such a result in Amsterdam?
Mr. Rammell:
In the six short months that we have been in office, we have taken several significant steps to open up the decision making of the European Union. That will progress in coming years. We are prepared to consider such changes. Time will tell.
I share some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members about the status of the employment elements of the treaty. We must ensure that there is substance to the initiatives and that there will be detail and real momentum behind the employment provisions. If Europe is only a monetary or business Europe, and is not based on jobs and prosperity for its people, it will not succeed.
We have also had a significant debate on the single currency. I welcome the fact that Conservative Members, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, have formulated policies on the single currency with some honesty and conviction. The concept of a single currency is alien to their political views. I believe that that is a false view.
Mr. Jenkin:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rammell:
No, I shall give way later.
One reason why I support a single currency in principle is that I do not believe that individual nation states have complete sovereignty and control over economic decision making. We have only to reflect on what happened in September 1992, when massive speculation and a run on the pound forced us to put up interest rates by 4 per cent. in one day in a futile effort to protect the value of the pound. A single currency, by virtue of being part of a larger currency bloc, could help to stem the power of the speculators. By pooling some of our sovereignty, we would have greater economic control.
Mr. Rammell:
I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
Mr. Bercow:
Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that, under the single currency that he favours, member states should be open to being fined for seeking to influence the conduct of monetary policy by the European central bank? Does that not do violence to the principle of democratic self-government?
Mr. Rammell:
The events of September 1992 were one of the major reasons for the scale of the Conservative defeat on 1 May, and one of their major causes was our lack of control over our economic affairs in a global international currency situation. I believe that, in some
"There is no point in getting over excited about Amsterdam. The integrationists in Europe saw it as a victory for Britain and the British Government."
27 Nov 1997 : Column 1168
Lord Howe, the former Foreign Secretary, said:
How do we reconcile those views of what was achieved with the treaty with some of the xenophobic rhetoric about what was achieved that we have heard this evening? It is impossible--
"Amsterdam disappointed the advocates of integration. Actually the treaty is a pragmatic and not a path-breaking document."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |