| Previous Section | Home Page |
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : Not true
The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) will have heard my right hon.
Column 291
Friend the Foreign Secretary say, from a seated position, that that was untrue. The right hon. Gentleman has been misled--I know that he will accept that.Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) : Does the Prime Minister agree that the declaration adopted at Birmingham stated that there could be no change to the Maastricht treaty? If so, how can the Prime Minister argue that the Danish position has been made clear, when the Danish Government are arguing for a legally binding change? How can there be a legally binding change that will satisfy the needs of the Danish people while, at the same time, there is no change to the Maastricht treaty?
The Prime Minister : Almost every intervention from Labour Members-- [ Hon. Members-- : "Answer".] I shall answer specifically in a second--has been trying to find another weaselly excuse for not voting for a motion that they are in favour of. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question is that the Danish Government are not seeking to change the substance of what is in the treaty. They are seeking to add to it clarifications and extra matters beyond the treaty, as their Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister : No, I will make some progress. The House is aware that I have given way a number of times already.
I should like to turn now to the exchange rate mechanism and the fears that have been expressed about the relationship between the mechanism and any possible future commitment to a single currency. It is the Government's intention that the United Kingdom should enter the second stage of monetary union in 1994. It is important to understand precisely what that involves. During the second stage, monetary policy remains a national responsibility and the United Kingdom is not committed to going beyond stage 2. This is not affected by the establishment of the European Monetary Institute, whose functions will be in elaboration of the existing committee of central bank governors. We will continue to take our own decisions on monetary policy matters and will remain entirely free whether or not to participate in the exchange rate mechanism as a quite separate matter from the ratification of this treaty.
The only relevance of the mechanism in this respect is as one of the convergence criteria for the move from stage 2 of economic and monetary union to the final stage of a single currency. I have repeatedly made it clear, and do so again today, that it is far too soon to consider whether the United Kingdom should join a single currency. I have made that clear in the House on many occasions in the past.
Mr. Den Dover (Chorley) : The Prime Minister will be well aware of the strong misgivings in the House and outside about the possibility of moving to a single currency. Will he therefore at least keep the door open about whether there should be a referendum on that matter at some convenient time?
The Prime Minister : I have kept the door entirely open to decisions by the House, at a time when it is economically appropriate to make a decision. As I have said many times in the past--I repeat for my hon. Friend what I said on 20
Column 292
May--I do not believe that it is right to predetermine a decision that should properly be taken only by Parliament, in the light of the circumstances then prevailing across Europe. This decision, as I said then, is too important to be an act of faith : it must also be an act of judgment, and that judgment cannot sensibly be made until we see the economic circumstances of the day.Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Everybody respects the Prime Minister's desire to take Britain to the heart of Europe, but does he honestly believe that the people of this country can be made to accept that on the basis of legislation passed by the Whips, of either party, on votes of confidence ? Is it not clear that, as he is prepared to wait for the Danish people to determine in a referendum whether to reverse their previous decision, he should have the same respect for the rights of the British people--of all opinions, for and against Maastricht, and of all parties--to have a part in deciding the biggest constitutional issue that has come before Parliament this century ?
The Prime Minister : I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman as a parliamentarian, and as a parliamentarian he will know that, through the centuries, it has been through this House that we have dealt with such matters. I understand the strong feelings that exist in many parts of the House about referendums, but it has always been my view that these matters are best dealt with by the House, because we are ultimately answerable to the electorate for the decisions we take.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood) : Will the Prime Minister give way ?
The Prime Minister : Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me ? I have given way generously to hon. Members on both sides, and I would like to make a little more progress.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose --
Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister has made his views clear.
The Prime Minister : So the provisions that we have in the treaty mean that, in both stages two and three, we will be entirely free to decide the framework and institutional arrangements for the conduct of monetary policy in the United Kingdom. That is the position, and it will remain so. I believe that it will be better understood not just in the House but beyond it when we have had the opportunity of discussing these matters at great length in the Committee to which I trust we will move, both before and after Christmas.
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) rose --
The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way on many occasions, and I would like to make some progress. I turn now to the important question of citizenship. Let me again make it clear to the House that our position as British citizens now and in the future will not in any way be affected by the Maastricht treaty. That is the position, and it will remain the position. In tomorrow's edition of The European --I have not often found things that I like in newspapers in recent weeks, but I have now--there is an article by the Chancellor of Germany, who makes the point very clearly that we will remain, he writes, Germans, Britons, Italians
Column 293
and Frenchmen, and at the same time Europeans ; there is no question of subordination to a European citizenship in any way in the treaty immediately in front of us.One other important matter of concern to the House in the treaty is that of common defence, so let me turn to defence and the perspective of a common treaty.
Mr. Cryer : The treaty needs 12 states to support it--he is wasting time.
The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman were to read the treaty, he might better understand it, and if he were to listen, he would understand it better yet.
Mr. Cryer rose --
The Prime Minister : The treaty reflects a British concept of a possible longer-term perspective of a common defence policy, and it does so because, in my judgment, it is right that Europe should do more in its own defence in future ; but it is important to realise the context in which that will happen.
Any defence co-operation will take place within the Western European Union, and the Western European Union is free to take its own decisions on defence. It will not be under instruction in any way from the Community member states, now or at any stage in the future. It is equally clear that any decisions must be without prejudice to our obligations under NATO. NATO has in any case already recognised the Western European Union as the European pillar of the NATO alliance.
All the decisions in this area will be taken by unanimity. There is no question whatsoever of our allowing any of these provisions to come within Community competence now or in the future.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way--my point is an important one. May I remind him of the decision of the National Assembly of France on 30 August 1954 not to ratify the proposed European defence community? From that decision there arose the free association of independent sovereign states-- the Western European Union and, as a consequence, NATO was strengthened through the accession both of West Germany and of Italy. That procedural motion of 30 August put France, by the decision of its parliamentarians, at the heart of Europe for the next generation. No one can say that they were unmindful of either France's interests or Europe's and nor shall we be when we vote against the Government motion tonight.
The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure that I detected my hon. Friend's question.
Let me turn to an important issue that is not itself directly in the treaty but is absolutely dependent on the treaty--the enlargement of the European Community. The United Kingdom's policy is unreservedly in favour of widening the borders of the Community. We should like first to bring in the EFTA states and then in due course the newly democratic states of central and eastern Europe. We would like the EFTA states to join us for a number of important reasons. First, it would widen the Community to embrace democracies which look to us for
Column 294
political and economic stability ; secondly, it would increase the free trade area of the single market ; thirdly, it would reinforce the democratic structures of Europe.But there is a fourth reason why it is very much in Britain's self- interest, and that is that the EFTA states would bring in further net contributors to the European Community budget. In future, when the EFTA states have joined, those factors will ensure a better balance. The EFTA states will also ensure our vigorous enforcement of Community obligations.
One of the difficulties at present in the Community is that, of the 12 member states, only three, Germany--by far the largest--the United Kingdom and France, are significant net contributors to the Community budget. Italy and the Netherlands are broadly in balance, but the others are all net beneficiaries, in some cases by large amounts. The practical effect of that is to tilt decision making in favour of the centre because of the interest which a majority of states have in more Community expenditure and because the Commission has responsibility for the administration of those funds.
We will have a much better balance in the Community when the extra contributing nations join it. That will mean that we have nearly 50 per cent. of contributors, a much more healthy position for the future development of the Community.
There are a large number of practical reasons why we should ratify the treaty. I know that there is a seductive argument used by some that says, "Delay--don't hurry. We didn't want the treaty in the first place, so just concentrate on the economy and push it to one side." But the fact is that our European policy and our economic well-being are inextricably linked, and will remain inextricably linked in future.
The EC receives £60 billion-worth of manufactured goods and 54 per cent. of our total trade is now with the EC. An estimated-- [Interruption.] I should have thought that the Opposition would be interested in this point. An estimated 3 million jobs depend on trade with the Community. In 1990, the United Kingdom received £17 billion-worth of inward investment, and 50,000 manufacturing jobs flow from Japanese investment in the United Kingdom--new markets, new jobs.
The economic reality is that the Community has been economically good for Britain and good for our position as a power in world trade. Scottish Members will recall a practical illustration of that. It was GATT action by the Community that persuaded Japan to open the market for Scottish whisky. I could stretch that list from here to the doorway and back again.
The Community is good for future trade, and the evidence is clear in the attitudes of countries not yet in the Community. A large array of countries is queuing to join the Community--Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Can they all be wrong about the advantages--social, economic and in security terms--in joining the Community? They all see the Community as a necessary ingredient in their future prosperity, and I believe that they are right in that judgment.
We are seeking to build--this treaty is part of that building--a safer and more secure Europe than any previous generation has known. That is an opportunity for this generation of politicians if they have the courage and the vision to take it and I believe that the House should do so.
Column 295
Neither is this just a question of international matters of that sort. The fact is that our relationship with the European Community is very hard-headed and very much in our own interests ; our jobs, our markets, our future prosperity. That is not just the Government's view. British Aerospace is a large company in which many people will have an interest and they would do well to listen to its chief executive, who says :"The risks of non-ratification to all our businesses and employees are too high to be seriously worth consideration."
As 27 senior business men recently wrote :
"We are also concerned about the signal that failure to ratify the treaty would give about our future position in the Community." If our interests are so great--and undeniably they are great--this country must play a central role in the Community, and we cannot do that if we shy away from the agreements into which we have entered with our partners in the Community.
I know that it is the wish of some that the Maastricht treaty might not have been proposed by others in the Community. The fact is that it was. It is equally the case that we got the best out of it that we could in our own national interests. Those who argue that, because we did not propose the treaty, we should take advantage of present circumstances to ditch it do so in the belief that we could have everything we want in Europe and sacrifice nothing. I have to tell them that that argument is not real in regard to the way in which the Community conducts its business.
Without the Maastricht treaty, there would be no enlargement of the Community--and every hon. Member knows that it is right to enlarge the Community, and that it is in our interests to do so. Without the Maastricht treaty, we would have no means of developing co-operation between member states outside Community competence--and we want to develop co-operation outside Community competence.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, Derby) : Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister : No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Without Maastricht, we would have no subsidiarity, and we know that we need that. No hon. Member should kid himself that, without Maastricht, we would have a Community without any of the problems posed by the Maastricht debate. Instead, we would have a Community fighting--day after day, time and time again--all the battles that were fought and largely won by us in the treaty that the House will shortly reconsider. Anyone who believes that that situation would be good for political stability--
Mr. Wareing rose --
Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that he is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman should not proceed in such circumstances.
The Prime Minister : With respect to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Derby (Mr. Wareing), I have given way frequently enough, and many hon. Members are waiting to speak.
Anyone who believed that that situation of uncertainty would be good for political stability, for business, for growth and for jobs would simply be deluding himself. It
Column 296
would be a fatal cocktail for the future interests of this country if we were to shrink from meeting the agreement into which we freely entered.There is a very practical point of real and immediate importance that the House should consider. At the Edinburgh summit in a few weeks' time, we will have important matters to agree with our European partners--matters of crucial interest to us : the Community's future financial arrangements, the final stages of the single market, and enlargement. If the House votes against the Government today, it will diminish our capacity to negotiate successfully on matters in our own national self-interest. That is the point that every hon. Member should carry into the Lobby. If hon. Members want to diminish our capacity to negotiate what is right for this country, they should vote for the Opposition amendment and against the Government today. I must tell the House, however, that, if it were to do that, our European partners would not take our negotiating position seriously, now or in the future, and we would not be able to make agreements that are in our own national self-interest. I understand very clearly the frustration that some people feel in having to make compromises to advance the British interest ; the temptation to break out--to go our own way--is sometimes strong. I must tell the House, however, that it would be wrong to do so. National self-interest is not about striking attitudes, but about striking deals that are in our own interest--and that is what we must do in the Community. That is why every British Government from Harold Macmillan's onwards has sought first to enter the Community and then to make a success of our membership.
I have to tell the House, and I have to tell the country, that we cannot continue to make a success of our membership of the Community unless we ratify the treaty to which we agreed. That is my clear judgment, and I would be doing the country and the House a disservice if I did not back that judgment with all the force at my command. That means that, after this debate has been concluded and won by the Government, we shall bring back the Bill and seek the support of all the Members of this House to secure its adoption--that is what is in our own national self-interest. In order that we may do so, I ask hon. Members to support the motion.
4.30 pm
Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East) : I beg to move, to leave out from first "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :
"recalls the conditions relating to the Danish position and to subsidiarity laid down by the Prime Minister in the debate in this House on 24th September ; and believes that these conditions cannot be satisfied until the Edinburgh European Council at the earliest and that therefore further consideration of the Bill should await the outcome of that meeting."
Before I enter on the merits of the debate I think that it would be appropriate to congratulate Governor Clinton on his tremendous victory in the American presidential election--[ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] He fought a positive campaign, which set out a new agenda for America's future, and he eloquently and effectively made the case for change. He deserves his victory, and we in the
Column 297
Labour party wish him well. I add that we are delighted that a major battle has been won against negative campaigning --[ Hon. Members :-- "Oh!"]Mr. Smith rose-- [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker : Order. The House should settle down now.
Mr. Smith : I take it, Madam Speaker-- [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker : Order. A bit of fun is all right, but we want to make some progress now-- [Interruption.] Order. I can hear as well as anybody else in the House.
Mr. Smith : I take it from Conservative Members' reaction to what I said that the two Tory strategists who were sent to help President Bush will not be welcome when they come back to this country. What the Conservatives have done seems an odd way to start off a relationship with the new President.
The House will remember that the roots of the motion and the debate go back to 24 September-- [Interruption.] If the Prime Minister will hear me out, and listen to the argument, he will be able to pass comments on it. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that on 24 September, in the recall debate following black Wednesday, he chose to set out to the House in clear terms the way in which the Government proposed to deal with the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. He made two points, which he referred to only obliquely today--the Danish question and subsidiarity. This is what he said : "we need a definition--a settled order--of what is for national action and what is for Community action. We need clear criteria by which Community proposals will be judged. When we are satisfied that such a system has been put in place, and when we are clear that the Danes have a basis on which they can put the treaty back to their electorate, we shall bring the Maastricht Bill back to the House of Commons."
It is clear that the Prime Minister prescribed that there should be a settled order of subsidiarity, and that the Danes should have a basis for a new referendum--both to be in place before the House proceeded further with the Bill.
Today the House must judge whether the substantive conditions have been met.
The Prime Minister : The roots of the debate go back to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) when he was Leader of the Opposition, when I agreed that we would consider arranging a debate in the House in October, as soon as we came back from the recess. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House subsequently specifically confirmed that to the House.
Secondly, I fear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have looked at the paragraph governing the words that he has quoted. That said :
"It would not make sense to bring the Bill back to the House before we know clearly what Danish intentions are, and when and how the Danes propose to consult their people again. When those things are known we must examine the Bill further."
As I clearly set out in my speech, both those things are now known.
Mr. Smith : -- [Interruption.] Hon. Members will surely let me reply. Clearly, the Prime Minister was planning for
Column 298
two eventualities because he put two versions to the House. The version that I have quoted embarrasses him because it says clearly : "When we are satisfied that such a system has been put in place."--[ Official Report , 24 September 1992 ; Vol. 212, c. 8.]The words carry no ambiguity.
The Prime Minister said that the roots of today's debate went back to the debate with my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). My right hon. Friend asked the Prime Minister for a written paper and a debate. I do not know where the report is. We do not have a written report before the House. In any event, I will not quibble with the Prime Minister about that because there is a more important matter.
The Prime Minister : Just to ensure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no need to quibble, the paper is in the Library.
Mr. Smith : The proper-- [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister was heard in reasonable order by the House. The same must apply to every right hon. and hon. Member.
Mr. Smith : The proper place for the Prime Minister to put any report is before the House, not in the Library.
The Birmingham summit--a non-event to which I shall return later--has occurred and the Danes have set out their negotiating position in a series of proposals to other member states, the most important of which they wish to be juridically binding. Do those developments satisfy the conditions set out by the Prime Minister? Is there now "a settled order" for dealing with the allocation of responsibility between nation states and the Community? The Birmingham declaration said :
"we reaffirm that decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the citizen."
Note the word "reaffirm". It is not a word which signals some change.
The communique went on to say :
"the Maastricht Treaty provides the right framework and objective for subsidiarity."
It was interesting that, when the Prime Minister came back to the House after the Birmingham summit, he told us that for the first time there was a proper framework for the practical definition and implementation of subsidiarity. When we check that against the summit communique, we discover that he was referring not to something new but to the treaty itself, which existed long before the Birmingham summit.
All that happened at the Birmingham summit was that member states invited reports--presumably from the Commission--on the ways in which Maastricht might be taken forward. The Prime Minister came back and told the House that decisions would be taken at Edinburgh to make subsidiarity an integral part of future Community decision-taking. He did not succeed in discharging his obligation to the House.
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith : The hon. Gentleman must allow me to finish this point because it is at the heart of the amendment.
Column 299
The Danes have set out their stall. We have yet to know the reaction of the other 11 member states to that. Their reactions might be positive or negative but the Prime Minister must confirm --Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith : I have already said that I want to finish this point. If I am allowed to finish this passage, I shall give way. I am adopting the same practice as the Prime Minister in the early part of his speech.
The Prime Minister told us that it was the aim of the Danes to ratify the treaty. He said in his report to the House :
"we plan to set in place at Edinburgh the framework that will allow them to do so."--[ Official Report, 20 October 1992 ; Vol. 212, c. 320.]
Note that in both cases the Prime Minister said "at Edinburgh". He did not say "now". That is the undertaking which he gave to the House and which has not been discharged. It was not the Opposition but the Government who gave that undertaking to the House.
If the Danish position cannot be resolved, how can there be a basis for a new referendum? If there were any doubts about the Danish position, they were revealed in a memorandum from Mr. Michael Jay, an assistant under- secretary of state at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He said :
"The Danish plan is unlikely to be acceptable as it stands to member states and some of them may make this clear. We may therefore have a difficult negotiation ahead of us, which could play awkwardly with the paving debate and the Maastricht Bill".
That is an interesting passage--
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) rose --
| Next Section
| Home Page |