HC Deb 19 May 1982 vol 24 cc365-6 4.23 pm
Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the action of the EEC Council of Ministers in forcing through agricultural price increases by majority vote in defiance of the Luxembourg compromise whereby majority votes would not be taken on important matters of vital national interest for any member State. I have just heard that there will be discussions between the usual channnels about the debate. For reasons that I shall explain later, the matter is urgent and should be debated today.

The matter is specific because, by taking a decision—which involves swingeing price increases for British consumers and adds £1,000 million to the food bill—by majority vote and ignoring the British veto, the Council has violated all the conventions that have previously governed its business. That the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday that it was a sad and damaging day for the Community's history and that the EEC would come to regret its actions demonstrates that the matter is specific and important.

There can be no doubt that the matter is of profound importance, because the very sovereignty of the Crown and Parliament may be at stake. The future development of the EEC into a federal European State has been brought at least one step nearer as a result of the disgraceful action of seven European States overriding Britain's veto, thereby ignoring her vital interests in pursuit of their own.

The matter is of far-reaching importance to Britain's vital national interests. Britain's veto was set aside yesterday on the issue of farm prices. Tomorrow, in spite of what the Minister said, it could be set aside with regard to fishing, energy, North Sea oil and a wide range of other issues.

I remind the House that successive Governments have given assurances to Parliament and the people that within the Common Market vital British national interests would be safeguarded by the veto and that there was no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty". Cmnd. 4715, of July 1971, which was repeated in March 1975, states categorically: On a question where a Government considers that vital national interests are involved, it is established that the decisions should be unanimous. The Government of that time sent a notice to every person in the land before the referendum. It posed the question: Will Parliament lose its power? The answer was "No". It went on to say: It is the Council of Ministers, and not the Market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto. That absolute assurance was given to the British people—that supreme British national interests would be safeguarded. That has now been thrust aside. The assurances have been rendered worthless. The question of sovereignty that arises from the matter is at least as important as that over the Falkland Islands. We should make no mistake about that.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

Send the fleet.

Mr. Stoddart

The matter is urgent, because the Government must respond to this latest unfriendly act by the EEC. By next week the Falkland crisis will be such that this matter will be pushed to one side. We may have invaded by then. The matter is of supreme importance. I understand that the Cabinet will meet tomorrow to consider its response to the EEC's unfriendly act.

It is essential that, on a matter of such supreme importance, especially as British people have shown increasing opposition to the EEC for some time, Parliament should be allowed the opportunity to advise, guide and perhaps even encourage the Government in the crisis. The House should express its view of the possible options that are available, including the withholding of financial contributions, other funds and the empty chair option.

The matter is urgent, because the voice of the Foreign Office—the same Foreign Office that brought us to the crisis in the Falkland Islands—is one of sell-out and equivocation. It needs the backbone and stamina of Parliament to put some resolve and backbone into the Government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker I hope that you will grant a debate today.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the action of the EEC Council of Ministers in forcing through agricultural price increases by majority vote in defiance of the Luxembourg compromise whereby majority votes would not be taken on important matters of vital national interest for any member State". The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that I consciously allowed the hon. Gentleman to make many points that he would have made had the application been granted. I thought that it was in the interests of the House that he should be allowed to do so, and I exercised my discretion accordingly. The House knows of the exchanges that took place earlier, and naturally they also figure in my consideration.

The House has given me instructions to give no reasons for my decisions when I give my ruling. I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.