'Within 12 months of the ratification of the treaty the Secretary of State shall present to parliament a report on the implications of the treaty for the finances of the European Union, its agricultural policy and its fishing industry.'.—[Sir Teddy Taylor.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Sir Teddy TaylorI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the only amendment which has been selected out of five pages of amendments, not because the Chairman of Ways and Means has become mean, but because in every single piece of European legislation the Government are becoming more clever in having a short title which 1096 prevents any detailed discussion on almost anything. Only through the skills of our own researchers are we able to have one particular amendment discussed in new clause 4.
The Government should be aware that it does not exactly help democracy when Members of Parliament are unable to discuss any aspect of policy in detail. While they are certainly very clever, conscientious and able, it does not exactly help democracy when we have a Bill which contains many important issues, but Parliament is unable to discuss them at all.
My new clause is simple. It suggests:
Within 12 months of the ratification of the treaty the Secretary of State shall present to parliament a report on the implications of the treaty for the finances of the European Union, its agricultural policy and its fishing industry.I think that it is a very good idea for the Government to tell hon. Members a year later whether things have turned out as they predicted. Irrespective of their views on the EC, hon. Members will surely agree that almost every day we receive information revealing that last year's pledges and assurances have turned out to be a load of rubbish, and that the Government are not really in control.10.45 pm
It will be remembered that a Council was held in the lovely city of Edinburgh. Although they would be closing down plenty of military establishments the next day, causing much sadness among the military community, the Government agreed to give more cash to the EC, on one condition—that there were strict budgetary limits on spending. Hon. Members cheered, just as they cheered Mrs. Thatcher when we did same thing under the Single European Act. We said, "At last we have control. They cannot overspend by a penny." But we have already seen what has happened. We have seen a statement signed by the Paymaster General, which I obtained privately, and also one from Brussels, showing that, despite that pledge, our people will have to spend £1,000 million above the legal limit on agriculture in 1995 because the Commission says that that must be done. The Government say that it can be done if we spend reserve funds.
The same applies to contributions to agricultural spending. We were given assurances that things were sorted out now—that the amount would not be much more. I have challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have with me the paper which states that in 1995 Britain will be paying an extra £2,000 million in its gross contribution. That means that every family living in every constituency, and all the poor Members of Parliament who have been assured that things are under control, will be spending an extra £3 a week.
It is all very well for some hon. Members to laugh, but there are many poor families in Britain. Many people cannot make ends meet. It is no fun for them to be told, "Sadly, we have got it wrong. You will all have to pay an extra £3 a week." It may be fun for Members of Parliament, but it is not fun for people who are finding it difficult to pay gas, water and electricity bills—people who may be unemployed. It is wrong, evil and terrible that Members of Parliament are consistently being led up the garden path and not being told the truth. Why not make a gesture of reconciliation? I am only asking the Government to come back to us a year after the treaty's ratification and say how it has worked out.
Fishermen are being told not to worry—everything will be all right. Our fishing industry will be slightly stronger, we are told, with with more opportunities; the Norwegian 1097 industry will be all right. The plain fact is, as the Minister knows—he is one of the few honest guys in this place—that we have already agreed that in 1996 restrictions on the Spaniards will be removed. We have seen what has happened to our fishing fleet in the north: the Spaniards have cleared it out and our North sea catches are down to less than a quarter of their former value. Foreign Office Ministers may walk out of the Chamber, but they know the facts. They know that the value of our catch has fallen by three quarters. People become unemployed and all we do is offer them cash.
The Government say, "Do not worry about these countries joining; we are going to get more money. Britain will be £300 millon better off." The detailed Library papers, however, show that it is not quite as simple as that. Because we shall pay large amounts of compensation to these countries for several years in the form of transitional payments, no saving at all will be made, at least for the first four years. We are far from sure what will happen after that. I may be wrong, the Government may be wrong, but why not come back just once, in a year, and say how it worked out?
The same applies to agriculture. We are told time and again that agriculture will get better and that expenditure will go down. Yet time and again the Government's assessments are shown to be inaccurate, to be lies and misunderstandings or to be a mistake by the Foreign Office.
We cannot carry on like this. People are suffering. According to our Foreign Secretary, the average family in this country pays £28 a week extra on its food or taxes purely because of the CAP. Next year, they will be paying an extra £5 a week. That is not right.
Auditors' reports are published showing fraud and extravagance, but they are never debated in the House. I am not asking the Government to accept all that I am saying or to say that we should leave the EC or encourage others to do so or even that we should spend less money. I am simply saying that, as a gesture of reconciliation, the Government could agree to approve a clause that asks them to come back in a year and tell us how things have worked out. I do not think that that is asking too much. The Government could agree to do that just once. They could say, "We thought certain things were going to happen and they all did. How right we were"; or perhaps, "Things did not quite work out as they should." That would be far better.
My hon. Friend the Minister will probably say that we do not want to pass unnecessary legislation. We do not want to stick something into the Bill that we do not need. The Government will probably say, "Why bother about it anyway because hon. Members can ask questions?" My hon Friend the Minister is an honest chap in the Foreign Office and he knows that we cannot table questions. We cannot ask about our trade with the EC. We are told that the answers are contained in information in the Library. Sadly, the Library figures are not precise because there are many different ways of assessing them. The Government have now achieved a situation in which on many of the basic issues, such as contributions and spending on agriculture, Members can no longer ask questions; we have to go to the Library.
Just once, I want to ask our friendly Foreign Office to come back in a year and provide some figures and let us have a look. We do not even need to have a debate, 1098 although I should prefer one. This is a sensible and helpful suggestion and what has happened in the past more than justifies the request.
The new clause does not propose revolution. We are not proposing that everyone should stand on their head or that policy should change. We are simply asking for an auditor's report in one year to see how things have worked out. If the Opposition and the Government accept that, it will make us all happy. We will know that at least once we will have a proper auditor's report on what has happened, without having to listen to all the nonsense, misunderstandings and sometimes the blatant untruths that, unfortunately, we sometimes hear from the Foreign Office. Many hon. Members have tonight specified that the Foreign Office is the source of deliberate misunderstanding. That is wrong in a democracy.
§ Ms QuinI congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on at least having his new clause selected for debate. As he pointed out, he was the only person who managed to achieve that.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will admit that the new clause is modest in its scope. The Opposition are not particularly enthusiastic about it, simply because it refers to only certain aspects in the treaty of accession and not others. There are many other matters in that treaty that could be looked at. For example, social matters form an important section of the treaty. Other issues include environmental matters, regional matters and matters relating to democracy and open government. There is the declaration by Sweden on open government which also forms part of the accession documents.
The hon. Gentleman has made some valid points, particularly about the cost of agriculture for people on low incomes or who are living in poverty. However, if the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about poverty, he and his colleagues should speak out much more on the taxation system, the VAT rises and the deregulation employment policy of the Government, which have done a great deal to promote poverty in this country.
Six-monthly reports are presented on developments in the European Union. Issues such as those referred to in the new clause can properly be raised in those reports and in Select Committees and European Scrutiny Committees. I am not certain or convinced that the new clause is necessary. As I said earlier, we do not like its selective nature. If a report were to be presented, we would much rather that it referred to all the issues raised in the accession treaty. The hon. Member for Southend, East has an obvious and repeated distrust of the Foreign Office, so I am not sure that he would believe what was in such a report.
§ Mr. WilkinsonIn the debate on clause 1 stand part, I called my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) Mr. Valiant for Truth, and right hon. and hon. Members who heard his speech on the new clause will understand why. My hon. Friend and the supporters of the new clause are not asking anything extravagant or extraordinary of the Government. All we are asking is that their practice should match their rhetoric. We have often heard calls for open government and that the Government are custodians of the practice of open government.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) said that the new clause is modest and not comprehensive, 1099 which is true. It does not refer to the environment or social policy, but it does refer to the three key issues that impinge on people's livelihoods and welfare.
The question of the European Union's finances is fundamental. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred to the notional saving of £300 million over six years in our net contribution, which was described by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his Second Reading speech, and the big increase in this country's gross contribution next year and probably thereafter. We want to see how that equation develops and whether we will achieve the savings that have been promised.
One needs only to take a trip around the countryside and to see the fields of oilseed rape and acres of set-aside land full of weeds to wonder whether the costly extravagance of the agricultural policy is working and whether it is in the interests of our people.
As for the fishing industry, as I mentioned in the debate on clause 1 stand part, whole communities are becoming derelict, which is a tragedy for many coastal villages throughout the land. We want to see whether policy is working out as the Government promised it would.
The new clause makes a modest, simple request of the Government. In a year's time, we want them to give an account of themselves on the important matter of the workings of the European Union after the accession of the four applicant countries, if all four join.
Mr. WintertonI support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Apart from the intervention that I made earlier, this is the first time that I have spoken in the debate. My hon. Friend said that the new clause is modest in its intent and objectives. That was confirmed by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), who spoke for the Opposition. It is extraordinary, however, that Back Benchers have been able to debate only one amendment or new clause on a matter that I believe is of constitutional importance.
In an intervention in an earlier debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) highlighted the lack of interest in Europe—in the European Community or the European Union—displayed by the people of this country. He said that the interest in and support for the European Community or European Union was in fact diminishing. I believe that the House has an important role to play, and I deeply regret the fact that it is unable to make a more meaningful contribution to debates such as this on behalf of the people whom we are here to represent. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has made that point many times.
11 pm
The objectives behind the new clause are very limited. If the House does not allow its Members to represent the deep concerns of the people of this country about matters of constitutional importance such as this Bill, those people will wreak their vengeance on the political parties that have allowed the Bill to be passed in their name.
I do not think that it is unreasonable for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), to ask the Government and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who has 1100 displayed an understanding and realism greater than those of any other Minister at the Foreign Office, to give a sympathetic response to the new clause. Is it wrong to ask a Minister to come back to the House in 12 months' time to give an account of how the Bill has affected this country in three important areas of activity—finance, agriculture and fishing?
I accept what the hon. Member for Gateshead, East said in her brief contribution. Many of us would have wished the new clause to go even wider. If the House is to play a meaningful role in the governance of this country—in the United Kingdom and within the European Union—surely it is not too much to ask the Government to report to the House on whether what they said during the passage of the Bill was accurate and, if it was not, to provide an accurate report on precisely what has happened and to outline its actual impact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East mentioned the cost to the people of this country of the European Community. I believe that he talked of a figure of £28 a week for each family. Is it not right that the United Kingdom Parliament should be able to judge what the Government have done and represent the interests of the people? If not, why are we debating the Bill at this time of night? [Interruption.] I am happy to hear a response from hon. Members who are not even within the limits of the Chamber. It is extraordinary that we should be able to debate only one modest new clause tabled in respect of a measure of such great constitutional importance.
I believe fervently in Parliament and in the role of its Back Benchers—I have been practising it for 23 years without a break. I suggest to the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has made a very modest request of the Government. I do not think that the Government are being honest with the House and with the people of this country unless they are prepared to report back to the House in 12 months' time to justify the policies that they have urged the House, and especially their colleagues, to adopt.
I have been brief and direct. I believe that, yet again, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, like my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Ruislip-Northwood, has done the people of this country a great service. My hon. Friends will go down in the history of this place as honest, direct and honourable. I ask the Government to do the same.
§ Mr. MarlowI, too, intend to be brief, Mr. Lofthouse. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for introducing the new clause, and I am especially concerned that we should have an early report on the implications of the treaty for the finances of the European Union.
One of the most important aspects is European monetary union. As we all know, that will be very expensive indeed, as countries in southern Europe are bought off through cohesion. The four applicant countries are in the penumbra of the Hun, so they will be in favour of European monetary union. Their joining the Community will make it more likely to go forward. Therefore, if we are to influence the debate on European monetary union, it is most important for the Government to make their position crystal clear at an early stage, through the report.
We know the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that a European state without a single currency is 1101 unthinkable. We know the views of the Secretary of State for the Environment—"Not tonight, Josephine. We do not know what the circumstances are; we do not know where we shall be, or what our attitude will be." Monetary union will take place by stealth.
The real question, the question to which we all need the answer, is: what are the Prime Minister's views? One could say that over the past few weeks my right hon. Friend has made a fresh start, and his fortunes are improving. Perhaps by making his position clear in the report on European monetary union he could add momentum to that recovery.
It would be useful to revisit my right hon. Friend's article in The Economist of 25 September 1993, in which he said that the nation state was here to stay. Is that compatible with monetary union? He also said that the people find the centralising vision of Europe alarming. Is that compatible with monetary union? He said that decision making should come closer to the people, not further away. Those issues could be reported on in the annual report.
The Prime Minister said in that article that economic and monetary union was a rain dance—something for the witch doctors. That is all sensible and encouraging stuff. But why not go further, especially as the four applicant countries will probably be hell-bent on monetary union? Let us make our position clear soon. Let us build on my right hon. Friend's success at Corfu, especially in the light of his views as expressed in the article in The Economist.
A real friend might say to my right hon. Friend, "John, you're on a roll. You're doing well. Cash in; take it further. The party in the country, the party in Parliament, and above all the people, want a European policy with which they can be at ease, a policy that they understand, and one that suits the United Kingdom. You've got it; go for it."
Of course we all know what a single currency would mean. It would not be a convenience for commerce or a bonanza for business. It would mean massive transfer payments. Those could be set out bit by bit in the report—
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. As is not uncommon, the hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the new clause. Will he get back to it?
§ Mr. MarlowI have nearly come to the end of my remarks, Mr. Lofthouse.
I am saying that the Prime Minister, by bringing forward the report, could make his position with regard to monetary union crystal clear to the country. It is not a convenience for commerce or a bonanza for business. It means—these are items that could be set out in the report—a massive transfer of funds from the United Kingdom to the southern European countries. It means single interest rates and a single economy. It means harmonisation and a high rate of taxes. It means a single bank and it means inevitably that instead of being a nation state, instead of being the United Kingdom, we should become a mere province of a single, centralised European state. The decision making would be not closer but further from the people. There would be an expensive rain dance of an unrepresentative and unaccountable Government—the witch doctors of the European elite. That would bring forward a storm of resentment and ungovernability which would wash away not only the Treasury's policy and the 1102 agricultural policy, which would be reported on, but some of the aspects of European co-operation of which we are all in favour.
It could be said in the report that the British people cannot afford European monetary union and do not want European monetary union. From his statements, it is clear that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not want European monetary union. If the heart and mind of the Prime Minister and the hearts and minds of the people of the United Kingdom take the same view on this vital issue of policy—this vital issue of identity—does it do any harm for the Prime Minister to make that clear now? Does it do any harm for him to say, "I will never accept the single currency and I will never accept the single European state"? The two are a distinction without a difference.
§ Mr. David Heathcoat-AmoryI want to be helpful to my hon. Friends because I think that the provision of information to the House is important. National Parliaments should be more involved in European legislation and developments in Europe than they have been. However, the information sought in the new clause is generally available in other ways. During the passage of the Bill, we have tried to set out the implications of accession—in documentary form as well. On 29 March, we sent to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs a fairly detailed account of the negotiations at that point.
In addition, my hon. Friends have overlooked the elaborate scrutiny system that already exists in the House. All important documents coming from the European institutions are deposited with the Select Committee on European Legislation and are available for scrutiny and debate. Indeed, I gave evidence to that Committee yesterday. Developments in the European Union are reported in six-monthly White Papers and Ministers frequently make statements on their return from Council meetings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in particular mentioned finance. It is true that the EC budget will have to be adjusted to take account of the states that accede, but that, too, will be the subject of scrutiny and debate. The documents will be deposited in the normal way, I hope before the end of this year.
§ Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)Is my hon. Friend aware of the sheer scale of this? The EU proposes to provide 200 million ecu in the first year for Norway alone. It is estimated that the cost of agricultural support is 2 billion ecu. Where is that extra 1.8 billion ecu to be found?
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryAs has frequently been made clear, agricultural support in the four countries is extremely high. One of the advantages of bringing the countries into the European Union is that it will reduce the degree of agricultural protection in Europe. Bringing them into the Union will be a net gain in terms of the reduction in agricultural protection. The overall flow of funds is to our advantage. I repeat the point that, although the common agricultural policy will remain expensive in those states, they are more than paying their own way—not only in the long term, but even during the transitional period before their systems align fully with existing policies.
The point on which I must end is that we should not legislate unless we absolutely have to. That is the principle, after all, which underlies our deregulation efforts. Given 1103 that all the information will be made available under normal proceedings, I must invite the Committee to reject the new clause.
§ Question put and negatived.
§ Bill reported, without amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
11.15 pm§ Mr. SpearingThe Committee was surprised that the Government Front-Bench spokesmen, or one part of their team, took steps to prevent the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) from contributing to an earlier debate. However, with his characteristic ingenuity and his knowledge of the rules of the House, he was able to speak.
On Third Reading, the Bill being about the Community and accession to it, I, too, would like to use the opportunity that the Standing Orders provide to make some brief remarks. The Bill is to permit the applicants, if they so wish, to join the Community—this Union which prides itself on its democratic tradition and its democratic opportunity, but which nevertheless is at something of a turning point due to the increasing dominance of one of its member states. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred a short time ago to what happened in Europe 50 years ago. Through the sacrifice of his father 50 years ago today, people like myself were spared the attacks of certain weapons in London. Those of us who survived that period were determined that after that war Europe would be a place where such a war could not happen again.
The Bill and the Community that we are offering to our Scandinavian neighbours is founded on treaties which cannot—and, I fear, will not—provide that sense of security, of democracy, of co-operation that we all sought 50 years ago. The reason is that, instead of encouraging co-operation, the Community's treaties encourage competition. Instead of going about things in an open way, they encourage package bargaining and secret negotiation. That is why our friends in Germany, in seeking to keep the freedom of their lands, are advocating a federal structure which some Conservative Members and others in this country rightly fear so much.
In other words, the Bill will enable our Scandinavian neighbours, if they so wish, to accede to a Community whose constitution and whose treaties are flawed because they do not serve the purposes for which they are advertised and cannot bear the fruit for which they are constantly praised and, one hopes, expected to produce. I do not think that they can achieve those objectives.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, myself and others have not thought this because of antagonism towards our friends in Europe. It is the opposite of that. We want to ensure that friendship is founded on real democracy, real freedom and real open government, but we fear that these treaties will not ensure that. I hope that our Scandinavian friends, having been given the opportunity to choose whether to stand aside and to co-operate outside the 1104 alleged Community and the alleged Union, will opt to do so. It will be to their advantage and to the advantage of all countries in Europe if they choose not to accede at this stage. It will also be to the advantage of the House, the quality of politics in this land and the citizens of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. MarlowI shall be incredibly brief. We are in favour, apparently, of bringing these countries into the European Community because Europe is moving our way, because they will agree with us and because they will help us to move Europe our way. Apparently they will help us to reform the institutions of Europe.
I have a suggestion for the Government. Money is power, and the less money the institutions of the European Community have, the less power they have—so do not bring forward the European Community finance Bill. Our finances have changed and Europe's finances have changed. There is massive fraud. We know that £300 million is being wasted on the European Parliament. We are taxing our elderly people to pay for their heating and we cannot afford it. Let us cut off the supply of money and add that to the alliance that we shall have with the four new countries of the European Community. Let us beat some sense into the heads of the bureaucrats of Brussels.
§ Ms QuinOn Second Reading, the Opposition warmly welcomed the Bill and the accession treaty. Today's debates have not changed our minds. There have been many contributions and it seems that, especially among Conservative Members, the penny has dropped. There seems to be an understanding that the countries joining the European Union have European policies and domestic policies which have a great deal in common with Labour and rather less in common with the Government's views. That makes us, the Opposition, even keener about enlargement.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said that we risk not always taking the peoples of Europe with us in many of the matters that are discussed in the European Union and decided upon. He talked of the danger of a democratic gap between the European institutions and the people. It is important for us to demystify Europe and to make it relevant. We believe that the four new countries will help us to do that. Their commitment to open government—as a reality and not just rhetoric—is welcome.
The four applicant countries will bring considerable economic, social and environmental assets to the European Union, and they will help to make it more democratic. We welcome that, and we welcome them. We are pleased that the Bill is having its Third Reading.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI commend the Bill to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.