Intergovernmental Conference

HC Deb 30 October 1996 vol 284 cc636-8

4. Mr. Charles Kennedy

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress within the intergovernmental conference. [686]

Mr. David Davis

The intergovernmental conference is progressing extremely well.

Mr. Kennedy

I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of the House will warmly welcome such an upbeat assessment. Will the Minister clarify the Government's position in one respect? We have heard the recent contributions from France and Germany and the comments of the Foreign Secretary. If, as seems likely, a federal core involving Germany and France develops for the purposes of deepening integration, what will be the Government's stance towards such a development? Will their stance be to stand to one side and wave it through but not to participate, or to stand in the way and block it? What will be the approach?

Mr. Davis

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary place the formula of the Government's policy before the House last week—that is, any proposal for flexibility must in its implementation be agreed by all and open to all. That means that any proposal can be assessed in terms of its impact on Britain's national interest at the time. That decision can be taken with respect to general or detailed proposals.

Mr. Harris

When does my hon. Friend expect the intergovernmental conference to consider the important amendments that the Government have tabled to the treaty to deal with the scourge of quota hopping? What support have the Government received from other member states to see that that practice, which is wrecking our fishing industry, is put to an end?

Mr. Davis

My hon. Friend raises a matter of considerable importance to the entire country and especially his part of the country. We have raised the matter with the Union and tabled our proposals. We have made it clear that we require those proposals to be discussed and debated fully, and that will probably occur towards the end of this year or early next year. It must be done well before the end of the conference so that—to answer the second part of my hon. Friend's question—we can get a clear idea of how much support we have and of what detailed argument there is in any direction. The argument will be conducted in detail and in parallel with discussions outside the IGC, which also may yield results.

Mr. Watson

What is the Government's attitude to the Swedish Government's proposed amendment with regard to convergence for economic and monetary union? It is proposed that an employment chapter should be added to the Maastricht treaty. The United Kingdom Government are almost alone in opposing that suggestion. Will the Minister explain why they do not consider it important for the intergovernmental conference to deal with protection for jobs, and why once again they are swimming against the tide in Europe?

Mr. Davis

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say "almost alone". The first comment I heard on that matter came from the reflection group, in the form of a cryptic remark from a member of that group who said, "Oh my God! Not reconstructed Keynesianism again." The fact is that a number of countries are concerned about that proposal, for a simple reason. The Labour party has clearly not yet learnt that jobs are created not by Governments but by businesses and individuals. The job of government is to make it easier for that to happen—not harder by increasing bureaucracy.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin

I thank my hon. Friend for being careful about the doctrine of flexibility. The danger, surely, is that if other countries proceed with a federal Europe, we may find them hijacking the European institutions in whose jurisdiction we are included, so we are in danger of being dragged along in the slipstream of federalism unless we provide ourselves with adequate protections for the sovereignty of this kingdom.

Mr. Davis

My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely the sort of argument, both detailed and general, that will apply when any practical proposal on flexibility comes up. It will apply not just in terms of the IGC but, if we decide on a flexible outcome, at each stage thereafter. It is only at those stages that we shall be able to assess the effects of a smaller group's actions both for that group and for the Union at large and the countries outside the group. It is critical not to lose sight of that point.