European Community (Developments)

§ Mr. Speaker

I must now make a rather sad statement. In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the next debate, I shall have to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of—

1. (a) developments in the European Community, in particular in view of the forthcoming European Council in Rome on 14th–15th December, with reference also to the White Paper on Developments in the European Community January-June 1990 (Cm. 1234); and
2. (b) European Community Document No. 9431/90, the European Commission's opinion on the calling of the Inter-Governmental Conference on Political Union which was issued in accordance with Article 236 of the Treaty.

The main purpose of the debate is to look forward to the summit, the meeting of the European Council, at the end of next week and to the start of the two intergovernmental conferences that will begin on Saturday 15 December, one of them on economic and monetary union, in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the lead, and the other on institutional change in the Community, in which I will take the lead.

I do not intend to speak about economic and monetary union today, because I understand that there will be a debate on it before long. I do not believe that there will be detailed discussion of the subject at the summit at the end of next week. There has been no change in the Government's policy on the matter. I should like a little later to say something about the other intergovernmental conference on institutional change, sometimes called political union.

I will run quickly through what I think will be the main items on the agenda of the European Council. The Prime Minister and I will be carrying to that Council the central message from this Government and country that we want and intend to play a full, central and positive part in all debates on the future of the Community to which we belong. We want to preserve and promote the national interest and to build an open, confident, outward-looking European Community with influence in the world.

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)

rose——

§ Mr. Hurd

I will make a little progress with my speech before giving way.

I wish to add a word to our continental partners about recent events in this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) represented this country at 31 European summits, and not many among those present at Rome next week will be able to remember any other Prime Minister speaking for Britain. My right hon. Friend had her own manner of dealing with Community issues—[Interruption.]—which was often 476 controversial, often effective and always distinctive. I know for certain that many who crossed swords with her on those occasions are feeling sad now that she is no longer there.

It would be a mistake for anyone to suppose that, because the leader of the Government has changed, the policy will be reversed. For the last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister and I have, with other colleagues, worked out and elaborated the policies for Britain in the Community which we believe to be in the national interest as well as in the interests of Europe.

Of course, the style will change—because the choice of words will change; those are personal things—but we shall enter the IGCs, the inter-governmental conferences, intending to make a success of both of them, equipped with our ideas for bringing about that success, and they will still be the main means by which, in the next year or so, the Community will evolve.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has gone, that may already be happening—that other Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers know that they will have to come out and insist on more detail, when previously they could rely on her to do it?

§ Mr. Hurd

That may well be true. The present Prime Minister will be no less energetic in advancing Britain's ideas, as he was as Chancellor of the Exchequer. His views will not change because he has been promoted, and my views will not change because I have not been promoted.

I would hate there to be any misunderstanding on that point. If our partners go to Rome expecting consistency and continuity in British policy, they will not be disappointed—continuity in the line we take and consistency in our ultimate objectives. The interests of this nation and of the House are paramount, and our policy will be based on a clear appreciation of those interests.

I come to what I know will be the main items before the summit. I shall not say much about the Gulf, except that it is certain that the Community, the summit, will need to have a full discussion on the Gulf. The House will have an opportunity next week to go into the substance of the matter, and hon. Members had an exchange today about the hostages.

It is clear from my discussions at the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday that the whole Community, all 12, is united behind the Security Council resolutions, including the last one for which Britain and France voted in New York last week, No. 678, authorising the use of force. I am sure that the European summit will want to make that point clear in Rome at the end of next week.

Another item that will be prominent is the position of the Soviet Union and the extent to which the Community should help that country. We see President Gorbachev and his colleagues striving now—it is not an exaggeration—to save the Soviet Union. In part, they are still using the traditional apparatus of command, and in part they are bringing forward reforms, both political and economic.

I do not think we should pretend that our sympathy and help will be decisive. We cannot solve the problems of the republics and their relationship with Moscow. We cannot ourselves rescue from disintegration the command economy to which the Soviet Union was accustomed. We 477 cannot ourselves replace that command economy with a lively free market. Those are all things that they must work out for themselves.

If we can give useful help—I underline the word "useful"—it is in our interest to do so, because it is not in our interest that the Soviet Union should dissolve into rival warring republics or lapse back into some form of dangerous tyranny. But untargeted help would not have a great impact. Indeed, it might even help to prop up the crumbling structures.

§ Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham)

rose——

§ Mr. Hurd

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

What we must try to do—in what Britain and the Community does—is help the Russians to mobilise their own huge resources. That means that the Community should agree practical measures of technical assistance to help provide western know-how in key sectors of the economy. One obvious example is energy, about which the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Lubbers, put forward an interesting plan which I hope the summit will help to carry forward.

We want to help create an active private sector in the Soviet Union, and in the long run that country will need private sector investment from the west. But that requires a degree of certainty and confidence—a framework within which investors can work—and that is why we are pressing the Commission to bring forward ideas in that sphere.

The most pressing need is on the food side. The best available evidence we have suggests that, after a record grain harvest, there exists sufficient food for all. It exists and it is there, but problems of hoarding and distribution prevent it from getting to the places where there are shortages. The full picture is far from clear. Anecdotal evidence contradicts itself to some extent, and I hope that the summit will receive—we have asked for it—a clear and expert assessment of identifiable needs and of ways in which the Community could respond usefully.

§ Mr. Grant

It is rumoured that the Soviet Union has tremendous gold reserves and billions of dollars in western banks. Is it reasonable for the European Community to give food and monetary aid to the Soviet Union when it already has substantial sums of money and, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, food, when there are starving people in third world countries who could use that money and aid?

§ Mr. Hurd

I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, when people are starving, it is right that humanitarian aid should be given. That applies in the horn of Africa and in the Soviet Union—provided that the food will reach the people in need, and that is a big proviso.

As for the bigger questions of financial help—balance of payments help and so on—I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, and I was coming to that point. I do not think it is sensible to rush into giving that kind of help, at least not without a proper assessment, not just by the European Commission but by the International Monetary Fund—something with which African countries are familiar. One must respect the position of the Soviet Union, its history and its sensitivities, but I believe that there is a clear distinction between what we can do in terms of food and 478 technical assistance—the case for technical assistance is overwhelming—and the longer-term, larger-scale balance of payments help, which must be carefully considered.

§ Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth)

Given the success of the Red Cross in distributing German supplies in the Soviet Union, might there be a case for having an arrangement to encourage British transportation to distribute Russian food?

§ Mr. Hurd

There might be. The question of the distribution of food is crucial, and when I announced the British know-how fund for the Soviet Union a few weeks ago, I listed food distribution as an area in which Britain could be of particular help, and projects of that type can be among the first calls on the know-how fund.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity, following the welcome resignation of General Ershad as President of Bangladesh, to make clear to the Bangladesh military that, if it was unwise enough to stage a coup d'etat at this time in an effort to stop free and fair elections being held in Bangladesh——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order.

§ Mr. Madden

—to elect a president and parliament that the British Government and the international community——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not persist in ignoring the Chair. I fail to see what relevance his intervention has to the matter before us.

§ Mr. Hurd

I cannot reward the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for that. I would rather prepare and choose my words carefully on the subject of Bangledesh before discussing it.

I shall move on to a related issue that will certainly be on the summit's agenda, eastern Europe as a whole——

§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

rose——

§ Mr. Hurd

I shall proceed for a little longer, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes to intervene.

The countries of eastern Europe rely to a substantial extent on the Community and the western world for help in bringing forward their reforms. Britain, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, took the lead in encouraging reform in eastern Europe and stimulating international support for it. We recognise that the new democracies need trade as much as aid. That is why we have proposed, and the Community has endorsed, association agreements between the Community and Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. They will provide a framework for the sort of wide-ranging co-operation we want, with the eventual goals of free trade arrangements and a clear link with the Community.

The newly democratic countries face a serious economic problem as a result of the Gulf crisis and the rise in oil price. That subject is being, and will need to be, discussed. Without going into it in detail, I would simply say that we are clear that those new, pressing needs of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and other such countries cannot be tackled simply by using the Community's resources. It will be necessary to bring in the resources of the entire Group of 24, including the United 479 States, Canada and Japan. I think we should also bring in the resources of some of the Gulf countries which benefited substantially from the same process.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

It is important for my right hon. Friend to clarify one aspect of what he said about Government policy. Sustaining President Gorbachev in keeping the USSR cohesive is one thing, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that that does not prejudice the position of the three Baltic republics, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, the overrunning of which by Soviet Russia the United Kingdom has never recognised as an extension of Soviet territory to include those republics? We must not betray them merely because there are other difficulties within the Soviet Union.

§ Mr. Hurd

My hon. Friend is entirely right——

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I suppose all that is in order.

§ Mr. Hurd

Of course it is in order, because I have been talking about the Soviet Union. It is not for me to say, but I should have thought that it was naturally in order.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hislop) is right—we have constantly made it clear to the Soviet Government that we regard the three Baltic republics as being in a different position, legally and historically, from the other republics of the Soviet Union.

The subject of the negotiations between the Community and the European Free Trade Association, and the enlargement of the Community may come up at the summit and is, anyway, of interest to the House. We believe that the Community should be open to new membership for those who satisfy the obligations of membership and to increased and more liberal trade with third world countries. At present, the EFTA countries are negotiating with us to extend the Community's internal market to encompass them, and we strongly support those negotiations because it is important that they should succeed. That may or may not lead eventually to full membership of the Community by the EFTA countries.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

rose——

§ Mr. Hurd

I should like to get on.

We have received an application from one of the EFTA countries, Austria. As the decade goes on, there may well be other applications for full membership from some of the newly democratic countries of central and eastern Europe that I mentioned. If so, the association agreements to which I referred, which we strongly support, will be seen as a bridge to full membership. Negotiations on when and how full membership of those countries can be achieved will be necessary. We must not say to countries that apply, "You may be European and democratic and have a free market, but we think that 12 is a good number, so goodbye."

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be reviewing priorities for next week's talks. In that regard, what can he tell the House today about the Community's posture on the Uruguay round negotiations? Is he aware of the deep 480 concern about that issue in New Zealand, Australia and many of the poorest developing Commonwealth countries?

§ Mr. Hurd

Indeed: that was to be my next topic, which shows the wisdom of trying to make progress in a speech before giving way. It may be useful to discuss that subject at the European summit, although that depends slightly on what happens in the negotiations in Brussels in the next few days. Today, the Ministers are continuing the meeting in Brussels, but the position changes almost every hour.

Overnight, the Uruguayan chairman proposed that the five key subjects in the negotiations—agriculture, services, textiles, intellectual property and the general agreement on tariffs and trade rules—should be taken together. When I last touched base with Brussels, it was not clear whether that proposal would go forward or talks had broken down or been suspended. The crisis was triggered by the American rejection of the Uruguayan chairman's approach, because the Americans were insisting on separate Community concessions on agriculture first. Today, the Community has indicated that it is willing to be flexible on that issue, but the Americans also need to make concessions, particularly on services.

The aim of GATT is that everyone should gain, which will require everyone making concessions in order to achieve the desired overall gain. There is a sense of crisis—which may have been necessary to jolt people out of their entrenched positions. I agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that there now has to be genuine negotiation.

Another item on the summit's agenda will be the Commission's report on progress towards a single market. I hope that the House will not lose sight of what has been, and continues to be for this country, one of the main objectives of the Community over recent years—we are in sight of a single market of 340 million people, a unique achievement in history. It will be dynamic because, as the Scrutiny Committee well knows, beneath the simplicity of abolishing the trade barriers lies a complex programme of legislation.

The Common Market programme is about two thirds complete, and the summit will review progress on the basis of a report from President Delors. Britain will have to set the priorities for the next phase and ensure that enforcement of measures already agreed is adequate. The key sectors where we want to see quick progress include public procurement, financial services and liberalisation of transport.

The intergovernmental conference on institutional reform is called political union, although that is a somewhat misleading phrase. During recent weeks, our concern has been to ensure that there will be no attempt at the second summit in Rome at the end of next week to pre-empt that conference by laying down what it should or should not decide before it has even met. We have been anxious to avoid a repetition of what occurred at the first Rome summit in October in relation to economic and monetary union. I was reasonably encouraged by the discussions that we had in the Foreign Affairs Council—[Interruption.] May I hold the attention of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for a few minutes longer?

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, when he said that he did 481 not want a repeat of the events of October, I was merely reflecting the fact that I agree with him? Having lost the then Prime Minister, we certainly do not want to lose the present one.

§ Mr. Hurd

The right hon. Gentleman was not reflecting—he was chatting, which put me off my stride. I am grateful that he has got his not particularly pertinent point off his chest.

I was reasonably encouraged by the discussion on the subject at the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday. It seemed that a genuine effort was being made for the summit to consider the matter on the basis of the different opinions so far expressed, rather than try to create, on Friday and Saturday morning, a mandate for a conference that starts on Saturday afternoon. I hope that there will be no last-minute surprises on that front. We will go into the intergovernmental conference with our ideas and proposals. Others will put forward their ideas, which we do not find convincing.

§ Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the basic problems is that there is no clear definition of the principle of subsidiarity or of how it can be implemented practically as an ever wider range of measures comes from the Commission? So will one of the ideas that my right hon. Friend takes forward be a clear definition and method of enforcement of this principle?

§ Mr. Hurd

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall come to his point shortly.

We will put forward our ideas and others will put forward ideas that we do not find convincing—that is the nature of discussion in the Community and in this House. We are not persuaded by the case that some people make for an extension of the competence of the Commission, or of the case for the wholesale extension of qualified majority voting, or of the case for adding again to the legislative powers of the European Parliament. To make any of these changes, a convincing case would be necessary, but it has not been made.

We do not see the Community to which we belong as a river or glacier that moves inexorably in a preordained direction. That is not how it works or how it should work. The Community evolves, but that evolution takes place by working out what its needs are, not by some inevitable law of gravity or some movement in the stars. That means that we should not say "never" to any change in these matters. What we can say and what we have been saying under the last Prime Minister and under the present one is that we are not persuaded of the case for such changes.

Because we are not persuaded of the case for a change in the three respects that I have mentioned, that does not mean that our stance in this conference will be negative.

§ Mr. Gill

I invite my right hon. Friend to comment on subsidiarity, which no doubt will form part of the conference agenda. Will he bear in mind when discussing it how imperfectly the principle of subsidiarity is applied even in our country? Many Members of this House would like to think that the powers ceded to the higher authority will be agreed by the lower tier rather than the other way round. We do not want crumbs from the Commission's table.

§ Mr. Hurd

Of course, my hon. Friend's second point is right. A large part of discussion within the Community is about whether it is sensible for nation states which have 482 their powers to yield competence in certain spheres. It should not be a question of the Community sitting on high and doling out powers to nation states; it is the other way around.

I move now from the areas of which we must say that we are not persuaded of the need for change to the areas about which we have specific and positive ideas. We want to make the Community more efficient and effective. Part of that means making sure that it operates only where it needs to. We want to improve enforcement and compliance—carrying out in practice what is talked about and agreed in principle. We want to strengthen the voice of Europe on the world stage, and we want to reinforce the democratic accountability of the Community.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

My right hon. Friend will be interested to know that I have with me the draft statutes for the European central bank, supplied to me this afternoon by the Bank of England. They state: The statute—as the Treaty itself—will have the status of primary Community law and therefore any amendment to the statute would normally be subjected to the procedure applied to EEC Treaty changes. Given the importance of democracy here and in Europe, would I be right in thinking that we will not accept that point?

§ Mr. Hurd

That is a matter for the Chancellor and for the debate that we shall have on economic and monetary union. As we do not accept the principle of the proposal illustrated in those statutes, I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will feel fairly robustly about what my hon. Friend has just said.

We want, as I have said, to make the Community more effective, operating only where it needs to but operating fairly and well where it does. We want to improve compliance with the rulings of the European Court. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) nodded when I made that point earlier. She will probably know that, at the end of last year, there were 80 outstanding judgments by the European Court against European member states, and that only one was against this country. We have an excellent record of compliance. We should like the conference to consider sanctions in cases of prolonged failure to comply. We want the Council to look at implementation of decisions by the Council through the passage of national legislation.

The Government are sometimes criticised for their record in social matters in the Community, but we are the only country to have implemented all Community directives on social matters. We are the only country to have carried through completely what we said we would do. That is a distinction that we must draw continually in the Community.

I am afraid that the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are increasingly seduced by declarations such as the social charter, and so are not watching what is happening and the extent to which other countries carry through what they say they are in favour of.

Two of my hon. Friends have asked me to comment on subsidiarity. We want the conference to determine whether this principle can be brought into the treaties in a useful way. That could be done if we can properly define subsidiarity. It would help the Community to decide before setting out what it should do whether it is necessary for it to do anything, or whether the subject concerned is best left to member states.

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we recently held the conference of the Parliaments of the European Community? I quote from the preamble to its final declaration: While seeking to remodel the Community into a European Union on a federal basis". The conference's idea of subsidiarity was that it comes from the top down; it was content to delegate powers downwards to sovereign states. We want sovereign states which might, perhaps, be prepared to delegate powers to European institutions—unlike the declaration that I have cited. With the best will in the world, we are not talking the same language as our European partners.

§ Mr. Hurd

In the IGC, we will discuss treaty changes that can be achieved only by unanimity. It will not be like a parliamentary debate, ending in a majority vote. I am setting out the sort of improvements in Community institutions that we think are sensible. We shall argue our case, others will argue theirs, and we shall see at the end how we get on. There is no question of the British Government agreeing to proposals that reflect the declaration that my hon. Friend has just quoted.

§ Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

rose——

§ Mr. Hurd

I shall give way for the last time.

§ Mr. Leighton

Will the principle of subsidiarity be spelt out clearly in the treaties, and will it be justiciable before the court?

§ Mr. Hurd

Those are the two very issues that the conference will have to tackle. We shall have to look for a way of spelling out subsidiarity in the treaty; then we need to find a way of enforcing it. It will not necessarily have to be enforced by the European Court of Justice: there are other ways of enforcing it. I am glad now that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he put his finger on two practical questions to which we shall have to find positive answers. If we cannot find them, we shall have had a useful debate but we will not have found a practical way of including the principle in the treaties.

We should like national Parliaments to work singly and together to improve their influence over the Council of Ministers. We would like the European Parliament to direct fresh energy not at increasing its legislative powers, but at strengthening financial accountability by reinforcing the role of the Budgetary Control Committee and the Court of Auditors. We hope that national Parliaments will be more effective in controlling the Council of Ministers, whereas the European Parliament would be more effective at doing what the House cannot do, which is monitoring and strengthening the financial accountability of the Commission.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Hurd

No. I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, and I have tried to meet what I know is his point.

Our third objective in the intergovernmental conference will be to strengthen the voice of the Community in the world. As the House knows, the Community already co-ordinates foreign policy by consensus. We think that that should continue and we have made modest but specific proposals for improving that co-ordination. We think that the conference should define more clearly 484 security questions, which are also dealt with by consensus. The Twelve have edged forward to discussing certain security questions, despite the reserve of the Irish, and those discussions can be defined and strengthened.

I shall give two examples of security questions which we think that the Twelve can reasonably consider. They can consider all that is carried forward from the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, the confidence building schemes, the conciliation of disputes and the conflict prevention centre. Those matters can rightly be co-ordinated in the Twelve, although they also need to be discussed with the United States and Canada. Another example is the export of arms and weapons technology, in which the Opposition are traditionally interested. Such subjects come under the heading of security questions which we think the Twelve can usefully consider.

Defence is a distinct matter. The collective guarantees under which we live in safety, the integrated command and the deployment of forces and weapons are regarded as a separate matter under the heading of defence. I see a clear need to build up the European pillar of the North Atlantic Alliance, and I think that that will be one of the main debates and needs of 1991. However, I do not think that the Twelve are the right instrument for that, although the Italians have ideas in this field. The Twelve will not be intimately concerned with defence as I have defined it.

The Western European Union is a more fitting instrument for building up the European pillar of the alliance. In the coming months, we hope to develop our ideas on that, not just at the intergovernmental conference but in the WEU and at the NATO review, which is a rejuvenating, a changing, of NATO to meet new circumstances.

I have tried to cover the main ideas which I foresee on the summit agenda. I have tried to give the House some fresh information about the line that we shall take in the intergovernmental conference on political union and the institution of the Community.

§ Mr. Skinner

Cotton wool.

§ Mr. Hurd

The Community and the House evolve by discussion and argument, and even the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is anxious to take part in such debate. His participation in this debate has been almost continuous.

§ Mr. Skinner

I have listened to the Secretary of State for the last half hour. His background is that of a diplomat. He is supposed to be telling us about what will happen and about the Government's position at this international government conference. He has wrapped the whole thing in cotton wool and he does not have the guts to tell the House why. It is because some of his hon. Friends are against the Common Market and some, such as the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), are Euro-fanatics. By trying to placate both factions, the right hon. Gentleman tells us exactly nothing. That is his game; but he does not con me.

§ Mr. Hurd

The hon. Gentleman has been talking all the time, and I can therefore accuse him of not listening. Plainly, he has not listened to a word of my clear and distinctive speech about Government policy. I am delighted that I have been able to expose the hon. Gentleman in this way.

485 The policies which I have outlined and those which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will outline in the debate on economic and monetary union command overwhelming support in the House. Those positive ideas will preserve and advance the national interest by making a success of our membership of the Community.

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: condemns Her Majesty's Government for its neglect of British interests in the European Community and its failure to produce a coherent policy towards the Inter-Governmental Conferences due to be held next week.". Anyone listening to the Secretary of State's placid not to say soporifc account of events in the Community would never think that that issue has caused such upheavals in the Government. It has cost them the resignation of six Cabinet Ministers in the past five years, including the deputy Prime Minister last month and the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago. I am not sure to what extent the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) would welcome the somewhat morbid obituary notice that the right hon. Gentleman has delivered on her. Regardless of the quaint remarks with which the right hon. Gentleman finished his speech, if the Government go on in the same way as before, more resignations may well be expected before they are done.

We really must hand it to the Foreign Secretary. Four weeks ago he spoke about the European Community in the debate on the Queen's Speech and said: One thing that has emerged clearly from our exchanges yesterday was that there was a great deal more light and sweetness on this side of the House than there was on the other side. Our view has been expressed with admirable clarity and coherence."—[Official Report, 8 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 152.] Within five days of the Foreign Secretary saying that, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) tore the veil aside and showed that the Cabinet was a snakepit of dissension and backbiting on the issue of Europe. No one would have thought from the Foreign Secretary's speech today that in this area of policy the Government have been isolated time and again on the wrong side of the debate within the Community. The new Prime Minister has once again declared his opposition to the social charter.

§ Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport)

rose——

§ Mr. Kaufman

The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) should not intervene. If he had sensibly kept his mouth shut, he would now be with the Prime Minister and Mr. Shamir instead of on the tundra of the Back Benches.

§ Mr. Favell

Does the right hon. Gentleman have the support of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in his approach to Europe?

§ Mr. Kaufman

I always have the idiosyncratic support of my hon. Friend on every matter to which I refer. I know the size of the majority of the hon. Member for Stockport. After the general election he will not be able to give support to anybody from Stockport.

The Government have been on the wrong side of every European Community debate. They have been on the wrong side of the debate on the social charter, on employment practices, and on carbon dioxide emissions, 486 on which the United Kingdom had to be given a special dispensation for a five-year delay. That was an issue on which the Government blew loud trumpets that turned out to be raspberries.

The style has now changed dramatically and the change was signalled by the new Prime Minister in one of a never-ending series of interviews that he gave during the Tory leadership campaign. The text and transcripts of those interviews provide a rich goldmine of quotational nuggets that will be used to our satisfaction and benefit for some time. In an interview with Brian Walden the new Prime Minister spoke approvingly of compromise within the Community, or what he called fudging things. Fudge is certainly on the menu today.

Under the previous Prime Minister, we and Europe knew exactly where we were. Ministers, led by her, went into meetings and conferences simply saying no to whatever was proposed. Now, there has been a dramatic reversal. From a policy of no, the Government have moved to a policy of no policy. We got the first remarkable example yesterday, when the Secretary of State for the Environment, having fought his leadership campaign on a manifesto of changing the poll tax, came to the House with the dramatic news that he had no policy on the matter, and was installing a suggestions box next to the letter board in the Members' Lobby. That is a mess that the new Government have created for themselves, and in which they now wallow uncomfortably.

The policy of no policy on the European Community is, however, a far graver matter, for it means that next week the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer go to Italy for three meetings crucial to the political, economic, industrial and social future of the country with next to nothing to say. Perhaps the new Prime Minister's approach was symbolised by what happened to his speech at the Altrincham and Sale Conservative party dinner last Thursday. The text of the speech got lost. Perhaps it was cleared away by sensible waitresses, along with the dirty crockery and the soiled serviettes. This is what he said: It means that we must put forward our own ideas for a liberal and open Community … That will be easier to achieve if our partners in the Community are convinced that we are whole-heartedly engaged with them in the great enterprise of building, shaping and developing Europe. I want Britain to play a leadership role in that enterprise". It is not clear what those words mean.

During the leadership election campaign, the Foreign Secretary proposed, as part of his platform, drafting a Cabinet paper on Europe, as if it were some revolutionary proposal, which I suppose that it was for this Government. He said: concern about Europe runs very high and I would like to see the publication, quite openly, of more of the information that would go to the Cabinet so the House and the public can be well informed of the choices facing the Government.

§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Nicholls

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Kaufman

I shall give way later, but I wish to deal with what the Foreign Secretary proposed, and what has come of his proposal, because that is important. What has become of the paper? Was it discussed at today's Cabinet meeting? It seems not because, according to The Guardian today, the Foreign Secretary, at the meeting of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday, 487 hinted that the government had shelved its plan to issue a broad-brush policy paper on Europe before the Rome summit. Instead, it was concentrating on refining its proposals for the intergovernmental conference on political union, which would be launched then. Today, The Times puts the situation more bleakly. It says: The government has delayed or shelved plans to produce a white paper … on Europe amid hints that a cabinet consensus may be harder to reach than expected. A senior"—

§ Mr. Oppenheim

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Kaufman

I shall in a moment, but I am quoting from The Times and one must not interrupt that. The Times says: A senior source"— to our delight, no longer Mr. Bernard Ingham— said that the cabinet did not want such a paper at this time, and was uncertain that it would ever be produced. Where are we on this? If the Cabinet is not even discussing the matter, if it has not got a paper, if it has no idea of what is to go before the intergovernmental conference next week, how can anybody else comment on the Government's policies? How can our partners in Europe respond? How can the House of Commons comment and how can the British people, who may be said to have some justified interest in the matter, comment?

§ Mr. Oppenheim

The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of having no policy on Europe. Perhaps he can enlighten the House by telling us whether the Opposition have a policy on a single currency. Are the Opposition in favour of a single currency, yes or no?

§ Mr. Kaufman

I shall come to those very matters.

§ Mr. Oppenheim

Yes or no?

§ Mr. Kaufman

I do not know which way the hon. Gentleman voted last week, but I had better advise him to stop asking for yes or no answers because I have some quotations from the new Prime Minister on the matter that do not add up to yes or no. I shall come to that.

The Labour party conference, two months ago, passed a detailed policy on political union and political progress. On economic and monetary union, our national executive will publish a detailed policy next week, which I shall gladly send to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), to whom reference has been made, is aware of that because he was the only person to vote against the policy.

§ Mr. Skinner

I should have been in a minority of two but the chair would not accept the Baghdad proxy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was in the Gulf.

§ Mr. Kaufman

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was not in the Gulf; he was in Mesopotamia. The Gulf is a bit further south-east. My right hon. Friend was carrying out his mission and was not able to vote.

§ Mr. Skinner

He did a good job.

§ Mr. Kaufman

He did a job. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover must be relieved and satisfied that he upheld that minority view in the national executive, but he has confirmed that the Labour party has a detailed policy 488 of economic and monetary union, on which only a tiny minority of the party has stated its reservations. That is completely different from the deep split in the Tory party.

The Foreign Secretary said this afternoon that the Government will go into the intergovernmental conference with their own ideas and proposals. Given what he said, you could have fooled me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Six months after signing up at Dublin to full union before the end of 1992—that is what the right hon. Member for Finchley, with the Foreign Secretary, did, and she did not deny that when asked about it in the Chamber—the Government have no idea about what they mean to do, apart from the farce of the hard ecu.

§ Mr. Nicholls

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Kaufman

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but when I have done that, I shall not give way again because many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.

§ Mr. Nicholls

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Altrincham. That speech says: It doesn't mean that we have to accept a federal Europe: certainly not. There is no question of that. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is fresh back from Rome where he voted in favour of a declaration containing an undertaking to seek to remodel the Community into a European union on a federal basis. We know that that is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government because we have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. Will the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) now tell us whether that is Labour policy?

§ Mr. Kaufman

I understand that the hon. Gentleman left early, so I am not sure about the basis of his comments. We also know that the Conservative delegation, if one can call it that, was split not just down the middle but into several fragments at the assizes.

We have the very great advantage, indeed the enticing prospect, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) hopes to catch Mr. Speaker's eye to wind up the debate for the Opposition. Having been there all the time, he will speak with great authority on the matter.

§ Mr. Cash

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Kaufman

No. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask about the document, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton will deal with it with his customary suavity and competence.

§ Mr. Cash

rose——

§ Mr. Kaufman

No, I have explained what will happen with regard to that document.

There are some issues on which the Government's confusion has become even worse. For example, we thought that we knew roughly where the Government stood on defence—that is, that they were against a defence role for the Community. But now, suddenly, all that seems to be in the melting pot.

In Brussels, the Foreign Secretary was quoted as saying that there were now compelling arguments for much closer EC co-operation over defence and security. The correspondent from The Guardian in Brussels made a further report on the matter, in which he said: In a first sign of a softening in the Government's line on Europe since John Major became Prime Minister, the Foreign 489 Secretary, Douglas Hurd, signalled yesterday that Britain may support giving the European Community a formal role in foreign policy and security. We had another variation of what the Foreign Secretary is proposing when he was questioned by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday. We had yet another variation today. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House with great clarity whether the Government support and advocate, or do not support and advocate, a defence role for the Community? If the right hon. Gentleman does not support and advocate a defence role, but does support and advocate a security role, will he explain the difference between the two, and will he then also explain how that fits in with our commitments to NATO?

§ Mr. Hurd

I said exactly the same in my press conference in Brussels and to the Select Committee. I do not believe that the 12 should have a defence role, and I draw a distinction between the defence role and security matters; a distinction that I explained in some detail 10 minutes ago.

§ Mr. Kaufman

The right hon. Gentleman may have sought to explain it, but he did not explain it in a wa y that was clear to the House. He talked about co-operation on the Gulf and he reproved members of the Community for what he claimed to be their inadequate response to the Gulf crisis. Does the right hon. Gentleman see the Community co-ordinating a military response in the Gulf? Does he see it co-ordinating a naval blockade in the Gulf? Does he see it co-ordinating an air blockade in the Gulf? If so, what was he up to talking about the Community's response on Gulf issues? Hostages are clearly an important matter, but is that a security matter? We need to know what the Government mean by security as distinct from defence.

Those are important matters, on which the Government may come to the House with legislation at a future date and we need to know exactly what they propose. After all the right hon. Gentleman's statements in Brussels, his statement to the Select Committee and his further statement this afternoon, what he is proposing is not at all clear and could be dangerous.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke this afternoon, as he has on other occasions, about majority voting. But nobody has any clear idea where he, and therefore the Government, stands on majority voting. Speaking to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities on 25 July 1990 he said: Undoubtedly, this country has quite substantially gained from the Single European Act, in that many of the decisions leading to the Single Market are to be taken by qualified majority. We and the Commission would not be nearly so successful in demolishing protectionism in the Community had it not been for qualified majority voting, and that is a point I ought to make from the point of view of those who approach qualified majority voting with some suspicion. That appears to me to be something of an encomium for qualified majority voting.

Three months later the right hon. Gentleman appeared to change his mind. In the debate on the Queen's Speech on 8 November, four weeks ago today, he said: We do not want … significantly extending qualified majority voting. Does that mean more majority voting or not? What is the significance of the word "significantly"? Does he mean that 490 he is opposed to any more qualified majority voting, or that he is ready to see some more qualified majority voting? If so, in what areas?

That is an important issue for the political intergovernmental conference, yet there has not been a word of clarification today, just a repetition of the fuzzy words on the matter that the right hon. Gentleman has been saying all along, except, as I say, for his encomium for qualified majority voting at the House of Lords Select Committee three months ago. If he cannot sort out his own mind, how on earth will he make a clear, positive and useful contribution at the intergovernmental conference?

What about the issue of sovereignty? In his interview with Mr. Walden on 25 November, the new Prime Minister—not then the Prime Minister but about to become so—seemed very firm. He said: At the moment I can foresee no chance of pooling any more sovereignty. He also said: I see no circumstances at the moment in which we could or would present legislation to the House of Commons to surrender more sovereignty. That seemed pretty clear until one read it, when one saw that repeated phrase, "at the moment". That gave the Prime Minister a let-out should he decide to change his mind. The chances of his changing his mind seem quite strong.

In yet another campaign interview published two days later on 27 November in the Financial Times the Prime Minister said: I have no doubt that when we go through this conference"— that is, the intergovernmental conference— it is possible to negotiate a treaty that will be acceptable to the House of Commons that will move Europe forward and keep it forward together. What will there be a new treaty for if we are not going to sacrifice, as the right hon. Member for Finchley would put it, some sovereignty?

The Prime Minister acknowledged in that interview that a new treaty would have to come to the House, and a new treaty will mean, in the Prime Minister's own words, pooling more sovereignty; surrendering more sovereignty. Where do the Government stand on the issue of sovereignty? Where do they stand on a new treaty? Do they accept that they may have to bring this new legislation, pooling or surrendering sovereignty, to the House, and that if they meet opposition, they may have to guillotine it through the House as they did the Single European Act?

We have a right to know about those matters, but the Foreign Secretary told us nothing about them this afternoon. It may be that there is a good reason for that. Perhaps he does not know himself. Perhaps, in the immortal words of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Government are ruling nothing in and ruling nothing out. We do not know. The Foreign Secretary did not tell us. The only hint that he has given about proposals for the political intergovernmental conference, before his extremely woolly words this afternoon, was provided in his speech to the House on 8 November when he said: we would like to see a more prominent role for the European Parliament, not by giving it more legislative powers but in monitoring Community expenditure."—[Official Report, 8 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 152–53.] What on earth does that mean? What does it mean in terms of providing powers or not providing powers for the 491 European Parliament? It cannot be given a greater role without being given more powers and that may need legislation in this House and in the other areas of the Community.

§ Mr. Cash

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Kaufman

I have already told the hon. Gentleman that, because of the pressure on time, I shall not give way again.

Whatever the Foreign Secretary means by monitoring by the European Parliament of Community expenditure, will he propose such an innovation at the intergovernmental conference next week?

What about the widening of the Community? Austria's application for membership has been lodged, and Labour thinks that it should be accepted right away. There is no good reason for delaying Austrian accession to the Community until 1992 or any other year. The Foreign Secretary made a brief reference this afternoon to widening the Community, but he did not say whether the Government are in favour of immediate Austrian membership. He spoke again about negotiations on the European Free Trade Area. Will the right hon. Gentleman propose in Rome not only that Austria be admitted immediately, but that applications be invited from Sweden, whose Government have shown great and positive interest, and from the remaining EFTA countries? We should welcome all the EFTA countries into the Community as soon as they positively want to join.

The Government have failed to state their policy clearly and without equivocation—and having heard the Foreign Secretary's speech, I am not even sure that the Government have a policy. Like the former Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary has spoken at length about the accession of eastern European countries—and when the necessary conditions are fulfilled, we should welcome their membership as well. However, the Government do not appear to have a clear policy on the accession of other western European countries.

The Government's confusion in relation to political progress is as nothing compared with their total disarray over economic and monetary union. The Government promised a debate at some stage, but it is disgraceful that the House will not have that opportunity before the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to the intergovernmental conference next week. The Foreign Secretary says, "I shall not refer to that aspect, because the House is to debate it." However, that will be after the intergovernmental conference, at which the Government may have made unequivocal commitments or even threats—and that could be very dangerous.

§ Mr. Spearing

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, although there may be a debate on economic and monetary union, it will not be arranged for next week—and that because there will be one of two conferences next weekend, today is the last opportunity to debate economic and monetary union before that conference? Does not it follow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that any speeches about, or references to, that aspect will be not only in order but central to the subject of this debate?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

It will be for the Chair to make a ruling when that question arises.

§ Mr. Kaufman

Perhaps I, too, may respond to my hon. Friend's point of order. The Opposition amendment, which Mr. Speaker selected, makes specific reference to the Government's failure to produce a coherent policy towards the Inter-Governmental Conferences"— plural— due to be held next week. Therefore, any of my right hon. and hon. Friends who want to address the economic and monetary aspects will surely be in order.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), could not we resolve the issue and reach a specific conclusion on economic and monetary union by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) withdrawing the Opposition amendment to allow debate of the alternative amendment concerning constitutional, political and economic significance of the proposals?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The House cannot consider altering now the business of the day. I have heard nothing so far that is out of order.

§ Mr. Kaufman

On the face of it, the new Prime Minister seems to be maintaining the uncompromising attitude displayed by his predecessor. Replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said, in a written answer: The Government remain opposed to the imposition of a single monetary policy managed by a European Central Bank as prescribed in stage 3 of the Delors report."—[Official Report, 3 December 1990; Vol. 182, c 45.] That answers a question that was not put, but it nevertheless states the Prime Minister's position. Like most of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on that and other issues, it is meaningless. The Prime Minister asserts that the Government remain opposed to the imposition of a single monetary policy". However, no one organisation can impose a central bank or a single currency on the United Kingdom. The question is whether a British Conservative Government would accept either or both. The answer is far from clear.

In the rewarding interview that he gave to Mr. Walden, the new Prime Minister himself posed the question: Could we accept an independent, non-elected central bank with external control over our domestic monetary situation? The right hon. Gentleman provided the answer to his own question: My answer to that is that the House of Commons will not accept that at the moment, and I do not think we should concede that at the moment. Will there be a moment when the Government will concede either or both? We have not received an answer this afternoon.

§ Mr. Cash

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that specific point?

§ Mr. Kaufman

No, I have said that I shall not give way again. However, if the Foreign Secretary sought to intervene, I should naturally feel obliged to give way.

The outgoing Prime Minister certainly had an answer to that question. Asked whether she would veto any arrangement that jeopardised the pound sterling, she 493 replied simply, yes. In that fatal exchange on 30 October that led to the resignation of the deputy Prime Minister, the then Prime Minister was questioned by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—a former Euro-fanatic who is now a Euro-negativist.

§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)

That was nasty.

§ Mr. Kaufman

Nasty, but accurate.

The right hon. Member for Devonport has become a kind of clone of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes)—though happily not yet Cheltenham. His whole vision of the future of British politics to the turn of the century is governed by the burning question of whether Labour will have a candidate running for the Woolwich and Greenwich constituencies at the next general election. The answer to that question is clearly yes.

During questions on the former Prime Minister's statement about the Rome summit, the right hon. Member for Devonport asked whether Britain, if faced with the imposition by treaty of a single currency, would be en titled and right to use the veto. The right hon. Lady replied: I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, 30 October 1990; Vol, 178, c. 877.] Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what is the Government's position under their new management?

§ Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding)

The Government's policy remains unchanged.

§ Mr. Kaufman

No, I am talking about the latest Government—who will be in power for a short period yet, and whose Ministers will be attending intergovernmental conferences next week with no policy having been put to the Cabinet, let alone approved by it.

For a little while longer—longer than we hoped, in view of the poll tax time scale offered by the new Secretary of State for the Environment—we have to consider the policies of the present Government. The problem remains that we still do not know what they are. Will the Government use their veto against the imposition of a central bank or a single currency? Answer from the Foreign Secretary comes there none.

That is hardly surprising, because the Government have already accepted the principle of a central bank. Last Sunday, in Monza, the Governor of the Bank of England, Robin Leigh-Pemberton, signed draft statutes for the proposed central bank. He is a Government servant, and it is a nationalised organisation. There was no need for him to do that, yet he did it. In any case, the Government have already made it clear that they do not, in principle, oppose a single currency. As we all know, they have proposed the hard ecu—common currency.

§ Mr. Cash

The right hon. Gentleman should be accurate. He avoids saying that there is a reserve by the Governor of the Bank of England on those statutes. He is misleading the House.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We have had a lot of bogus points of order. Many hon. Members seek to take part in the debate, and that process is not helped by interventions and bogus points of order.

§ Mr. Kaufman

The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has a copy of the statutes. It has been reported in the press—and not denied—that Robin Leigh-Pemberton, as Governor of the Bank of England, signed the statutes. The 494 question is why did he do so, if the Government are not yet committed to a central bank. In an