European Communities

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

On 2 July we debated the agenda for the British presidency, which I outlined to the House. I said that it was an ambitious programme containing six key elements: GATT; the completion of the single market; the future financing of the Community; enlargement; subsidiarity; and the Danish proposals on the Maastricht treaty. We have made progress on all those matters and we want to make that progress decisive when the European Council meets at Holyrood house on 11 and 12 December.

The Edinburgh meeting will have one of the heaviest agendas of any European Council in recent years. About one third of the Councils scheduled for our presidency will be held in the next four weeks. Foreign and Finance Ministers will meet this Friday, 27 November, and Foreign Ministers will hold a further conclave on 8 December. Meetings are not magic, but, alas, they are a condition of progress.

The past five months represent one of the most turbulent periods in the Community's history. We have experienced the general economic downturn across the world, the stormy French referendum, the volatility of the currency markets, the GATT dispute and instability in the east of our continent.

Out of the list of matters that I mentioned in July for our work programme, two massive achievements for Europe and for Britain are now emerging as reality—not yet secure but increasingly clear. I mean, of course, a GATT agreement and the completion of the single market. Both are the culmination of the work of several years.

§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in connection with the single market, 3,000 freight forwarders and customs clearance agents, many of them in my constituency, are likely to lose their jobs between 31 December and April next year. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that on the agenda for the Euro-summit in Edinburgh are measures advanced by the European Commission, which I hope will be supported by the British Government, to give assistance to members of the freight forwarding and customs clearance industry in Dover?

§ Mr. Hurd

There is a retraining programme, which was discussed yesterday by Finance Ministers. I shall ask my 759 right hon. Friend the Minister of State to give my hon. Friend further precise information about it. My hon. Friend is on to a good point about something which is, indeed, part of the programme.

I was talking about the two massive achievements now coming into sight—the GATT agreement and the completion of the single market. If we can bring them to reality they will substantially contradict the theory, which one now reads all the time, that the age of reasoned co-operation is gone and that Europe and the world are sinking into inevitable disorder and slump. If the GATT agreement or the completion of the single market were to fail, we would be closer to a dark age.

The Munich Group of Seven summit and the Birmingham European Council both called for the GATT agreement to be concluded by the end of the year. We are nearer to that goal than those who set it probably expected at the time. The House knows of the agreement on 20 November by the European Commission negotiators and their American counterparts on a range of outstanding differences. The Commission gave its unanimous backing to the agreement last Friday.

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made a statement about the agreement to the House yesterday, so I need not go into detail, but the way is now clear for negotiations to resume in Geneva among all parties to the GATT. Senior negotiators are meeting there today and tomorrow to fix the timetable for completing that work. I do not think that a final settlement will he ready by the time of the Edinburgh Council, but I am sure that the Heads of Government will welcome the progress that has been made towards the aim that they set in Birmingham of reaching a settlement this year.

The agreement is clearly in the interests of both Europe and America. We have not been asked to make some artificial choice between Europe and the Atlantic. With our encouragement, during our presidency the Commission has negotiated on behalf of Europe. The relationship with the United States is of critical importance to the Community, as they have guaranteed our security for half a century and their presence in Europe remains vital. However, Europe must define itself on its merits and not by excluding our American allies. That is why one of the most important events in our presidency will be the EC-US summit in the second half of December, at which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will represent the Community.

The second great achievement on the way is the biggest free trade project in history—the single market. It is much more ambitious than the creation of a conventional free trade area, with about 300 pieces of common legislation to replace thousands of national regulations and with common competition rules to govern the market. It will expand opportunities for British business and British consumers and should mean lower prices, increased efficiency and the end of routine border controls for goods.

Inherent in the single market is a large extension of freedom for our citizens. For example, 11,000 British students are studying under the European Community action scheme for the mobility of university students—the ERASMUS programme—in other Community countries. During coming years there will be a steady fall in air fares, which will make travel cheaper and easier. That is what we sometimes call the "citizens' Europe".

Those are the detailed measures which will make sense of the Community in the eyes of practical people. We must 760 ensure that business and citizens know about, and take advantage of, the many benefits and opportunities that the single market will create.

§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

Does the Secretary of State accept that what ordinary citizens are looking for most is to find work in a Europe where unemployment is increasing? In view of the trend during the past few months for the public sector borrowing requirement to increase in Britain, and the fact that Mr. Delors said that a massively reflationary kick-start package might be put forward, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it might be increasingly difficult for us to meet the long-term aim of the Maastricht treaty, which is that there should be a 3 per cent. limit on the amount of gross domestic product allowed to go to the PSBR?

§ Mr. Hurd

I do not agree, but, before I close, I shall come to yesterday's discussions on the issue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The completion of the single market has been central to our presidency. We were in the forefront of those who designed the project and we intend to bring it to fruition. Political agreement has been reached on a series of directives to do that: on value added tax, and excise duties; on life insurance; on pharmaceuticals; and we shall be looking for agreements on Community trade marks, and on animal and plant health, which are the last agreements necessary.

Completing the single market is not an exact science. Some of the measures in the original White Paper by Lord Cockfield are now given a lower priority, while others that were not in the White Paper have been carried through. We have not seen the end of the liberalising of areas such as telecommunications and parts of the energy market, but we believe that it will be possible to declare at the Edinburgh Council the single market open for business on time at the end of the year.

§ Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)

Does my right hon. Friend believe that we have simplified all of those matters? Can he explain why the papers for today's debate, which is only a "take note" motion, weigh 4.6 kg?

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

What is that in pounds?

§ Sir Nicholas Fairbairn

I was translating for the benefit of the Europeans.

Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, having read them, I do not believe there is a lawyer in the House, far less a human being in Europe, who understands them? if he seriously thinks that this is all about a love-in between people, may I ask him to say what France is about?

§ Mr. Hurd

The weight of paper derives from the demands of the House to have a proper care for what is going on. What we are dealing with, and what my right hon. Friend will deal with in detail when replying to the debate, is the future financing of the Community, all aspects of its expenditure and the budget for next year, and I accept that such matters in any organisation give rise to weighty documents. I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend has mastered them and I hope that he will tell us about them later. I assure him that the weight of documents derives from the enthusiasm of the House to keep an eye on what Ministers do in the Council of Ministers, in particular in deciding how much of our money the Community should spend.

761 I was dealing with the single market. We have been talking about the virtual completion of the legislative phase, but we go on to the phase of compliance, enforcement and access for redress for those who run into difficulties in exercising their rights.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

rose—

§ Mr. Hurd

I will give way to my hon. Friend and then I really must make progress.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the rumour that in future we shall take almost as relaxed a view as is taken by our southern counterparts towards the implementation of regulations and directives?

§ Mr. Hurd

I am aware of the rumour to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am certainly not in favour of the relaxed implementation of rules. When rules are agreed —they need not of themselves be greatly detailed—they should be implemented. That is one reason why—

§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

rose—

§ Mr. Hurd

I said that I would try to make progress. As I was saying, that is one reason why the CBI recently emphasised the importance of ratifying the treaty of Maastricht.

§ Mr. Budgen

rose—

§ Mr. Hurd

I have given way several times. I promise to give way to my hon. Friend later.

The treaty will, for the first time, equip the European Court of Justice with the teeth needed to ensure that member states live up to the obligations that they assume. That element is fundamental in establishing the level playing field in Europe which every British company says that it wants.

§ Mr. Budgen

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was an authoritative leak in The Times—[Interruption.] —or it may have been in The Daily Telegraph, to the effect that a Minister had stated that it would be the policy in future of the British Government to take a southern European attitude towards the implementation of law? That sort of behaviour would be likely to spin off into a disregard of British law as well.

§ Mr. Hurd

I always thought that my hon. Friend was an opponent and critic of bureaucracy. What we are aiming at, in relation to what he quoted, are cases where officials in Whitehall take decisions made in Brussels and carry them through in excessive detail. That is known in the jargon as Bookerism, after the journalist who identified that ill. Christopher Booker is strongly against the European Community, but, being an honest journalist, he has spotted that much of the regulation is derived not from the Community but from the itch of Whitehall to insert its own bureaucratic instincts into the process. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) for enabling me to make the point clear.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

§ Mr. Hurd

I really must get on, because many hon. Members wish to speak.

§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)

rose—

§ Mr. Hurd

This must be the hon. Gentleman's speech.

§ Dr. Cunningham

I have heard of the seven-year itch —as the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the itch in Whitehall—but this is a 14-year itch. The Conservatives have been in office for 14 years. Have they suddenly discovered that the problem exists in Whitehall?

§ Mr. Hurd

If, in the fulness of time, the hon. Gentleman assumes office, he will know that the itch is permanent —that there is always an instinct among energetic and ambitious officials to push regulation and control that extra inch. It is an itch which Labour Members have constantly encouraged, which is one reason why they are always rejected by the British people.

I have referred to the two big achievements that are on the way. The third issue is the future financing of the Community. A review in that context would have been necessary, with or without Maastricht, and the Paymaster General will say more about that when he replies to the debate. I wish to comment on the review of financing.

The Community budget amounts to about £45 billion, which is about 2.2 per cent. of general government spending in the Community. Britain is the second largest net contributor after Germany. We are expected to make a net contribution of about £1.7 billion, after our rebate, in the present calendar year. France is also a net contributor, with Italy now broadly in balance.

We have made some progress in the negotiations since the Commission first tabled its proposals in February. Our aim is to reach a settlement at Edinburgh, though that will not be easy. Several member states have, unsurprisingly, sought to challenge the United Kingdom abatement. We have made it clear to our partners—firmly, though I hope quietly—that we shall not accept any adverse change to it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor did that again yesterday and on the radio this morning.

Maintaining our abatement remains an overriding objective. It is a manifesto pledge. It can be altered only by unanimity, and if others persist in challenging aspects of it, there will not be an agreement. The House may recall how ambitious—

§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

rose—

§ Mr. Hurd

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I really must get on.

§ Mr. Robertson

I have a most important point to raise with the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Hurd

Very well, and then I shall have to make progress.

§ Mr. Robertson

In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said in absolute terms in relation to the British abatement—this is an extremely serious matter—may I remind him that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the Radio 4 "Today" programme was not what the Foreign Secretary just said? The Chancellor said that "no serious or significant" change in the British abatement would be acceptable. That is not what the Foreign Secretary said. Is the British abatement negotiable, or is it not?

§ Mr. Hurd

The hon. Gentleman should not be reduced to such pettifogging. There was a technical change in 1988 which did not affect adversely the United Kingdom rebate.

763 If the way in which the Community spends or raises its money is altered, there may be technical changes. But we are against and will resist any adverse impact an our abatement.

The House will recall how ambitious were the Commission's proposals for increasing the size of the Community budget. The original Delors 2 package envisaged a real-terms increase in Community spending of about £7.5 billion in 1997, over and above the level implied by the present ceiling. Some people presented that as the inevitable bill for Maastricht, but Maastricht also emphasised the principle of sound public financing. That means the Community cutting its coat according to its cloth, which means setting priorities.

We have seen some evidence of that as the proportion of the budget devoted to agriculture has been squeezed, from about 80 per cent. in the 1970s to 58 per cent. now. But there is much more to do. We have made it clear to the Commission, as the Prime Minister told the House, that its proposals are excessive and that we cannot support them. In present economic circumstances, when many member states are suffering from recession or are undertaking painful retrenchment, we cannot be expected to agree a package which implies a rate of real growth in Community spending way above what is planned domestically.

There was a time when that point of view, which is familiar to the House, was not familiar to the Community; it was regarded as something rather puritanical hatched in the British Treasury. But now there is a concerted view among not all, but most, member states and, in response to that, the Commission has scaled down its proposals. Some member states now see them as too niggardly, but we and others believe that they are still in excess of what the Community can afford. We are looking for a further substantial reduction in the Commission's figures for increasing own resources.

Enlargement was the fourth of the six subjects that I mentioned, so I am about halfway through.

Preparations for negotiations with Austria, Sweden and Finland have gone ahead. Switzerland has submitted its application and the Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, will be in London tomorrow to present Norway's application for full membership to my right hon. Friend the President of the Council. At Edinburgh we will submit a report on the completion of those preparations for enlargement within the Community. We need to decide at Edinburgh—there is a background to this on which I gave evidence to the Select Committee yesterday— when negotiations on enlargement, either formal or informal, can start. Our view is clear; we must maintain the impetus that we have helped to create.

The countries of central and eastern Europe are going through a period of enormous change and dislocation. One reason why I am so keen on trying to get progress on these Community matters at Edinburgh is that we really must have more time and energy in 1993 to analyse and act on the problems in the eastern half of our continent, including Russia, where the stakes are now formidably high. I do not think that the House, this country, the Community or the world is paying enough attention to what is going on and what the stakes are in Russia and, therefore, in the rest of the former Soviet Union and the rest of eastern Europe.

As regards the Visegrad 3—Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia—we have made good progress during the presidency. We hope to welcome them to full membership 764 around the turn of the century, but meanwhile we are setting the pace. A meeting between the Community and those three countries was held at Foreign Minister level in October and the Prime Minister held a summit meeting with them in London on 28 October. The Commission will report at Edinburgh on strengthening co-operation with Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. We also plan to sign association agreements between the Community and Romania during December.

Certainly we need to be pragmatic, but we need to be generous, in particular in giving those countries of eastern and central Europe access to the Community market. Together and individually as member states, we are providing aid. Although I know the difficulties in special cases, such as steel, I believe that our policy must be to help them trade their way to prosperity.

§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)

The right hon. Gentleman anticipated my question. Does he agree that the Visegrad countries have every reason to complain that, while there has been a lot of generous talk about them, access for their goods, particularly agricultural goods, has been rather cheeseparing?

§ Mr. Hurd

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a bit negative. I have said this before: we will press for further access, but a beginning has been made. The association agreements are a beginning and the trading parts of those agreements are already in place. The hon. Gentleman and I agree on the substance of the matter.

My next points are subsidiarity and openness. By the end of this year, 10 member states expect to have ratified the Maastricht treaty. The House will shortly be invited, in the light of our recent debate, to start the Committee stage of the Bill. The process of ratification has acted as a lightning conductor for general public concerns about the pace of European integration and the centralising tendencies of the Brussels machine. Those anxieties have to be listened to—as they have been—and addressed.

The Birmingham summit took note of the concern. The Birmingham declaration emphasised, in a way that it would not have done a couple of years earlier, the importance of national identity and the need for those who argue for Community action in specific instances to show why an objective cannot be achieved satisfactorily at the national level. The burden of proof will be shifted and no longer will Community action be seen as an end in itself, as it often has been over the past 35 years.

I hope that hon. Members who are interested in the issue will study the Commission paper on subsidiarity and the procedures that it will use to weed out proposals that fail the tests in article 3b of the treaty.

The Commission has already reduced its legislative proposals this year from the planned 118 to about 50—compared with about 150 in each of the last two years. That is partly because of progress with the single market, but partly because of the change that is taking place in the way in which the Community is operating. The Commission's paper, which I have mentioned, sums it up as follows: A first consequence of the subsidiarity principle is that national powers are the rule and the Community's the exception. That is the analysis of the European Commission.

It is quite contrary to the nightmares to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) so passionately adheres, but he had some right on his side 765 and there are still people who would not agree at all with what the Commission is saying there. There are still people who believe that Community action is a virtuous thing in itself, but they are on the defensive, as these papers show.

We look forward to decisions at Edinburgh on procedures and criteria for applying the subsidiarity test. I believe that, once adopted and reinforced by the legal underpinning of the treaty, that will radically change the way in which the Community operates. That radical change is what the Select Committee clearly felt was necessary. At Edinburgh, the Commission will also bring forward examples of the sort of legislation that should be knocked off the statute book: rules that should never have seen the light of day.

We have not yet completed it, but we are trying to create a political fact—a change in the way in which the Community operates, in advance of the legal obligations under the treaty. I believe that those who still see Britain as beleaguered in resisting an inexorable movement towards a super-state are mistaken about the way the tide is flowing.

I listened to Chancellor Kohl talking to students in Oxford a fortnight ago. He said about the treaty: We have not laid the founding stone for a European Super-State which reduces everything to the same level and blurs the differences. Rather we have committed ourselves to a Europe constructed on the principle of 'unity in diversity'. We must do everything we can in future to shape European policy in such a way that people can identify with it more easily. They must see that it is concerned with their interests and not with a technocratic Europe, far removed from the people. Those are the words of the German Chancellor, which I think that every hon. Member would happily echo.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

rose—

§ Mr. Hurd

I think that I know what the hon. Gentleman is going to ask, but let him ask it anyway.

§ Mr. Salmond

I am very glad; I wish that I knew how the Foreign Secretary will reply. Let me ask the question. Is the Foreign Secretary going to say nothing whatsoever about the application of the principle of subsidiarity in the state of the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Hurd

I will say two things. The Birmingham declaration makes it clear that that is a matter for member states and, with regard to the policy of the Government, we are leaping over the kind of old-fashioned plans that the hon. Member and his party have. We are seeking to bring the decisions closer to the people in the way in which hospitals, schools and other institutions are run—much closer than anything that the old-fashioned nationalist parties ever had in mind.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

§ Mr. Hurd

No, I must get on. I have created a hubbub, but I do not wish to continue with it.

§ Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey)

rose—

§ Mr. Hurd

I will give way to my hon. Friend a little later.

§ Sir Peter Tapsell

It is on subsidiarity.

§ Mr. Hurd

Very well.

§ Sir Peter Tapsell

My right hon. Friend, in his very persuasive way, has just summarised a much more attractive concept of subsidiarity, which, if it could be embodied in the treaty, would relieve a lot of anxieties. Since we are told that the treaty cannot be amended, how will his new concept and definition of subsidiarity be able to replace article 3b in a justiciable and enforceable form?

§ Mr. Hurd

It is written in article 3b. What I have said simply illustrates how 3b will work in the future and how we are trying to create it now as a daily fact in the life of the Community, even before the article is a legal obligation on anybody. The three paragraphs of 3b encapsulate what I have been saying. I have been describing what we are trying to achieve now in the work of the Commission, the Council and eventually the Parliament.

In Birmingham, the Foreign Ministers were asked to find ways of opening up the Community's work to greater scrutiny. I sometimes feel like a nutcracker at work on a particularly stubborn nut. We want to make the Community's operations more comprehensible and national Governments more accountable to their Parliaments. That involves greater openness on issues such as voting records or letting cameras into important guidance debates on major proposals. It is not proving easy to get agreement among the more buttoned-up members of the Community on that matter. However, the latest news is slightly more encouraging and I expect a solid start to be made on the question of openness in Edinburgh.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

§ Mr. Hurd

No. I am sorry, but I must proceed with my speech because my voice is giving way and other hon. Members want to speak.

The Birmingham declaration also committed member states to make a bigger effort at explaining how the Community works and its relevance. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West enabled me to deal with the question of excessive bureaucratic zeal in Whitehall and I need not repeat the point that I made in answer to him. The press often pillory the Community for half-baked and stupid ideas—they are sometimes right, but they are often wrong. That is why we have circulated a paper to hon. Members on "Euromyths"—there is a big demand for that paper—and published a guide to British membership of the Community and the implications of the treaty. In just over a fortnight, we have dispatched 239,000 copies of the booklet and a reprint has been ordered, so hon. Members should place their orders now.

The final main point of the original work agenda is the question of Denmark and ratification. We now have the proposals put forward by the Danish Government, backed by seven of the eight parties in the Folketing—the basis on which the Danes could, in the view of those parties, put the treaty, suitably clarified and amplified, to a second referendum.

The Danes put a lot of weight on some of the points that I have mentioned, including subsidiarity and openness. They want a position on European monetary union broadly analagous to that which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor obtained for this country. Their concerns focus on stage 3, citizenship, defence, and the interior and justice pillar. The Danish Foreign Minister has just completed a tour of 767 capitals explaining his requirements. I spoke to him on Sunday evening, and we shall remain in close touch with him and our other partners.

It is clear that no other member state will accept the reopening of the treaty, and the Danes do not seek a renegotiation. It falls to us as President of the Community to find an arrangement acceptable to all member states, taking account of the stated Danish requirement for a legally binding outcome. We are working on that—we are drafting and discussing it—but it is too soon to speculate on the precise nature of the answer. We shall have a special meeting of Foreign Ministers to discuss it on 8 December. We are all committed to achieving a solution, which is essential if the treaty is to come into effect. We are condemned to succeed in solving the problem if there is to be a ratified treaty, and I hope that we shall reach agreement on that in Edinburgh.

An hon. Member has already asked about the economic position in the member states of the Community. Concern is growing in most, if not all, member states about the weakness of economic activity. In the past six months, activity has turned out weaker than we or others expected. Business and consumer confidence have diminished, unemployment has risen and, at the same time, inflation has fallen. Overall in the Community, economic growth this year is unlikely to be above 1 per cent., and next year is likely to see a similar picture. That is a substantial change from the outlook only a few months ago, when an early return to normal rates of growth were widely expected. Growth prospects in the United States and Japan are modest.

Against that background, the British presidency, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, believe that it is vital to have a full discussion of economic developments at the Edinburgh Council. We have already responded to those challenges, particularly in the autumn statement, with measures that will boost confidence, promote recovery and protect capital spending in the context of a framework of low inflation and prudent finance.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

During those economic discussions, especially as they will take place in Scotland, can there be some serious discussion among Heads of Government on the future of the nuclear programme, because many of us are extremely worried about the Dounreay decision, which will last for some 30 or 50 years? As we have been the leaders in all that, is it really wise to call a halt to remarkable British developments? Can that matter be on the agenda?

§ Mr. Hurd

I cannot promise that, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's point is passed on.

I was referring to the autumn statement. We need to consider now what action member states should take, both individually and at Community level, to hasten recovery and strengthen growth. Those measures include opening markets—I have already mentioned the GATT round and the single market—giving priority to capital spending in national budgets, rigorously controlling wage costs in the public sector and improving the supply side of our economies. At Community level, there should be a role for the European investment bank to provide more loans and guarantees to support investment spending, especially on 768 projects such as the trans-European network. There will be a discussion in Edinburgh, which is the basis on which we believe that it can best take place.

§ Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)

My right hon. Friend mentioned 1 per cent. growth across Europe and the rumour that we would take a more relaxed view towards implementing regulations. Does he agree that, if we do not take a relaxed view towards implementing regulations and curb the rigorous approach of the civil service, which has helped to destroy many small firms in this country by pursuing rules and regulations far beyond how they were originally devised, many small firms will get into even more problems? I should like to hear how the enthusiasm of officials, whether in Europe or in this country, could be curbed.

§ Mr. Hurd

I agree with my hon. Friend. When rules, for example on the single market—many rules are designed and encouraged by British firms—are agreed, they must be honoured. That must be right and the strengthening, enforcement and penalties for neglect are contained in the treaty. A fine example of our concern is where Whitehall adds its "extra". Many of the complaints, which are often attributed by people in local papers to the European Community, are a result of that Whitehall and town hall extra. My hon. Friend is right, and the Prime Minister touched on the matter in a speech in Brighton in October. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade intends to ensure that this country does not add that Whitehall or town hall extra to agreed rules.

There has been recent criticism from the Community, echoed by the Opposition, about the British presidency. I hope that, if the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has time to alter his speech before he makes it, will be careful about that. The wildest remarks, which he may be about to quote, came from people in Paris, who, understandably, were in political difficulty about the GATT agreement in the past few days, even though the Commission and not the presidency was negotiating on behalf of Britain. We should make allowances for such remarks, even though they were well off target.

A more consistent line of criticism of the presidency is aimed at the relatively slow process of taking the Maastricht legislation through the House. The Opposition know all about that, and they are the last people entitled to criticise us about it. Those who have taken the trouble to study the realities of parliamentary life in this country now have a good understanding of the position. They know, as the hon. Member for Copeland will have learnt from the Germans when they came, that we have settled on a course on which we are likely to be successful.

I have spoken of the massive achievements now emerging as a result of the GATT negotiations and the coming completion of the single market. The other problems at Edinburgh are formidable—they sometimes seem more so because they are linked. I think that the linkage gives us grounds for hope. The Community and the world are passing through a time of exceptional turbulence. Most of the main trading countries suffer from stagnation or recession. In many of them, there is distrust, not just of the Government in power, but of the political system and structure. We see that in Europe and beyond. The Labour party is one of the few opposition parties not to have benefited from that feeling, for reasons that need not detain us today.

769 In order to extricate ourselves from those difficulties —which people can now see more clearly and about which they are more concerned—we need two things. We need an effort of will and an effort of persuasiveness—one without the other will not do. I do not pretend that in Edinburgh we shall solve, in detail, all the problems that I have mentioned, but I hope that we can show, between now and the end of the year, a determination in Europe to pass from argument—which is not a bad thing—to coherent action by the Community in the direction for which we in Britain have long argued and which Europe clearly needs.

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community, January to June 1992 (Cm. 2065), European Community Documents Nos. 9649/92, relating to the principle of subsidiarity, 4829/92 and 5201/92, relating to Commission proposals for the finances of the Community to 1997, 5202/92, relating to the system of Own Resources, 5203/92, relating to renewal of the Inter-Institutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure. SEC (92) 1412, relating to the United Kingdom abatement, 8567/92, relating to establishment of a Cohesion Fund, COM (92) 140, relating to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1993, 7933/92, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, 8209/92, relating to the Draft Budget, 9901/92 and the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by H.M. Treasury on 19th November, relating to the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget, 6569/92, relating to the Court of Auditors' Opinion No. 2/92, the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors for 1990, the negotiating approach adopted by Her Majesty's Government in the run-up to the Edinburgh European Council on 11th to 12th December and the Government's continuing efforts to secure budgetary discipline and value for money from Community spending.

§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)

1 beg to move, to leave out from '1990' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: 'but regrets that the British Presidency of the European Community, which has almost ended, has achieved so little for Britain and for the Community; deplores the fact that the Government has persistently refused to put growth and employment at the top of the EC agenda, has damaged the United Kingdom's standing by its inept handling of the British currency crisis, has produced no clear way forward on the Community's future financing, has made little real effort to solve the Danish problem, has produced confusion on its own ratification timetable, and has shown insufficient resolution on the problems of former Yugoslavia especially in regard to rising numbers of refugees and in enforcing United Nations mandatory sanctions; believes as a consequence that Britain's influence and authority in the European Community has been markedly reduced; and calls for a new direction to be taken by Her Majesty's Government in order that Europe's crucial problems are properly addressed at the Edinburgh European Council.'. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary remembered to move the motion, or I would not have been able to move the amendment.

As I listened to most of the speech of the Foreign Secretary, I thought that, with his great experience and aplomb, he was going to skate over most of the more serious events in the European Community of the past few months, without acknowledging any problem or any issue that had caused trouble. Until the last few moments of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it seemed as though all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and we were 770 moving, unanimously and with great support across the Community, to the Edinburgh summit. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the reality in Europe is not like that.

To be kind, the British presidency has been an almost unmitigated disaster—many people have said much worse things about it than that. It was launched with a great fanfare, and was an excellent opportunity for Britain and Europe. The developments on enlargement may well mean that this is the last opportunity this century for Britain to hold the presidency. By the time our turn comes again, it is likely to be a different Community, in both membership and nature.

Without being unduly critical of the right hon. Gentleman, I feel that the opportunity has been largely wasted by Her Majesty's Government. Our presidency has certainly done nothing to enhance Britain's reputation in Europe during the past six months. I shall quote what the Prime Minister said of his hopes for Europe and the British presidency: Our membership of the European Community is about peace, stability, investment, jobs and prosperity. Those were among the Prime Minister's objectives on assuming the British presidency, and few, if any, would disagree with him.

Sir Christopher Prout, leader of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, was even more optimistic about the British presidency. In The House Magazine on 29 June this year, he said: I suspect that future historians will see it as a happy stroke of fortune that Britain was called upon to guide the Community through the choppy waters of ratification for Maastricht. He was rather wide of the mark, but continued: Might not the British acquire, over the next six months of their Presidency, a taste for running Europe, rather than simply running it down'? I fear that Sir Christopher has been sadly disappointed in his hopes for the British presidency, as the reality has turned out to be something different.

As the Foreign Secretary properly said, the British presidency also had the following aims for progress: development of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty; a solution to the Danish problem and subsidiarity; enlargement of the Community; strengthened links with the new democracies in central and eastern Europe; an end to the suffering in the former Yugoslavia—sadly and regrettably. the right hon. Gentleman did not even mention that in his speech today—and a successful conclusion to the GATT talks.

The 10 objectives set out by the Government were peace, stability, investment, jobs and prosperity, and those that I have just listed. How have the Government fared? How did they measure up to their own stated objectives? Very badly. As publishing league tables of results is in vogue at present, I shall ask where the Government come in the league table of their own tests.

The first test is that of stability. Economic stability has gone down the drain during the period of the British presidency of the European Community. We have seen devaluation, and we have come out of the exchange rate mechanism. Investment has, sadly, reduced during the period of the British presidency. Unemployment has risen dramatically: 51 per cent. of the rise in unemployment in Europe, to August 1992, occurred in Britain. Can anyone say that prosperity has improved during the British presidency?

771 The right hon. Gentleman seemed sanguine about subsidiarity, but the position is remarkably confused. There is apparently some agreement in the House about enlargement, which has been stalled as the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister accepted in Lisbon that enlargement should not proceed until the Maastricht process and the Delors 2 package had finally been agreed among the Twelve. A continuing and appalling tragedy is unfolding in the former Yugoslavia, and very little progress has been made on establishing better links with central and eastern European democracies.

Significant progress has been made in the GAIT talks, which I acknowledge and to which I pay tribute. I welcome the successful outcome, which was important and which —I agree with the Foreign Secretary—goes far beyond the boundaries of the European Community and the United States of America. The final accord still needs to be sealed, but it is essential that it is sealed, not just for the rich and prosperous countries of the west but for the many poor countries in the developing world, for whose continued existennce a GATT agreement is so important. On a test against the benchmarks set down by the presidency, I give the Foreign Secretary a score of one out of 10.

§ Mr. Gyles Brandreth (City of Chester)

The hon. Gentleman anticipated my intervention. Who would he rather was in the presidency? Would it have been France? If it had been France, would we have had what happened last week? The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: this has been about leadership. Prosperity is about GATT. and GATT has been delivered, thanks to the leadership offered by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. If it had not been for them, we would not have had it.

§ Dr. Cunningham

The obvious answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that I would rather have seen a British Labour Government holding the presidency. Failing that, I would rather have seen this British Government making a better success of the presidency in the interests of Britain and the Community.

The British presidency has been variously described as a fiasco and the worst that many of our European partners can recall; more objective observers have called it a disaster. In the debate on 2 July, the Foreign Secretary likened his task to pushing stones uphill. Obviously, many of them have rolled back down on top of him in the last few months and squashed him, and his aims and objectives, flat.

Most of Britain's European partners will be delighted when the British presidency ends. I suspect that the Foreign Secretary will secretly share their pleasure and relief. He will probably have a quiet drink on 31 December, not just to herald 1993 but to see the back of the burdens which he has been carrying—badly, unfortunately. That has not been all his own fault, because the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are far more culpable.

§ Mr. Stephen Milligan (Eastleigh)

Speaking in the House two weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman made a point about lack of leadership. Would it not have immensely strengthened the British presidency, Britain's credibility in Europe and our support for the Maastricht treaty if the Opposition had been true to their principles and supported the Government on the ratification of the treaty?

§ Dr. Cunningham

That is a spurious intervention, on two counts. First, we made it clear from the outset that there was no Labour principle in supporting a treaty which contained opt-outs that we could not support. So the idea that we had principled support for the treaty is completely misreading the facts.

Secondly, as we have rehearsed many times, and as we learned the day after that debate, it was not about the ratification process. We learned that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) went into the Lobby to support the Government at the last moment only because he was told that the Third Reading would not be until after the second Danish referendum.

We saw the leader of the Liberal party conned into the Lobby in support of a discredited Prime Minister, in the belief that somehow the vote was about the principle and about accelerated consideration of Maastricht. We know that that was not so. Since the Bill is returning to the House at the earliest next week, we know that the great difference between our amendment and the Government was a matter of 14 days—two weeks. Does anyone really believe that it was worth it for that minute difference? So no principles were betrayed; we stood by our position then, and we stand by it now.

Curiously, the Government have obstinately refused to put economic recovery in Europe among their priorities for their presidency or even on the agenda for the summit. They were asked to put it on the agenda for the emergency summit in Birmingham, and they declined. They have been pressed again to do so, and I hope that the matter is finally on the agenda for Edinburgh, but there is doubt and confusion even about that.

It is all very well talking about more freedom to fly in the European Community, and about cheaper air fares. That is all over the heads—literally as well as practically —of the 16 million people in Europe who do not have a job, let alone an airline ticket. It is an updated, high-tech version of the advice of the Foreign Secretary's former colleague—former friend, I almost said, but that may be more accurate than might be believed—Lord Tebbit, when he told people to get on their bikes. Now they have to get on their aeroplane, but they would like jobs and some income before they can be persuaded that cheaper air travel in Europe is a great benefit for them and their families.

§ Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)

I should like to understand the hon. Gentleman clearly, as a large number of my constituents work at East Midlands airport. Is he saying that it is now Labour party policy not to have any interest in cheap air fares? Does he realise that, if more people fly, as is bound to be the case if air fares come down, more people will have jobs working in that industry?

§ Dr. Cunningham

I am not saying that at all. I give the hon. Lady full marks for ingenuity in her intervention, but, as she knows, that is not what I said, and that is not the implication that she or her constituents should draw from my remarks. I do not want any misrepresentation on that point in the local press in Derbyshire in the next few days.

For five months of the British presidency, there has been no action on economic recovery in Europe, in spite of support from the Commission. Yesterday, there was a briefing at 10 Downing street at which journalists were told that that was the big new issue; an autumn statement 773 for Europe, no less, was the objective of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was big news. The BBC fell for it, with 10 minutes on the 9 o'clock news last night devoted to it.

Today, within 24 hours, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pouring cold water all over the proposed new spending package. Again the result is confusion in Europe, not least because there is confusion in Britain too. If 10 Downing street and 11 Downing street cannot get agreement on what the supposed package is about, no one should be surprised if our colleagues in the European Community are not only confused but dismayed yet again.

§ Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North)

Is it also the case that the President of the European Commission suggested to the British presidency that it might care to put the issue of jobs on the agenda of the Birmingham summit, but that the British presidency did not want it there?

§ Dr. Cunningham

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I regret the abdication of responsibility by the British presidency on that matter.

§ Mr. Hurd

The hon. Gentleman has said that twice. It does not become any truer because he is supported by his hon. Friend. There was a discussion at Birmingham, and there were conclusions at Birmingham. There will be a discussion at Edinburgh.

§ Dr. Cunningham

It is funny that there was no mention of it in the declaration from Birmingham, and that no action has ensued.

We firmly believe that there should be Europewide measures on employment, job creation, investment in transport and infrastructure, and measures for industrial regeneration and investment too.

In contrast, the British presidency proposes a reduction of 13 per cent. to 15 per cent. in the research and development budget for the European Community in the coming year. How will that help economic regeneration in Europe, in addition to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about fast reactor research and development?

The repeated proposals, in speeches and questions, of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) are well documented, but they have been ignored again and again. To come back to the point of a previous intervention, there has been a complete absence of leadership by the British presidency on the issue.

The humiliating and total collapse of the Government's policies which led to our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism has caused immense harm to our economic and political interests, and it has put us on the sidelines in Europe. The British presidency has done nothing to reverse that. Whatever the Government say, the plain truth is that the ignominious events surrounding black Wednesday were caused primarily by the deplorable weakness of our economy after 13 years of this Government.

In Britain there has been no partnership between Government and industry, as there is in France. There has been no partnership for training between Government and employers and unions, as there is in Germany. There has 774 been no sense of the balance between economic and social policies, as is common throughout the entire Community, with the one disgraceful exception of the United Kingdom. The Government simply have not learnt from their experiences in dealing and working with our European partners; otherwise, they would not have been moved to exclude the social chapter from Britain's version of the treaty in the first place.

§ Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)

Does the right hon. Gentleman —[Interruption.]—well, honourable perhaps: he may have hopes for the future, but not if he carries on like this. He has forgotten that, for many months in the early part of the presidency, the British Government, under the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were trying to persuade a coherent force to work throughout the Community to reduce interest rates, and that that was blocked particularly as a result of the problems that the Germans were having with their reunification. The hon. Gentleman knows, as any economist knows, that, until monetary policy is relaxed, it is difficult to obtain any recovery, and that was the problem which ultimately had to be solved by black Wednesday.

§ Dr. Cunningham

I do not accept that as a reading of recent contemporary political history in Britain. The Government's stated policy again and again was that the cornerstone of their economic policy was high interest rates and membership of the exchange rate mechanism. That was what the Government said would resolve our problems, but everything collapsed around their ears. That is the only reason that we are in our present situation. It is all very well to blame others in the EC, but there is no escape from responsibility for a Government who have been in office this length of time, with majorities in the House of Commons which have sustained them through thick and thin, regardless of the disastrous outcome of those economic policies.

The reality is that the situation in Europe is serious, even dangerous, for democracy and stability. Unemployment stands at 16 million. We have seen the growth of racism and violence against ethnic communities in a number of EC countries. We should not be smug or sanguine about that, because racialist attitudes and attacks occur in our own country too, with monotonous and unacceptable regularity. There are tensions in Germany, France, Italy and other Community countries. As I have already pointed out, we have the worst increases in unemployment of all the Community countries.

The Government might have some excuse for failing to take any action on those matters if there was no consensus in Europe. But a consensus has emerged in the Community between employers and unions in the European Parliament, the President of the Commission and Commissioner Christophersen.

The Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, has apparently written to our Prime Minister offering or suggesting talks between the European Free Trade Association countries and the Community countries on measures for economic growth and regeneration. I hope that she has had a positive reply, but from what we hear, like everyone else's, her suggestion has been abruptly dismissed—yet another opportunity missed, if not thrown away, by the Government.

I come now to the Maastricht treaty process. It is strange that, on the one hand, although the right hon.

775 Gentleman at first did not want to do it, the Government decided to suspend consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in the House, following the result of the Danish referendum; but, on the other hand, they were so tediously and painfully slow in taking any action at all to help the Danes to arrive at a position where accommodation of their problem may be achieved.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right, and that that can finally be achieved in Edinburgh, but it seems unlikely. We know the real view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because it was disarmingly presented to us in an internal memo which tells the whole truth, as opposed to the sanitised version of events placed in the House of Commons Library. I make our position clear. We want to see an accommodation of the Danish position. We think that that is important. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to do everything he can in Edinburgh to achieve it.

The Foreign Secretary referred to what the Birmingham declaration had to say on subsidiarity. It said: We reaffirm that decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the citizen. Bringing to life this principle, subsidiarity or nearness, is essential if the Community is to develop with the support of its citizens. We look forward to decisions at Edinburgh on that basis. It goes on to emphasise a few other points.

Since then, the Commission has produced its own version of subsidiarity. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that all was sweetness and light, but there are 22 pages of closely argued and somewhat tedious stuff here about the Commission's version of subsidiarity. We know that there is a divergence of views between what the British Government regard as the importance, significance and intention of subsidiarity and what is felt elsewhere.

The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who is here today, has had some important things to say in its recent report about the problems of reaching a clear and agreed definition of subsidiarity. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary is aware of that, because he was the prime witness at the Select Committee's hearings. But there is no early prospect of Communitywide agreement on subsidiarity and how it will operate, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that to be so. Moreover, although we shall have time to consider that in more detail in Committee, subsidiarity needs the agreement of all. three Community institutions.

If subsidiarity means taking decisions closer to the people, as the Birmingham declaration says, we enthusiastically support it, because that implies more power devolved to regions, to Scotland and Wales and —a point that has already been made—to local authorities. That is how it is seen among our European partners, but I am not sure that that is what the Government have in mind, and we need to explore that in great detail when the appropriate opportunity presents itself.

§ Mr. Mike O'Brien (Warwickshire, North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the inadequacy of the way in which the definition of subsidiarity was approached during the negotiation process shows the inadequacy of the Prime Minister's negotiation of the treaty, an inadequacy which has continued to be shown during his presidency of the 776 EC? That should have been sorted out during the negotiating process, because the Prime Minister now says that it is central to the treaty.

§ Dr. Cunningham

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said, final agreement on a definition seems unlikely at Edinburgh, but in any event the Government's attitude here to subsidiarity and to the Committee of the Regions seems a million miles away from the view taken elsewhere in Europe.

§ Sir Russell Johnston

Is it not strange to hear the Foreign Secretary quoting Chancellor Kohl as agreeing with him in his definition of subsidiarity, when everyone knows that Chancellor Kohl is a federalist? Consequently, to him subsidiarity means entrenched, legally defined subsidiarity, not subsidiarity according to the whim of officials.

§ Dr. Cunningham

I agree, not least because the Government's record has been to centralise more and more power and authority with every year that they have been in office. Whatever their claims for the importance of subsidiarity as part of the treaty, they seem unlikely now to want to divest themselves of some of that power.

We unequivocally support the enlargement of the Community. Austria, Sweden, Cyprus, Malta, Finland, Switzerland, Norway and Turkey want to join. That is good news, but is unfortunate that the process has stalled because of the decisions at Lisbon. I hope that that can be unblocked at Edinburgh, and that some progress can be made.

However, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have some serious objections about an application from Turkey to join the EC, at least until there is a satisfactory solution of the Cyprus question. Unhappily, the recent United Nations talks have stalled, with the Turkish Cypriots appearing intransigent and unhelpful.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I had the chance to discuss that matter yesterday, as I believe did the Foreign Secretary, with the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Demirel, and his Foreign Minister, Mr. Cetin. We made clear our position on that important point, and I hope for an assurance that the Government have done the same.

§ Sir Nicholas Fairbairn

Does not the hon. Gentleman consider it odd that we should be trying to get into the European Community a country that is in Asia—namely, Turkey? Also, has the hon. Gentleman, with his electric mind, managed to work out how many forests or rain forests in the country that he mentioned had to be cut down to provide every right hon. and hon. Member with 4.8 kg of bumf, multiplied by the 12 Members of the Community and all the others to whom that material was sent? I thought that Europe was supposed to be green.

§ Dr. Cunningham

It is Turkey that has applied to join the Community, and I am certainly not trying to secure its entry. The whole tenor of my remarks was that I would not support Turkey's application until a lasting solution can be found to the Cyprus problem. As to the demise of rain forests or other kinds of forests, I am more concerned that the Kurdish people of northern Iraq have to chop down vegetation and burn it simply to keep alive. Although that matter is not strictly on today's agenda, I hope that the Foreign Secretary, in developing a policy, will do something to help those people to resolve their difficulties.

777 The situation in the former Yugoslavia—which is a matter for the Community and one in which it has been deeply involved—is a developing and appalling tragedy. We supported the London peace conference and regret that it has not been effectively followed through—not by Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen, who seem to be working tirelessly to secure some kind of accord, but by members of the Community and the United Nations itself.

Why is it that mandatory arms embargoes are not being effectively enforced many months after they were first voted on by the Security Council? Why is it that, even now, we cannot effectively blockade the principal if not sole aggressor, Serbia, and bring the Serbians to their senses and stop the appalling slaughter in Bosnia? Why has Britain handled the refugee question so disastrously? We could not accept even a busload of people, all of whom had a secure home to go to. That besmirched Britain's reputation in the Community. I take no pleasure in saying that to the Foreign Secretary, but he must know that is true.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, in his role in the presidency, or members of the Security Council know who is arming Serbia and Croatia and how arms are entering those territories. I trust that we may have an assurance that armaments, weapons of war and supplies are not entering the former Yugoslavia from Community member states, as some suggest. That would be a shocking state of affairs. We must impose more effectively and rigorously the will of the United Nations, and I urge the Foreign Secretary to do even more than he has attempted, to secure a peaceful settlement of those conflicts.

Only today, the British ambassador in Albania—no doubt with the knowledge and support of the Foreign Secretary—warned of the deteriorating situation in Kosovo and Albania, and called for more effort and monitors, to prevent those territories from descending into more conflict.

§ Mr. Hurd

The hon. Gentleman is entirely within bounds in referring to that issue, which I dealt with at length in July, and on which there was a debate last week which is why I did not address it again. The hon. Gentleman is right about the need for greater effort, which is why we have during this time—although it is not strictly a Community matter—deployed troops to ensure the passage of humanitarian convoys through Bosnia, and strongly support the strengthening of sanctions, such as the Adriatic stop and search and new measures along the Danube. We must continue to do that, try to introduce monitors into Kosovo, and prevent the situation in Macedonia going from bad to worse.

I am sure that we were right to create the London conference in a frame work that included Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance, but we have a good way to go. I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

§ Dr. Cunningham

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go further and agree to early recognition of Macedonia, which has long met all the requirements. I hope that something can be done to stop Greece, which is a member of the Community, supplying Serbia—I will not say with arms, but certainly with petrol. There are daily stories of convoys of tankers travelling through Greece into Serbia when there is supposed to be an economic 778 embargo in force. Instead, we see it flouted day in, day out. The British Government have a major if not the sole responsibility for ensuring that proper effect is given to the blockade and to UN resolutions.

If that is not done, those voices calling for armed intervention—which I do not support—will grow louder and stronger as they see that the peace process is not working, because of a failure of will on the part of countries—some of them our partners, and all of them signatories to United Nations decisions—in quietly but persistently flouting those decisions.

The position, integrity and reputation of the United Nations and of the Community will suffer a devastating blow if the peace process fails. Islamic communities in this country and world wide will not forget what happened in Bosnia, and will not forgive us if they believe that their legitimate rights and human rights generally have been ignored by western countries. Neither will they forget—nor should they—if armed aggression and grotesque abuses of human rights are allowed to prevail.

The Foreign Secretary was right to discuss the former Yugoslavia at the Birmingham summit. However crowded the Edinburgh agenda may be, I hope that the European summit will return to the issue and redouble its efforts to bring peace to those tortured territories.

§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

This debate comes at a convenient time—between the frantic activity of the paving debate and the start of the long journey through the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill. This calm interlude will also allow many right hon. and hon. Members, particularly on the Conservative side of the House, to reconsider their attitudes towards the Maastricht treaty. A significant proportion of the Tory party must feel uncomfortable in this interlude and be deciding what their attitude will be towards specific parts of the treaty, and I intend to address a few words to them.

That section of the Tory party—I am sure that their views are reflected on the Opposition side of the House —will make an important contribution to the debate, and may save the Government from the real risk of the people demanding a referendum. If the House does not give the treaty proper consideration in Committee, without excessive and unfair pressure being exercised on individual Members, the smell will get abroad, and those outside will say, "Parliamentary democracy is not exercising its judgment properly. There can be no proper exercise of the judgment of individual Members of the House of Commons. Let the people decide."

Grave risks were taken in the way in which the Whips dealt with 50 or 60 right hon. and hon. Members a fortnight ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say that with some knowledge of what was done. There is no doubt that we finished up with 26 right hon. or hon. Members voting against the treaty, as we saw it. The Government had a legitimate argument in saying that a high proportion of hon. Members and right hon. Members who were candidates at the last election did not distinguish their position from that of the Government, and that the Government had a mandate for the Maastricht treaty—that is, for the general principle of the Maastricht treaty.

779 As a former Whip, I take no exception whatever to proper and vigorous whipping exercised on those who are making up their minds.

§ Mrs. Currie

You did it.

§ Mr. Budgen

I did it. It was legitimate to say that anyone who was in any doubt would never get a job in John Major's Administration, and it was legitimate to back that up on occasion with abuse and even threats. However, the conventions of whipping in the Conservative party, as I understand them, do not allow interference between an hon. Member and his constituency and an hon. Member and his family. There can be no doubt whatever that those conventions were frequently and disgracefully broken for the paving debate. That may well account for the difference between the 80 hon. Members and right hon. Members who signed the "fresh start" motion on 2 June and the 26 who voted against the Government's motion.

§ Mr. Ian Taylor

Far be it from me to defend any of the tactics that my hon. Friend alleges were used by the Whips. Will he explain the presence of Lord Tebbit in the Members Lobby? Lord Tebbit was not looking his most benign and gracious during the immediate hours before the vote.

§ Mr. Budgen

As I said, this is a game that is played with a hard ball.