European Communities (Finance) Bill

My Lords, of course I accept that important point. What I can identify is that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was concerned to mention his noble friends across the parties and he included the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in that. He was fully confident that a great deal of that which she would express would find favour with him and reinforce his arguments—not, as she says, in the final conclusion that his party represents, which is why the noble Lord is a shining example of integrity, having recently withdrawn to it, although it took a little while. He was firmly within the embrace of the party of which the noble Baroness is such a distinguished Member for many years. However, she will appreciate that a large number of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, take—as do those of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—their logical conclusion as withdrawal from Europe. The Conservative Party is able to contain, within its ranks, a fair number of people who subscribe to that view. However, its official position is a good deal more conditioned—I accept that from the noble Baroness, who expressed that accurately in her contribution. That does not alter the fact that we know where these arguments come from and where they draw great support. In fact, at one stage, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was effectively saying, ““I defer to some of the facts that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, put forward””. Well, of course he did. They came from a similar source. They are facts that I was able to recognise as having been the product of a single document and body of thought about Europe. I merely say that that degree of understanding on the issues put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is not an alien position within sections of the Conservative Party, but is shared by many. I am not going to put words into anybody’s mouth. However, I will say that a great deal of the Conservative Party’s opposition on these issues falls shy of the withdrawal argument, but presents constant criticism in terms of the only solution, which seems to be to walk out on this position. On the issue advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I know he said that we could follow the example of Switzerland. Why does he not cite those countries that have joined the European Community over the past 20 to 30 years? Anyone would think that it is a small group of nations which had seen no growth, no ability to win any support and no extension of its membership at all, when it is exactly the opposite. Some of these budget strains—and I hear what has been expressed on the opposition side about the budget increases, marginal though they are—are a reflection of the fact that enlargement bears costs. However, the Government have always been explicit about that. They never doubted that enlargement of the European Community would give rise to budgetary costs, but knew that they would lead to very significant advances within the Community. The noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Stoddart, are not right in expressing the view that the growth of the European Community does not produce jobs or increase trade—it does. There are very significant increases. Exports to Poland alone rose in the past three years by 89 per cent, compared with the rise of just 11 per cent before it joined the European Community. Is that coincidental or causal? The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, expresses that as coincidence. It is a pity he did not construct his speech around these remarkable coincidences in the way in which the European Community benefits the British economy. The Government are concerned to demonstrate—as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, expressed in his contribution—that the British people are bearing their fair costs within the European Community, which are remarkably similar to those that the French will bear over the next six years. These are two of the richest countries in the European Community. Of course enlargement carries costs, but in the past it has also meant great opportunities for Britain and the other countries of the European Community, and it will bear that fruit again. I appreciate the strength of the points of view expressed on the other side of the House this evening. No one doubts the passion that comes to the European debate. That passion has shown no sign of abating in the past three decades or so of British politics, and I imagine that it is destined to be expressed in our debates on the issues to be confronted in the next decades. However, what are we left with? We are left with the Bill being presented to the House against a background in which the Government must negotiate tough terms, as they have always had to, within the framework of Europe and against a background in which great opportunities will present themselves. Those opportunities will be realised, which is why I commend the Bill to the House.