Charles Walker uses the opportunity of a debate on the European Communities (Finance) Bill to call for a referendum on the EU treaty.

9.9 pm

Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): Thank you for calling me to speak at the end of this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to keep my remarks short. This has been an interesting debate, with some varied contributions. I notice that the Government could only get the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) to speak in favour of their position. The right hon. Member for Rotherham gave a long and—as I said when he was in the Chamber—fairly tedious speech, but he did it with a twinkle in his eye. Too often, however, when we have debates about Europe, we start to throw out words such as “racist” and “xenophobic”, and that does this place no good at all. It brings the whole political class into disrepute. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about this country’s relationship, and its future relationship, with Europe without being called a racist or xenophobe. Those terms are thrown around the Chamber far too often, in far too many debates.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford made an excellent contribution. We on the Opposition Benches are now realising that he is far more use to us on the Government Benches than he ever was on ours. I have to tell the Minister that we are really not going to have the hon. Gentleman back; I know that you want him to come back over here, but he is yours for keeps.

One of my concerns about the European Union project and the common agricultural policy is the implications that they have for developing countries, particularly in Africa. Farming is fundamental to those countries’ development and economic growth, yet we weight agricultural subsidies in favour of our own well-heeled farmers, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) has just pointed out. We make it difficult for African farmers to bring their produce to our markets, yet we think nothing of taking our excess product that no one here or in Europe wants to buy and dumping it on their markets at massively reduced prices, making it impossible for African farmers to compete. I have used this example before, and I will use it again: there are markets in Nigeria that are selling tinned European tomatoes. That is simply madness, and we in the European Union must put an end to it. It is unsustainable for us to subsidise our farmers off the backs of struggling African farmers. If we are really going to demonstrate that we want to improve the outlook for African countries and to strengthen their economies, we must allow them access to our agricultural markets. We must allow them to compete on an even footing.

I should like to inject a note of caution. The Minister talked earlier about the environment. Of course, the environment is hugely important; global warming is a huge challenge. We must be very careful, however, that people in the European farming community do not use the environment as yet another reason to deny African farmers access to our markets by talking about the number of air miles involved in the shipment of food. I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you do not want us to talk about carbon footprints, but foods imported from Africa often have a far smaller carbon footprint, because they are grown in natural sunshine rather than in expensive, heated greenhouses. We must not use the concern about the environment that is shared by our EU partners to block African farmers’ access to our markets.

When we have debates about Europe, we do not do the political class any great favours. We use abstract phrases and high-minded language. Of course, we are very high-minded people, but we must remember that what we do here has to be relevant to a wider audience. I know, from going around my constituency, that there is concern about the European project and about these quite significant additional sums of money that we are going to hand over to the newly joined member states of the European Union. I do not think that my constituents are mean-minded people, however. They understand that there is an argument for helping emerging economies in Europe to get the foothold that they need to become wealthier and to become our trading partners, but they also have a legitimate right to be concerned about the sums of money being talked about. We must not dismiss those concerns as the concerns of racists and xenophobes. After all, any money that we spend in this place belongs to the taxpayer. It belongs to the people whom we represent, and it is therefore incumbent on us to make a strong case for spending it. Ultimately, we should be answerable to them for where their taxes are going.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is probably right in one respect: there is relatively little concern about the unreformed CAP providing net sums to the accession countries. I see little wrong with that. What does concern me is countries such as Austria, France, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which are all net beneficiaries from the unreformed CAP. That cannot be allowed to continue for much longer, can it? How can that strike constituents in the hon. Gentleman’s area or mine as being fair or sane?

Mr. Walker: I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I will tell him why. My constituency faces significant funding pressures on public services. For example, we face the closure of not one hospital, but possibly two. My constituents are told that there is not enough money to meet and pay off the historic deficits and that that is the reason for the closures. We need to answer those concerns. If we believe in sending money to the emerging economies of eastern Europe, we need to make that argument. I personally believe that this country gives too much to the European budget and that we could do with giving quite a bit less. Again, however, I am happy to argue the case, as we have today, across the Chamber.

Mr. MacNeil: If the argument were about giving from the rich to the poor, there might not be so much opposition to it. In this country, we see the money going to rich people such as the Duke of Westminster and several other landed gentry. As some Labour Members have pointed out, countries such as Greece, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg are achieving most of the gains per capita from the common agricultural policy, so the money is not being transferred from rich to poor at all. If it was, it might not raise so much opposition.

Mr. Walker: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. If anything, the EU is too much about agriculture. The EU is obsessed with agriculture and with agricultural subsidies. For the EU to gain the support of the European population, it has to be seen to be working for everyone, but all too often, as he points out, it seems to be working for very few people. Conversely, for far too many people, it amounts to a nice dollop of extra cash on top of what they are already getting.

I have said before that I love the French rural way of life. I imagine it is rather like the way of life in this country 60 or 70 years ago, but the reason why the French can have farms of 50 and 60 acres, which are economically unviable, is that we in the EU—us and others—are subsidising that lifestyle. If France wants to continue with its agricultural marketplace in its current form, that is a matter for France, but it should not be incumbent on us to fund it on its behalf.

Mr. Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituents, like his, are annoyed that the rest of Europe is laughing at us over this matter and at the sums of money we give to countries that are doing far better than we are?

Mr. Walker: I accept my hon. Friend’s observations. There is and must be a sense of frustration out there among the public. When we talk to our constituents, we find that about 50 or 60 per cent. now question the future direction of the European project. About 60 per cent. of our electorate think that it has gone too far and that it is not in this country’s national interest. It is no good Labour Members—or, indeed, some Conservative Members who are more pro-Europe than I am—pooh-poohing those people and calling them little Englanders. That is a legitimate concern and we need to listen, understand and act on it.

I listened carefully to the Minister earlier when he spoke about immigration in the European context. I am delighted that skilled and talented people want to come and work in this country. I really am, but I wish that we had given a little more thought as to how we could have managed that influx of workers to make it better for us and for them. Although I represent a Conservative seat, the south of my constituency includes what I would call a large working-class area: two of the wards are among the 20 per cent. poorest in the country. I understand—this needs to be confirmed later this week—that in one of my primary schools, English is now the first language of only a minority of students—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could confine his remarks to the Bill, which is about financing the annual budget for the EU.

Mr. Walker: I will take your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker. All I am saying is that as Europe grows, and as more people come to this country, we need to ensure that we finance not only emerging economies in eastern Europe but our existing economies and infrastructure. If children whose first language is not English are to come into our schools, we need to ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to fund the specialist teachers who will allow them to take advantage of their education. We should ensure that children born in this country, of whatever race, creed or colour—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill is about financing the EU budget, so could the hon. Gentleman ensure that his remarks relate to that?

Mr. Walker: I shall, of course, take my lead from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who gave us a wide-ranging exposition of Europe in a long speech that was good in parts and slightly repetitive in others.

Mr. Bone: Would it not surprise the general public to know that the budget settlement means that in gross terms we will pay £100 billion in taxes? Could that money not be better used to improve the infrastructure that my hon. Friend has been talking about?

Mr. Walker: I have to disagree with my hon. Friend: I do not think that it will surprise the public. I think that they are horrified, to be honest, and very concerned. We are talking about huge sums of money that many people feel could be better spent on existing and new infrastructure in the United Kingdom, for example in east and south-east England.

If the Government truly believe that there is an appetite in this country for closer integration with Europe and increased spending on Europe, the best way to test the view would be to have a referendum on the treaty. By having the courage to go to the people, we could have a serious argument and debate that would engage not only the political classes in this Chamber but the public—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman once more that we are discussing the budget for European Communities funding.

Mr. Walker: I take your guidance once again, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We need a much wider debate. The debate that we are having today is among the political classes. Our constituents have a desire to take part in the debate, and we must provide them with the opportunity to do so. We can do that by having a referendum on the treaty.

9.23 pm

| Hansard