I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye. Some little time ago—on 27 April, to be precise—I found it very difficult to do so. I had brought my harp to the party, as had my right hon. Friends, but we were not called on to play. As a fully-paid-up member of the harpists' section of the Pudsey musicians' union, I was deeply saddened by that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), with his Irish harp, was eloquent. he had a velvet tone, and played with genius: it could well have been a great occasion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who came, I suspect, with a Grecian harp—the lyre, which was brought from Crete by the first Saganauts, who started out from Worthing many years ago—could also have amused the House. As for me, I was unable to find a harp of suitable size. I came equipped only with something nicked from the Brighouse and Rastrick band—a two-stringed lute; but, even with that, we were unable to catch the eye of the master mariner, our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir Edward Heath).

That, however, is all history. All that I wish you to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in conveying my words to Madam Speaker—along with warm congratulations on her success—is to warn her that from time to time she must beware of master mariners, who wish to keep their hands on the Tiller; now, however, the master mariner from Sidcup has his own Garter—and long may he enjoy an award with which there is so great an affinity.

The Maastricht problem can be divided into three parts. First, I think that we all share some anxiety—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whom I am glad to see in the Chamber, feels it as well—about the extent to which the considerable progress that he and the Prime Minister have made in the recent discussions will genuinely lead to a fundamental shift in the understanding of what the British position may be in the future development of the Community; and, conversely, about how far the genuine shift in the Community will extend in its response to the British position.

Secondly, there is the question of the actual interpretation of the words that we find so important. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) laid a fair amount of stress on additionality, which is one of the buzz words in relation to European activity. It is one of the words used by Her Majesty's Treasury when it wishes to reduce something, as opposed to adding to it.

I think that the hon. Gentleman has every reason to feel that that is an odd concept—although I am bound to say to him, and indeed to the House, that the new buzz word "subsidiarity" strikes me as equally capable of misinterpretation, from Montenegro to Moscow. It is an admirable thought that somewhere in Spain, or possibly in lower Saxony, people will be able to determine that subsidiarity means that the nation state is somehow enabled to make more individual decisions than it would otherwise. But then, as the word does not exist in the German or French languages, I suspect that it might be difficult to persuade our colleagues that that is indeed the case.

We have produced this settlement on the basis that there should be more devolution of decision making upon the nation states. One of the common threads running through our debate today is that, as much as possible, powers should continue to be devolved into this Parliament, where a decision-making process that is reflective of, and responsive to, popular opinion can be lodged. So long as that can be delivered, and made a constant and developed thread of Community decision making, there will be a wide measure of agreement that what was decided at Maastricht was the start of a wedge that will ultimately have a fundamental effect on Community structure.

Whatever the words may be, and whatever the interpretation of them, there is still a fundamental and cultural difference between what the majority of member states in the Community believe is right in practice, and what the majority believe is right in prospect. So many are so willing so often to sign up to the objective but so few, and with great infrequency, are able to deliver immediately the requirement of the law. Thus it is that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have laid great stress on the point that, written into Maastricht, are provisions for fines on nation states that fail to implement the directives.

For heaven's sake! We have been obligated to do this, as have been all who are signatories to the Single European Act and members of the Community, for several decades. Now, we are coming to the conclusion that it is necessary, for the sake of comparability within our structures, to require the European Court to fine member states for non-implementation of treaty obligations entered into by them many years ago. That is a clear example of the cultural differences between us and others.

Our arguments today, as they always are, are on what is actually contained in the treaty. Clause by clause and line by line, phrase by phrase and word by word—the anxieties spill forth as we recognise that, if everything had to be implemented to the letter of the European Act, our freedom of action and our freedom to interpret what we consider to be in the rights of our national state would be devastated, with a corresponding effect on the willingness of our people to support the Act.

I do not believe that the Germans or the French are fussed. I do not believe that the Spaniards will suddenly decide no longer to support the Olympic games simply because there is some requirement to implement the water directive in Barcelona. I have no idea what they are doing about such measures. All I know is they take a fairly relaxed view of what comes through the tap, if anything. Still, they are able to continue as a nation state of the Community, to ride high in the reputation of the Community, to borrow, to beg or otherwise obtain resources from the Community for the betterment of the kingdom of Spain. All credit to them.

All I say to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is that that is all very well, but if we have to pick up that little tab and say that it is now necessary to bring them to court for non-observance of directives that we have implemented ourselves, that will be a deeply saddening occasion.

I recall very well, as one of those in the engine room of this splendid Government in a previous year, having to take the lawn mower noise regulations through a Standing Committee, trying to relate them to the ice cream chimes regulations and sort them out with the other requirements on pollution control of the European Community. I lost the lawn mower regulations. I failed to realise that they could not be implemented because most of the lawn mowers in use in the United Kingdom could not be adapted to conform to them. Ardua ad acto was my motto. There are real difficulties over the interpretation of European legislation.

I am prepared to welcome and support this measure. However, I would add a word of hope and a word of conviction. I beg my hon. Friends who are sceptical about this process to remember that this Government have five years ahead of them. During that time, they will probably become the most senior Government within the European Community. The Government of the German Federal Republic are in considerable difficulties. The Government of France are fragmenting at the edges. The Government of Italy do not exist. During the next five years, therefore, the United Kingdom Government will probably be the most potent force in the argument over how the Community is to develop.

Furthermore, in my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary we have two of the most outstanding statesmen in the European Community. During the next five years, they are also likely to become the most senior statesmen in the Community. If that is so, this risk which we are invited to take will be worth taking. With such experienced hands at our disposal and with this Government's commitment at its back, the United Kingdom should be able not just to drive but to widen the wedge and to ensure that the shape, future, structure and effectiveness of the Community are radically altered in favour of the United Kingdom.