I intend to refer to my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, South, but before doing so I offer my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that they will be among the many that you have already received. While I am in the congratulatory mode, every hon. Member will have noted that Stoke City beat Stockport County in the Autoglass Cup Final at Wembley on Saturday. We shall all want to congratulate the team on its victory. Even my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will, I know, want to share in the congratulations.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) referred in his eloquent maiden speech to the fact that his constituency was proud that the Spitfire had been developed in Eastleigh. He did not refer, although I am sure he intended to do so, to the fact that Reginald Mitchell was born in Stoke-on-Trent, South. All hon. Members will want to recognise that important event. He also said that his constituency is beautiful. I wish to register that claim for Stoke-on-Trent. Part of its beauty lies in its people. They have proud and long traditions, forged in the industrial and manufacturing history of the area.

We need no reminding of the fact that the pottery industry is renowned the world over for its unique skills and the quality of the product. One of the largest tyre manufacturers in Europe has its headquarters in Stoke-on-Trent. Engineering and the coal industry are also vital to the economic and social well-being of the area that I have the honour to represent. Unfortunately, all those industries have one sad feature in common—they have been seriously adversely affected by the continued recession. My constituents believe that the Government's response to such vital issues has been wholly inadequate. The inevitable result in my constituency—I do not claim any uniqueness in this matter—is that unemployment has massively increased. Last year, in general terms, unemployment was 49 per cent., and long-term unemployment—that is, those who have been out of work for 12 months—increased by more than twice the national average.

Right hon. and hon. Members will understand my concern when it appears that unemployment could not even get a mention in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech to the CBI last evening. On the same day as the Chancellor engaged in the debate on the Queen's Speech, the local press in my constituency carried headlines that announced further serious job losses. Employment prospects are not enhanced by the fact that the one remaining large colliery complex in my constituency which presently produces more than 2 million tonnes of coal and has massively increased its productivity over the past five years is now threatened by a systematic dismantling of the industry.

My constituents sent me to the House, among other reasons, to press for direct measures that will reverse the blight of unemployment. I pay tribute to the local authorities in my area which have made and are making determined efforts to attract investment and create jobs. Of course, that means a partnership between local authorities, the private sector and the Government. The President of the Board of Trade, in a previous incarnation as Secretary of State for the Environment, intervened and such a partnership was forged. A derelict site in Stoke-on-Trent was turned into the garden festival site and is now a thriving industrial area. We need such intervention. We should call on the President of the Board of Trade to intervene again so that future investment in my constituency can become a reality. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be allowed to intervene positively.

It is a great honour to represent the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, South. Election to the House is a special event in all hon. Members' lives. Hon. Members are honoured to represent their constituents. It is a particularly special event for me because I have the honour of succeeding Jack Ashley. Faced with great adversity, Jack took on the challenge and triumphed. He served Stoke-on-Trent, South, the House and the country with great distinction for 26 years.

Jack and Pauline Ashley have set an example that continues to be an inspiration to us all. His values, including fighting discrimination, putting people first and tirelessly seeking economic and social justice, were relevant to him during his time in the House. Perhaps those values are more relevant today than they have ever been.

I was grateful for Jack Ashley's inspiration when I considered the Bill. I agree entirely with right hon. and hon. Members who have said that this is probably one of the most important decisions that the House will be asked to make for some time.

It is difficult to find any inspiration in the Bill as it stands. It appears that the singular achievement that the Prime Minister is claiming is how quickly and under what conditions we can opt out of the basic and fundamental issues in current policy developments. The United Kingdom will be handed the presidency of the Council of Ministers in July. I understand that that occurs as a result of an alphabetical accident. It has nothing to do with any other consideration. In that respect, the phrase that I have heard used is "buggin's turn".

The presidency provides our Government with a unique opportunity to have real, positive influence over what is happening. It is a tragic irony that we will not be fully involved or at the heart of the positive progress that might benefit all our people. The preoccupation seems to be diktats of the market. I believe that the interests of the Community have been cynically dismissed.

The opt-out of the social chapter is a disgrace. There may be arguments about burdening industry. However, opting out of the social chapter holds out the prospect of serious disadvantage to millions of people in Britain. Opting out will widen the already wide gap between the economic and social conditions in many comparable Community states and the United Kingdom. It will officially establish the fact that we have a two-speed, two-tier Europe.

I wonder whether there are signs that the Government are buckling. The Secretary of State for Employment seems less certain—that is putting it mildly—about the Government's attitude to the current discussions in the Labour and Social Affairs Council. I believe that such uncertainty can be damaging. Contrary to Government propaganda, I believe that investors are deterred not by the social charter, but by the prevarication and uncertainty that surrounds the United Kingdom's attitude. Business and industry would welcome clear support for the social charter and a positive approach.

I want now to consider some of the institutional concerns which I am sure all hon. Members share. Obviously, some aspects of the Maastricht agreement, such as the extension of majority voting and increased involvement of the European Parliament, are welcome, but we should not fool ourselves. We are in danger of making the same mistakes as were made in 1986 when the inappropriately named Single European Act was forced through the House without real consideration of the necessary measures that would establish democratic accountability over the Commission and the secretive Council of Ministers.

Although I readily accept that some progress is being made in the Maastricht agreement with regard to accountability, that progress is six years too late. If we believe that marginal measures that will hardly affect the democratic deficit are going to be sufficient to address the serious problem and curb the increasing authority and power of the Commission, we delude ourselves. Perhaps in five or six years' time we will wonder why we did not insist on certain measures being adopted now. The Government should have acted accordingly in 1986.

We are not talking about transferring sovereignty from this House. We are concerned about making accountable what is happening now. Responsibility for the environment and health and safety matters have been transferred to the Community. The Government were willing and anxious to transfer all sorts of matters to the Community. But there is that gap, that democratic deficit, which means that the Commission, in its unaccountable way, can walk right through the middle. It continues to do so. I have heard enough in the debate today to satisfy myself that Conservative Members are as worried as Opposition Members about that vital issue.

The question that we must ask ourselves is whether the Bill even begins to address the democratic deficit. I believe that it does not. It certainly does not establish any basis for real democracy over a European Community that is increasingly dominated by an unaccountable Commission and a secretive Council of Ministers. The House should not support the Bill because it fails to meet the essential tests of democratic accountability, the interests of all the British people and putting the British Government at the heart of policy developments that are bound to have a dramatic effect on the future of all our people.

If the Bill is supported, it will work against the best interests of the vast majority of people in Britain. Most certainly, despite what we heard from the Prime Minister and others, it will hold out the prospect of marginalisation of the United Kingdom as policy developments take place in the European Community.