Sir William Cash:

Members asked very interesting questions. Deputy Kyne and the Chairman raised the issue of immigration. The fact is that we are actually a small island. We debated this very issue in the House of Commons yesterday because I had to force the Government to accept an amendment on the question of the Commission's work programme. For more than a year, it had refused to hold a debate on free movement. My committee had recommended that we should have a debate on the floor of the House of Commons on benefits migration and benefits tourism. It resolutely refused such a debate but it would not tell us why other than that it was a matter of collective responsibility. As Deputy Kyne indicated, it is a very controversial subject. The reason it is controversial is not because people do not like immigrants, although some elements clearly take that view, but because of practical questions about size, scale, social housing and education. Many people take a realistic and common sense view of immigration. A large number of people who come from other countries to do things in the fields for the agriculture sector, and in London generally, are playing an important part in the British economy. Incidentally, one can hardly be surprised that they want to come to the United Kingdom given that we have a very good economy thanks to this government, or at least matters are certainly improving a great deal. There is a natural magnetism towards the United Kingdom. I do not want to present an entirely negative picture of immigration but practical questions arise.

I believe we will resolve the specific issues of the North and South of the Border because of the common purpose we would have if Ireland recognised that, in an effort to tighten the relationship, we would be out of Schengen, just as we are now.

I do not see a practical problem because it is between us and Ireland, and our arrangements regarding voting and common travel have been embedded for a very long time. Our historical ties are such that I do not see a problem. Any problems that did exist would be ironed out. I do not see it as a problem for Ireland.

I cannot say whether we will enter an EFTA type arrangement, given that I am offering only my personal views based on having been on the committee for 30 years, having studied it carefully and being chairman, although I am not speaking as chairman. However, while I do not want to sound presumptuous, if we were to enter an EFTA type arrangement, we would have a very good opportunity for other countries to join us in the new EFTA arrangements. Although this would not be the view of Deputy Durkan or, perhaps, anybody else in the room, I believe, given the extent to which Ireland is connected to our economy, that there are other countries which, if there were a structural change in the relationship, could look to their electorates. Given that these countries want to have European co-operation and trade, they could consider all the advantages in terms of the implosion that is happening with protests, riots and unemployment. Given that the UK has this dynamic within it which is extremely valuable to us as a country - I refer to Ireland - a new relationship could include Ireland in its framework as well as some other countries in an EFTA type arrangement. We could have the advantages of co-operation and - if I may say to Deputy Durkan - the UK's strength, history and tradition, mixed as it might be thought to be.

I do not buy the argument that the EU has created peace since 1945. Bluntly, NATO and the Cold War did that. The EU is moving in the direction I predicted in 1990, towards implosion. It is time, as I said earlier, that people stood back and asked whether there could be a new relationship between all the countries. I must address the question Deputy Durkan raised on the extent to which we are examining the European issue from the outside. No. I would say the opposite. We are very much examining it realistically from the inside, and those who agree with me do not like what we see as it has evolved, although I voted "Yes" in 1975. I also voted for the Single European Act in 1986. However, I proposed an amendment, which I was not allowed to debate then although I could now, specifying that we should preserve our sovereignty within that framework. I believe there is far too much ideological nonsense about the fact that one cannot come up with a new concept of a European co-operative association, such as EFTA plus, in which everybody could benefit from trading co-operation without being bullied and forced into doing things by a majority vote when they do not want to. Such bullying creates more internal resentment and democratic and economic protest, which we are seeing throughout Europe with the exception of Germany and one or two other countries. There is another model. The single currency has proved to be a straitjacket which has caused immense problems for many countries. I see Deputy Durkan shaking his head. There are countries that regard it as a straitjacket. One cannot devalue within it.