| Previous Section | Home Page |
Those of us who want a change of direction to a wider Europe believe that with enlargement, provided that the process is handled carefully, a European union better than the one that we have at present can be created. That is certainly my wish. But for those who operate the finer points of the negotiation inside the Commission, enlargement at this speed, involving not merely the five "Eftans" but the three which are the subject of the
Column 141
association agreements and many other countries besides, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) suggested, is a dangerous prospect. It could dilute and fundamentally change the Community as we know it.I wish to ask three questions about the scene that lies before us with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. First, to what extent will the draft association agreements fill part of the gap and meet any of the immediate need of the three new democracies? Of course they will help, but I am not sure that they are enough. The need of those countries is obviously not merely to get some trade going, to have know-how support, project aid and budget aid and to have their currencies finally stabilised ; it is psychologically to feel that for certain they are part of the European community--community with a small "c", the community of the free Europe-- and that they will not be sucked back into any form of militarism or fascism, particularly with the vortex of chaos developing on their eastern flank in the extremely shaky Commonwealth of Independent States.
These countries want firm links of a political nature that will begin to bind them into the freer and wider Europe that we all want to see. I hope that it will be the absolute priority of the British Government during our presidency to ensure that the association agreements are not only put in place fully--that must be so--but thickened and developed and that they offer more than merely signatures on bits of paper with officials then saying, "Goodbye, we are off to Brussels again, see you in a few years." That would not be good enough.
We need to think in terms of stronger political links now for the three countries, which are all in extreme danger. Living standards are falling in all of them. Even in Hungary, which we think of as successful, living standards are precarious. As a result, the democracies are precarious. The countries are living on a diet of hope and prayer and the belief that just round the corner a few years away there really will be a turnaround, or on a diet of overspill of deutschmarks from the vastly funded former East Germany which is their neighbour. But it is a precarious existence and it could collapse at any moment.
The three countries need support now and we have to think about how that can be given. Of course, the small print of the association agreements offers more than just the hope of some asymmetrical lowering of trade barriers and the distance promise of a little agricultural trade one day. The agreements offer a political consultation procedure and imply that Heads of Government and Ministers of the three countries and the leaders of western Europe will met regularly. That will help. Some network of closer links can be developed there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate spoke about the Council of Europe and he has personally given great leadership on that front. It clearly provides--"waiting room" is the wrong phrase--a place where the new democracies can stand shoulder to shoulder with, exchange views with and begin to understand the new world which they have joined and to which they are welcome.
On the security side, there is the famous North Atlantic Consultative Council, which is NATO's attempt, if not to extend its guarantees, to extend some shadow of security to eastern European countries. They need it. They need a security framework. That is on offer, but the NACC is a
Column 142
large club. It includes all the successor states of the former Soviet Union and it may not be enough. The countries of eastern Europe will probably need something else.We have to ask why we cannot link Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia now with other aspects of the new European union that we have just invented. At Maastricht we set up not a European Community--that is the past--but a European union, which includes the Community and the new pillars of foreign and security policy and other policies.
There is no reason why there should not be ministerial-level collaboration on a formal basis with those countries, so that, without facing the full rigours of the market or the full requirements of the negotiating procedures of the Commission, they can be involved, here and now, in a European entity. That could even be a political union, or the greater European union that many of us want to see and that will take us far beyond, and wider than, the old EC.
I welcome what has been done, but it is only a start. We are looking now, as we did in the earlier debate about the EFTA countries' membership of the European economic area, at the shape of the European union to come. It is not like the past. Maastricht was not a stepping stone to another bout of the same kind of Europe. Thanks not least to the vast skills that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary used in their negotiations, it was, as we shall see when we debate ratification, a change of direction for Europe. It was a move towards a union that will be a home for these new democracies. We fought a war to bring freedom to them and failed. Now, we have another chance.
11.15 pm
Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : I wish first to associate myself most warmly with the remarks made by the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). Both struck exactly the right note, and put the debate in proportion. The election of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate as president of the Council of Europe following the resignation of Anders Bjo"rck is well- deserved, and we can see why he deserved it from what he said.
I shall not repeat what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said about the debate, but I associate myself with it entirely. It makes a mockery of all this stuff about the pre-eminence of Parliament if we do not have the documents and are given a mere weekend's notice. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the documents were available on Friday, but everyone knows where Members of Parliament are on Friday--in their constituencies. Then we are given only an hour and a half for the debate. It is not very good, is it?
As hon. Members have said, what we are debating is of the greatest importance not only for Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, but for the former Soviet Union. The move to democracy in these three countries has coincided with the break-up of the Soviet union. Their position, as forward examples of the success of the free economy, is of the greatest importance.
The explanatory memorandum refers in its first paragraph to the association agreement being founded on a United Kingdom proposal. I am sure that this is correct, but I would be happier if we stopped boasting about our
Column 143
role when the help that we give in trade and aid is noticeably less than that given by others. The increase in trade achieved by the three countries with the west has, to a small extent, offset the loss of commerce with the Soviet Union, but it has been with Germany, which is now the major trading partner of all these three countries. Germany has likewise been in the lead in providing aid. When I recall the remarks made in the Chamber after the unification of Germany, about the threat that it would represent--some of the more notable came from a right hon. Member who was at that time a Minister--I think that those who made them should hang their heads in shame. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, the political stability of central Europe is of the utmost importance, but equally the restructuring of economies there can be seen to be of enormous complexity and difficulty. Goodness knows, the Germans are finding this in what was East Germany, and the situation in these three countries is more difficult still because they do not have the resources that the Germans can provide or the expertise for the managerial takeover in which they are engaged.At the end of last year, I was one of the Council of Europe observers at the Polish elections and spent a cold, snowy day in Poznan, which was the scene of terrible riots many years ago. It was very orderly and quiet-- almost dull. The turnout was miserable--under 40 per cent.--and, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has already mentioned, representation was hugely fragmented.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said that if visible progress was not made in an acceptable period there would be the danger of a return to authoritarianism. That is certainly not impossible, for hunger drives out democracy very quickly. The hon. Gentleman was also right to point to the size of the know-how fund : £30 million is not insignificant, certainly, but it will not make all that much of an impression. The Minister may ask, "How much would you make it?" I am not in the business of doing that sort of thing ; I am simply saying that I am tired of people being self-congratulatory about what they are not entitled to congratulate themselves about.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Wentworth and the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) were right to pay particular attention to the difficulties affecting agriculture. I am equally sure, however, that the idea of triangular trade--in other words, helping the countries to export to what was the Soviet Union--is the easiest solution, at least in the short term.
We are talking about transition from a communist economy to a free economy ; we are talking, we hope, about a transition that willl lead to membership of the European Community--some years hence, but within a perceptible period. We are talking about how we can help in that process. The proposals are certainly a step forward, but I do not think that we should congratulate ourselves too much : a good deal more is needed.
11.21 pm
Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East) : Until the Maastricht summit, there was, in my view, a real danger that the iron curtain would be replaced by a silver curtain dividing the rich from the poor in Europe, and that the Community would commit itself to ever-greater union
Column 144
without regard to the rest of the continent. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has just reminded us, it is thanks to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's insistence that the negotiations of last summer have led to the agreements that we are discussing. Nevertheless, the agreements have not come before time, given that the democratic revolutions in the countries concerned took place over two years ago ; nor do they reflect the enormous scale of the problems that those countries face as they attempt to move from central, planned economies to a free market, with the ending of subsidies, the inflation and unemployment that are inevitable in such transitions and the social and industrial unrest that is happening in all three countries to varying degrees.We need only look at the defence industries of the three countries--we are debating this at the Western European Union in December--to see the extent of the devastation that their economies now face. Czechoslovakia's defence industry alone faces a decline of 80 per cent., and the lack of research and development is rendering the remaining 20 per cent. obsolete. Poland's huge over-capacity in the manufacture of arms and equipment offers little hope of conversion, while Hungary's defence industry is almost non-existent ; what is left of it now faces bankruptcy.
We can and do provide help and technical assistance through the Community's PHARE programme, and through our own know-how fund. It is, however, the opportunity to trade--to sell to the rest of us in the Community, through a reduction in the number of barriers--that represents the most immediate and practical help that we can offer now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) said a few moments ago, the agreements provide for a transitional period of up to 10 years. That can be of no help when help is most wanted--now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) mentioned the private conversation that he had with President Walesa when he visited the Council of Europe two weeks ago. No wonder he reminded the parliamentary Assembly that it was his country that had cracked communism and freed the West from the cold war, which had, in turn, enabled us to reap the peace dividend. He felt that he was entitled to more help than that provided by the agreement. How right he is.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can assure the House that more opportunities to trade will soon be available to those three countries than those contained in the agreements. I hope that he can assure us that all the remaining COCOM restrictions against those countries will be lifted-- none of them pose any threat to us now. I hope that he can confirm that the agreements will be extended to include the emerging democracies of eastern Europe, which will soon qualify for full membership of the Council of Europe. Bulgaria almost certainly qualifies, as it recently held elections. The Baltic states, Romania as well as Slovenia and Croatia, which we have now recognised, will also soon qualify for membership. Even Albania, which is in such desperate need of help now, will become eligible for membership.
Within the Balkans and other parts of central and eastern Europe there is growing, worrying evidence of a gradual but persistent return to old practices--hostility against minorities, conflict within states and friction, even conflict, between some of those states. It was the precise aim of the original European Community to ensure that
Column 145
each member state had a vested interest in avoiding such conflicts. That principle must now apply throughout the continent, not just through the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, the CSCE, but through free trade. That is the only way in which democracy will succeed and human rights can be guaranteed.The agreements are just the start. They must be extended as soon as possible.
11.26 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : There are many political and economic matters of overwhelming importance, but I do not apologise for returning to the issue of the architectural and artistic heritage of Bohemia.
I believe that I speak for the Minister's hon. Friends, the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) as well as for Lord Craythorne and Lady David and others who had the good fortune to go on the all-party heritage group trip to Prague for three days. The issue relates to thefts that are occurring in the present circumstances. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has written to me about this :
"It is indeed ironic that the coming of democracy has brought with it regrettable incidents of this kind."
The Foreign Office has confirmed that it too has evidence of thefts, particularly of wood carvings, The Minister also said :
"This is, of course, a matter for the Czechoslovak police, who will, no doubt, do their best to prevent thefts of this kind. But they are at present going through a major process of change."
We should help them in that process of change. The Minister says that we are providing such help, but what precise help has been given and how much are we giving through the know-how fund? Comparatively small sums could do a great deal to save much of that heritage. The Minister also noted that a police advisory team had been sent to Czechoslovakia, and said :
"This has been very useful and we understand that the team's recommendations are being followed up. A more efficient police force, better able to deal with criminal activities, and more publicly accountable, should be the result of the changes."
Since that letter of January, has the Foreign Office monitored those changes? The Minister accepted in that letter :
"There are, of course, practical problems in preventing this particular kind of crime. As you say, many of the carvings are in run-down churches, often in remote areas. It would be virtually impossible for all to be protected sufficiently to prevent thefts." I recall one moving incident in Czechoslovakia when we got off our bus, suddenly and unexpectedly, and the local people locked the British parliamentarians inside the church. We were a bit surprised at that, but, on reflection, it was all too obvious that they had been subject to such raids on their own shrines on previous occasions, which they had been unable to do much about. Understandably, they were suspicious of us.
The letter goes on :
"The final point of control within Czechoslovakia is, of course, at the border. While border controls have been relaxed since the revolution in 1989, Czechoslovak customs officers are, I am sure, on the look-out for items of this kind.
Column 146
Given the economic circumstances of many of those customs officers, we should not be too surprised if there is often a nod and a wink. That is the point of my intervention. The Foreign Office has a moral obligation to talk seriously to the London art market--and to the art markets of Munich, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Vienna, as well as New York and San Fransisco. If we are serious about doing something, we must ensure that considerable sums of money are not to be made out of Czechoslovakia in the fruitful western art market. I hope that the Government will do something about that.The group had a meeting of an hour and three quarters with Mr. Dubcek, and many other meetings with Czechs and Slovaks. As one who is immersed in the problems of minorities, I think that it would be tragic if, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said, a situation developed in which those two peoples drifted apart. No one can know the future, and the west has a moral obligation to do as much as possible to prevent that from happening. 11.31 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes) : First, I pay a speedy tribute to my Council of Europe colleagues on both sides of the House, including the Liberal spokesman on European affairs, for their contribution to such debates, which often take place in the Council of Europe's meeting place in Strasbourg and other places. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to the meeting that took place in Hungary.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been reticent about suggesting how much money should be spent. I shall be courageous or stupid enough to suggest a figure. Three and a half years ago, I proposed to the Council of Europe the outlines of what was loosely labelled a "Strasbourg plan". The price ticket on it was £400 billion spread over four years. The figure was not simply scratched out of the sky but was an extrapolation of what the United States gave to western Europe in far easier circumstances after the second world war in support of the Marshall plan, and I have brought it up to today's prices.
It is worth mentioning that, if only to draw to the House's attention the fact that, however much we are doing--we can be proud of what the Government are doing in support of know-how and of what the European Community is doing through PHARE--it is so small compared to what we should be doing to ensure the development of democracies and free economies in those countries. They have the knowledge and desperate desire to succeed, yet they cannot do so--not for lack of trade opportunities, although those must be given, but for lack of know-how, investment and wherewithal.
11.34 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of some of the reservations that I have expressed about how the European Community develops, but I hope that he will not be surprised to hear me welcome the association agreements with these three countries. I regard this as an important widening of the European Community. There are jolly good and sound political and strategic reasons for accommodating these three countries. It is desirable to help them towards full
Column 147
membership. They are historically and culturally part of Europe and they are industrious nations which are by inclination capitalist. The Minister spoke about reducing trade barriers. It is important to encourage trade, because trade rather than aid will ultimately lead to the prosperity that we want these countries to enjoy. However, we are on the horns of a dilemma, because the last thing that western Europe needs at present is more food, in which it is in surplus. There is enormous potential in those eastern European countries, but given the profit motive, modern plant and machinery and access to western technology, they will produce much more food than Europe can consume.I understand the case for facilitating trade in agricultural products. We have to start somewhere, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) said, some of the industrial products of those countries are no longer in demand. For example, there is no demand for armaments. Possibly the only feasible trade that we can encourage is in agricultural products. We must not encourage additional trade in those products without paying regard to its effect upon United Kingdom farmers ; nor can we ignore the legitimate concern of consumers about the health and hygiene standards applied to agricultural products from eastern Europe. Hon. Members will know that no country in Europe has the equivalent of our food safety Acts.
Help to eastern Europe cannot extend to lowering or waiving the food standards that we regard as important for the protection of our consumers. United Kingdom farmers and consumers will want the Minister's assurance that there will be a level playing field, even though we want to do all that we can to encourage trade with these nations. I trust that the Minister will assure the House that there will be no compromise on food standards.
11.57 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : There has been some discussion about the non-availability of documents. However, the content of the documents and the drift of the negotiations have been widely reported for some time, and I understand that the documents were available to the Select Committee last month. To say that the documents were suddenly made available last week is not entirely accurate. It is worth reflecting on the difficulty that sometimes arises in the EC of getting documents finalised. I shall not dwell on the matter, because we are dealing with rather wider issues. In many ways, the documents are deeply disappointing. Both Front- Bench speakers engaged in much high-sounding talk about the need for liberalisation and for trade. The documents are deeply protectionist. They show that, at the very time when eastern Europe needs to trade with us and when countries there are struggling to open their economies, to turn them into market economies and to wrench them away from the dead hand of central control and central planning, we are preaching the sort of free market policies that we are not prepared to put into practice.
We are saying that we will not open our markets to their goods for the next five to 10 years. At the end of that period, European industries and special interest groups which have pleaded so strongly for continuing trade
Column 148
barriers will be back asking for more. Even within the limited agreements, it is not clear from the documents--but it is clear from secret agreements that have been leaked to the Financial Times --that even the goods that the eastern European countries will be allowed to sell to the European Community will be strictly limited by price support and price maintenance agreements. So those eastern European industries will not be able to undercut the industries of the EC. So much for free trade and free markets.These documents maintain barriers against the very types of low added value, unsophisticated products that the eastern European countries could sell to western Europe : food, steel, textiles and coal. The EC, for all its benefits, has unfortunately become the prisoner of special interest groups and industrial lobbies which find access to the EC's decision-making processes far easier than do the mass of voters or those who represent wider consumer interests. I do not blame the Government for these documents, because we had to negotiate at the EC and I know that the Government adopted a more liberal approach at the EC, but I wish that our Government had pushed a little harder. Our own Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took a slightly disreputable stance on some issues, especially raspberries. To protect a small group of farmers in this country, strict limits were placed on imports from countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary.
Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West) : When I tell the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), he will be looking for you.
Mr. Oppenheim : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not carry out that threat.
It is small-minded of the EC to adopt this attitude. Ultimately, it will not help us ; it will raise prices in western Europe and the EC. Protection and the lack of competition will not really help these industries--they never do. Indeed, it is in the long-term economic interests of the EC to move out of precisely this type of low added value, unsophisticated industry.
There has been a great deal of talk in recent months about aid for eastern Europe. What these countries need even more than aid is the ability to trade. Unfortunately, the documents do not give them as wide an ability to trade as they really need. If, over the next few years, the slow steps towards market economies and proper democracy falter in eastern Europe, a large measure of responsibility for that will rest with the European Community and the industries which have lobbied for these protectionist measures--because they have been too small-minded at such an important juncture in the history of Europe. 11.42 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : I shall deal mainly with the agricultural issue, because that seems to preoccupy Members most. If I do not have a chance to reply to all the other issues that have been raised, I shall make sure that a reply is given later-- [Interruption.] I refer, for instance, to Polish visas, about which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is muttering. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and to all hon. Members who serve on the Council of Europe for their
Column 149
work with that body. I might be expected to sympathise with anyone who has the sense to meet in Strasbourg, given my past.I want to address the issue head on. Agriculture is a sensitive issue. There is no point in pretending that it deals in products like any other. The Community is struggling under its heavy surpluses and heavy budgetary costs, as well as the heavy economic costs of agriculture. Member states are necessarily reticent about liberalising trade if that will have a displacement effect in increasing the costs of the policy.
The fact is that every country was involved in the agreement, one or two member states with slightly more reluctance than others. Once these products enter the Community, they circulate freely throughout it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) mentioned raspberries, which illustrate the dilemma. We have faced a long-running problem with imports of raspberries from the countries of eastern Europe. The fruit tends to go into the processing and jamming industry. It competes with the raspberries grown on Tayside in Scotland. As a result, the industry there has found itself in severe straits. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) would endorse the remark that Mr. MacSharry has promised a structural plan for the Tayside raspberry growers, but it has been a long time coming : we are now promised it for April.
Should we say that it is best to give processors the lowest-cost raw materials, and bring in raspberries, which are then treated with some sort of preservative--they are then eventually made into jam, with the assistance of dyes to restore their red colour--or should we decide to achieve a balance between those interests and the interests of the producers in the EC, given the cost structures under which they labour?
At the end of the day, does it benefit the people in the countries of eastern Europe if they put products on the European market at prices that cannot be sustained and that do not represent a fair economic return to them? It is a genuine dilemma. It is impossible to satisfy everybody. One has to devise a mean, and that is what we have tried to do. I hope that my hon. Friends do not think that we have been too disreputable in doing that, but it is an issue that has to be tackled.
Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary were given reduced quotas for all the agricultural products for which they asked for concessions. The starting point was the current level. The tariff quota system means that, as the quantity rises, so the levy is reduced. The rise in quantity is 10 per cent. a year over five years--that is simple, not compound--giving a 50 per cent. improvement. The levy is reduced by 20 per cent. a year for three years, amounting to a 60 per cent. reduction.
The products most likely to be used for trading purposes are beef, sheepmeat--where there is already a voluntary restraint
agreement--pigmeat, the only area where the quantities concerned start at a slightly higher level than is already being sent, poulty, where the United Kingdom already imposes fairly stringent animal health rules so that precious little poultry comes from eastern Europe at the moment, and cereals, where previously there were large exports to the German Democratic Republic. That was the magic market for products from eastern Europe, but the market has virtually disappeared.
Skimmed milk powder, butter, cheese and horticultural products are likely to reach the United Kingdom more
Column 150
than others because of the ease of transport. The generalised scheme of preferences concessions already given to these countries cover mainly pigmeat, poultry and horticulture, and are consolidated in the agreement.Some people ask why all this produce does not go to the former Soviet Union, since that would be by far the easiest solution. The answer is that the increase in the quota can be offset against what is called triangular trade. Some member states would like that to continue for as long as possible, because it keeps that produce away from the European marketplace.
France, Germany and the others have agreed to open their borders to agricultural produce. All the other member states have signed the association agreements. The Community is a single market. Imports crossing the frontiers can come to any member state. The Mediterranean countries are likely to have less difficulty over imports, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned, because their products compete less with the kind of products that come from eastern Europe.
It is difficult to estimate the costs of the common agricultural policy. There are many variables. There is uncertainty about how reform of the common agricultural policy will work out. There is also uncertainty about the outcome of the GATT negotiations, and therefore about the prospects for world markets and the unit costs of export refunds--one of the essential components in determining the costs of the CAP.
There is great uncertainty over the extent to which Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia can maintain their traditional links with the former Soviet Union, to which a great deal of their trade was geared. On my recent visit to east Germany, I went to the Treuhand, where an attempt is being made to privatise a whole raft of companies. The great problem is that the output of many of those companies is geared towards the market in the Soviet Union which virtually ceased to exist overnight.
Collectively, the three countries produce about the same volume, in output terms, as the old West Germany. If, therefore, a substantial proportion went to European Community markets and if the unit costs of surplus disposals were not reduced, there could be a significant increase in the budgetary cost of the common agricultural policy. But "you pays your money and you takes your choice". If one chooses to liberalise and says, rightly, that a certain commodity is the one that these countries have most readily to sell to the west, that it is our duty to help them and that therefore we must accept a certain level of imports, we cannot say at the same time, "We're awfully sorry, but we must pretend that no cost is involved in doing this." That must be part of the political decision-making process. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is concerned about health standards. I recognise that farmers say, "We're quite willing to help. We understand that health standards are needed, but will it be a level playing field? Are we going to find that cheap, nasty or unhealthy products come on to the European market while pressure is put upon us to upgrade our standards, to observe the rules and to pay the costs of upgrading those standards?" The answer, when dealing with livestock products, is that they can be shipped only from abattoirs that meet standards that have been approved by the European Community. If a product does not meet animal health rules or if there is an animal health concern such as
Column 151
Newcastle disease in poultry or offal from eastern Europe for the pet food industry, it does not enter the United Kingdom.Under the Food Safety Act 1990, we can inspect products as they come in from third countries, and if they present a risk they can be returned. Documentary and identity checks are made--we look in the boxes that come from third countries. Where undertakings have been given about the quality and status of the product, we shall enforce those requirements. It does importers no good if they get a reputation for sending produce that is not up to standard, any more than it does the United Kingdom any good to accept products that pose a threat to health standards. The third countries know that they must address that genuine concern.
The hon. Member for Hamilton gave us his personal memories of the Berlin wall. We all recognise that such an emotional charge is legitimate--anyone who had not faced the events of the past few years with some emotion would be less than a normal human being--but we cannot sustain the east European countries on the basis of continuing emotion. We must offer practical help that we can sustain ; we must be able to afford it, or we shall end up in conflict.
The agreement is the first step towards such sustained association, eventually leading to membership. The decisions were difficult, but it is a substantial form of help. It is the most practical help, and it is to be welcomed as the first stage in eventual greater union in the EC that will embrace those countries.
Mr. Dalyell : Will the Minister give an undertaking to approach the arts markets in relation to the Bohemian carvings?
Mr. Curry : If the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were to approach the arts markets, they would
Column 152
regard it with a certain curiosity. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and no doubt he will wish to take his suggestion to heart.Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 29th November 1991, relating to Association Agreements between the Community and its Member States and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and European Community Document No. 10561/91, relating to interim agreements between the Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia ; welcomes the principle of Association Agreements between the European Community and the reforming democracies of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia ; recognises that these Agreements will offer them substantial benefits by encouraging trade with the Community, enhancing political co-operation, and strengthening links with the European Community to which these countries have expressed a wish to accede ; and looks forward to early ratification of the Agreements.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Community Airports (Slots)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees).
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4496/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 3rd February 1992, relating to the allocation of slots at Community airports ; notes that the principle of efficient, neutral and transparent airport co-ordination is in line with the Government's aims ; notes the strengths of the existing worldwide system of slot allocation ; and endorses the Government's intention to respond to the draft Regulation on the premise that any change to the system should benefit users without creating practical difficulties for the civil aviation industry, and without substantially extending the role of governments in slot allocation. -- [Mr. David Davis.]
Question agreed to.
Column 153
Transport (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. David Davis.]
11.52 pm
Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting) : I welcome the opportunity to debate the transport difficulties that many Londoners experience. London has high unemployment, housing shortages and hospital and education needs, but the transport needs of the capital are high on the list of any London Member.
We can all make statements and give facts and figures on any issue, but after 12 years of Conservative Government one cannot see any major ongoing improvement in the transport services of London. Indeed, not only Members of Parliament but many outside organisations regard a strategic planning authority to co-ordinate all aspects of transport in London as a major issue. We are still waiting for such an authority, but its establishment will be one of the top priorities of the incoming Labour Government. It is common sense to introduce such a policy because, throughout the 32 London boroughs, one often finds that one borough has absolutely no idea of the road development plans or traffic policy of the adjoining borough.
Whenever one opens one's post, one can be certain that some letters will express concern about London's transport systems. One has only to sit in on Transport questions to hear the complaints. As I read the correspondence that I receive, I often wonder why we are in such a mess in London. Why is public transport so unattractive for so many people?
We have just had a debate involving members of the Council of Europe. I am also a member of the Council of Europe and I very often use public transport in European cities and towns. We have many meetings in Paris : when one compares the Paris metro with the London underground, one finds in Paris an efficient, clean and much cheaper service than that in London, and people use the system in Paris. The entire network has modern trains ; stations are being modernised and there is a real commitment by Governments --irrespective of their political complexion--to public transport. If only the same thing had happened in this country, the criticism that hon. Members and I make would not be applicable.
I shall deal now with the underground services affecting my constituency. To his credit, about 18 months ago the Minister for Public Transport came to my constituency and travelled on the Northern line, so he knows the problems and complaints. However, it is still an utter disgrace that we expect thousands of people to travel on that line. The Northern line is not the only problem, but it goes through my constituency. There is a continuing problem of escalators that do not work. At Tooting Bec station, one escalator is out of action and I am told that it will remain so for a considerable time. That causes various problems for people who want to use that station.
Against that background, fares are increased year by year. Even so, the Minister is not able to say, "Yes, I agree that fares are high, but look at the quality of the service that the commuters get for paying high fares." The tragedy is that they do not get a good service.
It is the same story with buses.
| Next Section
| Home Page |