| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston): May I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I hope to catch Madam Speaker's eye? I shall be making my own speech in my own good time.
Mr. Rifkind: Very well. We have given the hon. Gentleman adequate notice of the information that the House is entitled to know. Would a Labour Government be prepared to accept isolation in order to defend the British budget rebate? That is question No. 1. As he is noting it down, will he note down a number of other similar questions?
The second question is on the Schengen frontier controls. On that, virtually all the member states have accepted that they are going to have open frontiers, that they will not have the sort of controls which we have to combat terrorism, illegal immigration and drug smuggling. The only other country that does not take that majority view is Ireland, because it is so linked to the UK that it could not do so unless the British Government changed their policy. So we are isolated--I have to acknowledge that.
Since the hon. Member for Livingston is noting down these points, will he note down and also inform the House whether a Labour Government would be prepared to see Britain isolated for as long as was required in order to protect frontier controls? Can he make a clear statement on that--no fudge, no equivocation--to the House and the country?
While we are on the subject, will the hon. Gentleman also express some views on his attitude towards defence policy? We may very well be isolated, with many member states saying that the Western European Union should be subordinated to the European Union. A number of countries appear to wish that as a long-term objective. Is that what the hon. Gentleman believes? Or would he be prepared to see Britain isolated, if that was required?
What about qualified majority voting on common foreign and security policy? Would a Labour Government acknowledge the need to go for QMV on that matter? Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to see Britain isolated on that matter?
Those are not unreasonable questions to put to the hon. Gentleman. I put them to him, as I said, in the spirit of trying to have a constructive dialogue across the Floor of the House, so that the House and the country may have a clearer understanding of a policy, to the clarification of which the Labour party up to now does not appear to have given the highest priority in presenting its views.
Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton):
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many of the issues on which Britain has been isolated--and rightly isolated--have been those on which people, business men and sometimes politicians in other community states have looked to
Mr. Rifkind:
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Other countries sometimes like to do good by stealth. They give us promises of support which are sometimes less visible on the day than we would like. That is the way of the world, and it does not deter us from what we believe necessary. I shall make a final remark on the Opposition's policy, because it deserves some comment.
Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome):
Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that we could have got a rebate and an opt-out if we had gone into negotiations with our hands tied behind our backs, saying that we were not prepared to be isolated?
Mr. Rifkind:
The answer to that is self-evident. Securing the rebate required a great deal of determination and a long period of unpopularity, but the £18 billion from which British taxpayers have benefited as a result makes that isolation entirely justified. That is why we are entitled to ensure that the rebate is protected in years to come.
My next comments also refer to the extraordinary and perhaps historic speech that the Leader of the Opposition made last Thursday. He devoted many minutes to describing the Labour party's policy on Europe. Quite apart from the matters with which I have just dealt, he sought to impress on his audience and on the British public the Labour party's determination, if it formed a Government, to have an exciting new agenda--bringing forward new ideas that others had not brought forward-- to give British leadership to Europe.
The Leader of the Opposition said:
The right hon. Gentleman said:
What is the second original idea that the Leader of the Opposition has in mind? Again, I read what he said:
Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston):
The Foreign Secretary has given the House two speeches. Those of us observing carefully could spot the join--or should I say the absence of join?--between the two speeches when he switched from Foreign Office notepaper to his own. I am bound to say that his own speech was infinitely more interesting, entertaining and parliamentary than the departmental brief. I look forward, therefore, with enthusiasm to the day, which is coming soon, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to go straight to the political speech without having a departmental brief in front of him.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Labour's white paper on European policy. I fully intend to answer each and all of the questions he posed to me. I hope that he will be able to tick them off on the little exam sheet that he has in front of him as we proceed.
Before seeing whether I get a pass mark in my examination on my white paper, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that what we are seeing is a reversal of roles between those on the two Front Benches. Those who purport to be the Government are quizzing us on the contents of our white paper while they have yet to decide whether they will have a White Paper on European issues. This morning, I heard the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) announce that there would be a White Paper on Europe.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East):
Rubbish.
Mr. Cook:
I heard the hon. Gentleman say on the radio that he had extracted an understanding that there would be a White Paper.
Mr. Cook:
Although I do not want the hon. Gentleman to retreat so soon from what we all heard him say this morning, I shall give way.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
There was no such statement. I simply said that if there were to be a White Paper, which I expected and hoped for, it would be welcomed very much by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I said that one of the main advantages of a White Paper would be that if we set out our policies clearly and precisely, we could show the wide difference between ourselves and the hon. Gentleman, who simply wants to pass over more
Mr. Cook:
If the hon. Gentleman requires any supporting evidence of my statement, he has only to glance up to an area of the House above us, which I cannot refer to without being declared out of order. He should look at the expressions of incredulity on the faces of those who reported him on the radio this morning and on television last night.
So enthused was I by what the hon. Gentleman had told the BBC that on the way to the "Today" programme this morning in my car I found myself composing a little observation--that the Euro-sceptics are now so in charge of the Conservative party that what the hon. Gentleman announces at 7 am the Government will confirm by 4 pm. During the "Today" programme, at 8.15 am, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government had the matter under consideration.
"We need to be able to set a positive agenda of our own in Europe. For too long we have been reacting to the ideas of others."
I waited with eager and bated breath to know what exciting new ideas the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party would put forward. Here they are, and I quote the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
"First the enlargement of the European Union to include . . . Central and Eastern Europe."
There is an exciting new policy, which no one has ever thought of. The right hon. Gentleman also pledged that
"a Labour Government will open negotiations with the first group of these countries in the first half of 1998".
As Europe is considering opening negotiations in 1997, this is not quite the exciting new agenda that we thought the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.
"Second we need to make a serious effort to reform the CAP".
Why did the Government not think of that? This is exciting stuff. The Leader of the Opposition brought a third idea to the attention of an excited nation. He said:
"Third we need to achieve stronger economic growth . . . open competition in aviation, energy and telecommunications and a tougher approach to unfair state aids."
Of course we welcome the fact that the Labour party and its leader have endorsed what has been Government policy for some considerable period. I am especially pleased that the Leader of the Opposition added, as
another exciting, new, innovative idea, the desirability of a renaissance of the Atlantic community. I was personally interested in hearing that, and we unreservedly welcome it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |