| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lord: I agree entirely with the Minister: it would be quite wrong for us to give money for a policy with which we disagree. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that there are now 118 embassies around the world. Who sanctioned that and who is paying for that?
Mr. Davis: As I have explained to my hon. Friend at another time, that is set up and organised by the Commission under the general financing, which comes out of accounts in the Parliament--a point that will not
be lost in the next year. The previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney--who, unfortunately, cannot be with us tonight--raised this issue last year.
In relation to flexibility, there should not be any obligation on those left outside core groups to join up at some future date. In this regard, the Government are wholly at odds with the Labour party commitment--which ruled out permanent opt-outs in its White Paper,as it termed it, of last year. Such a commitment is nothing less than a federalist ratchet--a formula that is, at best,a slow road to centralism, and we reject the concept out of hand.
The principle of subsidiarity is crucial to ensuring that the Community does less but better. We fought for the conclusion of this vital concept at Maastricht and we were successful. Many of our partners are now following our lead on that. We believe that more can and should be done to ensure greater clarity of this concept in the treaty. Action at the level of the nation state should be therule and Community action should be the exception.The Community should act only where it has been given express competence and where action at the European level will bring clear benefits that cannot be achieved by member states acting alone.
Since Maastricht, European Councils have taken things forward. Their conclusions must now become part of the treaty, and the White Paper makes it clear that we intend to do that.
Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington)
rose--
Mr. Davis:
We must--[Hon. Members: "Give way."]I give way.
Mr. Forman:
I sought to get into the debate earlier, but I was unsuccessful. The most significant thing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier in the debate is that, in relation to the ratchet, we will not simply try to repatriate competences within the European Union--which I think might be sensible--but will actually seek to erode the acquis communautaire. Will my hon. Friend tell me in which areas it is Her Majesty's objective to do that?
Mr. Davis:
I shall come to that point in about one minute, when I discuss the European Court, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. Indeed, as he has used up one minute, I shall probably discuss it now.
Several of my hon. Friends have made important arguments about the European Court--most recently,my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). We must be clinical in our assessment of the balance of British interests with the court. The European Court should not seek to obstruct or redirect the objectives of Governments in the legislation that they have adopted. As the White Paper says, the Government will make proposals to act on those, and other, concerns about the court's functioning. We will consider with interest other proposals to tackle the problem of inappropriate judgments.
No doubt some will say--indeed, some have said--"You have no hope of achieving these changes. You have no support." My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary quoted the French Prime Minister saying with disapproval that the ECJ is
He made it clear that the French want to do something about that--as do we.
I should say en passant--[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Well, it was appropriate to the ally involved. When I was questioned by one of our Scrutiny Committees on that matter, I was asked specifically whether we had support for our points on the court and, for reasons of diplomatic propriety, I told the Committee that I was unable to give it any names, but it was clear then, and it is now public, that the French are supporters on that issue.
Mr. Nicholls:
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davis:
No. If my hon. Friend will forgive me,I do not have enough time.
The court should enforce the law that Governments have agreed--not make it, change it or add to it. That is the clear point of view of the British Government. Judgments should be sensible and proportionate and should not interfere in matters where they do not belong. Our strategy in dealing with the court has two strands: reform of the court and reform of the treaty articles that have been the principal source of the problem.
I now come to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) raised. The White Paper says that we seek to limit Community action, especially where that action has gone beyond that which was intended at the time we signed the treaty. The most notorious article in that respect is 118A, the health and safety article. There is a certain irony in that, as we have probably the best, or second best, health and safety record in Europe on the basis of our national legislation alone, and we should not forget that when we are arguing these cases.
Most recently, article 118A was used for the working time directive, with the unfortunate result in the court last week. That will impose a maximum 48-hour working week. In our judgment, that will harm jobs in this country and especially damage small businesses at the most fragile stage of their development, when they are under stress, and in that way deny people jobs. The 48-hour week will become zero hours a week.
Before that, we had the young workers directive, which, if we had not obtained a derogation, would have made youngsters' paper rounds and Saturday jobs illegal. Our view is that those are not properly health and safety matters. If our partners are determined to proceed along those lines, they should do so under the social chapter.I am about to discuss that point.
I am about to discuss the scope of qualified majority voting--another issue that is a point of the difference between the parties--but first I want to deal with something that the hon. Member for Livingston raised. Despite an intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, the hon. Gentleman refused to correct a misleading partial quotation. He tried to give
the House the impression that my right hon. and learned Friend had called for more qualified majority voting. He omitted to say that my right hon. and learned Friend said:
I wanted to place that on the record to show that my right hon. and learned Friend had been unreasonably traduced in that manner.
The Government will oppose further centralisation of decision making that would make it easier to override national concerns; that means that we will oppose extension of majority voting. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has already demolished the fatuous claim that more QMV is needed to make enlargement possible. He highlighted why those changes were being made--to create forward momentum towards a more federal Europe.
The foolishness and the unnecessary nature of QMV extension are clear when we consider the areas where more majority voting is proposed. Let us look at some of them--I shall come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) as to whythe Opposition are stuck on the hook where the Leader of the Opposition put them. In the Chatham house speech, the Leader of the Opposition called for the extension of qualified voting and the abolition of the veto in four areas.
The first of those was environmental policy. The areas of environmental policy that are currently subject to veto under article 130 include fiscal provisions and measures relating to town and country planning, land use, and energy sources and supply. The Government do not believe that Britain's vital interests lie in allowing our partners to outvote us on damaging fiscal measures, for example, under the guise of environmental policy; nor do we want our partners to be able to impose their models of land use and town and country planning. We are opposed to banning the veto in that area, and we are not alone in that view.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Wells.]
Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmunds):
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of introducing the Adjournment debate this evening. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister who will reply to it.
No one could have forecast the enormous popular appeal of the national lottery. It has truly caught the imagination of the British public. Unhappily for me, so far the extent of my personal winnings amounts to only £10--but who knows what the future will bring?
Various individuals and organisations have voiced concerns about the lottery. However, in the space of less than 18 months, good causes in my constituency have received sums approaching £2 million. Six months ago,I secured an Adjournment debate looking at the impact of the lottery on the horse-racing industry, and at prize money in particular. Simply put, some who would have had a flutter on the races are buying lottery tickets instead.
I have the honour to represent in this House the town of Newmarket--the world's horse-racing capital. That specific difficulty was taken on board, and general betting duty was cut in the last Budget. I express my profound gratitude, and that of my constituents, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General. The concerns of the horse-racing industry in general have been well understood and addressed by the Treasury in the past three years.
In 1605, King James I began the link between the royal family and horse racing in Newmarket. That was carried on by Charles I, who, while in Newmarket in 1642, received a parliamentary delegation demanding that he relinquish control of the country's armed forces. Charles II commissioned the construction of a palace in the town in 1668. He was the first to establish racing stables in the town--the first real training establishment in the world. One of Newmarket's two racecourses, the Rowley Mile, is named after the king's stallion, Old Rowley.
In the 19th century, the Palace House mansion was acquired by the Rothschild family. Macaroni, the winner of the Derby in 1863, was trained at the Palace House stables. In the second world war, the Rothschilds accommodated Jewish refugee families in the house, thereby adding to its extraordinary history.
In 1992, Forest Heath district council, with great foresight, acquired the by then much deteriorated buildings and made them wind and weather-tight. Shortly before Christmas, the heritage lottery fund announced grant aid totalling £500,000. The mansion will now be restored and made accessible to the public. It will comprise a tourism centre, display galleries and community facilities. Newmarket has a unique history as a town, yet somehow it has thus far hidden its light under a bushel. The restored mansion house will act as a focus for both tourism and renewed historical interest. The lottery has made all that possible.
In the autumn, I visited a 600-acre site on the fens near Lakenheath in my constituency as a guest of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The area comprises
arable land and poplars beside the Little Ouse river. Work had already commenced on a project to recreate the former fenland habitat of reed-beds with meres which existed before the fens were drained. This has come about because of grant aid from the lottery totalling £675,000. Only 20 male bitterns exist on our island at present, and the fen reserve will support up to five breeding pairs.In future, we can expect to see marsh harriers, reed warblers, water-rail and bearded tits, as well as wild fowl and waders, attracted by the wetlands. The RSPB has a considerable following in East Anglia. In Suffolk, there are 16,897 members, the highest number for any rural county in England.
The project will be of considerable environmental importance in a sparsely populated and unspoilt part of Suffolk. It will also benefit the economy of the nearby town of Lakenheath, which will enjoy a sizeable influx of tourists to what will be a unique fenland reserve. We shall be turning the clock back 300 years to when the fens were drained to expand agricultural activity. Such has been the interest in and support for the scheme that the public have subscribed £620,000 to reach the total sum required for the project. However, the lottery has made it a reality.
Just over a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Suffolk and met the people involved in the Bury St. Edmunds volunteer centre of which I have the honour to be a patron. The centre was founded in 1985 as a local focal point for many voluntary and statutory care organisations in the area. Projects include gardening and odd job schemes undertaken for the elderly and disabled.
In 1989, the volunteer centre acquired a minibus, which, by last year, had done 90,000 miles and was due to be replaced. The minibus, driven by volunteers, is available to any organisation. Thanks to the national lottery award of £20,000, a new community minibus should be delivered soon. The volunteer centre will then have four minibuses. The area covered will be extended from 100 square miles to 200 square miles around Bury St. Edmunds. The lottery has, in effect, thrown a useful lifeline to the volunteer centre whose work I applaud unreservedly.
In 1962, West Suffolk MIND was registered as a charity. Since then, it has developed three day centres, a housing project, a befriending scheme and a relative support scheme, and it offers advice and information to carers and individuals all over west Suffolk who are experiencing mental health problems. All hon. Members will be aware of the increase in mental health ailments in this country and across the industrialised world.
West Suffolk MIND predominantly supports those who, while living in the community, have long-term mental health problems. Given the demand for its services, it approached the National Lottery Charities Board to try to secure a day centre and adequate office accommodation. As the House can imagine, the allocation of £261,000 was warmly received. The organisation hopes to be fully operational in the new building by early 1997. Such a scheme would not otherwise have been realisable.
St. Louis Family Service is an inter-denominational organisation set up 10 years ago to initiate and co-ordinate pastoral work throughout west Suffolk. Its moving force has been, in particular, Sister Helena Moss. Its furniture
and recycling project has grown rapidly since 1990 and currently assists up to 1,000 families and single people each year. Donations of furniture, household goods and clothing are invited from the general public and are then passed on to families in need. Some people in difficulties will need beds or a cooker.
The project is currently leasing an industrial unit for use as a furniture store. Clients are referred by statutory authorities or voluntary organisations. They are not expected to pay for goods but to make a donation towards the cost of storage, collection and delivery. Warehousing, however, has been a physical, locational and financial problem. With a national lottery grant of £295,000, a new furniture store will be a reality and will offer services such as checking and refurbishing electrical equipment and laundry facilities.
The Bury St. Edmunds Women's Aid centre had sought money to enable it to demolish sheds, and to build a proper playroom and adequate storage space for emergency supplies of clothes and toiletries. The sum awarded of £32,000 will enable it to undertake that with the construction of a new extension incorporating those and other important needs. That organisation seeks to respond to emergencies for women threatened with violence or those who have had to leave home, and the money has been gratefully received.
Workwise is another Bury St. Edmunds organisation that seeks to help, with work-based rehabilitation, those adults recovering from mental illness. While many of those helped ultimately make a full recovery, some require special help to build confidence and experience on the way to full or part-time work. Some 60 people a week attend for differing lengths of time. The result is a wide variety of products and services ranging from woodwork items, magazines and newsletters for local groups, furniture, posters and business cards. The £32,000 grant received from the lottery last October will enable Workwise to upgrade its capital equipment to a level comparable to that of a small commercial business. That will enhance the employment prospects of its clients. Workwise has a record of success and this award recognises its achievements.
The lottery recognises good causes in a variety of ways. In Newmarket, the long-established NOMADS--the Newmarket Operatic, Musical and Dramatic Society--exists to further the interests of music and drama in the area and to support the youth section. The youth section meets each week and seven full productions are staged each year, as well as play-reading and workshops. The 123-seat theatre is regularly hired out to other groups of musicians and dancers. In 1990, a seven-year plan was drawn up to refurbish and re-equip the building, and to provide disabled facilities. The £60,000 lottery grant will breathe new life into the theatre and the important artistic services it provides to the people of Newmarket.
The Ormiston Charitable Trust is targeted at helping low-income families all over East Anglia, with five family centres, children's playgroups and individual care for children. In Newmarket, there is a permanent base offering services for toddler groups, play schemes and a lone-parent group and many others. Let us imagine what pleasure the 29 children from Newmarket had at the enormous Mildenhall air fete, put on by the US Air Force in my constituency. The trust is now the beneficiary of £105,000 from the lottery.
The West Suffolk Deaf Children's Society was founded 25 years ago. It is a group specifically for parents of deaf children and interested professionals, and offers advice and opportunities for people to meet in a social setting for mutual support and recreation. Its main activities involve the provision of information and equipment for deaf children and their families. The £15,000 awarded is to establish a resource library enabling a range of items to be made available. Research machine computers arebeing installed in the hearing impaired units at threeBury St. Edmunds schools. The balance of the grant will be used to acquire items such as vibrating alarm clocks, flashing doorbells and specially designed modems.
What I have sought to do this evening is put the flesh on the bones of those good causes which have received lottery money, to try to illustrate the truly excellent work that is being done in my constituency, and what a real boon those sums are proving to be.
In the 15th and 16th centuries, Suffolk--its economy based on the wool and cloth trades--became the richest county in England. The legacy of that is a multitude of glorious churches, even in small villages. At the heart of west Suffolk was the magnificent abbey in Bury St. Edmunds, the shrine of King Edmund, king of East Anglia. It was here that the barons met to plan the Magna Carta.It was a major pilgrimage destination in the middle ages.
It was, however, only in 1914 that the diocese ofSt. Edmundsbury and Ipswich was established. The church of St. James, originally the pilgrims' church for the abbey, became the new cathedral. In the 1950s, the process of enlargement and enhancement began, and the persona of the architect, Stephen Dykes Bower, became indelibly associated with the project.
Suffolk, however, the county of so many inspiring parish churches, is without a completed cathedral.The cloister is cut short, the truncated tower extrudes unattractive metal rods, and visitors may be forgiven for not readily identifying the church as a cathedral at all.A tower and spire remain to be built, along with the north transept, the extension of the cloister, one chapel and the addition of wrought iron screens.
Stephen Dykes Bower died in 1994 and left his estate in trust to finance completion of St. Edmundsbury cathedral. But his will is highly conditional. In practice, this is a one-off opportunity that would otherwise be lost to contribute £2.2 million to the projected total cost of £8.5 million. An application for £4.2 million has been submitted to the Millennium Commission. The shortfall of some £2 million will be raised independently, if the bid is successful.
Of course I would not expect my hon. Friend to comment specifically on this application, but I may tell him that it is being made with the overwhelming support of the people of Suffolk. It would be marvellous to commemorate the new millennium with a completed cathedral that will be used and cherished by generations to come--to rank beside the great cathedrals of East Anglia. The project has my fullest possible backing.
"becoming, little by little, a sort of European Supreme Court".
"We should like to see more majority voting under those clauses of the treaty that already provide for majority voting . . . We do not wish to see a change in the treaty".--[Official Report, 20 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 470.]
10 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |