House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Jun 1996 (pt 15)

Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): Is my right hon. and learned Friend absolutely sure that those are still the views of our noble Friend?

Mr. Rifkind: That is an entirely fair question. All I can say is that my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher has never been reluctant to let her views be known on any given matter. If those remarks now misrepresent her current opinion, I am sure that she will take the earliest opportunity to say so. Sadly, she has not done so in the past 20 years, so I am entitled to assume that she holds them as fervently and enthusiastically today as she did then.

The other reason why the European Union is crucial to this country is the single market, which we must not confuse with a free trade area, as occasionally is done. The whole point about the single market is the elimination not just of tariff barriers but of non-tariff barriers, and to deal with the inevitable protectionist tendencies in member states in the European Union. That is why we need the enforcement measures. That is why--despite the criticisms that we often hear about it--there needs to be a European Court--[Interruption.] There needs to be one. To ensure the enforcement of the single market, that is a requirement. That is well understood. It does not in any way diminish some of the criticisms that we make about certain aspects of the way in which the court is permitted to operate, but that is a separate matter.

Mr. Robinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that 40 per cent. of all American investment that comes into Europe comes to the United Kingdom because we have the most favourable regulatory regime of any country in Europe, and that that is why we need to use the European Court in these circumstances to improve the single market?

Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed right. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier today, when he quoted the head of the German confederation of industry, 10 times as much investment comes to the United Kingdom as comes to Germany--because of the economic circumstances in this country.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Although it is certain that we need a court to have a rules-based single market, and we need adjudications on those rules, is it necessary to have a legal system that is superior to our own, and which penetrates our legal system, giving rights and obligations to individuals and institutions within the member states, which is quite unlike any other free market agreement between nation states in any other part of the world, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement?

Mr. Rifkind: It is more than a free trade agreement. It goes back to the origins of the treaty of Rome. It is not some new, sinister development. It has nothing to do with

20 Jun 1996 : Column 1033

the treaty of Maastricht. It was in the original treaty that we signed some 20 years ago. That point must be remembered.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): My right hon. and learned Friend rightly drew a distinction between a free trade area and a single market, but does he agree that there is a link between a European single market and European monetary union? Monetary union can be seen as a logical consequence of a single market, and it is very difficult for a single market to be achieved without a single currency.

Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that I must part company with my right hon. Friend. In a recent speech, the Governor of the Bank of England also indicated that he was unconvinced of the existence of a necessary connection between the two elements.

The Government's position on our commitment is clear, but the Leader of the Opposition is in danger of confusing--to say the least--people both here and abroad about what his actual beliefs are. I read with interest a speech that he made recently to the German confederation of industry in Hamburg. Some time ago, he said proudly that, under his leadership, he would never allow this country to be isolated or left behind in Europe. In Germany earlier this week, he said:

"I shall defend the interests of the British people as stubbornly and fiercely as I expect the German government to defend the German interests."

We shall all wait with considerable scepticism to discover how it is possible to reconcile never being isolated with stubbornly and fiercely defending British interests.

Some time ago, we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that, under his leadership, Britain would abandon the veto in regional, industrial, social and employment policy. In Germany, he said that the Conservative party would portray Labour as wanting to end the British veto. Why can we not have a straight line from the Leader of the Opposition? He said in Germany:

"We will be part of the European Social Chapter".

In the very same speech, however, he said:

"The impact of non-wage costs on total employment costs cannot be ignored, nor can the way some regulations prevent the kind of workforce flexibility needed by modern manufacturing processes and the new service industries."

As in so many other areas of policy, the Leader of the Opposition says all things to all people in a desperate attempt to promote his own position.

I believe that the situation in the Labour party is beginning to resist that approach. Only this week, in the European Parliament, 52 Labour MEPs rejected the Labour policy of support for non-co-operation. In doing so, they attacked not just the Government but their own leadership. Very recently, a document was published, signed by 50 Labour Members of Parliament who were attacking their own Front Bench on the single currency, and who say that they are going to launch a campaign to persuade their own party leadership to change its current policy of being sympathetic to the idea.

Those inconsistencies, with Labour MEPs attacking their Front Bench and 50 Members of Parliament criticising official policy--well, it all looks quite familiar. The hon. Member for Livingston is going to begin to experience what some of us have been experiencing for a little longer. We have always known that these divisions

20 Jun 1996 : Column 1034

exist in the Labour party, but until recently Labour Members have been slightly better than us at concealing them. It is now evident that that deception cannot be sustained. The extraordinary, unprecedented self- discipline is breaking down, and I have no doubt that that will add to the gaiety of mankind.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.I must announce that Madam Speaker has decided that, from 7 pm, speeches shall be restricted to 10 minutes.

5.23 pm

Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston): I shall follow the Foreign Secretary in addressing the bulk of my remarks to the beef dispute and its resolution, but before I do so, let me also follow his example in referring to another matter that will arise at the Florence summit. I hope that it will prompt concern on both sides of the House, and possibly on all sides of the Tory party.

In the past two weeks, the Foreign Secretary has twice attended Council meetings at which the peace process in Bosnia has been discussed, and he will know that that is also on the Florence agenda. This may well be the House's last opportunity to raise concerns about the peace process before the House rises for the recess, and it is likely that Bosnia will proceed to elections while it is in recess. I suspect that the Minister of State will have a lot on his plate when he replies to the debate, but when he does so, will he give us the Government's current views on whether it will be feasible to hold fair and free elections in Bosnia by 14 September, and tell us what view the Prime Minister will express at the Florence summit when the matter is discussed?

The Minister will be aware that there are serious doubts about whether the elections can be free and fair. For instance, are the Government satisfied that candidates outside the governing parties will have access to independent media? What happened to the television station, promised during the Dayton peace process, that would give access to people outside the state apparatus? Are the Government satisfied with progress on the return of refugees? I understand that 1,950,000 out of a total of 2 million have still not returned. Can they realistically take part in the elections in September?

Finally, and perhaps most important, what more can the Government offer to bring Mr. Karadzic and General Mladic to justice before the international war tribunal? Even if they do not stand in the elections, their continuing presence intimidates others, and there can be no reconciliation after the atrocities of the war if no justice is brought to bear on those responsible for those atrocities. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what view the Government will express in Florence; and I thank the House for its patience in allowing me to refer to the peace process that is intended to resolve the war in Bosnia.

On the more absorbing issue of the resolution of our beef war with Brussels, I am quite confident--more confident than the Prime Minister sounded at Question Time--that the issue will be resolved in Florence. It is evident that the Government will now accept anything that is on offer to get themselves off the hook on which they have impaled themselves. We can see that if we examine the deal that is now on offer from Brussels, and compare it with the deal sought by Britain.

20 Jun 1996 : Column 1035

First, there is the matter of the extra cull to which the Foreign Secretary referred, and to which he put a figure of between 20,000 and 45,000--or, as the Deputy Prime Minister described it this morning on the "Today" programme, a "handful" of cattle. The Foreign Secretary tried to explain that this was not an extra cull at all, because the cows were going to be killed anyway.

Perhaps the House will allow me a reminiscence. I once took an English companion to the scene of the battle of Flodden, and waxed woeful over the number of members of the Scottish nobility who had died in that battle. My English companion, who was obviously losing patience with my tale of woe, broke in to say, "Well, they would all be dead now anyway." The Foreign Secretary seems to be following the same logic.

The fact is that the Government have no commitment to cull cows aged over 30 months. As the Foreign Secretary rightly said, they have a commitment not to allow cows aged over 30 months to enter the food chain. They have now conceded that cows born in 1989 will be culled before the farmers necessarily conclude that they have reached the end of their working lives. If the Foreign Secretary is really confident that all those cows are at the end of their working lives anyway, he should try explaining to the House why the National Farmers Union is so concerned about the fact that cows on many farms which are not regarded as being at the end of their working lives will have to be culled earlier.

There is also the awkward matter of what the Government said at the time when they embarked on the beef war. On 21 May, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:

"I have seen no evidence to justify going beyond the proposal that we have advanced."--[Official Report, 12 May 1996; Vol.278, c.113.]

Yesterday, the Minister said that it was quite untrue that the Government were contemplating an extra cull.

I must tell the Foreign Secretary that there may be a case for the additional culls that are proposed. That is a matter for the House to resolve when it debates the Statutory Instrument which will, of course, be required, although this is not actually an extra cull. But as this Foreign Office debate is focusing on the negotiation of a package, let us at least not pretend that the Government have not shifted their position. Let us at least treat the House as adults and admit that there has been a climb-down, or possibly a climb up. Originally, the Government were willing to cull 40,000. That rose to 80,000 and it is now, according to the Foreign Secretary, about 125,000. That may have been necessary to reach agreement, but let us not pretend that it was not a shift in the Government's position.