| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis) indicated assent.
Sir Edward Heath: I see the Minister nodding vigorously.
There is complete condemnation of Britain's approach to these matters. Our approach is entirely unacceptable to other members of the European Union who have, for the past 40 years or so, gone ahead with great leaps, after a fixed time, and reached their conclusions.
I realised the difference acutely when, 10 days ago, I was returning from Lille on the cross-channel train. We roared across the fields of France at between 175 and 180 mph. We came through the tunnel and then roared through
the fields of Kent at between 35 and 40 mph. I consoled myself by saying, "Of course, we are going to have a fast link," but then I reminded myself that we decided that eight years ago and so far it has not started. That is one reason why the other member states are so suspicious of us. They do not believe that we want to make a success of our membership of the European Union.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned employment, which is vital. However, I hope that the Government will not spend all their time on the social chapter saying that their view is the answer to everything. It is not. British firms with factories, institutions and services inside other members of the Union are observing the full social chapter with great success. They are not complaining about it.
We had our own arrangements from 1909 onwards when Churchill introduced them as Minister of Labour. I celebrated their 50th anniversary. They contributed greatly to social harmony and did not prevent our economic development or our prosperity; yet those arrangements were abandoned three years ago, and that is claimed to be the secret of our success. It is nothing of the sort. The Foreign Secretary said that we have to compete with the products of the far east. If we are to do that by that method, we will have to go down to the level of the wages in the far east. [Interruption.] That is the logical conclusion. There is no other conclusion. The real conclusion should be that we have to persuade our industrialists to carry on with greater technical efficiency so that they can be competitive while paying their men properly.
I see examples round the country where people have been sacked and kids have been taken on. One knows full well that, when those kids reach the age of 20, they will be sacked and more kids will be taken on. That is not the sort of society for which Conservatives have always worked. I hope that there will not be lectures to the other European Governments about what they should do about the social chapter.
We now come to the main question. I think that the conference is of the utmost importance. I suggest to the Prime Minister that his top priority must be to re-create confidence in this country, not only in the European Union but in the rest of the world. That is his job now. Confidence has been lost over this episode. I have a list of 35 different countries, not just those in the European Union, which will not have anything to do with British beef. The Americans have not touched it since 1988. What was the reason for that? They did not believe that we had taken the measures necessary to prevent the disease from occurring. Canada will not take British beef and nor will Australia. New Zealand has taken it on and off, but Japan will not take it and nor will Singapore. The list goes on and on.
What the Prime Minister has to do--it is a formidable task--is to restore confidence in our country. To look at this from a local point of view, the Prime Minister has also to restore the confidence of the people of this country. All the polls show that it is not the European Union or the outsiders who are being blamed for the beef problem, it is the Government. The task is to restore confidence through the action being taken.
We should remind ourselves how this problem occurred--it was on 20 March, exactly three months ago, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced to all the media that it was now thought
that there was a danger of a connection between the animal disease and the human disease. That statement was given enormous prominence throughout the world. It is one reason why confidence must be restored.
What happened next? On 25 March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that a large number of animals--up to4.5 million--would have to be culled. That went around the world and everybody said it was a real crisis. However, in the following week others in the Government said that there was nothing to be afraid of, which produced the reaction, "What are those people doing, then? They are trying to cover up everything--or perhaps they don't realise there is a problem and so are not doing anything to deal with it positively." That is the background.
Like other hon. Members, I do not believe that the blockade policy pursued by the Government has had any effect other than bad. People everywhere cannot understand why we are blocking the very initiatives that we have been trying to bring about ourselves. They say, "If you are going to do it, surely you should be a bit more subtle than that." The British people do not understand it, either.
We have heard a great deal from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)--still my friend, I am told--about the necessity to depend purely on scientific advice. We heard from him this afternoon about what the farmers are saying, what the people involved in agricultural machinery are saying, what everybody concerned with agriculture is saying. That is not science, that is politics--understandable politics, because their livelihoods and the future of their children are affected.
What about the political feeling in the other countries in the Union? The demand for beef in Germany has dropped by 40 per cent., in France by 37 per cent., and likewise in the other countries of the Union. That is political, yet we are told that the only answer must be scientific. It just does not add up. What we must do--what I hope my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will do--is try to understand the jam in which the political leaders of the other countries in the Union find themselves. We cannot get away with simply saying, "We will ask the scientists and that will put an end to it all." It will not.
It is not all bad; there is some good. We heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that he and his colleagues--and, I think, the Prime Minister--now have complete and absolute trust in the Commission and the President of the Commission. [Interruption.] It is a welcome development--[Interruption.] Yes, we are delighted, absolutely delighted. What is more, the Government are now so enthusiastic about the European Court of Justice that they are putting the whole matter before it with complete confidence. I congratulate the Government on their intellectual appreciation of the machinery of the European Union.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister must make a settlement that will restore confidence in this country. He need not worry about the Euro-sceptics--he should forget about them--because they will have to accept any
settlement that he makes if the vast majority ofhon. Members, the observers and the Union itself says,"This is right; now you are dealing with the situation and producing the necessary answers."
I also suggest to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he stop reading newspapers--this is a good opportunity, as he is out of the country--because they have descended to a sordid level hitherto unknown in Britain. They are squalid. Of course, they are largely owned by foreigners who have no interest in our welfare. They want only to make money and to break up the European Union if they can. Let us all give up reading newspapers. Stanley Baldwin never read newspapers, and he was Prime Minister for eight or more years. He overcame every difficulty.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk):
A great European.
Sir Edward Heath:
Yes, Baldwin was a great European. He talked about the River Rhine in a dramatic speech.
I want to spend a few minutes dealing with the wider issues of Europe. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister must restore confidence in those areas as well. Every ambassador in London knows--as we know and as the press is already reporting--about people in meetings in the wealthier part of Westminster, all discussing how they can get out of the European Union. Everybody knows about that. The only question is, will they be successful? We also know that many of them think that, if we lost the election, that would be to their advantage, as they would then capture the party and make it another anti-European party. That will not happen. We will make sure that it does not happen.
That attitude is weakening this country abroad, which means that it is also weakening investment coming into Britain. Overseas companies say, "If that is going to happen, what long-term future is there? Why should be continue putting investment into Britain in the way we have done for so long?" That is an immense danger.
We have to consider the European Union from the double point of view--political and economic. Its first purpose was political--it always has been and it always will be--and any attempts, as suggested in the White Paper, to turn it into a European free trade area are bound to fail. We do not want it, the other countries will not have it and, if necessary, the other 14 will go off on their own saying, "Right, you look after yourselves."
They are of that mind at this moment because they are so angry about the way in which they think the British are treating them. That is especially true of the French. President Chirac has a terrible job trying to handle this awful problem where France has suddenly found that all the stuff that was vetoed here was promptly exported by British businesses to France, where it was used without anyone knowing about it. That is a horrible situation for President Chirac.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |