| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.53 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye): I very much welcome the tone and the constructive contribution to the debate of the right hon. Member for
Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). Those of us who are aficionados of these European debates have notched up something of a first tonight, in that the first two speeches from Conservative Back Benchers have been positively pro-European and constructive in tone and approach.That is welcome on an all-party basis, because if a criticism can be made of those of us in the pro-European camp, it is that, in recent years, we have been frankly too complacent in allowing the critics and those who wish to deconstruct the European Union too much time and space to make mischief and thoroughly to misrepresent what is going on.
The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), gave some friendly advice to the Prime Minister, advising him not to read the newspapers. If one looks at the verdict of the newspapers on what is on offer ahead of the weekend summit, one will see that the Prime Minister might be tempted to take the advice of his distinguished predecessor. The Government, who prepared the way so well for the Scott report recently, have not done a good job in advance briefing on the likely outcome to the beef fiasco, and they have persuaded no one.
Prime Minister's Question Time today was a classic example of the weakness of the case that the Government have advanced as some kind of victory. Not one Conservative Back Bencher asked a question on that issue. They were more intent on talking about the Leader of the Opposition's recent excursion to Bonn than about the apparent victory that the Government have secured as a result of their non-co-operation policy.
That attitude has been reflected in the press. Let us be fair and take a number of newspapers that are normally, if not completely loyal to the Conservative party, more to the right of centre in their editorial stance than to the left. The Daily Mail said:
The Evening Standard--a paper that normally takes a robust, Conservative and right-wing view of the world--began its editorial today by saying:
The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), told me a few moments ago that he could not be in the Chamber at this stage of the evening, and I accept that. But I want to make a straightforward criticism of Labour's approach, as it
should not be allowed to get off scot-free for its activities during the past two or three weeks. Labour Front Benchers have tried to run with the hounds and the hare on this issue. It seems to me that one could either back the Government or not--the Liberal Democrats did not, and we have been consistent in our opposition to the entire non-co-operation approach. But Labour has sent out confusing and conflicting smoke signals to appease more than one audience, and it has not come out with any great credit.
In the run-up to Florence, the potential deal on the table seems to depend on who blinks first, although neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister referred to that aspect this afternoon. We can have progress of the type that is on offer if we agree in advance to lift non-co-operation. The Government's position has been that we will certainly not lift non-co-operation until we have a satisfactory deal in place.
I suspect that the one-hour time difference between here and Florence will provide a suitable diplomatic stand-off that will allow a fudge to take place, and that non-co-operation will be lifted miraculously at much the same time as a deal is concluded. If that is the case, let us be clear that what has been agreed and accepted now by the Government is a good way short of the objectives that they set out on 21 and 22 May.
Let us never forget what the Press Association reported Downing street as having said on the record the day after the Prime Minister made his opening statement in the House. Downing street has never sought to contradict it. It said:
The Government now adduce arguments as to why that may not be deliverable or desirable. One of those arguments, with which I have considerable sympathy, is that, rather than following a rigid timetable that pays no attention to the veterinary or scientific evidence, it is better to set targets, meet them and then progress beyond that. But the fact of the matter is that that ain't what they said on day one. It may be what they are saying now, but it is a retreat from their opening position, and it should be seen as such.
The second aspect, which has already been touched on, is that a greater slaughter is now envisaged than previously. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) handed me a fax earlier in the debate from the National Farmers Union south-west regional advisory board, which met today and discussed the Government's proposals for a greater selective slaughter. Its position is probably typical of NFU opinion throughout the United Kingdom. It said:
The point is surely that the Government have not only had to back-track--that is one thing--but, in back-tracking, have stored up problems for the future in Europe. The
European consumer is hardly likely to believe any Government when they say that veterinary or scientific opinion requires X, Y or Z in years to come. We have rather undercut that principle by saying, "We know that this is not necessary, but we are going to do it anyway." That is hardly the way to send a signal of confidence to consumers. It may be necessary to break the logjam at Florence, but we should be under no illusion but that we might be storing up problems for ourselves in years to come.
A third aspect of the potential deal before us is the missed opportunity caused by what we have vetoed en route to the juncture at which we now find ourselves. We have used the veto more than 70 times in the past two or three weeks. We have blocked measures that would have countered terrorism, fraud, drug smuggling and corruption--all things that were high on the British list of desires. We have blocked various economic measures. One was a £10 billion scheme designed to help put 8 million unemployed people back to work. On social policy, we have vetoed an anti-racism directive. We have blocked practical help for travellers who need emergency passports. We have blocked various laudable aims to provide international aid. The damage to a set of schemes and objectives to which we adhere and aspire, as well as the diplomatic damage, has made the price not at all one worth paying.
Earlier today I was in Bonn, where I had the opportunity to meet the Minister of State's opposite number--the European Union Minister in the German Administration, Werner Hoyer--and I asked him straight, "Do you think that the tactics that the British Government have pursued in the past two or three weeks have brought forward the achievement of any of the aims that they set themselves--the earlier breakthrough in having the derivatives ban partially lifted or the deal that is now on the table?" I wished to know from the Minister's opposite number, whom he knows well, with whom he personally gets on well and has a good relationship, whether in his view the non-co-operation policy had advanced the British cause one iota. The Minister replied, "Absolutely not." He went on to describe the Government's approach as "disastrous". That was the view of the Minister's opposite number, a member of the Free Democratic party, but serving within Chancellor Kohl's coalition Administration.
In his speech yesterday on the attitude of our partners, when I was relieved to hear him describe other European countries as our partners, the Prime Minister came out with a splendid analysis of the attitude of other member states, of which the German attitude that I encountered this morning was only too typical. The Prime Minister said yesterday:
Secondly, we should remember that the Commission paper expressed
The third and sad irony is the damage that has been done to our diplomatic and political standing within the EU, and therefore to our longer-term national interest. The conclusion from this sad and sorry episode for the Government and the Conservative party is that there is no point in trying to appease their sceptics in the hope of suing for peace within their party or at European level. It will not work.
For example, a few weeks ago the House approved the Government's White Paper, which set out their objectives for the IGC. Yet in the few weeks since then, almost a third of parliamentary Tory party, on separate occasions, has voted for two ten-minute Bills--one that was euphemistically described as being about the reform of the European Court of Justice and the other for a referendum--both of which would blow apart the carefully constructed compromises in the White Paper and the subsequent Cabinet compromise over the party's attitude to the eventual referendum.
The Government have fed the insatiable appetite of the Euro-sceptics, and we are beginning to discover, as they become more emboldened, the real terminus of their argument. It is not reform of the ECJ, the reining-in of the Commission or a curb on thepowers of the Parliament: it is withdrawal. That is what the Euro-sceptics want, and that is the logical conclusion to which they would lead this country, by unstitching Maastricht and withdrawing the competencies of the ECJ.
I welcome the Confederation of British Industry to the debate on Europe. The CBI, and in particular Mr. Niall Fitzgerald, was right to say that loose talk at European level costs British jobs. It does, and we should be clear about that as the debate unfolds.
I have not yet mentioned proportional representation and voting reform for European elections in debates on Europe. I hope that the Minister will consider that issue in the context of the IGC. My colleague in the European Parliament, Graham Watson, has persistently questioned successive presidencies of the European Union about their attitude. I also wish to pay tribute to the Europewide European Movement, which last week published a paper on the issue, which was written by Mr. Andrew Duff, the director of the Federal Trust.
"John Major has sounded the retreat in the beef battle with Europe."
The verdict of The Daily Telegraph was:
"Surrender by Britain on beef ban".
The Financial Times was rather more generous in its editorial today and described the proposals as "tough but fair", but added that the Prime Minister
"should abandon his silly policy of disrupting EU procedures and move the BSE problem from politics into the realm of veterinary science where it belongs".
That was perhaps one of the kinder remarks made about the Government.
"Mr. John Major's beef war with Europe has always been ludicrous. Since it was founded upon a wanton deceit--that the mad cow crisis is somehow Europe's fault, rather than the consequence of a catastrophic failure of government regulation--it can only end in one way, with a British government climbdown".
A fairly unanimous cross-media consensus has developed, and it is a fair reflection of the sorry outcome to the entire affair.
"Nothing short of a full timetable for the phased lifting of the entire ban will be sufficient."
It is clear from listening to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister this afternoon that what is on offer here is not a full timetable for the phased lifting of the entire ban.
"We do not accept the principle of a selective cull, as it would add nothing to public safety, would involve the slaughter of a disproportionately large number of cattle which would never have developed BSE, and would cause great distress to the many farmers and their families who would lose a significant proportion of their herds."
It went on to detail five conditions for its acquiescence in a selective cull.
"It was the unwillingness of our partners to enter discussions and reach agreements in this way which led us to suspend normal dealings."
He went on to acknowledge:
"I understand their difficulties with their hostile public opinion. We've often faced that difficulty ourselves."
Well, my goodness me. His audience must have been greatly taken by surprise at the frank admission from the British Prime Minister that the Government have occasionally faced hostile public opinion. He continued:
"But there is no sensible alternative--for them or for us--to reaching conclusions based on evidence and science."
20 Jun 1996 : Column 1060
That goes to the heart of the matter. Suspicion took root at European level because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in particular handled the matter in an utterly ham-fisted way at the outset. It seemed that Britain was more concerned about getting the ban lifted than about eradicating BSE. That was the political poison in the system, which did for us in the past few weeks.
So we now have some ironies as we look at what will be the likely conclusion to all this. First, at intergovernmental conference level, Britain is pushing to rein in the powers of the European Commission and scale down the competencies and powers of the European Court of Justice. Yet, as the Prime Minister pointed out in his speech, which two sets of institutions at European level have been of most value to us? Why, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. The irony of that is not lost on those who listen to the arguments advanced by the Minister and his colleagues in the context of the IGC.
"considerable misgiving about the effectiveness of past actions taken by the UK".
We should not overlook the conclusion in the paper that
"more of the British monitoring and control will now have to be submitted for consultation and approval at Brussels level."
It is a high irony that the Euro-sceptics, particularly among the Conservatives, who have been so full-throated and vocal in their gung-ho support for the Government, have helped to engender an outcome that has handed more power to Brussels. Little wonder that, with two honourable exceptions, they are rather noticeable by their absence from the debate this afternoon.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |