| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Intergovernmental Conference (Ministerial Group)
6. Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings
of the ministerial group of the intergovernmental conference on a new European Union treaty Ministers have attended in 1997; and at which meetings the proposed protocol on the place of national parliaments was discussed. [18301]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): In answering this question, I ask for your indulgence for the second time, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is standing down at the next election and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for all the work that he has put in, particularly his nine years as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, at a time when that Committee was less fashionable. As to his question, there have been two IGC meetings at ministerial level this year. The protocol on national Parliaments was last discussed on 25 November.
Mr. Spearing: I thank the Minister for his kind words and pay tribute to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Sir R. Hicks)--[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]--who has had 22 years on the Committee against my 18. He has presided with impartial courtesy.
Will the Minister tell those at the conference that the Select Committee and, I think, all hon. Members, have doubts about the advisability of giving COSAC--the informal meeting of representatives of member state Parliaments--specific powers or duties, or even hinting at that? National Parliaments are the unique democratic institutions that express the continued existence of nations and the continued democratic freedom of their peoples.
Mr. Davis:
I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. I add my voice to his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Sir R. Hicks). Many people have put a lot of work into the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point. I have argued about the importance of leaving to nation states what their Parliaments do and how they structure their democratic accountability. The Government have supported the more informal and less constrained approach argued for by the Committee and put forward in the Irish text.
Sir Robert Hicks:
I remind my right hon. Friend that, at the Dublin meeting of the European affairs committees of national Parliaments, it was agreed unanimously that all documents, regulations and directives emanating from the Commission should go to national Parliaments at least four weeks before the Council of Ministers takes any decision on the provisions contained in those documents. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government fully support that position to allow due scrutiny of all the provisions emanating from Brussels?
Mr. Davis:
I shall say more than that. The proposal that there should be a legal requirement written into the treaty came from a Select Committee, supported by the Government. It is probably unique for a protocol to be put into a substantive treaty in that way. We shall support the proposal, because we were the first advocates of the argument.
Ms Quin:
I join the Minister in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South
In the few remaining opportunities that the Minister will have to attend European meetings, will he explain to his colleagues and the House why the Government have so frequently ignored recommendations from the European Scrutiny Committee for a debate on the Floor of the House? Will he take a leaf out of the Swedish Government's book and allow for much greater scrutiny of the second and third pillars of the European Union--common foreign and security policy, and justice and home affairs--which, so far, have had little scrutiny?
Mr. Davis:
I say two things to the hon. Lady. First, she should read the Select Committee's report, which makes it clear that our scrutiny procedure is as good as any in Europe--a point that she has obviously not taken on board. Secondly, with respect to the treatment of second and third pillar proposals, third pillar matters, which have legislative import, are obviously brought to this House. It is significant that we argue for unanimity on those actions, which makes the Government's accountability to the House absolute.
Sir Irvine Patnick:
Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to see the reported comments of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in The Times of 7 March, where he undertook to make surrenders and six changes to the Government's policy? Is that not an abdication of Labour's responsibility? Will it not undermine the British negotiating position?
Mr. Davis:
I did see the report of the right hon. Gentleman's comments at the weekend. My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party has undertaken to make six surrenders of British sovereignty in six weeks. If it were ever in government, we would never get those back.
7. Mr. Purchase:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Iran. [18302]
Mr. Rifkind:
We have serious concerns about many Iranian policies; until those are addressed satisfactorily, there can be no question of Iran having normal relations with the international community.
Mr. Purchase:
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. May I remind him that a Select Committee recently completed an inquiry into arms to Iraq, during which papers that had been promised in the House were denied to that Committee? Even the Crown jewels procedure was denied to that Committee in respect of certain papers. Why do the Government intend to subject some 3,500 documents taken from the Astra files to public interest immunity certificates when it was those files that first disclosed the arms to Iran scandal and when the House has said that it will use those certificates much more sparingly? Will he explain his and other Departments' actions in that matter?
Mr. Rifkind:
This question is about Iran and I am not certain about the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary. Any proposals that involve the use of
Sir Cyril Townsend:
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that neither western Europe's critical dialogue nor the United States' policy of dual containment have been particularly successful in recent years? When a new course is being decided, will he resist the temptation to turn Iran into a pariah state, beyond the bounds of the international community? Does he agree that Teheran is just the sort of place where a British ambassador, with his skills and expertise, would have plenty of work to do?
Mr. Rifkind:
We have made it clear that we would not be attracted by proposals for economic sanctions unless they were likely to have the support of the United Nations Security Council as a whole, and that is not likely to arise. However, it is simply not possible to have normal relations with Iran. There have been significant examples, which, I am afraid, continue, of Iran assisting subversion and of the likelihood that it supports terrorist organisations. We have a particular problem with regard to the British citizen, Salman Rushdie. That continues to see no improvement whatever, and some aspects have deteriorated in recent weeks. Against that background, we regret that it is not possible to have proper relations with that country.
Mr. Fatchett:
We certainly agree with the Foreign Secretary's condemnation of Iran's record on human rights and involvement in terrorism. Against that background, can he explain why, in the very week in which the regime in Iran yet again confirmed the fatwah against Salman Rushdie and increased the price on his head, the Government decided to sponsor a trade fair in Teheran? Why do the Government indulge in such actions when it is clear that the signals give comfort to the regime in Iran and condone its behaviour? Is it not clear that, rather than being tough on terrorism, the Government are prepared to trade with anybody?
Mr. Rifkind:
I was waiting for the hon. Gentleman to say whether any future Labour Government would break economic links with Iran and cease to trade with it. I explained to the House a few moments ago that we do not believe in economic sanctions. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman nevertheless felt that he had to continue with his supplementary. There may be a difference of view between the Government and the Opposition: we believe that economic links with Iran are sensible and should not be discontinued. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees, he should have said so and not used weasel words.
Lady Olga Maitland:
What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to monitor the serious build-up of weapons in Iran, far in excess of its national needs? Is he aware that the build-up is causing great concern in the Gulf states, which feel that their security is being threatened?
Mr. Rifkind:
Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This morning, I met the Defence Minister of Saudi Arabia, and I know that many of the moderate countries
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |