| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: Ah, the Minister is rising in defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Streeter: Let me just finish this point. The Government say that they are leading in Europe, but the other Ministers would not even give the Chancellor a seat on their Euro X Committee.
Mr. Henderson: Is not the hon. Gentleman slightly embarrassed by raising the question of the British opt-in to Schengen? The previous Government had such a poor relationship with their European partners that they could negotiate almost nothing that was to this country's advantage, including the insertion of British border controls protection in the treaty of Amsterdam. That is what really protects British interests, and it was achieved only on the last day of the Amsterdam negotiations.
Mr. Streeter: The Minister is doing his best to defend an indefensible position. He knows that we negotiated and agreed as early as March this year a complete opt-out from border controls. That was confirmed by many sources and well broadcast in the British press.
Mr. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is coming to my rescue.
Mr. Davis: I simply want to add a few facts that the Minister can check for himself. He might care to look at the record of the meeting in Downing street attended by Prime Minister Wim Kok, in which the deal--a rather better deal than Labour arrived at--was proposed to the United Kingdom. The Minister can also check public information sources. The fact is that the deal the Labour Government came out with is worse than the one that was on the table before the negotiations on the Amsterdam treaty began.
Mr. Streeter: The voice of authority and authenticity--game, set and match.
Fourthly, we have heard for months about how the new soft-focus approach to Europe will pave the way for the lifting of the beef ban that our farmers so desperately need. We were told that the Government's new friends in Europe would support them. The Government say that they are winning for Britain in Europe, but no progress whatsoever has been made on the beef ban.
New Labour is learning the hard way that the European Union is not about soundbites or even warm personal handshakes; it is about 15 nations who have come together out of their own self-interest. Each nation is trying to get the best deal it can for its own people, and there is nothing wrong with that. The Government are so
starry-eyed about Europe that they are convinced that other nations are queuing up to do them a favour, just because they roll out their touchy-feely language. The truth is that the new Labour Government will be rolled over by our partners again and again, just as they were at Amsterdam and just as they have been ever since.
Based on the record of failure of the past seven months, we can look ahead to the UK presidency only with trepidation. We want to the Minister to spell out tonight, not in soft soundbites, but in hard-nosed substantial policies, precisely what the Government's objectives are for the UK presidency. What do the Government intend to achieve during that six-month period in respect of enlargement, vote weighting reforms, the CAP, EU financing and jobs? How many jobs will be created under the UK presidency?
How will the Government sort out the mess they have got themselves into over frontier controls? I ask the Minister again, how did that happen? What went wrong at the Amsterdam summit? Why was the Spanish amendment not challenged? Was the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister or the Minister of State in the discussions when the Spanish amendment was tabled?
Mr. Doug Henderson:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already explained both to him and to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that the Spanish amendment was challenged?
Mr. Streeter:
I am sorry to say this to the Minister, but frankly I do not believe him. I want the Minister to tell us tonight how we are going to get out of the difficult situation that he has got us into.
Mr. Henderson:
If memory serves, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has responded--if he has not, I have--in a written answer and made it absolutely clear that the Spanish amendment was challenged. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that?
Mr. Streeter:
The Minister is sticking to his line. The Foreign Secretary has told us on two occasions that the agreement on the voting arrangements for the opt-in on border controls happened after the end of the summit. Would the Minister care to intervene yet again to confirm that? Is that right or not?
Well, we can assume that, as the Foreign Secretary told us today, after the summit had been concluded an agreement was entered into between the Spanish and the Dutch presidency to change the arrangements that had been agreed at the Amsterdam summit. What does that say about new Labour's relationship with Europe? What does that say about making friends in Europe?
What is the Minister going to do now? How will he solve this problem? Is he going to hold a bilateral meeting with Spain during the Luxembourg summit? Is he going to call the Spanish and the Dutch together? Is he going to raise this matter in full session at the Luxembourg summit? Is he going to use the UK presidency to undo the damaging agreement that has been entered into?
It is an important issue and it requires specific answers. The Minister must understand that we will not let him off the hook. We will press until we ascertain precisely what
went wrong and what the Minister will do about it. Will he put the record straight? Will he put on one side the new Labour handbook of soft-focus phrases, and deal with policy and substance?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson):
We have had a good debate, although the House has not been as well attended as it has been for some of the debates on European matters over four of the past six sitting days. There has been considerable passion in some of the contributions to the debate. Many have been wide-ranging, and some have concentrated more on the Luxembourg summit than others.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on his second maiden speech. It is sometimes thought outside the House that we do not on one side of the Chamber have colleagues on the other. Even when I sat on the Opposition Benches and the hon. Gentleman took his place on the Government Benches, I always thought that he was a good colleague with whom to talk about political issues. He would view them objectively and would agree or disagree with parliamentary colleagues, depending on their attitude. That approach was reflected in his contribution this evening, which was measured and dignified.
The hon. Gentleman did not attack the Conservative party, although there was plenty of scope for him to do so, had he wished. He made a thoughtful speech, and we look forward to many more from him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) talked about the financing of the European Union. I can reassure him that the British rebate is a central part of our negotiating position. We have no intention of giving ground on that.
I know that there are many worries about structural funds. I know also that my right hon. Friend will recognise that, regardless of any enlargement process, there is a need to look again at structural funds because of the changes in the European economy that have taken place over the past eight years. Achieving a fair and proper structure is a principal aim that arises from the Luxembourg conclusions.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred to the Lome convention, as did the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). It is an important issue and we have already begun to consider the review that is taking place. The Government will be pursuing the matter initially over the next six months. The focus of our direction will be to try to do the best that we can for the poorest countries. I hope that that will meet many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford.
The hon. Member for Woodspring said that he saw Europe doing nothing but contemplating its navel. Surely the last thing to which Conservative Members would want
to draw attention is contemplating political navels after the events of the past seven months. If the hon. Gentleman wishes further to pursue that argument, I am sure that the House will enjoy it.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) gave general support to many of the issues that are on the agenda which the Government will pursue at the Luxembourg summit. The code of conduct on arms is important and we shall be raising the issue during our presidency. There is a huge amount of common ground on open and accountable institutions in Europe. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the announcements that have already been given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself in Select Committees, on opening up and extending scrutiny. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be making an announcement shortly.
The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) made a good and rounded speech and tackled many issues that many right hon. and hon. Members did not wish to take up. When they read the report of the hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard tomorrow, they will be able to assess the quality of his speech.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) makes predictable contributions in these debates. He makes them with conviction, however, and speaks well. I do not agree with much of what he said, but it is important in a debate of this sort that all views are advanced.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) argued that the Foreign Office now acts only for foreigners--I paraphrase his remarks. His assertion was in contradiction to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Ludlow, who accused the Government of being too patriotic. Conservative Members cannot have it both ways.
The hon. Member for West Dorset talked also about the powers of the European Court. I have explained the Government's position, including the modest extension of powers. I did so in Committee against the background of the Amsterdam treaty, and I am prepared to return to the issue in Committee. It would be inappropriate to go into the details now, when there are so many other issues on which I must respond.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) ended his contribution by wishing the Government well in their presidency of the EU. I began to look for the catch, but I did not find one in relation to the agenda for Luxembourg. I gained the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed with the broad thrust of the Government's position on the importance of enlargement and reform of the CAP.
Unfortunately for the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in endeavouring to find areas of controversy, indulged in scaremongering about the social chapter. The arguments have been exhausted during our debates on the Amsterdam treaty. We believe that the social chapter is essential if British workers are to have the same rights as workers in other European countries. It is important that Britain is involved in the debates and discussions about the social chapter, so that we achieve the right balance between things that can be best arranged at European level and those that can be settled at nation state level.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |