| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gapes: I cannot give way again; I am sorry but I must conclude.
Strategic interests are about more than international organisations. I had the pleasure today of hosting a reception in the House for Voluntary Service Overseas. VSO sends young people from this country to assist in developing countries worldwide. An early-day motion on today's Order Paper highlights the areas in which it is involved. I believe very strongly that non-governmental organisations and the voluntary sector have a very important role in promoting Britain's strategic interests. Likewise, the BBC World Service, the British Council and other bodies that are funded to some, or to a large, extent by the taxpayer are very important in representing this country and fostering its perception in the rest of the world.
For a country such as ours, which is dependent on international trade and which has an international language and excellent academic institutions and worldwide links, it is vital that we are seen to be internationalists and that we are internationalists. That also applies in the European context. We gain much more from our involvement in Europe and our position in the European Union precisely because we are members of it than we ever would if we were to adopt the narrow- minded isolationism that some on the Opposition Benches wish to pursue.
I have covered several different areas, but owing to interventions I shall conclude. I hope that the House will have further opportunities to discuss these wide-ranging issues in the not-too-distant future.
8.29 pm
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): I have only a couple of points to make. The first is that when Britain's strategic interests are debated in the House, a fundamental difference between the parties is revealed. The Conservative party is the only truly national party--the only party for which national interest is at the heart of all its considerations of foreign and international affairs. That difference is rooted in the history of political parties and parliamentary debate and is partly the result of the liberal elite and the liberal establishment--[Laughter.] I use those phrases not because they are topical and popular but because they have always been the terms by which I refer to the middle-class left.
Mr. Bob Russell: Middle class? Me?
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman attempts to distract me from my main theme.
The difference may be explained partly by the psyche of the left. National interest is always considered grudgingly and unenthusiastically, as a matter of acquiescence, by the liberal left. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) looks at me with some surprise, but he will remember the great debate between Gladstone and Disraeli in 1876. [Laughter.] I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces, is not as familiar with these historical matters as some other hon. Members are. I do not blame him for that; I blame his teachers.
Mr. Russell: He went to Oxford.
Mr. Hayes: That is even worse. I blame his teachers and lament the fate of his pupils.
The debate in 1876 about the Bulgarian atrocities was between Gladstone, who believed that Britain should take military action in pursuit of a greater moral interest, and Disraeli, who said that
- the permanent and abiding interest of England
The nonconformist conscience may be a laudable thing in certain circumstances but it should never be allowed to subvert or obscure Britain's national interest. That historical philosophical difference legitimately and genuinely lies at the heart of the difference between the parties when we consider these matters.
Mr. Hayes: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt tell me more about the Bulgarian atrocities of 1876.
Mr. Keetch: I did not intend to mention the Bulgarian atrocities. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that his party is the little Englander party, whereas our party and the Labour party may be internationalist parties. We should be quite clear about that, because I remember another Conservative politician mentioning wars in far-off places between people of whom we knew nothing. Does he agree that that attitude still exists in the Conservative party?
Mr. Hayes: No, and I will use another historical reference to illustrate why I do not agree with that. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) talked about a narrow-minded isolationism just as the hon. Member for
Hereford (Mr. Keetch) talked about a little Englander mentality. When there was that debate in the 19th century between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the Conservative party was the imperialist party that looked with more than affection--with loyalty, indeed--to the countries and peoples in the empire, while the Liberals were more narrow minded and were often reluctant imperialists.That is not exclusively true, and you will no doubt point to Joseph Chamberlain as a Liberal imperialist in your next intervention, but it has to be said that he became more of a little Englander than many of the Tories who survived that debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must remember to use the correct language and that if he uses the words "you" or "your" he is addressing the Chair. He must also remember that he should be addressing the Chair and not turning his back on it.
Mr. Hayes: I apologise profusely, Sir Alan. I know that you are very familiar with these matters, being a student of the Conservative party's history. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to move on to my second major point. The first point, Sir Alan, was--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is having a rash of little mistakes this evening. I should be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Hayes: It must be my excitement and enthusiasm in dealing with interventions from Liberal Members.
Mr. Spellar: First, let me give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to clear up his confusion between Joseph Chamberlain and Neville Chamberlain. While he is trying to wrap the Tory party in the patriotic flag, can he say whether he approved of the Labour party insisting that Churchill should lead the country in the second world war and forming a national Government, which the Labour party has always done? His attempts to smear the Labour and Liberal parties in this regard are quite despicable.
Mr. Hayes: There is no confusion between Joseph and Neville Chamberlain. It was Joseph Chamberlain who, in the 1906 election, pursued a policy of tariff reform--which could be caricatured as an isolationist, little Englander policy--which cost the coalition of which he was a part so dear electorally.
There are times when national interest becomes paramount in pursuit of a noble objective, and the Minister uses the example of the second world war. Of course I acknowledge that there are many good, noble and patriotic people of all parties in the House, but the bottom line is that there is a deep philosophical difference, when push comes to shove, on the issue of national interest. No one in the House forgets it completely, but it is a matter of how high a priority one gives it. I was illustrating that point by reference to the debate between Gladstone and Disraeli. There should not be any disagreement between the Liberal Democrats and me on that issue.
My second point is that the fundamental premise adopted by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) at the beginning of his
speech seemed to me to be flawed. He said that the popular wisdom was that a world post-mutually assured destruction, in which the old certainties and inertia had disappeared, was a less secure world; but the real issue is not the implications of the changing power relations and balance of armouries between the great nations. Much more important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) alone has pointed out, is the changing nature of technology and communications.The real change that brought about the necessary reappraisal of the way in which we deal with our strategic interests and our international affairs comes from changes in international communications. It is true to say that the world becomes a less certain place as it becomes more flexible. It is also true to say that the cultural and commercial changes that have taken place, at a pace that few could have anticipated, over the past decade--and will take place at an ever-increasing pace because of further changes in technology--create different imperatives and a new dynamic. Contrary to the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, that is much more important than the issue of the post-mutually assured destruction reassessment of defence priorities.
The second mistake that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes is believing that acknowledgement that the world is more uncertain and more rapidly changing--a more global place--necessitates more global institutions and a supranational approach to the organisation of defence. I suggest that it reinforces the need for national identity. As people become less certain and as the world becomes less secure, the need becomes ever greater for a strong sense of belonging that is rooted in history and part of a continuum that draws on the collective wisdom of ages.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |