Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): What has that got to do with it?

Mr. Cook: I shall tell the hon. Lady. If the Conservative party is serious about putting jobs first, it will need to drop its hostility to the European Union, membership of which is vital to the security of millions of British jobs.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Cook: No, I will continue my speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to entertain us with his own speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) pointed to the frighteners that are held out to us. Of course, in the past three weeks the Opposition have discovered a new frightener--the declaration of fundamental rights, about which we shall hear a report at

15 Jun 2000 : Column 1128

the European Council. The report will be given by Roman Herzog, the chair of the convention preparing the charter. His comments last week in Die Welt provide a refreshing dose of realism to the excitable comments of some Opposition Members. He said that the charter would create no new powers for the EU over its member states, that it would apply only to EU institutions without imposing new rights on member states and that the charter was not the kernel of a future European constitution.

Nevertheless, last week the right hon. Member for Horsham denounced the charter of fundamental rights as "steel handcuffs". It is a curious mindset that equates human rights with handcuffs.

There is absolutely no reason why Britain, of all nations, should run scared of discussion on fundamental rights. Britain is, after all, one of the cradles of European values of freedom and liberty.

Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham): Will the Secretary of State tell the House what human rights are being conferred by the declaration--which everyone else refers to as the charter--which have not already been conferred on British people by this Parliament?

Mr. Cook: The position of the Government is exactly in line with the rights conferred by this Parliament because what we argued for in the convention and in the Council and what we will argue for in Portugal next week is that the declaration should consolidate and bring together in one place those existing human rights. I do not think that Britain should in any way be afraid of that. After all, Britain took the lead in drafting the European convention on human rights and the universal declaration of human rights. We should not be afraid of seeing those represented in a European Union declaration.

Mr. Maude: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question? What rights are being conferred by the charter which have not already been conferred on the British people by the British Parliament?

Mr. Cook: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman. We do not intend there to be any additional rights as a result of this process. We have said from the start that it is a consolidation of existing human rights.

Mr. Maude: If this charter confers no additional rights beyond what has already been conferred by this Parliament, what is the point of it?

Mr. Cook: At present, the existing European institutions are not signatories to the European convention on human rights. The Commission is not bound by any code of human rights. Technically, although the Council brings together member states, it is not a signatory or a party to the European convention on human rights. I see nothing to be afraid of in, and something to be gained by, a clear declaration that the European institutions are bound by those declarations. In other circumstances, I

15 Jun 2000 : Column 1129

would expect the Conservatives to complain that the European Commission has no limitations in respect of an obligation to respect human rights.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Will the Foreign Secretary give way on this point?

Mr. Cook: It cannot be the same as the three points that the hon. Gentleman has tried to intervene on already, but I will give way.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his uncharacteristic generosity. How does he square his complacency on the charter with the verdict of the House of Lords European Union Committee report in May this year, at paragraph 123, that the charter could indeed be enshrined in the treaties and made legally binding on member states; and how does he square it with the fact that the Minister of State for Europe has not ruled out such a prospect?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has ruled it out, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has ruled it out and if the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt, I am happy to rule it out. Europe already has in the European convention on human rights a legally binding code for member states. We want to make sure that it remains the sole legal guarantee. A separate legal text could provide an undermining, not a strengthening, of that system of human rights. That view is shared by a number of other member states--Britain is not alone on this issue. That is why, at the European Council, we will together be making it clear that there is no consensus for the charter becoming a legally binding text. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is sufficiently relieved to be able to carry himself in silence throughout the rest of this speech.

At Feira, we will also take stock of progress on enlargement. The Portuguese presidency has maintained steady progress on enlargement. Negotiations have been launched with six more candidates, and the original six candidates are advanced in the negotiation on almost all chapters of the European legislation.

For central and eastern Europe, enlargement will provide assurance of political security and economic opportunity. For the European Union, it will provide a membership of 500 million people--a market twice the size of the United States and four times the size of Japan. It will give Europe, and Britain, extra leverage in international trade negotiations.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Cook: No, I will not.

It is a rich prize, but if we are to grasp it, we must reform the European Union to make it ready for enlargement. That is why it is important that at the forthcoming European Council we maintain the momentum of the intergovernmental conference on enlargement and keep it on schedule for completion by the end of the year.

I see that the Conservative party is now committed to a referendum on the treaty that will result from the enlargement IGC. That certainly appears to unite the forces opposite. However, it is real cheek for Conservative Members to pose now as the champions of

15 Jun 2000 : Column 1130

referendums. In their long years in office, they never once had a referendum on anything. They took Britain into Europe without even a by-your-leave of the public.

The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) signed the Maastricht treaty on behalf of Britain. That was a dramatic treaty--his signature launched sweeping changes on Europe. He built two whole new pillars of the European Union. He laid the foundation for the single currency. He signed away 30 further articles to be decided by majority voting. Curiously, while the right hon. Gentleman was agreeing to those bold changes, it never occurred to him to put them to the British people in a referendum. Indeed, the current Leader of the Opposition actually voted in the House to prevent a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.

With a record like that, it seems curious that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) should now have done a cartwheel. Of course, we know why--it was to get the millions of Mr. Paul Sykes out of the Referendum party and into the Conservative party. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) says, "Cheap". I rather suspect that it is anything but cheap when it comes to Mr. Sykes and his millions.

Paul Sykes makes no bones about where he stands on Europe. He does not just want a referendum on the next treaty--he wants a referendum to get Britain out of Europe. It is a measure of how far the Conservative party has lurched to the right that an extremist like Mr. Sykes can feel at home in it. He even claimed to the "Today" programme that the vast majority of Conservative Members agree with him and judging by the noise that they have been making during this speech, he is absolutely right.

As I understand it, that is not the position of the right hon. Gentleman. If he does reject the view that we should be edging out of Europe, I hope that he will take the opportunity this afternoon to put it right. I am sure that he would not want to receive Mr. Sykes's millions under false pretences. We will listen with attention for a clear passage in his speech that tells us that Mr. Sykes has misunderstood the position of the Conservative party, and tells Mr. Sykes to keep his millions out of the Tory party bank account. I do hope that he will not disappoint us when he comes to speak.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has already expressed a view, and I am happy to let him do it again.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. He is quite right--we want nothing to do with Paul Sykes and all the nonsense about a referendum and our position in Europe because that is not the position of the Conservative party.

On an earlier point, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that at Feira a timetable will be laid down as to when enlargement will be achieved? There have been worrying signs that the European Commission and the member states have been backing off from providing such a timetable.


Next Section

IndexHome Page