| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.45 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): This has been the traditional pre-Council debate and we have had a number of traditional speeches from Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Stone (Mr. Cash). Sadly, we did not hear from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), although we have had the opportunity of hearing his views on this subject every single time we debate European Council meetings.
Normally at these traditional debates, we do not hear very much new. Sadly, today we heard the news that the hon. Member for Ludlow has decided to step down and will not be contesting the next election. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear that. Whatever our views on Europe may be, I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman, who kept his views consistent over many years--unlike other Conservative Members. He has decided to withdraw from Parliament because he disagrees strongly with the Conservative party's line on Europe. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) may disagree, but that is what the hon. Member for Ludlow said; that is why he has decided to step down.
We heard from the hon. Member for Stone that he has published a pamphlet called "Associated, but not absorbed"; that could be a name for his autobiography, as it represents his attitude to the policy espoused by some of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
We heard excellent speeches from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the right hon. Members for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and for East Devon (Sir P. Emery)--who is not in his place--and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney). I did not agree with everything that he said, but the views put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe--not mentioned by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) just now--were pertinent.
Opposition Members need a reminder that, as a result of the decision by the General Affairs Council on Monday and the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence this week, we are not creating a European army. Conservative Members know this, yet they persist in pushing such myths around the Chamber and out in the country--and they are myths.
NATO remains the bedrock of our defence policy and the EU arrangement on troops--the headline goal--will be used only where NATO does not act. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe did not know which Minister attended the meeting when the Petersberg tasks were agreed. We should reveal that the Minister who attended the meeting and signed up the then Government to the Petersberg tasks was Sir Malcolm Rifkind; the very person who has written in today's newspapers to say that he opposes these matters. Let us have no more hypocrisy about a European army. We have an arrangement that has been the subject of discussions over many years. I was glad to hear from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe that that was the case under the previous Government, as it is under this one.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) raised the issue of the charter of rights; another myth peddled by the right hon. Member for Horsham. The right hon. Gentleman was up early to catch "Today", saying that the charter of rights was going to be justiciable, binding in law and put in the treaties--all kinds of horrible things were going to happen as a result. He will be pleased to know that in 10 days' time, the charter of rights will be proclaimed at Nice as a declaration, not as a binding document. That is because of the work done by the excellent all-party delegation sent by this House. It consisted of Lords Goldsmith and Bowness--the latter is a member of the Conservative party--the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), and my hon. Friend the Member for
Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). They fought extremely hard to ensure that we had a good text to which we could sign up. I reassure the House that that will be a political declaration.
Mr. Maude: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Vaz: No. The right hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber for most of the debate.
I will answer the points made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, who asked whether the charter of rights would be a burden on business. I can reassure him that there is no question of that. The CBI's director general, Mr. Digby Jones, said that the CBI was happy and satisfied with the proposed text. There is therefore no reason for the hon. Gentleman to worry about it.
Mr. Maude: The Minister says that the declaration will not be justiciable because it is not in the treaty. The formal submission from the Commission explicitly states that it will be mandatory in effect because of the way in which the European Court of Justice interprets it. Is he saying that the Commission is wrong about that?
Mr. Vaz: I am so sorry to have to explain such matters to the shadow Foreign Secretary--who is the man who signed the Maastricht treaty, a special copy of which I have brought with me today. He will know that there is a big difference between what the Commission would like to happen and what member states will decide to do. Of course the Commission is entitled to its view, but the declaration will be made by the member states.
The right hon. Member for Horsham tells us that he knows a great deal about the EU, but I was present at the conclave in Brussels on Sunday night. Half the countries present at that meeting supported the United Kingdom's view that the declaration should be a political declaration.
I have known the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for many years, as he used to be the Greater London council councillor for Richmond. I am sorry that I did not vote for him, but he can reassure his constituents with what the Prime Minister said only yesterday. That was that we support the proposals, but we have concerns about them too. More work needs to be done before we are happy with the text.
A delegation recently came to see me on the very issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. If he would like to bring a delegation of his farmers to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I am sure that I can arrange a meeting. The hon. Gentleman would then have an opportunity to put his views forward, if he thought fit to do so.
Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Vaz: As he did not speak in the debate, I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who brings to four and a half the number of horsemen of the anti-European apocalypse.
Mr. Bercow: The Minister's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) a moment ago was truly risible. Is he not aware that article 6.2 of the Maastricht treaty suggests that human rights and fundamental freedoms are grounded and enshrined in the
principles of Community law? It is on that basis that we assert that the charter will be justiciable. If the Minister is mistaken, will he resign?
Mr. Vaz: Opposition Members call for resignations as often as they call for the veto to be used. I confirm that I like article 6.2, because it is in the Maastricht treaty, which the shadow Foreign Secretary signed. It is nothing new. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Buckingham was not present at the conclave on Sunday night, but he does not represent a country. We took a decision then that no reference in the text would be made to article 6.2. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured that article 6.2 will not be mentioned in the text of the declaration.
I shall now move on to the other aspects of Nice. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) raised some serious points about qualified majority voting. I am sorry to remind the House that the gentleman who signed up for 30 extra additions to qualified majority voting under the Maastricht treaty was the right hon. Member for Horsham. Thirty times did he agree to do so. We have heard of people repenting after three occasions, but he did it 30 times, and he did it proudly. He did it without even a referendum, which the hon. Member for Stone asked for. The right hon. Gentleman signed up to that because he believed that it was in the national interest.
We will do as we said in our White Paper and look at qualified majority voting on a case-by-case basis. I do not think that it will simply be the European Court. We have made it clear that on those red-line areas we are not prepared to accept qualified majority voting. Of course, our negotiators have studied qualified majority voting very carefully. I pay tribute to Sir Stephen Wall, who has been our chief negotiator on these matters. The decisions that we make in a few days will be based on what is in our interests, in exactly the same way that the right hon. Gentleman--St. Francis of Maastricht--decided to do when he signed up to the Maastricht treaty. What he did on those 30 occasions, plus the 12 during the passage of the Single European Act, was designed to do things that were in Britain's interests.
We come now to two final items that will be discussed at Nice. One is the size of the Commission. Of course it is important that the Commission is efficient, transparent and accountable. It is extremely important that we realise what the Government's agenda is in Europe. It is to create a Europe that is capable of being reformed. We are therefore pro-Europe but also pro-reform. Of course we need to reform the Commission because when the applicant countries come in--13 have applied to join in Helsinki, and under our presidency--the Commission should act efficiently. That is why we are prepared to give up our second Commissioner, provided that there is a substantial reweighting of votes on the European Council.
We will get a better deal for this country on the extension of votes on the European Council than the right hon. Member for Horsham or any other Government ever managed to achieve before we came to power. We believe, exactly as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said, that it is important to redress the balance. We have lost influence as a result of votes over the past 20 years, and it is extremely important to ensure that the balance is redressed. So we will come out with more votes because we believe that that is important.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |