| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to remind the House that the 10-minute rule now applies to Back Benchers' speeches.
5.51 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): That was a sad speech by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who was a moderate European in the past and now feels under pressure to bow to the prevailing wind in his party. The vision of Europe that he set out is shared by no other Christian Democrat party on the continent, although it is perhaps shared by Mr. Haider in Austria, and it goes against all the traditions and interests of this country. The hon. Gentleman used words such as surrender--at least six times--against our partners in Europe, as if they were our enemies. His policy is self-defeating, against our national interest and shared by no one. The fact that the hon. Gentleman imagines that we can have a pick-and-mix Europe, at a time when Europe is being transformed and the world is changing, shows that he is someone who stands on the sandbank of time and spits against the wind.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Anderson: No, I have only 10 minutes.
On the subject of the law of humanitarian intervention, it is a pipe-dream to imagine that we can have consensus on that. I invite the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to consider the debate in the United Nations General Assembly. He can ally himself with the speech made by Mr. Ivanov on national sovereignty or he can adopt the policy of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which is the only honourable and moral one. In the case
of Kosovo, it would have been immoral for us to stand on the sidelines and do nothing when we had the capacity to intervene for good.
I wish to offer some general reflections about where we are now. I make no excuse for that: this is probably the last foreign affairs debate before Christmas and therefore the last of the millennium, so we may take some time for reflection. Ten years ago there was some euphoria in foreign policy circles. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, and all was to be new. Some scholars were talking about the end of history. The mood has now changed and, in my judgment, changed too far. Anyone with a sense of history knows that that euphoria could not last. We need a balance: we have much about which to rejoice but we also face great challenges.
I was concerned that much of the foreign policy content of the Gracious Speech appeared to be an afterthought. The speech contained a welcome reference to the International Criminal Court, although I had hoped that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would give a clear commitment today not only that we would be among the first 60 to ratify but that the Bill would become an Act during this Session. I was also surprised that the Gracious Speech contained no mention of Kosovo or the Commonwealth, and that whole swathes of foreign policy were not addressed.
What is clear is that whereas for 40 years following the five-year or so period of intense institutional adjustment after the second world war, we had the stability of the cold war, the past 10 years have seen great movement: it is as if a boulder had fallen into a pond whose ripples have affected our defence policy and our relations with the European Union and the third world.
I believe that the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of communism--the revolutions of 1989--will be far more significant historically than the failed revolutions of 1848. The effects of the end of communism will be felt for the next 10, 20 and even 50 years. The immediate effect was the end of the USSR, leaving the US as the only super-power. As there is now no perceived threat, many in the US ponder their role in burden sharing in Europe, and that has led to the necessary debate in Europe on the European security and defence identity and where we stand after Kosovo. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave some figures showing how much we spend on defence and what we get for that, as compared with our US partners.
Ten years after the fall of the Berlin wall on 8 and 9 November 1989, NATO has responded with many important institutional initiatives, from the North Atlantic Co-operation Council of 1991 to "Partnership for Peace" and the special agreements with Russia and the Ukraine culminating in the Washington summit this year at which three former Warsaw pact countries joined NATO. That was an earth-shaking event. The security map of Europe has been redrawn and will be again, as membership action plans are implemented for those other countries that also seek membership of NATO.
Ten years ago, the alignment of countries that we see in KFOR, the Kosovo force, would have been unthinkable. There is a new momentum in transatlantic arrangements and a proper debate about the role of Europe. For example, the incorporation of the Western European Union into the institutions of the European
Union will be done only when the interests of those members of the WEU not in NATO, such as Norway, Turkey and Iceland, have been addressed. I support the lead taken by the Government at St. Malo and beyond. It has not yet been reflected in the European defence industry, but that will follow.
The fall of the Berlin wall also had profound effects on the European Union. We understand the desires of the former Warsaw pact countries to seek full integration into the European Union, and I should have thought that the best option for those who do not wish to see further integration within Europe would be to support enlargement. However, the Conservatives' motives were questioned by our European partners because they were not part of the club, or were not thought to want to be part of the club, and their views were disregarded.
The Commission's report on 13 October made it clear that six countries are already negotiating entry to the European Union, and six more are to be invited. An intergovernmental conference will be necessary in advance of that, but it will transform the whole political landscape of Europe.
Whereas European history has hitherto seesawed between the dominance of Germany and that of Russia, Germany is now a full and leading member of the European Union and Russia is seeking to determine its own relations, in a rather turbulent manner, within the new Europe.
We do not know where enlargement will end. Reports of this weekend's Financial Times conference dealt with the fact that we shall have to accept that, if there is to be a core Europe--an entity called Europe--there will have to be a non-Europe. We must ourselves begin to work out the limits of enlargement, and a dynamic debate on that matter is under way.
On the night when the Berlin wall was demolished, I was travelling back from Namibia, having witnessed its first democratic elections. I had arranged for a full range of press conferences on the success story of democracy in Africa to take place on my return, but no one was interested in the story. Alas, the incident symbolised Africa's place in today's world. In one sense, the fall of the Berlin wall sidelined the third world; but it also precipitated the end of apartheid--first, with democratic elections in Namibia in 1989 and, secondly, with South Africa's 1994 elections. The end of communism also marked the end of client-state status held by countries such as the Congo and Somalia, where we were constrained in attacking human rights violations. We are now able to take a far more objective view of the situation in those countries.
I rejoice, for example, at the way in which East Timor--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater):
In my 10 minutes, I shall certainly not--as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said--have time for reflection on the great events. Although I should have liked to say something about Northern Ireland, anti-terrorism legislation, legislation on communications interception, the appalling problems facing British agriculture, and
The first issue transcends all the issues raised in the debate on the Loyal Address. I am not seeking to make a party political point, but believe that the quality of government and administration in the United Kingdom is at serious risk. We used to pride ourselves on the quality of our administration and government, which were described as the envy of the world, but in recent years, and over many years, the quantity and complexity of legislation has exceeded the system's capacity to administer it. As an example, I need only refer to the problems of the Child Support Agency--in relation to which various proposals were mentioned in the Gracious Speech.
Some hon. Members will be aware of the problems with the administration of IACS, the integrated administration and control system, and of the difficulty in getting answers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food--from a system and administration for which the rules and regulations are regularly changing, and from staff who are overwhelmed by the scale and complexity of the problems with which they must deal. The House should spend more time addressing those issues.
Last week, a farmer brought to my constituency surgery the names of those whom he had contacted in Workington in an attempt to get an answer to his problem with the British cattle movement service. The list included Miss Justin, Phil Christopher, Sue Owen, Pat, Jackie, John Briggs, Mr. Cater, Darren and Viv Gill--all of them dedicated, decent and hard-working people, trying to cope. When I wrote to the Minister about my constituent's problem, he replied that, although he appreciated my constituent's frustration,
Constituents have also alleged that, in reply to their queries, people at overstretched offices have said, "I'm sorry, but we've never received your letter". Subsequently, when my constituents have said, "But I sent it by registered post, and I have a signature for it," the letter has been found.
The House shares responsibility for good administration and government, and cannot pass by the Queen's Speech without recognising that fact. The Queen's Speech states:
I say with all humility that I have had some involvement in various Departments of State, and that I am seriously worried that the civil service's capacity is not what it used to be. Parliament will have to give more serious consideration to that issue. There is no point in passing legislation if it cannot be effectively implemented and administered, and we would be doing a disservice to our constituents if we tried to pretend otherwise.
We once subscribed to the slogan, "to govern is to serve." It is the duty of a Government to govern wisely. Although I do not have time to deal with the ways in which the problem should be dealt with, the first step is to acknowledge that there is a problem. In a non-partisan spirit, I say that we have a serious problem, which is underlined in the Queen's Speech.
The second of the great national assets at risk--which I have already identified to the Secretary of State for Defence, who is in the Chamber, and whom I welcome to his first Queen's Speech in his new office--is our armed forces. Although our armed forces are respected and valued, they are seriously at risk, and although the Foreign Secretary has gloried in the achievements of our forces in Kosovo, there is no question but that our forces are seriously overstretched.
The strategic defence review asked our forces to do more with less. They have subsequently been asked to do much more with even less. Our forces are admired because they are so well trained and motivated. However, time is an essential component of training. If our forces are constantly deployed on operational duty, they will have time neither to withdraw for operational training nor for the rest and recuperation that everyone rightly expects. If our forces are continually deployed, they will also not have time to be with their families. Their families resent that, and put pressure on them to leave the forces.
Every time I hear of a new assignment being undertaken or honoured by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, saying--admirably--that Britain will play its part, I worry that we may not be remembering who will have to discharge that duty. I was delighted that the Secretary of State's first comments on taking up his new and important office expressed his worries about overstretch.
Exactly what I feared would happen is happening. According to anecdotal evidence, key trained people--Army majors, captains, sergeant-majors and sergeants; people with some years in service, who had planned on making the armed services their career; the very core around which young recruits are built into efficient units--are the ones who are leaving. We run the risk of doing permanent damage to our services. It is no good the House simply paying tribute to our forces: it is vital that we maintain conditions in which our forces are happy to continue serving, and in which their families are willing to allow them to do so.
6.1 pm
"especially at having to speak to different people when he telephones . . . the BCMS has dealt with nearly 300,000 calls in the past year and an open helpline is the only way to cope with this volume of calls."
My constituent did not receive solutions to any of his problems.
"As part of my Government's drive to address inappropriate and over-complex regulation, legislation will be introduced to increase the effectiveness of the power to remove regulatory burdens."
The House should have a sweepstake on the number of regulations that will be introduced as a consequence of the proposals in the Queen's Speech. The Government have proudly said that the speech describes 28 Bills--on e-commerce, utilities regulation, financial services regulation, CSA reform, welfare reform, interception of communications, a right to roam, national aviation, trustee reform, party funding, local government, freedom of
information and armed forces discipline. I may be wrong, as I have not seen the legislation, but I suspect that every one of those Bills will entail new regulation and a new administrative burden.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |