| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.56 pm
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has fought so long and so hard for the causes that she holds dear--indeed, causes that impinge upon us all.
Many criticisms can be made of the present Government's approach to foreign affairs and defence and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the shadow Foreign Secretary, made many of them most effectively in his speech. I particularly agree with his call for an up-to-date statement of the Government's view of the legal basis for humanitarian intervention. It is perfectly true, as some Labour Members pointed out, that things have moved on since 1984. Indeed, I remember making the point during the debates on Kosovo that international law in this area is evolutionary. That is precisely why an up-to-date statement would be helpful, and I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's call for that.
Even my hon. Friend did not have time to cover all the criticisms that can be made of Her Majesty's Government. I shall confine myself to one. The Gracious Speech tells us that the Government will ensure that NATO remains the foundation of Britain's defence and security. It is certainly true that NATO should remain the foundation of Britain's defence and security, yet the Atlantic partnership--the partnership between Europe, and not just Britain, and north America of which NATO is the most visible manifestation--now faces greater challenges than at any time in its recent history.
I believe that deep-seated forces are at work, on both sides of the Atlantic, that are tending to drive Europe and north America apart from each other. That poses great risks for the partners themselves and for the world at large. Yet instead of seeking to minimise those risks the Government are, perhaps unwittingly, making them worse.
It is worth spending a moment or two on the divisive forces at work. In north America the political, business and cultural centres of gravity are shifting westwards. California long ago overtook New York as the most populous state in the USA, and Microsoft and silicon valley are both on the west coast.
American--and Canadian--eyes are increasingly turned towards the Pacific and beyond. Japan, despite its recent difficulties, remains a most formidable economic power. The United States, in particular, is becoming increasingly preoccupied with China, both as a huge market and as a potential military rival. Those trends are
to some extent reinforced by demographic changes. There is an increasing number of Americans and Canadians of Asiatic descent. The growing number and influence of Hispanic Americans is also significant. They tend to look south to Latin America, rather than east to Europe.
Those trends are exacerbated by the increasing number of trade disputes between Europe and north America. Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated by what they see as European failings to abide by rulings of the World Trade Organisation. Those frustrations feed the traditional forces of protectionism and isolationism which are never far below the surface.
On the European side, we have the drive towards deeper integration, partly--I emphasise partly--motivated in some quarters by explicit anti-Americanism and by a wholly misguided desire to set up in Europe a centre of power which it is thought could rival the United States. There is the European perspective on the trade disputes--the understandable concerns over genetically modified foods, hormone-treated beef and bananas from the Caribbean. There are also particularly worrying developments in defence, to which I shall return.
Of course, not all these developments are new, but while the cold war was still in being there was general recognition on both sides of the Atlantic that nothing should be done that would put at risk the ability of the free world to defend itself. That cement has now gone, and those irritations, which would once have been suppressed, are now increasingly allowed to dominate and divert policy.
The dangers are perhaps greatest in defence. No one would deny that the European members of NATO could and should do more to shoulder the burdens of the alliance. The most effective thing that most of them could do is to spend more money on defence and spend it more sensibly. Nor do I resile from the European defence identity, which began under the previous Government and was taken forward by Michael Portillo when he was Defence Secretary. When we were in government, however, that was always envisaged as being within the framework of NATO. That is the essential point.
We were assured, at the beginning of their term in office, that the present Government shared that view. After the Amsterdam council, the Prime Minister told this House that
There has been a great deal of speculation about the reasons for that change. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon that by far the most credible explanation is that the Prime Minister, frustrated by his inability to smuggle Britain into the single currency and desperately casting around for some other way of establishing his credibility as a good European, identified defence as the only way forward. Be that as it may, whatever the reason, the Prime Minister signed up at St. Malo. That agreement
specifically and expressly provides for defence co-operation "inside and outside" NATO. The Cologne declaration calls for the European Union to
At the very time when the Atlantic alliance is most at risk and most in need of reinforcement, Her Majesty's Government, instead of acting to strengthen it, are acting to weaken it. At the very moment when the partnership that has been the world's best hope for peace for the past 50 years is facing unprecedented challenges, Her Majesty's Government are taking action that could undermine it. At the very moment when the world is racked with uncertainty, Her Majesty's Government are taking action to add to that uncertainty.
Mr. Bill Etherington (Sunderland, North):
First, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the opportunity to speak in this debate, because this is the only day of debate on the Queen's Speech on which I am able to be present.
I noticed that there is very little mention in the Queen's Speech of foreign affairs and defence. I can only assume that it is because our manifesto commitments are being carried out and everything is felt to be satisfactory. It is certainly satisfactory as far as I am concerned. As a member of the Western European Union and Council of Europe delegations, I can say that we are held in very high esteem by many of our foreign colleagues, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has much to be proud of in having brought that about.
It has always been the tradition that the debate on the Queen's Speech is an opportunity for Back Benchers to state what they think about the planned legislation and to make a few remarks about what they would have liked to have been included in the programme. What struck me first about the Queen's Speech is that it contains many
small, useful Bills. I am of the opinion that the road to heaven is often reached by small steps rather than by taking a large, broad-brush approach.
I particularly welcome, in the welfare reform Bill, further simplification of the Child Support Agency. Heaven knows that it is badly needed. Improvements have already been carried out that have probably made life much better for most Back Benchers who have had complaints about that organisation. Let us hope that the Bill will make things even better.
I particularly welcome also the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, which will give children--"children" is the correct term--support when they leave school, at a difficult time in their lives when they are deciding what to do with their future. Anything that can be done to try to point them in the right direction is very welcome and long overdue.
Similarly, I welcome the care standards Bill, which will bring the standards in private hospitals and clinics into line with those that we expect in the national health service. That must be right. If we are being told that private enterprise is best, it should certainly be able to stand up to some scrutiny.
I particularly welcome the Bill to help children with special educational needs. The parents of children who need treatment will be able to get the support that they so badly need. I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House have come across parents who do not know where to turn. A little advice and knowledge will make life much better for them.
I turn now to the crime and probation Bill. I have always considered myself to be a civil libertarian, but I think that liberties come with responsibilities. I certainly do not think that anyone who has been incarcerated and who wants freedom should have any objection to being tagged. People will have the choice of continuing to be incarcerated or going out and being tagged, and if they are not going to do anything untoward, they should have no objection to being tagged. If I had the choice of being in jail or being tagged, I would take the chance of being tagged. Of course, nobody will be obliged to do so if they want to remain where they are.
In view of the problems with unauthorised drug use, which leads to some very serious crime, no one who is apprehended or suspected of being involved in crime should have any objection to being tested for drugs. That is a matter not of civil liberties but of common sense. We have heard much about the common-sense revolution; the proposal is proper common sense.
I am also delighted that, at long last, a Bill will grant access to the countryside--not unfettered access but sensible access, whereby responsibilities must go hand in hand with freedom. I very much welcome that.
Above all, I welcome the proposed amendment to sexual offences legislation, under which the age of consent will be 16 for all citizens, regardless of their sexual proclivities. That is long overdue. I have voted for such a change for many years, but it has always seemed to fall at the final hurdle. I hope that, on this occasion, we will drag ourselves if not into the 21st century at least into the 20th century.
As a humble Back Bencher, my first reaction to the Queen's Speech is always whether something in it will cause me a problem. As someone who has, on odd occasions, had to go against the Government line--not
with any great joy and not always with total conviction, but in trying to follow my conscience--I was very relieved to discover quite a benign Queen's Speech. The only aspect that I can envisage causing me a problem is the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. I find it very difficult to accept that it is right and proper for magistrates to decide whether a defendant should be tried by other magistrates or by a judge. I am very concerned about that. I do not rule out supporting the Bill, but I will have to hear some good arguments before I do so.
I see that there is another prevention of terrorism Bill in this year's Queen's Speech. Since I entered the House, I have voted against such Bills--and for a particular reason. We are all human beings and we have all had personal experiences. When I was branch secretary for the National Union of Mineworkers, three of my members lost their apprenticeships because of police abuse of the prevention of terrorism Act. Those young men were prevented from seeking proper legal redress, and it took a long time to get them back to work. They had to serve almost another year's apprenticeship before they became tradesmen, yet, without doubt, they had done nothing wrong.
I do not have time to go into great detail. Suffice it to say that, following those events, I felt that I would never accept a prevention of terrorism Bill unless it incorporated absolute safeguards that the police would behave themselves properly. The incident to which I referred occurred a number of years ago, and things might now be better, but I still remain to be convinced of the case for such legislation.
In another disgusting incident, a friend of mine was apprehended at Stranraer as we travelled back from Ireland. He was eventually released at 3 o'clock in the morning, without being charged. There could not have been any charge because there were no grounds for suspecting him. That was yet another example of police abuse of the Act, which they cited in proceedings. Before I could support legislation that empowers the police to detain animal rights activists or others who object to a civil rights matter, I would have to be convinced that it would not be open to police abuse.
I deal now with the pressure for locally elected mayors. I say to all concerned--some of my Front-Bench colleagues are present--that there is no enthusiasm whatever for an elected mayor on Wearside. The post is seen merely as yet another tier of government in which arguments could develop. There is nothing wrong with the present local government system, under which people are properly elected to represent a certain number of others where they reside. That works reasonably well, and cabinet systems have recently brought about improvements. Where people do not want a locally elected mayor, they should not have one foisted on them.
I was not very pleased to read that such mayors might be able to appoint people to help them govern. That would be a negation of democracy and a very dangerous road to go down. It would be like an emperor in his court deciding who will rule. It would not be good enough if such mayors were considered above elected councillors. I have very severe doubts about the proposed process.
"getting Europe's voice heard more clearly in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy. We therefore resisted unacceptable proposals from others. Instead, we argued for--and won--the explicit recognition, written into the treaty for the first time, that NATO is the foundation of our and other allies' common defence."--[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 314.]
It was not until the St. Malo agreement that we realised that things had indeed changed.
"have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces"
and
"the means to decide to use them."
Those are the agreements that have led to concern on both sides of the Atlantic. Those are the meetings that were described by Strobe Talbott, in exquisitely diplomatic language, as emitting a somewhat different set of signals to those emanating from Berlin in 1996 and Washington in April this year. In view of the references to him made earlier in the debate, it is worth quoting him in full. He went on to say:
"The Anglo-French Summit at St. Malo last December raised concerns among non-EU allies that they might not be sufficiently involved in planning and decision making structures. Then came the EU leaders' declaration at Cologne in June, which could be read to imply that Europe's default position would be to act outside the Alliance whenever possible, rather than through the Alliance."
It is absurd, in the light of those statements, for the Government to deny that any concerns exist in north America over these developments. There is concern and it is serious.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |