| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) (Lab): The Prime Minister will know that the Secretary-General of NATO and senior UN officials laid blame for the latest outbreak of violence in Kosovo firmly at the door of Albanian extremists who want separatism. Three thousand more Serbs have lost their homes, adding to the 200,000 who already live in camps in Serbia and Montenegro. More churches and monasteries have been attacked, adding to the 154 that have been burnt out in the past five years. When will Europe arrest those criminals? Let us have a genuinely peaceful settlement in Kosovo.
The Prime Minister: Europe is taking the measures that can be taken to prosecute those responsible. I agree with my hon. Friend that there can be absolutely no support for or tolerance of what we have seen in Kosovo. It is important to recognise that, compared with our position a few years ago, substantial progress has been made, but I am afraid that it will take a long time for some of the ethnic disagreements that have marked the Balkans for a long time to be properly cured. It will probably happen only when those countries and parts of Europe see their future in the European Union.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): At a time of unprecedented crisis in the fishing industry and unparalleled mismanagement of the common fisheries policy, is not it noteworthy that the Prime Minister did not mention fisheries in his statement? Will he confirm that the Government are still prepared to enshrine fisheries as an exclusive competence in the EU constitution and that Scottish voters will have no say in the matter in a referendum?
The Prime Minister: There is not a change to the commons fisheries policy, but it is important to understand that it would be a disaster for the fishing industry if Britain were to withdraw from the policy. We
would then be completely unable properly to organise the destiny of our fishing industry, because the rules that no longer applied to us would no longer apply to other member states. That is why no Government have responsibly advocated or done such a thing. We know the reasons for the problems in the fishing industry: they have arisen because of the overfishing of certain areas for a long period, not because of the common fisheries policy. It would be a cruel deception to tell the people working in the industry that if we withdrew from the policy we would somehow be able to protect their jobs. We would not.
Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend undertake to publish a plain person's guide to the draft treaty and, in an appendix, provide a comparison between the extension of powers in this draft treaty and those in the Maastricht treaty, to expose the synthetic indignation and fury of the Leader of the Opposition, who was implacably opposed to a referendum on Maastricht but who seems to think it essential to have one now?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a sensible idea for us to publish a guide so that people can see exactly what is in the treaty, and so that we can debate the matter as the treaty goes through the House of Commons. He is also right to say that the previous Conservative Government agreed huge extensions to qualified majority voting. The Single European Act was probably the biggest such extension, and that was a perfectly sensible thing to do. I have to point out, however, that a major part of the present problems in so far as there are problems in this regard come from the working time directive, and it was the Leader of the Opposition who, as Employment Minister, spent a significant period of time in charge of that.
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): The Prime Minister said that he hoped to sign the treaty by the end of June. Is there not, therefore, a certain sense of urgency surrounding this matter? When are we going to see a Bill before the House? Will it be before the next Queen's Speech or after it?
The Prime Minister: We shall have to wait until the constitutional treaty is agreed. Once that has happened, we shall proceed in the normal way.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): In his discussions with the leader of Libya, did the Prime Minister raise the question of that leader's continued support for Mugabe in Zimbabwe? What discussions did he have about that support now being withdrawn so that we might begin to influence some of the African leaders to take a much more robust stance against that dictator?
The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, we did have a discussion on Zimbabwe, in which I made plain our disagreement with things that Colonel Gaddafi has said. I hope that, as one part of the dialogue that we have with Libya, we can change his mind on that issue. The position that the Libyans adopt at the moment is not right. It is based on a false understanding of the situation, which is that Britain is somehow not prepared
to help the resettlement of the farming issue. We are prepared to help in that way; we have set aside money for the United Nations Development Programme to administer, but we are not prepared for that money to go to Mugabe's henchmen. That would be corrupt and wrong. Libya is not in the same position as us at the present time, but I hope that it will be possible, partly through this dialogue, to change minds.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): The Prime Minister said that he wanted to maintain Europe's competitive edge. What is that edge?
The Prime Minister: Europe is a highly competitive economy.
The Prime Minister: I am sorry; I have no doubt that Europe has its economic problems, like lots of other places. But the notion that Europe as a whole is a failed economy is completely absurd. The fact is that the European Union single market will be the biggest commercial market in the world. The right hon. Gentleman is unable to accept anything good about the European Union at all. He and many other Conservative Members have a position on the European Union that everything in Europe is wrong and that it has nothing to offer. Actually, it has a great deal to offer in terms of the economy, security and political influence.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab): My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some of us were in the European Parliament in 1979, and we remember the attitudes of the Conservatives at that time. They have not changed one iota. They were so extreme in 1979 that none of the right-wing parties in Europe wanted anything to do with them, and they had great difficulty forming any partnerships whatever. This new constitution is a plus for the 25 European Union countries, and it also addresses traditional British concerns. I very much welcome it.
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for her support and I believe she is right.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): Given that the Prime Minister told the House on 18 June 1997 that the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam would have “real teeth”, and that the Foreign Secretary said on 21 May last year that in practice the protocol had proved unsatisfactory and that they are now trying to dream up a new blue print for the future, has the Prime Minister the good grace to admit that his gung-ho optimism in June 1997 was misplaced? Alternatively, can he identify three examples of successful legislative repeal under the terms of the protocol?
The Prime Minister: The constitutional treaty will make the situation better because, for the first time, there will be the ability, if a third of national Parliaments wish it, for the European Union and the Commission to be made to reconsider any proposal. That, precisely, is
where the teeth are. I agree that we have taken a long time to get round to it that is absolutely true but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is surely better to have such a provision than not to have it.Of course, if we adopted the position that the hon. Gentleman's party has outlined, we would be left without the constitutional treaty at least Britain would be; I think other countries would simply move ahead without us and the provision that allows, for the first time, national Parliaments a proper say in the issue of European legislation.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): When the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) advised against speaking with one voice in one place and with another in another, I wondered whether that same discipline applies to his Members in the House and in the European Parliament when they talk about Europe.
The Prime Minister referred in his statement to the changes in the Council of Ministers. As he goes on to improve the draft that was handed to him last summer, will he pay attention to whether the institutions of Europe are fit for purpose? I am not entirely convinced that the way in which either the Commission or the European Parliament works is fit for purpose as it stands.
The Prime Minister: First, I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she did as a Convention member, which was excellent, particularly on the praesidium. She is also right in saying that neither the Commission nor the Council as they currently function will be able to carry out their work as effectively as they need to. That is precisely the reason for the change. If anything, the constitutional treaty needs to go further in the direction of a more streamlined Commission and to make it absolutely clear that the Council of Ministers is the body that will set the agenda for the European Union.
One reason why the treaty is so important if it were only possible to debate what is in the treaty as opposed to what is not is that with a rotating presidency whereby a different country takes over the presidency of the European Union every six months, owing to the fact that 10 new countries, many of which are very small, are about to join, the EU simply would not be able to function. Already round the table are 25, or 28 for some discussions, so the impossibility of the situation comes home very clearly, which is one reason why we need the treaty.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |