---

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the point of order from the Father of the House. I make no comment on the merit of the hon. Gentleman's Bill—that is for the House to decide, and it has already done so. There is a courtesy that must be observed, however, which is that the appropriate Minister should be in his or her place when a ten-minute Bill is introduced. Certainly, I hope that the Whip on the Treasury Bench will send my message, in no uncertain manner, that that courtesy must be observed at all times.

Mr. McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your guidance is useful on that, and your ruling is useful. May I remind you, however, that DEFRA is a serial offender on this point? You had to make the same point about six or seven weeks ago about the same Department. Rather than the Whip on the Treasury Bench communicating your message, would it not be more appropriate for the Speaker's Office to communicate it strongly?

Mr. Speaker: I have a good memory, and this is the first time that I have come down so hard on any Minister. There is therefore no need for my Office to do anything—the message will be arriving as we speak.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are finished with this point. The hon. Gentleman should not milk it.

 
16 Jun 2004 : Column 782
 

European Affairs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

12.42 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Irish presidency of the European Union will chair the European Council in Brussels this Thursday and Friday. Today, the House has its customary opportunity to debate the Government's priorities.

The fight against terrorism, a timetable for discussions on the EU's future budget, further EU enlargement and foreign policy issues are on the agenda, along with nominations for a number of EU posts. But the main business of the European Council will be negotiations on a constitutional treaty for the European Union. Let me begin by putting those negotiations in context.

Europe's history has been one of rivalry and war. That history could easily have been today's reality, save for the European Union, which has changed profoundly the political culture of our continent, and made war between former sworn enemies unthinkable. Indeed, it is fair to say that the EU has been "uniquely successful" as

"a bastion of stability and shared democratic values in a volatile world; the largest trading unit in the world; and the largest aid donor. We have much to be proud of".

We do, and those are the words of none other than Margaret Thatcher, speaking when she was Prime Minister.

Britain continues to benefit greatly from the EU, which, today, is the market for more than half our trade. Many of our companies rely on access to the European single market for their success. By working through the EU, and with the EU, we have cleaner beaches, air and water. British citizens are able to travel, study, work, retire, get fairer legal redress and obtain free medical help anywhere in Europe, without restrictions. We work together better to stop international gangs bringing drugs, terrorism and illegal immigrants into our country. It provides a network of trade, aid and co-operation that covers most of the world, giving us greater influence, stability and prosperity.

Of course, as with any level of government or politics, it is easy to knock the European Union. The fact that its institutions are more distant and more recent contributes to the unease felt by some about the way in which the EU works. Nearly five decades after its foundation, its institutions and procedures—designed originally for six members—are struggling to cope effectively with 25.

Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): When speaking to constituents during the recent elections, I observed their continuing failure to become aware of the many practical benefits conferred by European intervention, excellent regulations and excellent rules on them and the firms for which they worked, and the effect on goods that they bought in the shops. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that was a characteristic of the elections? When talking to his European counterparts, will he see what we can do to improve public presentation of what Europe does?
 
16 Jun 2004 : Column 783
 

Mr. Straw: I agree that that was one of the messages of last week's European elections, although we should bear in mind that the main message was that nothing like a majority favoured Britain's withdrawal from the European Union or its marginalisation within the EU.

Let me take up the theme that my hon. Friend has introduced. My Dutch colleague Ben Bot described the position eloquently in a speech in Berlin just before the European elections, a fortnight ago. Europe's leaders, he said, must "confront reality", "give citizens a say", and

"ensure that the rights and freedoms of member states and citizens are given adequate protection"

if Europe is to succeed.

Those and similar considerations lie behind the British Government's approach to the constitutional treaty, as set out last September in our White Paper. While the EU does bring great benefits, it needs reform to become more effective, more flexible and more efficient. Institutions and procedures need to be clearer and simpler, and national Governments and Parliaments should have a stronger role. We want majority voting where it brings benefits, but we must retain the veto in areas of vital national interest.

In short, we want a treaty that strikes the right balance between the powers exercised by its sovereign nations and the powers that nations confer on the Union in order to act together better.

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con): The Foreign Secretary has twice described what he is keen should be discussed in Brussels this week as the "constitutional treaty", as though that were somehow different from the constitution. For the sake of accuracy, will he confirm that the treaty is described in its own terms as establishing a constitution for Europe?

Mr. Straw: I shall come to that in a moment, but—for the sake of accuracy—let me make clear, as I will again, that the treaty is no different a legal animal in international law from any of the earlier treaties, including the Maastricht treaty, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman recommended to the House so eloquently in 1992.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): A moment ago the Foreign Secretary mentioned not just his Dutch colleague but, rightly, the battle against drugs across Europe. I am sure he will recall, from his earlier incarnation as Home Secretary, the case of Curtis Warren. It was owing to the British Government's intervention that Curtis Warren walked away unconvicted in that major drugs case. The Dutch were able to teach us a lesson in how to apprehend such people. The fact is that drugs are not contained in one country; they are a Europe-wide scourge. Will the Foreign Secretary comment further on benefits to the fight against crime, in the light of that example?

Mr. Straw: Of course I remember the case of Curtis Warren. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The more we can co-operate in the EU on issues of justice and home affairs—drugs, crime, terrorism—as well as the issues that originally bound the Union and the single market, the better it will be for our citizens, and the more
 
16 Jun 2004 : Column 784
 
we should proclaim the benefits. There is no doubt that the streets of Liverpool were made safer by the actions of the Dutch police and the Dutch courts.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way one last time.

Mr. Bercow: Given that we have repeatedly, for more than a decade, been promised the protection of national Parliaments through the application of subsidiarity, given that the Foreign Secretary admitted to me on the Floor of the House on 21 May last year that the doctrine had proved unsatisfactory and given that the Prime Minister earlier this year failed to give a single example of the successful repeal of law through the application of subsidiarity under Amsterdam, will the Foreign Secretary accept that as an antidote to the pervasive cynicism in the country we now need as a minimum requirement a quantitative target for legislative repeal? What is his target?

---