| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain:
I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I share a
9 Sept 2004 : Column 875
passion for renewable energy with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who was kind enough to invite me to the opening of Sharp's wonderful new plant in Wrexham, which builds photovoltaic panels. Unfortunately, most of those panels are exported to Germany and elsewhere in Europe, but I would like to see them included in new build and installed on roofs right across the country. His point about grant funding for solar cells is important, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to respond to it positively.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con): Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that every policy decision must pass this key test:
"Does it, in practical terms, advance and improve the lives of Britain's hardworking families in the future?"
A hunting ban in Shropshire will cause people to lose their jobs, damage businesses, do nothing for animal welfare and place intolerable pressure on an already stretched police force. Will the Leader of the House stand up and give us three areas of daily activity in which, in practical terms, a hunting ban will advance and improve the lives of Britain's hard-working families?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House should not stand up and do that because he has announced that a debate will occur on Wednesday, when the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) should put such questions to the Minister responsible.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge) (Lab): My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows that research is an important activity in my constituency. Has he assessed the effect of the abolition of the DTI on business, universities and my constituency?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, that question is not about next week's business.
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): Can the Leader of the House find time for a statement on the so-called urban regeneration of post offices, which seems to be the urban closure programme? Two post offices in Teignbridge and nine post offices in the adjoining area of Torbay are under threat, and the consultation closed on 8 September. Rural post offices can claim money for social need, but urban post offices cannot. I chaired a public meeting in Decoy about the closure of the post office, the clear social need for which was demonstrated by the elderly people, mothers, teachers and local businesses who attended. Can we have an explanation why no social need programme exists for urban post offices?
Mr. Hain:
Given the nature of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he understands the importance of small post offices in rural areas and villages, which is why they take priority for support. The Government have made several hundred million pounds available to support local post offices, despite the fact that people's changing lifestyles and shopping habits mean that they are depriving local post offices of their traditional custom. The Government and I want as many local post offices
9 Sept 2004 : Column 876
as possible to survive and the Minister with responsibility for the matter will take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): My right hon. Friend mentioned the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is against deferring the implementation of the Hunting Bill, as are all other animal welfare organisations. We will have a free vote on the Hunting Bill, but will we have a free vote on the accompanying motion that deals with the commencement of the Act? Many people believe, as I do, that we cannot afford to hang around for two years before implementing the Act.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend and I take the same position on the matter and always have done. We want to see the Bill go into law and the banning of that inhumane sport. I hope that he supports the Government's position of seeking to allow a reasonable interval between Royal Assent and commencement, so those involved in hunting can adjust their lifestyles and the dogs can be re-homed and dispersed humanely. It would be wrong if an inhumane sport were followed by the hounds involved being dealt with inhumanely, and I hope that my hon. Friend changes his mind and supports the Government.
Points of Order
1.15 pm
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise the matter of the writ laid today for the Hartlepool by-election. From the issuing of the writ until 30 September, the political broadcast coverage is governed by a series of Acts of Parliament, including the Representation of the People Acts, a number of broadcast codes and the responsibilities laid on the BBC and Ofcom to ensure the impartiality of broadcast coverage. Between now and 30 September, two of the three major political parties will hold their party conferences, normal coverage of which will make it impossible for the BBC and Ofcom to meet their responsibilities for fair and impartial coverage. Have you received any indication that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport or the Home Secretary will come to the House to explain how the broadcasters can meet their legal and moral responsibilities?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of law, and it is not for me to rule on it from the Chair.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con):
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised a point of order in the House last night on the two-year delay in implementation the Hunting Bill and was informed that a written answer outlining it would be available today in
9 Sept 2004 : Column 877
Hansard. However, I have checked Hansard and the information is not available, presumably because of a printing glitch.
The complex procedures that we will use next Wednesday are available in the Table Office this afternoon, but they will not be available to hon. Members until the next Order Paper is printed on Monday, which means that hon. Members who seek to take part in next Wednesday's debate will not be aware of the complex nature of the procedures until Monday. On this occasion, can hon. Members be given a copy of the procedural order, which is complex and abstruse?
Mr. Speaker: Any hon. Member can visit the Table Office—I used to enjoy going there myself when I was a Back Bencher. On his other point, the hon. Gentleman should be patient because the written answer will be printed in Hansard in due course in the next edition. Hansard is available in the Vote Office too, so it is good news all round for the hon. Gentleman.
BILL PRESENTED
Mr. Alun Michael, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, and Peter Hain, presented a Bill to make provision about hunting wild mammals with dogs; to prohibit hare coursing; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 13 September, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed.
DEREGULATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a)(Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
That the draft Regulatory Reform (Local Commissioner for Wales) Order 2004, which was laid before the House on 24th June be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
Question agreed to.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amendment of Minimum Age) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
Question agreed to.
9 Sept 2004 : Column 878
European Constitution
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
1.19 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The subject of this afternoon's Adjournment debate is the draft constitutional treaty. Before I come to that, I should like to place on record, on behalf of the House as well as the Government, our abhorrence at the latest terrorist attack, which took place this morning in Jakarta in Indonesia, where a car bomb went off outside the building housing the Australian embassy and the Greek embassy, leading to at least eight people being killed and a large number of casualties, including diplomatic staff from Australia and Greece. Of course, we in this House remember how terrible it was when a car bomb went off inside the compound of the consulate general in Istanbul on 20 November last year. Whenever they go off, they are terrible.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing our outrage at this atrocity and in sending our condolences to the families of those who were killed and our sympathy to those who are injured. That message should go to the Government of Australia.
With this debate and to assist the House, I have today published Cmd. 6309, a White Paper on the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe.
Today is the first opportunity that the House has had for a full debate on the treaty since it was agreed at a political level at the European Council summit on 17 and 18 June. The origins of the constitution lie in the European Union's expansion with 10 new members, which was completed on 1 May. EU enlargement was an historic success and the fulfilment of a goal pursued by successive British Governments. It has created a single market of 450 million consumers, helped to entrench democracy and stability across the continent and given us new partners in the fight against drugs, illegal immigration and crime. However, it has been clear for a long time that the EU had to reform its institutions and procedures, for those were originally designed for just six members, but now have to work and to become effective with 25. In our judgment, the European constitution is a necessary counterpart to the enlargement of the European Union.
I remind my hon. Friends and Conservative Members that that is also the view of the chairman of the new European People's party group in the European Parliament, to which the Conservative party has just signed up. One of its vice-chairmen is the MEP and former Member of this House, Timothy Kirkhope. As is so often the case, there is an internal argument among the Conservatives about whether they have really joined that body, because they have not agreed to its terms. Mr. Roger Helmer, a Conservative MEP who is four-square at the centre of opinion so far as the Conservative party is concerned, has said, on whether they have to accept the terms for joining the EPP, that "HGP"—Hans-Gert Poettering, the chairman of the EPP—is right and Conservative central office is wrong.
In June last year, the Convention on the Future of Europe produced proposals for discussion by the EU's member states. Four Members of this House and of the
9 Sept 2004 : Column 879
other place were members of the Convention—the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), and two of their noble lordships.
Last September, I published a White Paper analysing the Convention's proposals and setting out the Government's objectives and negotiating position for the intergovernmental conference that followed. Throughout the IGC, just as during the discussions in the Convention, the Government benefited from an unprecedented level of parliamentary and public debate and discussion. Altogether, we have had 24 debates and statements in both Houses and in Westminster Hall since the beginning of the IGC last October, and Ministers have attended 15 Committee sittings in both Houses. Britain's negotiating position was greatly strengthened by that parliamentary discussion and involvement.
The EU's Heads of Government reached agreement on the new treaty at the European Council on 17 and 18 June. The provisional text was put before the House as Cmd. 6289 on 19 July. The final texts in all the EU's 21 official languages are being prepared for the signature of the treaty in Rome on 29 October.
To assist this debate and wider discussion in the country I published earlier today a White Paper that sets out the main elements of the new treaty and analyses how the Government delivered on the negotiating objectives that we outlined here in September last year.
As today's White Paper makes clear, we achieved an excellent result. The new treaty incorporates all those proposals from the Convention that we welcomed, such as a clear definition of the EU's competences, but modifies the Convention's draft text in 80 areas. Thirty-nine of those 80 areas involved amendments that were advocated by the United Kingdom—a measure of the impact that we made on the negotiations. On 38 more areas, we were neutral on amendments proposed by others that were of no substantive concern to us. On the remaining three of the 80 areas amended, we secured changes at the European Council that made the proposed amendments acceptable to us. The details of all those amendments are set out in an annexe to the White Paper.
We now have a new treaty that achieves the objectives that we set out from the very beginning of the process. It gives us a European Union that is more coherent and logical in structure; that is more effective and efficient; that is a union of nations, not a federal superstate; that is more accountable and more flexible; and in which we have the right results on policy areas of particular importance to the UK, including in respect of the charter of fundamental rights and the veto on areas such as foreign policy, defence, tax, social security, criminal law and treaty revision.
Let me take those points in turn. First, the new treaty will clarify the EU's organisation, which has grown in complexity over time. It brings together successive EU treaties into a single, coherent text. The so-called three pillars of the EU, which had no basis within the treaties, will be replaced with a single framework that makes rational provision for the separate arrangements in respect of, for example, common foreign and security policy. The treaty reduces the number of legal instruments that the EU can use. It was rightly a
9 Sept 2004 : Column 880
criticism of the existing overlay of treaties that we ended up with 10 different legislative methods—now, they are reduced to three. Next, the treaty will make the process of decision making more effective and efficient by adapting procedures originally designed for six members so that they work effectively with 25 or more.
One of the many charges made by the Conservatives against the new constitution and our approach to it is that—shock, horror—there is going to be a president of the European Council. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has by now realised that there has been a president of the European Council ever since the European Union and its predecessors were formed. We have sought a full-time president of the European Council in order to ensure that the opinions and decisions of member states are better effected through the institutions of the EU than they have been up until now. At 25, each member state can hold the presidency only every 12 and a half years. That is a totally different situation from when the EU was formed—then, with six countries, the rotation took only three years. The Conservatives have rightly complained that as the EU has grown there has been a shift, in terms of the implementation of decisions, from the presidency and the European Council to the Commission. We are pulling that influence back. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Conservatives object to that, unless, as seems to be their position, it is because they want to keep the old system with its increasingly bureaucratic approach.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |