|
11 Jul 2001 : Column 857
Peter Hain: [...]
The Single European Act allowed progress on the single market
to be accelerated; a good thing, too. Yet the hon. Member
for Stone (Mr. Cash) was happy to see QMV, to use his phrase,
"bulldozed through" in the Single European Act,
for which he voted, but not in other areas.
I admire the sense of principle and integrity of the hon.
Member for Stone when he realises that an issue needs addressing—he
spoke with great eloquence and sincerity
11 Jul 2001 : Column 858
about child abduction. The original proposal at Nice was
that the whole of article 65 should move to QMV but one member
state in particular was adamant that family law should be
excluded. Given that unanimity applies to treaty change, and
that we asked others to respect where we considered a matter
of fundamental importance to be at stake, we had to respect
that decision. The hon. Member for Stone differs from the
hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who seems blind
to the dreadful problem of child abduction.
Maastricht also introduced QMV to many new areas of activity:
implementing measures for common foreign and security policy
and for the justice and home affairs pillars; for trans-European
networks in transport; for telecommunications and energy infrastructures;
for development policy co-operation; for consumer protection;
and for the environment.
Why am I dwelling on the history? Because it was not this
Government who agreed to those moves, but the Conservative
party: the same party that now tells us that it is against
new extensions of QMV in principle; the same party that calls
QMV "giving away the veto" and an "erosion
of national sovereignty"; the same party that has such
a negative view of Europe that it seemingly cannot accept
that QMV can ever be in Britain's interests. It is also the
same party that has tabled amendments to the Bill seeking
to remove every single new area of QMV.
Let us examine some of the new areas where Britain's national
sovereignty is being eroded. The Conservatives object to the
use of QMV on the financial regulations in article 279, which
will make it easier to carry out much-needed reforms to tighten
financial management, making rules for accounting officers
and financial audit. These provisions will ensure that the
British taxpayers' money is used properly. We do not want
vested interests to block such reforms; we want more efficient
ways to tackle fraud, mismanagement and waste in the EU. I
am astonished that the Conservatives do not.
7.45 pm
Mr. Cash: I recognise the dilemma in amendment No. 233, but
we are considering the problems affecting children and their
parents in difficult circumstances. We should be able to concede
on that matter, but not in relation to matters of European
government, which is a different issue altogether. That applies
to common foreign and security policy, as well as to Maastricht
and Amsterdam, which we largely negotiated.
Peter Hain: I always enjoy my dialogues with the hon. Gentleman,
who is a serious student of this matter. He deserves respect
and to be listened to. However, government is about areas
of social policy such as family law. It is to his credit that
he has recognised that, in the appalling example to which
he referred, QMV should apply; we wanted that in Nice, but
were unable to achieve it. However, he should look with similar
objectivity at other aspects of its application.
The Conservative party objects to QMV to appoint special
representatives in common foreign and security policy.
Mr. Redwood: Quite right.
Peter Hain: "Quite right," says the right hon.
Gentleman. To whose credit is haggling over the
11 Jul 2001 : Column 859
nationality of these representatives, so that they arrive
too late do any good? QMV will make sure that the right person
is appointed quickly—a point made by my hon. Friend the
Member for Preston in another context. We have had national
interests blocking the best person for the job. QMV enables
that to be overcome.
The Conservatives object to QMV being applied to incentive
measures to help stamp out discrimination on the grounds of
sex, race, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation.
We have been encouraging the Commission to do more in this
area; QMV will make that task easier. We still have built-in
safeguards to prevent any weakening of British standards through
harmonisation of national legislation.
[...]
17 Jul 2001 : Column 243
[...]
I shall address one more issue in case I do not have a
chance to do so before the end of this debate. It concerns
a matter raised by the hon. Member for Stone on the question
of child abduction. That matter is dealt with in amendment
No. 233, which I accept does not come under the umbrella
of the amendments that we are discussing, but I want to
make a brief point that may help the House.
I understand and share the concerns of the hon. Member
for Stone about child abduction, which is an international
injustice and crime. As he knows, his representations have
encouraged me to look closely at the issue. I, too, am keen
to consider improvements to international rules and, to
that end, I should like to invite him, and other members
of the all-party group on child abduction, to discuss with
me ways in which we can advance work in that area. I shall
also ask a Minister from the Lord Chancellor's Department
to join us if possible. I hope that that gives the hon.
Gentleman some reassurance, so that he may not need to press
his amendment to a vote at 10 o'clock.
Finally, lest there be any complaints—I have recently
heard mutterings from the Opposition—about lack of
time to discuss all these matters, I gently draw everybody's
attention to the last full day's debate on the Bill. There
were five Conservative speakers and six Labour speakers.
The five Conservative speakers took three hours, five minutes;
the six Labour speakers took one hour forty-five minutes.
Three Conservative speakers took two hours, twenty minutes
to make their points. I do not think that there is any reason
for arguing in another place or here that there has not
been time to address all the issues seriously. If people
had been a little less long-winded, all the points that
they made could have been addressed.
Mr. Cash: First, I thank the Minister not only for his
concluding remarks but for his generous offer on child abduction,
an issue about which he knows I feel strongly—as, I
suspect, do many Members on both sides of the House. There
has been a great step forward; I hope
17 Jul 2001 : Column 244
that we can build on that and achieve some protection,
both for the children themselves, in this country and throughout
Europe, and for parents affected by child abduction.
[...]
|