Political Commentary
Kirk's legacy
John Grigg
Peter Kirk was the youngest MP when, in 1955, he was first elected to Parliament (rather luckily, through a split Labour vote at Gravesend). He was then well under thirty, and he has now died before reaching the age of fifty.
His death is a great misfortune, more especially at a time when the question of direct elections to the European Parliament is in the balance. Yet his career was remarkably fruitful. In two decades he made a contribution of which any elder statesman could be proud, and much of his work is likely to endure.
I got to know him well soon after his election, when he joined me on the National and English Review. A mutual friend (James Ramsden, later his departmental chief at the War Office) introduced us, and we soon found that we saw eye to eye on many things. In particular welagreed about Suez and the obscenity of capital punishment.
No other Tory can match his record of service to the abolitionist cause. It was an issue on which he never wavered, even when the going was much harder in the Tory Party than it is now. Collaborating with Sydney Silverman was no passport to favour, but he did what he believed to be right and showed, in the process, considerable parliamentary skill.
Equally staunch was his dedication to the cause of European unity. Twenty years ago I could not share his enthusiasm for supranational institutions, though I was as keen as he was that the countries of Western Europe, including our own, should form an association closer than an alliance. In retrospect, I have no doubt at all that his was the clearer vision, though he refined and modified it a little in the light of experience.
When, in 1961, Lord Gladwyn launched his Common Market campaign, Peter Kirk was his leading supporter from the Tory side (and Roy Jenkins from Labour). It is true, of course, that many Tory Europeans were members of the Macmillan government and so prevented from campaigning, and that Peter was available because he had not been given office. All the same, it was a mark of his stature that Lord Gladwyn turned to him, and probably a result of his back-bench 'unsoundness' that he was free to respond.
He was never, in fact, appointed to a senior ministerial post. Even Edward Heath, who had every reason to appreciate his qualities, did not promote him above the level of under-secretary. But he did receive from Mr Heath a job described as tantamount to a high position in government, for which he had exceptionally strong cred
entials—that of leading the Conservative delegation to the European Parliament.
On 4 September last year the Spectator published an article, entitled 'Britain's imprint on Europe,' in which he told the story—amusingly and unpompously, but also without false modesty—of his own impact on the European Parliament. Arriving with his group at the beginning of 1974, when' Labour was boycotting the Parliament (and even refusing pairs to Conservative delegates), he had to show in an immediate and dramatic way that British membership counted.
With assistance from Sir Barnett Cocks he produced a memorandum on procedural change, whose contents were only known to three other people until the afternoon before he presented it to the European Parliament. He was convinced that an academic document was necessary but also that it would not, in itself, be enough. He therefore took enormous trouble over his first speech, which was to be a declaration of faith and an introduction to the paper. Most witnesses would endorse his claim that 'it seemed to work.'
The speech attracted wide notice in the press and for the rest of the week he was besieged by journalists Seeking interviews. More to the point, his Continental colleagues were, on the whole, more stimulated and captivated by his ideas than annoyed by his brashness. Many of them already knew him well, because he had been around in Europe for a long time as a delegate to the Council of Europe and WEU. It was also an advantage that he spoke excellent German and fluent French.
His success was not, however, due to diplomatic arts in the normally accepted sense. Far from being suave or ingratiating, he was not invariably polite and could be insensitive. But people who knew him more than superficially could hardly fail to like him, and many grew to love him. His sometimes wounding directness was the defect of a fine quality, candour, and he was also genuinely friendly and convivial. There was nothing of the faux bonhomme about him.
Apart from his virtues as a man, his virtues and talents as a politician commanded respect. He was a practical idealist, with none of the priggishness or impatience with humdrum detail that too often go with idealism. He loved the game of politics and, though a devout Christian, never confused winning a vote with winning admission to the Kingdom of Heaven, He also revelled in political gossip and did not take either himself or his fellow politicians too seriously. Moreover, in bringing his Westminster experience to bear in the European Parlia merit, he did not make the mistake of suggesting that Westminster was free frail' blemish or that its practices were whollY exportable. Consequently, he had the satisfaction of seeing about eighty per cent of his proposals incorporated in the procedure of the European Parliament, which now has far more control over ministers and the Commission, and far more of a share in policy-making, than it had before he arrived. And he could fairly claim that the change would 'form effective guide-lines to the directly elected Parliament shortly to come Now that this subject is being debated Ill the House of Commons, and that the nin" ment of decision is approaching, it is tragic that his voice will not be heard. Britain's membership of the EEC is an accomplished fact, but popular interest in the CommunitY will be severely limited until direct elections are in operation and a truly democratic European Parliament is a going concern. Anti-Europeans know how crucial the issue is and are determined to wreck the project. The Government is committed to the principle but has yet to recommend anY one of the alternative systems of election, and will not in any case make its preferred system, as distinct from the principle, an issue of confidence, The Cabinet's rec001. mendation will not, moreover, be on; animous. It will presumably be only that c" a majority, as for the EEC referendum. The wreckers on both sides must bet. hoping that on a free vote any system 0 election will be defeated, so that the cominitment of Government and Opposition, 11°I to mention the Liberals and others, to the principle of direct elections will be stultified. It is vital, therefore, that the party leaders should use every form of persuasion other than the three-line whip to ensure a majoritY for any workable system which will enable Britain to be ready for the first elections on time. Whatever system is adopted, it is 111°St important that Britain's representatives inii the European Parliament should be of higni calibre. On the Continent, Willy Brandt ann Francois Mitterand have already anncni; ed that they will be candidates, and it n possible that Leo Tindernans, the Bela,s Prime Minister, who is leader of the PeoPle_ Democratic Party uniting Christian dein; crats from different countries of the Co munity, will decide to stand for the Eurn4 pean Parliament even at the price relinquishing his premiership. , A lareu So far no 'big names' have dec vin themselves in Britain, though it is kn? ed that many MPs are among the three hunare,„ or so Conservatives who have Privat" expressed a willingness to stand. n ean Britain's 'first generation' of Enr-r. the MPs has done very well, and much 0 honour is due to Peter Kirk. His legacY rt; solid asset both to his own country at'° • his the Community, but those who carry0r1, of work will need to have the same s°11 • d bY imagination and skill, and to be insOre his example.
Previous page
