| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Representation of the People (Amendment)
Mr. Harry Barnes accordingly presented a Bill to extend electoral registration for homeless persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January, and to be printed [Bill 81].
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
[Relevant documents: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday 4th November (HC305-i) .]
Order for Second Reading read.
3.42 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I invite the House to approve the Bill that puts the Amsterdam treaty into legislation with pride. I am proud that we achieved a good deal for Britain, and confident that any open-minded Member will support the Bill and the treaty. I confess that there are probably not many such Members in the House, but I am encouraged by the fact that the Bill and the treaty constitute such a good deal for Britain that I can attempt to persuade even Conservative Members to rise above their prejudices and support it--despite whatever dark suspicions they may have that Amsterdam is in Europe, and probably full of Europeans.
Let us start that attempt by appealing to Conservative Members on the basis of two major gains in Britain's national interests, which even Conservatives must surely applaud.
First, the Amsterdam treaty provides a secure legal basis for Britain to retain its frontier controls--a legal basis that is watertight beyond legal challenge to the European Court of Justice; a legal basis that is without time limit as long as Britain chooses to retain it. It recognises that, because Britain is an island, it is sensible for us to retain controls at the point of entry, and that, because of our long historical and cultural ties with other parts of the world, it is important to retain control of our own immigration policy. Policy on border controls and immigration will be made in Britain, not in Brussels.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard:
Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that that deal was done before the election, at the Foreign Affairs Council in March?
Mr. Cook:
I have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman assert that before. We have scoured the cupboards of the Home Office and the Foreign Office, but no such deal was anywhere to be found in any of the many draft treaties that we inherited. If he had made that deal, he should have explained it to the other members of the European Union, so that it would not have been necessary for us to continue until 4 o'clock in the morning to get the package. There was certainly nothing in the text about immigration or border controls when we took it over, but there is certainly something of the night about this treaty.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside):
Does my right hon. Friend have any confirmation that the
Mr. Cook:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will make his speech in his own good time. It is certainly true that he was loud in his demands throughout the summer for a referendum. Indeed, he was demanding a referendum as late as the Conservative party conference on 8 October. He may have read with interest, as I did, in The Daily Telegraph only five days later that his leader had decided quietly to ditch the commitment to a referendum. I can only conclude that the Conservative party is now so weary of being defeated in elections and referendums that it has decided to draw a line under them.
I have shown that we have retained our control over borders and frontiers. There is another national gain that I hope Conservative Members will recognise. We have prevented attempts to subordinate the Western European Union as a defence arm of the European Commission within the European Union. We have reasserted--it is explicitly stated in the treaty--that the defence of western Europe and of Britain will continue to be through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, not through the European Union. The European Union will not now be a defence organisation.
We have shown in the treaty that it is entirely possible to co-operate with our European partners and to work with them on the prosperity of our economy, on the health of our environment and on the safety against drugs on our streets, without compromising our national identity. I hope, therefore, that the delicate souls in the Press Gallery will not be frightened by Conservative Europhobes parading the ghouls and beasties of federalism that lurk only in the recesses of their subconscious.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Having said that, does my right hon. Friend think that it is at least wise to talk to the French before there is any question of endorsing military action against Iraq?
Mr. Cook:
I am not entirely sure that that intervention naturally arose from the passage in my speech. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we discussed that matter and many others with the French at last week's very successful Anglo-French summit. The French were wholly in agreement with our position. At this time, it is most important for the United Nations, particularly the five permanent members of the Security Council, which includes Britain and France, to send a united message to Saddam Hussein that he must observe the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolutions.
I was about to remind the shadow Foreign Secretary that, early in the summer, he predicted that the agenda for Amsterdam was so far-reaching that it would call into question our survival as a nation state. Even making generous allowance for the hyperbole that is appropriate
to a leadership race, I have to say that that statement is so far out of touch with the reality of the Bill that it qualifies him to be out of orbit from this planet.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to provision F.1 of the treaty, which allows, as he will be aware, for a majority of states, if they deem any state to be guilty of a persistent breach of human rights, to withdraw all voting rights from that state? Will he guarantee that, if, against all our hopes, peace breaks down in Northern Ireland, the situation in Ulster could not be used as an excuse by other European Union members to deny Britain full voting rights?
Mr. Cook:
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making the shadow Foreign Secretary appear to be in touch with reality.
First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is not a majority of states: it is unanimity minus the one state that is under question. Secondly, that provision refers to persistent and serious violations of democracy and of human rights. I give him an undertaking that, so long as the Labour party is in power, it will not be possible to find 14 EU states that will agree that the Government are in serious and persistent violation of democracy or of human rights. If it is lurking in the minds of Conservative Members that their Government may be guilty of persistent and serious violations of human rights, I advise them to disclose that in their manifesto at the next election.
Those interventions reveal more about the invincible prejudice of Conservative Members and of those on their Front Bench--or at any rate those who have not yet resigned from their Front Bench--than they tell us about the treaty.
Border controls and territorial defence are two of the key attributes of the nation state. In relation to both, Britain emerges strengthened by the treaty to pursue our preferred national policy. For good measure, the treaty redresses the balance in favour of the nation state rather than of Brussels. There is a lengthy protocol on subsidiarity in the treaty. It provides that Community action can be justified only where its objective cannot be met by national action by member states.
The new Labour Government attach as much importance to subsidiarity as the Conservative Government ever did. Where we differ is that we believe that subsidiarity does not stop with the transfer of powers from Brussels to Whitehall. We are also prepared to practise subsidiarity at home, not just to preach it abroad; and, in the treaty, we have succeeded in achieving a good, legal and justiciable basis for the subsidiarity principle.
I should have thought that those were gains that Conservative Members would want. In a rational world, when the Division bell rang at 10 o'clock, they would vote to welcome the Bill, not to oppose it. I am told that they cannot do that, because the Bill brings Britain into the social chapter. That is right, and we are proud of it.
We have ended the insult to the British people that they are fit only for the worst rights at work in the whole of Europe. We have ended it, because we understand the modern world. We understand that we will never be competitive on the back of badly paid, poorly treated and badly motivated staff. The key to success is a skilled and committed work force showing initiative at the workplace.
The social chapter, which gives the work force the chance to share ownership in the company strategy, is a step towards that more competitive work force, and a committed partnership between management and staff, who help to make an enterprise succeed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |