| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.36 pm
Mr. Jim Murphy (Eastwood): Contrary to what we have heard from the Conservatives, the treaty is good news for Britain. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his tough negotiation and excellent bicycle riding, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has proved himself a strong negotiator for British interests in his short time in office.
Let us contrast what we are debating with what would have been before us if the Conservatives had won the general election. We would have had a view of the United Kingdom belonging to an age gone by. We would have had policies that were out of touch with the people of the United Kingdom and more in touch with the views of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East(Sir T. Taylor). Instead, we are discussing a people's agenda. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may sneer at the idea of a people's agenda, but I suspect that the people of the United Kingdom sneered at them on 1 May--perhaps that is one of the reasons for their defeat.
The people's agenda includes being in touch and open. It includes working on the environment, jobs, the economy and anti-discrimination measures. Tonight, we are discussing a series of sensible measures that will improve the United Kingdom and our continent.
On the subject of openness, I will not take issue with some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is now leaving the Chamber. I do not wish to delay his departure. I agree with him that some aspects of European institutions are not perfect and need reform. The treaty will go some way towards that. We need greater access to information and more accountability in the European Union and there is scope for a radical reappraisal. Only through reform can we make the European Union even more popular.
Once we have reformed, I believe that the concerns of my hon. Friend will be met, but so will the more cynical concerns expressed by the Opposition today. They are
false concerns, and we have had false tears and false pronouncements from the Opposition. They fear the idea of reformed, modern and representative European institutions, and that is why their opposition has been so forceful today.
On anti-discrimination measures, the treaty lays down a clear marker that our continent will not tolerate any form of discrimination. Our Government have nobly intervened to ensure protection for those who suffer disabilities, and we have led the way in that important sphere. Other aspects of discrimination are crucial, including discrimination on grounds of age, gender, sexual orientation and race. I am pleased that we are considering the issues of xenophobia and anti-semitism and measures to outlaw and reduce their occurrence throughout Europe.
The treaty also covers details of foreign policy. I did not understand many of the comments made by Opposition Members tonight about foreign policy and co-operation, because the Amsterdam treaty clearly states that NATO will remain the cornerstone of our defence policy. It mentions the involvement of the Western European Union, but it does not foresee--contrary to what we have heard from the Opposition today--a single armed force under a unified European command.
As a newly elected Member of Parliament, I have joined the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Only last week I travelled to discuss strategic defence issues with representatives of NATO. They accepted the need for reform, which is also reflected in the Amsterdam treaty. Europe must have a greater say and involvement in NATO, and its priorities must more clearly represent the concerns, fears and aspirations of Europe. I believe that that is happening. It was brought home to me as I received my briefing from a member of the Dutch Navy, who talked of the need to reform NATO to make it more Euro-centred.
I have already mentioned the idea of a people's Europe; the social chapter--which covers aspects of social justice--is crucial to that. The Amsterdam treaty mentions job creation, but instead of suggesting a pan-European training scheme it envisages job creation through a dynamic and effective European economy and accepts that job creation is not solely or primarily the responsibility of nation states. It accepts that Europe and the United Kingdom will succeed not by becoming a sweatshop, but by competing at an equal level of high skills. Leon Brittan wrote in today's The Daily Telegraph:
Mr. Rammell:
Opposition Members have suggested that the British Government should have traded our support for the social chapter for some other gain. Given our vigorous opposition of the previous Government's opt-out on the social chapter and given that we have been lectured about negotiating skills, does my hon. Friend agree that such a stance would have been wholly incredible?
Mr. Murphy:
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; those are important points. If we had been left with the previous Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary
There is one other issue involving Europe that is close to my heart, and I do not believe that it has yet been discussed in great detail this evening. I apologise if some hon. Members have alluded to it and I have not heard them--I could not be here for the full debate. The Amsterdam treaty is concerned with sport, of which I am a fervent practitioner and for which I am a keen enthusiast. The talk is of learning from other nations. We may learn from other nations, in terms of football teams, during France 98, but I sincerely hope not.
It is now a quarter to 9, and I believe that there are only 15 or 20 minutes to go in the Scotland v. France football game.
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian):
What is the score?
Mr. Murphy:
I have no idea what the latest score is, but if someone wishes to offer that information from a sedentary position I shall be glad to receive it.
Some aspects of co-operation in sport are important, such as the idea of training mechanisms, that ensure that young people are imbued from an early age with the concepts of competition, achievement and skills. I believe that Amsterdam could make an important contribution in that respect.
The last major subject on which I shall comment is police and judicial co-operation. I hope that such co-operation will be supported in the House tonight. It is a consensus-building measure. Tough action on terrorism and on trafficking of drugs or arms, and tougher action on offences against children, should be welcomed on both sides of the House.
Finally, I shall comment on some aspects of the Opposition, especially the Conservative party. Again I invite Conservative Members who speak from now on to identify which members of their party they agree with, which members of the shadow Cabinet they are in tune with and whose wing of the party they are on.
The Conservative Member who spoke before me--I apologise for my poor manners in not knowing your constituency--talked about how many Conservative Members were on the Opposition Benches this evening. It would have been more appropriate to talk about how many Conservative parties there are on the Opposition Benches when we talk about Europe.
Although he is not now in attendance, we have already heard the shadow Foreign Secretary who, only 40 hours before the general election, said that Amsterdam would
Conservative Members may wish to tell us later whether they agree with those sentiments or wish to disown them.
Mr. Collins:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Murphy:
Yes, and perhaps in your comments you can identify your constituency and I can--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I must remind the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) that he has been slipping into direct address. He should address all his remarks to the Chair and refer to Opposition Members in the third person.
Mr. Collins:
As the hon. Member for Eastwood is on the subject of two parties and talking about who agrees with whom, does he agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is so clearly against a single currency? For that matter, earlier in the debate when the hon. Member for Eastwood was not here, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made it clear that he thought that the Government had made a complete pig's ear of the negotiations on border controls for Gibraltar.
"the Social Chapter no longer poses a serious threat"
to the United Kingdom. For once I agree with him. I wonder whether Opposition Members agree.
"put our survival as a nation in question".
Then there is the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who said, rather profoundly in comparison with his usual comments, that if we signed up to Amsterdam we would "abolish our country".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |