| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.39 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): After the general election result and the thumping that the Conservative party received, I thought that we might hear from the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) something slightly more reflective, signalling a little more thinking and a little more pursuit of objectivity. But no, we heard the same old rhetoric and the same old pursuit of narrow political party advantage.
We have had, however, an interesting and varied debate. We heard, predictably, dire warnings from those who see the treaty of Amsterdam as another step toward the end of our national independence. That view is wrong. As many of those who have contributed to the debate have said, the Amsterdam treaty is sensible and good, for Britain and good for Europe. It does not provide massive strides towards greater integration, but it advances the cause of a European Union that works in the interests of its citizens and fully secures the national interests of the United Kingdom.
All that was made possible by the Government's willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. Since coming to power, we have been determined to pursue a relationship with our European partners that is constructive yet robust in defence of national interests. The Amsterdam treaty shows that that approach can, and will, bear fruit. The public will judge whether this positive, constructive and inclusive approach to Europe works. They will be able to compare it with the sterile, rigid and isolationist approach of the previous Government. We shall continue to be positive in our relations with the European Union.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring):
Since 1990, only Britain and Italy have held their share of world trade, while every other European member country has seen a slip. Why should we want to tie ourselves into working practices that have resulted in that?
Mr. Henderson:
I had the misfortune to study economics for four years. That experience taught me never to believe statistics. We can select any years of comparison and obtain any result we want. The real truth about the British economy is what the CBI, the Trades Union Congress and the small business community know, which is that, until we get employability higher up the agenda, there will be no permanent success for the United Kingdom.
There have been some predictable contributions to the debate this evening, and I have enjoyed several of them. I enjoyed the contribution of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I am told that he is a philosopher, and on that basis I welcome the right hon.
Gentleman's reincarnation. I am not so sure that we would follow all the arguments that he advanced this evening, and certainly not his conclusions. Nevertheless, it was an interesting speech.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was only to be topped by that of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who took the concept of opposition to Europe to greater heights, describing the CBI on the way as stupid. I do not think any right hon. Member had any doubt about the hon. Gentleman's vision.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East was joined later in the debate by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body), who thinks that all 11 applicants to the European Union agree with him that the Amsterdam treaty should not be ratified. I have been Member for a bit more than 10 years and have heard many bold assertions. That assertion, however, was one of the most challenging that I have heard in that time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is a good friend of mine on many political issues. I did not expect huge support from him in this debate, and I was not disappointed. There were other sound speeches--[Interruption.] There is plenty more to come.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) made a sound speech. He is most knowledgeable about European matters and helped the House with his assessments of public opinion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made his maiden speech yesterday and an excellent speech today. He focused on the importance of international action against crime, which is one important aspect of the treaty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) spoke of the people's agenda, and of the important changes that must be made in economic and social policy and in citizens' rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) made a distinctive speech and said that Europe was a journey. After the past six months, I cannot but agree with him on that score. Unfortunately, it is the same ticket each time--but it is something that must be done.
There were many other very good speeches by hon. Members from both sides of the House, but time does not permit me to deal with them in more detail.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury):
The hon. Gentleman has 15 minutes.
Mr. Henderson:
Yes, and I should like to reply to some of the major political points made by Opposition Front Benchers.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) claimed that a Conservative Government negotiating the Amsterdam treaty would have resolved the fishing crisis. That was a rich claim coming from a Government who were in
power for 18 years trying to deal with the issue. Now, six months after they lost power, they say that they have the solution to the fishing problem.
The protocol published last spring by the Conservative Government had no support among our European partners. The matter was raised at a meeting in Bonn between Mr. Kinkel, Germany's Minister of Foreign Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me, but Mr. Kinkel was not even aware that a protocol has been issued. It was pointless to ask whether he had been asked for his support.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Henderson:
No, I will not give way now.
The truth is that Opposition Front Benchers know that there was only one way to go if, in 18 years, they could not resolve the fishing issue. They should have taken the course adopted by this Government: to examine and identify the details and basis for Commission action. We have adopted that course, and we will make some progress on the issue. As the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, if people who work in fishing in his constituency--which I know is overwhelmingly a fishing constituency--have formed but one judgment on the Conservative Government of the past 18 years, it is that people in the fishing industry were betrayed. That judgment has been replicated by fishing communities across the United Kingdom.
Mr. Gill:
Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what he will do about the problem? Will he reform the common fisheries policy?
Mr. Henderson:
I thought that the hon. Gentleman knew the details of European legislation. If he did, he would know that there will be no opportunity to revise that fishing policy for some years. He is stuck with the policy that was agreed unanimously by those who are now Opposition Front Benchers.
One cannot, however, resolve fishing problems by declaration. One must examine the detail, and make proposals that the fishing industry know will have some effect. The House should not take lessons on fishing policy from the Conservative party.
The important issue of enlargement was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) and by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). The Government believe that it is a top priority of the future direction of Europe that enlargement of the EU takes place at the earliest possible date. That was the approach that we adopted during the Amsterdam treaty negotiations.
It is true that we would have wanted to have been able to deal with institutional questions in June. One or two other nations at the negotiating table were prepared to do that, but at that time, there was not the necessary support to be able to carry through reforms that would have been acceptable to the House. I assure the House that not dealing with such an issue was not in any way due to the Government's reluctance to face up to it. We shall continue to pursue it--indeed, we are already through
bilateral contact with our European partners. It is one of the issues that will be taken forward from the conclusions which will--we hope--be reached at the Luxembourg summit in December.
It should be borne in mind that it is again rich for Opposition Members to complain that no progress has been made on enlargement issues by the Labour Government--which, incidentally, is not true--when, at the same time, they are saying that they would have vetoed the whole treaty because they could not correct the mess that they had made in the fishing industry over the past 18 years.
Mr. Donald Anderson:
I warmly commend the Government's initiative to hold a conference on enlargement in spring next year, keeping all the applicant countries in play. Consistent with the view of a people's Europe, will the Minister consider a parliamentary dimension to that conference?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |