JOHN HUMPHRYS:                Tony Blair made an important 
speech on Europe on Friday. It was a bit overshadowed by the events in 
Belgrade but what he was saying was that the European Union is out of touch 
with what people in the member states want. What's raised a few eyebrows 
is his solution. Mr Blair wants to send even more politicians to Brussels, 
this time our own MPs would sit alongside MPs from other countries in a 
second chamber - a senate.  And he wants national governments to play a 
bigger part in the way Europe is run. So where would this leave the European 
Parliament and indeed the European Commission? Simon Murphy is the leader 
of Labour in that parliament and Edward McMillan Scott leads the Conservatives. 
They both join us from our Birmingham studio. 

JOHN HUMPHRYS:                Mr Murphy, if this happened, 
if we had this senate it would reduce the authority of the European parliament 
would it not?

SIMON MURPHY:                No.  The Prime Minister made 
it very clear that what he is looking at is strengthening the existing 
institutions with the European Union, that the second chamber may have 
a role to play there, but you know certainly if we can get national MPs 
better understanding what we can do jointly to improve the European Union, 
to deliver on people's priorities, then I think that's got to be an idea 
worth looking at.

HUMPHRYS:                    But the European parliament 
is directly elected.  I mean Mr Blair talks about this democratic deficit, 
that's the vogue phrase isn't it.  The European parliament is at least 
directly elected by people who go - who send people like you there to sit 
there on our behalf.  If we had this other system of MPs from national 
parliaments they would have to be nominated one way or the other, would 
they not.  I mean that would actually be a weakening of democracy wouldn't 
it?

MURPHY:                    Well, I'm very much an 
ends-orientated politician.  I want to see people better understanding 
what we do in the European Union. We do a lot of important work particularly 
in the European parliament that benefits ordinary people and if the second 
chamber has a role to play then I'm very keen to explore  that, and it's 
something which has been offered as a solution by the Belgian Prime Minister, 
by the President of the Czech Republic.  The Czech Republic hasn't even 
joined the European Union yet, and indeed the President of Germany, so 
I think we need to look at it.  It's a very important part of a contribution 
to a debate that is going on.

HUMPHRYS:                    Mr McMillan-Scott, why 
not. Why not have a second chamber, a senate?

EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT:         Because first of all before the 
European parliament was elected we used to have a nominated parliament. 
 That was a real talking shop and it really ill behoves Tony Blair who 
has unwound the upper house in this country now to try and suggest there 
should be a European senate.   And what's interesting about Simon Murphy's 
replies is the complete lack of enthusiasm on his part for his own leader's 
proposition.  What I think Tony Blair should have done on Friday, and incidentally 
it depends what version of the speech you read, the one that was issued 
by the Foreign Office or the one that came from Downing Street, but what 
he seems to be suggesting is this European senate and greater involvement 
of national politicians.  Do you know at the present time there is a NATO 
parliamentary assembly, an OSCE parliamentary assembly, a Western European 
Union parliamentary assembly, not to speak of the one that Paul Flynn was 
just talking about, the Council of Europe.  So we don't need another tier 
of politicians acting at a European level.  What I think Blair should have 
suggested, and I'm sure Simon Murphy would agree with me is that we should 
move the European parliament to Brussels and scrap Strasbourg and that 
all Council of Ministers meetings should be in public. Those are the two 
suggestions I think he should have made.

HUMPHRYS:                    Well, I think I saw him 
nodding his head at both of those last ones, but shaking his head rather 
vigorously when you said there wasn't a great deal of enthusiasm on his 
part.  It didn't sound a desperately enthusiastic endorsement for your 
leader's speech to be honest, Mr Murphy.

MURPHY:                    Well, I don't want us to 
get hung up on just one part of the Prime Minister's speech.  He did address 
an awful lot of other issues, in particular this idea that the government 
should play a more direct role in the governing of the European Union, 
of the institutions of the European Union, the parliament, the Commission 
and the Council.   I think the Council has the lowest profile, and any 
raising of its profile will only help people better understand what we're 
actually doing in the European Union on their behalf.

HUMPHRYS:                    Come to that in a second. 
To just go back to this second chamber, I mean it would be a recipe would 
it not for an endless power struggle between senate and senators, or whatever 
we call them, I don't know because they'd be MPs already - senators and 
MEPs, it would be a mess wouldn't it?

MURPHY:                    Well my understanding of 
what the second chamber will do, is it would meet fairly infrequently, 
it would be only a small body and would have a very limited job to do. 
 It wouldn't get involved in the day to day legislation which again the 
Prime Minister quite rightly pointed out is the job of the European Parliament.

HUMPHRYS:                    Not exactly dramatic 
stuff this then, not exactly radical - a little chamber, hardly ever meets. 
 You wonder why you bother really.

MURPHY:                    Well, it's part of this 
trying to re-connect us with the citizens of the European Union. Clearly 
when you have only one in four people voting in the European election here 
in Britain last year, you know it was not restricted to the UK.  There 
were very low turnouts in all member states of the European Union.  We 
have to find ways of actually reaching out to the citizens so they understand 
what we're doing.  The Prime Minister also raised this idea of a charter 
of competence so that we could clearly understand who does what at European 
level and what should be at national level and regional level and this 
may be an area that a second chamber could get involved in.

HUMPHRYS:                    Mr McMillan-Scott, council 
of ministers doing a bit more, maybe clipping the wings indeed of the Commission. 
 What do you think of that?

McMILLAN-SCOTT:            I think that the balance of the 
moment is about right. I don't think we need to make any changes, certainly 
no more tiers of administration or tiers of politicians.

HUMPHRYS:                    Well that wouldn't be 
adding a tier on would it, if you gave the Council a bit more...

McMILLAN-SCOTT:            No, indeed, that's what I'm saying 
I think we should open up the Council of Ministers.  This is the most extraordinary 
situation.  The European Union is the only place in the world where legislation 
is made in secret by the Council of Ministers making decisions.  We never 
know in detail what goes on there, rather slender minutes are published 
and we're not supposed to know who voted and which way, although that has 
been.....

HUMPHRYS:                    What not even you as 
MEPs are supposed not to know this?

McMILLAN-SCOTT:            You can now get the information. 
 But as I say  it's not a formal part of the treaty, so what you have is 
a very secretive ministerial meeting which is why incidentally the national 
parliaments directly should get involved, I believe there should be much 
wider debates in the House of Commons about European matters both before 
key decisions are taken and indeed a report back afterwards where the minister 
has to explain why he voted in a particular way.  So there's a lot more 
transparency that could come in at a national level, but let me just make 
one other point.  There already exists as I've said, a number of organisations 
at a European level dealing with security matters, dealing with general 
political issues.  There is also a committee of national politicians meeting 
under the aegis of  the European parliament, so it's not as if we're short 
of mechanisms for making national parliamentarians more involved.  I think 
the problem is that the House of Commons already emasculated by Tony Blair 
is not particularly interested in debating matters at a European level, 
I think the European parliament has a long way to go in not only reforming 
itself but also making itself better understood, but it is not going to 
be helped by the rather daft idea culled from a rather silly pamphlet that 
was published last week about a range of propositions for a Europe of the 
future.  A European senate is not what we need.

HUMPHRYS:                    So perhaps Mr Murphy, 
you should go back to Tony Blair and say: Look, we've all been - perhaps 
you've already done this, I don't know - we've been looking at what you've 
said, and yes there are some changes that ought to be made, the Council 
of Ministers for instance, open it up, make it a bit more powerful or at 
least give it more to do, but some of these things are really a bit pointless. 
 I mean you've rather damned it if I may say so, with faint praise yourself 
today.
                        
MURPHY:                    Well I think there is a 
danger that we get hung up on this one idea that this is the most important 
speech that's been made by a British Prime Minister in over a generation. 
 It is very much an active contribution to the debate that's going on about 
how Europe should be organised as we bring in new member states.  Just 
to concentrate on this one issue is, I think, to miss the point and the 
sort of other issues that the Prime Minister raised of raising the profile 
of the Council, of having enhanced co-operation where different member 
states can go off and do different things but within the institutional 
framework with the extra role for the European Parliament there of actually 
vetting this idea of enhanced co-operation.  You know it was a very wide 
ranging speech and one that will be looked back on in years to come as 
a very important contribution from Britain to the debate on the future 
of Europe.

HUMPHRYS:                    He doesn't want this 
hard core though does he, at least he doesn't want it at the moment and 
one wonders whether he doesn't want this hard core pressing ahead because 
we're not actually in it because we're not in the Euro.

MURPHY:                    No, I think this idea of 
a hard core is a wrong idea, can you imagine......

HUMPHRYS:                    It would change if we 
got in the Euro though wouldn't it?

MURPHY:                    Well the point I was going 
to make is that why the Prime Minister is in favour of enhanced co-operation 
within the existing institutional frame work is that it is very much a 
clear signal I think to the applicant countries who are about to join us. 
If they felt that the existing countries of the European Union had actually 
gone ahead and set something up that they could never join then that wouldn't 
be right.  So I very much agree with the Prime Minister - we need a flexible 
enhanced co-operation but I mean on the Euro, the policy stays the same, 
we must do what is in Britain's interest, that's something that the Conservative 
party is refusing to do.

HUMPHRYS:                    Well we've no time to 
go into all of that but one of the thoughts that he raised was a super 
power.  'European Union ought to be a super power and not a super state'. 
 Mr McMillan-Scott, do you know what that means.

McMILLAN-SCOTT:            I know exactly what he means and 
it's very interesting because here we actually have the Blair agenda revealed. 
 This is the most extraordinary statement.  I mean you're quite right, 
the speech has a lot in it which is, to my mind, a rather shallow speech 
ill put together as I've said already, badly edited by the Foreign Office 
and by Downing Street.  But, it contains this extraordinary statement that 
he wants a super power.  Admittedly he says he doesn't want a super state 
but what I think the people of Europe want is to be super people not to 
be in a super power or super state.  So this is really an extraordinary 
exposure of Tony Blair's real aspiration for the European Union and that 
to my mind really undermines the whole thing.  It was billed as a sort 
of Bruges type speech.  Let's remember that in nineteen eighty-eight, Mrs 
Thatcher had some extremely important things to say about the future of 
Europe which in fact in many cases have come true and what I think Tony 
Blair should have been doing in Warsaw, and incidentally why not make a 
speech like this in Warsall instead of Warsaw - it would save a lot of 
people a lot of money, he should have been talking much more about enlargement, 
if he was going to do so from the capital of one of the applicant countries. 
 You know what's happened in the past few years?  In eleven years no single 
country apart from Eastern Germany has come into the European Union as 
a result of the collapse of the Berlin Wall - that is a shame and it's 
a scandal.

HUMPHRYS:                    Okay.  Twenty seconds 
to defend that Mr Murphy.

MURPHY:                    The Prime Minister had 
to make that statement in Warsaw because.....

HUMPHRYS:                    ..... no the superpower 
bit.  That's the thing that matters - the super power.

MURPHY:                    The super power, the super 
state - clearly Europe has to play its part on the global stage and if 
we're going to combat international crime, the sort of drugs racketeering, 
the sort of racketeering in people that we see we do need that co-operation. 
 So what the Prime Minister was saying I think was a very important contribution 
to the debate on the future of Europe.