COMMENCEMENT (PROTOCOL ON SOCIAL POLICY)

§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris)

With this it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 75—Transferred Powers (Commencement)— 'No power transferred by this Act from the United Kingdom to European institutions shall be so transferred unless and until the House of Commons has had an opportunity to vote on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown relating to the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.

§ Mr. Robertson

I understand that, although they have not yet said so, the Government intend to accept the new clause. That is interesting. It is not a concession, but a surrender. It is an admission by the Government that they have no majority and no authority on this issue and that they face defeat in Committee. Rather than face that defeat honourably, they have simply said that it does not matter.

I intend to consider the new clause in detail and to explain to the Committee and the sceptics perched on the Back Benches precisely what its effect will be and precisely how it will place them on the spot—on the horns of their ultimate dilemma.

This is a new debate, but it is hardly a new subject.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Robertson

I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in time.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor

Will he give way just once?

§ Mr. Robertson

Very well.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor

I promise that this will be my one intervention. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how there is a dilemma over new clause 74 when the Government have already said that, whether we vote for or against it or chuck it out of the window, they will leave us in the treaty? What is the point of it?

§ Mr. Robertson

To believe the hon. Gentleman when he says that he intends to intervene "just once" is like listening to the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and accepting that his is the authoritative view of the Government.

528 I shall tell the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) precisely why new clause 74 is the ticking bomb. I hope that he will listen with great care to my conclusions, because he is wrong. He will be on the spot and I will watch him to see what he does.

This is hardly a new subject, but it is vital. The social chapter, the agreement attached to the protocol on social policy, is important to the fate of Britain and Europe. It should not be judged simply in the context of the treaty. It is important because it illustrates perhaps more graphically than any other issue the awesome gap that stands between the Government's vision and ambition for Britain and for Europe and that of all the other European Community countries.

The Tory party's lonely vision of Europe is of a marketplace alone and its myopic ambition is to dominate it by low wages, low standards and down-market, service-based activities. The market exclusively will matter to the Tory party. Commerce will count, money will rule and people will be kept in their place—at the bottom of the rights league.

Every country in Europe has woken up to the reality of the modern world—the terrifying competition to Europe and to Britain from the far east, Japan and even a dynamic and growing United States. All our European colleagues have embraced the philosophy of quality, skills, high standards and up-market, high value-added production. They see that as their only salvation in the new world. They look on in dismay and with disbelief at our Government making a virtue out of competing at the bottom, at the lowest level of any market.

We are fortunate that British business is increasingly rejecting that suicidal ambition and is looking for, and can now find, an alternative, practical set of policies from the Labour party to take the country into a winning and not a sinking position in Europe and the world markets.

This debate is about a totem, not a policy. The objection of the British Government to the social chapter is about Tory party unity and is not about the British national interest. In the Tory party, the conflict between national interest and Tory party unity has always been resolved by putting the British national interest second to the priority of keeping the whole shambles together.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

On the Labour side, there is absolutely no difference of view between the occupants of the Front Bench and critics over the social policy. If we are to have the treaty—I despise it and do not want it—we might as well have it with the social chapter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever gains—there will be some, but not many—working people get from the social chapter, they will be offset by provisions such as article 104c, which will lead to much more deflation and unemployment, so that many people now in work may be out of work? When one is set against the other—the social chapter against article 104c and the rest—I do not see much gain for the people of Britain as a result of having the treaty.

§ Mr. Robertson

The fact that I do not agree will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend or the House. He has not persuaded his party colleagues, at national executive or party conference level, of his view. Although he is entitled to that view, it must be placed in that context.

Much was made in the debate last night of the decision of the Scottish TUC yesterday in favour of a referendum. 529 Much less was made—indeed, hon. Members were silent on the subject—of the substantive vote on Maastricht at the STUC yesterday when, by an overwhelming majority, a motion critical of the treaty was thrown out. That important fact should be on the record.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

Some on the Conservative Benches are mystified about why Labour Members get so worked up about the social chapter and the opt-out. Supposing the Government changed their mind and signed up. That would mean that when the Europeans were trying to do all manner of daft things through the social chapter and protocol, British Ministers would be there and might be able to prevent them from doing those things. Because of our not being there, those things will happen and, through other routes in the treaty, will be imposed on the United Kingdom. So perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) should not be proposing the new clause but should leave matters as they are. The Government will then have social issues forced on them through the treaty, whereas if they are in the thick of things arguing the case, they will be in a position to oppose what is being proposed.

§ Mr. Robertson

For once in his life, the hon. Gentleman is ingenious, though not correct, in arguing the point. I have heard from Conservative Members the argument that matters will be forced on us, so we should not make a fuss about them. New clause 74 will give the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and his hon. Friends a chance to vote on the social protocol and become part of the process by which members of the Government—not the Minister of State, because he will be abandoning the sinking ship once this is over—will be in there fighting for their corner and perhaps be able to do something about the bits of legislation about which we are speaking. Having provided the hon. Member for Northampton, North with that chance, I look forward, at the appropriate time, to being in the same Lobby with him. His ingenuity will then be confirmed and his wisdom will be on display.

§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)

I have a totally uningenious but better question for the hon. Gentleman; why are the Government making such a fuss about the social chapter?

§ Mr. Robertson

That is an extremely good question. The answer is as I explained—that it is a totem, an ideological figleaf designed in vain to keep the Tory party together. It has nothing to do with substance. The other European countries—irrespective of complexion, left wing, right wing or middle of the road—all think that the British Government are completely crazy to be making such an issue out of the social chapter. They think that it is plain, reasonable, uncontroversial, simple, straightforward and makes sense in the context of building the single European market. Therefore, the answer to the question can only be, and is, that the Government are fixated by the social chapter as a means—not a very successful one—of keeping the Conservative party together.

This is a new debate for which we are profoundly grateful to you, Mr. Morris, because the subject was debated before. As a debate, it is complementary to, but not a substitute for, the debate on 28 January which was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, targeted on amendment No. 27. In the same way, new clause 74 is complementary to, but 530 certainly not an alternative to, amendment No. 74—sorry, amendment No. 27—and what it means. I have always wondered whether, if we added the numbers together, we would arrive at a magical figure; perhaps someone will do that.

4.30 pm

I shall outline the differences between amendment No. 27 and new clause 74. My contention is that, although they use entirely different means, they are both designed to achieve the same ultimate objective on behalf of the British people: the accession of the United Kingdom to the social chapter—the agreement attached to the social protocol of the Maastricht treaty.

§ Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said about the fact that we must have not just a business man's Europe, but a social Europe, a social dimension and a social chapter. Am I right in thinking that, as a result, my hon. Friend will be unable to vote for the Bill's Third Reading without the social chapter?

§ Mr. Robertson

As my hon. Friend knows, I am not in a position to announce a decision on that, because we will not be making a decision on it, yet my hon. Friend should bear in mind that if, by some means, the House chose to wreck the treaty or stop the process of the ratification of the treaty throughout the Community, the social chapter would die, not just for Britain—which has temporarily been deprived of it—but for the whole of Europe and any future Labour Government. My hon. Friend should consider his question in that context.

It is important for the Committee to understand the new clause and the fact that the Government, in a generous surrender, have allowed us to avoid voting on it. Amendment No. 27 will remove the protocol on social policy—with the agreement attached to it—from the Bill and, ultimately, from the Act. Therefore, it would remove the protocol from United Kingdom domestic law.

The Attorney-General and his mouthpiece on that occasion, the Foreign Secretary, came to the House and said, "So what, if it takes the protocol out of British law? It is a double negative and we are not part of it anyway". With a wave of an expensive legal hand, we are told that the treaty can be ratified, the Bill can be enacted and Parliament can be ignored. They said that amendment No. 27 had no legal consequences as we could still ratify the treaty through the royal prerogative, and Parliament's clear voice was not significant. With one flick of the monarch's pen, Parliament was confined to a mere talking shop. But the Attorney-General still said that he wanted to defeat amendment No. 27 and the Foreign Secretary said that he still did not want amendment No. 27. They said that they still did not want it for the sake of neatness and tidiness, and asked us to believe that. We do not.

The reasons of the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary have nothing to do with neatness and tidiness, but involve something much more substantial. They still appear to be terrified by amendment No. 27, which mesmerises them. They are relieved each time that it temporarily disappears beneath the waves. They are uneasy each time it rises out of the waves again. Why is that? We know that it is because if the protocol on social policy is taken out of United Kingdom law, they will lose the authority that that protocol gives for the 11 countries of the Community to go ahead and use all the institutions 531 of the Community—the Commission, the Council, the Parliament—which will continue to be paid for by British taxpayers collectively and by the other taxpayers of Europe, to make law that will apply to only 11 Community countries, not 12.

The Attorney-General says that that does not matter: it is outwith the treaty, like the common foreign security policy and the home affairs and justice policy. That is what we are being led to believe, but it is not true. If that permission is not enshrined in British domestic law, the Government of this country will be in a real legal stew, in a limbo of litigation and potential litigation in the courts of this country and in the courts in Strasbourg as well.

It is our belief—this is why we are interested in amendment No. 27, insist on it and are confident that it will be debated on Report—that one of the consequences of that legal mish-mash could be that the European Court of Justice or the courts of this country will say that, even without the protocol being enshrined in British legislation, it is impossible for the legislation coming out of the agreement attached to the protocol to apply only to 11 countries in the Community; it must apply to all 12 and, as a consequence of that, the people of this country will enjoy the legislation that arises from the social chapter and the rights and protection of the social chapter.

That is why we believe that amendment No. 27 is important, different and must be debated and decided upon by the House.

§ Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South)

I have been listening very carefully indeed to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I understand the logic of what he says, but, if all that is true, why did Her Majesty's Opposition put down these extra new clauses that we are debating, which, leaving aside a whole lot of arguments, at the very least have confused the issue of amendment No. 27? At the least, they opened up the possibility that it would be assumed that these new clauses would be substitutes for amendment No. 27. What was the point? If amendment No. 27 is so important, why not leave it at that?

§ Mr. Robertson

The hon. Gentleman writes thrillers, and I once read two thirds of one. They are all based on highly convoluted and usually incredible plots. I do not know whether they sell. I do not know whether any other hon. Member has ever read one of them. The right hon. Member for Watford has, of course, because he is part of the same sort of conspiracy theory. He is right in the middle of the spider's web, although unfortunately falling off it at the moment.

The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) writes these thrillers—although they are not nearly so good, by any manner of means, as the fiction of the Foreign Secretary, which has been reaching very realistic proportions in recent days—and he wants to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy here. Alone among the sceptics even, he holds to that conspiracy theory, which he thumps into me every time we meet in the Tea Room. But he is absolutely, completely and totally wrong, although I do not know how he will ever be persuaded that he is wrong.

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Robertson

I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, after I have disposed of the thriller writer.

Amendment No. 27 was tabled when the Labour party believed that it was the only way in which the Committee could deal with the social chapter. But along came two of the most senior Ministers in Her Majesty's Government, the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary, who told us that the outcome of amendment No. 27 did not matter because they were going to ratify the treaty come what may. We were told that the House of Commons could pass comment on amendment No. 27 and could therefore pass comment on the social protocol, but that it was of no consequence. The Government would notify Rome after Third Reading and Royal Assent that the treaty had been ratified and Maastricht was in place.

The BBC, ITN, The Times, The Guardian and The Independent all said that Labour's fox was shot and that Labour's chances of achieving the social chapter had gone. The press believed what it had been authoritatively told by the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary. At no point did we ever lose our faith that the Attorney-General was not telling the whole truth. So we tried to find a complementary way, an additional way, thinking at the time that amendment No. 27 was in the bank. It had, after all, been debated by the House. It stood in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. We had talked about it; we had said we would move it; it was in the bank. We looked then for another way to make sure that the people of Britain got the benefits of the social chapter.

Yesterday we had a long debate on the judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means—I have no intention of going over it again. The deputy leader of the Labour party and the shadow Foreign Secretary have made clear why we disagree with the judgment, based as it was on the idea that amendment No. 27 and new clause 75 were alternatives, not absolutely different ways of achieving the same objective. That is how the dilemma has been created. If the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South wants to look for a plot or conspiracy, let him look along the corridor where the Chairman of Ways and Means sits, not at the Opposition Front-Bench team.

I shall tell the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South why new clause 74 is the ticking timebomb that I said it was and how it may blow up under him if he is not careful.

§ Mr. Michael Spicer

This is rather interesting. The Opposition are saying that they have been the victims, set on a false trail by the Attorney-General. The hon. Gentleman's case today has been logical, but he is also claiming that he went off on a false trail, trying to find other ways of tabling amendments because he had been duped by the Attorney-General—or at least led astray by him.

That is an extraordinary admission by the Opposition. Surely the hon. Gentleman did not need to take advice to know that amendment No. 27 would have the effect that he has described; otherwise, he would not have tabled it at all. It is extraordinary of the hon. Gentleman to claim that just because the Attorney-General said that amendment No. 27 was useless he had to rush off on a false trail. That is very weak opposition—or perhaps there is an ulterior motive behind all this.

§ Mr. Robertson

There is no way in which I can ever persuade people who write mystery novels that the conspiracies they believe in are merely the product of their own tortured minds. There is no conspiracy. The Opposition are trying to get the social chapter for the people of Britain. If the hon. Gentleman wants to wreck Maastricht, he can do that with one amendment that takes out part of the treaty. That would render it impossible to ratify the treaty, so why did he and his hon. Friends table about 500 amendments if not to multiply the chances that one of them would be successful? Perhaps the conspiracy lies here: why are the Conservative rebels using their power so diffusely? Why are they scattering their shot across the spectrum instead of concentrating it forensically on the best chance that they might have of wrecking the treaty? We were just multiplying our chances and using two different ways of approaching the problem.

I do not know what the motives of the Conservative rebels are. They call themselves patriots. They can be described in many different ways. No amount of abuse that I could heap on them could resemble the abuse heaped on them by their fellow Conservatives. Neither do I care about their motives. Sometimes some of them seem to want to embrace the social protocol and chapter, although I know that the hon. Member for Southend, East has as much affection for the social chapter as he has for the "Kama Sutra", but supporting it occasionally seems to suit the rebels. [Interruption.] If there is another answer, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will tell us himself. There is certainly some mystery about how he got his knighthood, but that has nothing to do with the "Kama Sutra". The motives of these Conservatives will have to be defended by them.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

rose—

§ Mr. Robertson

Here we go.

§ Mr. Salmond

We are speaking, of course, with hindsight, but does the hon. Gentleman now regret tabling new clauses 74 and 75, given what has happened? If Parliament is to be denied, as it unfortunately might be, a meaningful vote on the social chapter, does he think that he might regret not taking the opportunity yesterday evening of pursuing the social chapter by means of the referendum clause?

§ Mr. Robertson

I do not regret tabling new clauses 74 and 75 with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). Neither with hindsight nor with foresight do I regret what was done last night, but, with hindsight, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman bitterly regrets tabling on 2 December last year a new clause that made no reference whatever to the social chapter. Today he goes parading around Scottish television studios, going on and on about the social chapter, but it will be clear to the people of Scotland that the SNP has no interest in workers' rights or protections—but every interest in wriggling off the hook on which SNP Members have been dangling since the day thay voted with the Government on the Committee of the Regions.

§ Mr. Salmond

Where were you last night?

§ Mr. Robertson

I was voting against a new clause calling for a referendum, in line with what my party has been saying for more than a year. The hon. Gentleman tabled 534 an amendment to that new clause last Thursday; he now claims that his strategy is the apotheosis of consistent attempts to ensure that the people of Scotland get the social chapter. They did not believe him last month about the deal done between him and the Government, and they will not believe him today either.

§ Mr. Marlow

rose—

§ Mr. Robertson

I have given way generously to the hon. Gentleman, but the limits of my generosity have been reached.

New clause 74 is absolutely clear. There will be a final vote after this treaty has finished its parliamentary progress in the Commons and the Lords. There is, apparently, still some legal doubt about whether that will take place before or after Royal Assent—no doubt someone, somewhere will resolve the matter; it is not important—but before ratification of the treaty there will certainly be a vote on a resolution tabled by a Minister of the Crown considering the question of adopting the protocol on social policy.

Among the final provisions of the Maastricht treaty we read, under title VII, article R: This Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the government of the Italian Republic. Like many people, I am uncertain why we have to deposit ratification with the Government of the Italian republic, which is experiencing certain problems at the moment. Indeed, it may shortly not exist or exist only in absentia. The treaty cannot even start its journey until Parliament has decided on the adoption of the protocol on social policy. I hope to be able to persuade the Committee of the merits of new clause 74. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, who is one of its architects, will underline that argument. The conspiracy theory novelist has now left the Committee and will not hear the final chapter of the story. No doubt he has departed so that he can keep the conspiracy alive in his mind.

There will be a vote on the protocol on social policy before ratification. The cynics will say that, like the fault that they all perceived in new clause 75, which had to do with its preamble about the transfer of powers, the Government will simply ignore it. There may be some justice in that claim because in the dying days of his ministerial career the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford, who has been wandering the corridors, an activity which has filled most of his ministerial career up to now, slightly overplayed his hand on Thursday. I think that he was described by Mr. Ian McWhirter in Scotland on Sunday as too clever by half. The right hon. Gentleman did not simply say that new clause 75 would be accepted and that it was a great concession to allow Parliament to have a vote, but he started to imply that if there were a vote it would be ignored.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Robertson

If the right hon. Gentleman will hold his patience for a moment until I have given him the case for the prosecution, I shall let him offer his defence.

In Friday's Financial Times Mr. Philip Stephens, in a story entitled:

535 "Major squares up to social chapter challenge", said that the timing of the vote on new clause 75, left ministers free to float the possibility—fiercely rejected by the opposition parties—that at this late stage in the ratification process the government might simply ignore a defeat and press on regardless. Of course, that may just have been in Mr. Stephens' imagination, although he is a man of some distinction, character and reputation, as I am sure the Minister would agree. Even The Guardian story on the same subject whose reporters went to the same Lobby briefing said in an article by Mr. Patrick Wintour: Ministers were also intimating that even if a majority of the Commons voted for the social chapter in the subsequent debate under clause 75, the Government would not be bound by that vote, or that the very next day they would defuse the issue by tabling and winning a motion of no confidence. The conclusion of one Lobby correspondent that Ministers were floating that possibility might well be an aberration, but two distinguished Lobby correspondents carrying the story tends to suggest, even without a conspiracy theory at the back of one's mind, that that is precisely what was going on in the corridors last week.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones

The hon. Gentleman is repeating an allegation made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) extending not only to me but to No. 10 Downing street and to my right hon. Friend. He cannot and will not substantiate it.

§ Mr. Robertson

Apparently Lobby briefings do not even exist. They are like the officials in the Box to whom we are not even allowed to refer. I withdraw any direct accusation and merely ask the Committee to reflect on the fact that two distinguished and normally reliable Lobby correspondents happened to come to the same conclusion.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones

I am telling the hon. Gentleman, as a matter of fact, that no such briefing was given by No. 10, by my right hon. Friend or by me.

§ Mr. Robertson

The Minister can take that up with the individuals concerned. If he is as outraged as he was last week and as he appears to be today, I presume that he has taken it up already with those people and their newspapers; otherwise hon. Members will be driven to certain conclusions. We have heard the Minister's views and his defence is now on the record.

Whatever Ministers or distinguished journalists have said about the deficiencies of new clause 75, it is now in the past, because new clause 74 is markedly different. New clause 75 had some ambiguities, which were pointed out by notable experts who wrote to us, but new clause 74 has no such highlighed ambiguities. It is absolutely clear cut and says that there will be no ratification until Parliament has made a decision.

I shall tell the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South and some of my hon. Friends who read certain newspapers why the clock is ticking in the bomb. The Minister agrees that a motion will be presented about the protocol on social policy. It will be open to the Opposition to table an amendment to that and, under the precedents of Parliament, the Opposition amendment will be accepted for debate. The Leader of the Opposition's amendment will make it clear that the Government will not have the permission of Parliament to ratify the treaty on European 536 union unless they subscribe to the agreement attached to the protocol on social policy. That is the ticking clock, and it should be obvious to any Back Bencher or journalist.

The Minister of State or any other anonymous Minister who may have been briefing the press last week about walking away from decisions will not be able to say that they can walk away from that. The Minister said that he would walk away from the defeat on the Committee of the Regions when he wrote last week to the chairman of the Association of County Councils. His letter stated: Equally, the amendment passed on this subject on 8 March limits membership to elected local government representatives and I have told the Committee that we do not rule out that approach either. The Minister is saying that the Committee has decided and that he will consider its decision as one of many options. However, the Government will not be able to wriggle away from a decision on an Opposition amendment to the motion that will arise from new clause 74.

§ Mr. Marlow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Robertson

No. I said that I had reached the limit of my generosity with the hon. Gentleman and I am probably reaching the limit of the Committee's tolerance. I want to finish making my case and allow other hon. Members to participate.

That places the hon. Members for Worcestershire, South and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who are in their places, in a spot. What will they do in that debate and who will they believe? They can believe me because I maintain that the Government, and certainly the Foreign Secretary, would not dream of walking away from the treaty, wrecking it for the 12 Community countries and taking all the opprobrium that would attach to this country from Europe and beyond, solely on the basis that their Parliament had decided to disagree with the social chapter opt out. They would rather sign up to the social protocol because, after all, it is not an issue of controversy for anybody else in the Community. The Tory rebels can believe me or they can make up their own minds or believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I know that that is stretching their credulity to the limit.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor

Over their dead bodies.

§ Mr. Robertson

Dead bodies apart, let me tell the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends this. On 16 March, in the Budget debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the second or third most senior member of the Government, said Nothing would do more damage to job prospects, not just in Britain but across Europe, than the imposition of further tax or regulatory burdens on employers. That is why this Government will never sign the social chapter."—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 170.] He is the only Minister, of any rank, who has used those words. We have checked and others have checked.

If hon. Members believe the Chancellor—

§ Sir Teddy Taylor

Always.

§ Mr. Robertson

The hon. Gentleman is in a small minority there, but I am asking whether he believes the Chancellor in this case. I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary, who is with us today—I duly compliment him on that—whether he agrees with what the Chancellor has said.

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

Perhaps I will have the opportunity to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris.

§ Mr. Robertson

The opportunity was there. Those were the words used by the Chancellor. The Tory rebels can look at them to see whether they believe those words or believe me. They have the choice, and they will have to make a decision. They will be on the spot. The decision will be for Parliament, and Parliament will make that serious decision. The bomb is, therefore, still ticking.

I have not devoted enough of my speech to the issues of the social chapter; perhaps I should have done, as they are important to our country. However, many of them were covered in the previous debate and if my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) catches your eye, Mr. Morris, later in the debate, I hope that she will be allowed to comment on some of the views that will be expressed.

The issues are important. This is a new debate. These are new issues. This is a new clause. This is an historic occasion, although it is not attended by many Members. As there is to be no vote at the end of the debate, people have left the Palace of Westminster quicker than if they had heard the fire alarm. But the crunch will come later, not just for the Committee, not just for the House, but for the country as a whole. The social chapter matters to Britain. The social chapter, with Britain acceding to it, matters to the future of Europe. We have provided the means by which Parliament can give the social chapter to the people of Britain, and I hope that they will take it.

§ Mr. Hurd

The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is obviously smarting under the bitter accusations heaped on him last night and in the small hours—that he should not be speaking for his party and that he was in collusion with the Government Front Bench—and he has tried to respond to those accusations. If it is any consolation to him, I can confirm what he probably wishes to hear: the Government feel that the hon. Gentleman has been deeply difficult and obstructive on procedure and substance throughout the course of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!"] Well, look at the procedural votes on which the progress of the Committee has depended—the Liberal Democrats have been up and down and in and out of it, but the Labour party has been consistently unhelpful.

The hon. Gentleman's line, and the procedural delay on which the Labour party insisted, are causing increasing puzzlement and dismay among his friends in Europe, who are linked to him by his many past declarations, because it seems to them, and to us, that the social chapter is, for those on the Front Bench of the Labour party, the prime issue: the cart is more important than the whole, and it is more important to fasten the social chapter into the legislation implementing the treaty than it is to ratify the treaty. All the other elements in the Labour party's view of Europe, and in the hon. Gentleman's view of Europe, seem to become insignificant in his mind beside the absolute importance of loading fresh burdens on to British business through the social chapter and reducing job opportunities. That seems to be the Labour party's European priority.

The hon. Gentleman spent some time on amendment No. 27. All that I can do is to encapsulate and summarise what the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, the Minister of State and I have said in the past—that if the 538 protocol were excluded from domestic law, it would still stand in the treaty. Britain could still ratify that treaty because the protocol imposes no burdens on the country which require domestic legislation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a summary of what I have said—acting, as he politely put it, as the mouthpiece of the Attorney-General in February. That remains the position.

We took the line then, as we might do on some future occasion if need be, that amendment No. 27 is undesirable and, while incorporation of the protocol into domestic law is desirable for the sake of completeness and clarity, it is not essential. I do not think that I or my colleagues on the Front Bench have anything more to say about amendment No. 27.

§ Mr. Marlow

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. If the House were to vote for amendment No. 27, it would be voting to exclude the social protocol. The social protocol says that European institutions, and therefore costs, can be incurred for 11 countries. If the House were against that expenditure, how would they then be able to spend that money?

§ Mr. Hurd

I can answer that point, on which I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). It would be possible, under existing legislation, to absorb those costs. I will read out the formula in the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend. If, as is probable, the administrative costs are included in the Community budget, the United Kingdom would charge its contribution direct on the Consolidated Fund under section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. Payments to the budget are required by the own-resources decision and its implementing regulation and are therefore an obligation to make payment to the Community for the purposes of section 2(3). If, on the other hand, the Community budget is not used—we think that it would be, but we cannot be sure—any expenses would be met by voting moneys on the appropriation account alone, which is the practice for payments to other international organisations to which we belong. We believe—again, on legal advice—that there is legal scope for payment of the administrative expenses to which my hon. Friend referred, if there were any.

§ Mr. Marlow

I put it to my right hon. Friend again. The House has said "No, do not spend that money." How then, whether legally or in conscience, can the Government go ahead and sanction such expenditure when the House has said no?

§ Mr. Hurd

The House will not have said no. If amendment No. 27 or something to that effect were ever passed, the House will have said no to the incorporation of the protocol in domestic law. It would not have affected the treaty, and the protocol does not impose any obligations on the country which require a change in our domestic legislation. Therefore, although we have always made it clear that we find amendment No. 27 undesirable, its passage would not have prevented ratification of the treaty.

§ Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli)

As I understand it, what the right hon. Gentleman has said is that the Community budget would take care of the administrative expenses if amendment No. 27 were carried. If only 11 of the 12 countries were under an obligation to make those payments for social protocol, how is it possible to use the 539 Community budget when only 11 countries are under an obligation to impose the payment on the United Kingdom? That would not be a Community budgetary obligation.

§ Mr. Hurd

It is not clear that there would be expenses. Secondly, it is not clear how one would sort out administrative expenses from the other expenses of the Community. We are talking about wages and salaries, a portion of electric light bills, that kind of thing. In practice, it would not be possible to separate them out. The treaty is clear as to how that would fall. It is a reasonable arrangement and, as I have already explained, it has legal cover.

I should like to spend a little time on the substance. The hon. Member for Hamilton did not do so, and up to now I have not done so, but it is a crucial point and will become relevant if the new clause is accepted and we move later, as the hon. Gentleman said, to a debate on its substance.

§ Mr. Michael Spicer

Before my right hon. Friend moves away from the legalities, can he give the Committee the benefit of his advice on what the Government think the legal effect would be if the Opposition's new clause is passed and a motion is tabled? Does my right hon. Friend believe that that would inhibit the passing of the treaty into law?

§ Mr. Hurd

I shall return to that point before I sit down. We believe that the exclusion of the social chapter from the amendments to the treaty of Rome, made at Maastricht, was an important negotiating achievement. We believed then that it would be wrong to accept what our partners wanted. We believe now that it would be wrong to do so. The arguments, which were pretty clear to us in 1991, have become abundantly clear to the world since then.

There should be a social dimension, which looks back to the legislation that this country has passed to protect workers against exploitation, to ensure their health and safety at work and to give workers some rights. The mechanisms are in place both in this country and all over Europe. But the state can afford those social costs, which face all countries, only if it benefits from a successful economy. Money has to be generated by the business sector, because we cannot legislate for increasing living standards. Competitiveness, therefore, is the key. It is precisely the decline in competitiveness and the danger to competitiveness in Europe which makes the case against the social chapter.

We shall continue to argue for and support a sensible social dimension for the Community, but it has to give proper weight to the different national traditions and, now, to the principle of subsidiarity in article 3b of the treaty. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, and also the Liberal Democrats and others not besotted with this matter, to remember that it would be foolish, given what is happening in the world economy, to propose an enlargement of the opportunities for centralising legislation in this area. It should be a question not of how to ensure precisely the same levels of social protection in each member state but of how to ensure that Europe can compete effectively on the world stage.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor

Give some examples.

§ Mr. Hurd

I shall give many examples.

The problem is not the extent to which jobs are moving from France to Britain, or from Britain to France—the flow goes both ways, and between other partners as well—but how to prevent jobs leaving the Community altogether. If unemployment is the biggest source of poverty in Britain today, the same is true across Europe. If we are uncompetitive, we create unemployment. European competitiveness is declining. Since the mid-1980s, EC exports in world markets have fallen by 3 per cent. In the 1980s, the Community had trade surpluses with the United States and Japan. These have now become trade deficits.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor

Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Hurd

My hon. Friend applauds. I hope that he will continue to applaud all the way to the conclusion that no one on this side of the House can possibly support the social chapter.

On labour costs, hourly wages in manufacturing in leading Community countries are not much higher than those in the United States, but it is the high proportion of non-wage costs—of social security payments—that makes the difference. Those elements make up about half the total labour costs in Germany, France and Italy. In the United States, they make up about 25 per cent. and in countries such as Korea and Taiwan about 10 per cent. That is the main reason why overall labour costs in France, Germany and Italy are higher than in Japan and the United States.

Against that background, it is no wonder that industry is turning increasingly to manufacturing outside Europe. That should be the main concern of those responsible for either national or Community policies in this area. It has not been so, but it should be now.

§ Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey)

On the level of unemployment inside the European Community, which is a matter of deep concern to us all, almost everybody both inside the Community and outside it takes the view that this very high unemployment has been caused largely by the opertion of the exchange rate mechanism, which is an essential instrument of the European Community and likely to continue to be so. Without going into the overall merits of the social chapter, the industrial costs that the Foreign Secretary quoted are extremely misleading. As I am sure he knows, in countries such as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, corporations and industries provide an enormous number of social benefits for their workers—work security, housing, play schools and education both for children and for grandchildren if a breadwinner is killed. Those statistics do not appear in the national figures for those countries, so the figures that my right hon. Friend quotes are not comparable.

§ Mr. Hurd

Europe's decline in competitiveness—I do not believe that my hon. Friend will deny this—is an established fact. He referred to Japan. I am less concerned about Japan at this time than I am about the newly industrialised countries of Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia, for example, where the factors that he mentioned do not apply nearly so strongly. It is from those countries—the new tigers of Asia, as it were—that the main threat to European competitiveness comes.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield)

The right hon. Gentleman used the provision of social security to illustrate the difference between the European Community and the United States. As the protocol on social policy requires unanimity on social security, does he accept that that does not change in any respect whatsoever the existing treaty provisions which the Government support?

§ Mr. Hurd

The case made by the hon. Member for Hamilton when he answered, for example, the question put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was precisely that the social chapter would provide the opportunity for increasing social costs. That is the charm of it for the Labour party and the danger of it for people who see the unemployment dangers facing Europe.

§ Mr. Leighton

It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that western Europe has massive unemployment and is facing zero growth, but that has nothing to do with the social chapter. As the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) pointed out, it is because of the exchange rate mechanism that there are extremely high interest rates. In France it is 12 per cent., with inflation at about 2 per cent., so the real interest rate is 10 per cent. Where can we earn anything like that? That is why western Europe is going into recession. In both the United States and Japan, interest rates are 2 or 3 per cent. That is the reason for the recession in western Europe. It has nothing to do with the social chapter.

§ Mr. Hurd

I have given facts and figures. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey sought to qualify them as regards Asian countries, where social costs are carried by companies rather than by the state, but that does not undermine the basic argument. I do not ignore the exchange rate argument. We have argued it over and over again in this Committee. The exchange rate mechanism, as we know, was invented before the treaty of Maastricht. Because we have debated it over and over again, we know exactly the status of stages 1, 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union. I am not arguing about exchange rates. I am arguing about another danger—the danger to the competitiveness of Europe. That is common ground now among commentators, to a much greater extent than it was when the treaty of Maastricht was signed and when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister achieved this opt-out. Statistics show that the rise of competitors in the far east has become more apparent in the intervening months, so the case against the social chapter is that much stronger.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

rose

§ Mr. Hurd

May I get on a little? I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.

I fear that the Labour party is in a groove on such matters, and does not listen to what industry in this country says, but at least it is consistent on the matter. The Labour party has taken that view all the way through. As I have said, its main activity throughout the Committee stage which is now coming to an end has been precisely to seek to impose those extra burdens on our economy.

I find the attitude of the Liberal Democrats more puzzling, because their leader was clear at the outset. A few days before Maastricht, looking ahead as is his wont, he warned that the social chapter could lead to a form of Euro-sclerosis". 542 He said that it was a really worrying attempt by Europe to try to rebuild in Britain the things that we have dismantled over the last twelve or fifteen years". He also warned—perhaps he went a little far on this point—that the social chapter would open the way for collective bargaining arrangements that were too inflexible, too costly, and too rigid". Despite all that, however, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would have been prepared to sign up to it at Maastricht.

The sceptical approach that the Liberals took to the social chapter at that time has changed. I hope that their spokesman will explain why.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Newbury.

§ Mr. Hurd

No, their attitude changed even before Newbury. I do not understand why the social chapter as a cause, and the amendments which flow from it, have become almost as much of a fetish for the Liberals as for the Labour party. I say "almost" because I do not think that it is quite so much of a fetish for the Liberals, who retain a wider view—I might almost say an exaggerated view—of the importance of moving towards a more united Europe. I ask them to reflect on the consequences of the social chapter and to ask themselves why, in view of their philosophy and of their leader's original analysis, they are now so enthusiastic about it.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor

Where are the examples?

§ Mr. Hurd

I have given examples of the reasons why I believe that, against the background of the economy of this country and of Europe, it would be great foolishness for us to throw away the arrangement that the Prime Minister negotiated, which is in the treaty that the House is considering and that the Government wish to ratify.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor

We have been asking in debate after debate, week after week, whether any Minister could give us any example of anything that the EC could do under the social chapter which it cannot do under the health and safety provisions of the Single European Act and article 101A of the treaty of Rome. As this is the last debate, and as the Foreign Secretary said that he would give us examples, may I plead with him to give us any example? Apparently the arrangements cannot apply to pay, and cannot apply to trade union membership. Can the Foreign Secretary, or anybody, give us any example of anything that can be done under the social chapter but not under the Single European Act? There is the 48-hour week directive and other things. Can he think of anything at all?

§ Mr. Hurd

The hon. Gentleman's case is that those evils—he admits that they are evils—can come upon us anyway through the Single European Act and the health and safety provisions, but he knows that we resist those attempts. He knows from particular examples that we are perfectly ready to challenge that legal basis in the courts. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) said earlier in the Committee's deliberations, that there are risks. There have been cases in which things have been pushed through on a legal base that we regard as narrow and inadequate. My hon. Friend has argued that the European Court would sustain those cases. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with that argument by saying that one could no longer make that presumption about the European Court.

543 I accept that the risk exists, and that there have been some cases, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford is really saying that because there have been cases of burglars getting in over the back garden fence we should leave the front door open and put a welcome sign on the mat—that is, that we should greatly enlarge and expand the danger of which he complains. I cannot see how that flows from his argument. The social chapter would substantially enlarge the risks and possibilities by greatly widening the treaty base on which such proposals could be made. That is precisely why the Labour party is in favour of the social chapter.

§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

May I remind my right hon. Friend of the interesting argument advanced by the Minister of State? He said that the European Court was a political court which had been affected by the new mood of the politicians in Europe, and also much affected by subsidiarity. He said that he would therefore expect the court now to be inclined to rule in a narrow—and, to us, more satisfactory—manner. That was an extremely dangerous thing to say because it suggested that the European Court was a political court. Although at present he approved of its political activities, he gave aid and comfort to those who say that the political mood may change in the future, and when other people complain that they wish to have the social chapter by the side wind, they will be able to use the political court to achieve that end.

§ Mr. Hurd

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State did not say that the European Court of Justice was a political court.

§ Mr. Budgen

No, he would not concede that.

§ Mr. Hurd

Then why does my hon. Friend suggest that he did?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones

He always does that.

§ Mr. Hurd

I was not present at the time, but I have read the exchanges, because they were rather important. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) seems to have become a master at putting words into other people's mouths, and he is at it again.

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Hurd

No, let me deal with this point, because it is important.

§ Mr. Gill

I could be helpful on this point.

§ Mr. Hurd

I am sure that my hon. Friend intends to be helpful. I intend to be helpful too.

The European Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the treaty. It applies the treaty. Of course it has regard to what is going on around it—all courts do that—but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State refuted the argument that inevitably, at all times present and future, the European Court of Justice would be bound to be a centralising influence. He cited examples—two or three, I believe—of recent cases in which that proved not to be true. He was not calling the court a political court and he was predicting how it would operate in the future.

If, despite the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, the treaty is ratified and 544 subsidiarity becomes part of the law rather than being simply part of the political practice of the Community, that would be more than a nudge; subsidiarity would be one of the basic treaty articles of which the European Court would have to take account, case by case. That is what my right hon. Friend was saying, and that is part of the reply that I give to the questions that I have been asked.

§ Mr. Gill

rose

§ Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North)

rose—

§ Mr. Budgen

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Hurd

No, but I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin).

§ Mr. Jenkin

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I can remind the Committee exactly of what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said: The European Court has, perhaps, traditionally been a centralising institution, expanding the powers and scope of the Community with what I might call purposive interpretations of the treaty. I contend, however, that there have recently been clear signs that the Court is sensitive to the change of mood in the Community".—[Official Report, 27 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1057.] So the basis of the security of the authority of this House, by which the Foreign Secretary set such great store in yesterday's debate on the referendum, is dependent on the European Court's interpretation of the mood in the Community.

The Foreign Secretary suggested that the argument on the social chapter was like saying that if the burglar gets into the house once, he will always get in. My right hon. Friend can check the record if he likes, but following his analogy about the burglar's repeated attempts to get into the house, in our arrangements for setting up the opt-out from the social chapter we are letting the burglars into every other room in the house and expecting to maintain sovereignty in our front room. That is not a realistic prospect.

§ Mr. Hurd

What we are doing in the treaty—to pursue my analogy—is to raise the height of the garden fence through the article on subsidiarity that we have discussed.

What the Labour party wants to do—it cannot possibly appeal to any Conservatives—is say, "No, we actually want to leave the front door open and a welcome sign on the mat", so that all these provisions, however damaging and expensive, can be imposed by the Community.

5.30 pm

I will give an example. The agreement of the 11 on the social protocol allows for a wide range of legislation on social affairs, by qualified majority voting, which is far wider than in the present treaties. That is the whole point for Labour. In particular, it allows improvements in the working environment to protect workers' health and safety, working conditions, worker participation in decisions on working conditions, workplace facilities, atypical work, working patterns, employment rights, redundancy payments and unfair dismissal rights. There is a very long list. This is what I mean about leaving the door open and a welcome sign on the mat. It is a welcome sign for Community backing and validity to proposals along these lines, which go much wider than those in the existing treaties.

§ Mr. Marlow

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a statistical fact? If you have a high garden fence, you are more likely to be robbed than if you have a low one.

§ Mr. Hurd

I do not know what the burglars are like in Northampton, but I will study my hon. Friend's proposition and change my metaphor, if necessary, to something to do with locks.

§ Mr. Budgen

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman makes his intervention, let me say that, by and large, interventions have been increasingly long during the short time that I have been in the Chair today—with the exception of the last one. I ask that they be short and snappy.

§ Mr. Budgen

On 27 January, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said: the court is sensitive to the change of mood in the Community"—[Official Report, 27 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1057.] A non-political court is bound by precedent and law, but not by the mood of the Community. What my right hon. Friend was saying is that this is a political court because it is, in his words, sensitive to the … mood in the Community.

§ Mr. Hurd

My hon. Friend is a lawyer. Does he know of a court, in this country or elsewhere, which is not sensitive to the mood of the community? My hon. Friend should not wriggle in this way. He said that my right hon. Friend described the Court of Justice as a political court: that means that the court is either composed of politicians, or acting on the basis of political consideration. He now seeks to justify that on quite a different basis by saying that the court is sensitive to what goes on.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We cannot have semi-private conversations.