House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 May 1992

Column 521

that the Labour party has actively advocated and that the Conservative party and the Government have actively opposed. The Labour party has advocated a whole series of new competences for the Community on education, on health, on culture and on various other matters. Eleven months ago, in one of the debates in the House on the Community, the Foreign Secretary declared very clearly and firmly that the Government were against new Community competences. Yet such competences, proposed by the Labour party and opposed by the Conservative party, appear in the treaty and we welcome their presence in the treaty.

Again, the Labour party proposed qualified majority voting in a ministerial council on social and environmental matters. We proposed that some years ago and repeated our advocacy of it on many occasions. When addressing the Confederation of British Industry, the Foreign Secretary said that he opposed what he called

"significantly extended qualified majority voting."

The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is not here, but that is understandable in view of the many hours he put in during this long debate, although my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who is doubly or triply conscientious, is here.

The Minister of State, who is not here--we shall not complain about that-- nevertheless told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that he was opposed specifically to qualified majority voting on the environment. That was the Government's policy. Yet not only does article 130s of the treaty provide for qualified majority voting on the environment, but the treaty contains no fewer than 61 references to qualified majority voting even though the Foreign Secretary said that he was against any

"significantly extended qualified majority voting".

The Labour party has attached great importance to extended regional policies within the Community. The Conservative party opposed such policies, yet there they are, in article 63 of the treaty. The Labour party proposed a greater role for the European Parliament and the Government opposed greater powers for the European Parliament, yet enhanced powers for the Parliament are contained in the treaty.

One of the specific proposals that we made in order to bridge what has been referred to in Euro-jargon as the "democratic deficit" was a system of confirmation of the Commission by the European Parliament. Because the Government were opposed to extended powers for the Parliament, they were opposed to a parliamentary confirmation procedure for the Commission, yet in article 10 of title III, the treaty provides a process of confirmation for the Commission. The Government opposed it but it is there, and we strongly welcome its presence in the treaty.

The Labour party also proposed co-decision powers between the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The Government opposed co-decision powers yet they are to be found in article 189b of the treaty. We in the Labour party strongly welcome their presence. We proposed a blocking power for the European Parliament. In his speech today, the Foreign Secretary implied somehow that the Government had readily supported the insertion of a blocking power at the Maastricht conference, but on

Column 522

20 November last year, during the debate in the House before Maastricht, the Prime Minister insisted that any blocking power for the Parliament

"must cover a far narrower range than that set out in the present Presidency text."--[ Official Report, 20 November 1991 ; Vol. 199, c. 279.]

However, at Maastricht the Prime Minister agreed to the specific words that he had opposed and rejected in the House before Maastricht. The Bill asks the House to confirm a treaty that contains the very words that the Prime Minister rejected. The Prime Minister yesterday moved the Second Reading of a Bill that will bring into United Kingdom statute law words that he said he did not want in United Kingdom statute law. The Foreign Secretary seemed to imagine that that was one of the many successes that the Government had gained at Maastricht. Certainly the Labour party regards it as a success, because we wanted those words in the treaty. We are pleased to see them there, but the Government did not want them there. Not only does the treaty contain provisions that the Labour party and the Conservative party have jointly advocated and not only does it contain provisions that the Labour party has advocated and the Conservative party has not, but it contains even more provisions that the Labour party has advocated and the Conservative party has actively opposed. In fact, the treaty can in some respects be said to contain more Labour party policy than Conservative party policy.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : It is very interesting to hear that the Government have effected Labour party policy in so many matters and that the treaty is obviously the result of it having converted the Government. Why, then, is the right hon. Gentleman advising his party to vote against the Bill when the Government have clearly been so successful in accomplishing so many of the Labour party's objectives?

Mr. Kaufman : First, I am not advising my party to vote against the Bill. Secondly, I shall outline in some detail the reasons why, despite the fact that there are so many things in the treaty which I support and despite the fact that there are so many things in the treaty which I support and against which the Government for months set their face, I nevertheless cannot vote for Second Reading. I shall explain with, I hope, some clarity.

The Labour party especially welcomes the presence in the treaty of provision for Community decisions to be open to far greater scrutiny and accountability, for qualified majority voting on environmental and social issues, for specified inceased powers for the European Parliament-- especially in exercising control over the Commission--for the strengthening of interparliamentary contacts, for stronger regional co-operation, for improved political rights of citizenship and for the development of European political and security co-operation.

If those matters covered the full extent of the Bill, I could cheerfully vote for Second Reading tonight. Indeed, I could vote for it a good deal more cheerfully than could the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, both of whom have spent much of their time vainly attempting to keep out of the treaty provisions that are now contained in it and which will be incorporated in United Kingdom law when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

However--I now respond directly to the intervention of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)

Column 523

--the matters to which I referred do not cover the full extent of the Bill. There is also, for example, the presence in article J.4 of title V provision for what the treaty calls

"the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."

The Foreign Secretary did his best today to explain exactly what that meant, although neither he nor anyone else has responded to the trenchant and pertinent questions put to the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) who spoke in the debate on the Address and highlighted profound inconsistencies between the treaty and what the Government claim to be their interpretation of a common defence.

Let us consider for a moment what the Government have done. I make it clear --this will clarify our position in response to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills--that we in the Labour party have firmly opposed a defence role for the Community, and we continue to oppose such a role. We believe that western defence should be left to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and we thought that the Conservative party shared our view. After all, in June the Foreign Secretary insisted :

"Defence should not be embraced by the European Community."-- [Official Report, 26 June 1991 ; Vol. 193, c. 1011.]

I agreed with those words. However, today the Foreign Secretary has commended to the House a treaty which will bring about the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might lead in time to common defence. That same Foreign Secretary now asks the House to vote for a Bill which provides for defence to be embraced by the European Community. The right hon. Gentleman and his party may feel able to vote for what they so recently opposed, but I cannot and will not vote for that. That is why I shall not vote in favour of Second Reading.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : I have been listening intently to my right hon. Friend's argument. His objection is to the Government's policy, not to the treaty. If a Labour Government were in power, it would be open to them to use the Bill to achieve everything they want : to opt into the social chapter and the single currency and to keep out of the defence arrangement. My right hon. Friend is therefore objecting to the Government's policy and not to the Bill. The logic of his argument is that he should invite his hon. Friends to vote for Second Reading.

Mr. Kaufman : My right hon. Friend has simply not been listening. Of course we are debating policy--any Bill is enveloped in policy--but this Bill represents the enactment of a treaty. That treaty includes many policies which are official Labour party policy. My right hon. Friend and one other hon. Friend on our national executive committee opposed that policy, but it was supported by the rest of that committee. Despite such opposition, the Labour party conference decided that that policy should be official party policy, and it did so without any vote being taken.

I am trying to explain why it is right that those many items of official Labour party policy, confirmed by the annual conference and the national executive committee and contained in the treaty should become the law of this country. I shall also explain that, because there are certain things in the treaty which I oppose and others that are not in the treaty, which should be included, I cannot vote for the Bill. My right hon. Friend is entitled to his egregious

Column 524

position on Labour party policy, but it is my job to expound the official policy of the party to whose parliamentary committee I am elected.

Mr. Hurd : I do not wish to intervene on fraternal strife, but I must point out that, if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) had had his way, there would have been no official Labour party policy on the treaty of Maastricht and no negotiation. Britain would not have been a member of the Community and we would have been watching these matters from the outside. This is the sixth official Labour party policy with which the right hon. Gentleman has been stalwartly associated.

Mr. Kaufman : If the right hon. Gentleman had had his way, part of the treaty--on which he has imposed a three-line Whip--would not have been brought before the House because he, the Prime Minister, the Minister of State and others have said over and over again that it is wrong, that they oppose it, that it should not appear, and that it is a disgrace. He is now saying that, because he has changed his mind in six months, it is wrong for others to change theirs in 10 years. That is a curious approach.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) rose--

Mr. Kaufman : I shall give way, but in view of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall then proceed.

Mr. Moate : If the only thing to which the right hon. Gentleman takes exception in the treaty is the reference to common defence, why is that not mentioned anywhere in the Opposition amendment?

Mr. Kaufman : If various friendly and constructive interventions had not delayed me, I should now be moving on to other items. If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will now proceed to name some which appear in our reasoned amendment.

The Bill opts the United Kingdom out of the third stage of the process to economic and monetary union. Yesterday, the Prime Minister boasted that, if Parliament so decides under clause 2 of the Bill, the United Kingdom could opt back into the third stage of EMU. Clause 2 is purely cosmetic because the Government could, if they wanted, introduce a further Bill next week to repeal that clause. It is not entrenched and there are no such entrenched clauses in British legislation.

At the same time, that cosmetic principle is quite pointless, because the House is being asked to vote for a treaty protocol, which, as the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who studies these matters, will know, is part of the treaty document. The protocol lays down irrevocably--that is the word--that the third stage of economic and monetary union, with the central bank and the single currency, will start on 1 January 1999.

Let us be clear about the treaty protocol, which is not just a decision of the other 11 members of the European Community. From tonight, it will be a decision of this House, and it will be embodied in an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament.

When the third stage of EMU begins in six and a half years from now, at the latest, the United Kingdom will either have to opt in, despite the brave words of the Prime Minister about the right not to go in, or the United Kingdom will have its financial policies decided by the other 11 members without our having any voice whatever in the key decisions, because of the consequences of the

Column 525

derogation protocol contained in the treaty. The only choice on the third stage of EMU that the Government have won for the United Kingdom is the chance to have no choice on the matter.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) rose--

Mr. Kaufman : I will certainly give way in a minute.

Today, the Foreign Secretary boasted of that as a remarkable achievement. He is right : it is a remarkable achievement.

Mrs. Dunwoody : I hope that this will be a constructive and friendly intervention. Has my right hon. Friend not made an absolutely clear-cut and definite case for Her Majesty's Official Opposition to vote against such a serious and far-reaching treaty?

Mr. Kaufman : I have to say with the greatest affection for my hon. Friend that the answer is no.

It is suggested that the process to the third stage is irrevocable and that the third stage will start at the very latest on 1 January 1999. The present 11 members of the Community, together with Switzerland and Sweden-- powerful countries economically--which will be in the Community by then, will take part in that process. If anybody imagines that that third stage can come into operation irrevocably by 1 January 1999 and that the United Kingdom can then operate an independent policy on its own currency, that person, to use Mrs. Thatcher's words, is living in cloud cuckoo land.

There will be a third stage, which will affect the United Kingdom, and the Government say that they may use the opt-in power to opt into that third stage. Meanwhile, over these years the Government are opting our of fighting for the convergence measures that are essential for the third stage--policies to fight unemployment, policies for regional regeneration and for modernising our industrial structure.

Above all, I cannot vote for the Bill because, in the protocol on social policy, it enacts the United Kingdom exclusion from the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. To hear the Prime Minister yesterday, one would have thought that the social chapter of the treaty was some bizarre eccentricity dreamed up in a hotbed of extremist left-wing thinking such as, for example, the research department of the Fabian Society.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister called the social chaptera "triumph of ideology over common sense."--[ Official Report, 20 May 1992 ; Vol. 208, c. 269.]

He also said that it is "corporatism at its worst." That is not a very nice way for the Prime Minister to talk about the brainchild of his chum Chancellor Kohl. Also, it is not communautaire to talk in that way about a policy that is supported by all 11 of our Community partners.

What is it about the misguided and twisted thought processes of the other 11 in the Community, at whose heart the Government wish to be, that makes the Government attack them for indulging in a triumph of ideology over common sense and "corporatism at its worst"? If it is that for Britain, why is it not that for Germany, the Netherlands or Luxembourg or any of the

Column 526

other countries? I shall explain why. The other 11 take a far more balanced approach to the Community than do the Government. Yesterday the Prime Minister described the single market as providing what he called "open and competitive markets". The other 11 recognise what the Government either fail to understand or deliberately reject, which is that open and competitive markets are tolerable only provided that employed people have full protection from what would otherwise be the unrestrained freedom of capital. What is more, such provisions are necessary not only for employed people but for capital as well.

That is why the other 11, especially the Germans, are so insistent on a maximum 48-hour working week. They have the good sense and self-interest to understand that inadequate protection at work for employed people undercuts and damages their employers as well. The other 11 have had the good sense to understand that a sweatshop economy is bad for employed people and for employers wishing to be safeguarded from unfair undercutting and competition. The Secretary of State for Employment has been having that explained to her thoroughly over the past few days.

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman : I am sorry, but I will not give way at this stage. I am taking up time and others wish to speak.

That is why the other 11 realise that the single market must be a delicate and necessary balance between capital and those whom capital employs. The Government either fail to understand the need for such a balance or deliberately reject it. So the absence of the social chapter leaves a huge hole at the centre of the Bill, and I cannot vote for it.

The Government's attitude to the treaty shows the Conservative party's narrowness of imagination. The Bill is extremely narrow in scope, and no doubt instructions were given to parliamentary draftsmen to draw it up in a way that would curtail the scope of debate and amendment. Our advice is that there is wide scope for amendment and we shall table every amendment that we regard as necessary to turn the treaty into a document that we could support without reservation.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke about the paramount nature of United Kingdom parliamentary sovereignty and instanced clause 2 as testament to the Government's commitment to parliamentary sovereignty. However, parliamentary sovereignty does not consist simply of the right to vote at the end of a debate ; it also entails the right to debate without stringent and oppressive curtailment. Therefore, I notify the Government that if they seek to guillotine proceedings on the Bill, as they did on the Single European Act, we shall oppose such a guillotine and we hope that we shall be joined by all other Opposition parties, regardless of their attitude to the merits of the Bill.

We believe that the Government's approach to the Bill does not relate the treaty to the true nature of the European Community as it is certain to evolve. Even on the basis of the current membership of the Community, the Government do not link the treaty to the nature of the Community as it is now and as the treaty will carry it forward. The Community will have a social chapter regardless of the United Kingdom and it will have a single

Column 527

currency and central bank regardless of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom needs to be part of those processes, not only for our sake but for the sake of the Community.

There has been a good deal of muttering and worse from the Tory party about the role of Germany--

Mr. Skinner : And from me.

Mr. Kaufman : In so far as the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) echo what is being said by the Tory party, I dissociate myself from them, just as I dissociate myself from what is being said in the Tory party. I think that I have a good deal more reason to be hostile to Germany than my hon. Friend has. Nevertheless, it is my belief that the Germans have played a valuable and constructive role within the Community and I am sure that they will continue to do so.

Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, the principal voice attacking the Germans has been Mrs. Thatcher, who has attacked the Germans and everything that they stand for. She seems to be conducting herself like one of those persons one sometimes encounters on a bus ; someone who sits there with the seats around them left strategically empty and who, as the journey proceeds, indulges in violent and incoherent imprecations against fellow passengers. I am sure that we have all experienced such people. The Prime Minister is like one of the other passengers ; sitting there stiff and embarrassed, desperately trying to pretend that the eccentric person making such a commotion is not really there and is certainly nothing to do with him.

As I have said, in general Germany has played a sober and sensible role in the Community and the best way to ensure that that continues is for the United Kingdom to play an active role commensurate with our political strength within the Community. If Germany is ever likely to be a danger, an active British role is the best way to minimise it. After all, that is what was in Jean Monnet's mind when he first envisaged the European Community. Germany becomes a danger only when the United Kingdom or others relegate themselves to a second tier of membership and allow Germany or others to make the running. That was shown when, in exchange for German assistance on the social chapter opt-out at the Maastricht summit in December, the Foreign Secretary caved in to German insistence on recognition of the Yugoslav republics. In my view, that decision has helped to bring disaster to Yugoslavia.

Germany, or any other European Community country, is liable to be a danger only when left to itself. A second-tier United Kingdom in Europe, which is what the Bill entrenches, cannot immunise us from errors made by the rest of the Community. It merely implicates us in such errors while depriving us of sufficient influence to limit or to rectify them. We shall take our own initiatives instead of reacting to the initiatives of others.

The Community is certain to expand. This week, Switzerland decided to apply for membership. By the 1996 review, which is provided for in title VII of the treaty, the European Community is certain to have at least 17 members. As the Foreign Secretary pointed out today, other applications are on the table. He named some which he said would be welcome in the European Community. I was surprised by the selectivity of those that he mentioned. Since the election, I have been bewildered as to why he has

Column 528

concentrated so much on the role of Turkey in the European Community and in NATO. Today, he singled out Turkey as a country that he would like to see join the Community.

Mr. Hurd rose--

Mr. Kaufman : The right hon. Gentleman certainly said that. If he is now going to correct it, I will gladly give way.

Mr. Hurd : The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about what I said. I chose my words carefully. I said that what we needed--what Turkey needed-- was a closer and stronger relationship with the Community than she has now.

Mr. Kaufman : The right hon. Gentleman said that--he can look back on his words--very much within the context of the widening of the Community and applications for membership. It seems perfectly clear from article F of title I--the article on fundamental human rights--that Turkey is ineligible for membership. A country which certainly is eligible, would be strengthened by membership and has applied for membership, is Cyprus. The Foreign Secretary mentioned it, but what he did not say--and what I have been waiting to hear him say since the debate on the address, if not before --is that the Government welcome Cyprus's application and will advocate during the United Kingdom presidency that it should be accepted by the Community. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene to say that he will do that, I will gladly give way again.

As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, there is the clear prospect of a Community which includes former communist countries. We welcome that. It inevitably means a change in the nature of the Community, which we welcome. Yet the Government remain stuck in the time warp of seeking how to pick and choose between the processes of a Community of 12, which itself is evolving.

Worst of all, in a way, the Government do not seem to have any concept of the kind of Britain that the Community can help to bring about. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was right on one matter. As the Government pursue even more regressive economic and social policies at home, the Labour party sees the Community as a way in which some of our most vulnerable regions and citizens can be protected from the worst excesses of the Government.

In 1826, Canning said :

"I called the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the old."

Labour unashamedly and unrepentantly believes that, in this further period of Tory government, the Community may help to redress their policies. As I see my constituents in Gorton suffering in their many thousands from grinding poverty of a kind not seen in many other Community countries, I shall certainly see whether there are ways in which the European Community can alleviate their predicament. As my constituents suffer from 25 per cent. unemployment, I certainly want to see whether the Community's regional and social funds can help some of them to find work. As I see the environment of my constituents under threat--for example, from the privatised water authority which is trying to take away the one bit of open countryside available to my constituents--I shall do all I can to call on the Community to protect their environment.

Column 529

Looking much more widely, as I see countless millions starving in the developing world while the Government cut by half the meagre amount that they provide for overseas aid, I shall certainly welcome Community policies to aid the developing world. For its social provisions, its cohesion fund, its regional and environmental policies and its policies on the developing world, I welcome the increasing role of the European Community, as do tens of thousands of my constituents and millions of others in Britain.

The Maastricht treaty, as agreed by our 11 partners, sets out the framework for a wider, more outward-looking Europe with a social conscience. For that treaty, I could and would vote wholeheartedly, but the Bill offers only parts of that treaty. In voting for our amendment, the Labour party will vote for the real Maastricht treaty--for the kind of Europe that Britain really needs.

5.26 pm

Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup) : Those who have been Members of previous Parliaments may think that I have already given an indication of my attitudes to the European Community, but perhaps they will forgive me if I say a few words about the proposals before the House and the vote.

I strongly support the agreement that was reached at Maastricht, and of course I strongly urge everybody to vote for the motion. The Prime Minister was positive--and quite rightly so. That should give a clear lead to hon. Members on how they should vote.

There is no doubt that Maastricht is a great leap forward. It does not contain everything that I would like, and I may say a word about that in a moment, but what is there is undoubtedly yet another great leap forward by the Community. The deputy at the Foreign Office said when making a speech in The Hague recently--The Hague seems to be a popular rendezvous for speeches--that some of the British do not like great leaps forward : my God, they do not.

I can recall two great leaps forward. The first was the proposal to build Maplin airport on the east coast, which would have given us a superb airport equal to the greatest in the world. We could have done away with all the troubles over London Heathrow and the neighbouring airports. All the plans were made, and what happened? The Labour Government took office in 1974 and Tony Crosland scrapped them. Since then, we have shuffled, shuffled and shuffled. The result is that, to the passenger, Heathrow is chaotic. We increase other little airports bit by bit, but still do not have an airport that is comparable

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Edward Heath : I am sorry, no--unless you own Heathrow, of course. [Laughter.]

Mr. Wilshire : Before my right hon. Friend gives Heathrow away to some place out in the English channel or wherever he wants to put it, will he give a little thought to the 50,000 people who work there and the large number of my constituents who depend on it to earn a living?

Column 530

Mr. Heath : It is terribly important. They would work at the new airport and would have a fast train service into my hon. Friend's constituency and a major motorway if they wanted to travel by car. They would be infinitely better off.

The second great leap is the channel tunnel. We negotiated the channel tunnel in 1972, and in 1974 the Labour party swept it away. Now we have negotiated again, and the tunnel has actually joined up. But we have no fast link to go with it. For five years, the Government and others have been trying to reach a decision. They have been shuffling along, but they have been shuffling sideways and backwards, and they still have not reached decision about the fast link. I agree with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that not every Briton likes a great leap forward-- but that is what we have got, and we shall carry it through.

I find it sad that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the Labour party are unable to vote for the motion. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have never criticised the Labour party for changing its policy and I have welcomed the fact that its present leader has brought it into the European Community and acknowledged that this country is there to stay and will develop within it.

However, the Opposition amendments are not understood in the Parliaments of our fellow Community members. The word will go across Europe : "The Labour party has turned again. This time it has voted against Maastricht." [ Hon. Members :-- "No."] Oh, yes, that is what people will say. I know them so well. The Labour party could perfectly well have voted for the Bill and then tabled amendments to include the other aspects which it thinks should have been in the Bill, or to delete some of its provisions. That would have been a splendid thing to do, and it would have shown that the great majority of Members of the British Parliament strongly favoured Maastricht. The Labour party's decision is a matter of sadness to me. However, the criticisms made by the permanent opponents of the Community give me great encouragement. When I hear the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) explain how the Community will develop and how terrifying it all is, I feel great confidence in the future. I could not be more delighted. I shall quite understand if those people abstain, or vote against the Bill, or whatever they want to do. But it is rather sad that, after more than 20 years, we are still having the argument about the treaty of Rome, and about whether we should have become a member of the Community.

Is it not terribly sad that we are hearing more talk about the referendum? The right hon. Member for Chesterfield calls for another referendum. He managed to bring about the previous referendum--by twisting the arm of his Prime Minister, who had given an undertaking never to have a referendum. But has the right hon. Gentleman ever accepted the result of that referendum? No, not for a minute. If we had another referendum, he would not accept that decision, either. Why does the right hon. Gentleman want to institute such alien institutions into our procedures? We have centuries of history here, and we do not want to disturb them with ideas gained from afar. There can be no question of a referendum about any of these items.

Column 531

Mr. Benn : The right hon. Gentleman has the merit of consistency. In the 1970 election, he spoke of the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and people--and without ever varying from that opinion, he has consistently denied the voters any right to a say in their own future.

Sir Edward Heath : If the right hon. Gentleman had ever been able to secure a majority of 112 in the House of Commons, he would not talk like that. That majority was obtained on an entirely free vote on the Conservative side, and 69 of his right hon. and hon. Friends went against their three-line Whip to support it. That is sufficient standing for this country's relationship with Europe under the treaty of Rome.

Now the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, and others, have a new approach. The world has changed ; the Soviet Union has disintegrated ; the whole situation is different. Now, apparently, all we need is a little co- operation here and there, and all will be well. "Let us have more co- operation," they say.

Co-operation was tried through the formation of the Council of Europe, which still exists as a forum for discussion--and is very useful. But it was because Europe found that it could not rebuild itself through co- operation that the founding fathers--Jean Monnet has been mentioned-- introduced the proposals for the Community. Those proposals were made by the French and accepted by the Germans--full credit to them. Co-operation does not produce the answer ; it is not sufficient. I shall say a word or two later about defence and foreign policy.

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, but the Community is going from strength to strength. I hope that one day he will appreciate it.

I miss some things. I miss the social chapter, so I am not in total agreement with my colleagues in government on that matter. It would have been better both for ourselves and for the Community if we had accepted the social chapter and then pointed out the parts of it that we could not accept. Such a procedure is commonly used within the Community, and it is right. What I do not accept about the social chapter is its basis of having no arrangements for workers. I do not want this country to become the sweatshop of Europe. I did not say that before the election, and I accept full responsibility for not doing so.

Mr. Moate : Rubbish.

Sir Edward Heath : My hon. Friend has captured the habit of another of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). They both have a limited vocabulary on rubbish. Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) rose--

Sir Edward Heath : No, I am sorry, but both my hon. Friends must retain their rubbish.

I am glad that the new Secretary of State for Employment has taken the matter of working hours in hand. She recognises that the figures produced were entirely bogus and not justifiable by any employer. It is not rationally justifiable to say that it will cost an extra £5 billion if some people reduce their working hours and others do the work. I am glad that the new Secretary of State has recognised that problem at once, and has gone off to tackle it. I wish her every success. My comments apply to the other provisions affecting labour, too. I am

Next Section

Home Page