House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Jan 1993

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : In his concern, has my hon. Friend taken on board the fact that 10 out of 12 countries in the European Community have already ratified the treaty, which permits this country to opt out of the entire social chapter ? Does he not consider that in those circumstances he might be better advised to be arguing the case alongside the Government instead of against them ? If we had had any other Government elected last year, he and I and Front-Bench spokesmen would all be together in opposing what a Labour Government might have produced, which would have included this particular social chapter.

Mr. Jenkin : The hon. Lady unfortunately missed the cogent and able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith).

Mrs. Currie : I am asking you.

Mr. Jenkin : I would be very happy to take my hon. Friend through Hansard tomorrow morning and point out

Column 423

the argument. I can give her the answer if she wishes, but I do not wish to detain the Committee longer than necessary. It relates, in summary, to the way in which article 118a can be used now in conjunction with the approval procedures in article 189c, using the objectives laid out in article 2 and the new activities of the treaty laid out in article 3, in conjunction with article 5, where it says that it is against Community law to frustrate the objectives of this treaty. If one takes that as meaningless, have no fear, but the truth of the matter, as we have learnt from the Single European Act, is that the preambles and objectives of those treaties are vital.

ropean Court will draw upon the objectives of the treaty to inform its rulings and the Commission knows that. When the Commission initiates legislation in the knowledge that it can get a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers and that the European Court wildraw upon the objectives laid out in articles 2 and 3, one can be confident that we are going to find ourselves in a minority. The Government's lawyers will tell Ministers, "You had better agree and sign up to something better than nothing, or you will have the worstimposed upon you." Sir Teddy Taylor : Will my hon. Friend perhaps correct the issue over the 48-hour directive by consulting Hansard ? Does he appreciate that, when the Minister of State, Department of Employment, was asked about going to the court over the 48-hour directive, his answer was that he would consider doing so if it remained in its present form, but not necessarily if it was changed in some respect?

Is my hon. Friend aware that the negotiations on the 48-hour directive are nearly complete and that one of the agreed parts is that French bakers are exempt from the 48-hour week but British bakers are not? Will my hon. Friend consult the Hansard record of yesterday's Question Time and read question No. 2 for the right answer on the 48-hour week being challenged in the court?

Mr. Jenkin : I will certainly consult Hansard .

Mrs. Currie : I am most impressed with the way in which my new colleague is approaching the issue, but I put it to him that the broad principles on which he is objecting have been dealt with in earlier debates and were passed with large majorities. The Single European Act, which is the source of much of what he is complaining about, passed through the House some years ago with large majorities. Is my hon. Friend going to stand by his principles, with which many Conservative Members agree, and vote with the Government tonight?

Mr. Jenkin : The contention of the Government and, I presume, of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), is that the Maastricht treaty somehow addresses the concerns that we have come to experience in the Single European Act. My contention and that of a growing number of people in this country is that that is not the case and that every aspect of increased competence in the European Community increases the likelihood that we are going to finish up with laws being imposed upon us which we do not want.

It seems extraordinary to say that we have lessons to learn from the Single European Act and then to grasp tenfold the same mistakes in the Maastricht treaty. The objectives of the treaty are laid out before my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. If she cares to read

Column 424

them and obtain an understanding of how the legal structures in the Community are likely to work, we might be in a position to avoid making the same mistake.

I have detained the Committee long enough. I thank the Committee for its indulgence.

Mr. Wigley : I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to intervene at this point. This is the first time that I have addressed the Committee on these provisions, and I am glad to do so. My party and I not only support the objective of being a full member of the European Community and playing a full part as a full partner, not as someone who picks and chooses which parts of the package he wants and insists on having exceptions for other parts, but we agree with the objective of amendment No. 7 in order for the social provisions that are available to the other 11 member states to be available also to us in Wales.

I say that for the reason that we in Wales, as has been reflected in election after election, look for a balance of social and economic policy which is different from the balance of social and economic policy that is reflected in the Chamber. Quite frankly, we are more likely to get the social policy that our people in Wales want from the European institutions than we are likely to get from Westminster, Whitehall and the Government who, election after election, are returned to the House of Commons.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech with care, not least because I know that he and his party are very committed to the Maastricht treaty and wish to see it ratified. It seems likely that the amendment will not be voted on for some time. If the amendment were to be carried, the treaty of Rome must be amended, a further intergovernmental conference would have to take place, and then further ratifications would have to take place. It really is playing with fire for anyone to support the official Opposition's amendment.

Mr. Wigley : If the position is as outlined by the Minister of State, that surely is a consideration that he and his Government should have taken on board when they negotiated the way to exclude the social provisions from the treaty. The Government have cobbled together this exclusion for internal party policy, in order to hold together a coalition on the Conservative Benches to overcome the general election that took place in April. It is nasty internal politics and not the objective of what is best not only for the peoples of the islands of Britain but for the development of unity within Europe, which the right hon. Gentleman wants to see as much as I do.

The workings of the single market cannot possibly take place in the fulness of time if 11 member states have a certain minimal provision in social matters that relate very directly to the economy, to the labour force and to the costs of production and manufacture. A minimum provision is required of those 11 members, and there is a 12th member of the European Community that does not have those rules, applying to it and, therefore, as the Government themselves have boasted, is enabled to have a cut-price economy and has tried to obtain a competitive advantage over the other 11 members. We cannot build a united Europe--a Europe in which the 12 member states trust one another, co-operate with one another and work

Column 425

towards common objectives--if that let-out is allowed for one member state in order to obtain a competitive advantage.

Dr. Godman : I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) said, among many other things, that, despite the exclusion of the social chapter, the European Court of Justice, given the powers that it has, seemingly, of a supreme court with regard to the 12 nations, could defend the interests of workers and trade unionists in relation to article 118a. The hon. Member for Chingford seemed to suggest that the European Court of Justice could protect and promote the interests of ordinary people, despite the Government's exclusion of the social chapter.

Mr. Wigley : I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) with considerable interest. It was an exceptionally good speech and it was delivered in a manner which was a great credit to the Committee. It was a thoughtful speech. Perhaps we should hear more such speeches. The hon. Gentleman begged the question for himself and for his colleagues--perhaps he will throw it back at us--that, if it is possible to use the courts and other provisions which have been agreed and which would be applicable to us in order to sustain the social provisions that are otherwise dependent upon the chapter from which we are excluded, perhaps there is no need to have the social chapter in it at all. Perhaps we can rely on that.

If that is the case, as I asked him in an intervention, what is the argument against having that full provision so that at least we would know where we stood? It would then be clear cut and we would not have the inevitable uncertainty involved in going to the courts on questions of interpretation.

Mr. Duncan-Smith : I shall try to answer that question. Conservative Members abhor the social chapter because we think that it essentially destroys the competitiveness of this country but, from the point of view of those who would wish to have it, it tidies up all the provisions in one clearly identifiable aspect. The hon. Gentleman can see the matter from the other point of view as well as our reluctance to have the social chapter. My point is that, with or without our signature appended to it, most of the provisions will be found in a variety of ways in the body of the treaty.

7 pm

Mr. Wigley : I respect the hon. Gentleman's position. If he and his colleagues were to say that we are not allowed to exclude ourselves from these social provisions, we would be happy not to be members of the open market and the free movement of people, goods and capital with free competition, which has been the basis of development in the European context recently.

To argue that we should be allowed to have our own laws on labour, standards, working conditions, information, consultation of workers, equality between men and women and all the other provisions in the treaty, which would give us a competitive edge over the other 11 member states in the Community, and then expect them to treat us

Column 426

as an equal member does not hold water. We should not be allowed to compete and undercut the other 11 member states in their own marketplace.

Mrs. Currie : That matter is obviously the heart of the debate. Many Government Members think that the social chapter is bad for the whole of Europe. We strongly believe--I certainly do--that the opportunities for employment are diminished by raising the cost of employment. One need look only at a modern factory which is crammed to the eyeballs with equipment to see what the effect might be.

Mr. Wigley : I know that the hon. Lady is a good European. She has aspirations to play a fuller part on the European stage. I am sure that, as a good democrat, she will accept that, if unanimity is as great--if the people and political parties within the 11 member states agree with this-- we may well have to accept it in the name of the European Community, which we believe is important, and in the name of the level playing field which we believe is important for the companies which are competing with each other in the marketplace.

Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West) : I know that the hon. Gentleman has great experience in industry, and his views must be respected in that regard. In his own words, he has vividly illustrated precisely why it will be intolerable to the other nations which have adopted the social chapter on competition policy grounds. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said.

The advice which I have received from outside is that our exemption will be so intolerable that the other member states will bring their action on the grounds of competition policy through, first, qualified majority voting in the Commission and, secondly, interpretation of competition in the protocols and elsewhere. Once the French and the Germans wake up to the fact that it is 25 per cent. cheaper to employ British engineers to do the same job, and the effect that that will have on European investment, there will most certainly be such an action.

Mr. Wigley : Yes ; and I respect the ministerial background which the hon. Gentleman has in such matters. His argument is that the provisions will come through one door or another because of the imperative of the discrepancy which arises. There will be an imperative on other countries to cut out the unfair competition of which we are taking advantage. I simply say this : let us have it clear. Let us have it on the face of the Act so that we know where we stand. Everyone involved will know that the social provisions are there in black and white and that we agree with them.

I know that the Committee is divided on the question of whether the provisions should be available, given that they were supported and advocated by 11 of the 12 member states across the board in Europe, with the only exceptions being the Conservative party and Le Pen in France. In the name of democracy and in the name of the free competition which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and his colleagues have advocated for so many years, surely we must have democratic unanimity if a united Europe means anything at all.

Mr. Llew Smith : Will the hon. Gentleman accept the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) that low wages create full employment? If

Column 427

that were the case, would not India probably be one of the richest countries in the world, with full employment, and would not Germany be experiencing tremendous poverty and mass unemployment?

Mr. Wigley : I agree wholeheartedly. The future for our manufacturing industry must be based on quality, investment, technological development and being able to compete with German, French, Spanish and Italian industry head on. We should be inventive, take our products to the marketplace, and be able to win in that context. That is the only future on which we can build a high-wage economy and an economy which can sustain the social payments which are essential for our people.

Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Gentleman is advancing the proposition that, if 11 member states believe something to be the case, Britain is bound to agree with it in the end and should agree with it out of community spirit.

I agree that one of the objectives is that the Community should seek consensus wherever it can find it. On that basis, let us take the British abatement. Does the hon. Gentleman argue that, because the other 11 member states disagree with the abatement, the Government should give way on it? On the basis of what the Government have done on the social protocol, surely one of the purposes of democracy is that they sought and received the support of the British people for what they did.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my hon. Friends can be assured that not just the protocol exempts the United Kingdom from any acts taken under it. We do not hesitate to stand on that position, even if we must stand alone.

Mr. Wigley : I understand that there are times when a principle is so fundamental that a nation must stand alone, whatever the rest of the world is saying. However, I do not believe that our insistence on keeping the social provisions for working people, working conditions, information and equality between men and women is such a fundamental argument that we stand alone against all comers.

As far as the abatement argument is concerned, every country will argue for the best financial deal. It is perfectly natural, and any Government should be doing that. When it comes to the building blocks on which the new open market will be constructed--where fair competition will exist, where there is a level playing field, where company and enterprise compete and where 11 of the 12 member states have one set of rules and the other has another set of rules which gives a competitive edge which hon. Members have talked about and which Ministers have boasted about--how on earth can such provisions remain? It is only a transitional provision, which must crumble within a short period.

Government Members would be more honest if they faced up to that. We must put the treaty's provisions into legislation rather than have some bridging provisions which are convenient for the Conservative party. The Conservative party is leading the British public down the garden path as far as these provisions are concerned. It is selling employees short.

Mr. Michael Spicer : The argument that it is unfair to have a competitive edge is interesting. Is it not the case that that is exactly what trade is about? Trade is about using the competitive advantage. Will we have sunshine everywhere? Will olives grow everywhere? Will there be

Column 428

any difference in the utopian world which the hon. Gentleman is painting, or will there be a competitive edge? Perhaps that is a point in favour of our side.

Mr. Wigley : With respect, we are trying to build a competitive edge in law. A competitive edge is secured by innovation, scientific and technological research and investment in plant and machinery to produce better products, which is needed. We must then recommend those products in the marketplace and get a larger slice of the marketplace.

That is what it is all about. It is not about the whole basis of the Common Market before the European Community existed. The whole basis has been about getting a level playing field. In the Bill we are building a playing field on a slope. Government Members may believe that it is a lasting basis, but I suggest that it is a basis which cannot possibly remain. The basis may last for the duration of the Bill if the Government can cobble together a majority on it, but within a year or two pressures from other countries, possibly through the Chingford route which was referred to-- through the courts--will mean that it will not last. It would be more honest for us to face up to that now.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye) : The hon. Gentleman talks about a common market. Is he aware that industry in

Germany--especially engineering industry, as I learned from a visit on Monday--is already conscious that it needs to shed the shackles of the social policy that has been imposed on it formerly by trade unions and now by Maastricht? It will work within Germany to reform those provisions. So I suggest that our competitive edge will last only a short time.

Mr. Wigley : I can well imagine that the cancer in the thought of the Government could spread. When the British Government tell industrialists in Germany that we have a competitive edge over them, that we have cheap labour and that we can undercut them, of course they will say that they do not want the social chapter either. The cancer could run through the whole of Europe. The social provisions which have been built up in Germany, Denmark and other countries could be undermined by the thinking of this reactionary Conservative Government.

The Government wish to increase profits by undermining the rights of employees--rights which have been enshrined in the treaty. The social chapter creates a minimum standard. It is not a straitjacket. It acknowledges that many countries may want to go beyond that standard.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Wigley : I should like to make progress, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.

I draw it to the attention of the Committee that the social chapter includes a provision which says :

"before submitting proposals in the social policy field, the Commission shall consult management and labour on possible direction of Community action."

Presumably we are excluded from that consultation. The Commission will consult people on both the management and the labour side in 11 member states but will not consult them in the United Kingdom when formulating policy of considerable importance within the Commission.

Column 429

As it is important within the Commission, it will affect policy on many other issues. European social policy will inevitably affect Britain indirectly.

Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Gentleman says that there are great matters of principle. It may have escaped his notice that one of the core debates in Britain in the past decade has been about corporatism and the way in which the corporate approach to industry has damaged our competitiveness and prospects. He may not like it, but Conservative Members wear it as a badge of honour that the policies that we have pursued have produced four election victories for us. If the Labour party wants to import the social protocol into the treaty of Rome, it had better win an election.

Mr. Wigley : I understand the Minister's warnings about the corporate approach. I understand its dangers and the lessons that we must learn from the post-war history of Britain. I was making the point a moment ago that the Commission would develop policies. That right has not been taken away from the Commission. It will develop policies in many areas and will be influenced by the opinion of management and labour in 11 out of the 12 member states. The conclusions reached will inevitably affect Britain.

The provisions of the social chapter also say :

"The Commission shall draw up a report each year on progress in achieving the objectives of Article 1, including the demographic situation in the Community."

The effects of the demographic situation in the Community must be the basis on which regional policy will be developed. Demographic considerations are fundamental to regional policy. The Commission will take information from 11 out of the 12 member states, from which reports will be compiled on the demographic situation in Europe. Those reports will undoubtedly underpin the regional policy pursued by the Commission. We shall miss out. Wales, Scotland and the regions of England will miss out. They desperately need a proactive regional policy to counter the inevitable centralisation that will accompany the creation of the free market.

If we intend to remain in the European Community and play a full part, we must be right in the centre. We must not look for exclusions such as that from the social chapter in an attempt to buy a short-term competitive edge which we know cannot be sustained. It would be far better for us to be in there, advocating the improvement of standards for working people in our industry as well as the industry of Europe. It would be better for us to be there when the Commission develops policies which affect other countries so that our circumstances and needs are taken into account. We must not be regarded for another decade as an offshore island which cannot determine whether or not we want to be part of Europe.

7.15 pm

Mr. Stephen Milligan (Eastleigh) : I wish to establish two points. The first is that the amendment is a wrecking amendment to the treaty of Maastricht. The second is that the amendment is undesirable. When the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) rebutted my intervention, he said that I did not understand the position. The position as I understand it is as follows. Changes were made to the interpretation of

Column 430

the treaty at the Edinburgh summit to allow the Danes to have a second referendum. However, the amendment proposes a change to the body of the treaty. The treaty clearly specifies that Britain will not take part in the deliberations on the provisions of the social chapter or in their implementation. Therefore, the amendment would require the renewal of the ratification procedures in all the other EC member countries. It might require a new referendum in France and Ireland.

I understand the Opposition Front-Bench team saying that the other countries might be in sympathy with us because they supported the social chapter. That might be so, but they would face a severe legal problem. Their peoples and their Parliaments agreed to a specific treaty which did not include Britain in the social chapter.

Mr. Hoon : The hon. Gentleman referred to the referendums in Ireland and France. Does he accept that in their referendums the peoples of France and Ireland ratified not simply the treaty but the protocols?

Mr. Milligan : Precisely. The social chapter is a protocol to the treaty. If the hon. Gentleman reads page 117 he will find the specific protocol. That was the protocol which people in France and Ireland ratified.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Let me assist both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps they will recall that there was a moment at which the Republic of Ireland had some problems with the proposals on abortion and its constitution. It asked its partners for a minor amendment to one protocol which would have had no effect on any other country. Ireland was denied such an amendment because it would have prompted ratification by all member states. So Opposition Members have no escape : they have tabled a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Milligan : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. I understand Opposition Members' political point that if they had negotiated the treaty they would have included the social chapter. But they did not. We are dealing with a treaty and the House must either accept it or reject it. The amendment is a wrecking amendment.

The second point that I wish to establish is that the amendment is undesirable. It is inappropriate for the Community to legislate on social matters. The treaty has established the principle of subsidiarity, which is that, wherever possible, issues should be decided at national level. One can put the case for social intervention and regulation of hours and wages, but that is a national decision. It is not appropriate for the Community to act in such matters.

In any case, the social chapter is damaging. Many Opposition Members have spoken of their concern for jobs. Conservative Members are also concerned for jobs. However, the fact is that raising industry's costs by introducing new regulations such as the 48-hour week--which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) said, is a damaging sign of what might come if we accepted the social chapter--would not create jobs. It would damage businesses and especially small businesses. It would be bad for Britain.

There is also an issue of freedom. In my constituency we have two bakeries. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is not in the Chamber. He spoke of the exclusion of the French

Column 431

bakeries. There is no exclusion for British bakeries. The Mr. Kipling plant is in my constituency. As hon. Members may know it produces, "exceedingly good mince pies." British Bakeries is also in my constituency.

People work extremely long hours for not very high wages in those plants, and may work 60 or 70 hours a week in shifts starting at 6 pm and ending at 6 am. They do not work those hours because they like to do so, but because they want to earn money to feed their families. They have the right to work long hours if they choose. It is not right for bureaucrats in Brussels or Whitehall to determine what hours they should work.

The Labour party has always been committed to the principle of free collective bargaining and that is the chant that we have heard so often. Why is that not allowed to apply in this case? If trade union members freely agree that they wish to work long hours, why should a regulation made in Brussels--or a part of the Maastricht treaty, if Opposition Members have their way--be allowed to stop them? That would be a fundamental contradiction of a basic human right? I should be interested to know from the Labour Front Bench whether a Labour Government would allow free collective bargaining to dominate and whether they would allow workers the right to choose to work more than a 48-hour week.

The exclusion of the social chapter has positive advantages to this country as well as removing some negative aspects that might be associated with its adoption. Mr. Delors has said that this country will be a paradise for Japanese investment, which has been one of the few encouraging areas of job creation in recent years. More Japanese investment would be extremely good news for this country and for jobs.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised the spectre of our undercutting our continental rivals. What is the danger in that? Surely that is what we must achieve if we want more jobs and increased exports, and if we want to put our balance of payments right.

Mr. Wigley : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we should undercut them by virtue of our design, efficiency and use of capital, rather than by using legislation to build in the sort of edge that cannot possibly last?

Mr. Milligan : Frankly, I would agree to any edge that would create more jobs and prosperity. I believe that it will last, but even if it does not, let us take advantage of it while we can. I do not see any disadvantages.

The hon. Member for Copeland said that we could compete with Taiwan on price, but that we should be competing with Germany on quality. In the export business, one must compete on both price and quality. Unfortunately, British industry has not always succeeded in competing on quality, which means that we have a greater need to compete on price. The exclusion of the social chapter will bring us positive advantages in crucial export markets.

My hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said that we were already suffering from the effects of the treaty of Rome, and that the exclusion of the social chapter would not make a great difference. First, we are not debating the treaty of Rome

Mr. Duncan-Smith : I never said that we were already suffering. I said that the treaty of Rome was empowered to a greater extent by the social policy amendments. We are

Column 432

discussing that treaty because we are discussing amendments to it and there may be a link with the European Court of Justice because of the route that we are choosing to take. Elements of the social chapter may have to be introduced. I was not saying anything else.

Mr. Milligan : I understand my hon. Friend's argument. In his speech, he said that there is a danger that the European Court might interpret the phrase "greater economic and social cohesion" in a way that would be unfavourable to this country. I believe that that phrase has little meaning. One could say that there was a danger that the court could interpret anything to mean something that we do not want it to mean, but we must work on the assumption that the treaty says what it means.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : It is precisely for that reason that I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the treaty is riddled with socialist engineering and social philosphy. The cohesion funds, which are clearly stated in the treaty and which we are subscribing to, are nothing more or less than socialism in every conceivable respect. Does he not agree that, for that good reason, we have no reason to sign up for many of the provisions in the treaty?

Mr. Milligan : For once, I would entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Yes, the treaty contains social engineering--the social chapter, which we have opted out of, and which we are discussing. If by social engineering he means the phrase greater "economic and social cohesion", then he is reading far too much into it. Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Milligan : I shall not give way again. I hope that Conservative Members can ally on that issue because we are all agreed that the social chapter, the social charter and the social protocol are damaging to jobs in this country and I hope that we can all find ourselves in the same Lobby on that issue.

Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North) : May I begin by declaring an injury, Dame Janet? I have a sprained ankle, but it was caused not by a hostile Euro-sceptic but by an over-enthusiastic Hampstead dog. It means that my speech will be very short and, with your indulgence, I shall have to stand while taking interventions because it is too painful for me to sit down.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes) : Of course, we understand and will waive the usual rules where there is an injury--but not for anyone else.

Mr. Radice : Thank you very much, Dame Janet.

On the Conservative side, the debate has been an argument between the anti and pro-Europeans about whether the social chapter is excluded from the treaty and whether it will be watertight, rather than a debate about the advantages of the social chapter, which says something about the modern Conservative party. I think that I may safely predict that, if either the Heath or the Macmillan Governments had been negotiating the treaty, we would have had the social chapter. Only the modern Conservative party would have opted out in such a way, which says something about what has happened to that party.

Although the social chapter is outside the treaty, it is very much part of the system that the treaty sets up,

Column 433

because member states, except for the United Kingdom, accepted that social progress for people is as important as the free movement of goods, services and capital, and that is a good principle. As the President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, rightly said, no one falls in love with the single market. If one wants a European Community which has the support of the people it must have a social dimension. Indeed, the Government recognise the force of that argument, because they are slightly worried about it. I have heard the Minister who is responsible for European affairs saying that the Government are in favour of the European Community having a social dimension. However, when they are offered the prospect of one, they opt out, and that is their problem. Other countries are in favour of the social dimension.

I sometimes think that Conservative Members cannot have read the social protocol.

Mr. Duncan-Smith indicated assent.

Mr. Radice : I am not sure whether I shall continue to carry the hon. Gentleman with me.

What is so terrible about article 2.1, which states :

"the Community shall support and complement the activities of the Member States in the following fields :

--improvement of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety ;

--working conditions"?

What is wrong with that? Are they against it? Are they against having more

"information and consultation of workers"?

Are they against more

"equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and treatment at work"?

Are they against

"the integration of persons excluded from the labour market"? They should tell their constituents if they are, because we did not hear anything about that during the general election.

Conservative Members may be against those issues on which the Council will act unanimously, which are

"social security and social protection of workers ; protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated ; representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers."

Perhaps they are worried about them.

Next Section

Home Page