House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Jan 1993

Tobacco Advertising

Mr. Hugh Bayley accordingly presented a Bill to make illegal the advertisement of tobacco and products containing tobacco other than at the point of sale ; to make illegal the promotion by other means of tobacco and products containing tobacco ; and for related purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 April, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

Column 1046

Orders of the Day

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 20 January]

[ Mr. Michael Morris

in the Chair ]

Clause 1

Treaty on European Union

Amendment proposed [20 January], No. 7, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert

"(except Article 123 on page 31 of Cm 1934)".-- [Dr. Cunningham.] Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : I remind the Committee that we are considering at the same time the following amendments : No. 127, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert "(excluding Article G D(10) on page 12 of Cm 1934).".

No. 129, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert

"(excluding Article G D(12) on page 13 of Cm 1934).".

No. 186, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert

"except Article 3(i) on page 9 of Cm 1934".

No. 58, in page 1, line 10, after "1992", insert

"but not the Protocol concerning Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European Community".

No. 27, in page 1, line 13, after Community', insert

", with the exception of the Protocol on Social Policy". 4 pm

Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As a new Member, I admit to being somewhat bewildered by the procedure adopted in dealing with the Bill. Having talked to other hon. Members, I am sure that I am not alone in that. I have had the benefit of a brief seminar with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). [Interruption.] I can assure the Committee that it was relatively brief. I think that I now understand the procedure being adopted and the strange reason for the order of the amendments printed on the amendment paper. I also think that I understand why we debate amendments and then vote on them some time later.

My point of order relates to making the whole process easier for hon. Members to understand. We have a selection of amendments before us, but there is no information on the list as to where the amendments are on the amendment paper. I have asked the Library to give me that information, and it has done so. Unfortunately it gave me the information with the page numbers from last Wednesday. For example, amendment 7 was on page 1425 last Wednesday. On today's amendment paper, amendment 7 is on page 1515.

I ask you whether a brief explanation of the procedure, and perhaps information on which pages the amendments are on the amendment paper, could be given to hon. Members to make our lives a little easier.

The Chairman : Like the hon. Lady, I have to go through the amendment paper every morning. As I do not make the final selection until about 12 o'clock each day, I suggest that she do the same homework as I do and find

Column 1047

the amendments on the amendment paper. I hope that the inclusion of subject headings, which is an innovation, will help her to find what we should be debating.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for all that you have done to date to make things as intelligible as possible. Would it be fair to say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) that it is the intention of all Community institutions that all Community legislation should be as unintelligible as possible?

The Chairman : We are lucky that the Committee is dealing with legislation which is intelligible.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) : Last Wednesday, we were discussing the social chapter. When the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) opened the debate on this group of amendments, he said that he and his hon. Friends were offering the Government an opportunity to embrace the social chapter which had overwhelming support throughout the European Community. He went on to castigate the Government for what he claims to be covering up the real impact of the provisions of the social chapter. That is an invitation which the Government should refuse, and the hon. Gentleman's description of the Government's conduct must be denied.

It must be recognised that the other 11 member states have agreed that they wish to be bound by the provisions of the social chapter. Equally, it must be recognised that those other 11 countries, represented by responsible and accountable political leaders, have agreed that they and not the United Kingdom should be bound by the social chapter. It is not a case of Britain forcing something on its EC partners but an example of all 12 countries unanimously coming to a single agreement--the Maastricht treaty, which contains provisions that affect the contracting parties, sometimes uniformly. All the 12 countries have agreed that the social chapter will not apply to the United Kingdom. I am sure that it is recognised by all hon. Conservative Members that common social objectives and minimum standards should not be imposed artificially from above.

To adopt that approach is to invite interventionism and over-regulation and to threaten the competitive edge of the European Community as a whole. There is a danger in being over-prescriptive of adopting pan-European solutions which conflict with the traditions of each domestic market or the circumstances of individual companies. Our decision not to be a party to the social chapter, which was taken with the assent of the 11 other countries, is not an example of our refusing to play ball and taking our bat home but the result of reasoned unwillingness to allow our country and its economy to be shackled by what we see as the dead weight of prescriptive interventionism, international employment legislation and the tendency to strengthen the role of trade unions.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : While the hon. Gentleman is-- understandably, from his point of view--so much against the social chapter, will he bear it in mind that, if the treaty goes ahead, many employees in

Column 1048

Britain will not need much encouragement to go to the European Court of Justice, despite Britain's opt-out? People may say, "If the other member countries have the provisions and facilities of the social chapter, why should we be denied them?" With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he should not conclude that, because the treaty will go ahead with the British opt-out, that will be the final say. His best bet would be to vote against the treaty.

Mr. Garnier : I never thought that I would hear a member of the Labour party encourage the creation of work for lawyers.

The social chapter and all that flows from it would push up industrial costs, inhibit job creation and blunt industrial competitiveness. It would have been a grave dereliction of duty for the Government to sacrifice the achievements of the 1980s in freeing the individual from the trade unions, creating a climate attractive to foreign investors and increasing the efficiency and productivity of British industry, by simply swallowing the social chapter with all the collectivist policies of welfare and employee rights which other European countries will increasingly find that they cannot afford.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : As my hon. Friend has obviously studied the issue with great care and is an expert on the subject, will he give the House one example of a piece of legislation which he believes could come from the social chapter which could not come from article 100, or, indeed, from the health and safety provisions of the Single European Act? In view of what he has said, will he consider what happened only yesterday in Standing Committee F? EC-based legislation was passed which gave extra powers to the trade unions on wages, working conditions and takeovers.

Mr. Garnier : I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the matter to which he refers flows from the Single European Act.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Give me one example.

Mr. Garnier : My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to catch the Chair's eye in due course.

Increasingly, the standards to beat in global manufacturing are being set in the east rather than on the continent of Europe. I am talking about higher labour costs. Those productivity pressures, coupled with the decline in the dollar against the European currencies in the late 1980s, have brought into sharp focus the high cost of labour in many European countries. That reflects the high non-wage elements in labour costs, such as social security payments and holiday entitlements. Such elements amount to almost 50 per cent. of total labour costs in Germany, France and Italy. By contrast, the United Kingdom appears to be much more competitive in terms of labour costs, despite similar levels of pay for time worked.

Two problems are highlighted by labour costs. The first is the impact on competitiveness relative to comparable industrialised economies, in particular the United States and Japan. The second is that, as the 1990s progress, EC producers are likely to face a twin competitive challenge from low-cost producers in the far east and on the eastern fringe of the EC. We all know that labour costs in the newly industrialised economies of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Korea are between one third and a fifth of those in EC countries.

Column 1049

Similarly, low labour costs will be enjoyed by companies producing in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. An uncompetitive Europe increases the threat of protectionism which will damage the United Kingdom, with its widespread international links. If European industry as a whole is allowed to remain or become uncompetitive, Britain more than most will not be able to escape its consequences. Has the Labour party, which advances this attraction--that is to say, the social chapter--considered the cost of its imposition on the businesses that we seek to protect in this country? Of course they want to give back to the trade unions the powers that they gave them over the years, powers which we in the Conservative party have recoverd for the individual. They want us to return to the days of good old beer and sandwiches at No. 10.

When blanket wage deals are giving way to locally agreed wage settlements, when commitment and productivity are being rewarded, when profit sharing, employee shareholding and personal pensions increasingly find favour with the public, when flexibility and mobility are the watchwords and when self- employment and small businesses are becoming increasingly popular, the proponents of these amendments are attempting to burden us with collectivism.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : Will my hon. Friend not also confirm that it is the decentralised nature of many of the arrangements that we make in British industry which adds to the possibility of Britain making a similar move towards consultation but in a different manner from that on the continent? Given that the overall objective in the Community is for employees to have greater consultation in the firms for which they work, the main thing is to decentralise it so that each firm, not just each nation, can find the best way of achieving it.

Mr. Garnier : I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Those of us who had the opportunity of attending this morning's conference organised by the Anglo-Japanese parliamentary group will have learnt that lesson.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, to be competitive, working conditions and social costs in the United Kingdom should be the same as or lower than those in, say, Taiwan or Korea?

Mr. Garnier : The hon. Gentleman is seeking to rehearse the old canards about social dumping and social tourism. I will not go into it now ; it is old stuff.

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South) : My hon. Friend has made an excellent point about the need for decentralisation and for variety between different countries and so on. The trouble is that the treaty before us, particularly article 2, which we discussed last week, says the opposite. It says that we must have something called social cohesion and solidarity, Community harmonisation and balanced development. They are built into the treaty. So all these wonderful arguments which my hon. Friend puts forward, and with which everyone on the Government Benches would agree, rather break down when we look at the treaty itself.

Mr. Garnier : My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) voted for the Single European Act, out of which those very words emerged. What I am complaining about is the increase in

Column 1050

bureaucracy and in centralism which would come from the adoption of the social chapter. The United Kingdom labour market is largely a decentralised one, with a strong emphasis on local cultures and traditions--my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will accept that. It neither lends itself to centralised regulation nor can such regulation readily accommodate the wide dispersion of individual practice.

Its industrial relations structures are also atypical--especially, for example, with multi-union workplaces. Directives framed in Brussels and seeking to give new rights to unions would, if implemented, fall more heavily on establishments where many unions are involved than on single- union ones.

We must face up to the realities of global competition. This means that a new approach to social policy in the European Community must be adopted. It will mean taking steps which allow companies flexibility to improve productivity and cost-competitiveness. It means reducing burdens on business rather than increasing them. This approach does not imply lower living standards or less protection for employees ; rather, it is the only way to raise living standards and provide a sound basis for higher social welfare. On that basis alone, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.

4.15 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones) : I should begin by thanking the hon. Member for Cunningham--

Dr. Cunningham : Copeland.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am sorry, for Copeland. I am relieved that I did not call him the hon. Member for Sellafield.

I should thank the hon. Member for Copeland on behalf of the Committee for making it clear that the Opposition do not intend to press amendment No. 7 to a Division. So far, the Committee's debate has concentrated almost entirely on amendment No. 27, which, to my surprise--as I told the hon. Gentleman when he spoke--the Opposition intend to press to a Division.

The debate has been interesting and important and I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Morris. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) moving nervously in his place. I hope that he is not going to move a closure. Although we have had a long debate, the extension that you have kindly given us, Mr. Morris, by exercising your judgment not to accede to my hon. Friend's request, will enable me to respond to some of the important arguments voiced.

Mr. Marlow : I was not surprised when the closure motion was not granted, but I am interested to establish the circumstances under which it is likely to be. One had drawn the conclusion that most closures happen at times that are convenient to the Government, when their support is here in strength. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because he said that the debate "has" been interesting. As many of my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members wish to speak, what does he mean by "has"? The debate is interesting and I presume that there is much more to be said. Will he give an undertaking to the House that, when other hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken, he will come back and refer to their remarks?

Column 1051

Mr. Garel-Jones : My hon. Friend and I came to the House together and I would not want to teach him to suck eggs. The decision on when closure motions are moved and whether they are accepted is for the Chair. I know nothing of such matters.

As the debate has developed--it will no doubt continue, perhaps even after I have resumed my place--it has generally been a good debate and a good Committee stage. It has reinforced my view--if reinforcement were needed-- of the importance of the House. Many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have aired points of view on this group of amendments and on others with which I disagree, but the House can take credit for the way in which the Committee is discussing the Bill and its implications for our country and I hope that other Parliaments in Europe will look to that example.

Mr. Winnick : The Minister said that the debate on this group of amendments has been interesting. Perhaps he will agree that, by and large, the debate has been interesting all round. Does he understand that the reason why some hon. Members on both sides of the House are so critical about the implications of the Bill is that if the treaty becomes law many matters of great importance will be decided elsewhere? It will not matter what sort of debates occur on the Floor of the House or in Committee ; they will not have much relevance because the decisions will be taken elsewhere. That is why we believe that the treaty is crucial and why so many of us are determined that we shall do whatever we can to ensure that the Bill is not passed.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I understand and respect the hon. Member's sincerity. What I shall seek to demonstrate--as I have done during debates on other groups of amendments--is that the Maastricht treaty improves the position of the United Kingdom in comparison with that which pertains under the Single European Act.

If the Committee will allow, I shall reply to the debate in three parts. First, I shall address some brief remarks to right hon. and hon. Opposition Members. Secondly, I shall deal with the well-crafted and thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) and finally I shall address some general remarks to my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : The Minister said that he is replying to the debate. But the debate has not finished. Many hon. Members have waited for two days for an opportunity to take part. The Minister may intervene at this stage, but surely only a later contribution could be regarded as a reply.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I have to intervene in these debates as and when I can. I have already explained--to the incredulity of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends--that I make a point of not seeking to discuss very carefully, with people about whom the Committee knows, what the tactics of those people may be. I simply seek to intervene when it seems to me convenient to do so. Indeed, I have intervened more than once in some debates. I also do my best to give way to hon. Members. But the hon. Gentleman knows how the Committee works. I am not directly concerned with procedure. Such matters are for your judgment, Mr. Morris.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I understand the Minister to have said a couple of minutes ago that this treaty in no way diminishes the stature of the

Column 1052

British Parliament. That is at the very least arguable. Will the Minister concede that certain articles of the treaty at least strengthen to a considerable extent the role and function of the European Court of Justice in such a way that it will in every sense become a supreme court for the 13 legal systems of the 12 nation states?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall not reply directly to that question at this stage as it concerns a matter that will be the burden of my speech.

I should like first to direct a few remarks mainly at Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Copeland indicated that the Opposition intended to press amendment No. 27 to a Division. He said that it was his wish to fold the agreement between the Eleven into the treaty. Thanks to the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in giving way to me, I tried to make clear what Her Majesty's Government believe would be the consequences of carrying amendment No. 27. I have made our position clear and I do not want to labour the point. However, I should say to Labour Members and to other Opposition parties that, if I am right, there would be very serious consequences, not just for Britain but for the entire European Community. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) took my point.

Mr. Leighton : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The Minister is indulging in boring repetition. He has already replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). What is the point of replying a second time, especially as some hon. Members have not had a chance to speak once?

The Chairman : That is not a matter for the Chair. I did not notice any repetition.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I have the greatest respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that any of us need lessons from him in boring repetition.

As I said, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber clearly took the point that I had made. I hope that he and other Opposition parties, and, indeed, other individual hon. and right hon. Members, will take their own advice on this matter. They know where to go for advice that is independent of what I am saying to the Committee. I hope that they will take such advice and will reflect very carefully. I am content--certainly in the case of Liberal Democrat Members--that, in the light of that advice and of their reflection, I shall be able to rely on their judgment in this matter.

Dr. Cunningham : Whatever the Liberal Democrat Members and other Members do, I hope that they do not rely on the advice of the Minister as what he is saying is complete and utter claptrap. I have just--literally, within the hour--returned from discussions with the federal German Government, including the Minister of State in the Foreign Office, a lady whom I think that the Minister knows well, Ursula Seiler-Albring, and the Minister of State in the Chancellor's office, Friedrich Bo"hl. They clearly said that they would be delighted for Britain to reverse its decision on the social chapter and that such a reversal would not occasion the reopening of the German ratification of the treaty. That view is held throughout the Community as a whole. It is shared by socialist colleagues in other Governments in the Community. For the Minister to raise that red herring for a second time is simply to mislead the House.

Column 1053

For good measure, I also took the opportunity during my brief visit to the federal republic to speak to the leaders of the chambers of commerce--the employers. I asked them if they believed any of the nonsense that we have heard from Ministers--and have just heard repeated by a Conservative Back Bencher--about the threats to industry from the social chapter. The employers do not believe it. When I asked them if they had considered asking the federal German Government to opt out of the social chapter, they said that they had not done so for a moment.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I have two observations to make. First, at the rate that we are going, there will not be any socialist Governments left in Europe. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is not telling me or the Committee anything new when he says that the 11 partners would welcome it if the protocol and the agreement did not exist and the British Government were to go back on the negotiating position that they took in Maastricht. That is not the burden of my argument. We all know that--the wretched protocol exists because we refused to go along with the social chapter.

I am issuing an invitation to the hon. Gentleman--albeit with no hope or expectation, as we have all seen the Labour tactics on the Bill and will make our judgments, as will the country, on the party's new-found commitment to Europe and the treaty. I am not fishing for votes from the hon. Gentleman, but inviting those who take such matters seriously, and have some scruples and principles, to seek their own advice. I have described the position as we see it. It is for other right hon. and hon. Members to use their own sources. We were once given the opinion of the hon. Member for Copeland on what Mr. Cot thought. The following week, in this very country, Mr. Cot repudiated what the hon. Gentleman had said.

Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool) rose--

Mr. Garel-Jones : I shall give way to the reformist wing of the Labour party.

Mr. Mandelson : Talking of principles, I do not think that the Minister is being absolutely scrupulous when he describes the position of the other 11 member state Governments. If they were as weak in their commitment to the protocol that contains the social chapter and would find so much difficulty in making the adjustment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred, they would have caved in at the eleventh hour when the British Government were making so much fuss about the social chapter during the final moments of the Maastricht treaty negotiations. They did not cave in ; they stood their ground and agreed a protocol. Surely 11 member state Governments who feel as strongly about the protocol containing the social chapter as they did at Maastricht will hardly create many obstacles to allowing the speedy adjustment that would be needed in the wake of our amendment being carried by the Committee.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I do not want to labour the point, but I shall try to cover the ground once more. I am not placing in any doubt the enthusiasm of the other 11 member states for the protocol attached to the treaty and the agreement of the eleven that flows from it. When talking about European negotiations, I do not like to speak in terms of cave-ins or collapses by anybody. Our 11 partners would have wished the content of the

Column 1054

agreement to be included in the Maastricht treaty, but the United Kingdom resisted. That is why there is that separate agreement. One can say that they caved in or that we caved in, but the agreement is not in the treaty ; it is an agreement of the Eleven which flows from the protocol.

4.30 pm

I suggest that hon. Members take advice about my next point. When the Irish Government sought a minor amendment, relating to abortion, to a protocol in which everybody wished to accommodate them--no one had any disagreements about that--the partners refused to allow an intergovernmental conference because of their fears of what that would open. There must be an intergovernmental conference, but even if one of 30 seconds could be arranged--that is debatable--the consequences that would flow from it under article 236 are clear. Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Garel-Jones : I do not want to go any further into this, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye) : I am sure that the Committee appreciates why the Minister is desperate to make progress, having got into this quagmire. As he was kind enough to mention the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), will he address the precedent mentioned by my hon. Friend, that of Norway in 1972? When it chose not to join the Community, the alterations resulting from that were agreed not by an IGC but by a decision in Council. Is not that a more valid precedent than that of Ireland?

Mr. Garel-Jones : That is quite a good try and I have written to the hon. Gentleman about the matter. It is not a more valid precedent because, in advance of that intergovernmental conference dealing with accessions, arrangements were pre-made to facilitate matters in the event that one of the possibly acceding countries did not accede. It is a complicated legal point, but I believe that I have written to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber about it.

Mr. Mandelson : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would it be in order to clarify whether the Hansard reporters correctly picked up the Minister's observation that an intergovernmental conference could be held within 30 seconds to enable our accession to the social chapter?

The Chairman : The Hansard reporters will record what they hear. It is for the hon. Member who has made the speech to check its delivery.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am happy to confirm that, but that is not the burden of my argument. Even if I go halfway down the road with the Opposition and say that everyone will accept the social chapter and will agree and be helpful--all that is possible--hon. Members should consider the other consequences flowing from that.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones : No. I wish to make a little more progress. We have heard some excellent contributions to the debate. He is not here now, but the Committee was not

Column 1055

surprised to hear a distinguished and original contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) also made an excellent speech. However, those of us who heard my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) will agree that his carefully argued speech encapsulated many of the arguments touched on by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and their anxieties. I shall try to deal with his speech in some detail and with the care that it deserves. For those who were not present, I will try to sum up my hon. Friend's argument fairly.

Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford abhors the thrust of the agreement on social policy by the 11 member states. He believes also--and I agree--that if that agreement produced the sort of actions that are presaged within it, that would bring about a huge competitive advantage for Britain. My hon. Friend goes on to argue that if that competitive edge became acute, others would seek to undermine it by quoting the treaty objectives set out in article 2 and the new competences set out in article 3--and, in conjunction with article 5, they would seek to draw back that competitive advantage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford fears that, on that basis, cases will come before the European Court of Justice alleging that Britain is enjoying an unfair competitive advantage and that the court would be likely to rule against Britain by importing the provisions of the agreement among the Eleven into the treaty--folding it in, as the hon. Member for Copeland would say, but by a different route. I hope that I have more or less summed up, in the form of a synopsis, my hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith (Chingford) : For the purpose of clarification, I never made the point that such things would come in wholesale. I said that they would come in through specific areas of unfair competition.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.

It is not unknown for Ministers to dismiss from the Dispatch Box arguments with which they do not agree in a robust and even colourful way, knowing that there will be votes at particular times. As I said, I believe that the matter needs a careful exposition and I shall attempt to give one.

Let us be clear from the start--my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford touched on this--that the argument that the existing social provisions can provide a route to unwanted legislation is one against not the Maastricht treaty but the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act as it exists today.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose --

Mr. Garel-Jones : If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop this argument, I shall later give way as generously as I can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford made quite a bit of the changes that have taken place in articles 2 and 3 of the treaty, relating to the Community's objectives. He suggested that those changes in some way alter the present position and would give the European Court of Justice greater leeway in interpreting the bounds of propriety in

Column 1056

the use of article 118a for measures not strictly concerned with health and safety. I pause because that is an important point. The Committee has already debated the point that articles 2 and 3 are not vires-conferring. They are not operational in themselves and contain no powers for the Community institutions to act. Before they can act, one must look to the appropriate and specific treaty provision that gives the power to act.

Mr. Cash rose --

Next Section

Home Page