House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Feb 1993

Column 21

Sellafield (Discharge)

3.30 pm

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) (by private notice) : To ask the Minister for the Environment and Countryside if he will make a statement about excessive discharges of radioactive material which occurred at Sellafield on Thursday 11 and Friday 12 February 1993.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean) : Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and Her Majesty'snuclear installations inspectorate were informed of an incident at Sellafield at 1600 hours on Friday 12 February. The information indicated that the release occurred from the B204 stack as a result of work prior to decommissioning in building B203 which shares a ventilation stack with B204. This preparatory work in B203 was stopped as a result of the release and will not recommence until HMIP has reported.

HMIP and NII arranged for inspectors to visit the Sellafield site on Saturday 13 February to investigate the background to the release. B203 is a redundant building which has been shut down for 10 years. It is important that this and other buildings no longer in use are properly and safely decommissioned. We understand that as part of the preparatory work on decommissioning a small amount of alpha-emitting radioactive material was disturbed and emitted into the atmosphere. It is estimated that from the start of the incident to date, about 1, 000 mega-becquerels of activity has been released. British Nuclear Fuels monitoring shows that emissions have dropped substantially. The most recent results show that emissions are down to about 20 mega-becquerels over a 24-hour period.

The House will be interested to know that the current authorised discharge limit is 4,300 mega-becquerels per annum, although BNFL has been operating well within that limit in recent years, at about 100 to 200 mega-becquerels per annum. We therefore regard the incident as serious, although it is well within safety limits.

The House will also wish to know that on the basis of pessimistic estimates, the increase in dose to the public close to the plant is approximately 10 micro-Sieverts. The annual average dose in the United Kingdom is 2,500 micro-Sieverts.

Starting with HMIP and NII's preliminary visit to the site on Saturday, 13 February, a full investigation is in hand. There will be a further visit by HMIP and NII tomorrow. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspectors have also arranged for samples to be taken around the site perimeter. The results of this investigation will be reported to the chief inspectors of HMIP and the NII. I have asked the chief inspector of HMIP to report to me on all the circumstances of the incident, the lessons to be learnt and the actions to be taken for the future. I shall, of course, publish that report.

I emphasise that the incident occurred in redundant plant and is not associated with normal or planned operations on the Sellafield site.

Dr. Cunningham : I am grateful to the Minister. Although we can all agree that the incident was serious, does the Minister agree that it is also unacceptable that one quarter of the annual authorisation of certain radio nucleides should be discharged in just 24 hours? Is it not also unacceptable that it took the management of British Nuclear Fuels longer than one would expect to make the

Column 22

incident public, especially bearing in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and I visited the site on Thursday and Friday last week and were not informed that those excessive discharges had taken place?

Does the Minister accept, and will the management of British Nuclear Fuels note, that such behaviour does nothing to inspire confidence in them and the way in which they discharge their responsibilities? Can the Minister tell me and my constituents more about the qualitative nature of the radio nucleides which escaped? It clearly was not a contemplated and managed discharge, but an accident which should not have happened. What radio nucleides were involved? Is it true, for example, that one was americium? Can the Minister identify any others?

Will the Minister ensure that there will be the most rigorous and searching inquiry? I welcome his assurance that a report will be published. Is there any indication yet that British Nuclear Fuels might have exceeded the terms of its operating licence or failed to sustain best management practice in the conduct of the

decommissioning? Can the Minister tell us whether any legal proceedings against the company will follow this totally unacceptable series of events?

Mr. Maclean : Of course it is always unacceptable when such unplanned incidents take place. The fact that hon. Members visiting Sellafield at the time were not informed, although that is not a legal requirement, would seem to be a rather extraordinary discourtesy. I suggest that the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) take up that matter with the management of the plant.

I am, of course, concerned about the reporting time to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and to the NII. HMIP and NII will look at that matter, and I expect them to report back to me. I can tell the House at this stage that the radio nucleides which were emitted were all those that one would associate with the plutonium atom. Of course, in due course I shall publish full details of whatever the radio nucleides were when we have that information. I am not aware of any breaking of the licensing conditions, but of course that is a matter for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and NII when they carry out a thorough investigation to determine whether the best management practices were used. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that the authorities were not actually decommissioning at the time ; they were undertaking some preparatory work, looking at ventilation shafts and trying to improve systems before actual decommissioning should take place. Obviously, I cannot say anything about whether legal proceedings would follow ; that depends on the investigations carried out by the inspectors, and they must determine whether there is a legal case to answer.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : Does my hon. Friend the Minister understand that there will be considerable concern at the seriousness of the incident? Will he confirm the figures which I thought I heard--that people living closest to the site will receive a dose estimated at 10 micro-Sieverts, compared with what is held to be the danger point of 2,500 micro-Sieverts? Am I right in understanding that that means that the dose which the people closest to the site may have received will be between a quarter and a half of 1 per cent. of the safety level? If that is so, may we not take comfort from the fact

Column 23

that our safety rules and arrangements are such that the release of such a minute amount of material has led to widespread concern and a statement in the House?

Mr. Maclean : My right hon. Friend is right in principle to draw attention to the small amount of radioactivity emitted locally and normal background radiation. The level of 2,500, which includes radiation emitted through medical processes as well, is not a safety limit or a danger limit ; it is the normal dose emitted throughout the country in an average year. The safety level would be many times higher than 2,500, which makes my right hon. Friend's point even better. The fact that we have a full investigation of what has been a small emission shows how rigorous the inspectorate systems are in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : In addition to the figures that the Minister gave as to the level of discharge relating to the current authorisation level, can he confirm that the discharge recorded is about 300 mega-becquerels higher than the authorisation limit currently being discussed by HMIP and British Nuclear Fuels, which is about a third or a quarter as much again as is now regarded as acceptable? What will be the consequences of the discharge for the current application for thermal oxide reprocessing plant and the Government's consideration of that?

Mr. Maclean : That is highly speculative and has no connection whatever with the draft authorisation currently being considered by HMIP. It is for HMIP to determine what any new level should be.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : Bearing in mind the presence on the site of the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), and their tendency to meddle in things, can my hon. Friend confirm that there is absolutely no question of their having left any doors open or pressed any buttons while they were on the site?

Mr. Maclean : I do not think that the hon. Members for Copeland and for Kirkcaldy would wish to push any nuclear buttons ; I believe that their policy on that has changed now.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Can the Minister confirm that the only reason why we have had an answer to this private notice question today is that, coincidentally, the discharge happened at the time my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and others were present at the plant? The truth is that many such discharges take place in nuclear power plants up and down the country which we never hear about.

It is high time that we had a full-scale public inquiry into the effectiveness and safety of nuclear power generally, especially when we are examining the question of the energy markets and the coal industry. We are subsidising nuclear power to the tune of £1.2 billion a year, and we are in the process of allowing Sizewell to add to that figure.

Mr. Maclean : As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is talking absolute nonsense on the subject. Nuclear installations regularly report incidents and releases, and do so on every occasion. The fact that we

Column 24

have a statement in the House today is not because of any cover-up, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but simply because the hon. Member for Copeland asked for it.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : Is the Minister aware of the considerable concern along the north Wales coast about the effect on health of radioactivity coming from Sellafield? The incident will have caused additional dismay, especially in view of the level of cancer which has been experienced along that coast recently. Can the Minister give an assurance that every aspect of the leak will be thoroughly investigated by the NII, especially those aspects which may be relevant to the decommissioning of nuclear power stations so that if there are lessons to be learnt they can be learnt before the decommissioning of further stations?

Mr. Maclean : There would be grave cause for anxiety and alarm only if people grossly exaggerated the release which has taken place. I hope that the facts and figures that I have given to the House today will allay any anxieties. I have said that there will be a full investigation by HMIP. It will report to me on any further action which may be necessary before we start a programme of proper decommissioning. I have also said that we shall publish that report fully.

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : The Minister has said that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will do some testing. Will he assure the House that the results of that testing will be published? Can the south of Scotland and its agriculture industry, which has suffered previously from radiation leaks, be assured that testing will be undertaken properly and that the leak will have no effect on livestock and the food market in the south of Scotland?

Mr. Maclean : It does not help the hon. Gentleman's constituents or the food market in the south of Scotland or anywhere else to compare this incident with the Chernobyl incident. That is the only other major incident which has affected the food chain in Britain. The two incidents are totally different. The hon. Gentleman does a grave disservice to our industry by comparing them. I can assure the House that all the facts and figures that we collect are regularly published. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food publishes copious volumes of all the testing undertaken throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : In view of the major leak from the same site in the 1950s, which was not revealed to the country for many years, perhaps the Minister would like to review the statement that he has just made to the House. In view of the recent incident, the long history of incidents at the site--under various names and various managements--and the pending prosecutions against BNFL for four breaches of the site conditions, can the Minister seriously tell the House that he is happy and satisfied with the management and safety of the site?

Mr. Maclean : The site is inspected regularly by HMIP and NII. I know of no country in the world which has such rigorous standards for nuclear safety as we have in Britain. If there are lessons to be learnt before decommissioning of old plant takes place, they will be learnt. That is why I look forward to the report from HMIP, which will give us and other countries good guidance on how one may undertake safe decommissioning of very old nuclear plant.

Column 25

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : Will the Minister reconsider once again his statement that there have been no previous incidents which have resulted in the contamination of food? In 1957, 11 tonnes of uranium were burning out of control at Windscale--now

Sellafield--resulting in large-scale contamination of milk in the area. For a long period before that, Windscale contaminated the area by discharging to the atmosphere when it was a bomb factory. There has been a history of deception by the nuclear industry in Britain. Why do the Government not come clean and turn up on Friday to vote for a genuine freedom of information Act?

Mr. Maclean : I was not referring as far back as 1956 and the Windscale inquiry. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) certainly suggested that more recent incidents of nuclear pollution had affected the food chain in Britain. I stand by what I said : it is of no help to constituents, food producers or food consumers in Britain to suggest that an incident of 1,000 mega-becquerels released into the atmosphere is responsible for massive contamination of the food chain. It is nonsense to suggest that or to compare the incident with Chernobyl.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Are there not great dangers in Members of Parliament using exaggerated language about problems which may exist in parts of the nuclear industry? In addressing a question to the Minister, may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who suggests that incidents at Sellafield are not necessarily reported to the country, that every time an incident takes place at Sellafield the local Members of Parliament are informed? On this occasion there was a day's delay, but we are always informed. It is quite wrong for any Member of the House to compare what happened last week to what happened in 1957. In terms of damage to the environment, the incident last week was infinitesimal compared with that of 1957, which was an incident that we all regret.

Mr. Maclean : It is not often that the hon. Gentleman and I are on the same side in our reaction to an incident. I congratulate him on his wise words and commend them to all Members of the House.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : Can the Minister confirm that, while he said that the discharge was 1,000 mega-becquerels, the total discharge during

Column 26

1991 was 274 mega-bequerels? Therefore, the incident is four times the total annual discharge, according to the last recorded facts, and should not be dismissed as minor. Can the Minister tell us why the discharge authorisations are so organised that no limits were broken in that instance? It cannot be right that one quarter of the plant's annual discharge limit went up one chimney in one day ; surely the time scale of discharges ought to be taken into account, and not merely the total annual limit.

Does not the incident emphasise the importance of HMIP taking the utmost care, and erring on the side of caution if necessary, in their current consideration of discharge limits for Sellafield, including the thermal oxide reprocessing plant? Does not the incident throw into sharp relief the Government's drive for deregulation and self-monitoring of pollution discharges? There must be no cutting of corners in relation to the concern for the protection of public health and of the environment that we all share. Opposition Members demand that the highest and toughest standards, enforced and monitored by the public sector in the public interest, should be maintained to safeguard the public and the environment.

Mr. Maclean : So do the Government--that is why HMIP and NII inspectors were on site on Saturday morning, why their investigation is under way and why I shall publish the report that the chief inspector of HMIP makes to me. Judging from the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, it is a pity that he did not listen to the wise words of his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I did not play down the incident or say that it was not serious ; I said that we considered it serious, although it was well within the existing authorisation limit of 4,300 mega-becquerels.

The emissions during that three-day period were more than has been emitted by Sellafield as a matter of practice during the past few years. The emissions were within the authorised limit, which is for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to set. It is not for me to pronounce on the limit or for the House to pontificate on it. We have independent inspectors and regulators, who are admired for their independence. They set safety limits and regulatory requirements. Although the emission was unacceptable, it was within the authorised limits ; that is the important point that the House should bear in mind, plus the fact that the emission was very low indeed.

Column 27

Maastricht Treaty

3.53 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : With permission, I should like to make a statement othe process of ratification of the Maastricht treaty.

As the House knows, the purpose of the Bill before the House is to ensure that United Kingdom law, where necessary, conforms with the provisions of the Maastricht treaty.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in this House on 20 January that if amendment No. 27 were carried, United Kingdom law would not conform to the provisions of the treaty and that the United Kingdom would therefore be unable to ratify the treaty.

Those remarks were, of course, based on legal advice. However, in the light of discussion in this House and elsewhere, further careful and detailed consideration was given to the matter, and the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate were asked for their advice. I think it right, with the agreement and on the authority of the Law Officers, to inform the House of that advice, at the earliest practicable opportunity, and to explain the Government's position in the light of that advice.

In accordance with our usual practice when legislating, clause 1 of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill has been drafted to incorporate in our domestic law all amendments and protocols to the treaty of Rome which were included in the treaty on European union--the treaty of Maastricht.

The House will recall that the protocol on social policy authorises the other 11 member states of the Community to have recourse to the institutions, procedures and mechanisms of the treaty of Rome for the purposes of implementing their agreement on co-operation in the social area --the so-called social chapter. Most significantly, it specifies that acts adopted by the Council under the terms of the protocol shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom.

Amendment No. 27 would exclude from the scope of clause 1 of the Bill the protocol on social policy. That is all that amendment No. 27 would do. The amendment would not have any effect on the treaty itself. It would not change the agreement among 11 into an agreement among 12. It would not bring the social chapter into effect in this country. The amendment would simply exclude the protocol from incorporation in domestic law under the European Communities Act. The legal question is therefore whether the United Kingdom could ratify the treaty even if the protocol were not incorporated into domestic law.

The Law Officers advise that, if the amendment were carried, acts adopted under the protocol would still not apply to the United Kingdom. That is because it is of the very nature of the protocol that acts adopted under it should not be applicable to the United Kingdom. It follows that no rights and obligations arise from those acts which need to be given effect in our domestic law.

In summary, the Law Officers consider that, while incorporation of the protocol in domestic law is desirable, it is not necessary for ratification or implementation of the Maastricht treaty. In other words, there would be no

Column 28

impediment to ratification if the amendment were carried because acts adopted under the protocol would still not apply to the United Kingdom.

I must make it clear that there can be no question of the United Kingdom ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. The House will have the opportunity on Third Reading, after detailed consideration of all aspects of the Bill, to decide whether the Bill should pass into law. The United Kingdom will not ratify the treaty unlesss the Bill is approved by Parliament. But amendment No. 27 is not a proposal to adhere to the social chapter and its passage would not be a decision that this country should do so. The Government will continue to oppose the amendment because, as I have said, incorporation of the protocol in domestic law would be desirable. But, in the light of the Law Officers' advice, if the amendment were carried it would have no effect on our ability to ratify the treaty. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. This is an important statement which the House has been waiting to hear. The House must come to order to hear the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Hurd : It constitutes a different siituation from that implied by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) when he moved the amendment and the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the House on 20 and 27 January. I regret that the legal advice then given to the House was not correct.

The Government's position on the substance of the matter remains unchanged. We continue to believe that the social chapter will harm growth and jobs in this country. We intend to press forward with the Bill so that we can ratify the treaty which I, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer negotiated at Maastricht, and which won an overwhelming majority on Second Reading in this House.

Madam Speaker : It may assist the House if I say a few words about the Foreign Secretary's statement. I felt it right to allow the Government to correct a mistake that had been made as soon as it came to light. Some questions will no doubt arise seeking clarification of what has been said. Page 500 of "Erskine May" states :

"The House is not formally aware of the detailed proceedings of any committee until the bill has been reported ; and attempts to refer in the House to proceedings on a bill during its consideration in committee are consequently irregular."

Therefore-- [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order and listen to this important announcement.

Therefore, any consideration of further proceedings in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill cannot be pursued in detail with either the Foreign Secretary or myself. The House cannot legislate in two places at once. I trust that hon. Members will appreciate that when I judge it time to move on.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for agreeing to make a statement today in response to my request. I am sure that he welcomed the opportunity to try to remove at least some of the confusion and disarray in Government circles resulting from the mess that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have got into over their fanatical determination to deny the benefits of the social chapter to the people of our country. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to remove the confusion and disarray set in train by

Column 29

the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), on 20 January in this Chamber when he said that he was speaking on legal advice.

As today's statement is about the fourth different interpretation that we have had of the Government's position in the past five days, why should the House or the country have any more confidence in today's opinion than they were able to have in any of the others, including that of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford, which has been so summarily dismissed by the Foreign Secretary in the Chamber today? I am surprised that the Minister of State has not accelerated the process of his already tendered resignation.

Does the Foreign Secretary recall that, from the outset, starting with the statement made by the Prime Minister, the House has been promised

"that common consent in this country is exercised through a parliamentary democracy and through the voices and words of Members of Parliament in this House."--[ Official Report , 3 June 1992 ; Vol. 208, c. 832.]

If that has any meaning, why are we being told that the Government intend to ride roughshod over decisions made in the Chamber of the House of Commons? Does it not make a charade of the proceedings when we are told that--as the Foreign Secretary said in a radio interview--regardless of the decisions of the House, the Government will verify or ratify the Maastricht treaty only as it was when the Government agreed to it? What is the purpose of the weeks and weeks of deliberations in the Chamber and elsewhere if no effective change can be made?

If the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that he apparently does of amendment No. 27, which I tabled on behalf of the Labour party and which we shall certainly continue to press to a vote, why has he reiterated this afternoon the Government's determination to oppose it? What is the purpose of opposing it if, as he says, it makes no difference to the final outcome of events?

The truth is--and the right hon. Gentleman knows it--that our European partners would be pleased to see this country endorsing the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty, as they have done themselves. Today's statement reiterates the briefing heavily given on Friday to the effect that the Government would use the royal prerogative to ignore Parliament. The statement has the same message and the same impact as that briefing. The BBC said today that a Foreign Office official was now describing that briefing as mischievous nonsense. If it was, why did the Government indulge in the briefing in the first place--as they clearly did just a few days ago?

Amendment No. 27 was tabled on 30 May 1992, almost a year ago. The Government have wriggled, produced one explanation after another, and finally come to today's further explanation of why it is necessary to oppose the amendment and of what the legal consequences will be if it is not opposed or defeated. We had no confidence in the first Government position ; we had no confidence in the position as explained by the right hon. Member for Watford ; and we have no confidence in the statement by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon.

Mr. Hurd : I shall take the hon. Gentleman's points in sequence. I had intended to make a statement today, having received the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General last Thursday--I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

There is no question of riding roughshod over the will of the House. If the House, against the Government's

Column 30

advice, carried amendment No. 27, that would be the decision of the House, and it would mean, perforce, that the protocol that we are discussing would not be incorporated in the domestic law of this country. That would be a pity, because it is desirable that it should be, for the sake of completeness and tidiness. But for the reasons that I have given, on the advice of the Law Officers, it is not essential.

This leads to a crucial point. The House will be aware that the purpose of the Bill which, as you rightly said, Madam Speaker, is before a Committee of the House is to make United Kingdom law compatible with the union treaty. Two types of amendment can be and are being moved to it. Any amendment that would render United Kingdom law incompatible with the treaty would have the effect of making it impossible for the treaty to be ratified. Thus, from the Government's point of view, it is necessary for such amendments to be defeated. Other amendments, while we may oppose them as undesirable, do not render United Kingdom law incompatible with the terms of the treaty. Another amendment that can be cited in this respect is the one about membership of the Committee of the Regions. We can argue about that and reach a decision on it ; we can in either event ratify the treaty. Although the Government would seek to oppose that class of amendment, it would not, if carried, have any implications for ratification. The advice of the Law Officers is that amendment No. 27 falls into this latter category.

Now that he has said his piece, I think that the hon. Member for Copeland would probably accept the background as follows. The aim of his amendment, which, as he says, has been around for a long time, was to make it impossible for the Government to ratify the treaty in its present form and so, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, to bring about an intergovernmental conference at which we, the Government, would have to choose between accepting the social chapter and abandoning the treaty--that was the hon. Gentleman's declared aim. That, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase of 20 January, was the predicament in which he prides himself on seeking to place us. But his amendment does not achieve that aim, for the reasons that I have just given ; it does not have that effect. We made that clear at the earliest practical opportunity after my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made it clear to me.

May I say something about the hon. Gentleman's main point, which must have been drafted before he heard what I had to say? There is no question of the decision about the Bill, and therefore about ratification, being made anywhere except in this House or in the other place. After thorough discussion, this House will decide whether to pass the Bill. If there is no Bill, there is no ratification of the treaty ; and that is what parliamentary sovereignty means.

Mr. David Howell (Guildford) : Is not the position that Parliament makes laws and the Executive have the authority to make treaties? Is not the position that, as long as this Parliament enacts all the legal provisions that flow from the Maastricht treaty, and as long as Parliament approves the treaty in principle, as the House did on Second Reading, the Government are free to ratify the treaty? What steps will my right hon. Friend take to get that simple point into the mind of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?

Column 31

Mr. Hurd : As my right hon. Friend says, ratification of the treaty is a matter for the Executive, but it is our practice, and must be our practice, not to ratify a treaty until Parliament has approved such changes in our domestic law as flow from the obligations of the treaty. That is why the Bill has been introduced before we ratify and why the Bill needs to be passed before we ratify.

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : Is not the simple point that where there is a political will there is a legal way? Will the Foreign Secretary now tell us, quite directly, whether, if he had not received this new and convenient legal advice, he and the Government would have been prepared to jeopardise the treaty, irrespective of the damage that would be done in Europe, rather than accept the social chapter, irrespective of what Parliament said?

Mr. Hurd : The hon. Gentleman knows, because he and I have discussed this across the Floor on several occasions and personally, of the very strong objections in terms of jobs and economic growth that every Conservative Member feels to the social chapter and its consequences for this country. The question in the form that he puts it does not arise.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the real reason for all this confusion, chaos and mess is that the Maastricht treaty is riddled with contradictions and, furthermore, that the arrangements that he has just described will not alter that position? Does he agree that the time has come to ensure that this treaty goes in the dustbin of history?

Mr. Hurd : I give a general answer to my hon. Friend's general point. The world is in substantial turmoil, both economic and political. The destruction of the treaty of Maastricht would add substantially to that turmoil. It would frustrate much of what we are trying to do, and if we were held responsible it would substantially reduce our say on matters of vital concern to us in Europe and the world.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, far from reassuring the House about the Government's use of the royal prerogative, he has confirmed it? The treaty was signed by the royal prerogative. The royal prerogative--the right to control a Bill--allowed the Bill to be drafted in such a way as to make the amendments meaningless. The right hon. Gentleman says that if amendment No. 27 were made it would have no meaning. Why? Because the Bill and the long title were drafted in that way. Is it not a fact that the whole problem about Maastricht is that all laws made under Maastricht thereafter will be made by the royal prerogative? If the House passes that Bill and the treaty is ratified, the legislative competence of the Council of Ministers in Brussels will get wider and wider, and that affects the domestic rights of the electorate and of the House. That is why the British people should have a say and why Parliament should have the right to amend the Bill in a meaningful way before it is put to the House. He has made the issue much clearer in his answer today.

Mr. Hurd : The right hon. Gentleman is making his usual case against the treaty of Rome and the European Communities Act 1972. Of course they affected the situation, but the constitutional position remains as I set it

Column 32

out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). Ratification of the treaty is an executive matter, but the Executive does not and cannot act unless and until Parliament has approved the necessary changes in domestic law. There is nothing new about that principle, although the right hon. Gentleman may wish to change it. The treaty of Maastricht involves no new principles.

Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there was never any intention to bypass Parliament in order to ratify the treaty? Will he also show some sympathy to those opponents of the Bill who have been prepared to vote in favour of the social contract, which every one of my right hon. and hon. Friends opposes, and even deprive them of their preparedness to vote for the proposition that the moon is made of blue cheese?

Mr. Hurd : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The political truth is surely that there is a majority in the House--that is demonstrated over and over again--in favour of ratification of the treaty. I believe that there is a majority against the social chapter. But the voting on amendment No. 27 is not central to either issue.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, if what he said today is correct, what the Minister of State said on 20 and 27 January on advice from the Law Officers was wrong? Would it not be a good thing for Law Officers to attend the Committee?

In respect of the prerogative, while it is true that certain titles of the treaty are subject to debate in the House and are part of the Bill, does the Foreign Secretary agree that titles I, V, VI and VII are not? Would it not be possible--indeed, is it not his intention--to ratify those titles by the prerogative? If he were really concerned with parliamentary democracy, would not the way forward be to print the whole of the treaty as schedules to the Bill so that we could go through it as we go through our domestic legislation?

Mr. Hurd : On the second point--I have heard the hon. Gentleman on that theme before, in Committee--he knows that those titles deal with intergovernmental co-operation. That is one of the characteristics of the treaty of Maastricht, although its critics would not always accept that. There are no obligations here that need incorporation into domestic law, and that is why they are not included in the Bill.

There is a point in the hon. Gentleman's first question, although I should like to correct him on one factual matter. What my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said on 20 and 27 January was said on advice not from the Law Officers but from legal advisers within the Department. In introducing the amendment, the hon. Member for Copeland went astray, and that is why I linked the two in my statement.

There are lessons to be learnt from this. My conclusion, and the error for which I have expressed regret and for which I take responsibility, is that we should have put the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown earlier. If the House wishes further advice on the meaning and effect of the proposed legislation, Law Officers are willing to be present when the Committee stage of the Bill resumes.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : As we were misled on previous occasions, will the Foreign Secretary tell us

Column 33

which Department's legal advisers gave the legal advice? In view of his clear statement, will he agree that it is outrageous, and contrary to the standards of a Conservative Government, that Cabinet Ministers should go on television and say that those voting for the amendment would be voting to apply the social chapter to Britain? In view of the content of the protocol, can he tell us who pays for the social chapter? It seems that the protocol says that we pay only the administrative costs. Could we not clarify these matters before we proceed?

Mr. Hurd : I shall try to do so. The legal advice came from within my Department. Those who are members of the legal profession and others will accept, I believe, that what I am about to say is true. In this sort of situation there are legal considerations on either side of the argument. The question at the end of the day is not whether those views or considerations are valid but which set of considerations is the more important. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in weighing the different considerations, came to the conclusion that I have reported to the House. That answers my hon. Friend's second point.

What my hon. Friend says about costs is accurate. I am advised by the Law Officers that the United Kingdom is obliged under the social protocol to contribute to such administrative costs to the institutions. It is not clear when or whether such costs will arise. If and when they do, I am advised that the likelihood is that they will be a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, as authorised under the 1972 legislation.

Next Section

Home Page