House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Apr 1993

Previous Section

Home Page

Column 424

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Spellar, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Steinberg, Gerry

Stevenson, George

Stott, Roger

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Straw, Jack

Sweeney, Walter

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Tipping, Paddy

Trimble, David

Turner, Dennis

Vaz, Keith

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Walley, Joan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wareing, Robert N

Watson, Mike

Welsh, Andrew

Wicks, Malcolm

Wilkinson, John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Wise, Audrey

Worthington, Tony

Wray, Jimmy

Wright, Dr Tony

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Eric Illsley and

Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Salmond : I can only take that vote as a vote of confidence in my speech. Clearly, hon. Members wanted to hear a great deal more, and could not wait until tomorrow for it. There are some advantages in having one's speech interrupted by the 10 o'clock motion, not least because one can hear the football results, albeit the result of the European Champions cup match was disappointing. [H on. Members :-- "What was the score?"] Unfortunately, Glasgow Rangers are out of the competition. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. Would hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?

Mr. Salmond : I am sure, Mr. Lofthouse, that you will have interpreted the result of that match as a European issue, and agree that it is quite legitimate to mention it. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Salmond : I notice that, when I speak about football scores, hon. Members hang on my every word. I understand that Rangers narrowly failed to qualify for the final of the European Champions cup.

On new clause 49, I had developed the argument that Maastricht was a major constitutional issue which, regardless of what hon. Members believe about the issue, could properly be regarded as major enough to be put to the people in a referendum. However, there are other specific arguments, because it must be clear that we have reached, to use a fashionable word, gridlock on several keys aspects of the Bill.

We are gridlocked because some hon. Members are pro-Maastricht and the social chapter. That belief encompasses the Liberal Democrats and the majority of the Labour party. Some people are pro-Maastricht but against the social chapter. That is the official view of the Conservatives. Some Labour Back Benchers are pro the social chapter but against the Maastricht treaty, and some people are against both.

Column 425

That gridlocked combination of forces means that we are guaranteed no meaningful parliamentary vote on the critical subject of the social chapter. Therefore, the social chapter should also be put to the people in a consultative referendum. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendment (a) to new clause 49. If rationale and logic have anything to do with the process of votes in the Committee, that should be an important development.

It has already been noted that the outcome of tonight's vote is in the hands of the Labour party. The arithmetic shows that, if Labour Members are united in voting for a referendum, the Government will lose the vote on new clause 49 by about 30 votes. Therefore, the matter is entirely in the hands of Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen. Last Friday, 16 April, Labour's spokesman on Europe, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), wrote to me outlining his reasons for voting against a referendum on Maastricht. The letter states :

"The Labour Party has made it clear on a number of occasions that it will oppose a Refendum on Maastricht for one principal and very good reason. A Referendum would involve a Yes/No question on the Maastricht Treaty. The Maastricht Treaty provides for an opt out from the Social Chapter for the United Kingdom alone. A Yes/No question on the Maastricht Treaty would therefore not provide any opportunity for a reservation to be put forward in relation to the Social Chapter." That was the

"one principal and very good reason"

for Labour not wishing to support the new clause on a referendum. I put it to those on the Labour Front Bench that the difficulty can be reasonably resolved if they support amendment (a). If that is the one, principal and very good reason for not supporting the referendum new clause, that difficulty can be resolved and, hopefully, there can be some reconsideration.

Earlier on in the debate, the right hon. Member for Copeland--I nearly said for Sellafield--(Dr. Cunningham) argued that this was not the appropriate way forward, because the Labour party would be trusting the anti-Maastricht Conservative forces to vote the social chapter amendment on to the new clause. That argument displays a surprising ignorance of the procedures of the House of Commons. All of us are familiar with "Erskine May", because we have looked at it from time to time. It shows that the procedures of the House of Commons are quite simple. If new clause 49 were to be carried, the Chairman of Ways and Means would take a decision as to whether to call a Division on amendment (a). Whether or not that amendment were voted on, and whether or not that vote were in favour, there would be a further vote and a decision on whether to incorporate new clause 49, amended or unamended, into the body of the treaty.

The danger that the right hon. Member for Copeland foresaw--that the Opposition could be conned into voting for a referendum and then find that they would have a referendum with no reference to the social chapter--is not a real danger. On the second vote on new clause 49, they could simply switch position if there were not support elsewhere for the amendment to incorporate a second question into new clause 49 to cover the social chapter. The Opposition Front-Bench team have nothing to fear about proceeding to a positive vote for a referendum and

Column 426

putting us in the position of having the only real opportunity to make a decisive vote in favour of the social chapter that will be allowed to us.

On the same day that the hon. Member for Hamilton wrote to me explaining the Labour party's fears, I tabled amendment (a) in an attempt to solve that difficulty. However, in The Scotsman on Friday, I found that the hon. Member for Hamilton had decided that the amendments had no chance of being debated or accepted. We are debating them, and I am grateful that the Chairman of Ways and Means decides those matters and not the hon. Member for Hamilton. I hope that he will have a quick confab with his colleagues on the Front Bench and decide, in this new situation, whether the Labour party can support new clause 49, and then go on to vote for amendment (a), which would include a question on the social chapter in the referendum. Then, if we are let down by the anti-Maastricht Tories--I am sure that we would not be, given the expression of interest that I am seeing there--the Labour party can reverse its vote.

I was disappointed by another part of the article in The Scotsman. The hon. Member for Hamilton said that the SNP campaign for a referendum was "belated and last-minute". I find that surprising, because, between 2 October last year and 13 April this year, I have written no fewer than four times to the leader of the Labour party arguing the case for the referendum new clause. I have had no reply to my letters.

I can think of only one other issue in Scottish politics where the Leader of the Labour party--normally a courteous man--is as reticent. I will not develop the argument about local council affairs on Monklands district council. I find it surprising that, given that the leader of the Labour party has not answered four letters over that period, I can be told that this is a belated--

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : That is wrong.

Mr. Salmond : I have the four letters here, and I am willing to make them available in the Library, or to the hon. Gentleman. It is surprising that, having argued consistently over that period, I should be told that this is a belated and last-minute campaign. It most certainly is not.

I have reasonable hopes that the leader of the Labour party might be interested in the referendum new clause. It is not something that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has consistently opposed throughout his political career. On the contrary, he has been on record several times arguing in favour of the referendum as a legitimate device in constitutional politics.

For example, there is the "Bulletin of Scottish Politics" of spring 1981. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was being questioned on a Scottish referendum on devolution, when he said :

"I think another referendum (on devolution) is inevitable. Without one, there is no hope of getting any significant constitutional change through Parliament in a reasonable timescale. Also, given that we had to concede it once--albeit for tactical reasons--it would be difficult or impossible to refuse it on another occasion. I would add that this principle seems to apply in the case of the Common Market too. We have now definitely made referenda part of the constitutional equipment, and we have to stick by that."

Column 427

10.30 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor : Even if the initiative taken by the Scottish National party was belated, pathetic and cynical, which some, rightly or wrongly, have said, will the hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear to the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench and to all Opposition Back-Bench Members, and to their trade union friends with whom they are associated, that if they really wanted to they could secure their wonderful social chapter tonight?

Mr. Salmond : The hon. Gentleman's words speak for themselves. As I have said, the Labour party does not have to trust the hon. Gentleman to vote for the social chapter in the form of amendment (a) to the new clause. If he did not, and the amendment was not agreed to following a Division, the Opposition would have the backstop option of not pressing new clause 49 in a subsequent Division. The Labour party is in a no-lose position if it is prepared to vote for new clause 49.

We hope for conversion in the next couple of hours or so. I hope that all Labour Members who are being urged to go home by the Opposition Whips so that only the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench are present for the embarrassment later this evening will be called back now that new arguments are being advanced. We live in hope that the arguments will have some importance in our proceedings as they are developed. We may--who knows?-- have a chance later in our proceedings to develop the arguments further. There may be more time for the hon. Member for Hamilton to change his mind.

Mr. George Robertson : Many months ago, the hon. Gentleman tabled new clause 48, which states :

"This Act shall not come into force until the House of Commons has expressed a view of the desirability of a referendum in each component nation of the United Kingdom with respect to the commencement of this Act."

hursday, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) tabled an amendment to that new clause, in which he urged that there should bea specific question on the social chapter. How is it that, for abouteight months, the new clause did not refer to the social chapter? Itseems that the SNP has recently discovered the social chapter and isintent on making a great deal of it. Its position has changed since Thursday. Mr. Salmond : The hon. Gentleman should refer to his correspondence. On 16 April, he wrote to me and specified that there was

"one principal and very good reason"

for the Labour party not backing the referendum amendment or new clause. He believed, wrongly as it turned out--

Mr. Robertson : That is not the position.

Mr. Salmond : Presumably the hon. Gentleman has control over what he writes. He wrote that there was

"one principal and very good reason,

but perhaps I was wrong to take him by such words. On 16 April, however, the hon. Gentleman--presumably he was speaking for the Labour party-- identified his belief that it would not be possible to develop the social chapter argument as part of the referendum argument as the

"principal and very good reason"

for the Labour party not supporting the new clause on the referendum.

Column 428

In our desire to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friends and I amended our new clause on the referendum. He must know that last week I had no way of knowing--presumably he had not- -which new clause on a referendum would be accepted, so I took the precaution of amending all five. We now know, of course, that No. 49 was accepted. [Interruption,] The hon. Member for Hamilton says, from a sedentary position, that there are other reasons for Labour's not being prepared to support the new clause on the referendum. It is a pity that he did not mention them to me last week, but never mind. Let us consider what some of those "other reasons" might be.

I have heard other Labour Members say that a party conference decision last year must be respected. I read the speech made at the conference by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) ; I remember it well, as a speech that was judged in relation to the particular time at which it was made. It was a very good speech. In particular, the right hon. Gentleman argued that the Maastricht Bill had perhaps been fatally wounded by the Danish referendum. He said that there was no way of knowing whether it would return to the Floor of the House. He asked why the Labour party should split itself internally over something that might never arise. Unfortunately, that argument has been overtaken by events ; the question has now arisen, and it cannot be dodged.

At that time, the right hon. Member for Gorton had no way of realising that a head-on, meaningful vote on the social chapter would not be allowed during the passage of the Maastricht Bill. That surprised many hon. Members, and could not have been foreseen at the time of the Labour party conference.

There is substantial evidence, with the benefit of the information that we now have, that there is a substantial change of mind among large sections of the Labour movement. Already, we have heard how the Scottish Trades Union Congress--composed of exactly the same unions that composed the Trades Union Congress, which also voted, or at least advised, against a referendum last year--today voted overwhelmingly in favour of a referendum on Maastricht. I was not present myself, but I suspect that the arguments in favour of a referendum were similar to the arguments that we should deploy tonight.

The STUC would be frustrated by parliamentary processes not allowing a vote on the social chapter. It would be well aware that, since the general election, the Scottish Labour party has developed a policy on the constitutional question in favour of a referendum in Scotland--in favour, moreover, of a referendum in Scotland with two questions on the paper : exactly the kind of referendum that my hon. Friends and I are suggesting.

Mr. Cash : No doubt one of the STUC's reasons for taking such a position is the fact that it has discovered articles such as that written by James Michie for the National Association of Local Government Officers about the effect that the Maastricht treaty and the proposals for economic and monetary union will have on unemployment. The referendum question is not just a theological or constitutional issue ; it is about whether people will be able to keep their jobs. We only hope--and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will want to suggest--that the TUC and the United Kingdom take the same position, and that the coal miners do the same.

Column 429

Mr. Salmond : I hope that other groups will do so as well. I should have thought, however, that the STUC would be far more influenced by the knowledge that the cause of Europe has been done few favours by our debates. I think that many STUC delegates would think that the argument for Europe would be far better deployed in the country, with more principle and conviction, than it is being deployed in the House of Commons.

The hon. Gentleman will also know of the deep-seated knowledge in Scotland, in particular, of the constitutional principle of popular sovereignty, which is at the heart of the Scottish tradition--although it is not necessarily always at the heart of the tradition in this place.

I think that the STUC will have realised today that the Scottish and European cause would be helped if the argument about the future of Europe were taken to the people of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I am certain that the delegates in Glasgow today hope for a change of mind on the part of Labour Front Benchers, which I--along with many other hon. Members--urge on them this evening. The STUC will be mindful of the importance of defeating the Government in an area that is absolutely central to their legislative programme, with all the consequences that might flow from such a defeat. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) came under pressure for suggesting that he believed that there was some conspiracy about the fact that we are debating such a vital subject at this time of night, with the vote pushed into the wee small hours of the morning. I subscribe to that view. There is something suspicious about this vital debate being timetabled in such a way as to ensure that we go into the Division Lobbies very late in the evening. Many people would prefer the vote to be in the dead of night, as opposed to the full light of day.

I suspect that many of those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench will soon prefer to forget about this evening's proceedings and about the vote that perhaps they will engage in later on. I warn those on the Opposition Front Bench that, although they may prefer to forget the dirty deeds that will be done later this evening, the Scottish National party will make sure that the people of Scotland neither forgive nor forget if they support the Government on this vote.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough) : I have been sitting here since the debate started. What is significant about it is the paucity of reasons why we should not have a referendum.

The speech of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cuave a mandate. However, not a single person during the election campaign ever discussed Maastricht with me ; no one asked about it ; nobody wanted to discuss in on the doorstep ; nobody raised it at public meetings. Therefore, it seems to me to be something of a fraud to say that the general election campaign settled the Maastricht treaty issue.

Another point that has been put forward was referred to by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). He intimated that it had been suggested that the public would not understand--that the issues were too complicated. My answer to that is that when we ask people to vote in a general election we ask for a pretty simple decision but

Column 430

what goes into the decision that they take can be very complicated indeed. Many people, for example, like so much of the Labour party's manifesto, so much of the Conservative party's manifesto, and even some of the Liberals'. They take those complicated issues and translate them into one decision. I see no reason why a referendum should not be subjected to exactly the same procedure.

Another point that has been raised is that Parliament has already decided and we do not need a referendum--the decision has already been taken. My view has been heavily influenced by my membership of the Council of Europe. I have discovered that there are two versions of the Maastricht treaty. There is the version that is sold in this country. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sincerely believes in what he says and sincerely thinks that the promises he has made can be honoured, but when one talks to continental colleagues one hears about a totally different version.

Mr. Budgen : The Foreign Secretary has a wonderful way of dealing with this. He says that they have rather elaborate language, by which he means that we ought to disregard the language when it seems inconsistent with the gloss that the Government put on the treaty.

Mr. Fry : I am grateful for that intervention because I had the privilege of listening to Chancellor Kohl at the latest session of the Council of Europe. He received tremendous applause for claiming that the train to European unity was on the move. What worried me was that not only was the train on the move but he was the driver, and I suspect that he had put down the lines in advance so he knew exactly what the destination would be.

10.45 pm

It is important that the people of this country realise that, no matter how honest the Government's intent, the vast majority of the Community see things very differently and want to interpret the treaty in its exact form. They will not later accept arguments that this or that does not matter.

It is also argued that holding a referendum is not the British way. I respect the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), but there have been referendums and we are now dealing with matters of great constitutional significance. I argue that the handing over of power under the treaty is more substantial than some of the reasons for having had referendums in the past.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : Is there not a fundamental difference between asking people whether they want pubs open on a Sunday or whether they want devolution, which is wholly within the Government's competence, and asking people to give a view on a package deal, a treaty which has been negotiated with our partners?

Mr. Fry : My response is exactly what I said earlier. Yes, it is a complicated issue, but let us not insult the intelligence of the British electorate. We are jolly glad when they elect us to this place, so it is right to give them the opportunity to express their views on such a complicated issue.

Next Section

Home Page