| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Newton : Is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) offering? I will bring the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Can we have a full day's debate split into two parts--one on Members' interests and the other on procedure? Was the Leader of the House being serious when, in reply to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) the other day, he suggested that the Select Committee on Procedure should reconsider the whole question of tabling questions effectively to reopen the door to syndicates? Will he condemn the syndicating of questions and thereby close the door once again on matters of principle?
Mr. Newton : I note the first part of the hon. Gentleman's request. He well knows that I am continuing to look for progress in respect of Members' interests. I think that the prospects may be improving at present.
I do not understand the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. My recollection of the exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay is that it related to the amount of time allowed before the cut-off--it used to be four o'clock, and is now five o'clock--which my hon. Friend appeared to be seeking to have
Column 522
further extended. That is my recollection. I certainly did not have in mind any question of returning to rules which would make syndication easier.Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : The House will be reassured by the Prime Minister's commitment to the abolition of unnecessary regulations, especially as they affect many of the 3 million small businesses in the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend find time soon for the House to have a debate on deregulation, especially as it affects matters such as the new regulations on abattoirs, which are causing many small abattoir owners to face bills of £20,000 and £30, 000, and the beer regulations which will impose massive costs on pubs throughout the country--
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must complete his question.
Mr. Evans : Yes, Madam Speaker. The beer regulations will also impose massive costs on hotels and small restaurants.
Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will be aware--indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to it not so many minutes ago--of the substantial drive which is going on throughout Government in respect of deregulation. I have no doubt that opportunities for debate will arise in due course. While I cannot promise them next week, I can draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture will be here answering questions on Thursday 29 April. He has the responsibility for abattoirs.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : Will the Leader of the House nudge the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), to take note of early-day motion 1818 signed by me and 10 other Members of Parliament?
[That this House is appalled by the violation of the basic human rights of Alan and Paul Sell of Cardiff and Jamie Humphries of Bridgend in the failure of the Spanish judicial authorities, having arrested them at Calella near Barcelona on 30th May 1991 and imprisoned them ever since, to bring them to trial ; and calls on the Foreign Secretary to press the Spanish authorities to ensure that there are no futher delays in bringing this matter to trial, now that 5th May has been set as the date, following the aborting on the day of the trial of the two previous trials arranged in November 1992, and March 1993, since this entire long drawn out legal case has already amply proved the truth of the age-old maxim that justice delayed is justice denied.]
It refers to the imprisonment without trial of my constituents Alan and Paul Sell and the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) Jamie Humphries in the youth prison in Barcelona. They will have been imprisoned without trial for two years on 30 May.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on how he intends to draw the attention of the Spanish authorities in Britain to the strength of feeling in south Wales that justice delayed to those three young men from south Wales is justice denied, and a gross violation of human rights?
Mr. Newton : The House will well understand the anxiety that has led the hon. Gentleman to raise that point. Happily, as he observed, those to whom his question was
Column 523
directed are here to listen to it. I am sure that they will respond appropriately. The Government as a whole well understand the anxiety expressed in his motion. We hope that the trial will go ahead on 5 May. If it does not, we shall consider with the lawyers of the defendants what action is in their best interests.Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : I support the calls today for a debate on foreign trade, which is so necessary to the opportunities for Britain. During that debate, could we highlight the rapid growth of many of the economies of Latin America, which qualifies those countries for the introduction or extension of the Export Credits Guarantee Department limits, and above all the importance of our diplomatic missions overseas and the support which they give to our traders?
Mr. Newton : I join my hon. Friend, especially in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in what I take to be a tribute to the increasingly valuable work done by many of our Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials in many countries throughout the world. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will also have noted the other parts of my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) : When the Leader of the House discusses with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for a statement on the West Midlands regional health authority, will he draw to her attention the urgency of the case, and stress that millions of pounds of public money is being wasted and that the obligation of district health authorities remains? Top executives have been awarded golden handshakes running into thousands of pounds--
Madam Speaker : Order. These are questions about next week's business. All hon. Members should put their question briskly and pointedly to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Burden : I am sorry. During the statement next week which I hope that the Leader of the House will press the Secretary of State for Health to make, will he also draw it to her attention that the reports considered by the Public Accounts Committee were different from those distributed to the public? If the Government are to retain any credibility, we need a statement on the matter next week.
Mr. Newton : Will that do, Madam Speaker? I must make it clear that I did not undertake to ensure that a statement was made next week. I observed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would be here on Tuesday 4 May to answer questions. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), I will bring the points about West Midlands regional health authority to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : Many of us are worried that, if the United Kingdom became involved in air attacks on any of the combatants in Bosnia, our troops from the Cheshire Regiment and Royal Irish Regiment would be put at risk. Can the Leader of the House assure us that we shall have a full debate next Thursday on Bosnia before the United Kingdom commits itself to any attacks in Bosnia?
Column 524
Mr. Newton : The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that any Government in such circumstances must reserve the right to take judgments according to those circumstances. However, part of the purpose of having a debate is to allow the House to express its views before too many more developments have occurred.
Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) : I am sure that, when the Leader of the House turned the tap on for his bath this morning, water came out. He will recognise that that puts him in a much better position than the thousands of people who have been disconnected from their supply by the privatised water companies. I am sure that that will make him sympathetic to my call for a statement next week about the growing number of water disconnections.
The Southern water company in my area has made a record number of disconnections. It is disconnecting families with young children, elderly people and people suffering from chronic diseases. The House must have an opportunity to debate that scandal and to call for the prosecution of directors of water companies where disconnection leads to ill health.
Mr. Newton : The right course is for me to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the presence here next Wednesday of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North) : Bearing in mind the revelation this morning by the Newbury Green party that the headquarters of Blue Circle Cement was built on the site of a former privately owned nuclear reactor, that Blue Circle Cement intends to vacate the premises because nuclear contamination has been recorded on the site, and that this is the first occasion when a decommissioned site has been restored to use which is open to the public, will the Leader of the House make time available in the near future for a debate on that bizarre and disturbing state of affairs?
Mr. Newton : I cannot undertake to find time for a debate, but I can undertake to bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of the appropriate Minister.
Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South) : Will the Leader of the House tell us when we may have a debate on opencasting? The recent debate on coal properly focused on mine closures. Opencast was a second area where there was considerable difference between the recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and the proposals in the report.
Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to refer to the debate that we had not so long ago covering the whole range of these matters. Clearly, points relating to opencast would have been within the scope of that debate. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not get an opportunity to raise them. I cannot promise that it would be possible to have a further debate on an early occasion.
Mrs. Barbara Roche (Hornsey and Wood Green) : May I urge the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on priorities in local government spending, given the recent report that Enfield council is closing children's playgrounds while at the same time refurbishing its council chamber?
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Why was the hon. Lady not here on Friday?
Column 525
Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend helpfully makes a point that perhaps I ought to have thought of earlier in relation to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight). It is only about a week since a Friday debate was devoted to local government matters. My understanding was that the usual channels on both sides of the House had difficulty finding enough hon. Members to speak in it.
Column 526
Point of Order
4.17 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I bring to your attention the remarks made earlier by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), during his support for integrated education in Northern Ireland? His remarks cast a slur on every Northern Ireland Member present who was educated at a Roman Catholic maintained school or a state school in Northern Ireland. I ask you to examine those remarks. In the event that the hon. Gentleman does not concede that he was suggesting that each of us is a loud-mouthed bigot, will you ask him to withdraw the remark?
Madam Speaker : Is the hon. Member referring to the Minister?
Mr. Beggs : No, the hon. Member for Hendon, South.
Madam Speaker : Does the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) want to make a comment? I will let him make it on a point of order, if he wishes.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. Nothing in what I said was meant to be a slur on individual Members. I am sorry that certain hon. Members may have taken it as such, because it was not intended in that way.
Madam Speaker : I think the matter is ended.
Column 527
Orders of the Day
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Considered in Committee [Progress, 21 April]
[Mr. Michael Morris
in the Chair ]
New clause 74
Commencement (Protocol on Social Policy)
This Act shall come into force only when the House of Commons has come to a Resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown considering the question of adopting the Protocol on Social Policy.'.-- [Mr. George Robertson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
4.19 pm
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : With this it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 75-- Transferred Powers (Commencement)--
No power transferred by this Act from the United Kingdom to European institutions shall be so transferred unless and until the House of Commons has had an opportunity to vote on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown relating to the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.
Mr. Robertson : I understand that, although they have not yet said so, the Government intend to accept the new clause. That is interesting. It is not a concession, but a surrender. It is an admission by the Government that they have no majority and no authority on this issue and that they face defeat in Committee. Rather than face that defeat honourably, they have simply said that it does not matter.
I intend to consider the new clause in detail and to explain to the Committee and the sceptics perched on the Back Benches precisely what its effect will be and precisely how it will place them on the spot--on the horns of their ultimate dilemma.
This is a new debate, but it is hardly a new subject.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson : I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in time.
Sir Teddy Taylor : Will he give way just once?
Sir Teddy Taylor : I promise that this will be my one intervention. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how there is a dilemma over new clause 74 when the Government have already said that, whether we vote for or against it or chuck it out of the window, they will leave us in the treaty? What is the point of it?
Mr. Robertson : To believe the hon. Gentleman when he says that he intends to intervene "just once" is like listening to the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and accepting that his is the authoritative view of the Government.
Column 528
I shall tell the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) precisely why new clause 74 is the ticking bomb. I hope that he will listen with great care to my conclusions, because he is wrong. He will be on the spot and I will watch him to see what he does. This is hardly a new subject, but it is vital. The social chapter, the agreement attached to the protocol on social policy, is important to the fate of Britain and Europe. It should not be judged simply in the context of the treaty. It is important because it illustrates perhaps more graphically than any other issue the awesome gap that stands between the Government's vision and ambition for Britain and for Europe and that of all the other European Community countries. The Tory party's lonely vision of Europe is of a marketplace alone and its myopic ambition is to dominate it by low wages, low standards and down-market, service-based activities. The market exclusively will matter to the Tory party. Commerce will count, money will rule and people will be kept in their place--at the bottom of the rights league.Every country in Europe has woken up to the reality of the modern world-- the terrifying competition to Europe and to Britain from the far east, Japan and even a dynamic and growing United States. All our European colleagues have embraced the philosophy of quality, skills, high standards and up-market, high value-added production. They see that as their only salvation in the new world. They look on in dismay and with disbelief at our Government making a virtue out of competing at the bottom, at the lowest level of any market.
We are fortunate that British business is increasingly rejecting that suicidal ambition and is looking for, and can now find, an alternative, practical set of policies from the Labour party to take the country into a winning and not a sinking position in Europe and the world markets.
This debate is about a totem, not a policy. The objection of the British Government to the social chapter is about Tory party unity and is not about the British national interest. In the Tory party, the conflict between national interest and Tory party unity has always been resolved by putting the British national interest second to the priority of keeping the whole shambles together.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On the Labour side, there is absolutely no difference of view between the occupants of the Front Bench and critics over the social policy. If we are to have the treaty--I despise it and do not want it--we might as well have it with the social chapter.
Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever gains--there will be some, but not many--working people get from the social chapter, they will be offset by provisions such as article 104c, which will lead to much more deflation and unemployment, so that many people now in work may be out of work? When one is set against the other--the social chapter against article 104c and the rest--I do not see much gain for the people of Britain as a result of having the treaty.
Mr. Robertson : The fact that I do not agree will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend or the House. He has not persuaded his party colleagues, at national executive or party conference level, of his view. Although he is entitled to that view, it must be placed in that context.
Much was made in the debate last night of the decision of the Scottish TUC yesterday in favour of a referendum.
Column 529
Much less was made--indeed, hon. Members were silent on the subject--of the substantive vote on Maastricht at the STUC yesterday when, by an overwhelming majority, a motion critical of the treaty was thrown out. That important fact should be on the record.Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Some on the Conservative Benches are mystified about why Labour Members get so worked up about the social chapter and the opt-out. Supposing the Government changed their mind and signed up. That would mean that when the Europeans were trying to do all manner of daft things through the social chapter and protocol, British Ministers would be there and might be able to prevent them from doing those things. Because of our not being there, those things will happen and, through other routes in the treaty, will be imposed on the United Kingdom. So perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) should not be proposing the new clause but should leave matters as they are. The Government will then have social issues forced on them through the treaty, whereas if they are in the thick of things arguing the case, they will be in a position to oppose what is being proposed.
Mr. Robertson : For once in his life, the hon. Gentleman is ingenious, though not correct, in arguing the point. I have heard from Conservative Members the argument that matters will be forced on us, so we should not make a fuss about them. New clause 74 will give the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and his hon. Friends a chance to vote on the social protocol and become part of the process by which members of the Government--not the Minister of State, because he will be abandoning the sinking ship once this is over--will be in there fighting for their corner and perhaps be able to do something about the bits of legislation about which we are speaking. Having provided the hon. Member for Northampton, North with that chance, I look forward, at the appropriate time, to being in the same Lobby with him. His ingenuity will then be confirmed and his wisdom will be on display.
Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : I have a totally uningenious but better question for the hon. Gentleman ; why are the Government making such a fuss about the social chapter?
Mr. Robertson : That is an extremely good question. The answer is as I explained--that it is a totem, an ideological figleaf designed in vain to keep the Tory party together. It has nothing to do with substance. The other European countries--irrespective of complexion, left wing, right wing or middle of the road--all think that the British Government are completely crazy to be making such an issue out of the social chapter. They think that it is plain, reasonable, uncontroversial, simple, straightforward and makes sense in the context of building the single European market. Therefore, the answer to the question can only be, and is, that the Government are fixated by the social chapter as a means--not a very successful one--of keeping the Conservative party together.
This is a new debate for which we are profoundly grateful to you, Mr. Morris, because the subject was debated before. As a debate, it is complementary to, but not a substitute for, the debate on 28 January which was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, targeted on amendment No. 27. In the same way, new clause 74 is complementary to, but
Column 530
certainly not an alternative to, amendment No. 74--sorry, amendment No. 27--and what it means. I have always wondered whether, if we added the numbers together, we would arrive at a magical figure ; perhaps someone will do that.4.30 pm
I shall outline the differences between amendment No. 27 and new clause 74. My contention is that, although they use entirely different means, they are both designed to achieve the same ultimate objective on behalf of the British people : the accession of the United Kingdom to the social chapter- -the agreement attached to the social protocol of the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said about the fact that we must have not just a business man's Europe, but a social Europe, a social dimension and a social chapter. Am I right in thinking that, as a result, my hon. Friend will be unable to vote for the Bill's Third Reading without the social chapter ?
Mr. Robertson : As my hon. Friend knows, I am not in a position to announce a decision on that, because we will not be making a decision on it, yet my hon. Friend should bear in mind that if, by some means, the House chose to wreck the treaty or stop the process of the ratification of the treaty throughout the Community, the social chapter would die, not just for Britain--which t for the Committee to understand the new clause and the fact that the Government, in a generous surrender, have allowed us to avoid voting on it. Amendment No. 27 will remove the protocol on social policy-- with the agreement attached to it--from the Bill and, ultimately, from the Act. Therefore, it would remove the protocol from United Kingdom domestic law. The Attorney-General and his mouthpiece on that occasion, the Foreign Secretary, came to the House and said, "So what, if it takes the protocol out of British law ? It is a double negative and we are not part of it anyway". With a wave of an expensive legal hand, we are told that the treaty can be ratified, the Bill can be enacted and Parliament can be ignored. They said that amendment No. 27 had no legal consequences as we could still ratify the treaty through the royal prerogative, and Parliament's clear voice was not significant. With one flick of the monarch's pen, Parliament was confined to a mere talking shop. But the Attorney-General still said that he wanted to defeat amendment No. 27 and the Foreign Secretary said that he still did not want amendment No. 27. They said that they still did not want it for the sake of neatness and tidiness, and asked us to believe that. We do not.
The reasons of the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary have nothing to do with neatness and tidiness, but involve something much more substantial. They still appear to be terrified by amendment No. 27, which mesmerises them. They are relieved each time that it temporarily disappears beneath the waves. They are uneasy each time it rises out of the waves again. Why is that ? We know that it is because if the protocol on social policy is taken out of United Kingdom law, they will lose the authority that that protocol gives for the 11 countries of the Community to go ahead and use all the institutions
Column 531
of the Community--the Commission, the Council, the Parliament--which will continue to be paid for by British taxpayers collectively and by the other taxpayers of Europe, to make law that will apply to only 11 Community countries, not 12.The Attorney-General says that that does not matter : it is outwith the treaty, like the common foreign security policy and the home affairs and justice policy. That is what we are being led to believe, but it is not true. If that permission is not enshrined in British domestic law, the Government of this country will be in a real legal stew, in a limbo of litigation and potential litigation in the courts of this country and in the courts in Strasbourg as well.
It is our belief--this is why we are interested in amendment No. 27, insist on it and are confident that it will be debated on Report--that one of the consequences of that legal mish-mash could be that the European Court of Justice or the courts of this country will say that, even without the protocol being enshrined in British legislation, it is impossible for the legislation coming out of the agreement attached to the protocol to apply only to 11 countries in the Community ; it must apply to all 12 and, as a consequence of that, the people of this country will enjoy the legislation that arises from the social chapter and the rights and protection of the social chapter.
That is why we believe that amendment No. 27 is important, different and must be debated and decided upon by the House.
Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South) : I have been listening very carefully indeed to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I understand the logic of what he says, but, if all that is true, why did Her Majesty's Opposition put down these extra new clauses that we are debating, which, leaving aside a whole lot of arguments, at the very least have confused the issue of amendment No. 27? At the least, they opened up the possibility that it would be assumed that these new clauses would be substitutes for amendment No. 27. What was the point? If amendment No. 27 is so important, why not leave it at that?
Mr. Robertson : The hon. Gentleman writes thrillers, and I once read two thirds of one. They are all based on highly convoluted and usually incredible plots. I do not know whether they sell. I do not know whether any other hon. Member has ever read one of them. The right hon. Member for Watford has, of course, because he is part of the same sort of conspiracy theory. He is right in the middle of the spider's web, although unfortunately falling off it at the moment. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) writes these thrillers--although they are not nearly so good, by any manner of means, as the fiction of the Foreign Secretary, which has been reaching very realistic proportions in recent days--and he wants to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy here. Alone among the sceptics even, he holds to that conspiracy theory, which he thumps into me every time we meet in the Tea Room. But he is absolutely, completely and totally wrong, although I do not know how he will ever be persuaded that he is wrong.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Column 532
Mr. Robertson : I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, after I have disposed of the thriller writer.
Amendment No. 27 was tabled when the Labour party believed that it was the only way in which the Committee could deal with the social chapter. But along came two of the most senior Ministers in Her Majesty's Government, the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary, who told us that the outcome of amendment No. 27 did not matter because they were going to ratify the treaty come what may. We were told that the House of Commons could pass comment on amendment No. 27 and could therefore pass comment on the social protocol, but that it was of no consequence. The Government would notify Rome after Third Reading and Royal Assent that the treaty had been ratified and Maastricht was in place.
The BBC, ITN, The Times, The Guardian and The Independent all said that Labour's fox was shot and that Labour's chances of achieving the social chapter had gone. The press believed what it had been authoritatively told by the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary. At no point did we ever lose our faith that the Attorney-General was not telling the whole truth. So we tried to find a complementary way, an additional way, thinking at the time that amendment No. 27 was in the bank. It had, after all, been debated by the House. It stood in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. We had talked about it ; we had said we would move it ; it was in the bank. We looked then for another way to make sure that the people of Britain got the benefits of the social chapter.
Yesterday we had a long debate on the judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means--I have no intention of going over it again. The deputy leader of the Labour party and the shadow Foreign Secretary have made clear why we disagree with the judgment, based as it was on the idea that amendment No. 27 and new clause 75 were alternatives, not absolutely different ways of achieving the same objective. That is how the dilemma has been created. If the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South wants to look for a plot or conspiracy, let him look along the corridor where the Chairman of Ways and Means sits, not at the Opposition Front-Bench team.
I shall tell the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South why new clause 74 is the ticking timebomb that I said it was and how it may blow up under him if he is not careful.
Mr. Michael Spicer : This is rather interesting. The Opposition are saying that they have been the victims, set on a false trail by the Attorney-General. The hon. Gentleman's case today has been logical, but he is also claiming that he went off on a false trail, trying to find other ways of tabling amendments because he had been duped by the Attorney- General--or at least led astray by him.
That is an extraordinary admission by the Opposition. Surely the hon. Gentleman did not need to take advice to know that amendment No. 27 would have the effect that he has described ; otherwise, he would not have tabled it at all. It is extraordinary of the hon. Gentleman to claim that just because the Attorney-General said that amendment No. 27 was useless he had to rush off on a false trail. That is very weak opposition--or perhaps there is an ulterior motive behind all this.
Column 533
4.45 pmMr. Robertson : There is no way in which I can ever persuade people who write mystery novels that the conspiracies they believe in are merely the product of their own tortured minds. There is no conspiracy. The Opposition are trying to get the social chapter for the people of Britain. If the hon. Gentleman wants to wreck Maastricht, he can do that with one amendment that takes out part of the treaty. That would render it impossible to ratify the treaty, so why did he and his hon. Friends table about 500 amendments if not to multiply the chances that one of them would be successful? Perhaps the conspiracy lies here : why are the Conservative rebels using their power so diffusely? Why are they scattering their shot across the spectrum instead of concentrating it forensically on the best chance that they might have of wrecking the treaty? We were just multiplying our chances and using two different ways of approaching the problem.
I do not know what the motives of the Conservative rebels are. They call themselves patriots. They can be described in many different ways. No amount of abuse that I could heap on them could resemble the abuse heaped on them by their fellow Conservatives. Neither do I care about their motives. Sometimes some of them seem to want to embrace the social protocol and chapter, although I know that the hon. Member for Southend, East has as much affection for the social chapter as he has for the "Kama Sutra", but supporting it occasionally seems to suit the rebels. [Interruption.] If there is another answer, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will tell us himself. There is certainly some mystery about how he got his knighthood, but that has nothing to do with the "Kama Sutra". The motives of these Conservatives will have to be defended by them.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) rose--
| Next Section
| Home Page |