| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Budgen : I will give way in a moment. I should be sad if I thought that I had in any way stung my right hon. Friend. He seems to have abandoned his laid-back Spanish attitude and is jumping up and down as though he had been stung. That saddens me. I hope that he will allow me to expand for a moment what I am sure he would describe as my fallacious argument.
Where a court, for the sake of argument, is in a state of being relatively unconstrained by legislation, with a wide discretion, for instance, in fining somebody or deciding what sentence of imprisonment should be imposed, it is--to use my right hon. Friend's words--
"sensitive to the change of mood".
Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) rose
Mr. Budgen : I will give way in a moment. If, for the sake of argument, there has been a large number of burglaries in an area and the mood of the populace in that area is very much opposed to burglaries, it is likely that a court, in its relatively unfettered discretion, will impose on a person who has been found guilty of burglary a higher sentence, but that is not the function of the European Court. The European Court is partly an administrative court and partly a supreme court. It is important to understand that it has a quite different role from that of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity in our constitution.
Mr. Garel-Jones rose --
Mr. Budgen : I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is behaving as badly as I often do. If he could contain himself for a moment, I should like to expand the point.
If, for the sake of argument, the House of Lords is trying to construe a complicated piece of tax legislation under a Finance Act, it considers the law and the precedents, but emphatically it does not take into account, in my right hon. Friend's words,. "the change of mood". It does not say, "We have construed subsection (b) ; we notice that there is a public sector borrowing requirement of £50 billion and that there is a major change of mood that people ought to pay more tax ; therefore, we shall say that the appellant ought to pay tax under subsection (b) ."
Column 555
If the House of Lords did that, it would, in my right hon. Friend's words, be taking account of "the change of mood". That is not the role of a non-political court.6.15 pm
However, if the court is like a supreme court, it moves from being a body which merely interprets the law narrowly into something approaching a law- making body. Once it becomes a law-making body, it can be properly stigmatised as a political court. What my right hon. Friend is admitting is that the European Court has a law-making role. He is rather approving of its law-making role. In his opinion, its mood is moving towards recognition of the rights of the nation states. If it is a law-making body which is responsive to mood change, it might just as well move back into a law- making mode of a federalist nature.
Now I will give way to anybody.
Mr. Quentin Davies : My hon. Friend referred to courts unconstrained by legislation. That was the central part of his argument. My hon. Friend is all too familiar with the text of the Maastricht treaty. He will have noticed that one essential feature of the treaty is the principle of subsidiarity. That will constrain, for the first time, decisions of the European Court. The court will not be unconstrained by legislation ; it will take account of the treaty. Once Maastricht is ratified, it will have to take account of the principle of subsidiarity. No change in mood, let alone any political direction, is required. The mere fact of subsidiarity will provide greater protection against Community institutions interfering in our national affairs.
Mr. Budgen : My hon. Friend ought to read the debates on subsidiarity. He is wrong about that. The importance of the subsidiarity element in the treaty is that it will be taken into account politically by the Commission. It does not have the effect of being legally binding.
Mr. Quentin Davies : It is in the treaty.
Mr. Budgen : No. It was put forward initially, mistakenly, as being legally binding upon the court. That is not so. It is a principle which will be taken account of by the Commission.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I assure my hon. Friend that he has not stung me, but I have a natural feeling of trepidation in discussing legal matters with a lawyer of his great distinction. To use the term that no doubt my hon. Friend uses when in court, it would be my respectful submission to the Committee that since my hon. Friend, having quoted me as describing the European Court of Justice as a political court, has now been good enough to read out my words, it is clear that I did not describe the European Court of Justice as a political court. I think that I went on to give three examples of judgments by the European Court in the last 12 months which, to me and, I think, to others, seemed to be more sensitive to the rights of nation states than perhaps has been the case in the past.
Mr. Budgen rose --
The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I inquire how the arguments which he is deploying relate to the new clauses under consideration?
Column 556
Mr. Budgen : Because on all considerations of the treaty, the central power, which will decide the interpretation of anything that we decide to ratify over the treaty, is the court.
It is unusual for us in our constitution to be so concerned about a court. When one has a sovereign Parliament one is relatively uninterested in the occasional ramifications of the courts which may have an effect on what one is deciding. Once one has a written constitution and something above it which is partly an administrative court and partly a supreme court, the role of that court becomes extremely important.
I do not want to be thought to be stung by my right hon. Friend's attempt at sarcasm ; nor will I try to compete with him in sarcasm, but he has raised a serious point. By his admission that the court took into account the changing mood of the Community, he was thereby admitting that it was a political court.
Mr. Garel-Jones : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to intervene again. It is my contention that British courts also respond to changes in public opinion, not just on levels of fines, as my hon. Friend has implied, but through the establishment of substantial precedent. A good recent example of which the Committee will be well aware is marital rape. Previously, the decisions of the British courts had consistently held that a husband could not, as a matter of law, rape his wife. The House of Lords took into account the changes in public perceptions, or the mood, in our country and reversed that view--a decision which many hon. Members and the public regarded as wise. That did not make the House of Lords a political court, but a sensitive one. The European Court of Justice is also a sensitive court, as we would wish it to be.
Mr. Budgen : Sadly, Lord Denning is now retired, but everyone will know that he raised the whole question of what is the role of the courts by many of his judgments. Even he, at what might be described as his most heroic, never suggested that he had a law-making role. He described some of the judgments he gave as being vigorously interpretative, but he would hardly describe himself as having made the law. Under our constitution, Parliament is the place for law to be made.
The decision of our courts on marital rape was an unusually heroic one. It would have been a great deal better, however, if that decision had been made here in Parliament.
Mr. Garel-Jones : That is not a good point.
Mr. Budgen : It is a good point.
The Second Deputy Chairman : It may be a good point, but it is a diversion from the two new clauses that we should be discussing.
Mr. Budgen : I did not want to irritate my right hon. Friend and I certainly do not want to irritate you, Dame Janet, but, none the less, the role of the European Court in interpreting the treaty is absolutely central to our considerations.
My right hon. Friend said that that court was susceptible to a change of mood. Whether he thereby admitted that it was a political court is a matter of interpretation, but, by saying that, he admitted that it was a very, very dangerous court with innovative powers,
Column 557
which were likely, when the change of mood went the other way, to act to the disadvantage of the British nation state. Those comments gave aid and comfort to Mr. Howe and others who say that, in the end, the Community will get us on a single currency and the social chapter.Mr. Hoon : The debate on the social protocol demonstrates the difficulties into which the Government got themselves by opting out of the social chapter. Every other Government in the Community regards it as a necessary vital balancing item in the creation of a European single market. The Governments of the left, right and centre recognise the importance of establishing basic standards of social protection in a single market where capital is free to move from one country to another.
Every other European country recognises the importance of establishing minimum standards instead of trying to drive them down. Every other European country wants to develop the skills and expertise of its wodebate the subject again today.
I support new clause 74, for the drafting of which I was originally responsible. I have borne in mind the scorn that has been heaped upon it during the debate on Britain's opt out for the social chapter. The new clause has been described as a sell-out and a Trojan horse. It even provoked a distinguished political columnist of The Observer, who is in his place above the Chamber, to attack it two weeks running. In effect, new clause 74 led to the discretion exercised by the Chairman of Ways and Means in his selection of amendments. Why has this rather modest proposal attracted so much opposition?
Mr. Marlow : The hon. Gentleman said that the social protocol would do something for the skills and expertise of the work force. Where is that mentioned in the social protocol?
Mr. Hoon : It has always been my view that the higher the standards of social protection, the better developed and better trained the work force will be. They will be able to develop and enjoy more expertise.
New clause 74 has attracted so much opposition because it displaced amendment No. 27 in which so much hope was placed by those who want to see the Maastricht treaty defeated. Those opponents should consider whether they are right to place so much hope in that amendment. It certainly appeared to be significant when the Minister of State bounced up and down and told us that if it were passed it would wreck the treaty. He repeated that assertion on many occasions. It is interesting to note how much more reticent Ministers have been today when expressing their view about the implications of accepting various amendments. Perhaps they have learnt from the right hon. Gentleman's unfortunate experience.
It was precisely because of that unfortunate experience that the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General were wheeled out to give the Government's definitive view about the effect of amendment No. 27. They both said that, whatever the result of a vote, the Government would ignore the amendment. The Foreign Secretary repeated that view today. Even if amendment No. 27 were passed, the Government would still go on to ratify the treaty. Whatever the supporters of amendment No. 27 may say in its favour, they must face up to that fact.
Column 558
Whatever the merits or otherwise of the Attorney-General's legal advice--I have grave reservations about whether it was correct--we must deal with the fact that the Government would ignore amendment No. 27 if it were passed. What does that mean? For the opponents of the Maastricht treaty, certainly those on the Conservative Benches, it means that they would go off to the High Court and challenge the Government's position on legal and constitutional grounds. I would have no objection to such a course of action because I believe that it would be beneficial in clarifying some difficult areas of the law on the constitution. I appreciate why they consider that they have strong grounds for such a course of action. I suspect that they have had strong legal advice saying that the British Government should not ratify an international treaty where their domestic legislation to give effect to the terms of that treaty is at variance with the treaty itself. That is a basic proposition which, until the Attorney-General gave us the benefit of his advice, we were taking for granted.6.30 pm
That would be the case if amendment No. 27 were passed. It would leave the matter of the social protocol in the hands of the courts and judges. That may appeal to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), a distinguished lawyer, but why should such an approach appeal to Labour Members? Why should they want to substitute what is essentially a political decision for a judicial one? Why should that appeal, for example, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Would he trust the judges with the social chapter? That is why it has been important for the Labour party-- indeed, for the whole Opposition--to find other ways to tackle the question of the opt-out. That is why new clause 74 was drafted, and I invite all who still have reservations about that clause to look carefully at its drafting and consider its effects.
Mr. Marlow : The logic of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that he would vote against amendment No. 27. Is that correct?
Mr. Hoon : On the contrary. I said that I would welcome the possibility of the legal and constitutional questions being resolved because, as I said, I have doubts about what the Attorney-General said. So I hope a way can be found to retable amendment No. 27 or something similar to it. I do not see that amendment as being inconsistent with new clauses 74 or 75. After all, new clause 74 says that the measure may come into force only once the Government have tabled a resolution on the protocol on social policy. So the Government would not be in a position to ratify the treaty without having had the debate.
The Government, and particularly the Attorney-General, should consider the fact that there is no specific commencement date in the Bill. In the absence of such a date, a measure generally comes into force on the date of Royal Assent. So it follows that any further debate on the social protocol is likely to occur before Royal Assent. Little turns on that, because that further debate must take place before ratification, since until the measure is in force, the Government will not have the necessary legislative underpinning in the United Kingdom to give effect to the international obligations in the treaty to which they have signed up.
Column 559
The fact that the Government expressed their willingness to accept new clause 74 led some commentators to suggest that the Government would simply table a motion on the protocol forcing their rebels to toe the line or to table a motion that, whatever the outcome, the Government would ignore. Indeed, the distinguished columnist Alan Watkins wrote last Sunday :"The Government can so phrase the motion that even though a vote supporting the social chapter is achieved, there is no obligation to act on it."
That may be true of the Government's motion, but it overlooks the opportunity that Opposition Members would have to table an amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has been much derided for his description of new clause 75 as a ticking time bomb. There is a way in which the fuse on that may be ignited, and my hon. Friend spoke of a strategy that I had suggested to him. On the Government tabling the resolution required in new clause 74, the Opposition could table an amendment saying, in effect, "The Government shall not ratify the Maastricht treaty unless and until they have agreed at a further intergovernmental conference that the United Kingdom should be allowed to adopt the agreement on social policy contained in the protocol on social policy." The statement that the Government shall not ratify would be sufficient to prevent the Government from going ahead.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Is my hon. Friend aware that that sounds very like an amendment that I tabled initially but was not accepted by the Chair?
Mr. Hoon : I do not want to get into a debate about the selection of amendments--we have been through that already--but there is a distinction. I suspect that the amendment to which my hon. Friend refers sought to amend the treaty. The amendment that would be tabled to the resolution which the Government introduced in consequence of new clause 74 would not amend the treaty but would place a road block in the way of ratification. It would be a political road block--perhaps not legally and technically a constitutional road block--should the Government ignore the clear wish and will of Parliament. It would prevent them from ratifying on political grounds.
Mr. Barnes : My amendment could not, and did not, seek to amend the treaty, only the Bill.
Mr. Hoon : I am not familiar with that amendment. I was speculating on the reason why it was not accepted. In any event, he and I are at one in wishing to adopt the same course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) quoted from Oppenheim's "International Law" and said that, if invited by the Government to do so, Parliament could authorise the Government to ratify a treaty. It must follow that, whatever the legal and constitutional technicalities of the matter, if Parliament specifically excludes ratification or, as in this case, makes ratification conditional on certain events, the Government should be bound to follow that.
If an amendment along the lines that I advocated were passed, I assume that the Government would have no alternative other than to be bound by its terms. They would have to face the dilemma that they have sought to
Column 560
avoid throughout the debate--whether to accept the social chapter or reject the Maastricht treaty. I suggest that they must now spend time considering that issue in preparation for the debate that we shall have in consequence of new clause 74.I hope that Opposition Members, including the Liberal Democrats and the various nationalist parties, will work towards achieveing agreement on that approach and will see the benefits to the European Community of having a social protocol that extends to all citizens of the EC. If it is suggested that that is likely to be a difficult or time-consuming exercise, there is little doubt that there will have to be a further intergovernmental conference, in any event, to tidy up the details of the treaty consequential on ratification. Britain's adoption of the social chapter could be one item on the agenda of that conference.
Mr. Byers : I am interested in the possible wording of the amendment to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition to the resolution tabled by the Minister of State. Does my hon. Friend agree that the wording of the amendment to which he referred would effectively be a condition on ratification and that the condition he suggested--of the adoption of the social protocol--would not be acceptable to the Government because they would not allow it to happen? Accordingly, such wording might be attractive to Conservative Members such as the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer).
Mr. Hoon : Certainly, we know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that the Government would not accept the social chapter in any circumstances. It was perhaps significant that earlier today the Foreign Secretary, given a similar opportunity to give the Government's view, was more reticent than the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), has previously been. Perhaps the Government are now aware of the dilemma that they face. The intergovernmental conference to tidy up the results of ratification in the various member states could deal with the issue as a simple and straightforward matter. We know that the other member states would have no difficulty in accepting Britain's agreement to the social chapter. In those circumstances, I hope that it will present no great difficulty for the Government to agree to such a course.
Mr. Marlow : In case there is any misunderstanding in the hon. Gentleman's mind, I should explain that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have occasionally made comments about the currency in the ERM which can be overwhelmed by the market. Such events are anticipated --my right hon. Friend has to stand by the currency and the financial aspects of the country. But if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor says that the Government cannot embrace the social contract in any shape or form, we must remember that the Government constitute a seamless web. Whatever my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said or did not say today, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his comments, he commits the Government, and they cannot change their mind.
Mr. Hoon : There have been occasions when Ministers have made statements that have not necessarily appeared to bind all their colleagues. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his view with his usual strength of feeling.
Column 561
I return to the issue with which we began our debates many months ago. All citizens in the European Community, other than United Kingdom citizens, will enjoy the benefits of the social protocol. Throughout the days and nights of debates on the Maastricht treaty, Labour Members have merely been seeking to establish the possibility of there being a vote on whether the United Kingdom should accede to the social protocol. With new clause 74, that possibility comes one stage closer. We shall have the opportunity of debate, the Government will table a motion, the Opposition will table an amendment and, thereafter, it will be for the Government to decide whether they will put at risk the whole of the Maastricht treaty or accept the social protocol.6.45 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) : Thank you, Dame Janet, for allowing me to catch your eye in the final debate--on new clause 74--in the Committee stage of the Bill.
When the social charter was first mooted in 1989, I wrote a letter to my local newspaper, which is as relevant today as it was then. On 31 October 1989, I said :
"It was quite right to focus on the type of Europe that will emerge after 1992, because it will crucially affect the British people through the next decade and beyond. The EC should only be involved in those areas of national policy where the 12 states acting in concert can achieve more than by acting as individuals. The Social Charter, which was discussed in detail, is one of the many grey areas which fall in between these two categories. Britain with her worldwide service industry has most to gain from the free and unrestricted corporate structure. The last thing we need is Jacques Delors, or anyone else in the Commission, telling this country how individual companies should be run."
In December 1989, the 11 members signed the social chapter, but the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, rejected it, because she could see that everything that had been achieved in the social sphere through the 1980s would be reversed. The panoply of union laws would return to the days of bad and restrictive industrial relations that we inherited in 1979. She could foresee that that would be the consequence if we were sucked into a European social dimension. She avoided that trap in 1989, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did so again in Maastricht in 1991 when he negotiated the opt-out protocol.
When the opt-out was mooted, Jacques Delors said that it "would set a dangerous precedent, setting up one country as a paradise for Japanese investment".
If that is true, I plead wholeheartedly guilty. During the past 10 years, this country has managed to obtain approximately one third of all inward investment into the Community--50,000 jobs depend on that inward investment. I plead guilty to wanting to allow this country to set its own social agenda. After all, what have we achieved by privatising so many former nationalised industries in this country if not to allow those privatised industries to set their own conditions for their employees?
Mr. Hoon : I am sorry that I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman earlier, but I must return to his point about Japanese investment. Nissan has invested in the United Kingdom, but it has also invested in Spain. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is right that Nissan's workers in Spain should enjoy higher levels of social protection than Nissan's workers in the United Kingdom? If so, why?
Column 562
Mr. Jenkin : That is a matter for the Spanish Government.
Mr. Clifton-Brown : As my hon. Friend said, that is partly a matter for the Spanish Government as the Government of the sovereign state where the company has chosen to locate, and it is also a matter for the company. If Nissan had wanted to locate in a country with different workers' rights, it would have done so. That is precisely why Nissan, Honda and many other companies have chosen to locate their headquarters and factories here rather than Spain.
As the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) knows, because he knows the subject well, the Japanese have upheld good workers' rights in this country, and they were absolutely right to do so. That is one reason why they have been so successful. The hon. Gentleman and I have had discussions across the Chamber before, and what we want in this country is a high- productivity economy and a high-wage economy. We want individuals and individual companies to be free to set their own workers' rights.
Lady Thatcher was absolutely right to reject the social dimension in 1989, just as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to do so in 1991.
We have been told consistently by various hon. Members that opting out of the social chapter does not matter, because, under clauses 117 to 121 of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, it can be implemented in any case. A group of us visited the Commission a couple of months ago, and were told precisely the same thing. However, one crucial factor will have changed--we shall have signed the Maastricht treaty. We have held lengthy debates in the House, and there have been three referendums in other member states, so the Community, the Commission, the Council of Europe and the European Court of Justice will have to take cognisance of that process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) has argued cogently that the preamble to the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act allows the European Court of Justice to pass judgments implementing the move towards ever closer European union. But page 117 of the Maastricht treaty makes it quite clear that the United Kingdom shall not take part in the deliberations and the adoption of the proposals made on the basis of the social protocol. It states that the agreement and attendant financial consequences other than administrative costs shall not apply to the United Kingdom.
I find it inconceivable that, if this matter goes to the ECJ for judgment, as it may well do, the court will be able to ignore that. It is all very well to say that, hitherto, the ECJ has embarked almost universally on centralising judgments. No hon.
Member--certainly not I ; I am not a lawyer--can prejudge what decision the ECJ will come to, but it will have to take cognisance of what is said in the treaty.
I do not believe that the Commission, or any other body, this treaty having been signed and ratified, will be able to implement those provisions of the social charter and articles 117 to 122 of the treaty of Rome, because what is written in the treaty will have to be taken into account. It is interesting to note that, of the 43 new initiatives under the social programme since it was introduced, 17 are legally binding and 25 have already been implemented by this country.
Column 563
So we now have two social chapters in Europe, one ratified by the 12 and the other ratified by the 11. When it says in the treaty that social chapter provisions will have to be implemented by majority or unanimity voting, or qualified majority voting, that applies to the 11 states, not to the 12. I have no doubt that lawyers will argue about this matter for some time to come, but I cannot see that there are any circumstances in which the ECJ can fail to take into account this enormously detailed ratification process.If tonight we reject new clause 74, the treaty will be ratified by the Crown. If by chance we were to implement the new clause, we would have a debate on the social chapter. If we have a debate on the social chapter and that is rejected, the Government will advise the Crown to use its prerogative to ratify the treaty. But, whatever the legal argument, the House will have given a cast-iron statement of intent that it does not wish to be bound by the provisions of the social chapter in the Maastricht treaty. I for one will be looking to Ministers in this Government and to successive Ministers to uphold that cast-iron statement of intent to the best of their ability, so that we in this country do not get sucked into the social dimension of the social chapter.
Sir Russell Johnston : As has just been said by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), the acceptance of new clause 74 would induce yet another debate on the social chapter later on, so I will be brief.
I will begin by giving two quotations, because one thing that is still a great mystery to me, despite the speech of the Foreign Secretary, is the reason for the Conservative Government's attitude to the social chapter of Maastricht. I still find it very difficult to understand why they are taking up the position that they have taken up. The speeches that I have heard have, in the main, been general and unspecific in arguing this case.
My first quotation will perhaps come as a surprise to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), since it is from his speech on 20 January. I thought it summed up the matter very well. I could easily have plagiarised it and reproduced it as my own, but I thought that that would be wrong. He said :
"I am sure that, if hon. Members tried to draw up a list of worthy causes, they probably could not do any better than the social charter. It would be difficult to imagine a set of people more deserving of protection and assistance. Yet, way back in December 1989, the Government found it impossible to accept that list, which forms the basis of the social chapter.
My argument therefore is that the list in the fundamental charter is already extensively covered by existing obligations under the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act and has been accepted by all the other European Community Governments--Governments of the left, coalition Governments of the centre and Governments of the right--not once, but on a number of occasions.
Why do the Conservative Government in the United Kingdom find it so difficult to go along with the views of their parliamentary allies in the European Parliament and their political allies on the continent ? The German Christian Democrats have been among the most enthusiastic supporters of the social chapter, as has every other major political party on the centre right of the political spectrum in the Community."--[ Official Report, 20 January 1993 ; Vol. 217, c. 458-59.]
That, I think, puts a very good question, to which I have yet to have a cohesive answer.
Column 564
My second quotation is much shorter. It comes from a letter written to me by the Chairman of the Free Democratic party of Germany. The FDP are the political partners, as it were, of the Liberal Democrats in Europe. The Chairman is Graf Otto von Lambsdorff, who is also, incidentally, the President of Liberal International worldwide--a position that he will yield to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) next year. I mention this not simply to give my right hon. Friend the pleasure of reading it in Hansard, but also to demonstrate the closeness of our political contact.Otto Lambsdorff is no political softie by any manner of means ; he was a very tough and combative Economics Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, and he is very committed to the free market. He said :
"British Government policy towards European unification seems to be ambiguous, reluctant and stubborn. Only the Liberal Democrats have a clear and comprehensive concept of European policy--and a clear and unqualified commitment to the Maastricht Treaty.
Liberal policy includes the social dimension of Europe. The FDP fully supports the strategy of the Liberal Democrats in wanting both the Social Chapter and the Treaty as a whole."
That, as the hon. Member for Ashfield observed a moment ago, is the general view throughout the European Community. It is not confined to Lambsdorff ; one could easily get far more if one looked. I have looked very carefully at the speech made by the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) on27 January in winding up our first big debate. Because of having given way extremely generously, as he did, the coherence of the speech was rather impaired, but that does not excuse the absolute absence of any argument about why the Government feel that we must be excluded from the social chapter, and why inclusion would be so damaging.
We are, of course, as the hon. Member for Ashfield observed, already committed to the social chapter of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act. What is the difference between the social chapter of Maastricht and the social chapter of the Single European Act? There are some differences, and perhaps they are not entirely insignificant.
Article 117 of the social chapter of the treaty of Rome is fairly general. It is the one that we signed, and it says :
"Member States agree upon the need to promote improved working conditions and an improved standard of living for workers, so as to make possible their harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained."
That is fairly clear. Article 1 of the Maastricht social agreement as signed by the other 11 states extends this somewhat. For example, it speaks of
"dialogue between management and labour"
and
"development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment",
and says that members should implement measures to take account of the diverse forms of national practices, and so on. So it is strengthened slightly.
The second main area of difference is that qualified majority voting is extended under article 2. Qualified majority voting is not introduced in the Maastricht treaty. It was introduced by the Single European Act, blessed by Lady Thatcher. Qualified majority voting is now extended from covering health and safety directives to cover
| Next Section
| Home Page |