| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Kinnock : Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to stand at the Dispatch Box and tell the world of finance and industry that there are circumstances in which, despite the achievements of convergence, despite the establishment of monetary union by our neighbours, he would come to the House and recommend that we still stayed out?
Several Hon. Members : Answer.
Mr. Lamont : We believe that it should be decided by this House of Commons.
Mr. Kinnock : What would the right hon. Gentleman do?
Mr. Lamont : The right hon. Gentleman may remember that his own shadow Chancellor said that he did not believe that that matter should be decided until 1997, and that Parliament should be involved. That is what we say and that is the view which commands the support of the country.
Mr. Kinnock : For the second time in two weeks a member of the Cabinet has grossly misrepresented my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Let me read what my right hon. and learned Friend said, instead of the contorted version produced by the Prime Minister, dishonourably, last week-- [Interruption.]
Column 292
Mr. Speaker : Order. Would the right hon. Gentleman withdraw "dishonourably", please?
Mr. Kinnock : I meant, of course, Mr. Speaker, inaccurately. The Prime Minister said, exactly as the Chancellor just has, that my right hon. and learned Friend said that we should not commit ourselves in advance of 1997 to enter into a single currency. That is the point of agreement that all sensible people will have. What my right hon. and learned Friend said on the Walden programme was :
"We should not commit ourselves now, in advance of 1997, to enter a single currency irrespective of what the state of the economy was-- [Interruption.] --
irrespective, clearly, of whether convergence had been achieved or not.
No one is being asked anywhere in the European Community to take such a decision and make such a step--indeed they cannot--unless convergence has been achieved. So I hope that the Chancellor will still feel able to answer candidly the question that I asked him : in the circumstances of convergence being achieved and the union going ahead, what would he say to the House? Would he recommend that we did not join that union? Yes or no? Come on.
Several Hon. Members : Answer. Come on.
Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey) rose --
Mr. Kinnock : I shall give way in a moment. I must get on-- [Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. The Leader of the Opposition has given way a good deal. I think that he should get on.
Mr. Kinnock : I was drawing the attention of the House to the first price of the policy being followed by the Government--if their policies were to prevail, which thankfully they will not--which is to put in the gravest jeopardy the possibility of the European central bank being located in Britain. There is a second price--
Sir Peter Tapsell rose --
Mr. Kinnock : No, I shall give way in a moment. I think that you would be the first to agree, Mr. Speaker, that there have been a number of responses, but there have also been prolonged distractions, and I had better get on. I shall give way later on if I may first develop this argument.
The second price of the opt-out strategy--if it can be called that--is uncertainty. If international or British companies are doubtful about whether Britain will opt out, is it not obvious that they would be less, rather than more, likely to make their investment here? It has to be asked whether Britain's best interests can ever be served by a Government whose policies create that doubt among those planning their future investment for the next five, seven or 10 years.
Of course, it was not Britain's best interests which guided the Prime Minister at Maastricht, but the desire to hold the Conservative party together. The European monetary union opt-out was part of the price for that. The social chapter opt-out was the rest of the fee. Together those opt-outs are the Danegeld, paid by the Prime Minister to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
Column 293
The social chapter opt-out deserts the interests of employees in Britain. It was a declaration by the Government that they want a down-market economy at the fringe of Europe. Every other Government in the Community accepts the idea that, as trade barriers come down and monetary co-operation increases, there should be a development of basic social rights and common employment standards throughout the Community.All the Prime Minister's fellow Conservative Heads of Government in the Community take the view that, as Herr Kohl put it :
"Our community is not only an Economic Community, it is a Social Community too."
For the Government to be against those social protections and minimum employment conditions as a matter of principle is to be not just outside the mainstream of the Community, but outside the mainstream of conservatism in the Community.
The Government have advanced a number of claims--the Prime Minister did so again this afternoon--to try to justify their opposition to giving the British people the same rights and minimum standards as those awarded to people in other countries of the Community. The Prime Minister repeatedly claimed--
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) rose--
Mr. Kinnock : I shall give way at the conclusion of this passage. Last week the Prime Minister repeatedly claimed that acceptance of the social chapter would mean accepting "militancy", and "strike-torn days" and much more in the same vein. We heard it again this afternoon. It just is not true.
The social protocol explicitly states that it
"shall not apply to pay, the right of association, the right to strike, or the right to impose lock-outs".
Community legislation in those areas is effectively not possible. When asked why other countries, such as Germany, could accept the social protocol while he could not, the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that other countries have a
"different structure of labour laws".
But he said that knowing that the social protocol specifically lays down the requirement that
"the Community and its Member States shall implement measures which take account of the diverse forms of national practices". So there is no proof of imposition.
We have heard the Prime Minister repeatedly assert that support for the social protocol would mean
"accepting new trade union powers handing over government to trade unions abroad"
and that it would mean
"the imposition of damaging labour laws".
That is not true either.
Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kinnock : I shall not give way for the moment.
The Prime Minister must know that the section of the social protocol dealing with collective agreements between trade unions and employers' organisations could not result
Column 294
in the alteration of British industrial relations legislation--good, bad or indifferent. The declaration attached to the section, which has the same force, clearly states :"this arrangement implies no obligation on the Member States to apply the agreements directly or to work out rules for their transposition, nor any obligation to amend national legislation in force to facilitate their implementation."
So there is no power of imposition there.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard) : Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the declaration to which he has referred refers only to the first method of compelling those collective agreements to be implemented and not to the second, and that it is absolutely clear that the effect of article 118b is to enable collective agreements to be reached at European level, to which British employers, employees and the British Government do not agree, but which would have the force of law in this country?
Mr. Kinnock : Methinks the right hon. and learned Gentleman doth protest too much. He knows very well that both on the first and on the second there are belt and braces arrangements in the protocol to ensure that there shall be no imposition.
Mr. Howard : The text of the declaration to which the right hon. Gentleman referred reads :
"The High Contracting parties declare that the first of the arrangements for application of the agreements"
will be limited in the way that he suggested. That does not apply to the second of those arrangements.
Mr. Kinnock : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that all of the provision to which he has referred falls under the requirements of unanimity, and each Government can exercise their veto.
Mr. Howard : I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman simply confirms the extent to which his understanding of this vital agreement is inadequate and inaccurate. The decisions of the Council of Ministers that provide the second way to implement those agreements will be taken on the basis of qualified majority voting. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what he is talking about. He would have committed this country to the most damaging obligations without the faintest understanding of what they mean.
Mr. Kinnock : As he speaks, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is depriving himself of any excuse for opting out of the social chapter, for the simple reason that clause 6 of article 118 says : "The provision of this Article shall not apply to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs." I am certain that we shall return to this subject, and that we shall return to it--
Mr. Howard rose --
Mr. Kinnock : No, I shall not give way.
Mr. Howard rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is not a Committee stage.
Mr. Kinnock : We shall return to this subject with great relish. Meanwhile, I must resist the efforts of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because I rather suspect that what
Column 295
he is doing now is what, in his home town of Llanelli, would be called attempting some spoiling play. We shall have to come back to this on another occasion.One after another, the Prime Minister's misrepresentations about the social chapter are negated by the provisions of the protocol. He made great play of the fact that the social chapter included provision to ensure imposition of other people's directions in a number of areas, including, not least, social security and collective agreements. The only section of the social protocol that relates to the collective defence of the interests of workers and employers is subject to veto. Therefore, it cannot be imposed.
So if it is the case, as it so clearly is, that in every single one of the areas where the Prime Minister has made allegations his claims have turned out to be false and he has misrepresented the social charter, I have to ask him whether he was misinformed or whether he knew that he was repeatedly being misleading. The only parts of the protocol that are the subject of qualified majority voting and would therefore be capable of being extended to Britain against the wishes of a British Government refer to individual employees' rights. They do not refer to collective or trade union rights.
Those individual rights are very basic, not to say rudimentary. They provide for improvement in health and safety provisions, in working conditions, in the information and consultation of workers, equality of opportunity between men and women, and the integration into the labour force of the long-term unemployed, including disabled workers. Every other Government in the Community can accept those provisions, but they are rejected by our Government because, they say, the provision of such basic rights to British workers would make Britain uncompetitive.
Would improvements in health and safety make us uncompetitive? Do the Government not accept the fundamental truth of industrial practice--that industrial accidents and disasters are not only tragic but are monumentally expensive? Did they not see the report of their own Health and Safety Executive last week, Maastricht week, which estimated that the real cost of industrial accidents and diseases could be up to £15 billion a year? Do the Government not know that the executive estimates that work-related accidents and ill-health are probably costing 30 million days off work a year--10 times as many as are lost through strikes? Do they not heed the director general of the executive, who said :
"incidents that are usually preventable could be costing" companies
"well over 10 per cent. of"
their
"operating margins".
Mr. Howard : Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that these important health and safety provisions are included in the present treaty and are covered by qualified majority voting as a result of legislation against which the Labour party voted?
Mr. Kinnock : So why cannot the Government accept the social charter?
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is taking a lot of time.
Column 296
Mr. Kinnock : Improved conditions for health and safety in the working environment do not diminish competitiveness ; they add to efficiency and reduce costs and they are part of competitiveness. The Government consider that the improvement in the arrangements for information and consultation of workers provided for in the social chapter would make Britain uncompetitive. How could that be when the message of all managers worth their salt--certainly the managers of successful enterprises, both British and foreign owned--is that good information and consultation procedures are an asset, a source of efficiency and essential to team effort?
When the Government resist the social chapter because of its references to the integration of long-term unemployed, it is easy to see why. There are now 654,000 people in Britain who have been unemployed for more than a year. The number has increased by 146, 000--30 per cent.--in the past 12 months as a result of the Government's policies. When that scale of unemployment costs nearly £4 billion, it does not do much for competitiveness.
Perhaps it is the provision in the social chapter for equality between men and women in labour market opportunities and in treatment at work that persuades the Government that acceptance of this chapter would be ruinous. Did we not hear somone who described himself as a major employer of women saying two months ago how essential it was to
"remove the barriers that make it harder for women to realise their full potential"?
Did not that employer ask, in ringing progressive tones, "Why should half our population go through life like a hobbled horse in a steeplechase"?
If the employer in question, the Prime Minister, thought it essential to take account of what he called
"the social revolution in the role of women"
when he spoke at the launch of Opportunity 2000 in October, why is he denying basic rights to women by opting out of the social chapter?
There can be only one reason for the Prime Minister's attitude. It is that the commitment that he made to widening opportunities is for occasional grand display, but his commitment to bad conditions, inequality and unfairness is for daily use. The Prime Minister's message of aspiration and opportunity for women is for public consumption. For low-paid women workers, for part-time women workers, for women working in lousy conditions, the message is put up with it and shut up about it.
The Prime Minister : Will the right hon. Gentleman join us in opposing the part-time working directive that would impose national insurance contributions on low-paid women and men, or will he continue to support it?
Mr. Kinnock : There is no obligation to pay national insurance--the matter deals with entitlements. Many women in part-time work are supremely conscious of the fact that, because they are not part of the national insurance arrangements, their rights to sick pay, to maternity pay and so on are greatly diminished.
The Prime Minister : My question was quite straightforward. Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer it? Will he support us in opposing the part -time working directive, which would impose national insurance contributions on low-paid workers, many of them women? Yes or no?
Column 297
Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister should get a grip on the facts--there is no obligation, except where there is the same social security entitlement as for full-time employees. The Prime Minister should check the directive.The Prime Minister is so frightened of the pressures, so ready to depart from the undertakings he gave in his Opportunity 2000 speech, that he will not accept the social chapter relating to equal treatment of women in work. The Government insist that the British economy depends on resisting decent minimum conditions and employment rights for British workers. They have spent 12 years following that dogma and taking away even basic protections. At the end of that 12 years, Britain is a country with high and rising unemployment, with the balance of payments in deficit--even in a recession- -and with negative growth, reduced investment, spreading poverty, rundown public services, a housing crisis and record bankruptcies. Whatever else cuts in provisions and rights do, they certainly do not produce economic success, and they never will.
Modern competitiveness depends on competing in quality--competing up- market. It depends on a highly educated, well-trained work force-- [Laughter.] I know why Conservative Members are laughing--they want a sweatshop in Britain. Economic success depends on a well-informed work force, with highly motivated men and women. Modern Governments have a duty to contribute towards that by making the proper investment and by insisting on good conditions. In 12 years, the Government have never done that and they never will. That is why, after 12 years, we have economic recession and underperformance. The Government have compounded that failure with the "turn your back" policy that they adopted at Maastricht. That policy might be relatively harmless if the other countries in the Community were standing still, but they are not. They are getting on, as full participants, with the monetary union process and with building one community. British influence over both has now diminished ; the gap has widened. After the passage of stage 2, Britain will be faced with a structure that others have fashioned. That cannot be in British interests. This Government are not only allowing that to happen, they are causing it to happen. Such a Government are no longer fit to lead Britain. The British people know that and, come the election, they will show it. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. We do not have clapping here.
5.3 pm
Sir Richard Luce (Shoreham) : Having listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), I came to two conclusions about the debate and about the agreement at Maastricht last week. First, the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the agreement. Indeed, I can summarise his speech as all wind and no substance. The second conclusion is that, because of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statesmanship and the leadership that he gave last week--together with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer--he has returned with an agreement that is not only in Europe's interest, but equally in Britain's interests. He should be warmly congratulated on his statesmanship during the past few days.
When I voted in favour of joining the European Community in 1972, like so many other hon. Members I
Column 298
felt that, first, it was the only way to ensure that we would never again have to fight a world war in Europe. Secondly, I felt that it was the best means to create economic prosperity for all the members of the European Community. Thirdly, I felt that it was the best way to underpin democracy, and therefore stability, in Europe. I envisaged a Europe that would be free of socialism and free of central direction ; a Europe that would be outward-looking--something on which we need to focus our minds in this debate ; a Europe that would be diverse in its strength, both at national and regional levels. I envisaged that Scotland, Bavaria and Catalonia, for example, would be as important a part of the Community as would co-operation at international level. I envisaged a community that would build closer co-operation brick by brick and step by step.I exercised my right to vote in favour of the Community almost 20 years ago. Against the background that I have outlined, we should warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on taking constructive steps forward at Maastricht last week. After all, there may be, as there should be, plenty of argument within the Community--there was at Maastricht --but arguing is far better than fighting, as we have done twice this century. The Government's approach was pragmatic and constructive, and that is badly needed in the Community.
The other aspects of the agreement should also be warmly welcomed. The Commission is to become more accountable and
democratic--previously a failure in it that came about largely because Britain was not a member of the Community when the Commission was created. Now, we are taking steps to put that right. There are to be important new procedures for intergovernmental co-operation on law and order, crime, foreign policy and defence. Those are vital steps towards good progress within the Community.
With Britain's record, like that of Denmark, being good and effective on the implementation of agreements, the crucial decision was taken to introduce procedures to impose fines on those Governments who fail to implement them. The Community cannot develop effectively unless there is some understanding along those lines. The Government demonstrated last week that we are fully committed partners in Europe. The old saying of Dean Acheson in the 1960s that we had lost our empire but not yet found a role has been reversed : we are part of the Community, and it would be unacceptable to think in any other terms.
The one issue on which I wish to speak is the international aspects of what happened at Maastricht. The lessons of the traumatic events of the last few months and years in central and eastern Europe and in other parts of the world show that we cannot impose unions, federations or more centralisation unless that is done democratically, peacefully and in a way that is acceptable to the people of the countries concerned. That is one quite clear lesson that we must learn. We know perfectly well that, when the lid comes off an imposed centralised regime or federation, it explodes, as witness Yugoslavia and many other parts of eastern Europe. Even in the western world, countries such as Belgium and Canada are under intense pressure. The process must be democratic and peaceful.
The lessons for the Community are that we must bring about the evolution of more co-operation by consent, pragmatic discussion and democratic progress. That is why the role of this Parliament is so crucial.
Column 299
The second lesson to be learned from international events is that, in an unstable world, the Community must be outward-looking. It must be constructive in its foreign policy ; and one way in which we can become more outward looking and helpful to the rest of the world would be to do away with some of the protectionism in the Community. Few things could be more important than the GATT talks, because if the world moves towards more protectionism, there will be dire consequences. The Community should take a lead, and one of the areas in which to do so is the common agricultural policy.I welcome most warmly the emphasis that my right hon. Friend placed on the importance of enlarging the Community. The Government--it will be a Conservative Government--will have the presidency next year and will focus on the need to enlarge the Community and on the implications of such an enlargement. After all, the members of the Community do not constitute an island that can afford to turn its back on the outside world. We do that at our peril.
In a vulnerable world, we are secure within our boundaries while mayhem reigns in many parts of Europe. The best way to contribute to stability is for the European Community to adopt a positive policy towards eastern and central Europe so as to achieve a measure of stability for those countries through collaboration in trade and aid and by their eventually joining the Community on conditions acceptable to the Community.
Another priority for the Community is to focus on how, during the 1990s, other members can join--for instance, members of the European Free Trade Association that want to join and Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. We must decide at what speed that should happen and what its implications for the Community will be. By the end of this decade, it is probable that at least 24 countries will be members of the European Community--a radical change.
We must always remember the lessons of that day in 1938 when a former Prime Minister said that Czechoslovakia was a far-off country of which we knew little. We paid a heavy price for that, and the most important aspect of our work now is to embrace these countries as quickly as we can, at a measured speed, so as to contribute to stability in central Europe and--
| Next Section
| Home Page |