Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

HL I [European Communities (Amendment) Bill]

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Lords
Source: Hansard HL [547/884-90]
Editorial comments: 1100.
Importance ranking: Minor
Word count: 2931
[column 884]

Lord Richard

moved Amendment No. 428:

Page 2, leave out line 27 and insert ( “calling for the adoption into United Kingdom law of the Agreement on Social Policy” ).

The noble Lord said: I should tell the Committee right at the outset that we now come to an amendment [column 885]upon which, unless there is a clear change of heart expressed on the part of the Government, it will be my intention to test the view of the Committee.

Amendment No. 428 is a clear amendment which calls for the eventual adoption by this country of the Agreement on Social Policy contained in the Maastricht Treaty. Its acceptance would mean that Clause 7 would state that the Act shall come into force only when each House of Parliament has passed a resolution calling for the adoption of the Agreement on Social Policy. More nonsense has been talked about this part of the Maastricht Treaty than probably any other part of it. And as your Lordships who have sat through this debate and who have read the debates in another place will know, that is saying a very great deal.

The issue that the Committee has to face tonight is not only that of the opt-out and of the institutional gyrations which that has produced; the issue is really whether or not we should sign up to the social agreement. It raises the whole question of Community competence on social policy. Indeed, in many ways this goes to the heart of one of the issues that we have been considering during the past six weeks.

It is therefore right that we should look at the treaty and see whence comes this competence and whence come the present provisions of the treaty. We go back to the Treaty of Rome and back to the Single European Act. I am looking at Command Paper 455 which incorporates the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act—at Title III (Social policy), Chapter 1 (social provisions), Article 117. The Committee should note that we are talking about the Treaty of Rome of 1972—nothing new, nothing modern, nothing being sprung on anybody and nothing that was negotiated at Maastricht.

What was agreed in the Treaty? The article states:

“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 harmonization while the improvement is being maintained” .

That is a clear statement of aims. There was clear acceptance by the countries which signed up for the Treaty of Rome that we agreed upon the need to promote improved working conditions and an improved standard of living so as to make harmonisation possible.

I remind the Committee of Article 118 because so often in our debates on the social protocol and the social chapter in relation to Maastricht, it has been presented as though it is something totally new and a major departure for the United Kingdom, with the Community trying to take competence and power in areas over which it has not had it before. I hope to satisfy the Committee that that is not true. Article 118 states:

“Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and in conformity with its general objectives, the Commission” ——

I repeat, “the Commission” —

“shall have the task of promoting close co-operation between Member States in the social field, particularly in matters relating to” ——

I invite the Committee to note this—[column 886]

“employment; labour law and working conditions; basic and advanced vocational training; social security; prevention of occupational accidents and diseases; occupational hygiene; the right of association, and collective bargaining between employers and workers” .

Those are the areas in which the Community is given competence to act and the Commission is specifically enjoined to act under the original treaty accepted by this country as long ago as 1972.

Article 118A, which follows, was introduced in the Single European Act. That is even more interesting. It introduces the concept of qualified majority voting in that general area in paragraph 2. There is nothing new in the concept of majority voting being brought into social policy. There it is in the Single European Act, accepted by the Chamber and another place. Paragraph 1 says:

“Member States shall pay particular attention to encouraging improvements, especially in the working environment, as regards the health and safety of workers, and shall set as their objectives the harmonisation of conditions in this area” .

“Harmonisation” was then considered as the “f” word, although it started with the letter “h” . One heard so many speeches at the time against the Commission's activities in respect of harmonisation. But there it is in the treaty accepted by the Government and the country in the Single European Act.

Then there is something that I am bound to say that I find even more interesting. Article 118B says:

“The Commission shall endeavour to develop the dialogue between management and labour at European level” .

I repeat, “at European level” . In other words, we should encourage a dialogue between European-wide employer organisations and trade unions.

“which could, if the two sides consider it desirable lead to relations based on an agreement” .

Where does that come from? It comes from Article 22 of the Single European Act. It is not a new introduction. There is nothing cataclysmic or totally new coming in Maastricht. There it is in the old treaty.

I turn now to Article 119 which refers to equal pay and equal work. That is not a new concept. As I hoped to show earlier, all the concepts in the Maastricht Treaty go back to 1961 to the Social Charter of the Council of Europe which was accepted by this country in 1961 and ratified in 1965. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, shaking her head in agreement.

Baroness Thatcher

No.

Lord Richard

I am delighted that we are in agreement on this occasion.

There is no doubt whatever that many of the concepts contained in the Treaty of Rome go right back to 1961. The starting point is 1972 with the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act.

I now turn to Maastricht and the social provisions that are contained therein. If one looks at it in a fairly objective way, I have to say that it seems to me to be a rather modest and somewhat pallid document. For the life of me, I have never understood the furore that was caused when people actually looked at the treaty and saw what was in it. Many of the same concepts as were in the Treaty of Rome reappeared in Maastricht; [column 887]and many of the same concepts as were in the Social Charter of the Council of Europe reappeared in Maastricht. It says:

“The Community Member States shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment” ——

Lord Hacking

I am trying to follow the noble Lord's argument. Can he tell the Committee the section from which he is quoting?

Lord Richard

Article 118 of the Maastricht Treaty, which refers to any agreement on social policy concluded between the member states of the European Community with the exception of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am trying to show the Committee that the opt-out by Britain is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Perhaps we should study further what it says and then we can argue as to whether or not we should have signed it.

Article 1 says:

“The Community … shall have as [its] objective the promotion of employment” .

Surely we agree with that, do we not?—

“improved living and working conditions” —

I think that we agree with that—

“proper social protection” —

I assume that we agree with that—

“dialogue between management and labour” —

I believe that we agree with that; at least, we have always said that we agree with that—

“the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment” —

we agree with that—

“the combating of exclusion” .

I am bound to say that I am not quite sure what that means.

“To this end the Community and the Member States shall implement measures” —

I hope that members of the Committee will note the proviso that follows—

“which take account of the diverse forms of national practices, in particular in the field of contractual relations, and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy” .

Anyone looking at that statement of general aims and intent would frankly have to work extremely hard in order to find a point of disagreement.

Article 2 says:

“With a view to achieving the objectives of Article 1, the Community shall support and complement the activities of the Member States in the following fields” .

But what are those “following fields” ? They are:

“improvement in particular of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety” .

Are we against that? Surely not? We are not against improving working conditions; indeed, I have never heard a spokesman for the Government saying that they were not in favour of improving working conditions. Then there is,

“the information and consultation of workers” .

I am sure that we are in favour of that. The Government told me often enough between 1981 and 1985 when I was in charge of such matters in the Commission how much they were in favour of information and consultation as regards workers, although they did not like the particular form proposed. The article goes on to cite:

“equality between men and women” .

I assume that we are all in favour of that concept. Then there is, [column 888]

“the integration of persons excluded from the labour market … To this end, the Council may adopt, by means of directives” ,

and so on.

Perhaps I may just read to the Committee two other passages: Paragraph 3 of Article 2 says:

“The Council shall act unanimously” .

The latter word is one of which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will appreciate the true flavour. The passage continues,

“on a proposal from the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, in the following areas” .

What are the areas in which we would have a veto if we had gone in? Well, one of them is,

“social security and social protection of workers” .

Then there is also,

“protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated” .

We also have a veto on that one. There then follows,

“representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers, including co-determination” .

There too, we have a veto. Following that there is,

“conditions of employment for third-country nationals legally residing in Community territory” .

There we also have a veto. Finally, we have a veto on,

“financial contributions for the promotion of employment and job-creation, without prejudice to the provisions relating to the Social Fund” .

Those are specific exclusions set out in the social agreement. To describe them in the terms that they have been described is, frankly, absurd. If Members of the Committee would like the example of just one other proviso, perhaps I may just read from paragraph 6 of Article 2:

“The provisions of this Article shall not apply” —

I emphasise the word “not” —

“to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or to the right to impose lock-outs” .

All those have come out. What are we left with? We are left with a series of aims in the field of social policy—that is, aims which are designed to improve the working environment and conditions of workers and the availability of information and consultation for them, equality between men and women and integrating people excluded from the labour market. That is the lot.

If one looks in the Social Charter for provisions which, somehow or other, will affect the whole of British industry and which will be Brussels-imposing upon the industrial lifeblood of this country—terms and conditions that Britain finds basically unacceptable and repugnant—one looks in vain; they are just not there.

Faced with that Social Charter, what did we do? Well, we opted out. But how did we opt out? Frankly, again, in the most absurd way. We said to the other 11, “We don't want to participate, but the rest of you, if you wish, should go ahead and carry on with your social policy; we shall have no part of it” . We therefore agreed. I am bound to say that it is the most extraordinary agreement. We agreed to authorise those 11 member states—that is, all the others except Britain,

“to have recourse to the institutions, the procedures and the mechanisms of the Treaty for the purposes of taking among themselves and applying as far as they are concerned the acts and decisions required for giving effect to the above-mentioned agreement” .

[column 889]

I am bound to say that I find that a somewhat mind-boggling proposition, so far as concerns the practical effects involved.

What will happen during the United Kingdom presidency? There will be a President of the Council. There will also be a social affairs council and a Social Affairs Minister. During my day I had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, at many Council meetings. The Social Affairs Minister will sit at the meetings and someone will say, “Now we are going to discuss the policy under the social agreement” . The Minister will then vacate the chair. Presumably someone else—I am not sure who—will sit in the empty president's chair and the other 11 will continue with the discussion. The other 11 may or may not reach a conclusion, I know not.

Let us suppose that there is a proposal for a directive emerging from the other 11 under this extraordinary opt-out. What will happen at Coreper? Is the British Ambassador to the Community supposed to withdraw from Coreper when social policy is discussed? What will be the relationship between social policy being discussed by the 11 under the terms of the agreement on social policy and social policy being discussed under the original terms of the Treaty of Rome? I do not know how it is supposed to work and I do not believe that anybody knows. It is certainly unprecedented and, with great respect, it is totally unthought-out. What will be the relationship between these affairs and competition policy? How is the competition directorate supposed to react to the British opt-out? I do not know what is being said about it and perhaps at some stage the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, may be able to tell us.

Are we to participate in the health and safety provisions under Article 118a of the Treaty of Rome or are we not? If we are, on what kind of basis? As regards social policy, one leg is in if the label on it is Article 118a of the Treaty of Rome but the other leg is out if the discussion is to take place under the agreement on social policy merely by the other 11. As an example of Britain being at the heart of Europe that almost defies belief.

It is worthwhile putting on record that there are only two political movements in the whole of the Community which are opposed to the agreement on social policy. One is M. Le Pen's movement in France and the other is the British Conservative Party. I am bound to say that the company which the Conservative Party keeps is entirely a matter for itself but I really should have thought that that fact might be one which they would seek to ponder. All the other conservative parties in Europe and all the other members of the People's Party group in the European Parliament have signed up to the social protocol. Unice, the European employers' organisation, does not object to the existence of the social protocol. Indeed, according to discussions that I have had with some of its members, it believes that the protocol is positively advantageous because there is a point of contact between them and the other social partners. It is also interesting that a recent conference of the [column 890]European People's Party's heads of government and party leaders commented on the Government's opposition to the social chapter. It stated that it:

“deplores the fact that the British Prime Minister and leader of the British Conservative Party, took a negative position at Maastricht concerning European political union, particularly with regard to a common social policy” .

What a position to get this country into. It is not only people such as me and my political allies in Europe who are saying that the Government's position is wrong but every other conservative party in the Community and every other natural ideological ally of the Conservative Party is saying precisely the same thing. I find it difficult to understand why the Government find themselves in this position.

When one goes back to 1961 and looks at the social charter of the Council of Europe one sees that the aims were, if anything, more comprehensive than those set out in the Maastricht Treaty. We accepted that and we signed that treaty. Incidentally, a Conservative government signed the treaty; it was ratified in 1965. In the Treaty of Rome we accepted Community competence in the areas of social policy—and that was done by a Conservative government. In the Single European Act we accepted further competence in the area of social policy—and that was done by a Conservative government. When it comes to Maastricht the policy is suddenly presented as something totally new and utterly unacceptable which will ruin the British economy.

Perhaps I may conclude on this note. If being without the social chapter was so marvellous for the British economy I should have thought by now that we would be the most prosperous country in Europe, we would have the fewest people out of work and the best balance of trade in the European Community. I need not put the comparable figures for the other side of the picture. Our standard of living has fallen to eighth place in the European Community. Our unemployment is the highest; it rose by 65 per cent. between January 1990 and January 1993. Despite Britain having the unique advantages of North Sea oil and gas, only Spain in the European Community has a worse total deficit. That does not say much for opting out of the social protocol. I beg to move.