Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 225: debated on Thursday 20 May 1993

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Thursday 20 May 1993

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Private Business

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) Bill

Lords amendments agreed to.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No 2) Bill

Lords amendments agreed to.

Crossrail Bill (By Order)

East Coast Main Line (Safety) Bill (By Order)

Woodgrange Park Cemetery Bill Lords (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Wednesday 26 May.

British Railways (No 4) Bill (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed on Wednesday 26 May.

Croydon Tramlink Bill Lords (By Order)

London Local Authorities Bill Lords (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Wednesday 26 May.

Oral Answers To Questions

Northern Ireland

Constitutional Talks

1.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current state of the constitutional talks in Northern Ireland.

2.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the present status of the inter-party talks concerning Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are intent on promoting further political dialogue between the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the British and Irish Governments, commencing as soon as practicable. I shall be seeking early meetings with the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties to hear their views on the way ahead. I also plan to discuss the matter with the Irish Government.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in condemning the wholly pointless bomb in Belfast city centre this morning? Will he confirm that that sort of outrage will not affect any constitutional talks? Will he join me in urging the Dublin Government to condemn the terrorist disruption this morning?

I whole-heartedly and utterly join my hon. Friend in condemning this latest outrage. I have noted the contrast between yesterday and today. Yesterday, the people of Northern Ireland, on a universal suffrage, went to the polls; today, the IRA went for the people of Northern Ireland in an attempt to maim and murder at random and destroy their livelihoods. So much for the IRA's self-proclaimed campaign, the struggle for freedom.

I assure my hon. Friend of my belief that the Irish Government are as deeply opposed to this sort of outrage as we are, and our opposition is total. It will no doubt be a long fight, but it will not be the first one to which our country has stuck, and won.

The whole House joins the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his condemnation of the bombings in Belfast this morning. I am sure that all hon. Members wish to convey our sympathies to those who have been maimed and injured. However, those bombings merely confirm the need for the democratic processes to be upheld and for the talks to continue. There is no place in our democracy for terrorists or terrorism.

What discussions has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had with the Irish Government—the co-sponsors of the talks—on the content of the proposals that he intends to present when the talks reconvene?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her opening remarks, which are heartening but not surprising. On the question of the constitutional and political talks, the resumption of those—or they might be described as further talks—represent the best way forward in achieving the objectives that the House so overwhelmingly endorsed when my predecessor announced them in March 1991. It is important that we should now give some direction and focus to those talks and I propose, therefore, to table some propositions on behalf of the British Government.

The hon. Lady asked what consultation there has been. These will be British proposals, but, naturally enough, I wish to consult my opposite number in Dublin about the ideas that we shall put forward, although it will not be a joint paper. I was glad to see that, on 15 May in Washington, Mr. Spring said that we had been having an exchange of views.

He said:
"We have been in active contact and I have to say that I believe we are working very well together to try to get resumption of the dialogue."

Is not the prerequisite to peace and political progress the unequivocal defeat of the Irish Republican Army? Is it not the case that so long as members of that organisation, with bombs and bullets, seek to maim and intimidate, democracy as we know it will be a fragile flower? Therefore, will my right hon. and learned Friend devote his energies wholly to the first priority, which is to ensure that terrorism is defeated and the IRA no longer poses a threat to freedom and liberty within the Province?

The elimination of terrorism is, indeed, the Government's first priority, and it will remain so. Democracy is a good deal stronger in Northern Ireland than my hon. Friend perhaps implies in his question. Those who are responsible for destroying the peace are relatively small in number, but are of unmatched evil in their character. The people of Northern Ireland are very resilient. They are determined to hold on to their democracy and they will do so. But the Government's primary purpose is to achieve the elimination of terrorists of whatever character, and that will remain the case.

I am sure that the House will be glad to know that despite the bomb outside our party headquarters this morning, that headquarters is now back in operation and functioning. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that any proposals that he brings forward will have to be based on more than wishful thinking. He will know from the last talks that we ran into some serious obstacles—obstacles that lie uniquely within the role of the two Governments and are uniquely for them to solve. I refer, of course, to the illegal territorial claim and the immoral diktat. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Secretary of State would let us know what progress he has made in defusing those obstacles.

The hon. Gentleman speaks, I think, of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution and of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Government remain committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the British Government, together with the Irish Government, have jointly said that if, as a result of discussion and negotiation, it is possible to replace the Anglo-Irish Agreement with another agreement or similar instrument that would carry broader support, they would welcome that.

As to articles 2 and 3, I welcome the fact that the Irish Government have said that they are prepared to initiate and bring forward legislation to amend articles 2 and 3 as part of an overall settlement of the process in which we are engaged.

In his Liverpool speech, the Secretary of State reported that Metternich, on hearing of the death of a political opponent, asked, "What did he mean by that?" We put the same question when the Secretary of State talks about putting his proposals to the participants. When the Secretary of State makes his proposals, will he be merely stating those areas where he believes that the parties have been moving towards an agreement or will he be stating those areas where he feels that the parties should come to an agreement and where he has proposals to overcome difficulties or will he be creating new parameters for the talks, which he seemed to be doing in his Liverpool speech, abandoning the three-strand approach and the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?

The last point of the question causes me great surprise. I have made it abundantly clear that the Government remain committed to the three-strand approach and are not in the business of promoting a single-strand approach, first dealing with the internal arrangements of Northern Ireland. As to the remainder, I have already made it clear that the time has come for the British Government to accede to requests that they give some direction and focus to the talks if they are to take place. Accordingly, we shall put forward propositions to the parties first of all. Their purpose will be to build on the wide area of progress that was made last year and to make suggestions that may help people to come forward. It will not be a blueprint, but suggestions that may give some focus and direction to talks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

Electricity Prices

3.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has had on the future price of electricity in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State and I have received representations from a number of bodies and individuals, notably the Action Group on Northern Ireland Electricity Prices, the Confederation of British Industry, the chairman of the consumer committee, and some Members of Parliament.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulatory framework for electricity now in place in Northern Ireland will ensure that efficiency and competition will drive down costs, and that reduced costs will lead to lower electricity prices—unlike the Opposition policy, which suggests that after achieving reduced costs, additional taxation should be imposed on utilities, which would make electricity more expensive?

It is fair to say that Northern Ireland suffers in one respect in respect of energy, in that there is no opportunity to use gas there. The introduction of a gas interconnector in the not-too-distant future, together with the Scottish interconnector, will provide a great deal of extra resource and competition, which I hope will drive prices down.

Surely the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is completely wrong when he says that efficiency will drive down prices. Anyone who heard the statements on the prospectus issued the other day will know that it was said that electricity prices will rise considerably over the next four years. What prospect does that offer those attempting to attract industry to Northern Ireland?

Such is the interest—which I hope will be fulfilled—in the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity that 600,000 people have already applied for the necessary details. I venture to suggest that a good number of them live in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, so I suggest that he should be a little cautious about being critical of what I am sure will prove to be a great success and yet another example of privatised industry being returned to those who ought to own it—all the consumers.

The Minister will recall that during the appropriation debate in February, I warned him that the Electricity Consumers Council in Northern Ireland had obtained information that electricity prices would rise by a massive 15 per cent. after privatisation—a fact which he refused to deny. Given that industrial and domestic electricity prices in Northern Ireland are already the highest in these islands, and from next year will attract 15 per cent. value added tax, how can the Minister justify pursuing the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity —when the business community does not want it, industry cannot afford it, and all the political parties in Northern Ireland have opposed it?

The people—to the tune of 600,000 of them appear to want it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman ought to listen to that message.

Shopping Centres

4.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with retailers' organisations about future shopping centre developments in Northern Ireland.

None as such. However, from time to time, I and my officials have had discussions with individual retail outlets about specific developments.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency on Creggan Enterprise and the work that it has done at the Rathmore centre in Londonderry? Does the Minister accept that he and his Administration need to do much more to encourage retailers, including the Co-operative Wholesale Society, to participate in shopping centres such as that at Rathmore and throughout Northern Ireland?

I am pleased to offer my congratulations to any retail operation that wants to open in Northern Ireland. Recently, I visited the Co-op in Yorkgate in Belfast, which is a splendid location and one which I know will attract a lot of custom. That is true of many other organisations, such as Marks and Spencer, whose activities in Northern Ireland played a significant part in the results that it recently announced. We will do all that we can to attract retail developments, large or small. The hon. Gentleman is not entirely fair with his implicit criticism. If he speaks to those who are interested in such developments in Northern Ireland, he will find that they receive total support from us already.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most shopping centres in Northern Ireland are thriving in spite of terrorist attacks? Does he agree that the message from Northern Ireland is simple—the retailers of that Province will not give in to terrorism?

As ever, my hon. Friend's statement is very helpful. I am not one to spend as much time in shops as my wife, who tells me that the city of Belfast has the best shopping centre that she has had the opportunity to visit, even allowing for centres in England. Yes, the message from Northern Ireland retailers the length and breadth of the Province is that they will not be deterred by the antics of the paramilitaries, business will go on and they will provide a first-rate service for all customers, wherever they come from.

While I welcome the development of retail centres, does the Minister accept that a lot of high street shopping exists, especially along the Newtownards, Woodstock and Lisburn roads and that it is important to keep such shopping in the community? Does he agree that the Government could help by ensuring that compensation bills are paid faster when traders are hit by IRA terrorists, to enable them to get back in business again?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Clearly, there is always room for improvement in the quality and variety of shops and we certainly wish to encourage that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and everywhere else. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), the Minister of State, will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks about compensation and if he has concerns, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be happy to discuss them.

In regard to shopping centre development in Northern Ireland and in the centre of Belfast, I must also refer to the bomb that went off in Belfast city centre this morning on the edges of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Some people were injured there today. Will the Secretary of State join me in sympathising with them, the retailers, the official Unionist party—whose headquarters were damaged—and with those people responsible for promoting the beautiful grand opera house building, which was virtually destroyed by the Provos about one and a half years ago? That has happened once again and we all condemn them.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose presence demonstrates that organisations that support terrorism will not win. I am grateful to him for his remarks, as is everyone in Belfast, which is a marvellous city. It is one of the great cities of the world and it has achieved remarkable success, is doing so now and will continue to do so, with the determination and resilience that sees off the sort of evil people who committed that offence today.

Constitutional Talks

5.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the resumption of the talks process concerning the future of Northern Ireland.

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) earlier today.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will publish the proposals that he intends to present to the inter-party talks, so that there can be discussions on them in the House and beyond?

No. I am sorry that I have to disappoint the hon. Lady. Last time round, we decided that the proceedings would be confidential and, on balance, that was a sensible decision, although it was not altogether one way. I am afraid that, at least at present, the answer is no.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members follow progress in Northern Ireland with great care? In those talks, would he welcome a positive contribution towards thinking and action to establish local authorities similar to those in the rest of the United Kingdom, with similar powers and responsibilities?

There is a very widespread desire for the restoration of democratically answerable responsibility within Northern Ireland, and I certainly share that view. I want to divest myself of a large proportion of my powers and to see them shouldered by people who will answer democratically for them to the people of Northern Ireland. The precise form that such government shall take is at the centre of our discussions, so my hon. Friend can take heart that the restoration of democratic answerability in Northern Ireland is widely desired; the format is a matter for discussion.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a deplorable case of double standards if the British Government's constitutional proposals were to exclude any all-Ireland dimension but were to include proposals for some form of Parliament for a gerrymandered Province of six counties, especially when the same British Government are refusing a Parliament for the entire nation of Scotland?

I think that the hon. Gentleman can be absolutely confident that there will be no gerrymandering, whatever the outcome of these discussions.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the good will that exists at the moment between Dublin, Belfast and London is as strong and as good as it has ever been for many, many years and that we ought to build on it? Is it not a fact that the Irish Guards are serving both south and north of the border? I should like to know when my right hon. and learned Friend last visited the Irish Guards.

I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend said about the co-operation between the two Governments. I pay tribute to the high degree of co-operation between, in particular, the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As it so happens, I recently visited the Irish Guards. Whereas they are not exactly serving south of the border, the Irish Guards contain many officers and soldiers who live south of the border. As was made clear to me recently, they provide a very important component of that fine regiment.

Tourism

6.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the number of tourists visiting Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland tourist board is making full use of its extensive powers and increased resources provided by the Government in 1992 to promote, market and develop Northern Ireland's tourism potential and to build even further on the success of the last few years.

I am sure that the Minister, like all of us, will want to congratulate the tourist board on the work that it has done in very difficult circumstances. May I add my view on this morning's events, in particular the problems that the Europa hotel will face? I am sure, however, that, like everything else, business will be as usual there. Does not the Minister realise, however, that the situation of people who come to Northern Ireland as tourists is made more difficult because of the high fares, which we have discussed in this place before? Does he welcome American Trans Air's scheduled flight between New York and Belfast? Will he also try to do something to bring down airport charges, which are much higher in Europe than in America? As part of the tourism drive, will he do something to get fares down, so that more people can travel backwards and forwards between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and other parts of the world?

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. That is why I am delighted, as she invites me to do, to welcome the new flight to New York. It will offer something that did not previously exist, even from the Republic—a direct flight from city to city. In addition, a new flight is to begin shortly, which is already operational in part, between Belfast city airport and Gatwick. Another flight is proposed from Belfast city airport to London docklands. A lot of competition is being generated, which is an indication of the desire of people from other parts of the United Kingdom to visit Northern Ireland, and visa versa. That is confirmed by the amount of activity across the sea in terms of the ferries and the competition and price reductions that are being offered as a result. In those circumstances, anything that we can do to reduce fares and charges we should like to do. However, as the hon. Lady will understand, these are matters as much for the European Community and the Civil Aviation Authority as they are for me. Nevertheless, I will certainly ensure that her point of view, which is shared by many others, is put to those bodies.

Will the Minister bear in mind the extravagant charges at Belfast airport, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) said? Can he not do something to get the charges there down? The airport now charges for the number of seats on the aircraft, even though they are not all taken up, which creates difficulty for air carriers because of the expense.

I am conscious of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Clearly it is in everyone's interest that flying to Northern Ireland or using any other methods of transport should be as competitive as possible. That is why the resurgence of the new flights and services that are being offered from Belfast City airport and Aldegrove are so important. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which I shall consider.

Is the Minister aware that I spent a day as a sort of tourist in Northern Ireland last week and that I did not find the permanent vehicle checkpoint on the road south of Newry an especially welcoming experience? Would any credible terrorist be daft enough to get caught in that permanent checkpoint? Would not it be better for tourism and local people and a better counter-terrorist policy to rely on random checkpoints rather than that type of hideous edifice?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman makes the point in that way; such comments do not contribute to our efforts to attract tourists. However, I welcomed his presence at the events that I was responsible for launching. He will understand, as a long-serving Member, that checkpoints are set up on the advice of the Chief Constable and that if there were no terrorist activity, there would be no need for them.

Unemployment

7.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the main factors leading to the changes in unemployment levels in the Province between March and April.

9.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

Figures released earlier today show that on 8 April 1993 there were 105,336 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland, which represents a decrease of 680 claimants compared with the previous month and a reduction of more than 2,600 since January. I have not yet made a detailed assessment, but I believe that the work of the various industrial development agencies has contributed to the welcome reduction.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is excellent news for a part of the United Kingdom which has always experienced high unemployment? Is not that strong evidence that Government economic policy is working to create jobs, which is reflected in other figures published today, and does it not give the lie to the claims of the Opposition, who always revel in doom and gloom on that issue?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's last comment. In no sense are we complacent about the reduction in unemployment for the third month in a row. There are still substantial problems in finding new jobs, encouraging companies to locate in Northern Ireland and in expanding existing operations. However much the figure is reduced, it is still unacceptable and we will continue to work as hard as we can to ensure that we provide as many jobs for as many people in Northern Ireland as possible.

Does not the attitude of Ministers show the incredible complacency and lack of care for the 3 million people who are in the misery dole queue created by their policies? When are the Government likely to reduce unemployment in Northern Ireland to its level of April 1979? The Government are fond of making comparisons with the previous Labour Government, but in 1979 there were 52,000 unemployed people in Northern Ireland, compared with 105,000 today. In 14 years, the Government have created more than twice as much unemployment in Northern Ireland. When are they going to get near the figures achieved by the last Labour Government?

I should like the hon. Gentleman to come to Northern Ireland to see for himself the work that has been done to offer jobs, to create employment and to attract new companies to deal with the problems. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who pays careful attention to what Ministers say, will have heard my comment that we are not in any sense complacent about the welcome reduction. We are working as hard as we possibly can to ensure that other people do the same.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a double challenge: to continue to reduce the proportion of people who are out of work—17 per cent. six years ago at the height of boom and about 14 per cent. now —and to ensure that the difference between unemployment among the non-Roman Catholic and the Catholic populations reduces, as there is 8 per cent. unemployment among Protestants and Presbyterians whereas unemployment among Roman Catholics is far higher than average?

I am conscious of my hon. Friend's concern about the balance of unemployment across the communities which, through the auspices of the "making Belfast work" initiative and other agencies, we are doing a great deal to address. There is no easy solution to the problem, but unless we try we shall never stand a chance, and my hon. Friend's support is gratefully received.

Does the Minister agree that unemployment in Northern Ireland would be much higher were it not for the willingness of political parties in Northern Ireland to co-operate, talk and work together, and with industry? Does he believe that that is a much better solution to the problems of unemployment than phoney circus talks?

I can confirm that the right hon. Gentleman's support and that of his colleagues and all representatives from Northern Ireland in this place is very much welcomed by a wide variety of those who wish to invest and the agencies which are encouraging other people to invest. His support is most important in this context and I hope that it will continue. I do not think that he would expect me to be drawn on his latter comment, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have heard. My task is to ensure that the economy improves, and the support of all the parties and their representatives is vital in that.

Brook Advisory Centres

8.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding is given by his Department to the Brook advisory centres.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
(Mr. Jeremy Hanley)

The Department of Health and Social Services does not directly fund advisory centres. However, the Brook advisory centre in Belfast is funded by the Eastern health and social services board which received a grant of £30,000 in 1991–92 and £31,350 in 1992–93. Funding is expected to continue at a similar level this year.

Why is my hon. Friend's Department supporting an organisation which promotes teenage promiscuity, thereby leading to more conceptions and abortions, when its presence in Northern Ireland is vociferously opposed by hon. Members from the Province, 12 local authorities, both the Free Presbyterian and Roman Catholic churches, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Democratic Unionist party? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the relevant hospital board ceases to channel funds to that unwelcome organisation, which is damaging the moral and physical welfare of youngsters by its activities?

Health and social service boards have a responsibility to secure provision for family planning services to meet the needs of their resident populations. The Eastern board has identified a clear need for sexually active young people to have access to contraceptive advice and services. Within the board's area at present there are about 600 births per year to teenage mothers, about 84 per cent. of whom are unmarried. The centre has identified a need and, while it acts within the law, the Government will not close it down.

Will the Minister emphasise that access to good family planning will stop unwanted teenage births? Those who talk all the time about trying to remove funding for clinics such as the Brook are contributing to the very problem which they pretend to decry.

That is indeed the intention of the Eastern health and social services board.

Has the Minister read the literature that the Brook clinic is giving out? Is it Government policy to advocate that young people should not take their parents into their confidence?

As I have said, as long as the Brook clinic acts within the law there is no reason for the Government to order the Eastern health and social services board to close it. In the six months since the clinic has been in operation, it has received 344 visits from people seeking advice and 600 telephone calls, in spite of the fact that a number of people have been trying to keep callers out of the building. I believe that the service is needed and, statutorily, it is being provided. However, if any breaches of the law occur, the Government will not hesitate to close it down.

Constitutional Talks

10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the resumption of the inter-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland.

11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will outline the proposals which he intends to present at the inter-party talks relating to Northern Ireland.

I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).

It would be wrong to reveal in advance of further confidential talks the outline proposals which the Government may table as a basis for discussion. I shall seek to set a direction and focus to resumed talks by tabling proposals which seem most likely to build usefully on the progress made last year towards agreement. [Interruption.]

Order. I would be much obliged if the House would settle down and if conversations could be much quieter.

If the inter-party talks fail to produce a positive outcome in terms of an institutionalised all-Ireland dimension, will the Secretary of State confirm that it is not the Government's policy to seek to impose an internal solution in Northern Ireland?

I do not approach these matters on the basis that they will fail or on hypothetical circumstances. I and the enormous number of people whom I meet in Northern Ireland—especially the business community—wish the process to succeed. That is the positive way to advance.

Is the Secretary of State confident that the proposals that he will make cannot or will not be portrayed as pre-conditions or pre-determinants? Further, is he confident that all the relevant parties will take part in the talks without pre-conditions?

I am entirely confident that the proposals of which I have spoken will not be seen as conditions, a blueprint, a template or anything like that. They are exactly as I have described them—proposals which are designed to give a sense of direction and focus for talks which I trust will take place.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in view of the further bomb outrage of the past 24 hours outside the Unionist headquarters in Belfast, it is vital that there is an early resumption of the inter-party talks to find a permanent political solution to the problems?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I draw the House's attention once again to the contrast between yesterday's events, when the people of Northern Ireland exercised their democratic rights in free and democratic universal suffrage, and today's events, when the terrorists sought to destroy the people of Northern Ireland, knowing that they cannot achieve their political ends by any means other than violence, or so they believe, but they are wrong about that.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government will not be bombed and bullied into making proposals which would result in the majority of people of Northern Ireland having to accept a situation that they would find offensive?

Everyone concerned has agreed that there is no possibility of a successful outcome to our search for an overall political settlement unless it is an outcome that will secure the agreement of a wide range of the population. There has to be very widespread agreement if it is to be durable and workable. That is what we are looking for and what I hope we shall achieve.

The Secretary of State said that he will be giving direction and focus in his proposals, based on the areas of agreement which he believes were reached in the previous talks. What were those areas of agreement?

Substantial progress was made in a number of directions, and a number of things happened which, a few years ago, would never have been thought possible—some Unionists went to Dublin and Irish Ministers came to Stormont and participated in talks that lasted for many weeks. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might find it in his heart to welcome those things and even to congratulate those who shared responsibility for them. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might find it in his heart to express a little pleasure that so many new things happened, which were wholly constructive and advantageous in character. I hope that that progress will be resumed.

Sunday Trading

12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent review he has undertaken of the practice of Sunday trading in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

There have been no recent reviews of Sunday trading in Northern Ireland.

Does my hon. Friend agree than as long as Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom—and it will continue to remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as its people want—any future legislation made in the House concerning Sunday trading should also apply to the people of Northern Ireland?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom. However, this matter has been dealt with in the countries on an individual basis. If there is a change in the law on Sunday trading in England and Wales it could give rise to a review of the law in Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland deals with this matter in its own way, and local consultation will be supremely important.

Does the Minister agree that more people in Northern Ireland are concerned not about the increase in Sunday trading, but about the practice of providing three months' employment for four hours a week and the turnover of cheap labour that is destroying some of the economy?

The hon. Gentleman is right. Many issues cover the Sunday trading problem and there is no doubt that trading practices in general should be looked at continually, but, again, we should take local considerations into account.

Prime Minister

Engagements

Q1.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister recall his big idea of the citizens charter, aimed at giving individuals swift redress? Can he explain why veterans of the atomic tests which took place on Christmas island and elsewhere over 30 years ago, who suffered the horrendous effects of radiation, have still not received compensation? People in the United States who suffered in a similar way have been compensated. The Prime Minister assured the House as long ago as 4 December 1990, in reply to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), that the matter was to receive his urgent attention.

Yes. About 10 days ago I wrote again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and other hon. Members who expressed an interest in the matter. We are still waiting for medical reports on which we can make our judgments. I have sought to have the medical reports expedited, but there is further examination to be done. As soon as these medical reports are received we can reach a decision.

Q2.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

Following his statement yesterday, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to earlier interpretations of the Maastricht treaty and its protocols, he is now advised that the opt out from monetary union extends to the exchange rate mechanism and that Britain has no obligation, under the terms of the treaty, to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism unless and until we decide to seek to enter a single European currency?

Yes. In essence my hon. Friend is quite right. I have had no fresh advice, but that has always been the position. Nothing in the Maastricht treaty obliges us to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism. What the treaty does is make it explicitly clear that we retain responsibility for monetary policy in stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union as long as we do not participate in a single monetary policy. As my hon. Friend knows, because of the opt out that I negotiated at Maastricht, we would not enter into a single currency until and unless the House had specifically approved it.

Can the Prime Minister give the House a guarantee that the Government will not make millions of pensioners and children pay for prescriptions?

I had optimistically thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might welcome a third successive fall in unemployment, but I should perhaps have known him better. May I explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—so that there is no doubt either to him or millions of people throughout the country —exactly the review that is taking place on public expenditure? My answer to every scare story that the right hon. and learned Gentleman produces will be the same—I hear that he was peddling them earlier today.

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been instructed to examine all our public expenditure to ensure that it is well targeted and that it delivers value for money, and to see where savings in taxpayers' money can be found. However, he knows that in doing so he must protect the position of the most vulnerable members of society, and that is what he is doing. At the moment, my right hon. Friend is being presented with options. He has not yet considered the options or selected those worth further consideration.

No decisions have been made, and no decision is imminent. Decisions will not be made until the public expenditure round in the autumn. Many options will need to be discarded, but we need to examine public expenditure, and we shall both maintain our manifesto commitments and protect the most vulnerable people in society. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now give up his tedious weekly shroud waving.

I should have known better than to expect a straight answer from the Prime Minister. No one in the country will know whether his answer means yes or no. The Prime Minister talks about his manifesto commitments; may I remind him that millions of ordinary families are already deeply worried about having to pay another £8·50 per week next year and even more the year after, despite his tax pledges. Now families face the threat of an additional tax on being ill. Why are the Government so intent on making ordinary families in this country pay the price of their economic incompetence?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should not peddle those scare stories and frighten people. I have made it absolutely clear that we shall protect vulnerable members of society. "We should be prepared to re-examine everything; I have not ruled anything out"—[Interruption.] Those are not my words but those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was speaking about his review of social policy.

Just over a year ago the Prime Minister promised lower taxes and no cuts in public expenditure. We know that he has broken one promise already, and clearly he is planning to break another. Is it any wonder that no one any longer believes anything that he says?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should stop trying to frighten vulnerable people for his own party advantage. I say to him in all friendliness that it will do him no good in the end. We shall honour our manifesto commitments. Since the general election the right hon. and learned Gentleman has publicly junked all his manifesto commitments. The contrast is obvious, and the public will know which party keeps its promises, for its members sit here, and which party seeks week after week to frighten people with scare stories, for its members sit over there.

Q3.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures show a further fall this month, for the third month in a row? Does he agree that that is a further welcome sign that the recovery is starting to work through to where we all want to see it, in the jobcentres and in a meaningful and stable reduction in unemployment?

Yes, that is welcome to everyone. There are those who mention unemployment when it is going down as well as when it is going up. Unemployment is still too high, but today's figures offer further hope for unemployed people. Not only has unemployment now fallen for the third month in a row, but the number of people employed in manufacturing industry has risen for the third consecutive month, and the number of new vacancies notified to jobcentres is more than it was a year ago. If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wishes to continue with his smears, perhaps he will put up or shut up.

Following the Tory party conference in Scotland, is the Prime Minister aware of the extent of opposition to water privatisation in Scotland, even among Conservatives? Will he now end the uncertainty and give a clear and unequivocal pledge that there will be no privatisation of water in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he wished to make, and he knows as well as I do that the options are set out in the consultation paper "Investing for the Future". We are considering those options. When we have finished our considerations, we shall announce the result.

Q4.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm his view, stated during the last election, that first-past-the-post is the best electoral system; one which has served us well for centuries? Is it not typical of Opposition Members to want to introduce a proportional representation system —a desire reinforced by their decision to abstain on the historically important European vote this evening?

I can certainly confirm that I remain in favour of the first-past-the-post system. I am against proportional representation, and I do not need a referendum to tell me what my view on the matter should be.

Q5.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Has the Prime Minister been able to examine the workings of the community care schemes since they came into operation on 1 April? Is the confusion and anxiety as great in Huntington as it is elsewhere? Will he promise a full review of the schemes at the end of the first three months of working?

The scheme is, with the consent of hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the community care system, a great advance. People have wanted care in the community for a long time, and they now have it. It is a very substantial change. We shall, of course, keep the matter under review to make sure that it is working satisfactorily. There are bound to be some difficulties at the beginning of a change on this scale. It is a welcome change, one for which we have looked for many years, and we intend it to be a success.

Q6.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing suffocation of London by heavy traffic, which is now damaging job prospects in the capital? Will he accept the congratulations of my constituents in Ealing and of the whole of London on his determination to go ahead with the crossrail project? Will the Government do everything possible to expedite the passage of the enabling measure through the House? May we have an assurance that the construction of the project, which will bring jobs to all parts of London, including Ealing, will start yesterday, if possible?

That might be rather difficult. Crossrail is important for London and for jobs throughout the country, and I know that it will be particularly welcome to hon. Members with London constituencies. It will be a joint venture with the private sector and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill will take place in the House next month. Crossrail will obviously make a dramatic difference to London's transport system, as will the Jubilee line extension, to which the Government are also committed —[Interruption.]—as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is heckling, may wish to know.

The Prime Minister may recall that I wrote to him on 30 March about assisted area status for London. I have since received a holding reply. He will know that if London were to receive assisted area status, the support of the Government would be needed and that 13 London boroughs, including Lewisham, would be affected. When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give me a positive reply?

I very much hope that we will be able to reach a decision on changes to the assisted areas map before too long. We are well advanced with our examination of it and are looking at the various criteria that need to be considered. I would certainly hope that we would have a decision, and announce it, well before the House rises for the summer.

Q7.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

I warmly welcome the reduction in unemployment for the third consecutive month, for which Government policies are in part responsible. Will my right hon. Friend give me, the House and the people of this country an assurance that he will not undermine the recovery in our economy by re-entering the exchange rate mechanism? In addition, will he give the pensioners and children of this country an assurance that he will not permit prescriptions to be paid for by the retired or by the young?

I warmly welcome part of my hon. Friend's question: I share his pleasure at the fall in unemployment. We now have the right conditions which I hope will lead to a consistent fall in unemployment. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are saying that the figures are a fiddle may be interested to know that the Department's director of statistics, a civil servant, today issued a statement which said:

"I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claimant count figures."
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) may sit there giggling and making accusations, but he ought not to attack public officials who are not in a position to answer back.

My hon. Friend will have heard me say earlier this week that we had no imminent intention of returning to the exchange rate mechanism because the circumstances for doing so were by no means appropriate at present. As for his second question, he clearly heard the detailed statement that I made to the House some moments ago.

Business Of The House

3.31 pm

Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons
(Mr. Tony Newton)

Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 24 MAY—Progress on the remaining stages of the Railways Bill.

TUESDAY 25 MAY—Completion of remaining stages of the Railways Bill.

Motion on the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Revocation) Order.

WEDNESDAY 26 MAY—Second Reading of the Welsh Language Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 27 MAY—Debates on the Adjournment.

It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week back after the spring Adjournment will be as follows:

MONDAY 7 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.

Motion relating to the Welsh Language Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY 8 JUNE—Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1993.

Motions relating to the Legal Aid (Northern Ireland) Regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.

The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

WEDNESDAY 9 JUNE—Opposition day (13th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced—and, for all I know, decided.

Motion on the Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order.

THURSDAY 10 JUNE—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on administration, in so far as it relates to the Department of National Heritage's expenditure on the legislative framework and general arrangements for the press. Details will be given in the Official Report.

FRIDAY 11 JUNE—There will be a debate to take note of improved productivity in UK manufacturing on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Tuesday 25 May—Committee B, document No. 11096/92 relating to the safety and efficiency of nuclear power stations in non-member countries. Wednesday 26 May—Committee A, document No. 11011/92 relating to the future development of the common transport policy; Committee B, various documents relating to carbon/energy tax, details to be given in the Official Report. Wednesday 9 June —Committee A, documents Nos. 10344/91 and 5019/93 relating to marketing standards for milk and non-milk fats; Committee B, document No. 4180/93 relating to prospecting for and extraction of hydrocarbons.

[Tuesday 25 May:

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document:

11096/92 Community aid to promote nuclear safety in eastern Europe

Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxv (1992–93).

Wednesday 26 May:

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community Document:

11011/92 Transport policy

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:

HC 79-xxiii (1992–93) and HC 79-xxvii (1992–93).

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Documents:
7018/92Carbon/Energy Tax
8328/92
4182/93
7847/92
+COR1
7757/92
7569/92
5705/93
7157/92
SEC(92) 1996
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:

HC 79-vii (1992–93), HC 79-xx (1992–93), HC 79-xviii (1992–93), HC 79-xxvi (1992–93), HC 79-xxix (1992–93), HC 79-xv (1992–93).

Wednesday 9 June:

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community Community Documents:

10344/91 5019/93

Marketing standards for fats

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:

HC 24-xiv (1991–92) and HC 79-xxiv (1992–93).

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document:

4180–93 Licensing of exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons

Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxi (1992–93).

Tuesday 8 June:

Legal Aid Regulations:

Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 121);

Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 123);

Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 122);

Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 124).

Thursday 10 June: Estimates Day: class XI, vote 7, Department of National Heritage:

Administration; the fourth report from the National Heritage Committee, Session 1992–93, on privacy and media intrusion (HC 294) is relevant.]

I shall put to the Leader of the House a number of requests with which I am afraid he will be all too familiar.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for continuing the practice of giving us more than a week's notice of the business ahead? It is widely appreciated in all parts of the House, and I urge him to continue with it. However, the Government need to be flexible in these matters. Therefore, may I ask him not to rule out a statement or debate in Government time on the situation in the former Yugoslavia?

May I also draw the Leader of the House's attention to the fact that on 28 January, and again on 25 February, I asked when we could expect the usual one-day debate on the Government's public expenditure plans? In view of today's 34 per cent. increase in Government borrowing April to April to cover the PSBR, is it not astonishing that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is not willing to come to the House of Commons and share his problems with us?

May I ask the Leader of the House again for a debate on the defence estimates and for the Government to find time to discuss the affairs of Scotland, notably water privatisation and the so-called stocktaking exercise?

When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to bring forward proposals concerning the allocation of the six extra European Parliamentary seats and to explain how the legitimate expectations of the Boundary Commission to be involved in the process will be met?

The hon. Gentleman, perhaps understandably—I suppose it has the merit of consistency, which we do not always see—has repeated a number of the demands that his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made last week. On several of them, including the requests he made in relation to Scotland, the extra European parliamentary seats and the Government's public expenditure plans, there is not very much I can add to what I said to the right hon. Lady last week.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's comments about my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary were a bit unreasonable, given that the Chief Secretary came to the House and made a statement and has certainly spoken in a number of debates since the public expenditure reviews, to which some reference has been made recently. were set in hand.

If it seemed right or necessary, of course the Government would arrange for statements to be made on the former Yugoslavia, or indeed elsewhere, should developments during the recess make that necessary.

I am rather more sympathetic to the learned Gentleman's request for a debate on the defence estimates than I am to some of his other requests, as I have already signalled to his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South. I realise that I have not been able to require that desire in what I have announced today, but I am looking for ways of meeting it in the not too distant future.

I thank the learned Gentleman for the kind words he said at the beginning of his remarks. It will not always be possible, but I am certainly working towards giving the House as much advance notice as I can of its business.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is increasing concern up and down the country at what Sir John Banham and his commission are doing? May we please have an early debate on his proposals for Derbyshire? If he is proposing the creation of maxi district councils throughout the country, he will meet with opposition throughout the country.

I cannot be as forthcoming to my hon. Friend as he would wish. However, I cannot do badly because, last Tuesday, immediately after having to listen to the spring Adjournment motion debate in which my hon. Friend made a similar point, I went to the CBI annual dinner, and, lo and behold, I found myself talking at some length to Sir John Banham, so I was able to tell him that some of my hon. Friends had expressed reservations about his proposals. It was not a public conversation, but I hope that Sir John will not mind my saying in general terms that he said that he is always willing to listen to representations.

Irrespective of what side of the argument hon. Members are on, it is generally agreed on both sides of the House that the public are bewildered by the incomprehensible procedural wrangling surrounding the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Now that that process is beginning to wind down—I hope this evening—does the Leader of the House think that it is time to look at the way in which the House does its business? Can he assure the House that he will arrange for a statement or, better still, time for debate to try to get a bit of sanity into the way in which the House works?

I suspect that, at times, it is not only those outside who have been bemused by some of the procedures of the House. It would be rash for me—indeed for anyone who may hold this office—to undertake to sort out all the tangles to the extent that the hon. Gentleman thinks right. If there are lessons to be learnt, we shall try to learn them. The Chairman of the Procedure Committee is not in his place, but I am sure that he will be turning his fertile mind to ways of making further improvements.

Can my right hon. Friend announce today a date for the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill?

I may have given my hon. Friend an informal indication of it. He may have noted that I announced that, on Tuesday 8 June, the Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock. What is named for private business is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I would be somewhat surprised if that did not prove to be the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill.

The Leader of the House has made very welcome arrangements in the past for announcing recess dates. Can he tell the House why he has not yet announced the date at the end of July? Is it to be another pawn in the Maastricht negotiations with the Lords? Can he tell us when the House will rise?

I would not seek to make the hon. Gentleman, whom I much respect, a pawn in any negotiations, but I acknowledge that there are a number of uncertainties about the progress of important business which lead me to be cautious before proceeding in quite the way that the hon. Gentleman would like.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns expressed about the risks to occupational pension schemes, perhaps personified by the disaster that overcame the Maxwell pensioners. Will he make time for a debate in which we can explore various ideas on how those schemes might be strengthened and come up with a way to provide a safety net for pensioners who may suffer when schemes fail?

I cannot promise time for a debate. My hon. Friend, who has taken a close and significant interest in these matters over many months, will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has shown himself willing to consider ways to make improvements in this sector. As it happens, my right hon. Friend will be here to answer questions on Monday 7 June.

Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's failure earlier to answer the question about prescription charges, and the fact that the Tories have already increased those charges by more than 2,000 per cent. since they came to power, may we have an early statement giving us a categorical assurance that the Government have abandoned any move to reduce further eligibility for free prescriptions? Why should sick pensioners and the parents of sick children be expected to bail out this discredited Government?

My right hon. Friend made absolutely clear the position on the question that was raised. I will not add to it.

Will my right hon. Friend make time at an early moment for a debate on the reaction of some local authorities to compulsory competitive tendering? I ask that question for three reasons: first, so that I might draw to the attention of the House the unlawful termination of a grass cutting contract by Labour-controlled Plymouth city council, which was won lawfully in 1990 under compulsory competitive tendering by a company named Krinkles, the termination of which, in my view, is the greatest public scandal—

Order. Although the House may be interested in the hon. Gentleman's views on other occasions, this is not the moment for him to put them. If he would like to put his point briefly, I am sure that the Leader of the House will respond. His question must be brief, and he does not need to argue his case.

May we have an urgent debate on the important matter of this unlawful termination, costing my constituents £750,000?

While I am not fully familiar with the details of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, it certainly sounds as if it may well merit a debate. However, much as I might wish to offer one, I must be mindful of the fact that we had a debate, I think on a Friday, on local government matters only a few weeks ago. Happily, my hon. Friend may have an opportunity to raise the matter soon, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is due to answer questions on Wednesday 26 May.

Is the Leader of the House aware of the suggestion in today's press that the Government intend to change the law to remove the protection of workers who were automatically moved from either state or local government units into the private sector without their agreement? Will he please undertake to ensure that the Secretary of State who is responsible makes a public announcement in the House if any such suggestion is to be pushed?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, as with any of my right hon. Friends, would make any statement that it was felt was appropriate in relation to any proposal that they felt it right to present. I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend to whom she refers, the Secretary of State for Employment, will be here for questions even earlier than the Secretary of State for the Environment—that is to say, on Tuesday 25 May.

I welcome the verdict of the jury which vindicated the actions of three police officers in bringing to task those responsible for the Guildford bombings. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on compensation for those officers, who have suffered traumatic experiences?

Once again, I do not think that it would be possible for me to promise time for such a debate, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Why is the Leader of the House shrugging off the demand for a debate on the privatisation plans for Scottish water? Is he aware that his Scottish Office colleagues are briefing the Scottish press in private about their latest indications on the matter? If the Tory party wants to swallow Scottish water in two gulps rather than one, would not it be wise to share those views and test the temperature of the House first?

The hon. Gentleman's question hangs on the request for a debate. I have said a number of times in recent weeks, indeed several times to the hon. Gentleman, although I understand why he continues to be so persistent, that the appropriate time for a debate is when the Government have some proposals. At the moment the Government are still considering the results of the consultation.

I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that there is great concern in Northern Ireland about the proposed closure of many hospitals, including one of the largest maternity hospitals in Belfast, the Jubilee. I am sure that he is also aware of early-day motion 1798 on the subject which has been signed by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and me and by Belfast Members.

[That this House deplores the intended removal by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board of patients' choice for maternity services at the Belfast Jubilee Maternity Hospital when that hospital already complies with all of the quality, safety and other criteria laid down by the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, andreflected in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board's own Prospectus for the Purchase of Maternity Services; and considers that this is contrary to the Patient's Charter.]

If he is not able to arrange a debate, will he refer this matter to the Northern Ireland Committee? Will he explain to the House how that Committee functions and how we can get business before it? On a previous occasion when I put a matter to the right hon. Gentleman, it was evidently scratched by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and we were not allowed to discuss it.

I shall leave aside the comments at the end of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am not sure whether he had an opportunity to ask my right hon. and learned Friend about the matter during today's Northern Ireland questions, but I can confirm that I have received his request for a meeting of the Committee. At the moment I can only say that I want to assess what support there is among Northern Ireland Members before considering whether that would be an appropriate step.

Does the Leader of the House agree that, if a fragile economic recovery is under way, nothing should happen to prevent it from developing? In the light of that, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to take an early opportunity, possibly next Tuesday, to make a statement about the position in the Southampton container terminal, which is on the verge of an industrial dispute provoked by the determination of management to sack workers and bring in casual workers?

The House must be given the opportunity to debate the threat to industrial peace from that sort of management action, which includes the recruitment of casual labour who have been asked whether they would be willing to cross picket lines. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House should discuss whether that sort of macho management is what this country needs when economic recovery may be getting under way?

I doubt whether I could or should promise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will make a statement. However, as the hon. Gentleman implied in his question—and as I have already told another hon. Member—my right hon. Friend will be here to answer questions next Tuesday. I can now predict one question and so ensure that my right hon. Friend is forewarned.

Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an early debate on the improvement in Britain's economic position? Is it not correct that the fall in unemployment that we have welcomed today is the result not only of the Government's current economic policy, but of the supply-side reforms of the 1980s? Is not this a useful opportunity to tell the House and the country that sustainable economic growth can come only from deregulated, free-market economics—something that only Conservative Members believe in?

My hon. Friend hardly needs me to say that I am sympathetic to his proposition. Indeed, I had thought of making similar comments in response to the previous question. I am glad to say that, just before coming here this afternoon, I had the pleasure of being present at a function—[interruption.]—related to the motor industry—[Interruption.] It was a caring organisation concerned with providing residential care. At that function, it was clear that the motor industry was in a distinctly optimistic frame of mind.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a further statement on the coal industry and the closure of pits? Does he recall that, when we debated the White Paper, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that a number of pits would be kept open on a care and maintenance basis? Is he aware that there has been a conspiracy between the Government and British Coal to shut those pits? Many miners are being offered redundancy payments which, if they do not take them on the spot, will be reduced by more than half later in the year, in compliance with the law of the land. Is it not high time that that conspiracy was broken?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the women who camped on Abingdon green, outside the House of Commons, the other day were told by the people with cameras that they had been instructed by the Government that in no circumstances should they take pictures of those women, who were protesting against the illegal closures?

I suppose that I must say—although, once again, I feel that it is hardly necessary—that I wholly reject the allegations that the hon. Gentleman so freely throws around about conspiracies of one sort or another. Frankly, his concerns would be a good deal more credible if he did not lard them with such silly allegations.

Will it be possible in the near future to have a debate on the need for continued restraint in public expenditure during which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary can be made aware of the fact that, based on current trends, it is likely that in the not too distant future more people will be employed in central and local government than in manufacturing industry?

My hon. Friend will be well aware that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is aware of concerns of the kind that he has expressed about public expenditure, and that is precisely why he is engaged on the reviews that appear to have led to some controversial speculation.

The answer is not quite as usual. For those who are not part of the group that takes part in these exchanges, may I say that this is about Members' interests. I hope that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests will not mind my saying that I had a further word with him last night on the convenient timing of a debate. However, at present I cannot give an exact date.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill on 8 June. May we have a debate on roads next week so that I can raise the important matter of the proposed closure of part of Berkley avenue in my constituency, which is opposed by thousands of my constituents and myself, and on which we are awaiting the decision of the Department of Transport inspector who conducted an inquiry many months ago? We need his decision. May we have a debate so that I might secure it.

No one would be more surprised than my hon. Friend were I to promise the debate that he seeks, but I hope that he will take it in the friendly spirit that it is meant if I draw his attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport will be here more or less continuously next Monday and Tuesday, either answering questions or dealing with the remaining stages of the Railways Bill. Thus, on a number of public and private occasions, my hon. Friend may have an opportunity to nobble him.

Will the Leader of the House consider arranging an urgent debate on the way in which the unemployment figures are compiled? The Prime Minister again today evaded a question on the serious things that are happening in the way in which the unemployment figures are put together, and the Secretary of State for Employment is signally trying to avoid a dialogue with me on the question of people who are clearly not sick and who are being diverted from the unemployment benefit list to the sickness benefit list. That is undermining the community health service as doctors are being inundated with pro forma forms from the Department of Employment to be completed in order to give a sick note to people who are clearly well. That is a fiddle, and the three months' good figures really are not so good after all.

I sometimes find it a bit strange that at almost one and the same time we hear such allegations together with allegations which are often thrown at the Secretary of State for Social Security about how the Government are attempting to take people off invalidity benefit by subjecting them to medical examinations.

People are being taken off the unemployment benefit list and put on the sickness benefit list.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his question—and a long one it was, too.

If there is evidence, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, or for that matter my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, if it is for him, will consider it. As for the rest, my right hon. Friend made it clear that the Department's director of statistics has issued a statement, not on Ministers' behalf but on his own, saying that he has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claimant count figures for recent months. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to attack an independent public official in relation to such a statement, let him do so, but we on the Conservative Benches will not join in.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is getting a little tired of colleagues asking for a debate on the Jopling report on the sittings of the House, but can he say whether we might have an early debate on that and whether he has had replies from other parties to the request that they should put forward what they believe should happen after the Jopling report so that we can, as a House of Commons, move forward together in a non-party political way?

I know that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who is unable to be here today, put some propositions some time ago and is aware of the desire in all parts of the House to make some progress. She has told me that she is aware of that, and I await further developments.

Is the Leader of the House aware that in the past week relatives of those who died in the Waco fire have received notification that the bodies are now ready to be returned to Britain, but they have been informed that they may be asked to raise between £2,000 and £3,000 in order to bring the bodies back to Britain for burial here? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that there must be a number of constituents like my own who are pensioners or widows with no savings for whom that would be an impossible burden? When I contacted the Foreign Office—

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that these are business questions. He does not have to develop his case but must merely ask a question of the Leader of the House and explain in two sentences why he wants a debate next week.

Can the Foreign Secretary make a statement about a more appropriate system of supporting families who have the right to bury their deceased in this country?

I will certainly bring the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

I do not wish to ask my usual question about the Shops (Amendment) Bill. Will the Leader of the House consider between now and the time the House returns from the Whitsun recess arranging for a statement to be made on whether the Government intend to go ahead with the Jubilee line? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of hon. Members are still without proper offices, and that the Accommodation and Works Committee spent five years devising a plan for the phase 2 development? It is still awaiting a reply and a decision from the Government regarding the Jubilee line. It is high time that the Government made a decision on that matter, in the way that they did yesterday in respect of the crossrail link.

A number of the hon. Gentleman's questions were rhetorical because he knows—given that we have attended the same meetings—that I am well aware of the points that he raised. I imagine that he heard the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the Jubilee line extension in Prime Minister's Question Time half an hour ago. Obviously, I am not in a position to add to them.

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the possible consequences of the record level of national debt on the sick and poor of this country? Is he aware that many people listened carefully to the remarks of the Chief Secretary last night, which were on the record—no scaremongering? We should have a full debate to reassure the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that the Chief Secretary's statement is a measure of the Government's mismanagement of the economy by relying too much on receipts from privatisation and neglecting manufacturing industry?

I certainly do not accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, given that his party persistently demands greater expenditure than any allocated to almost anything at any moment—with the possible exception of defence expenditure. When defence spending is reduced, the hon. Gentleman's party complains about that as well. I do not find the hon. Gentleman's remarks very credible, and I will not add to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few moments ago.

Order. We must move on.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must strike a balance between business questions and the debate that is to follow. An unprecedented number of right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in that debate. Business questions have run for more than half an hour, and that is quite long enough. If right hon. and hon. Members had been speedier in putting their questions, and if the responses had been brisker, I would have been able to call more Members. We must learn lessons from that.

Adjournment (Whitsun)

I remind right hon. and hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 27 May up to nine right hon. and hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Northern Ireland Questions

4.5 pm

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were kind enough earlier to call me on the first Northern Ireland question on the Order Paper, which I much appreciated. However, if you examine the list of Northern Ireland questions, you will see that the first Northern Ireland Member to appear in the list is myself, at question 25. My question was followed by a couple from other Northern Ireland Members. If that happened during Scottish questions, and if the first question from a Scottish Member on the Order Paper was No. 25, with the first 24 being from Members from other parts of the United Kingdom, I am sure that there would be uproar.

Is it possible for someone to take a serious look at what is happening? There is evidence of an attempt by Labour Members to pack today's Order Paper with questions. We suspect that Ministers have tried to pack the Order Paper to keep out Northern Ireland Members' questions. Can something be done about it?

As the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House know, questions are placed on the Order Paper according to the ballot system. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly free to see that ballot system, as is every other hon. Member. If he wishes to put the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure, he may do so. It is only right, however, to remind the hon. Gentleman that, despite the fact that the first question from a Northern Ireland Member was No. 25, all the members of his party who were in the House today were called to ask supplementary questions, as were the other Northern Ireland Members present in the Chamber. We must now move on.

Orders Of The Day

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

[Relevant document: Second Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1992–93 on Europe after Maastricht (House of Commons Paper No. 642).]

I remind hon. Members that between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock I shall have to limit speeches to 10 minutes. I hope that all hon. Members, including Privy Councillors, who speak outside that period will limit their speeches so that as many Members as possible may be called.

4.6 pm

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A reasoned amendment has been tabled to the Third Reading and you did not say whether you had selected it. It is a useful amendment, which many people would support if there was an opportunity to vote on it.

I am well aware of the amendment and read it carefully a couple of times this morning. I thought that it said exactly what the hon. Member wanted to say and that perhaps he did not want to be called in the debate as he had expressed himself so well. I must tell the hon. Member that I have not been able to select his amendment.

The House last debated the Bill as a whole almost a year ago on Second Reading and gave it a majority of 244. Since then the House has spent 204 hours of debate on the Bill. More than 600 amendments were tabled and the Committee stage took 163 hours during 23 days of detailed debate. So it would be fair to begin by congratulating those hon. Members who were most closely involved on all sides of the argument. Perhaps the House will allow me to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), for his diligence and—most of the time—for his good humour. I cannot tell, Madam Speaker, but I think that there is a sense of relief in some parts of the House that the ordeal is almost over and that, as the poet observed,

"even the weariest river Winds somewhere safe to sea".
I do not think that the House should be defensive about what has been a remarkable, although complicated, parliamentary endeavour. The Bill has grown from its original three clauses to eight, but without altering its central thrust. Its purpose remains to bring into United Kingdom law, where necessary, those parts of the treaty of Maastricht which give rise to Community rights and obligations.

I will mention again those amendments which deal with the social protocol and, in his reply, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will touch on those that deal with the economic and monetary aspects of the treaty.

The House has prepared itself more thoroughly than any other Parliament of the Community for the crucial vote tonight. Tonight we shall decide whether to approve the Bill and, through it, the treaty that the Government signed at Maastricht. That decision is with Parliament, not with the Government. The Government will not ratify the treaty unless Parliament passes the necessary legislation.

I know that there is a public perception problem. Most of the press—I shall not embroider the point, for it is a general one—have given up reporting debates in the House, although plenty of space is provided for interpretation, gossip and the odd colourful phrase. With the exception of radio, the media have chosen barely to exercise the right for which their predecessors had to fight very hard in the 18th and early 19th century—the right to report what is said and done in the House.

That is a pity. It is a pity on this occasion, too, because the quality of debate on the Bill has been generally high. Anyone, for example, who is interested, as many people are, in establishing what subsidiarity means, or how, for example, the new arrangements under the treaty for co-operation on foreign and security policy will work out, would be hard put to it to find better discussion of those issues anywhere than the one which now appears in the pages of Hansard, on both sides of the argument.

Has it occurred to the Secretary of State that the radio and press have not reported these discussions because the public have had no role whatever to play in them? Anybody who has been to Denmark knows that the media there covered the debate extensively. The Maastricht treaty was made available, but in Britain, as the Government chose to keep the public out, there was perhaps no reason why the radio should explain what was going on.

We have chosen to operate—and the House of Commons endorsed this in its vote on the referendum —as a parliamentary democracy. The right hon. Gentleman has frequently and ably set out his views in theory in public, in theory within earshot of his constituents, but in practice not, for the reason that I have given. Those who struggled in the late 18th and early 19th century for the right to report the proceedings of this House would feel, I think, that that is a pity.

In addition, we have had an excellent report on Europe from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee which analyses the implications of the treaty. The House is obliged to the Select Committee for the work that it has done—not just this time, but on earlier occasions. It has also begun to look ahead, as we all should, to the agenda for 1996.

After this detailed scrutiny and preparation, the House stands ready to take its decision on the Bill and the treaty as a whole. The Danish people, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, voted decisively in a second referendum on Tuesday in favour of ratifying the treaty, as clarified and amplified by the agreement at Edinburgh. Despite some extraordinary forays from Britain by editors and other distinguished persons, designed to scare the pants off the Danes, the Danes refused to be scared in that way.

Is it the position now that if the Danes had said no, the Government and the other countries of Europe would have ganged up against them, as my right hon. Friend so effectively threatened the Danish people?

My hon. Friend is doing again what he has done throughout these proceedings—for example, on the European Court of Justice. He is putting words into people's mouths which were never uttered. I would refer my hon. Friend to what I actually said and to what the Prime Minister said subsequently. If the Danes had voted no, I should have spent most of yesterday in Rome with the Danish Minister and the other Ministers of the Community deciding and setting on track, I hope with the Danes, how the 12 members of the Community should react to that event. Fortunately, however, that was not so.

Nine of the other member states of the Community have used an exclusively parliamentary route to ratification, as we have. That is not because both they and we are, in some way, less democratic, but because that is the normal constitutional procedure for the approval of treaties in this country and in those other member states. The House considered the option of a referendum and decisively rejected it.

I shall not go over the argument again. Like others, it was a thorough and principled debate. We decided to do the job for which we were elected rather than to pass that job back to those who sent us here.

My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Is he aware of a German poll, which was reported in The Guardian today, which showed that 83 per cent. of the German people wish to have a referendum on the proposed treaty on European union? How can it be said to be inimical to parliamentary democracy for this Parliament, or any other democratic Parliament, to set the question for a referendum and then to judge how the question is decided by the outcome of that referendum as expressed by the people? How is that against parliamentary principles?

We argued that point at length in the House. I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend took part in the debate, but his argument was strongly put. The House came to the conclusion—I am sure rightly—that many people work very hard to elect Members precisely so that we should take decisions of this kind. Therefore, the House was right to follow exactly the line that was taken by my noble Friend Lady Thatcher, when we in the Conservative party voted exactly on those grounds of principle against having a referendum on Europe in 1975.

The Secretary of State has said at least twice in the past few minutes that we do things differently from Common Market countries that have had referendums because we are a parliamentary democracy, in which we debate Bills differently. That has been the solid argument of the Government for refusing a referendum. Why is it that when a majority of hon. Members in this so-called parliamentary democracy decide to accept the social chapter, the Foreign Secretary says from the Dispatch Box, "I don't care how many people vote for it, we are going to ignore it"? In this tin-pot parliamentary democracy, the British people cannot have a referendum and if something is passed that the Government do not like they say, "Get stuffed."

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the House of Commons has never voted on such a proposition. The only time that it came close—

We have never accepted a proposal that would include the social chapter in the treaty or impose burdens on this country. I will come to that. The only time that the House voted on the substance of the matter, it rejected the social chapter on the reasoned amendment that was proposed by the Labour party.

I want to get on, but if my hon. Friend interrupts me later I shall give way.

I want to look at the background of the wider scene of the discussion and the decision. The negotiations leading up to the treaty were launched at a time of tremendous change in Europe. They followed the liberation of central and eastern Europe and the peaceful reunification of Germany and during the negotiations the Soviet empire collapsed. It is no secret that we would have preferred to have waited for such events to settle and for the completion of the single market before setting out on the negotiations. The treaty that resulted is a genuine attempt to strengthen the framework for European co-operation in such a way as to reflect the importance of the Community in this new Europe.

We need to become more effective in promoting our shared interests in the world. We need to co-operate more effectively against crime and illegal immigration. We need to tackle shared environmental problems. We need to make the single market work effectively. Above all, we need, as Europeans, to tackle the main political and economic burden that is needed to buttress reform and democracy in the eastern part of the continent. The decision that we take tonight will obviously be important for us and for Europe.

I do not think that the treaty is constitutionally more radical or innovative than the Single European Act, which the House approved in 1986. It is not the blueprint for a European super-state. Of course, there are some significant figures who continue to believe that the Community should develop into a united states of Europe. Commissioner Bangemann, for example, is always anxious to share his thoughts with us and they are constantly picked up, especially by Conservative Members. There are others who share his views.

It does not require a shock-horror lead story on the front page of The Sunday Telegraph to reveal that the Belgian Prime Minister is a federalist. During the Maastricht negotiations the Dutch Government set out, in good faith, a centralised model for the treaty, with a single Executive and most co-operation made subject to the authority of the European Court of Justice. That model was unacceptable to us and was rejected by most of our partners. Instead, we agreed to proceed on the basis of the "pillar" structure, including intergovernmental co-operation, which is contained in the treaty and which the House has discussed for many hours.

The treaty is not the final word in the development of the Community. There will continue to be differing views in all member states, which is perfectly healthy. We must continue to argue our case strongly. But the treaty, in contrast to its predecessors, marks an advance for our approach. Others will continue to hold views that I regard as old-fashioned—for example, that the only respectable way forward for Europe is that of steady integration and centralisation. We believe differently and the public across Europe increasingly express a different opinion, as does the treaty. The debate will continue; we should not be dismayed by it.

If we consider the hours of discussion in the House, we see that the Bill has been assailed by two main groups of critics.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that those who want a federal set-up—be they abroad or the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—see the treaty as the basis for creating, in a short period, a centralised, federal state of Europe modelled very much on the United States of Europe? The third stage of the treaty contains powers that provide the basis for that vision. Why is not the Foreign Secretary as honest with the House as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup?

We are both entirely honest in putting forward differing views on the future of Europe. Those who think in the way described by the hon. Gentleman will continue to argue their case as they are entitled to do—I have mentioned some of them by name. We shall continue to argue our case. I hope that I am making it clear that the sort of Europe for which we are arguing is theone that will exist and that will be based on the treaty that we are asking the House to enable us to ratify. The evidence to support my assertion is constantly piling up.

I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

Before the Foreign Secretary leaves the issue of the protocol and his great respect for parliamentary sovereignty, will he state whether there has ever been a time in the history of Parliament when the House of Commons has acted as it has over the protocol? It voted to show that it did not want taxpayers' money to be used for a particular purpose—to pay for the social chapter of the other 11 members—but, despite that clear vote on the protocol, the Government have said that they will use taxpayers' money for that purpose.

We will use taxpayers' money in the legal ways for which provision is made. My hon. Friend makes a specific point about administrative expenses. I have discussed the matter with him on the Floor of the House and in correspondence on several occasions. He certainly knows how we intend to proceed if any administrative expenses are incurred as a result of the social protocol. Clearly, we must act in line with the provisions approved by the House under different Acts.

No. I have not ignored my hon. Friend, although he seemed to think that I was going to do so earlier.

In the House, the Bill has been assailed by two groups of critics whose avowed objectives were incompatible, but who were prepared to make common cause from time to time to seek to damage the Government or the treaty. The Labour party has shown itself to be obsessed by just one aspect of the treaty, the social chapter. It knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could not have fulfilled the mandate given to him by the House had he signed the social chapter. It knows that almost every member state has now ratified the treaty containing the social protocol which excludes the United Kingdom from the effect of the agreement of the Eleven.

It knows that at the last election it put forward such corporatist policies, but was not elected. If it wants to pursue such policies it would be better for it to seek a mandate through the front door rather than try to smuggle in such policies through the back door. Our view remains unchanged. We believe that Britain and the Community as a whole will be better off without the damaging provisions of the social chapter. I shall briefly set out our case yet again.

At present, in social affairs and employment law, the treaty of Rome gives the Community specific power to legislate by qualified majority vote on minimum standards of health and safety for workers. If other action is suggested in the social sphere, it has to be on the basis of unanimity. The social agreement of the Eleven would extend the use of qualified majority voting to new areas, including working conditions, informing and consulting workers, and the equal treatment of men and women. If it had been adopted for the Community as a whole, it would have provided more scope for Community action to centralise policies in which, because of the strongly differing experiences and traditions of member states, we believe that the principle of subsidiarity should apply. I have been asked several times to specify.

We believe that a range of unwelcome legislation could be imposed on the British Parliament, including a compulsory model for worker consultation in British firms, a rigid framework for rules and conditions of employment, costly new restrictions on part-time workers, and the notion that, in sex discrimination cases, employers should in effect be considered guilty rather than innocent.

Furthermore, the trade unions are clearly watching the provisions of the social charter, which would allow Europe-wide deals between unions and employers' groups, which may or may not be representative, and for those deals to be transformed into Community law without United Kingdom Government or parliamentary involvement. In short, we believe and argue that the provisions could place in jeopardy many of the achievements of the past 14 years in freeing our labour market from restrictions that destroy jobs.

Will the Secretary of State explain why he believes that the social chapter would be so much more damaging to this country than other member states believe it would be to their economies? Will he join me in condemning the advertisements that have recently appeared in the German press, extolling the virtues of our low wages and low national insurance contributions and encouraging German firms to invest in this country on that basis? Why is he equating us with third-world economies? Why will not he adopt the social chapter and allow our workers to have the same rights as others so that they can compete equally with other EC member states?

We do not want our economy to suffer from the high costs that are causing such harm to the German economy at the moment. [Interruption.] Members of Labour's Front Bench are hopelessly out of date. If they were following the debate on the continent, they would know that the Commission, the Germans, the new French Government and many other people are concerned about European competitiveness and the high labour costs—wages plus other costs—which European employers are having to shoulder in comparison to those in the United States, Japan and Asian countries.

If that is true—if Britain offers less protection to people at work, lower standards of safety and health at work and lower wages —why have other economies done so much better than ours?

I would say, "Watch that space." That is not what is happening at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] We are emerging from recession more quickly than most commentators, and certainly the Opposition, expected. Part of the reason may be the fact that our labour market is organised not to put such extra burdens on employers.

In answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), who said that we were isolated, I quote from a statement made on 3 May by Mr. Carlos Ferrer, the president of UNICE—the Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Furope—to Employment and Social Affairs Ministers. He set out a long series of criticisms and demands, which are summed up in the phrase that he used to the assembled Community Ministers:
"Please stop taking measures which unnecessarily destroy jobs."
He is not an Englishman, but the head of the European employers' organisation, and he makes our point exactly.

But, in all of that, the head of the European Employers Federation never once asked the other 11 to withdraw from the social chapter.

The European employers have been a little slow to realise what is afoot. I strongly advise right hon. and hon. Members to read what was said. The critique here—rather belatedly put forward, I agree, but very cogently argued—is exactly what Conservative Members have constantly urged and supplies the reason why we did not join the social chapter. We are adhering to that position and will continue to do so.

My right hon. Friend will be aware, as is the rest of the House, that we had encouraging news today about unemployment, which has now fallen for three months in succession. We are the only country in Europe in which unemployment is falling, much earlier in the economic cycle than expected. One reason for that, cited by many economists, is the flexibility that employers in this country have to hire people because they are not burdened with excessive, social regulations.

My hon. Friend reinforces the point that I am trying to make. The debate is only now really catching fire on the continent of Europe. The Opposition have not yet tuned into it, but they will have to do so fairly soon.

No. I must get on, as I promised, to amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 2 featured as amendment No. 27 in a previous life. I made the Government's position clear in the debate on 5 May. The effect of the amendment has been to add the social protocol to those parts of the Maastricht treaty—such as the intergovernmental pillars —that are not being incorporated into United Kingdom law because they do not need to be.

I come now to the point of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The amendment does not—and its movers did not claim that it did—force the United Kingdom to accept the social chapter, although that was the excuse given for the efforts to delay ratification; nor does it delete the social protocol from the treaty. I will not repeat the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, but we are confident of our legal ground, which has been explained to the House on a number of occasions.

I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Before I come to the critics on the Conservative Benches, I will deal with the general stance of the Labour party. It has, of course, altered constantly over the years. The Labour party has adopted as many positions as possible. In the early 1960s it opposed our membership of the Community; in the late 1960s it was in favour; in 1972 it was against; by 1974 it was in favour of someone else's taking the decision; by 1975 it was recommending a yes vote in the referendum; in 1981 it was back to opposing the Community as a capitalist plot—some hon. Members still believe that. I think that we are now in the parliamentary lifetime of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). In 1987 the Labour party was back in the pro-membership fold. In 1992, it claimed to support the Maastricht treaty—but it is a funny kind of support that we have had in the proceedings in the House. So the weathercock of the Labour party has turned and turned again.

Now the Labour party has reached a decision on how it will vote tonight. I do not know, of course; I only know what I have read, and I may be wrong—I hope that I am. The whole House is waiting for the decision of the Opposition Front Bench. Against this background of the weathercock, will Labour Members vote yes or will they vote no? What will be the intellectual climax of all these years, these decades of reflection and debate in the Labour party? It will not disappoint us; it has now come up with something new. Tired of yes, tired of no, Labour Members will abstain.

Some of us remember Mr. Frank Maguire, who, in 1979, for a fairly crucial vote, braved the perils of the Irish sea and came from Fermanagh and South Tyrone to abstain in person. There they are, the talent, the courage, the massed firepower—the relatively massed firepower; all of 35 Labour Members are present—who have come here from all parts of the kingdom to abstain in person.

I hope that after all that discussion and debate, one or two Labour Members might find it in their minds to express an opinion of some kind in the Lobby tonight.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way. I assure him that at least 60 Labour Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading and I am sure that they will vote against the Maastricht treaty again tonight, primarily because it takes away from national Parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers who will impose the economic policies of price stability, deflation and high unemployment throughout the European Community.