HL Deb 12 December 1989 vol 513 cc1233-45

4.12 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the meeting of the European Council in Strasbourg. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council in Strasbourg on 8th and 9th December, which I attended together with my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

"The text of the Council's conclusions has been placed in the Library of the House.

"The Council considered four main issues: the steps still needed to complete the Common Market in 1992; progress with economic and monetary union; the social charter; and how the European Community can support democracy and economic reform in Eastern Europe.

"First, the steps needed to achieve a real Common Market by 1992. Our meeting in Strasbourg confirmed the importance which we all attach to keeping to the timetable for 1992: and I believe we are on course for that.

"The Council welcomed the progress made during the past six months, in particular to open up markets for banking and financial services and for telecommunications in every member state, and to make possible cheaper air fares.

"We shall aim to agree another package of important measures before the end of the year, including rules for company mergers and the further opening up of public sector procurement.

"We also set priorities for the next stage of our work, covering such matters as freedom to provide investment services and life insurance throughout the Community, and removal of restrictions on road and air transport and shipping.

"Completion of the Common Market is important in three respects: it represents the single most important contribution which the European Community can make to the prosperity of all its members; it is an example and an opportunity for the countries of Eastern Europe; and it is the main area in which the European Commnity is in practice moving towards closer integration.

"Britain has throughout been at the forefront and our record in implementing the Community's decisions is matched only by Denmark—as was explicitly confirmed by M. Delors in Strasbourg.

"The second main item was progress with economic and monetary union. The Council welcomed the fact that the necessary decisions have now been taken to enable the first stage of closer economic and monetary co-operation in Europe to start on 1st July next year. This is something which Britain very strongly supports.

"President Mitterrand also noted that the necessary majority existed to convene an inter-governmental conference before the end of next year, to discuss further steps towards economic and monetary union. The conference will set its own agenda and the timetable for its proceedings. No time limit is set for its work. It will have before it not just the Delors Report, but the British paper setting out an evolutionary approach to economic and monetary union, and perhaps other contributions. Meanwhile, discussion of all these matters will continue among Finance Ministers, to ensure that there is full and adequate preparation of the inter-governmental conference.

"The Council's conclusions specifically recognise—and this is a very important point for Britain and for this House—that the procedures for democratic control over economic and financial matters in each member state must be respected.

"Mr. Speaker, we are in the early stage of what will be a long debate in Europe on these matters. A number of different viewpoints are already beginning to emerge. Britain will play a full and constructive part in the debate, while reflecting the view expressed in all parts of this House that stages 2 and 3 of the Delors proposals are not acceptable

"Our third main item was the social charter. At our last meeting in Madrid, we all agreed that creating jobs should be the Community's top priority. It was all the more disappointing that the social charter which emerged would regulate the labour market in a way which—far from creating jobs—would actually put them at risk, by raising costs and making our countries less competitive.

"Moreover, the charter foreshadows an action programme which the Commission is bringing forward containing no less than 43 separate proposals, including 17 legally-binding directives. Action at Community level is appropriate, in areas such as health and safety at work and freedom of movement. But the programme includes many other matters such as part-time work, working conditions, and compulsory schemes of worker participation in management.

"Britain does not accept that the Community should direct policy in these areas, many of which we believe are for national authorities to decide. Nor do we see any need to seek uniformity among social policies which have been developed to suit the varied needs and traditions of the different Community countries.

"I therefore made clear that we would not endorse the text of the charter—and judging from their comments, I believe many of my colleagues in Europe will have considerable difficulties with the Commission's specific proposals when they come forward.

"The fourth main area of our work was help to Eastern Europe. We want to support in practical ways the countries in Eastern Europe which are introducing democracy and economic reform. The Council therefore committed us to further specific measures of help including more food supplies; support for the $1 billion stabilisation plan for Poland; setting up an agency to help co-ordinate offers of training; agreement in principle to set up a development bank to help Eastern European countries make the transition to market-based economies—and we hope others, including the United States, Japan, Canada and the EFTA countries, will join in.

"Britain's ideas for closer association between the European Community and the countries of Eastern Europe will also be followed up.

"Mr. Speaker, Heads of Government and foreign Ministers also discussed a wide range of international political issues. We underlined the importance of maintaining security and stability in Europe, in the face of the momentous changes taking place. This means confirming existing alliances, treaties and agreements, including the Helsinki Final Act.

"I would also draw attention to our declaration on Southern Africa. In this the Twelve look forward to the time when sanctions and other measures against South Africa can be reconsidered in response to profound and irreversible change there.

"May I say how grateful the Government are for President Mitterrand's skilful, courteous and effective chairmanship of the Council.

"Mr. Speaker, this was an important meeting. What emerged most strongly is the degree to which the Community and the twelve member states can—not least because of 1992—act as the driving force in the development of the whole of Europe, at a turning-point in the Continent's history. The Community should be an example of how free and democratic nations can work ever more closely together, while remaining open to the outside world.

"That is the way in which Britain wants the Community to develop; and, despite disagreements on some points, the Strasbourg Council encourages us to believe that is how the Community will develop, with Britain playing a very full part".

My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.

4.21 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating what is a detailed and important Statement. It is clear that decisions of the first importance were taken at the Strasbourg summit; namely, acceptance of the principle of German reunification; the convening of the conference on economic and monetary union; the endorsement of the social charter; and the approval of the creation of a Bank of Europe. If these objectives are implemented they will match in historic significance the developments in Eastern Europe and banish the cold war once and for all.

There are a number of encouraging assertions in the Statement. The Prime Minister herself says that we are on course for 1992. The question is whether we are on the same course as the other 11 members. For example, can the noble Lord clarify the Prime Minister's reaction to what I see as the four major proposals: namely, reunification, which is not dealt with in the Statement; the conference; the social charter; and the Bank of Europe?

It appears from many press reports that there was harmony and unanimity, although some reports say that it was 11 to one all the way. There are obvious dangers in a drift to perpetual isolation, and perhaps the noble Lord will tell us whether there were matters of primary importance upon which the Prime Minister was able to agree with her colleagues.

Is the noble Lord satisfied that we will be on the same course as other members in the conference, which the Statement deals with in some detail? Are there not some fundamental differences which are reflected in the Statement itself by the words, A number of different viewpoints"? Can the noble Lord given an example of one or two of these differing viewpoints upon which there is broad support for the Prime Minister? Will stages one and two of the Delors proposals be the most serious obstacles, or are there others which are not referred to?

We regret the Prime Minister's total rejection of the social charter. This is one major policy proposal that has wide support in the Community. Are there not any aspects of the social charter that the Government can support? Who are the colleagues in the Community whose support the Prime Minister anticipates when the time comes? We are glad of course that the Government supported the measures to help Eastern European countries, but can the noble Lord say what the Prime Minister's response was to the proposals for German reunification?

The Statement also refers to sanctions and gives the impression that there was some unanimity there on this question. Is there any justification for saying that any of the 11 other members of the Community agree with our policy on sanctions? It is important that we should be absolutley clear on that. The Statement deals with issues of the highest importance, and I think we should have a full day's debate upon it as soon as possible.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, I too join with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement to us. The Statement marks some changes of tone, which was also apparently present in the Prime Minister's attitude in the Council chamber at Strasbourg. The question is: does it mark a change of substance as well? That remains to be seen.

There is a remarkable compliment to President Mitterrand at the top of page 11 of the Statement. We are also told that President Mitterrand at one stage led a round of applause for the Prime Minister. The pessimistic interpretation of that would be that it was relief at Mrs. Thatcher's dinghy drifting out of haranguing distance from the shore of the majority. The optimistic one was that a new co-operative spirit was emerging from the British Government. We should like any guidance that the noble Lord can give us on that, because there are a number of ambiguities in the Statement which make it early days to pronounce on it.

If Britain wants to give the impression of engagement and commitment, it must give up welcoming delay for its own sake. That comes out at the bottom of page 6 in the Statement: Mr. Speaker, we are in the early stage of what will be a long debate in Europe on these matters". —always giving the impression: let it proceed as slowly as possible. That is a note of foot dragging and not of constructive agreement.

It was also rather ludicrous for Mrs. Thatcher at the end of the Strasbourg summit to say, as she did on television, in a term of disparagement, "They are not even starting an inter-governmental conference until the end of next year". That was ludicrous because Britain had resisted having it, and because this is in fact a remarkably tight and early time-scale.

Secondly, we must not continue to play the really rather silly game of hoping for Franco-German disharmony. There was a great burst of that in press briefings at the end of last week. When one considers, first, the history of the hundred years when the world had plenty of Franco-German disharmony, and also the crucial importance for the world of the prospect of German reunification not reopening that old enmity, that is a frighteningly irresponsible game to play.

The Franco-German axis has in some ways been a bit close for our British comfort, but the responsiblity for that lies much more in the semi-detachment pursued in London than by any exclusivity pursued in Paris or Bonn. What I suspect and hope that Statement means is that we are now rather in the stage that we were in at Milan four years ago, and are signalling our reluctant willingness to go along late, slowly, and a little truculently. It is better than nothing, but how much better and more in Britain's interest it would be if, for once, we could go along early at a good pace and with grace and not truculence.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Jenkins, for responding to the repetition of my right honourable friend's Statement. Both noble Lords raised the question of the negotiating stance of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and how we come away, as it were, from this European Council which, as the noble Lord, Lord CI edwyn, quite rightly said was an important one. It is clear from the Statement that completion of the single market is centre stage in the development of the Community. As I think the Statement rightly says, not only is it something that affects the strength of the Community itself but it is something that is very important at the present time of dramatic change in Eastern Europe.

I am very glad to say that the United Kingdom is not only in the forefront of bringing forward the legislation necessary in order to complete the single market, but also in implementing those measures. I am very glad that the Statement was able to record that the United Kingdom and Denmark are in the forefront regarding those matters.

Secondly, on the first point, the Statement also makes clear that on the crucial issue of Eastern Europe, we have most certainly played our part and shall continue to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about German reunification. I simply say on that crucial question that of course it is a longstanding Western commitment that there should be unity through self-determination. However, I believe that it is very important that the message should go out that the Twelve agree that a whole range of post war agreements underpinning existing security arrangements in Europe should remain in place; for example, the Federal Republic's commitments to the Community and to the NATO Alliance, to the quadripartite agreement on Berlin and to the Helsinki principles. Of course the inwardness of the latter means the continuation of existing frontiers.

The noble Lord asked me about the position of Britain and the inter-governmental conference. The noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Jenkins, are quite right that my right honourable friend argued that it would be premature to start an IGC at the end of 1990. That was because my right honourable friend thought that it was not right to do that with stage one of the Delors Report yet to be brought to fruition. That involves massive changes which, on agreed Community timetables, will stretch at least until 1993.

Thirdly, the noble Lord asked me whether there was not a part of the social charter with which we could agree. Perhaps I may say that the original Statement makes it clear that there are aspects of the social dimension in Europe with which we can very readily agree and I shall not go over those words again. However, the difficulty is that we found that the presidential text was too regulatory and was contrary to the Madrid prescription on unemployment and subsidiarity and national diversity. The action programme was not endorsed at Strasbourg. Measures will be tabled in the normal way over the next two years and will be considered on their merits.

The noble Lord asked which other countries agreed with the United Kingdom. I apprehend that they will be countries which feel that their costs in industry, commerce and employment could be jeopardised by the central regulation proposed by the social charter. On behalf of the Government, I believe that the idea of the social dimension in Europe is a test of the commitment of the European Community to the doctrine of subsidiarity.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, finally asked me about South Africa. Our total opposition to apartheid was very clearly underlined—and I believe that the House would wish to hear that—at the conference. However, at the same time in the president's communiqué there are words of encouragement for South Africa to continue down the path of reform and change. The Government are very glad that Community partners, like the Commonwealth at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, have taken that view. The United Kingdom was not in any way isolated. I am told that all countries agreed that change is best promoted by a mix of pressure and encouragement.

Finally, I go back to the main point talked about by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, which was, as the noble Lord saw it, the brake which the noble Lord felt my right honourable friend is putting on progress in Europe, particularly as regards an inter-governmental conference. I simply repeat that as stage one of Delors is being put into effect involving massive change, it stretches on to an agreed Community timetable which goes at least until 1993: for example, the doubling of structural funds is due by the end of 1993; the completion of the internal market is due by the end of 1992; the abolition of exchange controls for some countries—that is, Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal—is not due until the end of 1992: regarding the creation of a single financial area, negotiations are only just starting on the investment services directive. And of course—and I meet this point head on—when the United Kingdom joins the ERM, there will be massive changes which must be felt. In practice, account must be taken of stage one developments while the inter-governmental conference is taking place. However, no doubt a deadline has been set either for the IGC to end or for any move beyond stage one. However, there is a very important commitment in the Statement which I read out that Britain will play a full and constructive part in the IGC debate.

Lord Walston

My Lords, from these Benches, I also thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We express our welcome for the change of tone which is apparent in it. There is a very much more flexible and co-operative approach which we are delighted to see because we felt that our influence in Europe will be very much greater if we show ourselves, as indeed the country as a whole undoubtedly is, as true and committed Europeans We are not alone in that approach. That does not in any way remove from us the right and the duty to criticise certain aspects of proposals.

First, I turn to the monetary aspect. Does not the noble Lord agree that it is essential for the governor of the Bank of England to co-operate closely, and ever more closely, with his European colleagues, especially after all exchange controls are lifted? His contribution, because of his very close contacts with Her Majesty's Government and through the Government with Parliament, will undoubtedly ensure democratic expressions will be made at the formative stage of any discussions.

There is then a very minor point compared with that; namely, the welcome proposal to remove restrictions on road transport. However, can we have an assurance from the noble Lord that that will not in any way diminish the safety on which we quite rightly insist in this country in regard to size, construction and condition of freight vehicles? From time to time there have been some very disturbing aspects of that when heavy vehicles from overseas have been on our roads and have failed to comply with our own safety regulations.

To turn to the social charter, as other noble Lords have mentioned, it is clear that modifications will be needed. It is right that proposals by the Commission should be subjected to the closest scrutiny. Will the noble Lord give an assurance that that will take place? It is vitally important for this country to be a party—and not an obstructive party—to the discussions which are taking place and which will take place in the future on the social charter. His right honourable friend said that she made it clear that we would not endorse the text of the charter. Will the noble Lord also give an assurance that in spite of not endorsing the text of the charter as it now stands, we shall be fully active in the discussions which will precede the final proposals for the social charter?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for his response. First, he asked me for an assurance that the Governor of the Bank of England would co-operate with colleagues in Europe. Perhaps I may say that there is an inwardness in the Statement which says: The Council welcomed the fact that the necessary decisions have now been taken to enable the first stage of closer economic and monetary co-operation in Europe to start on 1st July next year. This is something which Britain very strongly supports". That means that the legislative button has been pushed for this co-operation to begin from 1st July. One of those legislative buttons is the updating of the convergence decisions of 1974 on monitoring economic convergence. The second legislative button is that central banking decisions are updated. Those decisions are about meetings of central bank governors. In a sense, what the noble Lord is saying has been put into legislative form by that paragraph in the Statement. It is a little obtuse but I believe that is what it means. Then as stage one of Delors goes on, it is at that moment that the matters we are talking about concerning the freedom of financial services and other factors have to be hammered out.

Secondly, the noble Lord asked me about safety for road transport. I must not give the noble Lord an answer concerning a matter about which I am not briefed. The last time that the Transport Council met was on 4th and 5th December when it dealt with road haulage cabotage. There was an extremely useful discussion then. I have no notes concerning the safety angle. I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said on that point.

Thirdly, the noble Lord said that surely we must be partners to discussions on the social charter. At the risk of repeating myself, I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the action programme was not endorsed at Strasbourg. Therefore measures will be tabled in the normal way over the next two years and considered on their merits. As I have said, the United Kingdom has doubts which we believe are shared by other member states. Obviously, as proposals are brought forward we shall make our voice heard.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend and the Government take into account what is said in this House and the other place when they are considering future actions in response to the Statement. I hope they will not feel that some of the implications behind the questions and comments are accepted universally. I doubt that the implications behind some of the questions will be accepted by a majority of people outside Parliament and in the country.

The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition based his questions and general message regarding the Statement on the basis of which course we were on. The Statement said that we were on the right course. The noble Lord asked whether we were on the same course as the others. If one is to raise those kinds of doubts one is entitled to know what course the noble Lord and his party are on. They should tell us in advance whether, if we end the course with a federated Europe, that will be good for Europe or this country. It is a quite clear implication from the speeches and the reports of M. Delors that, with a federated Europe, possibly Europe and this country will be weaker in arriving at what we want, which is real and acceptable solidarity to deal with the problems which face this part of the world and the world beyond it.

I ask my noble friend to take into account that it will be stupid to contemplate moving to the second and third parts of the Delors Report without making certain that the first part can work. It is not delaying or dragging feet to say that before we take the third and fourth steps we should make certain that we have achieved the first and second steps. I ask my noble friend properly to take into account all that has been said by accredited Members of both Houses, but not necessarily to accept that the implications behind some of the speeches are what the country needs or should have.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I was very interested in the intervention by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and I thank him for the words of caution which he uttered towards the end of his remarks. They exactly reflect what I endeavoured to say, but less well, a little earlier; namely, that caution should be the watchword concerning Delors stages two and three when we are still having to go through stage one. It is very important to bear in mind that the sovereignty issue looms large, particularly in our parliamentary system, when considering the Delors proposals in stages two and three. My noble friend was quite right, with his memories of another place, that it has given a pretty united voice on being extremely sceptical about stages two and three of Delors.

The first point my noble friend made was that when criticisms are uttered the Government should not believe that they are necessarily shared by everybody else. I was very interested to note that earlier this week no less a person than the Governor of the Swiss National Bank was reported to have said that, on economic and monetary union, the British authorities have understood the essential point that monetary integration should proceed along the path from stability to unity and not from unity to stability.

Finally, I thank my noble friend for intervening on this important Statement. There was one further point that my noble friend made; namely, that on the general question of where we are going the United Kingdom Government are being supportive of the EC. The single market is at the centre of the stage and the other measures that we need to carry out all flow from it. One of those other matters is the enormously important help that we are giving to Eastern Europe.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement to the other place. We have listened to the media hype about isolation. Most people in this country do not object to this country or its Prime Minister being isolated provided that they are putting forward policies and views which are in the interests of this country and its continued independence. I hope that was what the Prime Minister was doing.

I have looked at the communiqué, which is headed: Conclusions of the presidency, European Council, Strasbourg, 8 and 9 December 1989". On the first page there is a paragraph which says: It is in the interests of all European states that the Community should become stronger and accelerate its progress towards European Union". To me, "accelerate" means speeding up; "European Union" means a union of all the states of the common market, presumably under a federal or unitary government.

Exactly what did the Prime Minister do? What exactly was her attitude? We are entitled to ask. We understood from, I believe, the Milan summit that the Prime Minister was not in favour of the single market à la 1992. Nor was she in favour of the loss of sovereignty which would go with that. Yet 12 months later she forced through the House of Commons on a guillotine Motion the Single European Act, which, as she and the Government now accept, certainly reduced our sovereignty to a great degree.

Are we to expect the same kind of thing? Is it merely words that the Prime Minister utters while she believes in fact that eventually this country must lose its independence and be subsumed into a federated or a unitary state of Europe? We are entitled to know that whichever side of the argument we might be on.

Has the social charter any meaning for workers in this or any other country, or is it just a mass of words? Does the Leader of the House agree with me that from a social point of view the best thing that could be done for the workers of this country is to abolish the common agricultural policy? That would immediately reduce the cost of living for every family in this country by f13.50 a week. That is something real which people understand about a social charter or a social benefit. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will be able to state honestly the course upon which the Prime Minister set us at this crucial summit where it appeared that the president of the European Commission seemed to act not like the president of the European Commission but as the agent for M. Mitterrand and the French Government.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I well understand the noble Lord's points. He is nothing if not consistent in having made similar points before; but not—I am thinking of the words of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls—about wanting to know where noble Lords opposite stand. If the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, on this issue he does not stand on the same ground as his own Front Bench. But that is the noble Lord's affair. I do not regard him any the less for that.

The noble Lord asked me one straightforward question about the words in the Statement on European union. I give the noble Lord a straightforward answer. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the point very strongly at the Council that when we are going through what is called stage one of the Delors Report we ought to attend to capital liberalisation, the setting up of the single market, freedom of financial services and a strengthened competition policy; in fact, all the things which we believe are right. On the Community's own timetable, these things will take nearly four years to put in place. It was noted by the presidency that there was a simple majority, which is consonant with the treaty, for calling an inter-governmental conference at the end of next year. My answer therefore to the noble Lord's question is that in practice account will have to be taken during that inter-governmental conference of what is happening to put stage one into place. But no deadline has been set either for the inter-governmental conference to end or for any move beyond stage one of the Delors Report.

The noble Lord asked whether there is any meaning for workers in the social charter. There would be if it had been agreed all round. Our specific objection to the social charter is that it would restrict the freedom of employees and employers to negotiate the most suitable arrangements on hours of work, annual leave, weekly rest periods and consulting the workforce in any workplace. We believe—and we think that others will come to believe it as time goes by—that over-regulation of that kind would be bad for jobs. We have always said that it is right to put the promotion of jobs at the top of the single market agenda. That was agreed at Madrid.

The noble Lord criticised the common agricultural policy. The CAP budget is now looking very good. It is looking very good because of the things which we in Britain suggested to our colleagues. We won agreement from our colleagues, and everybody is feeling better now about the common agricultural policy.

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. In so far as it shows a more flexible and constructive approach to the European Community, it is much to be welcomed. But the proof of that pudding will rest in the eating. The United Kingdom's record on the completion of the internal market is not as Simon pure as my noble friend has been briefed to say; but it may be a bad thing that he thinks that it is.

Perhaps I may make one point on monetary policy. My noble friend referred to democratic control. I am sure that it is within his memory—as it is within mine—that not too many years ago the pound sterling was worth 10 deutschmarks. Today it cannot even look three deutschmarks in the face. The fact of the matter is that democratic control of monetary policy by governments has proved to be an unmitigated disaster. On the contrary, vesting such control in an independent body such as the Bundesbank whose independence is guaranteed under the federal constitution is likely to produce results much more agreeable for the progress of the economy. Does my noble friend agree that in some areas of life politicians have little or no control, and that the path of wisdom points to their not trying to exercise powers they do not possess?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I take seriously what my noble friend Lord Cockfield says on this and other European Community subjects. My noble friend's record of serving the Community is well known. I was therefore sad when he said from his experience that the United Kingdom's record in contributing towards completion of the single European market is not as good as I think. It is the case that the commissioner himself explicitly confirmed that, on the Commission's figures, the United Kingdom and Denmark have the best records on implementation. We take modest pride in that. We are up-to-date with 69 of the 72 directives that we should have implemented by now.

The noble Lord referred to democratic control. He asked whether there are not things which politicians cannot do. Indeed, with all humility, I agree with my noble friend that there are things which politicians cannot do. But if my noble friend cares to look at Hansard of another place for 2nd November 1989 he will see that politicians in another place were not prepared to agree that the absolutely basic reason for the existence of another place should be forfeit.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and for answering questions. Will the Government think again about the social charter? It should be realised that those nations that have just released themselves from the tyranny of Communism are coming together and will join the countries in Europe that have already accepted the social charter. Would it not be an awful matter if the only two political parties in Europe to reject the social charter were the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Conservative Party of our country?

Will the Government consider in detail whether they have done the right thing? The Prime Minister must be honoured for the manner in which she has not been prepared to have British rights and practices submerged into the EC. She deserves all credit for that. However, with regard to the social charter, that is something which could not merely unite free Europe; it could also bring into that freedom those countries which have just escaped, or will be escaping, from the evil of Communism.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the noble Lord is always fair in debates. I say that because I think this should be my final answer, since the House is waiting for the next Statement to be read. Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord may care to look at the president's communiqué so far as concerns the social charter. It is clear from that that the United Kingdom's concerns about the proposals of the social charter are valid in this sense. We believe that what was being proposed is contrary to what was agreed in Madrid, where there was a prescription for a social charter dealing with unemployment, the doctrine of subsidiarity and also the doctrine of international diversity.

On looking closely at what was proposed in Strasbourg, we genuinely believed that it did not deal with those three enormously important criteria. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was not able to sign the document.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, being a woman, my question will be a really short one. I have listened carefully to all the statements which have been made, but can the noble Lord say whether the Government are in favour of German reunification? Further, if they are, have they really consulted the mass of the population of the United Kingdom, who, I suspect, would not be behind them in their view?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I say once again, as I have said many times during the past half hour, that the noble Baroness has asked an important question. I understand why. However, I think it is most important that I should make this my final answer. I said when answering questions earlier on that there is a long-standing Western commitment to unity through self-determination. However, what I have not said, and perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness in saying this, is that the Strasbourg Statement sets out many very important amplifications upon which all of the Twelve agreed. Those amplifications were that any reunification of Germany must be peaceful, gradual and democratic. It must also fully respect the Helsinki principles, it must find its place within a wider European integration and it must also strengthen peace in Europe.