Lisbon Treaty (No. 3)

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who made some telling points. I entirely accept that this House should have primacy wherever possible, but the backdrop to the debate is that our economy has escaped our national boundaries. Parliament no longer controls it, and there is no longer coterminosity between how an economy works and the nation state. That is why, as I mentioned in my contribution last week, I believe that there has to be some sort of supranational collaboration on economic matters. However, I fear that an open and free internal market in goods, labour and capital will have consequences for social cohesion, and I want to set out the problems that can arise. The requirements of the internal market in the EU mean that labour should be able to move around the continent freely, in the same way as both capital and goods and services. That is fine, provided that there are appropriate and adequate social protections to prevent the breakdown of community cohesion, which I fear is the corollary of having a free market in labour. Yet it seems that the Government are allowing that breakdown to happen, which is why I want to return to the problematic and anomalous title IV in the charter of fundamental rights. The protocol makes the extraordinary statement that title IV, alone of all the other titles, will give rise to no additional justiciable rights in the UK. Why is that qualification attached only to title IV and not to any of the others? For an answer to that, we need to reflect a little on the history of that red line. I did some research on the internet earlier today, and found the item that appeared on the BBC site at 10 minutes to 1 in the morning on the Saturday of last June's Brussels summit. The item states:"““Britain's 'red lines' are guarantees that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which could give workers extra rights to strike, will not apply to the UK.””" It was clear that Tony Blair regarded what can only be called an opt-out as a major achievement in the negotiations. In his speech to the CBI to which I referred a few moments ago he said:"““We will not allow the Charter of Fundamental Rights to open up interference with Britain's labour laws and will not agree the new Constitution until we are sure that they are safeguarded.””" The CBI said of the fundamental human rights contained in the charter:"““The most notable of these from an industry perspective are the rights””" that the charter"““would confer on issues such as collective bargaining and the right to strike—both of which are already covered by the UK's extensive employment legislation. These, if conferred, could have an adverse impact and threaten the flexibility of the UK's labour market which is crucial to our continued economic success.””"