|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, following the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the information that there is adequate distribution of this vaccine, is the Minister equally convinced--in the event of there being
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I am advised that manufacturers of the influenza vaccine currently have 20,000 doses available for distribution and a further 27,000 awaiting clearance, so I believe that there really is enough vaccine around. As regards the second point made by the noble Baroness, it is important that we make it clear to people that this programme exists and that those who are at high risk should in fact go to their GP to be vaccinated.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is not this form of influenza very dangerous for asthma patients and people who have bad chests? Can the Minister give some advice about what those kinds of patients should do?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct in that they are the people who are categorised as being at high risk, as are people with coronary heart disease, kidney failure, diabetes and diseases which suppress the immune system. The advice is that they should be vaccinated and seek the advice of their GP or the practice nurse, if they feel that they already have a dose of 'flu.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to this matter. I believe that the Minister may have misunderstood my second point, which was not so much about the availability of GP consultation on this subject but the availability of hospital beds, particularly over the Christmas period when I suspect that the hospitals will be short-staffed.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it depends on the severity. There are very few people who have to be admitted to hospital. However, I am sure that the National Health Service will look after those who require that treatment but, on the whole, it is a question of staying in bed and drinking a lot--
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a number of hospitals in the West Midlands have been on red alert and have had to cancel routine operations because of the 'flu epidemic that started there and that people have once again been kept in corridors? Can she give an assurance that that will not happen throughout the country, because people are very concerned about having treatment when they need it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, although this outbreak has been categorised as a moderate epidemic, it is not nearly as serious as the one we had in 1993. We believe that this epidemic is about to reach its peak. In fact, in 1919 when there was the most serious pandemic, more people died then than in the First World War. We are in no way in that sort of situation. I believe
Lord Tordoff rose to move, That this House takes note of the Reports of the European Communities Committee on the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference [21st Report, 1994-95, HL Paper 105 and 18th Report (Minutes of Evidence), 1994-95, HL Paper 88].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the report that we are discussing this afternoon was produced by an ad hoc sub-committee of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, which started work in February this year. Its broad terms of reference were,
The particular issues on which we were asked to focus are spelt out on page 6 of our report. However broad they were, the potential for extending the scope was endless, but we managed to restrain ourselves and finished hearing evidence in July, which was published as a separate document. In spite of it being 429 pages long, I hope that it will be read because it contains a considerable amount of interesting discussion and information.
The report was the result of a large number of people who deserve the thanks of your Lordships. Perhaps I may thank first members of the sub-committee whose names are to be found on page 80. It says a lot for the ethos of your Lordships' House that such a disparate group--I say "disparate" rather than "desperate"--was able to produce a unanimous report on such a subject as this. I am particularly grateful to them for their tolerance and good humour throughout the period of the inquiry.
The sub-committee will want me to thank three people without whom the report would not have seen the light of day. I should thank first our Clerk, Mr. Tom Mohan, for guiding the sub-committee so ably. I owe him a personal vote of thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow and for guiding me through my first experience as a chairman of one of your Lordships' sub-committees. It has been a great learning experience for me.
Secondly, I must thank Sir William Nicoll, our specialist adviser, whose experience as a former deputy UK representative in Brussels proved invaluable in preventing us from exposing our ignorance on a number of occasions.
Thirdly, I thank Mrs. Eileen Denza, whose support as the Select Committee's legal adviser over the past eight years deserves special recognition. Her many years' experience in all aspects of the European legal jungle will be sadly missed now that she has retired, as will be her folk memory which made such an effective data base for our study and for many previous studies. The
In passing, I must offer my thanks to the Clerk to the Committee Office, Mr. Michael Pownall, who has now moved on to other things and who saw me through my first year as Chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee.
In addition, thanks are due to those who gave evidence, both written and oral--as I have already said, there is a considerable amount of that--and to a variety of people, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Members and staff of the European Commission and the European Parliament, as well as the UK representative and his office in Brussels. We wish Sir John Kerr well in his new appointment as our ambassador in Washington.
It was decided not to set up a joint inquiry with the two committees in another place, but we have had full co-operation and have maintained a useful exchange of evidence as well as generally avoiding an overlap. Again, we thank those committees and their staff.
It should be borne in mind that we are at a very early stage in the IGC process. We face what is essentially a moving target. The IGC will not start until the spring of 1996 at the earliest and may go on well into 1997, so we have tried to make the report as informative as possible. For that reason, we hope that Parts 1 to 3 can be useful to your Lordships as a handbook for reference as events unfold. The report of the Reflection Group has been published in the past week and the shape of the agenda is now beginning to emerge although positions are still not formally defined.
Part 4 of the report provides a summary of the conclusions of earlier Select Committee reports, from which your Lordships will see that there has been a continuity of the direction taken by our predecessors. Although we have not in any way slavishly followed their conclusions, I hope that your Lordships will find that common threads run through their reports and ours.
Part 5 of the report, the summary of evidence, represents a miracle of textual selection and compression. Although I hope that the actual evidence will be read, I think that it is true to say that all the important arguments have been fairly summarised.
I turn now to the Opinion of the Committee in Part 6. Your Lordships will notice that, perhaps unusually, there is no summary of recommendations in this report. That is deliberate--not in an attempt to prevent your Lordships reading the page of recommendations and nothing else, which is the way that most of us do it, but because in this case it is our opinion that the matters on which we did not make up our minds, the unresolved issues, are as important as those on which we have made clear recommendations.
Your Lordships will also see from paragraph 308 that we deliberately did not go into any detail on enlargement although, as I indicated, it was very much in our minds in relation to other matters; nor, important though they are, did we discuss EMU, the new financial perspective or indeed the social chapter. Those are
We concentrated our inquiry on two main areas. The first was the future of decision-making and the future form of the institutions in an expanding Union. Although we did not specifically seek evidence on enlargement, coming events cast their shadows before them and there hangs over the whole IGC the shadow of expansion, so that, even though in many cases it will not be necessary to make treaty changes, the problems which will arise from expansion need to be thought through now.
Beyond those major areas there were other important topics which needed examination and we were greatly assisted by other sub-committees which were good enough to allow us to contract out certain specialist matters where their expertise could be brought to bear. For instance, the sub-committee of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, undertook a very quick inquiry into the possible need for treaty changes in relation to the reform of the CAP. The sub-committee of the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, carried out an inquiry into energy policy and is currently carrying out an inquiry into the tourism Green Paper, which is a subject predicated for the IGC by the Maastricht Treaty. We also invited the sub-committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, to exercise its legal expertise to consider the section of the report dealing with the European Court of Justice. We were most grateful for that additional expert help. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, will deal with his inquiry when he speaks later this afternoon.
On the institutions, our conclusions were that, while we did not recommend drastic changes now, it would become essential, in the light of enlargement, for some changes to be considered at an early stage; otherwise improved efficiency, transparency and accountability should be the order of the day. Looking forward to an enlarged Union we recommend, for instance, that each member state should have no more than one Commissioner. There should be a restructuring of the portfolios. Already one wonders if there are enough full-time jobs to go round, but with a Community of 20-plus, including some very small countries, the current arrangements would appear to be ridiculous.
For the same reasons, the Presidency will have to change; otherwise it will come round only every 12 or more years and some small states will simply not be able to handle it in the way in which it is done at the moment. We conclude--but without great enthusiasm--that some form of team Presidency may well be necessary. We set out the pros and cons of this debate in paragraphs 236 to 242 and I have no doubt that the
On the question of qualified majority voting, we were not convinced by the arguments we heard that an extension was a necessity, at least at the present time--and I emphasise "at the present time". There was evidence to suggest, however, that the Government should not close their mind completely to the possibility in the future. Nor did we find the case made out with any conviction for the extension of the European Parliament's powers of co-decision. In general I believe, perhaps sadly, we felt that it had yet to learn to use its existing powers in a more mature way--although there were some signs of improvement.
We heard conflicting views on the European Court, but concluded on the clear balance of evidence that the criticism that it was indulging in "judicial activism" was largely unfounded. We do suggest that the time has come, however, particularly in view of its workload, that a comprehensive study of the work of the Court should be undertaken.
The Court of Auditors is mentioned in paragraph 303 during the discussion on budgetary procedures and controls. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, will touch on that point later. We firmly reject any suggestion that the Court of Auditors should be interfered with by the European Parliament because its own expenditure, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has frequently reminded us, is very considerable. I must say that I find the Government's response to paragraphs 301 and 303 a little over-dismissive.
On the second major area--the inter-governmental pillars--the overwhelming feeling was that having been in existence for such a short time it was too early to make fundamental changes. Accordingly, we reject both the idea of collapsing them into the first pillar and of introducing QMV in those areas. In any case, we had evidence that the requirement to achieve unanimity in inter-governmental negotiations is not without merit.
The resulting detailed and painstaking scrutiny of drafts can be seen as having benefited those texts agreed so far, and minority views are not automatically brushed aside. We do, however, argue strongly that the treaty should provide explicitly that decisions should not be taken on third pillar instruments before national parliaments have had the opportunity to perform their task of scrutinising them.
On the second pillar, while we acknowledge that there have been some unheralded successes, we urge that national parliaments should have greater scrutiny opportunities. If the democratic deficit is to be filled it has to be done by properly informed national parliaments, or the European Paliament will believe itself entitled to demand the right to carry out the task, which brings me to the role of national parliaments, which is dealt with in paragraphs 304 to 307.
If we are to tackle the so-called "democratic deficit" the role of national parliaments must be made more effective. While we feel that the Danish answer of insisting that Ministers are mandated prior to Council
Now I know that in principle the Government agree with carrying through the meaning of that paragraph, but we still have problems, and serious problems. I should tell the Minister that since the publication of our report we have been keeping a particular eye on the situation and we are building up a large dossier of items where we have been kept in the dark until the very last minute or in some cases even later.
We have in recent weeks received a mass of requests for documents to be cleared through the scrutiny process in time-scales that are totally impossible. For instance, the sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, was asked to clear a document on the fruit and vegetable regime within a few days of receiving the final document in order that the Spanish Presidency could get it through before its period of office finished with the Council meeting at the end of this week. These matters are too serious to go through on the nod and I am glad that my colleagues are being robust on those matters.
A less serious but glaring example was in the pile of documents before me in yesterday's sift. Council document 10406/95 started on its merry way on 28th September from the Commission, arriving in Brussels on 5th October. The explanatory memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is dated 4th December. That is far too long for a document to come through, although, as I say, that document is not of desperate concern.
The final indignity is the last line of the explanatory memorandum which tells us that there is no defined timetable, but the Commission does not want to delay putting this to Council as soon as possible. That comes close to being an insult to the job of your Lordships' Select Committee.
I realise that the delays are not all the fault of Whitehall, but we do need the commitment of governments to maintain the scrutiny reserve so that national parliaments can do their proper job and if government Ministers would press this need not only on the Commission but on their colleagues in the Council then we would begin to make some progress.
However formal changes are, we believe that they are less important. There is a lot of pressure especially from the French for some so-called "representative body" of parliamentarians. In my view, no such thing is possible, certainly not if only two or three people are sent from each parliamentary chamber. Nor, I fear, do we accept the idea of a "second chamber", which will disappoint
We very much support informal linkages with other national parliaments and with the European Parliament through such meetings as the Conference of European Affairs Committees where information, views and experience can be exchanged, but I believe that formal decision-making at such fora is not sensible or acceptable.
Let me then say that we are grateful to the usual channels for this opportunity of a major debate on the report before the Madrid Summit at the end of the week and I greatly look forward to the many contributions which are still to come. It is a matter of regret that I have received a note to say that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has to apologise for not being with us today. He has been advised by his medical specialist not to turn up on this occasion. We shall miss his contribution.
Thanks are also due to the Government for their prompt response to the report. It contains so many items where the Government agree with us that I have to say that I fear for my political street credibility. I must also repeat the request for a White Paper contained in both our report and that of another place. It needs to be produced before the conference convenes so that we can have a chance to put an updated parliamentary input into the process.
In conclusion, let me say that, above all, the need to make the workings of the Union more understandable to the average citizen, more transparent, simpler and more efficient seems to us to be the overriding imperative for the 1996 IGC. I hope that our report goes at least some little way towards assisting that process.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Reports of the European Communities Committee on the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference [21st Report, 1994-95, HL Paper 105 and 18th Report (Minutes of Evidence), 1994-95, HL Paper 88].--(Lord Tordoff.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not being the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I know that the House wished to listen to him. I certainly wished to listen to him. I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, that he will soon be recovered and back with us.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, one cannot help but be struck by the large number of issues the Select Committee endeavoured to cover in its report. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not try to go through them all one by one as if I were ticking off a check list. Perhaps I may concentrate upon one or two matters that seem to me at any rate to be of the greatest significance.
What seems to emerge is an understanding that the forthcoming IGC should not be seen as an opportunity for a major review of European Union policy along the lines of a second Maastricht but should be confined to the mandate expressed in the Treaty on European Union.
I agree with that. This is not a conference at which grand gestures are going to be made or should be made. It is not one at which some of the more difficult aspects of European policies--for instance, monetary union, the common agricultural policy or the future of the structural funds--should be discussed in too much detail. Of course, it is against the background of those policies that many of the issues will be considered but if the conference were seen as one at which those difficult questions must be resolved I fear that it would not succeed.
It seems to me essential that Britain goes into the conference intending that it should succeed. The opportunities for creating road blocks are great, but they always are and always have been. For this country to be seen yet again as trying to obstruct progress in the directions pointed to by Maastricht would be disastrous for us.
On the other side of the argument, I am quite prepared to give the Government credit for wanting the IGC to succeed. But they will have to prove that during the course of the next 12 months. Reading the report of the Reflection Group, I was depressed to discover how often it stated that one country took a different view from all the others. There are no prizes for guessing which country that is, despite the touching reluctance of the group to name us in the report. I therefore believe that the success or failure of the IGC will depend upon a series of severely practical decisions and that the test should be whether those decisions will make enlargement easier.
The issue of qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers is bound to be one of the most difficult the conference must face. I do not see how one can conceivably envisage major enlargement of the Union without at the same time calling into question the present voting system. If the next countries to join are to be Cyprus and Malta, what then? Merely to pose the question almost answers itself. The idea that Malta should have a veto on the future development of the whole of the European Union seems to me, with respect to that country, ludicrous. We must devise a system that
The dangers of decision-making sclerosis are here now and will become even more apparent when enlargement takes place. If that is so with the Council it is even more so with the Commission. At paragraph 254 of the report the committee concludes that,
How that will be received by some of the larger states is somewhat doubtful. I perceive a feeling that the major countries in the Union deserve to have that fact recognised at the heart of the Commission itself. But in the event that the Union expands to 20 or 25 members that would mean a college of perhaps 30-plus commissioners. Frankly, that is quite unworkable.
It has already been said that there are not sufficient portfolios to go around now. Even in my day there was some doubt as to whether there were sufficient portfolios to go around. The idea that the work can be spread among 25 or 30 commissioners, each with their own portfolio, does not make sense. Even if the number were reduced to one per state one would still end up with a Commission that was too large and with a number of commissioners for whom there would be no proper portfolio. One way out, as the report suggests, might be to create teams of commissioners so that there would be, so to speak, a Secretary of State commissioner and a Minister of State commissioner behind him. That possibility is worth considering.
Another possibility, which I am surprised was not considered by the Reflection Group or the Select Committee, was hinted at by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, in his evidence to the Select Committee. It is that the Commission could be organised more along the lines of the United Nations Security Council with some members being permanent and others serving a fixed term. One would have permanent members and non-permanent members each of whom would serve perhaps three years. That is another possibility worth exploring. It may give us the necessary elbow room for further enlargement.
If the composition of the Commission causes problems for the future I do not believe that the scope of its powers does. I note that the Reflection Group and the Select Committee, with which I am bound to say I agree, take the view that broadly the powers of the Commission should remain much as they are at present; namely, that it should have the power of legislative initiative within the Community institutions and that it should have the executive powers given by the treaties and by the Council.
Enlargement will not happen overnight. There must be detailed negotiations with each of the applicant states and in each case there must be transition periods. In those negotiations one of the crucial points will be the
There seems to be a fair degree of agreement as regards the powers of the parliament. I share the view that it is too early to consider any major extension of the parliament's powers. After all, the co-decision procedures introduced after Maastricht have hardly had time to settle down. I also share the view that common foreign security policy and defence should not at this stage be brought within the full competence and procedures of the Union. Here we go to the very heart of national sovereignty. In my view, it is much too early to contemplate their absorption into the competencies and institutions of the present Union. The relationship between the Western European Union, NATO and the European Union itself must be worked out at a practical level over a longish period of time. I hope that the IGC does not get bogged down into too detailed a discussion of these issues.
Finally, there is in the Select Committee report a plea for greater transparency. I am sure that that is right. For far too long countries have been able to shelter behind the anonymity of Council procedures. Invariably, when there has been an agreement hammered out in the Council after lengthy discussions, individual national spokesmen then emerge, hold a press conference and put their own peculiar national gloss on what has been agreed. Frequently, the only common factor is that they all blame the Commission.
It would also be healthy if far greater publicity were given to those things that countries actually agree to rather than allowing them to shelter behind the plea that it is all the fault of Brussels when, in fact, if fault there is, it is almost invariably that of the national government having agreed to it. If transparency means that the Commission will cease to be the whipping boy of national governments I am all in favour of it. I could not help but be struck by the exchanges which took place at Question Time today about tooth whiteners. That was a good example of precisely the point I am now trying to make: there is a directive; the Government agree to it; people do not like it; and somehow or other it becomes the fault of the Commission.
There are many issues in the Select Committee report and the report of the Reflection Group which need to be addressed at the IGC. I take merely one other example which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, when he introduced his report.
If every country had the mechanism to scrutinise European activity which your Lordships' House provides, perhaps some of our problems might have been avoided. Noble Lords will therefore appreciate that my expectations of the IGC are relatively limited. If it produces reform of the existing institutions and a greater transparency in their workings while making it clear that issues such as the reform of the CAP and the structural funds must have a high priority in the immediate future, then I shall be satisfied.
I conclude as I began. The Government must enter the discussions determined to make them a success. We have a long way to go to recover even a part of the influence which has been thrown away in recent years. I hope that the IGC will help us to start on that process.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I begin by asking the indulgence of the House. Because of a commitment that I made some time ago, I regret that I shall have to leave the Chamber before the conclusion of the debate. I apologise for that departure from our custom and I apologise in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who is to wind up the debate.
With this debate, we return to the large and difficult issues of European policy. In the judgment of many, which I share, it is really too soon after the last revision of the treaty to undertake that task. I hope that when the time comes to settle the text of this coming revision, whenever that may be, there will not be another clause fixing the date for a subsequent revision. That should be settled by objective need and experience rather than determined by a timetable laid down in advance. We do not wish to see another clause of that kind.
I expect that the conference will be particularly difficult for our country. That is partly because of the division of opinion which exists here, more perhaps within political parties than within the nation as a whole, and because of the timing of our general election. It looks as though we may be on our own again on some of the key issues. Therefore, the pressure will be on Britain at the conference, and the Government have an unenviable task before them.
The report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, seeks to analyse the key issues in a careful and dispassionate way. We did not presume to arrive at precise recommendations, but I believe that the analysis and commentary present a helpful quarry of material for anyone seriously interested in the many topics that we examined. As a
From what I have read of the deliberations of the Reflection Group, it sounds as though there is a divergence of opinion between member states on customary lines. One group favours further institutional advance by extending the powers of the European Parliament and by changing rules for qualified majority voting. Our own representative, it seems, has opposed such changes, This is an old battleground, like one of those bloodstained fields in Flanders which has seen so many battles; and it looks as though we shall be there again in 1996.
On the powers of the Parliament, my sympathies are with the Government, if only for the reason that the Maastricht innovations are so recent and little tried that we need more experience of them before introducing further change. Qualified majority voting is a different matter. Some change may be desirable here to take account of the last enlargement and to prepare for the next. It is a pity that in the Reflection Group the Government have apparently opposed that. I listened with much interest to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on that subject. They contained much good sense.
We all know which states favour extending the powers of the Parliament and the mixture of national motives which lie behind their views. The key to what happens next on this central issue--and on much else--will be the extent of an agreement between France and Germany. Some clues appear in the joint letter from Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac sent to the Spanish Presidency last week. As far as I know, the text has not been published, but to judge from the press accounts, the Franco-German plan does not specifically ask for substantial new powers for the European Parliament. But it apparently seeks to extend qualified majority voting to new areas.
While the committee's report supports the Government's view that we should not allow foreign and defence policy to depart from the unanimity rule, this joint Franco-German position appears to be a less ambitious constitutional proposal than in the past and seems to offer the opportunity for further negotiation.
But it is difficult to say more without seeing the text of this important letter and until we know the outcome of the events now taking place in France. We cannot yet be sure whether it is right to compare December 1995 with what happened in France in 1968, which cast such a long shadow over French politics for years afterwards; or whether the current events will more closely resemble the sort of confrontations we have experienced in this country between a Right-wing government reforming in its own direction and the entrenched trade union establishment. Until the dust settles, we cannot really estimate the Franco-German position on the crucial timetable for economic and monetary union; and nor can they.
As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, reminded us, formally speaking this item is not on the agenda of the IGC, since the Union has already set out the necessary provisions and timetable in the treaty. But the agenda of the conference is open-ended and as the difficulties of keeping to the original timetable become more and more apparent, it seems to me that this subject will surely be in the minds of all the participants at the IGC.
I incline to the view that the weakness of the French economy is often overstated. In particular, the external account of France is in healthy balance and has been for some time, which is more than we can say of our performance. So if the current political and social problems in France can be overcome--and they are clearly serious--it is not difficult to see Germany and France arriving at a new, feasible timetable for economic and monetary union. That might, indeed, be the centrepiece of the agreements finally reached at the IGC. I hazard the thought that that position might not be very far from a position acceptable to our own Government.
To my mind, therefore, the nature of the joint understanding between Germany and France will be the central matter at the IGC. There is nothing surprising about that. For the past 20 years at least close understanding between Bonn and Paris has been the binding element in all significant change to the European treaties. I believe that that is still the case, given the commitment which both countries make to finding a common position and the priority they give to the objective. It is important to note that the possibility of negotiation by others is correspondingly reduced.
But circumstances are beginning to change, given the greater weight of a unified Germany in Europe, and the outcome of the negotiations this time will be of particular interest and importance. My hope is that as the Franco-German entente is now so widely accepted as part of the essential foundations of the European scene, we shall be sufficiently flexible and understanding in our approach so that over time a more diverse pattern of relations can develop in Europe. Enlargement of the European Union, which we all hope will follow the Inter-Governmental Conference, will encourage that sort of change. Stony insistence on standing still or going backwards will not.
I should like to say some brief words on enlargement. It is necessary that existing policies and institutional arrangements are looked at in the IGC to ensure that they are compatible with the next enlargement. However well it is managed, enlargement will cost money and room must be found within the financial envelope to accommodate what cannot be avoided. Of course existing policies, and notably the CAP, must be scrutinised and adapted with that in view.
I am concerned by two recent developments. First, agreements reached for the new Mediterranean programmes at the recent Barcelona conference will cost 4.7 billion ecu, which I believe to be about $6 billion. That is a massive sum. It will be recalled that, when the Select Committee reported a few months ago in favour
Secondly, I have read in press reports of a recent statement by the Commission that enlargement will have to be postponed because we cannot now afford it. Well, there is a question of priorities here. I cannot bring myself to believe that the Barcelona conference wittingly postponed the next enlargement sine die by spending all the available cash on new structural funds for the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Middle East. While I do not dispute the need to pay attention to that area, we must surely remember that the mission of the European Union lies in Europe and not in Africa or in Asia. That is where our attention and resources should be primarily directed.
I conclude by suggesting that the Inter-Governmental Conference will present us with some very awkward decisions in a pre-election period. I greatly hope that the Government will keep a steady, long-term view of their responsibilities. We must resist the short-term temptations offered by a two-tier structure of the European Union. We have already opened the door in that direction with the social chapter and the EMU opt-out. But if we go further in that way I believe that we shall come to rue the consequences. The right course is surely for us to stick with the Prime Minister's commitment to remain at the heart of Europe. If the Government do that, I shall be glad to support them.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and his committee on the general excellence of the report and to thank members of the committee for the obvious time and hard work that they put into it. It is very beneficial for the rest of us; and, indeed, we know that such reports are widely read in Europe. It is extremely helpful for all who are concerned with the development of Europe. I should also like to thank the Minister of State for publishing her response, because that is also most helpful, although I am bound to say that I received my copy only this morning and I wish that I had done so a little earlier.
My general approach to the committee's report has been governed, and changed rather, by my reading of the report by the Reflection Group and an appreciation of the degree of isolation which now attaches to this country within Europe. That is a most important factor to bear in mind at the coming Inter-Governmental Conference which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, pointed out, is really open-ended in its scope.
With the increasing expression of extreme nationalism in England, Germany, France and elsewhere over the past few years, and with the example of the former Yugoslavia before us to remind us what that can lead to, it is surely time to look at what we are trying to achieve in Europe and why. Lest we forget, the Inter-Governmental Conferences are a means, and only a means, to an end. We would do well to remember that when conducting debates about the European Union and
The Inter-Governmental Conference will need to address the uncertain times ahead. The results of the Russian election will be apparent in time for the conference and that might change views. We have no right to be complacent. We should, therefore, be seizing the opportunity further to enhance our security, protect the interests of our citizens and provide a firm footing for economic prosperity. Timing is crucial only in the sense that the people of Europe must see true progress; otherwise nationalism will be presented with a definite breeding ground.
Facile beating of the nationalist drum--and we have had some nauseating examples of that in our own country in recent times--has caused only difficulty and embarrassment; and, indeed, has done so in Germany, France and elsewhere in Europe. It causes difficulties for ourselves and for our European colleagues. Where does it lead? It now occurs more frequently because of the failure of positive European leadership. I believe that that accounts for Chancellor Kohl, who appears to me to be the only statesman in a leading position in Europe these days, and his speech on 9th December to the German Parliament when he said that European integration had become a matter of war and peace.
When I first read those words it seemed to me that they were very extreme. But on reflection, and in the long term, I believe that he is right. Surely we should constantly remind the people of this country and of Europe generally that the aim and objective of the inspirers and architects of the European movement were to provide a form of European Union which would provide for future prosperity, democracy and security for all the various nations and countries of Europe.
It seems to me that the great failure of the Government and their response--which to a degree is reflected in the committee's report and, indeed, has persisted for many years now--is the failure to give a clear leadership, for example, in favour of the EMU, however long or short a time it takes and whatever the temporary drawbacks or problems of the means. After all, the EMU is only in itself a means en route to an end, but a vital means.
In their reaction the Government seem to me to give the impression of lacking a strategic vision; they give the impression of concentrating on tactical manoeuvres as though they were still trying to play a balance of power game in Europe. Indeed, they are widely thought to be doing exactly that in certain European countries--on their own in so many of the subjects touched on in the report of the Reflection Group. On reflection, they might note that if, as Chancellor Kohl has suggested,
With that background, I wish to make a comment on just three of the topics touched on in the report of the Select Committee and in that of the Reflection Group. The first topic is the European Parliament and its present and future roles, especially in relation to its lack of powers over the common agricultural policy. The implied criticism--and sometimes not so implied--of the European Parliament by the Select Committee is, in my view, over the top and unjustified. We help create European institutions but then we criticise the only genuinely elected legislature, leading the opposition to any attempt to give it real powers. We, the mother of democracy, do that! We condemn the Commission for entertaining faceless, unelected bureaucrats but we deny the European Parliament powers to scrutinise legislation, refusing it the means to fulfill its mandate as the sole directly elected democratic European institution. Why do I say that? It is because I feel that basically this Government oppose anything which smacks in the vaguest sense of European political integration.
Can the Government confirm, as we have all assumed, that in the Reflection Group's report at paragraph 86 the reference to the "one member in principle" who opposes any extension of the co-decision procedure refers to this country? Much energy and time are engaged on the issue of fraud, which is touched upon in the committee's report. We deplore fraud at any level, whether local, national or European. However, much of the powers for the effective control of "Euro-fraud", as it has been dubbed, are in the hands of national governments and parliaments and not of Brussels or the European Parliament. Let us not allow ourselves to be taken in by this tendency immediately to attribute blame to Brussels.
I wish to make one further comment on a subject raised by several of the committee's witnesses; namely, the matter of a uniform electoral procedure as enshrined in Article 138(3) of the Treaty of Rome. Some members of the Reflection Group proposed that the legal status should be changed to help achieve this objective and that a final date should be established for its application. I sincerely hope that the Government take this on board. There could be no more dramatic way to redeem the United Kingdom's reputation and end its isolation than to enhance the representative capability of the European Parliament by ensuring that seats won are matched by votes cast.
I wish to make a suggestion which came to mind when reading the note of the sub-committee at page 101 of the document of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, concerning the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on Thursday 29th June. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, observed that most other national governments were in favour of greater powers for the European Parliament in agricultural matters and that treaty change was necessary to allow the European Parliament to play
The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, cited the example of the powers and influence of the European Parliament over transport policy and the workings of the internal market. If the same powers were granted to the European Parliament on the CAP, he suggested that reform was sure to follow. I think that that is correct for the following reason. It is Germany which is the foremost advocate of the extension of powers to the European Parliament and yet it is Germany which also bears the greatest financial burden of the CAP. The occasion for the UK to realise its goal of reform is to strike a deal with Germany for reform quid pro quo--an extension of the powers of the European Parliament to cover agriculture and a chance for Germany as it were to reap the benefit of that and this country to reap the benefit of a really democratic debate on the agricultural policy.
Furthermore, by allowing the European Parliament to have powers to influence decision-making, a welcome element of democracy would be introduced into the decision-making process of this Titan of supranational policies, thereby closing a little the oft cited democratic deficit. Of course, modification of the CAP is essential if we are to bring on board within the foreseeable future those countries of central and eastern Europe. It seems almost certain that qualified majority voting needs to be extended to take account of further enlargement to the east, which in turn will demand a greater degree of co-decision. It is quite clear that the whole process of extending the European Union to the east will not happen overnight but will be long, drawn out and complex. It should not be allowed in the meantime to hold up progress among the existing members.
is again a reference to this country? Again, one is privy to the anomaly of this Government's policies. On the one hand they advocate expansion, while on the other hand they refuse to allow progress towards a more efficient decision-making mechanism befitting a larger Union.
I might be cast a cynic but I confess to having grave reservations about the true reasoning behind the UK's desire for expansion. The Inter-Governmental Conference must not be sidetracked and must not become wholly concerned with enlargement, which should be considered as a long-term objective. We should welcome these countries as they are a part of that shared Western tradition. We encourage them into the fold, but before we do so we should surely get our own house in order. Bearing in mind where they come from
Beyond the conference is a crucial period in the evolution of the Union. It would therefore be inappropriate and misguided for the Union at this juncture to be drawn into another round of accession negotiations. The whole thing must be planned ahead of time. The Reflection Group identified subsidiarity as a means of bringing the Union closer to the citizen. This means that it and the member states must respect the principle of subsidiarity. It should not be construed--as the report reminds us--as justifying the inexorable growth of European powers nor as a pretext for undermining solidarity or the Union's achievements. There are two interpretations of subsidiarity and the report suggests that correct application and appropriate recognition of the principle of sufficient means could facilitate the transition from unanimity to qualified majority in areas such as education, the environment or social policy. What interpretation do the Government put on subsidiarity? I noticed that the Minister of State implied in her response that subsidiarity is a legal as well as a political concept. Would she accept a definition by the European Court on the meaning of subsidiarity?
I conclude by saying that the Inter-Governmental Conference is therefore a chance for the member states actively to pursue the subsidiarity principle not just at the European level but within the member states of the Union. Subsidiarity is a principle which the Government are willing to apply in Northern Ireland and which I would care to see in my own land of Wales, in Scotland and in the regions of the UK. It seems to me that the greatest possible benefit that the Government can confer on the next Inter-Governmental Conference is to reassert their belief in progress in Europe, to cease their isolation in Europe and to give a lead.
I read in an article by Mr. Garel-Jones in The Times recently that the new Secretary General of NATO was a great-nephew of Salvador de Madriaga. Salvador de Madriaga spoke in 1947, only two years after the war, in a speech which inspired me and everyone who listened to him, of the ideal of a Europe to provide democracy, prosperity and security for all the "quarrelsome" nations of Europe and to save them from their tendency, manifested in two world wars, to eventual self-destruction.
In this country and elsewhere in Europe we have lost sight of the goals and what we are trying to achieve. We are paying too much attention to the means of achieving the goals. There are bound to be pain, misconceptions and mistakes in the means whereby we seek to achieve a certain end. The present generation in our country and in Europe needs to place more emphasis on the ends.
I am glad that in our sub-committee we were more constrained in our considerations, for it enabled me to enjoy that committee, despite the onerous nature of the work involved. I should like to pay particular tribute to the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. It was a masterpiece of chairmanship to keep us all together. If at times there are sections of our report which are a trifle like a report from the CBI, just a little pale beige, that is a consequence of our differences of view, which somehow or other we managed to bring together to produce a unanimous report.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, made a very interesting speech. Near the beginning of his speech I thought that he was suggesting--and I should like to look back at his words--that the test of whether the IGC is successful will above all be whether it opens the way to the future enlargement of the Union to our fellow Europeans in central, and eventually eastern, Europe. It is to that point that I should like to address some of my remarks.
The challenge is to find terms on which we can admit those nations. Their economies are fragile and their democracies are fragile. Their democracies are at the greater risk if their economies do not succeed. The one thing which we in the European Community can do is to open our markets to those nations as early as possible.
What are the obstructions in the way? The first, of course, is the common agricultural policy. The idea that the European Parliament should be entrusted with the reform of the common agricultural policy is a matter so laughable that it could entertain us for days. I can imagine that it would be reformed, but would it be reformed in a direction which would bring us cheaper food? Would it be reformed in a direction which would end the monstrous misuse of fertilisers across Europe to force up yields on ever smaller acreages while more is put to set-aside--causing more environmental damage--to produce more high-cost food to be dumped, and to cause the Commission to introduce measures not to keep down the price of food but to keep up the price of food? Although I have great reservations about the Council and the Commission, I would sooner entrust the reform of the CAP to them than to the European Parliament.
There are other obstructions to the admission of the nations of central and eastern Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned. One is the very structure of the Community's institutions. Those of us who have represented this country in the Council, even when it was a Council of but 12, realised that it was a construction which was suited to nine members and not 12. The idea of 20, 25 or 27 around a table, with the problems of translation from Portuguese to Finnish or Greek to Spanish, is absurd. It is an absurd structure. It cannot work, with the extent of the responsibilities and the powers which now fall upon the Council and the Commission. There is the prospect of 30, 38 or perhaps 40 commissioners, all looking for work. As we know, the Devil makes evil work for idle hands to do. As the number of commissioners has increased, so we have been more assured of the truth of those words. So the Commission has to be reformed.
Then there is the suggestion in the report of the Reflection Group that the whole of the Acquis Communautaire must be swallowed by new entrants. It is just not going to happen. It cannot happen. The group suggests that in future there should be no permanent opt outs of any kind and that we have to have a Europe which is standard. There is to be a standard Europe for Latvians, Poles, Hungarians, Finns, Portuguese and Irish. That is an absurdity. I sometimes think that that is intended as an obstruction to the entry of new members, because some of those in that cosy organisation in Brussels which calls itself Europe, but which today probably excludes most Europeans, do not want change. They would rather keep their structures than create a Europe for all Europeans.
The final obstruction in the way of admitting those countries is the very depth of the powers which are wielded at the moment by the European Community. There is no need for a European structure which dictates whether sex discrimination should be allowed in the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom. Let us get rid of that kind of thing. That would be a price well worth paying for the admission of our friends in eastern and central Europe.
I do not wish to detain the House long, for there are many others who wish to speak, but I should like to say a word or two about the Court of Justice. There are some comments on that subject in paragraph 120 on page 47 of the Reflection Group report, where it states:
It would be difficult for people to declaim against such a noble sentiment. However, I hope that the Government will consider carefully those sentiments in their negotiations in the IGC, for one of the things which became quite clear to us in our sub-committee was that the court is eager to extend its role and eager to take on new responsibilities.
In the Maastricht Treaty pillar on home affairs we have a number of new aspects of Community law. The question asked is this. How can that Community law, the rights and obligations inherent upon the citizen through that pillar, be uniformly applied across the whole of the European Union? Will a court in Germany give the same interpretation as a court in Greece or in the United Kingdom? Quite probably not. Then we have a new grievance--that Community law is being unfairly applied in one country or another; and here we see stepping forward, eager to solve the problem, the European Court of Justice which the Government had carefully kept out of that pillar of the Maastricht Treaty.
Some noble Lords may remember, probably most may not, that during some of those debates I referred to the number of hooks which were concealed in that treaty--hooks on which sooner or later would be hung new powers for the authorities in Brussels. I hope that Ministers will profit from this experience and will not allow themselves to be caught out again.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, spoke about the inability of this Parliament to participate effectively in the process of European legislation. One has to think at times that the process must be deliberate so that national parliaments are not able to participate. The volume of material which is sent to us and the absurdly short deadlines offered for consideration by Parliament, in contrast with the meandering, time-wasting procedures in Brussels, are an affront to any democratic system. This Parliament is treated with contempt in this matter. It is not a new factor; it is not a new issue. It has been happening for years. The only new aspect is that it is becoming worse. Alongside the steady increase in fraud that is uncovered every year, it is one of the great scandals of the European Community. I hope, again, that in the negotiations in the IGC, Ministers will point out to their colleagues that in this country we have a long-established democratic tradition which requires that Parliament scrutinises legislation. Indeed, we had, until comparatively recently, a tradition that supply would not be granted before grievances were redressed. Alas, that is no longer so; and I hope that Ministers will not allow any further erosion in that area at the IGC.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and I were often, indeed almost always, on the same side during our deliberations on the IGC sub-committee. It is true that he is rather to the right of me in more modern political parlance, although in the 1970s he would have been to the left of me.
The essence of the report is that it is too soon to make any major changes following the Maastricht Treaty which has been in operation for only two years. There has not been time for proper experience of the treaty. It would be completely wrong to make any fundamental changes to it. That is the basis of what we say. The Government would do well to heed our arguments and to adopt the minimalist policy in relation to the IGC recommended by the committee. It is much too early to consider major steps towards further integration.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, accuses the Government of being isolationist. I used to share a room with the noble Lord. He was a Liberal then and is Liberal now. During the whole of my political life, the Liberal Party has been isolated. Has it been wrong in everything it suggests? Has it been wrong in its isolation over such a long period of time? I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that if you believe that isolation is the right policy, that the isolationist approach is the best policy for Britain, then you should follow that approach. I sincerely hope that the Government will adopt a minimalist approach as regards the recommendations of the Select Committee.
I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, congratulate Herr Kohl who threatens us that if we do not go along his line of thinking and development, the issue could be peace or war. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his position in relation to Herr Kohl.
I was glad to have the opportunity to serve on the sub-committee. It meant that I had to deal with much detail and hear the arguments, aspirations and ambitions of those closely involved in and with the European Union. The exercise of examining closely the issues involved served only to strengthen my long and deeply held conviction that the British people were deceived into joining not a free trade area, or a common market as it was called, but an organisation dedicated to building a federal or unitary state in Europe. That is an organisation which, I believe, would be inimical to Britain's best economic and political interests and her continuation as an independent democratic sovereign state.
That view has been dismissed in the past as fanciful. It can no longer be dismissed in that way because the drive for a federal union, far from abating, is intensifying, driven by Germany and her junior partner, France. The institutions of the EU are geared towards the creation of the Euro-superstate. Herr Lammers and
So we can no longer dismiss as fanciful the fears many of us had that when we joined the Common Market we were really joining an institution which would be a federal state of Europe. Any possible doubts must have been dispelled by the meeting last Thursday between Herr Kohl and M. Chirac. They made it absolutely plain that their ambition is a federal European state and that those who do not agree had better fall by the wayside or move into line. The European Parliament is clearly in favour. Its demand is for more power, equality with the Council, even taxing powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, it has not even absorbed or implemented the powers given under the Maastricht Treaty. But now it demands even greater and more significant powers. Fortunately, the Select Committee saw the implications of those demands and believed them to be premature, if not divisive. It recommended accordingly; I agree.
It is also clear that the parliament and the Commission wish to collapse the foreign, defence and home affairs pillars into the Community and, with that, to abolish the veto and widen the use of qualified majority voting. Thus the argument now is that you cannot have widening or deepening; it is that you cannot have widening without deepening. That is what it is all about, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and others. In other words, what is being said is that if there is no movement towards further integration and centralisation of powers, then there shall be no widening. Of course, for the set-up envisaged by the "Europeanists", that is true. But for me and, I guess, most people in Britain, it is a nightmare scenario which must be prevented at all costs. Indeed, if enlargement means additional powers for the European Union, centralisation, more qualified majority voting and the loss of veto, then we had better not have it.
My noble friend Lord Richard said, "How can you not agree to abolishing the veto?" He instanced Malta and said, "How can we allow Malta to have the veto?" My memory is that Malta helped us to fight the last war. It was awarded the George Cross for doing so. I do not know where Luxembourg was at that time. Luxembourg's population is 365,000; the population of Malta is 369,000. Yet we have managed, over the past 25 or 30 years, to run the European Community on the basis of Luxembourg, with a veto, having a population only the size of Malta. I hope that my noble friend will reconsider what he said about Malta and the veto.
It seems to me that the only enlargement that can be achieved--and here I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit--is on the basis of a free trade area. If we go any further, the whole structure will collapse within itself and do enormous damage to any unity in Europe.
There was also the recent decision concerning free prescriptions. Under the court's ruling, they are to be extended to men aged 60. The implications are enormous: it will cost the Government at least £42 million per annum. This Parliament has to raise it. Yet when Directive 79/7 was discussed in another place, there was no mention that the directive would extend free prescriptions to men aged 60. The House of Commons is being forced into raising taxation which it knew nothing about and with which it might not agree. I believe that the Government and Parliament must look at the operation of the European Court of Justice because the implications will become more serious as time goes on.
As I said earlier, I believe that membership of the European Union is inimical to Britain's best interests. Our history, our experience, our industry and our place within the Commonwealth demand that Britain's place is as a world power not confined to a subordinate role in a regional and increasingly moribund bloc representing a mere 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. of the world's population. We are told that everything is increasingly global. Let us then attune our policy in this country to the world and our position in it. I am glad that even the Foreign Secretary is perhaps coming round to that view. It is also encouraging that only yesterday the chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, David Howell, extended his support for that view.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad to be able to follow the stimulating speech which we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, although I do not go the whole way with him. In view of his comments about the compatibility of membership of a nation state in the European Union, we should make it clear--and I personally feel this way--that membership of the European Union, while preserving the sovereignty of our own country, has been at risk but could be put right very soon. It could be put right at the IGC. I shall come to that point in a moment.
The first four speakers in this debate all said that it was too soon after Maastricht to make any fundamental changes. I am glad to say that the Foreign Secretary does not seem to take that view. I wrote to him on 24th October and took the liberty
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, my experience among lawyers is that most lawyers consider that we should remain in the European Union and that the European Union can succeed but will fail unless the scope of its legislation is reduced and the quality improved. Along with one of the Clerks of the House and a representative of the Foreign Office, I attended the European Law Congress in Rome in March this year, where Herr Wagenbauer, who has been the chief legislative draftsman of the Commission in recent years but is now retiring, said just that; namely, that the European Union has to legislate less and do it better. Perhaps I may say in passing that the Select Committee, as always, did most valuable work. But I find it disappointing that it did not consider in depth the question of the scope of the legislation of the European Community.
As things are now, we have a Community of 15 nations and it may be enlarged still further. They are mainly governed in their legislative power by treaties designed for only six nations. I suggest that the Rome Treaty is now an unworkable anachronism. It simply was not designed for a Community of 15 nations. Even with some fairly full amendment, we cannot go on in that way. Even under the Rome Treaty the six nations found law-making arduous enough, which was overcome to some extent by giving sweeping powers to the Commission of the day--powers which have not yet been taken away or modified. The Commission now has a very difficult task. It not only deals with 15 different countries which have various kinds of constitution but it does so in 11 different languages.
Another point to consider is that every one of those 15 countries has its own methods of drafting legislation, scrutinising and amending it and fundamentally approving it when its parliament has the chance to do so. It takes a very long time to reach agreement among 15 countries about a proposed regulation or directive. Because of the different attitudes and different constitutions, the negotiations often result in compromise and the ambiguity that compromise sometimes produces. It is rather interesting to note that when dealing with countries which have a federal constitution, as I understand five of the 15 countries have--certainly two of the original six countries do--the negotiators are faced with the difficulty that sovereignty in all those countries is divided between the regions and the centre. So, when negotiating with a representative of the central government in any one of those countries, the representative must say, "I am sorry but we shall have to consult the regions." That may mean months more of delay.
When the subsidiarity rule--splendid as it is--was introduced under Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty, it did not modify harmonisation except by implication. So we now have two conflicting principles for the Commission to work on. We must not let that go on. The problem has to be dealt with and preferably at the IGC. Subsidiarity under the Maastricht Treaty was, as I said, a splendid idea, but it has been befogged by 22 pages of amazingly complicated guidance issued by the Commission. Having studied those 22 pages--I can give any noble Lord a copy, if he wishes--it seems to me that that guidance was intended to frustrate the purpose of subsidiarity.
However, I am glad to say that in June 1993 the Council of Ministers agreed on a resolution on the drafting--not the subjects--of European Community legislation, which was intended to achieve some of the clarity that is certainly needed. I have read that text and found it very interesting. It contains 10 guidelines which I understand are known among Foreign Office lawyers as the Ten Commandments. They are wise and unobjectionable rules. They are the kind of rules in drafting that any country would wish to have. Unfortunately, they do not mention the need for enacting statements of principle and purpose, except in the Preamble, which has to give the reasons for each enactment. But those statements of principle, as many noble Lords will agree and as I have sometimes said, are vital, whether or not the detail is needed.
Another problem--for dealing with it we should all be grateful to the Select Committee--has been the lack of compliance with European Law and its enforcement. Much of the European legislation is ignored and it simply becomes a dead letter. It is notorious, especially in the enforcement of the common agricultural policy, that Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, France and even sometimes Belgium, often fail to comply with European Community Law.
National courts are under no obligation to enforce European Community law unless a case happens by chance to be brought before them. So a heavy burden is placed upon the European Court of Justice to enforce the law when the Commission brings cases before it, as it often has to do, and properly so. That court does vital work and I am glad that the Select Committee agreed that that work should continue and not be interfered with. Until recently there was no way of enforcing its judgments, which is rather strange. But now the Commission deducts the amount of penalty, plus interest if necessary, from any monthly allowance made to a member state to finance its share of the CAP.
It has been discovered, and decided rather late in the day, that under Article No. 155 of the Treaty of Rome, which says that the Commission shall ensure that its provisions are complied with, it is possible to enforce many of the judgments of the Commission.
One could continue with a somewhat negative attitude, criticising what is happening. But let me try to be constructive. Mr. Malcolm Rifkind said in a letter to me that at the IGC the Government intend to put forward proposals to improve the legislative process. I suggest that the treaties should be fundamentally amended and consolidated. Better still, scrap the lot and start again with one treaty and then everyone will know where they stand.
Secondly, there should be massive repeals of those many regulations and directives now theoretically in force but which in practice are found to be unenforceable or irrelevant to the real purposes of an enlarged Community. We should scrap them by massive repeals. Thirdly, new law-making should be confined mainly to matters of principle--those matters which are essential for supporting agreed general policies in an enlarged Community. They come under five headings.
First, there should be freedom and safety of movement of people, goods, capital and services between member states. Secondly, there should be economic co-operation in the broad--as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, rightly said--including a much simplified common agricultural policy (as our Government, I am glad to say, are proposing to do) and a much simplified and better enforced fisheries policy. Thirdly, legislation should deal with crime prevention and suppression of terrorism. Fourthly, there should be freedom of the press and of broadcasting. Finally, there should be prevention of unacceptable immigration into Europe as a whole.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee I too should like to pay tribute to the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Several speakers have referred to his skill in steering members of the committee who held very different views on Europe to a unanimous report. He also showed another skill; that of keeping us within our terms of reference when there were so many attractive blind alleys down which some wanted to run.
My position on Europe and the IGC is one of being strongly in favour of our having an active and positive role in the Community while being severely critical of a number of its present manifestations. I should therefore like to see the IGC take a proper grip on the whole budgetary process, not only removing the distinction between "compulsory" and "non-compulsory" expenditure, but also getting rid of the way in which the budget is compiled on a "top-down" basis, starting from the ceiling established by the financial perspective. I am all in favour of a ceiling, but it is not a ceiling which is a target to spend up to.
Below that ceiling there are other ceilings. There are the agricultural guidelines and the structural fund allocations, all of which set out targets and develop a culture of expenditure where performance in the Commission is seen to be satisfactory if one's target is achieved. That is ludicrous at a time when member states are seeking and the EU itself is encouraging member states to reduce public spending as a proportion of GNP. Not only should bids for EU expenditure be properly examined to ensure value for money, but the timetable of the EU budget exercise should be adjusted to allow national parliaments proper opportunity for scrutiny of the proposals before the Council makes its recommendation to the European Parliament. That is what I should like to see. I fear, however, that reform of the budget process may be relegated to the IGC's tray marked "too difficult". The conference may cast around for things which sound good and are less difficult and controversial.
I want to address one of those possibilities because I fear that a seemingly innocuous idea could store up great problems for us for the future. I refer to the question of team presidencies, dealt with in paragraphs 236 to 242 of the report and, briefly, in paragraph 108 of the final version of the Reflection Group's report. At present with 15 member states and a presidency of six months the job comes round every seven-and-a-half years. With 20 member states it would be every 10 years and with 30 member states, every 15 years. It is argued that it is bad for the prestige, for the amour propre and so forth, of countries, for it to come round so rarely. It means that lessons learnt from the organisation of previous presidencies will be forgotten when the turn comes round again.
The idea has been put forward by a number of people for team presidencies made up of three or four member states which would make the turn come round faster. In fact, that is an illusion. It is usually coupled with another idea: that the presidency should last for one year instead of six months. Indeed, if we had a team presidency, a term of one year would almost certainly be necessary to allocate the responsibilities and get the thing up and running with any degree of effectiveness at all. The time saving therefore would be minimal and almost certainly when the term came round again one would find different Ministers in key positions.
There seem to be some fundamental objections. It is in the interests of all member states that the presidency should be effective, efficient and fair; all the more so since the coming into force of the Single European Act, the setting up of the second and third pillars, and the general feeling that member states acting together should oversee the future development of the Union rather than be led by the Commission acting in its old role as the motor of integration.
If you accept that, it requires two things of a presidency; first, the efficient organisation of business and, secondly, the ability to play the part of honest broker when there are conflicts of view. How would a team consisting of three or four countries measure up to those two demands? In an average year there are more than 100 meetings of the Council at ministerial level
We all know that even at present agriculture Ministers collectively conspire against their financial colleagues, but a single administration can at least attempt to establish and adhere to making a unitary presidency policy, particularly if it is supported by adequate inter-departmental machinery. But this sharing of responsibility would be all the more chaotic when it came to representing the Union to third countries. There would not just be the need to settle who would be the team captain but he would have to find a way of ensuring that the team played the same sort of strokes. As it is an American observer, writing recently about relations with the Union, described it as "shaking hands with a multi-headed octopus." But how would he describe a team presidency with different aspects shared by different countries and serviced by different groups of officials in different capitals?
Team presidencies would serve none of the aims of clear leadership, flexibility in negotiation and pinpointing of responsibility. I believe that they would also make the role of honest broker that much harder. On the one hand it would be more difficult for a team presidency to fashion the sort of compromise proposal which it is so often the role of the presidency to float. On the other hand, if agreement between three or four countries was reached behind the scenes on a compromise proposal, it would carry disproportionate weight and be very much harder for other countries who disagreed to block.
For all those reasons I believe that the idea of a presidency with different policy teams based in several European capitals and possibly pursuing contradictory aims does not make sense. The Government would be well advised to avoid getting committed to anything like it.
Of course, this is a problem which will increase with enlargement. There are, however, alternatives which the sub-committee did not have time to examine in any great detail. One could continue with the present system, at least for the next wave of enlargement, which is likely to be a very small wave. One could have the presidency divided between two countries, mirroring COREPER 1 and COREPER 2. One could have a presidency elected by the Council. One could have a presidency combining a big country with a small country, with a sharing of the prestige but the big country, in effect, doing most of the servicing of the machinery.
The essential point is that this is not an immediate problem. The present system works. There is already an agreed and established batting order of presidencies up to the end of the century and it is an open question when new members will join and whether they will do so individually or in waves. There is plenty of time to work out how best to accommodate them in the presidency. I believe that the IGC should avoid taking a decision
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, perhaps I may start by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and his committee. I much enjoyed giving evidence, although I am not at all sure that I like the result of what I said to them. That is in interesting contrast to what was expressed in the other place on my same comments, so I still have some hopes.
What I should like to do today is deal with two aspects of the IGC. The first is defence and the second is the democratic deficit. I have had the great privilege of listening twice to Mr. Westendorp in his capacity as chairman of the Reflection Group. I think I can say that those of us who heard him were very impressed by his grasp of the subject but were disappointed with the result, which turns out to be a very flabby document and, frankly, of little value to anyone except for its continual highlighting of the view of one country. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I would guess at its identity but I shall not actually name it. But I support it.
Defence must remain a national responsibility. On that I am delighted to say that there is no division between the Government and the Opposition. We made it very clear to Mr. Westendorp and we have made it clear on many occasions that there are those who would like to draw out the IGC in the hope that there will be a change of government in this country and a change on defence policy. That has been repudiated on behalf of the Labour Party by the leader of the Labour delegation to the Western European Union and to the Council of Europe and by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, when we debated the issue. But it still lingers there. I hope that again today the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will confirm that view.
We cannot allow defence to be dealt with on a majority voting system because it is not practicable for the national interest to be dealt with in that way. Of course there must be close co-operation but we have to remember the knock-on effect for NATO and the United States. When I was in Washington about three months ago real anxiety was expressed by those to whom I spoke at the prospect of the European Union having something to do with defence. I was able to reassure them that I thought it was highly unlikely, certainly in the foreseeable future, which I put at 25 years.
Western European Union is in existence. Why do we not build on it and make more use of it in these coming years? As I have said, the Commission and the European Parliament in particular must have nothing to do with defence. That view is strongly expressed by many of the new democracies which are in the Council of Europe and which do not want to see the European Union dealing with this subject. It was expressed extremely strongly by Norway. I found that a particularly interesting concept. My noble friend the Minister may know that she can rely on the stout support of Norway on many of these issues when they come to be discussed outside the EU.
I suggest that the reverse of that is also true. To me it is sheer lunacy that a country that has done so much for NATO over the years, Turkey, is merely permitted to be an associate member, as is Norway which has given immense help in the training of British marines over the years. But because of a certain amount of blackmail that took place at Maastricht, one country was allowed to join, Greece, as a full member, but Turkey was only allowed to come as an associate member. Therefore, I hope that the Government will try to ensure that full membership of the WEU will be open to all members of NATO who want it.
I now turn to the democratic deficit which exists and which has not been filled by the European Parliament. I believe that it is unlikely, with the best will in the world, to be filled by that organisation. I am quite sure that some MEPs work extremely hard but the institution itself--and this is important--is not held in high esteem throughout Europe. We are not alone in having a very low voting turn-out and co-operation between MEPs and the national parliaments is sadly lacking. So far, nobody has found a way of putting that right. National parliaments must have a bigger say in what goes on but, of course, we all have different methods of scrutiny. Here in this House we have a superb method, as do the Danes, but the trouble is that so many countries have a different basis and countries like France almost nod through everything because the National Assembly has so little power in these particular instances.
I come back to my case: what would a second chamber do? I want to try to refute some of the things that the Select Committee said and some of the things that the Government have said in their response. First, what would it do? It would have members or delegates coming from the Council of Europe, and I shall explain why in a moment. A double mandate would be perfectly sustainable because its powers would be limited. Of course, it would not duplicate everything being done by the European Parliament itself. One of the major things it could do is deal with the monitoring and review of subsidiarity.
Would it be weak? No, it would not be weak because it would be drawn exclusively from members of national parliaments, which is the position at present. It would have the great advantage of containing very many of the countries who have association agreements with the European Union and countries that have applied to join the European Union. As they progress to becoming full members, they would then turn from being observers in
I do not believe that it would make the matter more complicated because it depends entirely on whether we believe that something else is needed. Mr. Westendorp, who dismissed the view that there should be a second chamber, then goes on to say that we do need something like a high council. What is a high council but a second organisation, and a far less democratic one, than one composed of members of national parliaments throughout Europe?
I am sorry that the Select Committee of your Lordships' House did not like the idea. I do not believe that it found a good reason. The basic reason was that it does not want any more bodies to be created. But if we accept that there has to be something else to fill the gap, then surely it is better to build on what we have, which will save creating something new. What we have has 40 years plus of democratic experience; it has 40 years plus of working together with members of national parliaments. It seems to me that we are not prepared to experiment and we shall allow the IGC to come and go and still be complaining, I am perfectly certain, about the democratic deficit. I have a little hope that Her Majesty's Government might think again. That appears to be the tenor of at least one letter I have had from the Government--that they have not totally dismissed the idea. It is a novel idea which looks different.
I hope that it can be properly examined for this reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and, I believe, one or two others said, there is a division inside the parties and inside the country on European aspects. But there is something that has never upset either the Euro-sceptics or the Euro-fanatics; that is, the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. In the few years that I have been in your Lordships' House and in the 22 years I was in the other place, I never heard anyone say that they are an evil organisation designed to do down the United Kingdom; nor has anyone said that they are magnificent and that we should get rid of the House of Commons and the House of Lords and just have the Council of Europe and the WEU. They have been recognised and accepted as something valuable.
So there it is. I believe that we are going to have an IGC which is certainly going to last well beyond 1997. I believe that it will achieve very little because I do not believe that the guidelines that are set out in the Westendorp Report really are what is wanted. The report does not tackle the fundamental issues of democratic deficit and it does not tackle the fundamental issue of where the European Union goes. It does not tackle the real danger, which again has been referred to, of the European Court of Justice which, it seems, every time it has to deliver a judgment, expands the area that was originally put into legislation by the European Union. That is what I find dangerous and I hope that that matter will be addressed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, for the first time in one of your Lordships' debates I have to ask your indulgence if I am not here for the closing speeches, owing to a long standing engagement this evening. I shall therefore speak quite briefly and confine myself to a few general but difficult points about our negotiating position at the next IGC. Before doing so, I would like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the other noble Lords on the sub-committee who produced this report, first, on its unanimity and, secondly, on avoiding the more obvious blandishments of further political union with Europe, at least for now.
In any negotiation one is weak if one does not know how much ground one is prepared to cede before one gets up and leaves the table. To know that, one has to know pretty accurately how uncomfortable life would be without the deal in question. Success often turns on being able to guess the answers to the same questions in the minds of the other party.
These are, of course, basic facts in business. But I am not sure that they are so readily understood in politics or that the United Kingdom representatives have always taken them fully on board in their various renegotiations of the Treaty of Rome. Perhaps politicians and bureaucrats can afford to pay less attention to them than businessmen, who suffer in a much more personal way when they ignore them or when they get the answers wrong. So I would like to take this opportunity to remind the Government of the strength of our general negotiating position at the next IGC.
Particularly, I remind them of Article N of the Maastricht Treaty which states that amendments to the treaties shall enter into force only after being ratified by all the member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. This means that the United Kingdom--or any other country for that matter--has not merely the ability to opt out of any policies which it does not like. We can prevent the others from following them too unless they set up entirely separate funding and bureaucracies to run them.
Looking back on it, I think that that means that we could have prevented the others from espousing the Social Chapter and, indeed, the plans for monetary union unless they set up entirely separate, and no doubt expensive, machinery to do so outside the Treaty of Rome. Would they have done that? Many of us did not think so at the time. But we have never understood how much objective analysis went into our allowing the others to have them anyway.
Far from being strengthened by objective analysis, it seems to me that our negotiating position seems too frightened of upsetting the European apple cart. It seems to pay too much respect to what I have come to call "Euro-slogans" such as:
which has not been objectively examined and which seems palpably untrue to many of us. There are other Euro-slogans, of course, all of which seem shallow or inaccurate to put it mildly (as slogans usually are) and
On that one, I would just comment that some 80 per cent. of our global assets and 75 per cent. of our overall investment are outside Europe. Our total earnings from outside the European Union are at least 50 per cent. higher than those from within. So Europe is a minority interest for us--it is a hugely important one, but it is a minority interest.
I fear that the same doubts arise about inward investment into this country, which the Government allege has brought us some 650,000 jobs, thanks to our membership of the Union. But has anyone ever looked closely at this? For instance, have the jobs lost through too much and misguided regulation from Europe been counted and set against that figure? Has the inward investment come to us because we have an attractive tax regime, low inflation, good labour relations with a skilled labour force, because we speak English and because we have access to the single market, rather than because we carry the additional burdens of Union membership? Would we lose that access if we withdrew from the Treaty of Rome and retained our separate membership of the European Economic Area? In attempting to answer that very difficult question, which is also perhaps the most important question of all, we should remember that we trade in deficit with Europe and that we signed the GATT both collectively with our European partners and individually as sovereign states.
The trouble is that as far as I am aware no serious objective study of those questions has been made, and nor is it planned. The Government merely intone that the benefits of our membership of the Union are "self-evident". To go back to where I started, that seems to me to be a very dangerous frame of mind in which to enter the next IGC and any other negotiations which may follow.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as I am quite sure that your Lordships are aware, one of the advantages of taking an active part in the proceedings of a Select Committee or one of its sub-committees is that one is drawn into examining documents in detail, and one becomes accustomed also to arguing in detail, not necessarily from a political partisan standpoint, but according to one's intellectual appreciation of the evidence that is before us, both verbal and in writing.
It is clear from the report that was presented to us this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that that process has undoubtedly happened. Before the proceedings of the sub-committee dealing with this matter took place, there were a lot of wide assumptions within the House as to what the Treaty of Maastricht contained. Indeed, we are well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is after all only a minor official, had not even bothered to read it. Your Lordships may be aware that even today, nearly four years since the treaty was signed--it was signed on 7th February 1992--there is no official British publication of the consolidation of the treaty. There were some promises that that was being considered, but I observe that the European Commission, as usual, came to our aid and issued copies to Her Majesty's Stationery Office which are now available to the general public at a price of £18, which is not exactly conducive to popular consumption of the treaty or to a study of its contents. Even local authorities with their restricted funds would think twice before buying one or two copies to put in their libraries.
Therefore, it must be assumed that outside the Select Committee, government circles and the Civil Service, knowledge of the treaty is not exactly wide at present. That being so, the report is all that more welcome. I for one took a sporadic interest in the sub-committee's affairs, despite some technical complications about my right or otherwise to attend. But I am bound to say that the proceedings are excellent and that the results have been most constructive.
Before I embark on a consideration of the process, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, on the very helpful memorandum that she sent out. I am happy to say that she always does such things. Indeed, at her insistence, her department is one of the few to provide adequate particulars on which we can arrive at some reasoned conclusions. I congratulate the noble Baroness and I sincerely hope that I may continue to congratulate her on those and other grounds for some time to come.
One of the difficulties that we all have about the whole question of the European Community is that we are unable to know upon which particular points to focus. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was quick to say immediately that we must back every government except our own, or every other policy against those developed in the United Kingdom, and that we shall
What we really have to do is to look at the whole European set-up with completely fresh eyes rather than being carried away by the slogans which have been so adequately perpetrated over the years, commencing with the right honourable Sir Edward Heath who produced the first somewhat dubious White Papers on the subject.
What we have to grasp--it was borne on me even more when I listened to the words that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to whom I pay tribute for his speech this afternoon--is that we may be looking at the whole thing upside down. What we are saying at the moment--I hope that it will not last for ever--is that one can impose a change of regime from the top downwards to the people themselves. You can, if you establish sufficient power at the centre, power to legislate and power to influence legislative interpretation decisions, by sheer force majeure, combined of course with a good deal of subsidised propaganda, ultimately organise a state, the emergence of a new state or the emergence of a new order from on top.
I invite your Lordships to consider that history teaches us the reverse: that unless a demand for a change of regime--a fundamental change of policy--comes from the people themselves, and is agreed to, even in general terms, by the people themselves, no policy imposed from on top stands a cat in hell's chance of success.
That is the thought I want to put before your Lordships this afternoon, because it seems to me that, following Maastricht, which I take it rather a larger number of people, including members of the Cabinet, have now read, we are faced with two fundamental contradictions. The first is that within the organisation that we now have there is a common agricultural policy which is completely at variance with what is alleged to be the main purpose of the European Community itself, which is to establish, albeit within a given area, free trade based upon free competition.
Manifestly that cannot be applied--the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, underlined the matter with his usual felicity--to the common agricultural policy. It is no good saying in enunciating a policy that we will take steps to do it. The answer to that is, what steps, in view of the fact that the CAP can be changed by unanimity only? Only one state has to disagree with a fundamental reform and it cannot be reformed. Moreover, the European Commission has gone on the record in most emphatic and, some might think, arrogant terms about the prime necessity of preserving the acquis communautaire.
Written right at the heart of the acquis communautaire is the CAP. When he comes to reflect upon these matters, the noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead, will, I am sure, confirm that that is the case.
Unless and until people understand just what the European institutions are at, there will never be any comprehension of what is likely to happen to the European Union in the future. I deal en passant with the European Parliament, about which there is some suggestion that it should be given increased powers. Only today the press reports are out with yet another report from the Court of Auditors--a short one at that--which stigmatises the grossly excessive expenditure by the European Parliament, on its own authority, on establishing a new building in Strasbourg. It denounces it as irregular.
The European Parliament should have more powers! It has powers enough already. It can, in defiance of the Council and in respect of what is termed "non-compulsory expenditure", establish its own will to expend more money within the overall limit--established at Edinburgh of course. It can spend exactly what it wishes. In case the noble Lord disagrees, I have correspondence from Her Majesty's Government which confirms that--that it does in fact have that power. We all know very well that one of the first things that happens in the European Parliament with a new assembly is that there is an immediate representation to the College of Questors, which is the organisation set up by the Parliament itself to increase its own expenses and allowances, without any control by the Council of Ministers or by the Commission. Those matters are incontrovertible. All one considers now, as one must consider, are those powers of the Commission.
One of the reasons why there is all this dissertation about the goings on at the Council, and all the complication arising from the revolving presidency, is the assumption that the number of proposals coming before the Council from the Commission--the Commission has sole powers to make proposals--will continue at the existing rate. There is one way of avoiding an overload on the Council, and that is not to put so many proposals, particularly those which have an adverse effect upon the UK and others, before the Council.
During that period no fewer than six consultative documents were sent and there were 179 items of proposed legislation. The Commission deliberately overloads the whole machinery of government on the basis that that will put Ministers in a tizzy. One must remember that Ministers have responsible domestic departments--and in the case of the Foreign Office overseas matters too--to deal with without a spate of European legislation. Unless there can be some control over that, the whole system is bound to jam up and the Commission will ultimately get its way.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned the attitudes of Herr Kohl and M. Chirac in connection with the deadline for the establishment of a single currency. I too was rather worried about the terms used by Herr Kohl. I do not like arrogance from anybody, in particular when they refer to my country, and I trust that I share that with your Lordships. Yet here is this man daring to mention the possibility of a return to a violent situation. That was the kind of voice that we listened to across the Channel when Germany and Vichy France were united in war. It is not the language of peace; it is not the language of democracy.
I therefore invite your Lordships to consider the possibility that we may have to think again about all this. As one noble Lord said, we may have to have a cost and benefit analysis of the situation in which we find ourselves. Then, perhaps after more mature consideration, we can arrive at a more balanced judgment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, many of your Lordships--fewer than used to be the case--are men of property. I invite you to consider what would happen if you owned, say, a dwelling house at the edge of a cliff which was subject to erosion from the sea and that you were told by your surveyor that it was likely that in a brief time your house would disappear beneath the waves. I suspect that if any of your Lordships were in that position you would not consult a firm of interior decorators about renewing the wallpaper in the drawing room. What you would do would be to find out what you could get from your insurance company so as to build a new and safer dwelling. The European Union is in that position. It is in crisis. It is on the verge, in measurable time, of disappearing as a result of its own arrogance and failures and the original impossibility of the conception that inspired it.
I have learnt much about the wallpaper from the report of our sub-committee. I agree that it is an admirable piece of work with many interesting points raised and discussed. However, it assumes that somehow or other the whole thing is going on and we must make the best of it. But when I turn to the more important and, if I may say so without offence,
I believe it was intended that we should believe in the first; that this would be the outcome of serious consideration from first principles of the way in which Europe ought to be organised; how, if it were agreed, institutions should be changed and how, above all, it should cease to be an organisation for part of Europe and become an organisation for the whole of Europe. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I put the unity of Europe at the top of my desiderata and regard the European Union as the main obstacle to that unity.
Instead, we get reflections of what have been the standard approaches of those concerned at Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg in running the show and, in following up what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, rightly reminded us of, the initial pre-suppositions. What were those pre-suppositions? They were--and I am afraid that I have said this previously to your Lordships, but I must repeat it--a design for a federal system. The Treaty of Rome, even without the Single European Act, and the Treaty of Maastricht are federal institutions. They are federal documents. Someone who has spent much of his life studying federations could not fail to be affected by this.
It is a very unusual form of federal structure, which is one of the reasons why it may collapse; no other federal structure tries to merge the governments of the units and the government institutions at the centre in this particular way. Strains were bound to develop and, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the thing was bound to become largely a vehicle for a Franco-German collaboration.
That meant, of course, that the authors of the Reflection Group report simply went on to say, "Since we are involved in building a federal system here are ways in which we can make it still more federal. We can remove"--and this they propose--"the whole three-pillar structure created at Maastricht because the two pillars other than the communities were intended to be outside the federal structure". That was the whole point of Her Majesty's Government pressing for that particular arrangement.
They propose to endow the European Parliament with additional powers. In what world the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, lives--in which he regards the European Parliament (that over-puffed up boondoggle) as the only representative body in Europe--passes all understanding! There is no parliament in Europe which cannot claim a democratic mandate superior to the European Parliament. More people have voted for its members; it has been elected in the course of more controversial campaigns. Most European parliaments consist of people who have practical experience in government or local government and who perhaps hope to be, in their turn, Ministers.
The European Parliament has none of those characteristics. Nobody knows who those people are until their names appear in public prints. Indeed, the reason for suggesting that they have more power is not that they would use it more wisely. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has already shown that the chances of the Parliament improving the common agricultural policy are negligible. It is because, obviously, if you are building a federal structure and someone comes from Mars or Australia or wherever it may be and says, "Show us your legislature", it is better to show a Parliament than to show a group of Ministers.
Therefore, it is not surprising that that is the line which is taken. On the other hand, what is actually happening in Europe is a steady and perhaps rapid discovery of the fact, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, alluded in a rather different way, that the peoples of Europe are beginning to see that they derive no benefits from that structure and call into question the extraordinary unanimity of praise for its achievements. In this House, we get those from ex-commissioners who adorn our debates, while the general public gets that from Sir Leon Brittan and others of that ilk.
As a historian I wish that I had another 100 years to live so that I could write the history of this. But future historians may ask at which point the balloon was pricked and who pricked it. They may decide that it was Mr. Neil Kinnock. When Mr. Kinnock said publicly that the idea that 15 countries could have a single currency on 1st January 1999 is a patent absurdity, and was reproved by M. Santer, it began to be obvious that in order for the thing to last it was essential that a myth should be perpetuated. Once institutions depend upon a myth, their fate, sooner or later, is certain.
There is an interesting point about M. Santer. As I think most people would admit, the European Union has been a signal failure in the most important task facing Europe at present; namely, to bring down the numbers of unemployed. It has failed in that. The proposed measures would, on the whole, more likely increase the numbers of unemployed rather than diminish them. However, it has been very good at finding jobs for the Luxembourgers, but that is a fairly restricted achievement.
We turn then to current events in France. None of us knows what will happen, but at present the French are beginning to discover that they are being subjected to social misery, to a fall in living standards and to an interruption in their Christmas festivities because they have committed themselves to following German policy. That is a policy which in Germany's case might quite well be defended in terms of German national interest because Germany is in a very particular position, having to absorb East Germany. But that really has nothing whatever to do with what anyone would have counselled for the French if their angle of vision had been French.
My sympathy for France is enormous. My sympathy for the French ruling class in recent years is a little more limited. It has entered into that partnership on the absurd assumption that because Frenchmen are cleverer than Germans they would run the show. They have found that that is not the case and they are paying a rather high price.
Whatever the outcome of the current problems of France, the thing cannot be made credible again. Herr Kohl has been the subject of some criticism, to which I shall not add. But the reason that he is so desperate to push that absurd date--as Mr. Kinnock said--of 1999 is because the ground is being removed from under his feet by the rebellion of the Germans against the notion of a single currency. That will no doubt be stimulated at Madrid next week when the name of the new money is discussed and the Germans begin to feel that there will not be a deutschmark tomorrow.
We do not know, and we cannot know, how it will work. It is perfectly reasonable to say that we shall have to go to the IGC and take up the positions set out by the noble Baroness in her reply to the sub-committee, all of which are in themselves incontrovertible except for the fact that they make no reference to the wish of the current majority of governments--not peoples--as represented in the document of the Reflection Group.
For some decades, perhaps since the first renegotiation, as it was called by the late Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, we have tried to remould the institutions of the Community in a direction which conforms far more closely to our own views of how government should be run. We have found that we cannot do it. Each time, we may build up a few barriers, as with the two pillars at Maastricht, but, sooner or later, you cannot have both a federal government and a Europe of nation states freely trading with each other and freely co-operating in relation to those things which they do need to do in common.
It is quite correct to say, as one noble Lord said, that one of the problems created by the European Union is nationalism. When people feel that their destiny and livelihood is being decided by bodies over which they have no control whatever, it is natural that they should come to dislike those who appear to profit by that. I do not suppose that 40 years ago the fishermen of Newlyn regarded Spaniards as devils incarnate. They do now because their livelihood has been taken away by the so-called European common fisheries policy for the benefit of the Spaniards. That is bound to create trouble. That will happen wherever compression is exercised and wherever nations which remain the core of Europe are denied the full possibility of self government. You can have a federal system in a single nation but Europe is not a nation and therefore is unsuitable for a federal structure.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as a former member of the "over puffed-up boondoggle", to which my noble friend Lord Beloff referred, noble Lords will understand that I rise to speak with a certain degree of trepidation. I should like, first, to congratulate the
When listening to today's intensely interesting debate, I found that I was having to remind myself that we joined the European Community by voluntary decision of the Queen in Parliament in 1972. That voluntary decision was reinforced in 1986 and again in 1993. We are constitutionally members of the European Union by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972. The Queen in Parliament can at any stage, even in as short a space of time as a day, repeal that Act and remove the effect of European Community law on our territory.
There is nothing imposed upon us: it is entirely a matter for our nation as to whether or not those institutions--that is the Court, the Parliament, the Council and the Commission--have powers on our territory. Those powers are delegated powers; they are delegated by us to them. What we have given, we can take away. So none of your Lordships should feel oppressed by the situation. It is something which is in our own hands.
I entirely agree with a number of constitutional observations made by my noble friend Lord Beloff. As a result of those delegated powers, we have created a supranational court. Moreover, as a result of the Single European Act 1986, we have also created a supranational legislature--a legislature which takes decisions by majority. The reasons for taking those steps were to create a single market. You cannot have a single market without a single and ultimate source of legal authority. If you take that single source away, you destroy the single market.
I happen to believe that the only chance that Europe has of remaining competitive in the world economy into the next century is to make a real success of the single market. You cannot have the market without the court. I was delighted to see the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, underline the position of the European Court in the Community.
Contrary to what certain speakers have said, I believe that the European Community operates on an extremely decentralised basis. Of course the European Commission has a number of powers. It is the sole initiator of legislation; it acts in some respects as a director of public prosecutions, because under Article 169 of the treaty, it can bring a member state which breaks the law to book. But it is not an executive, save in one area only, namely, the management of competition powers where it has powers similar to that of a nation state. There is no federal executive in the Community yet and, if there ever were, I would follow those who wish to take us out of the Community.
It is crucial that such a decentralised system should operate effectively in each one of the member states. My noble friend Lord Tebbit made that point much more eloquently than I can. It is crucial that the writ of the court runs equally in every state. If it does not do so,
Therefore, it is vital that the remedies available to each citizen in each one of the 15 states are equal. It is vital that each citizen can get damages for a wrong done to him under Community law. It is vital that each citizen can get specific performance for a wrong done to him and vital that he can get an injunction as well. If I may say so, the biggest single gap that I find in the Select Committee's report is that there is no recommendation to harmonise the remedies available to individual citizens in their own local courts for breaches of Community law by member states who are not free-market minded.
The latter problem will become even greater when the Community extends to central and eastern Europe. I say that because those countries have had no market economy for the past 40 years; they have been run by centralised edict and the incidence of profit and loss has been a matter of the central planner's whim, not the enterprise of entrepreneurs. You cannot have a market system unless you have a law of contract--that is, a law of contract whereby people make bargains and are compelled to stand by them even if they lose money as a result. The culture of the free contract does not exist in central and eastern Europe. Indeed, it is something that has not existed since before the Second World War. We will not have an effective market system in central and eastern Europe unless we first have a law of contract there. That is a matter to which I hope your Lordships will pay some attention when the next report is considered.
I would go even further. Having placed so much emphasis on the rule of law, I should point out that in many of those countries in central and eastern Europe it is seen not as a friend but as a foe. That is because the law is still seen as an instrument of oppression by foreign invaders. It will take time for those countries to see the rule of law in the same light that we do. Therefore, developing the culture of the rule of law and the law of contract are matters which will be of profound importance if we are to bring the countries of central and eastern Europe into the single market system, which we must do to make Europe a success.
However, the law will only be respected if it is made transparently and democratically; and if the institutions that have made it are accountable to the people. I share many of the concerns and reservations expressed by your Lordships about the defects in the current system for making law. I was particularly struck by those speakers who laid stress on the lack of transparency in the procedures of the Council of Ministers. How can national Parliaments really get a serious grip on what their ministers are doing in the Council if the procedures are totally opaque? It is not just a matter of public proceedings; it is also a matter of timing.
I have heard many comments made by your Lordships this afternoon about the European Parliament, most of which have not been very complimentary. There are great defects in the European Parliament, but I hope that noble Lords will recognise the fact that the Parliament is about 700 years younger than the Parliament in which we are sitting today. Therefore, Westminster has had something of a head start.
One of the great defects of the European Parliament is not so much its lack of power; indeed, in some respects, its powers are very great. After all, it can veto all international treaties made by the European Community. It also has codecision over much legislation. However, what it often lacks is the political will to be a really effective force in pursuing democratic decision making in the Community because it has a very diffuse and dispersed party system.
The word dispersion brings me to the final institutional point that I wish to make. It relates to delegated legislation. I had the great privilege of being the rapporteur in the European Parliament on two occasions to adjust the Parliament's rules of procedure in order to conform, first, with the contents of the Single European Act and, secondly, with the contents of the Maastricht Treaty. On both those occasions I tried to introduce the kind of procedures for delegated legislation proposed in the report. I was very struck by the fact that most of our continental colleagues regarded the making of delegated legislation not as a legislative act but as an executive act and, accordingly, nothing to do with parliaments.
I wonder whether a radically different approach ought to be pursued. Most of the primary legislation for creating the single market is now on the statute book. All the really important legislation in the future will be made by delegated measures. Getting the legislation wrong will cost European business billions of pounds in the environmental, social and technical fields. Therefore it is worth some careful attention.
If it is to be regarded not as an act of the legislature but as an act of the executive, I wonder whether some thought ought not to be given to an approach involving a role for the courts in reviewing the making of this legislation, rather along the lines that are pursued in the United States whereby certain types of delegated rule can only be made after all those interests which will be adversely affected have been formally consulted and given a hearing. If those procedures are not respected, the matter can be judicially reviewed. Judicial review is not the most popular constitutional subject at the moment in certain quarters; but nevertheless I can see its value in this area. I urge your Lordships at a future date to give some consideration to that matter.
I am coming to the end of my observations but I wish to mention one other subject and that is the question of foreign policy. I share your Lordships' view--I take it to be the view of the vast majority of your Lordships--that it would be wrong to move foreign policy decision making into the Community pillar. Then indeed we would have the centralised federal state mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
Indeed, having watched the cynical way that Mr. Milosevic has sought territorial aggrandisement, and, I am afraid to say, the abject response to what he has done by many of the western democracies, I wonder whether Europe is the right focus for foreign policy at all. It is crucial to our interests that the United States remains committed to European security. In terms of action by this country, certainly since the time of Suez, it has become an absolute sine qua non that the United States is with us if we are to make a major foreign policy initiative. I do not believe that that situation will change in the future. Therefore, I wonder whether this whole area of a European foreign policy will not have to be fundamentally reviewed.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, after so many brilliant speeches I feel my own will be all too pedestrian. I read the committee's report with great respect and interest and I am reassured by its clarity of vision and by the equally clear cut and positive government response. I was most grateful too to receive the Reflection Group's report and the Government's response to that.
My concerns are, first, the importance of retaining the CFSP pillar as it stands and of retaining the veto in that area. I am concerned also about the need to ensure the retention of NATO as the essential basis of Europe's defence and to strengthen the NATO/WEU relationship rather than subordinating the WEU to the Union. There is a need to ensure that Commission proposals for legislation come to national parliaments in time for consultation, consideration and scrutiny. So far, as the committee in the other place said, it has been routinely ignored. We learn that the Council has even taken decisions on "unofficial texts" produced by the Commission.
Turning to those issues in greater detail, I hope that the Luxembourg compromise is not to be yet further refined. It seems that it may no longer be available to support a totally unilateral national stand, as I believe was originally intended. There have been, and no doubt will be again, occasions when we are pressured, as in the case of the vote on Bosnia, into unanimity in the name of European solidarity and make a bad decision. I agree wholeheartedly that as the foreign relations of nation states are conducted--particularly, negotiations--with the benefit of a mass of confidential, if not secret, information on the undeclared intentions of the other side, it is simply not reasonable to expect that a viable, coherent foreign policy on a major issue, as distinct from pious generalisations, could be worked out in time for any crisis by a large group of countries with many different national interests to consider and without the essential up-to-date background knowledge to make effective corporate judgments.
We cannot just dismiss such statements as harmless generalities. People out there may actually believe that the Union has a Union defence and foreign policy, binding through a common action, on all the member states and yet formulated on the basis of considerable ignorance.
When M. Jacques Santer, on a visit to Moscow, says, "We have always thought NATO should not play a military role", and when he and the Spanish Prime Minister say to the Russians that Russia should be involved in a European security concept and that steps will be taken, they are taken to be speaking for the Union and of course echoing Herr Kohl. What are their credentials for diminishing the role of NATO and agreeing with Mr. Kozyrev when he says that in Russia's view NATO should not play a leading role in European security? If not NATO, then who should do so?
It is bad enough that there are so many interlocking defence organisations in Europe--M. Santer himself thinks they are Byzantine in their complexity--but it is not appropriate or wise that the Commission, in the interests of raising its so-called "external identity", should confuse an already complicated situation and open the door to the Russians to divide and rule. NATO cannot operate effectively if it is undermined by a succession of ill-informed and unrepresentative people trying to climb on the defence bandwagon and claiming to influence what can only be delicate and careful negotiations with a country which, on the one hand, is still far from stable but, on the other, has not lost its cunning when it comes to marginalising and destabilising the one effective organisation for stability which we have--NATO. It is disturbing anyway that after getting rid of one deplorable Secretary General who was much influenced by Vitaly Churkin, the able Russian ambassador in Brussels, we have now appointed another whose credentials for the post are, if possible, even more doubtful. I am again not reassured by Kozyrev's statement on 5th December that Senor Solana's appointment should suit Russia as,
I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that Senor Solana's no doubt honestly held, long-standing opposition of principle to NATO, coupled with an equally long-standing, warm relationship with the Russians--which pre-dated the Gorbachev era, and may well have arisen from an honourable opposition to Franco--will make him at least very vulnerable to Mr. Churkin's blandishments. In those circumstances we cannot afford to have the NATO relationship with Russia, always a delicate balancing act, further complicated by enthusiastic interventions by non-accountable Commission spokesmen purporting to speak for all of us.
My last point relates to accountability and control. My very slight experience as a member of Sub-Committee C has made it clear that transparency is still lacking in Brussels and that national parliaments are not receiving what they need in time to have any effect on legislation. I was amused to note in paragraph 148 of the committee's report that
I greatly admire the effective way in which Sir John Kerr and the whole mission operate, but they are handicapped. Instead of making it a retrograde step in a good Civil Service career to spend some years in Brussels--until recently, it meant losing promotion--we should offer effective and serious encouragement to bright young men and women to serve there and to learn. I know well that my noble friend the Minister has pushed hard for that and that the Commission does not make entry easy. I know, too, that the Cabinet Office has been encouraging European fast-streamers, but re-entry without advancement remains a serious problem.
I believe that much that is good is happening, thanks to the creation of the Union. The secret is to influence it wisely by being part of it, though still being ready to differ when we should. We should not be afraid to be on our own when principle is at stake.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on having brokered (if I may use that word without offence) a remarkable--almost miraculous--agreed report from the IGC sub-committee, whose heterogeneous membership I, like others, would have thought incapable of producing an agreed set of recommendations. However, not only were they agreed, they are coherent, clear, often strong and betray few inconsistencies or other hallmarks of compromise, at least so far as I could detect, despite what my noble friend Lord Tebbit had to say about its beige colour in parts. Therefore, the debate in your Lordships' House on this most divisive of subjects has been provided with a most harmonious introduction. Long may harmony, or relative harmony, prevail.
I should like to return to the subject of isolation raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. In the run-up to the Madrid Summit we have seen several headlines of the "Britain isolated" type, and no doubt over the next 18 months or so we shall read many more. Two important areas which have been highlighted in this regard have been qualified majority voting and the powers of the European Parliament.
The Government go further than the committee in one respect. The committee does not absolutely rule out the possible extension of qualified majority voting to new areas at some stage. The Government, on the other hand, have said that they rule it out on principle, as can be seen from column 589 of Hansard of another place for 7th December, when my honourable friend the Minister was replying to the debate on Europe. I am concerned that the Government should have gone as far as that. I should prefer it if they quietly dropped their references in this context to principle. It seems to me to risk making their position excessively rigid.
In view of what occurred in the Council when the number needed for a blocking minority was raised to 27 in March last year against the original declared position of the Government who then had to beat a camouflaged retreat, I should have thought that the Government would want to be particularly careful not to adopt inflexible positions prematurely. After all, we ourselves wanted extensions to qualified majority voting to help achieve the single market. It is not unreasonable to suppose that they might again be necessary to enable an enlarged community to function efficiently. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be wiser to argue for or against extensions to qualified majority voting on a case-by-case basis rather than dismiss them on principle.
Of course, it has to be understood that, if the unanimity requirement is retained--and the more areas in which it is retained the greater the likelihood of Britain sooner or later finding itself isolated again--it does not make sense to resist the extension of qualified majority voting to new areas and at the same time to promise, or claim--and it has sometimes seemed that some leaders of the party opposite have on occasion done so--that Britain need no longer be isolated in Europe. The fact is that the Select Committee is largely behind the Government in opposing the extension of qualified majority voting, including its extension into the second and third pillars. The party opposite seems to me largely to be behind the Government in opposing the extension of qualified majority voting. Indeed, I hope that the vast majority of your Lordships is largely behind the Government. To that extent we shall all be accomplices in any consequent act of isolation in which this country finds itself.
So far as concerns the European Parliament, the committee and the Government both take the view that the Parliament should grow into the substantial new powers it acquired at Maastricht rather than seek new ones.
The committee would also like to see the powers of co-decision simplified but not extended, and makes the telling point that any extension of co-decision must involve some diminution in the role and influence of national parliaments. Yet one of the problems of today's Community, as most people recognise, is the limited role played by national parliaments. This time surely it should be the turn of national parliaments, rather than the European Parliament, to benefit from any attention which the conference may give to the problem of the democratic deficit.
Last month I had the honour to attend in Madrid a meeting of the conference of the European affairs committees of member states. I was struck by how much there was in common between the standpoints of delegates. Not much was expected, or even wanted, of the IGC. The most general theme seemed to be the need to address the public's lack of support for the Union, and all the emphasis was on transparency, accountability and the need to enhance the involvement of national parliaments.
Widespread notice had been taken of the proposal which originated with the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation that a minimum four-week period should elapse between the publication of any proposal with serious legislative implications and its consideration by the Council. That proposal is mentioned in paragraph 92 of the Reflection Group's report in the context of that group's statement that in its view an improved process of prior consultation with the national parliaments is now required. I think that the adoption of such a proposal would go far to improve the scope for the involvement of national parliaments in Community legislation, in particular if Declaration 13 was made part of the treaty at the same time.
Together with the need to adapt the Community's institutions to cope with enlargement--which should perhaps be the prime aim of our European policy--the advancement of national parliaments will, I hope, be the other main theme which the Government will espouse at the IGC. I believe that the Government will bring credit on themselves not only in this country but in others if they continue to pursue that goal.
I should like to conclude with two observations. As far as any referendum is concerned, I remain to be convinced of the need for one. On the evidence of the last occasion, referenda seem capable of wreaking great havoc on parties which espouse them. But if there is to be a referendum, the subject should be the single currency and not the conclusions of the IGC which in no way will be worth the exercise.
Secondly, so far as the single currency is concerned, I strongly support the Government's position, which I sincerely hope they will stick to. We should retain our option to join a single currency, both for the sake
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if he will not be embarrassed, perhaps I, too, may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. To have persuaded me, with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, my noble friends Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart, as regards the European Union was quite an achievement. I congratulate the noble Lord. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bruce is not present. He said that we should look at the issue with a fresh eye. My noble friend reads everything, so he will note tomorrow morning that I believe that he did not seem to be looking with too fresh an eye on the subject when he spoke earlier.
Perhaps I may say this to my noble friend Lord Stoddart. We did not come to a conclusion either for or against isolationism in Europe. Many of the speeches in your Lordships' House today did not deal with the subject with which we dealt; namely, the IGC. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Reay. The reason that there was no need for compromise was because we were not looking at single currencies. We were not discussing that kind of topic. At some time in the future no doubt we may have need to compromise, or to do something else. The sub-committee that I have the honour to chair is not considering whether we should join, but the consequences for us as to whether or not we go for economic and monetary union. It is a most important topic.
The Reflection Group's report was published after our committee reported. The draftsman or woman of the Reflection Group's report should be congratulated. It was a fascinating document. I am astonished to note how many ways are found to indicate disagreement within the Reflection Group. Phrases such as "some of us"; "one of us"; "many of us"; "a broad view"; "the great majority"; "a widely held view"; and "a very large majority" are used.
However, on one area the group was able to agree. At paragraph 1 on page III the report states that we should be more transparent. The Government agree with that. If that is the case, I hope that when the noble Baroness winds up she will be more transparent and will tell us the view as regards those areas where we may have just been in a minority. I refer, for example, to job creation, at paragraph 58. The noble Baroness is making notes, so she will tell us those areas in which we reached agreement and those where we were isolated.
The First Part of the Reflection Group's report is something of a bad joke. It refers to A Strategy for Europe. As I have said, most of the report is anything but a strategy for Europe. The report refers to matters on which some of us agree, none of us agree, or many of us agree, or to issues on which some of us do not agree, so to refer to a strategy for Europe seems a little odd.
An area on which the group agreed--it was unanimous--was that the Union does not wish to be a superstate. That should have pleased Eurosceptics such as my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. It should be a response to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who worried about a federal state. However, that issue has nothing to do with the IGC discussions. I never thought we were talking about a superstate or a federal state. The Eurosceptics should now be happy, if it is possible to make them happy although I doubt that. Some noble Lords look as though they are very unhappy; the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, shakes his head.
The Reflection Group's report exposed problems for the IGC. The conference will not discuss enlargement, single currencies, and many of the areas discussed today. Therefore I hope that we can return to matters which the committee discussed. We did not discuss enlargement or the common agricultural policy. We discussed, as did the Reflection Group, the consequences of enlargement. That is very sensible. We have to consider those consequences. Therefore my brief contribution today will relate to the consequences of enlargement as regards the presidency, qualified majority voting, the Commission, and the budget.
On enlargement, we should be clear that in the UK--indeed it was one of the areas of unanimity--we are politically committed to enlargement. Let there be no mistake about that. We are all politically committed to enlargement. We refer to that in paragraphs 232 to 234 in the report.
I turn to the consequences as regards the presidency. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt--he knows that I have high regard and huge respect for him--asked how a team presidency could be an honest broker with a team of three or four. It was one of his worries. He made the point that we should leave the matter aside for the time being. Frankly, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will agree that as regards many of the discussions which take place in Europe, even if we decide today that we wish to do something it is likely to be the next century before we have agreement. Therefore we have to consider what will happen to presidencies in due course. It is a subject that we discussed in committee. If we leave matters as they are, and eventually have 30 member states with a new presidency every six or 12 months, there would be such a long delay between presidencies as to make the situation absurd. That is why we considered team presidencies.
I turn to qualified majority voting. It has been said by noble Lords in the debate, particularly by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, that we must have the veto. However, we point out the problem that if we have small member states, small countries able to veto what the major countries want to do, for example, on the common agricultural policy, it creates an impossible situation. Surely we must agree that that cannot be allowed to go on. We must be prepared to consider new changes in qualified majority voting. I go along with the committee about not wanting qualified majority voting to take place in certain crucial areas for major states, including our own.
I turn to the subject of the Commission. In fairness to the Reflection Group, its members were unable to agree. They were not able to agree on many things, so that did not surprise me; but given that the Reflection Group could not agree, I should be astonished if the IGC could agree next year. Even if it sat right through to the end of the century, there are many areas on which I should be surprised if it agreed. We have a long way to go if there is to be agreement within the Community.
The other subject on which I wish to say a word is the budget, which again was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I agreed with him in the committee that we should do away with compulsory and non-compulsory areas of the budget, they must be a nonsense. Even my noble friend Lord Bruce agreed with that--if we can ever agree--or at least my noble friend Lord Stoddart agreed, when we were in the committee. With the weight of legislation coming out of Brussels, I find myself in agreement with my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, we must do something about it. It plays havoc not only in the UK, I imagine, but in many other member states. I had better not dispute it, because there are too many other members who might disagree with me--
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page