HC Deb 10 June 1980 vol 986 cc487-518

12.5 am

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Committee of Three on European Community Institutions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw)

Order, I shall inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir I. Gilmour

I welcome the opportunity on the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee, to debate this report, which is to be discussed at the European Council meeting in Venice on 12 and 13 June. As the House knows, the report originated with a suggestion by the President of France, and was conducted on the basis of terms of reference agreed by the Governments of all the member States at the European Council held in Brussels in December 1978, when the Labour Government were in power.

For the preparation of the report the Community was fortunate in being able to call upon three distinguished and independent personalities, Mr. Biesheuvel of the Netherlands, Mr. Marjolin from France, and Mr. Edmund Dell from the United Kingdom. Their terms of reference were to examine all the institutions of the Community in the perspective of enlargement, and to suggest practical ways of improving their operation.

I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I deal with the report's recommendations institution by institution.

To take first the European Council, which brings together the Heads of State and Government of the member States three times a year, the report recommended limited agendas, limited attendance, coherent preparation and follow-up, early circulation of documents and presidency responsibility for drafting clear and accurate conclusions. In general, we agree with those recommendations.

Over one proposal we, and a number of our partners, had some doubts. That was that the European Council should adopt, in collaboration with the Commission, a "master plan" of priorities for the Community as a whole. We do not feel that the preparation of a specific formal plan of priorities for Community action is a task that the European Council should be called upon to perform. The Government can certainly agree that it is one of the most important tasks of the European Council to give broad guidance for the work of the Council and the Commission in general, but the danger in drawing up a formal plan of priorities is that it either becomes too rigid or so general as to be virtually meaningless.

A second proposal about which there has been some difficulty is that the President of the European Council should appear once during each presidency before the European Parliament. The Government recognise the need to establish a positive relationship with the European Parliament, and one way of furthering that relationship might be for the Prime Minister to appear before the Parliament during the next British presidency.

At least one member Government, however, has difficulty with this proposal for constitutional reasons. It does not seem to us that it need be a rigid rule. Each member State should be able, on assuming the presidency, to act as it sees fit.

The report then devotes considerable attention to ways of improving the efficiency of the ordinary meeting of the Council of Ministers. It considers the Council to be overburdened with detailed work, which restricts its freedom to concentrate on genuinely political issues. It recognises the key role that the presidency can play in directing the work of the Council, and it draws attention to the value of the presidency outlining its objectives to the European Parliament at the beginning of its terms and of presenting a report at the end.

It also recommends that the presidency should be free to delegate particular dossiers to other member States. Althugh we would not wish to rule out this last idea entirely, we see considerable advantages in retaining unity of control within the presidency. We therefore believe that any such delegation should be a general decision by the Council as a whole, and not just by the presidency.

We believe that a more generally acceptable way to lighten the presidency's burden would be to implement another of the report's proposals, namely, that the resources of the Council Secretariat should be put to fuller use.

To enable the Council to concentrate on policy issues, the report recommends greater delegation of decision taking to the Commission and greater negotiating flexibility for the Committee of Permanent Representatives and lower-level working groups. We support the objective of reducing the number of detailed issues that are at present brought before the Council and would like to see a greater degree of winnowing out by the Committee of Permanent Representatives with the main policy differences only coining for decision to the Council. As to the idea of delegating additional decision-taking responsibilities to the Commission, we are ready to consider this on case-by-case basis in accepted areas of Community activity.

In the interests of speeding up decision-taking within the Council, the report recommends an increased resort to majority voting where this is provided for in the Treaties but accepts that the existence of the Luxembourg compromise, under which, where important interests are at stake, unanimity is required, in a continuing fact of life in the Community. The Government continue to attach great importance to the principle of unanimity where very important interests are at stake. They believe that this recommendation achieves the right balance. They welcome the report's statement that each member State must be the judge of where its very important interests lie.

I take the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to the Government's motion to refer to the maintenance of the Luxembourg compromise and the existing relationship between the institutions of the Community. The report's recommendation on the greater use of majority voting does not affect the use of the Luxembourg compromise. There is no question of erosion of sovereignty.

Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney and Poplar)

That is an important point. Indeed, it is the major point upon which we focus in this debate. We are not in favour of introducing, or accepting, majority voting in the Council of Ministers and we do not accept that it is possible to make a distinction between categories of matters that are of serious national importance and those that are not of serious national importance. If they are not of serious national importance they can be agreed in the ordinary way by unanimous voting, and not by resort to qualify majority voting.

Sir I. Gilmour

Of course there is a distinction between serious and non-serious matters. People may have differences that they are prepared, ultimately, to allow to be governed by majority voting, but, as I have already said, it is up to the member State involved to say whether its own important interests are concerned. If they are the Luxembourg compromise applies. There is, therefore, no erosion of sovereignty.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what, so far as I can see, is a contradiction? At page 51, the report says that it will be up to each member State to decide whether there is an important issue that requires it to exercise a veto. However, at the bottom of that page we see that it will be up to the President to decide whether to put an issue to the Council of Ministers for a vote. It seems to me to that the decision whether a unanimous or a majority vote is required would not rest wholly with the member States but would, in certain circumstances, rest with the presidency.

Sir I. Gilmour

It is still up to a member State to invoke the Luxembourg compromise if it so wishes. I do not think that there is any contradiction.

Mr. Shore

Has it been the practice of the Council of Ministers during the past year to resort to qualified majority voting, or has the tradition been upheld of maintaining unanimity in all Council matters?

Sir I. Gilmour

In the Foreign Affairs Council there has been unanimity. That has applied to every Council meeting that I have attended.

Mr. Shore

All that we are seeking to make plain is that there should be no departure from the present practice of not resorting to qualified majority voting and maintaining unanimity.

Sir I. Gilmour

We have said that we have no objection to the wise men's recommendations if we think that important national interests are involved. If they are involved, we shall invoke the Luxembourg compromise.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Basildon) rose——

Sir I. Gilmour

Where important national interests are seen to be at stake, member States may continue to insist that discussions should continue until unanimous agreement is reached. In the same way, the report's recommendation for delegating additional decision-taking to the Commission does not alter the relationship between the institutions in any way. I can thus assure the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) that the amendment is otiose, and it follows that we can accept it

So far as the Commission is concerned, the report concludes that its role and authority have declined in recent years. It recognises the value of the Commission's role as initiator and as guardian of the Treaties but argues that it should be made more effective and better adapted to current circumstances.

To this end the report endorses the proposal of the Spierenburg report on the internal organisation of the Commission, that on enlargement of the Community the size of the Commission should be reduced to one member per member State in the interests of efficiency and in order to enable the College of Commissioners to act more as a collective body.

This recommendation has proved controversial. Several of the larger member States which currently appoint two members to the Commission have made clear that they could not accept it. We recognise the advantages on grounds of efficiency of limiting the size of the Commission. On the other hand, we doubt whether serious problems on this score will in practice arise on the accession of Greece, which will raise the number of Commissioners from 13 to 14. For our part the Government are inclined to see advantage in maintaining the present situation until the accession of Spain and Portugal, when we believe the matter should be reviewed again.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

The area that my right hon. Friend has left is of crucial importance, especially to the extended definition of the Luxembourg compromise. In page 52 the report categorically states that The overall effect must be to increase the frequency of voting ". That being so, it means that by taking note of the document we are countenancing or approving a change in procedures of some significance. Will my right hon. Friend tell us in what circumstances he now expects a majority vote to be taken, whereas in the past the unanimity rule has applied?

Sir I. Gilmour

That will take place only when every member of the Nine does not think that very important national considerations arise.

The report recommends that the President of the Commission should be chosen six months before the appointment of a new Commission and that he be consulted on the selection of the other Commissioners and have the last word on the allocation of portfolios. The European Council has already agreed that the next President should be nominated six months before he and the new Commission take office. We also believe that it makes sense to consult the incoming President on the selection of the other Commissioners, but Governments will of course wish to retain the last word in this matter.

The allocation of portfolios has always been a matter for the collective decision of the Commission. W believe that it is best to leave matters that way, although the President naturally plays a major part in the preparation of that decision.

It has been suggested, not least in a resolution passed by the European Parliament at its April session, that the Parliament should be consulted before first the President and then the other members of the Commission are appointed. Relations between the Commission and the Parliament are laid down in the Treaties. It is clear that the Commission is answerable to the Parliament, not least through the power that the latter enjoys to dismiss the Commission.

The same treaties, however, lay down a specific procedure for the appointment of the Commission. We would prefer to keep to that procedure, which provides for the member governments to appoint the Commission by common accord.

The report recommended certain improvements in relations between the European Parliament and the Commission and Council of Ministers. It recommends that the Commission should present its programme to the Parliament for debate and that both the Commission and the Council should make a more serious response to resolutions adopted by the European Parliament. It also proposes that the operation of the conciliation procedure, which provides for consultation between the Council and the Parliament on Acts with appreciable financial consequences, should be improved.

The Government attach importance to the role ascribed to the Parliament by the Treaties and are ready to play their part in working out practical improvements in these areas, provided that no change in the relationship established by the treaties is involved.

The report points out that the prospective enlargement of the Community to 10 and then 12 members will not only tend to make the functioning of the institutions more cumbersome but will extend the range of differing circumstances and interests among the member States. It therefore urges the member States to maintain their solidarity in the face of the difficulties that the Community is likely to encounter, and argues strongly against any ideas of a "two-speed" Community. The Government wholeheartedly endorse the rejection of any such idea, which we regard as fundamentally misguided.

The Government believe that the report forms a useful basis for ensuring that the Community works with the minimum of cumbersome bureaucracy and that, with the implementation of those proposals which the Member States accept, the Community will be well placed to meeting the challenge of enlargement.

Arguably, the report should have been more wide-ranging, and should have made broader recommendations for the development of the Community, if necessary by amendment of the Treaty. In my view, it was right not to make any such attempt. In the first place, the mandate did not provide for this. Secondly, this is not the time in the Community for futuristic visions. It is a time when we must keep our vision clearly focused on the near-at-hand, and find ways of dealing with the many and urgent practical problems which face us in all fields, and we must do so in order to protect the Community's achievements and to respond to the dangers which threaten it in an uncertain world.

I should like, finally, to extend the Government's thanks to the three authors of the report, and their collaborators, for taking great trouble to produce a sober, helpful and practical piece of work——

Mr. Proctor

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir I. Gilmour

No. I am just finishing—a sober, helpful and practical piece of work aimed at promoting the more efficient working of the Community's institutions as we prepare to welcome three new member States.

12.23 am
Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney and Poplar)

I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add but declines to approve any proposals that would weaken the present power of national veto and control in the Council of Ministers. I had the somewhat confused impression that the right hon. Gentleman was saying he accepted the spirit of v/hat we were saying but nevertheless was endorsing the recommendations in the report, which propose that the present procedures should be changed and that we should deliberately relax the power of control and national veto. I shall come back to that in a moment. We shall have to decide our tactics in this matter in the light of what we can learn from the right hon. Gentleman during this, unhappily, short debate.

We are talking about a matter of substantial importance. We are dealing with a document that covers the whole area of the European Community institutions. I cannot remember—I have taken part in many debates on the European Community—any serious and sustained discussion of the institutions of the Community. That is something that the House has lacked and that we should indeed put right. We shall look for other opportunities to return to this matter.

I am aware of the widely held view that Community documents, especially those that are aimed at the improvement of the working and machinery of the Communities, are little more than a waste of time.

There is a long history of shelved reports, as many of us can recall. Nevertheless, this report of the Committee of Three is, as the Lord Privy Seal reminded us, on the agenda of the European Council which is meeting next week in Venice. Therefore, it is right that the House should express itself as clearly as it can on the institutions of the EEC and on the main questions raised by the report.

I find it impossible to have any sensible discussion about the range of institutions that now exist in the EEC without some clear philosophy about the nature and direction of the EEC itself.

I have never had any doubt about this matter—at least from the British point of view. My view of the future of the EEC, on the assumption that it is possible for Britain to continue its membership, is that its institutions should reflect the reality of sentiment in this country and in the larger part of the Community. My strong view is that, while there is a wish for alliance, good relations and practical agreement with the countries of Western Europe, there is scepticism about the meaning of "Community", and massive opposition to the concept of "union".

The founding Treaties are a little ambiguous about the dominant purpose of the Community ; but the original architects clearly envisaged what they called "an ever closer union" among the peoples of Europe, and the future of the Community for them lay in this development.

Whether such an approach was ever possible, I do not know, but from the moment that the Six became the Nine, the impetus to union was inevitably checked. Now that the Nine are shortly to become the Ten and—President Giscard permitting—in two years the Twelve, it seems inevitable that the vast differences of interest, development and history that motivate 12 different European nations will tilt the direction more and more towards the concept of alliance. Enlargement, to me, means dilution—a wider but looser association of European States.

I make this point at the start because it is the guiding light in my approach to tonight's debate on the Common Market's institutions, their development and reform.

The original institutions established by the Treaty of Rome reflect the union rather than the alliance view of the EEC. The Brussels Commission is clearly supranational, and so is the European Court. The European Assembly, during the period of indirect elections down to 1979, was closer to the alliance than to the union view of the EEC. But since direct elections—this was to me a major objection to direct elections—it has obviously come within the union camp, if I may group the institutions in that way.

The one institution that clearly reflects the alliance view is the Council of Ministers, not because of the Treaty's provisions, which call for qualified majority voting over a wide area of decisions, but because of the major change in its modus operandi—the acceptance of the national veto which followed the Luxembourg compromise of 1966.

What is striking to any student of Community affairs is the development and role of institutions that are not even mentioned in the Treaty of Rome. I refer first to COREPER, that all-important and over-powerful committee of national officials who work directly to the Council of Ministers ; the development of the secretariat, which serves the six-monthly presidency of the Council ; the political co-operation meetings of Foreign Ministers ; and, last but by no means least, the European Council, with its four-monthly meetings of Heads of Government.

The report of the three wise men has at least one merit : it surveys comprehensively and for the first time the functioning of all these institutions—those created by the Treaty and those that have evolved since the Treaty was signed.

The authors were asked to look at the machinery and procedure of the institutions to see how they could be improved and, much more controversially, how they could contribute towards the goal of European union. I am glad to say that they found that latter task altogether too daunting and confined their observations on this question to a single chapter which is no more than a survey of the most important problems affecting member States.

I quote from page 106 of the report. All the great problems facing a united Europe today—whether we think of monetary stability, energy supplies, or the new international division of labour—are world problems, which frequently require negotiations and agreements at world level or with particular economic units outside the Community. I welcome that clear recognition of the limitation of the role of the EEC, and the simple fact that it is in far larger forums that effective world policies will be necessary in the 1980s.

As the authors rightly go on to say—I think that it is part of the same quotation put before us by the Lord Privy Seal : The present time seems to us ill-suited to futuristic visions which presuppose a profound and rapid transformation of attitudes within the Community. That is a long way from the euphoria of European union by 1980, which emerged from the Paris summit meeting as long ago as October 1972.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Eye)

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House in any way. Page 106 goes on to state that It is desirable that the Community and the Nine should, in these various relationships, act as a united body. Therefore, the paragraph means precisely the opposite from what was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that because it was all part of world problems the sense of the Community was less important. As the paragraph illustrates clearly, the sense of the Community is more important, because in world contexts we should act as a united body.

Mr. Shore

I do not wish to labour that point at great length. The hon. Gentleman should contain himself. He becomes rather excitable in these debates. The report points to a fact that has often been overlooked in these debates, namely, that so many of the problems that we face in the world today cannot and will not be solved within the context of a group of nations, even an important group of nations, in Western Europe. They can be solved only in much larger forums—I refer especially to oil problems and the OECD. I do not wish to pursue that point further at the present time.

I turn to the more practical suggestions, of a more modest nature, which the so-called three wise men made about the functioning of the Community's institutions. They rightly give a great deal of space to the European Council. I say rightly, because that non-Treaty institution is undoubtedly the most important institution in the Community. Moreover, in its procedures it reflects the alliance character of the Council of Ministers. Unanimity is the rule, and long may it continue. There are undoubtedly difficulties with the European Council. I suspect that the three pre-set meetings a year are too many. There is a real danger that its informality, and the high publicity that attaches to its meetings, could lead to conclusions that are ill-thought out and too vague for effective subsequent action by other Community institutions. It is a real problem ; no one should doubt that. On balance, I would favour two well-prepared meetings a year, one during each six-monthly presidency, together with a willingness to meet ad hoc if so required by major developments.

The Council of Ministers is the key Treaty institution. It is essential that the veto power, recognised since the Luxembourg agreement in 1966, should be retained. I reject—this is why I moved the amendment—the suggestion that majority voting should be accepted in all cases where the Treaty does not require unanimity and no very important national interests are involved. I do not think that it is possible to work out any guidelines that would distinguish very important national interests from important national interests, or simply national interests. To attempt to do so would give rise to protracted and sterile debate.

I do not know whether the Government intend to accept the proposals of the three wise men, and whether that would involve a significant departure, or any departure, from normal practice. The Lord Privy Seal has not enlightened the House on that point. It is an important matter when deciding how to advise my colleagues and the House to vote tonight.

I should also like to make it plain that I do not accept the recommendation that there should be greater delegation of decision-making by the Council, both to the Brussels Commission and to CQRE-PER. These are both unelected and bureaucratic bodies. Indeed, far from delegating Council decision-making to them, the real problem is to ensure that more of the decisions that they now take are brought before the Council of Ministers.

I now turn to the Council of Foreign Ministers, meeting in political co-operation. That institution, which owes nothing to the Rome Treaty, exactly fits the alliance view of the Common Market. Provided that it is not used as an excuse for individual nations to stay silent when they should speak out, provided that the obsession for speaking with one voice is overcome, and provided that it does not take precedence over other major international forums, it could play a sensible and useful role in international affairs—as useful as Western European Union proved itself to be throughout so much of the earlier post-war period.

So much for the alliance institutions of the Community. I now want to say a few words about the quasi-federal institutions. First, there is the Commission. As the three wise men correctly point out, it has several roles. It has the right of policy initiative, it polices the Treaties, and it has executive functions for the day-to-day implementation of common policies. Certainly, since the high-water mark of the Hallstein era, the Commission has indeed lost power and influence—in my view, not enough. The Commission's right of initiative in all policy matters is still a matter of major concern. One of the advantages of the growth of importance of the Council presidency and the formation of the European Council is that rival sources of initiative have de facto been created. I certainly hope that they will be strengthened.

The Commission has, however, a number of independent powers under the Treaty, and these need to be carefully watched and checked. These include its considerable delegated powers in the operation of the CAP. The procedures vary with different management committees. I am sure they need review. I suspect that it is in their special decision-making procedures when dealing with absurdities such as the sale of cheap butter to the Soviet Union that the management committees find what authority they have.

Furthermore, it is notorious that the Commission has a seemingly insatiable appetite for harmonisation proposals under article 100 of the Treaty. The three wise men devote an appendix to that subject and sensibly distinguish between harmonisation proposals that are directly relevant to the main purposes of the Treaty and those that are not, but the truth is that an enormous amount of unnecessary work continues to be generated by the Commission as it seeks to stretch Community competence and interest into areas which are far outside the Treaty itself.

When I was Secretary of State for the Environment, I was amazed at the sheer volume of proposals—and their total inappropriateness—that flowed from the so-called environment programme of the EEC. It is all too easy to see how these things develop. The Commission proposes ; the Council is persuaded to pass a seemingly innocuous and non-binding resolution, then a whole series of draft directives are fired from Brussels at the Council of Ministers. COREPER does most of the examination and processing, and then Ministers are called in basically to ratify what has already been bureaucratically agreed and to settle what officials believe should be the few outstanding points of disagreement. That should not be allowed to continue.

I have two proposals that I think could help and that are worth consideration. First, it is necessary to bring COREPER under stronger political control. I would wish to see a Minister of State replace the eminent civil servant who now sits on that Committee in Brussels.

My second proposal is that in the whole area covered by article 100—aproximation and harmonisation—and in many other areas of the Treaty, directives should be time-limited. It is a matter of acute embarrassment to Ministers to discover that their predecessors had long ago committed them to laws and regulations that they had no means of repealing or amending, except if they got—this is improbable—the unanimous agreement of the Council to do so. Just as we have an expiring laws continuation machinery in the House of Commons, I believe that no Community directive should have a longer life than three or four years, and thus make possible the amendment or repeal, in the light of experience, of those directives that are clearly not working or that are inappropriate. I hope that the Government, if they have not considered that before, will do so now.

I do not believe that the judgment of the European Court should be binding on the Community. Instead, it should have the power to give advisory opinions. In the event, of course, it has no means of enforcement against determined national policies—unless, as in our European Community Communities Act, the legislatures of member States allow it such authority. My view is entirely in line with that of the Government of France, who demonstrated in their approach lo the question of lamb imports from Britain and the judgments of the European Court upon it that even now they regard the European Court as having only an advisory function.

I hope that I have made plain my view of the three wise men's report, and, further, what I believe to be the philosophy that should guide our consideration of the future role of the Community's institutions. Alliance is the key concept. Of all the Treaty institutions the Council of Ministers most accurately reflects this approach. There cannot be any tampering with the rights of veto or any shuffling of Council responsibilities to non-elected bodies.

That is why, unless we hear clearly during the remainder of this short debate that the Government do not intend to change and tamper with existing procedures and do not intend to transfer repairs to COREPER, the Commission, or to the Council of Ministers, I shall advise the Opposition and the House as a whole to vote in favour of the amendment.

12.43 am
Sir Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield)

It is most regrettable that this debate should be taking place so late at night, and that it should be of such short duration. This document is one of the highest importance, and one which takes us on a conveyor belt to an unwanted destination. We should have had a three-hour debate on this issue, ending at midnight, instead of which we are having a one-and-a-half hour debate which will end at about 1.30 am. It is most unfortunate that this seems to have become the pattern for even the most important debates on the Treaty of Rome and the Brussels institutions. It compels all hon. Members to be brief in order that those other hon. Members who wish to take part may do so.

This document is not just an essay on improving procedure in the Common Market. It concerns improvement for a specified purpose, and that purpose is set out in the terms of reference. It concerns progress "towards European union". That is what this is all about. Therefore, the fundamental analysis throughout the document is faulty, because this is not an aim that the peoples of the member States wish to be obtained.

The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) spoke of some of the excesses of the Community. It is interesting to note that in the document the three authors set out what most of us would consider the Community's defects as its achievements so far. On page 5 they set out some of the achievements that they think have been overlooked, and say by way of illustration : In the four years 1975–1978 the Commission presented a total of 2,798 legislative proposals to the Council and withdrew 212 proposals (a balance of 2,586). What would be thought of us if we passed 600 new laws every Session, on the Government's proposal, and if the Government withdrew 50 of their Bills every Session?

The European Legislation &c Select Committee recommended the document for debate. Those of us who serve on the Committee know that the torrent of paper from Brussels is an outrage. It has two characteristics that the House should not overlook. First, it is permeating into every branch of our life—what the document calls setting up a legal entity throughout. Secondly, it is cumulative. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, there is no time limit on these matters. The extent of our arrangements that is Brussels in origin, Community legislation, is increasing substantially every year—one might almost say "dramatically"—because it is cumulative. It will gradually take over almost the whole of our legislative arrangements.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell (West Lothian)

Many of us on the European Legislation &c Select Committee made the point that we hoped that the document would be debated in prime time at some length.

Sir R. Bell

I entirely agree. I have made that point, I hope emphatically. It is scandalous that a document of this significance should be accorded this treatment. Most people, because the newspapers have gone to bed, will never even know about this debate. Even those of our colleagues present tonight are not numerous.

The document proposes the tighter institutionalisation of all the Community's activities. The meetings of Heads of Government become meetings of the European Council, the procedure of which, it suggests, should be formalised. It says that its agenda should be primarily consideration of drafts prepared by the Brussels secretariat.

The President of the Commission is alleged already to attend by right. In fact, it is a meeting of Heads of Government, nothing to do with the Treaty of Rome, and he attends by invitation. It is proposed in the document that the President should be built up in power and authority, clearly with the intention that he should become a kind of Prime Minister, with the other Commissioners as Ministers in his Cabinet. It is specifically proposed that nobody should be appointed a Commissioner by a member State without consulting the President. So be it, but the document also says that nobody should be appointed a Commissioner by a member State against the President's wishes. In other words, he is to have a veto on the appointment of members of the Commission by nation States. Is that something that the British Government will endorse? My right hon. Friend did not mention it, but to me it is a most significant proposal.

It is then proposed that the presidency of the Council of Ministers should also be built up so that the President—

Sir Ian Gilmour

I made it clear in my speech that we did not accept that proposal.

Sir R. Bell

I did not hear my right hon. Friend say that. As he did, that is reassuring so far as we in this country are concerned. But that is the proposal put forward.

It is proposed that the President of the Council of Ministers should decide what subjects should be decided by vote and could, at will, exclude any subject from the agenda. If hon. Members look at page 41 of the document, they will see that it is quite explicitly put forward, without any apology or qualification, that : the Presidency should be able to reject any substantive item proposed by others for the agenda, consulting the Commission as necessary. What sort of a Council of Ministers would we have under the proposals in this document if the President for the time being could exclude any substantive item that a member State wished to put on the agenda of the Council of Ministers?

The whole idea is to turn the Brussels set-up from a treaty organisation into a super-State, controlled not by delegates from national capitals but internally by its own institutions. That is not what the Governments of the member countries want. It is not what their peoples want. But the people who work inside such an organisation as this are soon working for it and not for those who sent them there. The organisation becomes an end in itself—politically, a sort of Frankenstein, and infinitely expansionist.

The Treaty of Rome gives legitimacy and stimulus to these tendencies, as the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar pointed out. That is the principal reason why we must have a quite different arrangement from the Treaty of Rome with our Continental neighbours, and why we should, meanwhile, regard all proposals such as this with the utmost suspicion. If we do not do so, we shall find ourselves swept along to a destination which most of us profoundly abhor.

12.52 am
Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

I too do not consider that this report is either very stimulating or very encouraging, but I take that view from an entirely opposite posture to that adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Beacons-field (Sir R. Bell).

As the Lord Privy Seal said, one certainly welcomed the establishment of the Committee of Three. But, from the Liberal point of view, one did that because one saw that the steady erosion of the Community's decision-making capacity was leading to regular situations in which there was inertia. One saw that the Tindemans report, for example, which we had welcomed, was being pigeonholed, and one saw enlargement in the offing. One hoped that there would be a new initiative, and one hoped that, perhaps, the Committee of Three might provide the opportunity for it.

I am afraid that I do not think that it does that. To do the Committee justice, right at the beginning it recognised this by saying that at the end of the day it did not believe a solution could be found in terms of "procedural and mechanical adjustments". That was a secondary matter. The reasons for failures in the Community were "political". That is true. The committee could very usefully have stopped at that point, because it did not say a very great deal after that.

Despite the apocalyptic visions of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield of super States, the prospectus that I read was very far from being that. It ploughed on for 109 pages.

Sir Ronald Bell

I should like to be clear that the hon. Gentleman regards the prospect of the super State as apocalyptic. That is a very important matter that we should have on the record from the Liberal Party.

Mr. Johnston

I did not say that. I said that the hon. and learned Gentleman regarded the matter as apocalyptic. I did not say that I did. I do not regard progress towards European union as being other than desirable.

I notice that the report places great emphasis on the Council. That emphasis is mistaken. There are 49 pages on the European Council and the Council of Ministers, and about 22 pages on all the other institutions. The wise men want to strengthen the European Council. They think that it should have a broad policymaking role. I do not agree. The European Council is not equipped for such a task. That is the Commission's job. The Commission should not become a general secretariat to the Council. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield would like it to develop in that way. It has been suggested that the President of the European Council should make six-monthly reports to the European Parliament. However, that would be a cosmetic. It would constitute a consultative exercise only if the President discussed future action with the European Parliament and its committees before Council meetings took place.

The Council is the central cause of inertia in Community decision making. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) about the Luxembourg compromise. That compromise has had a bad effect on Community decision making.

The concept of a vital interest has been abused. I agree with the Lord Privy Seal. He tried—in a somewhat circumlocutious manner—to avoid answering the questions that were put. However, he clearly believed that there was a difference between an important and a less important issue. I would have thought that that was a fairly simple political concept. There is a difference between something that is vital, and something that is not. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar wishes to ensure that all decisions—vital, less vital or unimportant—arc unanimous. I reject that approach.

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Is it not clear that if a country does not like a measure, it can say that it is important and in its national interest? It can therefore prevent a measure from being enacted. The Committee of Three has done nothing in that respect. It has stated that all member countries have the right to stop any measure.

Mr. Johnston

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, the Committee of Three should have pressed boldly for majority voting. At the very least, it should have suggested that if a country invoked the idea of a vital interest, it would have publicly to explain why it had done so. It is often difficult to find out which country has blocked what, and why. For example, we recently blocked the non-quota section of the regional fund. The House has not discussed that issue. The Government have given no explanation. That is profoundly unsatisfactory.

I agree—Liberals generally agree—to disagree with the three wise men. Perhaps I could have phrased that more felicitously. I shall start again. I do not believe that it is a good idea to reduce the number of Commissioners after enlargement.

It is surprising that, contrary to the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, the three wise men seem to believe that there are insufficient portfolios to occupy the Commissioners after enlargement. I do not accept that. The Commission is the linchpin of the Community's institutional framework. It must remain independent. As I said, it must not allow itself to drift into becoming a secretariat for the Council of Ministers.

The problem with the Commission, which to some extent Roy Jenkins has sought to overcome in stressing that its role is political, is that it must try to ensure that its proposals are acceptable to the Council or there is no point in going through a long, laborious process. The result is that often, when a proposal is put to the Council, it is so attenuated and compromised in order to balance national pressures that the only body capable of making a fair evaluation of the proper action in European terms is prevented from outlining such propositions fairly and clearly.

Time is short. I should like to say a great deal more, but many other hon. Members wish to speak. The nature of the debate will be, and has been, coloured by the never-ending argument about whether we see the Community developing into a more coherent grouping, which is my wish and which inevitably presumes more effective supranational structures, or as a grouping from which we should like to withdraw. Every discussion about any aspect of the Community seems to be put in that way. It is profoundly depressing for the Community's future that the only amendment on the Order Paper is negative and backward looking and that the Government have accepted it. The Lord Privy Seal even said that this is not the time in the Community for futurist visions. I believe that it is. The Community desperately needs Britain to make an effort to make it work better. It will not work better if all that we can do is vie with each other as to which country is the more nationalist.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Before I call the next hon. Member, I draw attention to the fact that there are only 23 minutes left before I hope to call the Front Bench spokesman.

1.3 am

Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Eye)

I start by agreeing with the serious complaint of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) about the time allotted to the debate and the time of night. We have just spent an hour discussing the pecuniary position of 180 citizens of Dundee. Although that may be of great importance it is not as important as this debate. We must press those who make these decisions—and there is always a decent reticence about who they are—for serious matters to be given serious time.

I do not share my hon. and learned Friend's fears about the document. I perhaps find the apocalypse a less frightening possibility. However, I believe that the way forward for the European Community must be to grow together rather than follow a laid down programme, with careful steps imposed from outside.

I am disturbed that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) should have been upset that I was excited about his suggestion that the report means the opposite of what it does mean. If we are to make anything of the Community we must regard as important the concept of seeking to do together that which we can do together in the world. To ignore the final sentence of an important paragraph and pretend that it means something else is something about which we should be excited, whatever view we take of the Community.

It is a pity that the invigoration of the Community should be left entirely to my hon. Friends who wish to build unity in Europe. It is sad that a party with a long tradition of internationalism should propose such a mealy-mouthed amendment. It is so unimportant and otiose that the Government can accept it or not as they think fit. It shows how empty the Opposition are in their consideration of Europe's problems.

The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar made a sad comment on his attitude to the European Court. One of the most satisfactory ways in which we can bring some order to the long disorder in Europe is to have an institution which we can support in its careful and deliberate decisions. The fact that the French have not done that recently is no reason why the British should follow. I wish that we could set the example and take the lead. I wish that we could say that we are prepared to accept the judgment of the court which is making some important judgments about the human rights of people in this country. The human rights of our people depend on the ultimate court which decides whether the law is being obeyed. If the French will not follow that ideal, we must set the example.

The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar mentioned unelected institutions. It is difficult to understand that the European Parliament, now that it is elected, is less than the place that he would like, and that other unelected institutions should be brought down to size. I hope that the European Parliament will grow in power because it is based upon all the people.

Mr. Proctor

From where will the European Parliament gain its power?

Mr. Gommer

It will gain power from the representative people who elected it. That is why those who fear that the spirit of Europe will grow fought hard against the elective process in the European Parliament.

I hope that this report will be noted in the spirit of the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). It is a first attempt to draw up some suggestions. It is not a long step. It is not a very exciting report. It is, however, an important step. We are now beginning to examine the Community to which we belong and to which we shall continue to belong and which will become the most important institution in the free world. We should have spent more time discussing what is a small step on a loag road.

1.10 am
Mr. Robert Maclemian (Caithness and Sutherland)

Both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches are at least united in believing that this is not a time for futuristic vision. It might be thought that some hon. Members, so far from looking forward, have been looking backwards The value of the report should not be judged by the wrong standards. The practicality of its suggestions mark the report as a distinguished contribution to improving the efficiency of the Community.

The report is clearly intended to tackle what the three wise men describe as the lourdeur of the Community's operations—the cumbersome aspect that flows from inadequate preparation for meetings of the Council, the proliferation of papers, and practical obstacles that not only clog up the machinery but can actually prevent forward-looking decisions being taken. Judged at that level, the report is important. I imagine that the institutions will concern themselves more with those recommendations than those of a striking and politically controversial nature on which the Lord Privy Seal gave the Government's view.

It was right that the report should set out clearly, at the beginning, both the nature of the achievements of the Community in the period to the present time and show clearly that the Community is not the mere alliance of like minded people that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) suggested as its role. It is a wholly new political institution that contains elements of alliance and elements of union. It has created, by the important transfer of powers to the Community institutions, supranational bodies more fitted to take decisions effectively in matters that cannot be decided individually by member States.

It has also created a new legal order that my right hon. Friend also called in question, expressing doubt about its effectiveness. The corpus of law being built up by the European Community deals largely with matters that do not touch the vital interests of member States. As it is possible to distinguish the vital interests of member States in matters that fall to be decided by the Council of Ministers, so that distinction can be seen in the operation of the European Court.

For example, many decisions have been taken by the court in the sphere of European competition policy. That is properly a subject of legal regulation and it is beyond the competence of individual member States to regulate effectively in this sphere, even to protect their own national interests. It goes far towards what the Labour Party has seen for many years as an important objective—namely, the desirability of exercising some control over the multi-national companies that are so responsible for what happens in the development of our economy.

I should also like to point out the liveliness of the development of the Community, to which the three wise men draw attention, and, as they put it, a new international presence on the world negotiating scene. That may smack more of alliance than of union, but it is because these negotiations are conducted with one voice and on the basis of a prepared and agreed position that the voice of the Community is listened to with more respect than would be nine individual States seeking to co-ordinate their positions.

In suggesting the dismantling of some of the institutions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar does less than justice to the achievements of the Community and, far from being futuristic, is backward looking in his approach.

We are not in a position of stasis in the development of European union, as has been implied in more than one speech. Direct elections and the establishment of the European monetary system are marked achievements in the direction of union and it is interesting that the terms of reference of the three wise men incorporated the injunction that they should consider measures necessary to adjust machinery and measures for progress towards European union. Although that is not a consummation that will be arrived at for many years—and many of us think that it would be wrong to try to bring about such a consummation in advance of public opinion—it is right that measures should be taken to make the machinery of the Community more efficient and to tend in that proper direction.

One of the most controversial and important recommendations was that the European Council should adopt, in collaboration with the Commission, priorities for the Community as a whole. The analogy is with the Queen's Speech at the beginning of a parliamentary Session. I believe that the Government were right to take the view that that recommendation was not a good idea. The necessary preparations that would be involved would result in the establishment of a bureaucratic machine which would militate against some of the other objectives of the three wise men who emphasised the importance of speed and flexibility in the operation of the European Council. I understand the reasons for seeking to institutionalise the role of the Council in giving an impetus to the Community's proceedings and a shape to its deliberations, but the Government were right not to accept that recommendation. I am also glad that the Lord Privy Seal has accepted the desirability of the President of the European Council appearing before the European Parliament once every six months.

The question of the delegation of decision making is not a matter of ideology but a matter of practicality and not one to which, if we wish to see the Council of Ministers operating effectively, we should take exception. If matters are important, they will be decided by Ministers. If they are not important or are technical, they can be ironed out at an official level, with reference to Ministers if necessary. Putting on the shoulders of Ministers every decision that the Council must take will disrupt the business of the Council and prevent progress.

One of the other controversial elements in the debate has been whether the Luxembourg compromise has been watered down by the recommendations of the Committee of Three. It appears that the Opposition amendment is latching on to that. I can only say that I think it is perfectly plain from everything that the three wise men have said that no such intention was in their minds. They specifically maintained the Luxembourg compromise and acknowledged the right of every member State to recognise what its own major national interests required it to do in voting. If a matter is not considered by a member Government to raise a point of vital national interest it is clearly nonsensical that it should be necessary to obtain the support of that member Government for the particular proposal. That is not an issue of high principle but one of practicality, designed to speed up decision making and to render the Council of Ministers a more effective body.

I welcome the report and express gratitude to the three wise men on the speed with which they produced it. That is, perhaps, in contrast with the relative slowness of the Council in acting upon it.

1.23 am
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

I speak to the House as one with the strongest commitment to Europe—I am probably one of the most dedicated Europeans in this House. I believe that it is absolutely vital that we work together with our European friends and allies in defence and foreign policy. The Americans are less certain in the world and the Russians are becoming daily more dangerous.

However, the great tragedy of our current association with European is that we have associated with the Community on the wrong issues, such as the CAP and trading policy. We are enmeshed in the minutiae of economic measures. The report before the House would seek to enmesh us even further and even more directly and if that happens it will be more difficult, damaging and dangerous—and cause more trouble—when, eventually, we have to withdraw from some of the institutions with which we are involved.

As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said we move towards an alliance—as opposed to a federation—which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for reasons best known to themselves, wish to follow at the moment.

When one looks at any report, one should first see who are the authors. The authors of this report are a Dutchman named Mr. Biesheuvel, Mr. Edmund Dell—of whom Lady Bracknell might have said that to be a Socialist was unfortunate but to be a Socialist and a European was to be damned careless—and Mr. Robert Marjolin, a foreigner and a Frenchman as well. As hon. Members have said, part of the objective of this report is to achieve progress towards European union. I think that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as Labour Members, would resist the way in which we are progressing towards European union at the moment.

I touch briefly on a couple of the recommendations in the body of the report. It says says that before 1981 the European Council should adopt, in collaboration with the Commission, priorities for the Community as a whole. That is a sort of European national plan with a series of commitments. That would mean that when Her Majesty's Government wished to put forward proposals and policies in the House they would be tramelled by European procedures and be prevented from adopting proposals which they might otherwise think were in the best interests of the nation.

Sir Ian Gilmour

I did not say that we accepted that part.

Mr. Marlow

I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is not accepting that. I did hear him say that before. I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend is making. However, I did raise that point because these sort of recommendations predominate throughout the whole of this paper.

We talk about a greater delegation of decision making. Why is that? Are too many decisions being made at the moment? Can the structure not cope with the decisions that are being made at the moment? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) has already maintained that we are getting far too many papers from the European Community. If we are to delegate decisions, there will be more of them and they will be bad ones.

Time has moved on. There is much more that I would like to say. But I think that to accept this wretched piece of paper would be damaging to the sovereignty of the House and to the interests of the constituents that I and others represent.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I call the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I make no personal complaint about not being called. However, should it not be put on the record for the benefit of the Leader of the House that, despite all hon. Members clearly truncating their speeches and being unselfish in limiting their speeches, at 26 minutes past one o'clock in the morning, with no vote, at least nine hon. Members wanted to speak? It is totally unsatisfactory that in a debate of this sort and in these circumstances the Front Bench speakers are being called. I make no complaint about the Front Bench spokesman being called, but should not this be recorded for the benefit of the Leader of the House?

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, had this been a Commission document, rather than a non-Commission document, and subject to Standing Order No. 3, it would have been within Mr. Speaker's discretion not to put the Question if he had considered that there had been inadequate time? Is there any other Standing Order that applies to the document not being a Commission document?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not have the discretion in this instance.

1.27 am
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe)

I find it appalling that we should be talking about something as important as the institutions of the European Community so superficially. It is frightening that the House, which increasingly has been faced with decisions being taken by the Community institutions, is forced to talk about reform with an embarrassingly superficial amount of time at its disposal. I hope that this will never happen again.

I do not regard the report as the best thing since sliced bread. It is typical of many Commission documents. One of the nice things about the Community is that frequently the problems of language produce their joyous moments. In the official report of the European Parliament of 12 May the French language version records its appreciation of the report not by the three sages—that is to say, wise men—but by the three singes—that is to say, monkeys. I cannot help but regard that as an interesting Euro-Freudian slip.

The document does not deal with the important issues. It does not refer to the effect that the Commission is having on our day-to-day life. It does not consider the way in which the Commission is functioning. It does not examine the freezing of posts and the rigidity of the structure. It does not turn its attention to the areas of the European Court of Justice that concern me the most. It does not spell out the way in which the court is taking decisions that are highly political in their implications, are frequently not debated in the House and are having the effect of allowing European law to take precedence over our own law.

In the brief time that is available to me I return to the substance of the Opposition's amendment. It is not good enough, when dealing with an issue of such importance, to say "Yes, we accept the Opposition's amendment, but when it suits us we shall ignore it". Unless I am gravely mistaken, that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. I draw his attention to the exact wording of the amendment—namely : declines to approve any proposals that would weaken the present power of national veto and control in the Council of Ministers. It is not possible to accept what the right hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting—namely, that there is not a delegation of powers because we still have the right to decide on the issues that are of national interest.

The right hon. Gentleman and I know that there will always be instances when something is important but, because it cannot be defended as being absolutely vital, it will be allowed to go by default. Therefore, I ask him again to spell out in the five minutes that he has whether he is suggesting that there is no change in the situation. If that is what he is saying, and if he accepts the Opposition amendment on that basis, we are prepared to go ahead without a vote. Frankly, I warn him that if the Government imagine that they can say "There, there" to the House of Commons on something as basic and important as this, and then, within a very short period of time, demonstrate in the Council of Ministers that they are prepared to go along with the whole question of majority voting, they will be opening themselves to charges of straight dishonesty in relation to the House of Commons.

We are becoming increasingly tired of the situation that arises where the Scrutiny Committee decides that matters are of immense importance, yet the House of Commons does not have to take a decision or even make its decision clear.

I ask once more, and I ask in very simple terms, whether the Lord Privy Seal is saying that he accepts not just the exact wording on the Order Paper but the spirit and the intention behind the Opposition amendment. If he does not, will he please explain to us exactly what he has in mind?

1.32 am
Sir Ian Gilmour

The Government will not be very encouraged to accept future Opposition amendments if the Opposition complain that the Government have done so. It would have been easier to vote against the amendment.

There has been a considerable contrast in this debate. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) saw the report as leading to a super State, whereas the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) thought that it had very little in it and that it was very day-to-day, jejune stuff. Certainly, it would seem unlikely to those of us who knew Mr. Edmund Dell that he would come out strongly in favour of a super State. Therefore I cannot help feeling that a great many of the fears about this stated by hon. Members on both sides have been rather overdrawn.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) pointed out, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) made one or two fairly selective quotations. I have no objection to him not paying attention to what I said, but he attacked the report without reference to what I said, except my remarks on his amendment.

The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) made a rather strident speech and asked the same question four times. There is no great difficulty. I said that we were prepared to accept the amendment for the simple reason that it is totally otiose. There is nothing in this report which in any way reduces the right of national veto.

Mr. Marlow rose——

Sir I. Gilmour

I am very sorry but I have only two minutes. It is best if one of us speaks at a time.

There is no question but that the Luxembourg compromise is not in any way affected by this report. The report advocates that people should agree matters. It does not suggest voting. It advocates that people should come to a compromise, which is, roughly, what I think the Labour Party is not very good at doing. However, it is what most bodies seek to do. If my hon. Friend will contain himself and read pages 50 and 51 of the report he will see that the member States are exhorted to come to agreement and not to vote, if at all possible. The Luxembourg compromise is in no way affected by this report. Therefore it is perfectly all right for us to understand that.

I see that I have run out of time. Therefore I shall not repeat what I said earlier.

Mr. Dalyell

Has the Lord Privy Seal read the report?

Sir I. Gilmour

I read the report, I think I can say, at least one and a half times.

1.34 am
Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

If the Lord Privy Seal has read the report, I find his remarks strange. The Opposition's amendment is otiose only if the report proposes no change at all in the status quo. It is proposing a change in the status quo. It is proposing that majority votes should be used in circumstances where at the moment vetoes are exercised——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of Proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned.