Luxembourg Compromise (Hansard, 7 July 1982)

§ 48. Mr. Farr
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will make it their policy not to apply any future decision taken by European. Economic Community Ministers where the unanimity rule under the terms of the Luxembourg compromise is breached.

§ Mr. Hurd
As my right hon. Friend told the House on 22 June, the discussion by. Foreign Ministers on 20 June showed that five member States support the view that decisions should be deferred where a member State considers its important national interests to be at stake My right hon. Friend has made very clear how serious it would be if this practice were not applied in future, as it had been up to 18 May. We shall have to see how things go.

§ Mr. Farr
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that a number of critical negotiations are currently taking place, not least those relating to our fisheries and to the common fisheries policy? Is it good enough to have this indecision, which might lead to the same kind of scandalous decision as was taken at the Agriculture Ministers' meeting being taken at many other more critical meetings in the future? Will he give attention to the problem and see whether it can be straightened out?

§ Mr. Hurd
Of course we must keep an eye on it, but the position is that the Luxembourg compromise was an agreement to differ, with five States on one side of the argument and one on the other. The present position is that five States now agree broadly with our interpretation and five do not, so the position is not very different from what it was before.

§ Mr. Spearing
As the Minister has now said that the Luxembourg arrangement was an agreement to differ, are not the terms on which the referendum was conducted in 1975, and on which he and his hon. Friends campaigned, shown to be false in relation to the claim about the veto?

§ Mr. Hurd
What was said by different Governments about the Luxembourg compromise was truthful namely, that it was the arrangement by which the Community actually took its decisions. The hon. Gentleman will accept that. That convention broke down on 18 May. We believe that it is very important that it should be restored to proper working. What counts is what actually happens in the taking of decisions in the Community from now on.

§ Sir John Biggs-Davison
Will the Government use the unanimity rule or convention to maintain the right of New Zealand to export to the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Hurd
This matter will be the subject of important discussions starting in the autumn. I note the Commission's recent proposal. This is certainly a matter on which there should be no doubt, and I believe that there is no doubt on the part of our New Zealand friends about our determination to defend their interests.

§ Mr. Donald Stewart
Will the Government call off the current negotiations on a common fisheries policy, because if the Luxembourg compromise is not operating we shall have no chance at all of any kind of settlement? Many of us believe that it will be a sell-out in any case, but does the Minister agree that if the country with the fish cannot defend itself in any way the position will be utterly hopeless?

§ Mr. Hurd
The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that in recent weeks we have made substantial progress towards a settlement of this enormously difficult and important subject, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, I understand, the spokesmen for the industry, think would be satisfactory. One member State, Denmark, is opposed to the settlement. We hope that the next Fisheries Council, to be held under the Danish Presidency, will produce decisive progress.

§ Mr. Guy Barnett
I accept that the Luxembourg compromise was a convention, but does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the vital part that it played in the country's decision to join the EEC? In the light of that, will the Minister accept his hon. Friend's very good suggestion that the British Government should make it clear that we will not implement anything that is passed when the Luxembourg compromise is overruled?

§ Mr. Hurd
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made perfectly clear our belief as to how future decisions of the Community should be taken—that is, on the basis of the convention that operated without exception until 18 May. So far that has not been breached again and, as I have said, what counts is how decisions are taken in future. We have left our European partners in no doubt about the seriousness of the issue.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Can my right hon. Friend give the Government's views on the proposals of the European Parliament to give large sums of money to political parties, including parties in this country, to fight elections—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is another question altogether, different from the one that we are dealing with. [Interruption.] It is a different question from the one on the Order Paper, which we can all read.