§ 81. Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress made towards achieving the objectives set out in the solemn declaration on European union made by the Heads of Government at the Stuttgart summit.
§ Mr. RifkindThis work is being pursued in the two ad hoc committees set up at Fontainebleau last June. The 1050 Dublin European Council received interim reports from both committees and asked them to continue their work, and each submit a report in March for full discussion at the European Council in June next year.
§ Mr. KnoxDoes my hon. Friend agree that his answer indicates a disappointing lack of progress so far? What steps do the Government intend to take to ensure that progress is made rather more quickly and effectively in the future?
§ Mr. RifkindThe solemn declaration to which my hon. Friend's question refers calls for a review to be made not later than 1988. Based on the progress achieved by that date, a decision would be taken as to whether there should be a treaty on European union. Given that we are expecting a full discussion by European Heads of Government in June 1985, I cannot accept the implied criticism of my hon. Friend's question.
§ Mr. SpearingDoes the Minister agree that, irrespective of any proposal that may emanate from the Heads of Government working parties, both the Heads of Government meeting and, therefore, the meetings of their working parties are extra-treaty? If the results of the working parties are placed before the Council of Ministers, as the Minister has just mentioned, will that not be a new genesis of legislation in the Community? Hitherto, proposals for legislation have come only from the Commission. Therefore, will not the whole of the working parties' proposals, irrespective of their mertis, be extratreaty and ultra vires?
§ Mr. RifkindI do not think that there is any reason why the European Council cannot discuss or commission work on any issues that it thinks are relevant. If it wished to implement any proposals that were recommended to it, and if the implementation of the proposals required treaty amendment, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that that would be done.
§ Mr. ForthWill my right hon. Friend agree with me that in an enlarged Community, moving towards majority rule under agreements of this sort, the emphasis of policy-making and agricultural expeniture will shift inexorably to the south, and that that will cause a major reorientation of direction of Community policies and of expenditure, to our own detriment?
§ Mr. RifkindWith regard to any decisions that may be taken by a majority, the Community has already reached agreement with the applicant countries as to what a new qualified majority will require. It will require a sum that is significantly different, as a consequence of enlargement, to take into account the larger Community that we shall then have.