Foreign Affairs Council

HC Deb 08 June 1992 vol 209 cc32-9 4.16 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the special meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Oslo on 4 June which I attended to discuss the outcome of the Danish referendum on the treaty of Maastricht.

At the meeting, the Foreign Minister of Denmark, Mr. Ellemann-Jensen, explained that the Danish Government needed time to consider their response to the referendum. The Danish Government wished to keep all options open, with the aim of agreeing a way forward acceptable to all Twelve member states. He was not seeking a renegotiation of the treaty of Maastricht, because he did not believe that this would be agreed by other member states. In this, as the discussion showed, he was right.

I made it clear that the Government respected the outcome of the referendum as the democratically expressed view of the Danish people, as provided for in the Danish constitution. I added that the concerns of the Danish people against centralisation were reflected in this country, too, and that we would not be prepared to join any attempt to coerce the Danes. There were lessons for us all to consider. The Maastricht treaty had, however, been signed by all member states. Like other Community Governments, we believed it right, as the Prime Minister said to the House on 3 June, to continue with the process of ratification. It was agreed that the door should be left open for Denmark.

After discussion the Council agreed a short statement of conclusions, which has been placed in the Library of the House. The House will have an opportunity to debate the implications before proceeding with the Committee stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, the varied work of the Community will continue—with Denmark, of course, as a full member.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)

After listening to the Foreign Secretary, the House will be no clearer about the situation following the Danish referendum. It is all very well for the European Community Foreign Ministers to say that they wish to proceed with ratification of the present text of the Maastricht treaty, but will the Foreign Secretary explain the point of that when the treaty cannot be operative unless all the Twelve ratify it and when the Danish people have just voted not to ratify it? It does not seem to me that either the European Community Ministers or the Government here have come to grips with the real situation which faces the Community and the House.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that there are lessons for us all in the referendum, but the question is whether the Government have learnt those lessons. The British Government showed the Danes the way by opting out of major provisions of the Maastricht treaty. The Danes have simply followed that approach to its logical conclusion by deciding to opt out of the whole treaty. Labour would want to see the whole treaty enacted.

The Government should take this opportunity to remedy their damaging precedent by reconsidering the treaty. The United Kingdom should opt back into the social chapter and press for suitable convergence conditions for economic and monetary union, including anti-unemployment policies, strong regional policies and constructive industrial restructuring policies. That is the sensible and constructive way forward, if only the Government had the good sense to grasp it.

Meanwhile, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House the Government's intentions for the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? It is only right to tell him the Labour party's intentions. At 7.30 am last Wednesday, the right hon. Gentleman told radio listeners that the Government intended to proceed that day with the Bill's Committee stage. A few hours later, the Government changed their mind and abandoned the Committee stage. Let me make it clear that we would regard it as improper for the House to be asked to debate and approve legislation enacting into United Kingdom law a treaty that is inherently faulty as a result of the Danish referendum.

We ask, as soon as possible, for the report to the House, for which we asked last week, and for the debate on that report, which the right hon. Gentleman promised. If the report shows a clear way ahead which would allow the House to consider the Bill sensibly, well and good. If the Government are not able to offer that clear way ahead, the Labour party will oppose any further consideration of the Bill and will vote accordingly.

Mr. Hurd

The right hon. Gentleman did his best, but the intellectual confusion on which he rested his case was apparent. He clambered about trying to decide which intellectual fence to sit on.

The right hon. Gentleman is also getting very inaccurate in his old age. He will not find that I said anything in my radio broadcast last Wednesday about proceeding with the Bill. He will not find any way in which he can distinguish what I said in the morning from what the Prime Minister said in the afternoon. There is a very good reason for that: we are in the habit of concerting our pronouncements pretty closely, and we did so on this occasion. Both of us said that we would proceed, as the Prime Minister said again, but neither of us gave a date on which we would do so.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a more serious question about ratification—an entirely worthwhile question. [Interruption.] I have to pick them out, Madam Speaker. The 12 member states signed the treaty of Maastricht and then went their ways, according to their separate procedures, to seek ratification. One member state has had the reverse, in the Danish referendum, in doing that. The Danes came to us on Thursday and asked for time, making it clear that, from their point of view, all options were open. They are clearly entitled to time. I am very much against any effort to slam the door against them. They are entitled to time as members and in accordance with the treaty. Equally, other countries are entitled to continue with their ratification procedures. It is clear that this treaty cannot come into effect until all 12 members have ratified it.

The right hon. Gentleman finally asked about procedures in the House. They are not essentially a matter for me, but, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition on Wednesday, the Prime Minister made it clear that we were inclined to accept—and did accept—the case for having a general debate on the implications of the Danish referendum before we discussed the Bill in Committee. We stand by that, but the timing of the debate needs to be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. David Howell (Guildford)

Whether the Maastricht treaty is eventually renegotiated or unbundled, or merely stays the same, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital in the coming months to reinterpret the treaty in a way that gives maximum emphasis to the aims expressed by the excellent determination of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it should be a treaty to reverse the move towards centralisation in the affairs of the Community? Does he accept that some items in and aspects of the treaty do that, although there are also aspects which do not? In the coming months, will he undertake, with his colleagues and with our support, to give maximum intellectual vigour to the drive to reinterpret the way forward for Europe towards decentralisation rather than centralisation?

Mr. Hurd

My right hon. Friend has, not for the first time, got the analysis exactly right. Long before the Danish referendum we said that Britain wanted a Europe wider in membership and more decentralising in operation than at the moment. There is no happy status quo in the present stage, as anyone can judge who considers the present controversies over the Single European Act. We are clear in our minds that we are more likely to get that wider and more decentralised Europe on the basis of the treaty of Maastricht than in the confusion which would follow if it were destroyed. That is a matter of judgment for the House and elsewhere, but we believe that, in the confusion which might follow the collapse of the treaty, we might find it impossible to get any agreement on enlargement, which is one of the main objectives of this country, or on decentralisation.

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Liberal Democrats have always favoured a federal, decentralised, democratic European Community? To put matters in proportion, at the previous general election we won nearly 2 million more votes than the population of Denmark. Does he agree that we are entitled to be heard—

Madam Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard.

Sir Russell Johnston

Does he agree—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker

Order. I need to hear the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Russell Johnston

Millions of people outside the House and many hon. Members want a coherent, effective, democratic European Community and are appalled by the rise of dead-end nationalism.

Mr. Hurd

There appears to be some difficulty about the geographical place that the hon. Gentleman is now occupying with regard to the House's attention, but that is not his fault. I think that he will agree that the voters in Denmark have given politicians a kick in the pants. People always enjoy that because our profession is not especially popular, but once that has happened, politicians must get on with their job, remembering why they were kicked in the pants. We must proceed, and that is what we intend to do.

Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very conscious that he had a distinguished role outside politics as a novelist and as a one-time career diplomat which has enabled him to understand both English and Euro-speak? That ability is not given to us all.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary apparently made encouraging noises in Oslo to the Danes about the virtues of decentralisation in the developing Community. Is he aware that it was reported in The Times today that Chancellor Kohl has said that, once the Danish hiccup is out of the way, there will be an acceleration of European integration? May we have an assessment of the situation in plain-speak?

Mr. Hurd

I have tried to give such an assessment. It is not only in Oslo that we have argued against the centralising tendency of the Community. My right hon. Friend knows well that we have done so—that I have done so—for many months now. As my right hon. Friend said, that is our purpose. The question before the House in the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and before Europe more generally is whether that purpose is best served with or without the treaty of Maastricht.

On Wednesday, my right hon. Friend put to the Prime Minister—he had a good deal of support in the House for doing so—a proposition about renegotiation. He said that now, after the Danish result, was the time to seek to renegotiate the treaty so that we should end up with fewer powers for the Commission and the court and with, basically, a free-trade area with the single market. However, the very statement attributed to the Federal Chancellor shows the difficulty of that path, as the Prime Minister said in reply.

If one seeks to reopen in renegotiation the whole treaty of Maastricht, one does not achieve, I assure my right hon. Friend, an agreement on a free-trade area, a single market and some intergovernmental co-operation. One achieves immediately the putting forward again of all the centralising arguments which we successfully pushed out of the way at Maastricht. That is what would happen. The discussions I had at Oslo clearly confirmed that from a number of quarters, as does the report to which my right hon. Friend referred. That is the difficulty of proceeding as he wants.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)

Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), is it not clear that the part of the Maastricht treaty which amends the European Communities Act 1972 cannot proceed until and unless the Danish people change their minds? On that point, therefore, it is right to say that it is dead. On the other part of Maastricht—on the so-called "pillars" and on the intergovernmental treaties dealing with foreign policy and home affairs—no such restraint exists. It does not require the unanimous agreement of the Twelve.

Given the Government's view about economic and monetary union—they have not, of course opted in because they have grave doubts about that—and given their enthusiasm for intergovernmental arrangements, is it not obvious that the Government should now accept with equanimity the failure to enact the part of the treaty which amends the European Communities Act and that they should go ahead as far as they can with the other parts of the treaty which require no such procedure?

Mr. Hurd

The right hon. Gentleman has not got it exactly right. The economic and monetary union proposals in the treaty of Maastricht do not involve, as I understand it, an amendment to the treaty of Rome. They are treaty proposals, but they do not involve an amendment to the treaty of Rome. That is one reason, although not the only reason, why I am a bit reluctant to see the unbundling of the treaty of Maastricht, which is what the right hon. Gentleman proposes. It is being discussed, as the right hon. Gentleman has discussed it, but I do not think that it would be an easy task on which to reach agreement. Nor is it what the Danish Government have asked for.

The Danish Government's request was not for renegotiation, as I said in my statement, nor for taking apart the treaty of union to look at which bits they could accept without a further referendum and which bits they could not. Their proposition was simply that they should have time while they considered all the options open to them. It was reasonable, therefore, at Oslo to say that, as that was their request, that is what should be accorded.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although technically there are ways of proceeding towards ratification without Denmark, they will be rejected by Her Majesty's Government, as will any moves to pressurise the Danes to reverse their position? Surely what we now have is a breathing space in which we can consolidate the position won by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at Maastricht as the best way forward for the enlargement of the Community. What we do not now want is a fresh start to the negotiations.

Mr. Hurd

We should be very reluctant to go along with any answer to the problem of the Danish referendum that lost the prospect of enlargement; I made that point clear in an earlier answer. My hon. Friend is entirely right. What the Danes asked for seemed to be, in the circumstances, the right request and they were granted that request. They were entirely entitled to that, and that enables us to think the question through and produce an answer which I hope can be agreed to by all 12 countries.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

No one in Scotland would recognise the present Government as a Government wholly committed to decentralisation, but is the Secretary of State aware that, although many of us understand the suspicions that led the Danes to do what they did, we fear that they may have done terrible damage to the interests of small nations? Will the Government therefore continue to press for a fairer and more democratic Europe, and will the Conservatives resist the temptation to revert to type as the party of little Englanders?

Mr. Hurd

I am certainly against any effort in Europe to say that, because Denmark is a small country, it is of no account. The Danes have their rights, they have exercised their rights and, for my part, a lot of the discussion in Oslo on Friday was designed to ensure that we did not appear to neglect that fact.

Mr. Kenneth Baker (Mole Valley)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best parts of Maastricht are those that require no modification to the treaty at all—agreement on intergovernmental co-operation on justice and internal matters, foreign affairs and defence? May I express the hope that the Government proceed with that on the basis of agreement between Governments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rest of the Maastricht treaty was very much on the basis of a Community of 12, and not of 11 plus one, and, if he has difficulties with the word "renegotiation", will he accept that there would have to be substantial changes and modifications to the treaty before the House could give its approval?

Mr. Hurd

I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) answered that question skilfully. People in Denmark and in this House are concerned not so much about what is in the treaty of Maastricht as about how that treaty would in practice operate, in the light of our experience of the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. We need to find a way of dealing not just with the treaty of Maastricht but with all the texts on the basis of which we operate, to improve matters and to make it clear to our constituents and others in the Community that matters will improve. That is the process that my right hon. Friend and I were discussing, and we must consider how best to push it forward.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the lessons to be learnt from this episode are that the centre cannot steamroller naturally small communities, be they the Danes or anyone else; that long-term political stability and unity can be built only when the diversity of cultures and aspirations within Europe is recognised; that that principle is just as valid for countries such as Wales, Scotland and other national communities within Europe as it is for the Danes; and that no long-term future for Europe can be achieved if there is a cobbling together of aspirations by the 50 million club at the expense of communities of 5 million?

Mr. Hurd

At the moment we are a Community of 12 democratic states each operating under its own rule of law, and that means that changes do not take place smoothly. On many occasions in the past the Community has come to a halt—a temporary stop—while difficulties of this kind have been dealt with. The Single European Act was held up for many months because of a difficulty in the Irish courts. That happens, and it is part of the nature and diversity of the Community. It is a Community of democracies. They have to follow their own procedures and we have to respect them.

Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham)

Will my right hon. Friend say something about the Government's policy when we assume the presidency next month? Would it not be wise to concentrate on matters that would allow us to enlarge the Community to include the EFTA countries and eastern European countries in due course and establish our policy accordingly? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing distaste for what many people see as the federalising influence of Mr. Delors and the European Commission which should be denied?

Mr. Hurd

I agree with my hon. Friend. Our objectives in the presidency have been spelt out to the House. They are the completion of the single market and carrying forward from the present presidency the discussion about financial arrangements, something which will clearly continue to be necessary. They also include setting the pace for enlargement. That may well be more difficult as a result of the Danish referendum. However, we will have to press ahead with that as far, and as fast, as we can. I agree with that. I also agree that it is very important that the Commission should follow up what its President has said, and whose words I quoted to the House, about the great importance not just of having an article about subsidiarity in the new treaty, but of ensuring that the practice of the Commission and the other Community institutions follows that course.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli)

Has the Secretary of State seen the suggestion that the 11 countries could abrogate their responsibilities in the treaty of Rome, incorporate the provisions of that treaty into the Maastricht treaty and then, as 11, ratify the Maastricht treaty? Does he agree that such a stratagem contains distant echoes of those European countries with written constitutions which tend to tear them up when those constitutions are inconvenient and replace them with new and more malleable constitutions? Will he assure the House that the Government would not be part of such a stratagem?

Mr. Hurd

I find that option very unattractive. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to a possible unrolling of the treaty and taking parts out which could be dealt with intergovernmentally. Obviously, that is an option, but it is perhaps more difficult than the right hon. Gentleman described. However, the idea of turning the whole treaty by way of lawyers' changes into a treaty which only 11 could sign, and going ahead on that basis, is not something that we could accept.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

My right hon. Friend may recall that I was the first Conservative Member to congratulate him on his tremendous work in negotiating the Maastricht treaty. I am sorry that by signing early-day motion 174 it appears that I may have given him a kick up the pants. There are as many interpretations of our intentions in signing that early-day motion as there are of the treaty itself. The Danish referendum has shown that in this country—

Madam Speaker

Order. What I said about the previous statement applies to this statement: there should be one question to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Greenway

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people are concerned that the Danish have spoken out with great concern about the interpretation of the treaty? Many of us will find it very difficult to support the continuing ratification process without a much clearer explanation of what the treaty actually means.

Mr. Hurd

I understand my hon. Friend's point, and he put it in an extremely useful way. We will do our best to meet it, and the undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition does that in part.

I was wrong to say earlier that EMU is entirely freestanding of the treaty of Rome. It could be isolated from amendment of the treaty of Rome, but that would be a difficult job.

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)

As the Maastricht agreement is, at present, effectively null and void in that it no longer attracts the support of all the 12 Community nations, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not proceed with the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill until there is a new accord between Denmark and the other 11 nations?

Mr. Hurd

No. I think that my undertaking and that of the Prime Minister are clear enough. The Maastricht treaty has never been anything except null and void: it has not yet come into effect. We are talking about the procedures which each nation state is taking to achieve ratification. The Danes have asked for time about that for reasons which are clear enough to everyone. We will have to judge carefully how precisely and with what timing that relates to proceedings in this House.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many advantages for Britain from Maastricht that Britain would want to keep? Would we not have a better chance of keeping them if Brussels was to give a slightly better demonstration of the working of subsidiarity? That means appearing slightly less to interfere and perhaps considering the return of some powers to sovereign Governments.

Mr. Hurd

I agree with the first part of what my hon. Friend said. In general terms, statements from Brussels are clear enough. In particular terms, they sometimes contradict the general statements.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the Ministers he met in Oslo are an increasingly unrepresentative elite who want to go further and faster in a direction that most people do not want to go? What Europe needs now is a large dose of democracy and people power. The people of Denmark have spoken. Should not the British people have the same opportunity?

Mr. Hurd

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on that point last week.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

If the Maastricht treaty is not ratified by 12 member states, is it not lifeless and dead? If it is dead, what on earth is the point of going through a ratification process with the other 11 member states if that is only to pretend that it has life? Is there not a better case for renegotiating the treaty to lose its federalism and centralising element so that it can have the support of all member states and then be properly ratified?

Mr. Hurd

I tried to answer that point earlier. That is not what would happen. If we simply said that we intend to call for the renegotiation of the treaty, all the centralising proposals that we batted away and got rid of with great difficulty during the autumn and winter would return. Instead of negotiating an agreement on the kind of Europe that my hon. and learned Friend would like, we would be back in the maelstrom. I do not think that that is in the interests of this country.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order. We now move to the Orders of the Day.