§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, with permission, I will now repeat a Statement which is now being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. I will use his own words:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about last week's meeting in Paris, which I regret I was not able to make last Thursday as I had hoped.
937 "On the invitation of the President of France the Heads of Government of the European Community met together on Monday and Tuesday, 9th and 10th December.
"Our conclusions are recorded in a Communiqué which has been published as a White Paper, Cmnd. 5830.
"The House will see from the White Paper that a considerable part of the discussions related to worldwide issues, in particular the economic situation, trade, employment and inflation.
"A high priority was given by all of us to the problems posed by the world threat of general recession, and in this connection we discussed the policies to be followed by individual countries, the Community, and the wider world. The Federal German Chancellor dealt with the problems facing his own country on which announcements were subsequently made by his Government in the German Parliament. Since they involve a substantial measure of reflation by a surplus country, I am sure all of us in this House will warmly welcome them.
"On energy we sought to get an improved consensus of views between the European Governments and the United States, and in particular the possibility of closer co-operation between oil-exporting and oil-importing countries. This meant that the French President in his discussions this weekend with the President of the United States would have a clearer view of the ideas and hopes of all of us on these matters.
"Co-operation in the field of energy is to be pursued further at a meeting of energy Ministers in Brussels tomorrow.
"On the renegotiation of the terms on which Britain entered the Community in 1971, I have informed the other Heads of Government of the position of Her Majesty's Government, and the particular issues to which we attach high priority; the issues set out in our Election Manifesto in February and endorsed again by the people in October. I informed them of the terms of the speech I made on 7th December, of which a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
938 "Substantial progress has been made on the question of Britain's budgetary contribution to the Community and appropriate instructions given to the Community institutions, so that they can now get to work to set up as soon as possible the 'correcting mechanism' referred to in the Communiqué. We intend to have a firm proposal and decision on this by the early spring.
"Since the Communiqué was published, anxiety has been expressed by honourable Members and others about two matters. The one relates to the principle of majority voting, and the Luxembourg Compromise. I can assure the House that there is no question at all—and that this was clear in the minds of all the Heads of Government—of any Member State, when important national interests are at stake, being required to set these interests aside as a result of a majority voting procedure. The Communiqué makes it plain that each country will continue to be free to maintain our respective positions regarding the Luxembourg Compromise of 1966. What the meeting had in mind was the undesirability of having too frequent a recourse to the veto, where for example relatively minor matters were involved.
"The other issue related to the desire of most Heads of Government to make progress towards the election of the European Assembly by universal suffrage. I made it clear that the British Government could not take up any position on this question until after the renegotiations are complete and the results submitted to the British people for decision. This was specifically reserved in the Communiqué as a Statement by the British Prime Minister.
"On institutional matters generally, the House will have seen that the Prime Minister of Belgium, Mr. Tindemans, has been invited to prepare a report on the institutional development of the Community, so that this can be considered by a meeting of Heads of Government a year or more from now.
"The Heads of Government also reached decisions on the Regional Development Fund. The Fund will be endowed with 1,300 million units of account (that is about £540 million) 939 over the three years 1975 to 1977. Twenty-eight per cent. of the Fund will be allocated to this country. Our net share of the Fund could turn out to be about £60 million in all. Compared with the Government's own regional expenditure of about £500 million a year the results will naturally be modest.
"I was particularly concerned to press upon our colleagues the importance of national Governments, such as our own, particularly at a time of anxiety about employment, being able to act speedily with existing, and where necessary, novel means of providing national aids for regional employment and regional development. On this I found full understanding among the other Heads of Government. I emphasised, of course, that such action should not offend against the Community rules of fair competition, nor amount to competitive bidding, one country against another, in order to attract some new development for example by an American-owned company.
"I have referred to institutional aspects of the Community. There is a general wish, which I share, to have important decisions taken quickly and effectively at the political level, both by Foreign and other Ministers and by Heads of Government themselves. The meeting in Paris was in effect the first European Council. In future there will be three of these meetings a year, and more if they are required to deal with particular problems. They will be concerned both with Community matters and with important questions of policy, for example on world energy and related world finance problems, outside the Community area.
"Our partners in the Conference, Mr. Speaker, were left in no doubt that while we were not dissatisfied with the progress made on the budgetary question, there was a substantial number of other matters on which we should expect satisfaction. There is still a long way to go if Britain's essential requirements are to be met, and it is in the best interests both of this country and of Europe that speedy progress be made and the issues decided.
940 "These questions will be taken up in meetings, early in the New Year, of the Council of Ministers, and, as appropriate, at the next Heads of Government meeting to be held in the New Year in Dublin under the Presidency of the Irish Republic."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, all noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated that Statement. I must say that for those of us who are anxious to see Britain remain as a member of the EEC, this is by no means a discouraging statement. There is a change of atmosphere in the Statement; indeed, I think there was a change of atmosphere in the speech made by the Prime Minister to the Labour Lord Mayors before he went to Paris. I would only point out, and do so without any ill will, that all this could have been done, all these negotiations could have been going on (and would have been) without all the drama of renegotiation. But if noble Lords opposite want to call it "renegotiation", and it helps them, I have no particular objection.
My Lords, I want to raise with the noble Lord the Leader of the House the question of the European Parliament. Is it the intention of the Government before the referendum to make known their views on how the European Parliament should be elected? The noble Lord will know there is a certain amount of Parliamentary difficulty about the European Parliament. It is a great pity—and the noble Lord knows it—that the Labour Party are not represented there, but there are difficulties which we all ought to try to solve. I commend to the noble Lord the Leader of the House a document produced by the European Parliament, with some amendments made by Conservative members of that Parliament as possible proposals for its election. I hope the noble Lord will look at that.
§ 3.47 p.m.
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, although I have not been able to consult them, as I have just returned from Luxembourg, I think all my colleagues on these Benches feel that in spite of the unfortunate, if necessary, stance of the Government, the Summit Conference on 941 the whole was a success. We would number the Regional Fund among the successes. As I understand it from the Paper, we are to receive gross £47 million a year for three years, but the Government, who seem intent on playing it down, say that it "could" be only £20 million net. May I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House what is the difference? To what is this enormous difference apparently due?
My Lords, with regard to rectifying our contribution to the Community budget, we think this is an advance and hope there is no longer any question of putting it as a major obstacle to our continuing to be a member of the Community. However, the main achievement at the conference seems to us to lie in the direction of political co-operation. We think the general scheme now put forward is probably a good one. We think that in spite of what the Government say—and perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will say something about this—the Luxembourg Compromise seems in practice to have been modified by the phrase used in the Communiqué. It looks as if the intention now is at least to modify the operation of the Compromise. Perhaps the noble Lord will say whether this is so or not?
Finally, we note what the Government say about direct elections. Equally, however, is it not a fact that the great consensus of opinion in favour of those direct elections will influence the Government when they come to take their final decision? Will the noble Lord also admit that the phrases used about the European Parliament are significant? The Government seem actually to have agreed that the Parliament should now have more powers and that it should be more closely associated with the work of the Presidency. Have they in fact agreed with both the proposals? It is most significant if they have.
My Lords, we are disappointed at the continuing failure on energy and inflation. This was perhaps inevitable, but there is still failure. We are also disappointed at the continuing lack of progress on the whole question of harmonising foreign policy; but, generally speaking, we congratulate the Government on a qualified success.
§ 3.50 p.m.
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I have listened with great interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. There may be a change of atmosphere, but the position of the Government is what it has been ever since the long debate. The position of the Government and the Labour Party was, and is, that provided we get satisfactory terms—in our view the terms negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his friends were not satisfactory, and I think are now generally admitted not to have been satisfactory—and provided we consulted the British people, then we desire that we should continue and should co-operate within the European Economic Community. So while the atmosphere may have changed, the position of the Government has not.
In regard to the European Parliament—and this is directed to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—the Government do not intend, nor should we be expected, to take any firm position in this respect until the referendum has taken place. Certainly any question of direct elections to the European Parliament, which are bound to have some consequences upon the Parliament in Westminster is clearly something on which the British Parliament would have to be consulted. Therefore, the situation is that we do not take any firm position, although we recognise the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred.
In regard to political co-operation, the Luxembourg Compromise and the veto, I think the Summit recognised that it was undesirable that the veto should be used frequently, but that where matters of great interest to a State arose, then it should be in a position to exercise its veto. But we would hope that in the course of time the need for such a course would diminish.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he recalls that the other day the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made some observations about all Members of your Lordships' House having equal privileges, which was acceptable. Do I understand, therefore, that I can make as long a speech as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did, in the course of which I would expose the bag of tricks, refer to the vast sums of money spent 943 on propaganda, the apparent change in the climate, and refer to the pyrotechnic—I am not quite sure that this is the right word—attitude of some notabilities in the Labour Government? Would I be permitted to do that, or would my noble friend prefer that I defer the pleasure until some other occasion?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, since my noble friend has put the question to me, and recognising that he has as much right in your Lordships' House as has the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I would say a matter at which we may have to take a closer look is as to how we conduct ourselves in connection with Statements. But if my noble friend does put that question to me, I would ask him to refrain and perhaps set others an example.
§ Lord SLATERMy Lords, could my noble friend say who is in control of the European Parliament? Who sits in the chair or who sits in the Speaker's seat? Who conducts the business? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was directing a question to my noble friend on representation of the present Government in the European Parliament. That is what I gathered from his observations.
The second point I want to raise with my noble friend is that I think a direct insult has been directed against the Prime Minister of this country, as it was at the time when Mr. Heath was Prime Minister and carrying out negotiations on behalf of this country for entrance into Europe; they have to conduct their business with a Head of State, who is a political figure according to their set-up, the President of France, and not the Prime Minister of that country who is the opposite number of the Prime Minister of this country, who has to negotiate on behalf of the Government of the country and not Her Majesty the Queen.
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, in regard to the first supplementary question, I understand that the President and committees of members of the European Assembly—I think that is perhaps a better phrase, because it is basically a nominated assembly—conduct the affairs of the Assembly. The answer to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question is that this is a matter of opinion. At the end of the day, I do not think it 944 really matters a row of beans whether it is a President or a Prime Minister. What matters is the argument of the case that one puts forward. I think it is fair to say that the Heads of State meeting in Paris was perhaps the most successful of the meetings of Heads of Government. Therefore, to that extent credit ought to be given to the President of France. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that we have made some advance. It was a fairly successful conference.
The Earl of DUDLEYMy Lords, would the Lord Privy Seal confirm that only 43.6 per cent., or about £54 million, of the Regional Development Fund in the first year actually changes hands, and that the largest recipient is Italy? Would he also confirm that in the first year the share of the United Kingdom would be approximately £16 million, and in the following two years a little over £20 million?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, figures are difficult to assess. Clearly, what is important is the way in which the countries approach the Commission and set out their proposals. I would not deny or accept the figures the noble Earl has given. I think it is up to the Government and all those who will have a claim upon this Fund to see that their proposals are brought together and presented as quickly as possible. Then, of course, there is a better chance of getting a large sum in the first year.
The Earl of DUDLEYMy Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to confirm this if I put a Question to him in writing?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I am always prepared to do my best in response to the noble Earl. If he puts down a Question, I will certainly answer it. I only hope that the answer I have just given is the right one.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether there was any discussion at the Summit about the proposals made public by Simonet in Oxford ten days ago, and now repeated in the hand-outs from the European Community Commission office in London, to the effect that the Commission might be able to make proposals 945 to help finance the exploration for oil in the North Sea and, to quote their words:
… thus give the United Kingdom Government more room for manoeuvre in its relationship with the multi-national oil companies."?Was that discussed at the Summit?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, it does not appear in the Communiqué, but, as the noble Earl is aware, the Ministers responsible for energy are meeting tomorrow, and clearly they will have in mind ways and means by which we can exploit our own natural European resources as soon as possible.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, could the noble Lord go a little further and say "yes" or "no", to the question whether or not this Government have received proposals originating in the Commission to help them deal with the multinational oil companies in the proposal to take a stake in existing licences?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I very much regret that without notice I am not in a position to answer that question, but I will look into the matter and will communicate with the noble Earl.