§ 2.49 p.m.
The Earl of DUDLEYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that they will not be party to any decision in the Council of Ministers as to methods for implementing the Regional Development Fund until there has been adequate time for Parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals and for a debate in this House.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)My Lords, I have noted the concern expressed in the Minutes of sub-committee " A'" of the European Communities Committee. The Fund regulation is now under discussion in the EEC Council machinery. A decision could be taken at the meeting of the Council on the 3rd and 4th March. An opportunity for debate will be provided 1332 on the 24th February and an amended explanatory memorandum will be pro-vided before then.
The Earl of DUDLEYMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for the courtesy of his reply— which harmonises perfectly with the co-operation shown by the Government to the sub-committee which has to report to this House on these matters—may I ask him whether the policies of Her Majesty's Government, and, indeed, of the Community, will be made known with regard to the criteria to be adopted for the implementation of the Fund? Further, may I ask whether those poli-cies agree or diverge, and also whether the texts of the amended Regulations will be published before a decision is taken in the Council?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, the position is that before the Council of Ministers at the moment are a series of different texts which are being considered, and Her Majesty's Government are not yet sure which will be finalised. There was a meeting in Brussels yesterday and, as a consequence. I hope that we shall be able to produce the Memorandum of Explanation, which is now given to the Committees both in your Lordships' House and in another place, which the Select Committees can consider and make their observations upon to your Lordships' House. I would not wish to go further at this stage. I took this Question to be one of procedure, and not one of content of the discussions in Brussels.
§ Lord BLYTONMy Lords, is the Minister aware that it does not seem that at Brussels we shall get much further on the Regional Development Fund? Should we not end all this nonsense and let Parliament, rather than the bureaucrats of Brussels, control the distressed areas of Britain?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is very much one of business and of the manner in which your Lordships' House can con-sider the proposals. I do not intend to go any further in dealing with the sub-stance of the Question.
§ Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIEMy Lords, does the Minister realise that this matter high-lights the problem of the Commission's 1333 proposals, when they are discussed in working groups of the Council of Minis-ters? While we much appreciate the Explanatory Memorandum that will be available, I understand that it will come to hand only shortly before the debate in this House, and with perhaps some slow-ness in printing it will be difficult to have everything ready in time for scrutiny by the House, let alone by the Select Com-mittee. Has the Minister any idea as to how this position could be improved in the future?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, the noble Baroness probably knows more about the difficulties than anyone else in your Lordships' House, because she was the Minister who replied to the debates on the Maybray-King Report, and about how we can improve the position. I repeat the invitation that I gave to the noble Baroness, that my door is always open to her, and if she wishes to come and discuss with me this or any other problems that may arise I shall be only too happy to see what I can do to help.
§ Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that there are some signs that he is somewhat confused? It may be that he wishes to answer the Question in procedural terms, but would he be kind enough to read the Question again? Is it not a fact that he is asked to explain what will happen before the implementation of the Regional Development Fund? Is it not a fact, also, under Articies 92 and 93, that when we come to the position of implementa-tion this House and another place have no control at all ; it then passes into the hands of the Commission subject only to the Court of Justice at Luxembourg? Does this not underline the tremendous surrender of sovereignty, which not only calls into question the implementation of the Regional Development Fund, but, if the English language means anything at all, calls into question the Government's Industry Bill and many other measures, because the words used in Article 92 say that aid of any form whatsoever is sub-ject to the interpretation of the Com-mission and, finally, the Court of Justice at Luxembourg.
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, this is a matter which we shall clearly have to discuss fully later in the year. But the Question which I have sought to answer is about the way in which I can help your Lordships' House to appreciate and under-stand the proposals in Brussels upon which the Council of Ministers will make their decision. This Fund is of para-mount importance to this country, but it has to be treated in the same way as all other Council proceedings. I think the noble Earl himself has acknowledged that the Government have done all they poss-ibly can—maybe we could improve it—to make information available for the House to make a judgment and to give its advice to its Ministers.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is there a misunderstanding about this Question on the part of my noble friend? May I ask whether it is the case that, accord-ing to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, which no doubt he must have studied, the Council of Ministers' deci-sion must in the first place go to the Commission? The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, raised the ques-tion of a possible debate on the disposal of the allocation of the Regional Develop-ment Fund, but surely the Commission has first to consider the decision of the Council of Ministers before there can be any question of a debate on that issue here?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I do not think I have misunderstood this point. My understanding is that the Council of Ministers are now considering a whole series of proposals which have been be-fore them since 1971. They hope that a decision will be taken shortly, by the 3rd or 4th March, which will be binding upon this country, but the Government will have their own decision to make at the Council of Ministers.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that he was a party to a statement on which the Labour Party fought two Elections ; that is, that if they won, they would demand that there should be a retention by Parliament of those powers over the British economy needed to pursue effective regional, industrial and fiscal policies? But if what he says today is the truth, it has 1335 already passed to the Council of Ministers, must come back to the Commis-sion, and finally go to the Court of Jus-tice at Luxembourg, over which neither this House nor another place have any control whatsoever?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I am fully aware of the issues upon which we fought the last Election. At the moment, no decision has been taken by the Coun-cil of Ministers; negotiations are still proceeding, and we hope that we shall be able to put before the Select Committee, through a Memorandum, what the Coun-cil of Ministers will be required to decide upon.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that we on the Opposition side—at any rate, the great majority of us—do not think that the Government are in any con-fusion about this matter? We believe that the Regional Development Fund may prove of great advantage to this country and we rather resent the attempts of some of his noble friends to turn it into anti-Market propaganda.
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, whether that is the "kiss of death", I do not know. But I thank the noble and learned Lord for his comments.
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, will the noble Lord be a little more forth-coming outside procedural matters? Is it the position that Her Majesty's Gov-ernment wish to ensure that there is national control over any EEC funds provided for regional aid, but that the Community wants to make sure that any funds provided have every prospect of maintaining existing levels of employ-ment? If that is the case, surely there should be no great difficulty in reconcil-ing those two positions?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I hope there will be no difficulty in reconciling those two positions.
§ Lord PARGITERMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether or not, in the event of terms not being satisfactory, the British Minister will have the power of veto?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, there is a requirement of a unanimous decision 1336 by all the Ministers at Brussels. There-fore, unless the British Government agree there can be no agreement.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that if I am engaging in anti-Common Market propaganda so also was the Daily Telegraph yesterday, when it was seeking to excuse Mr. Heath for doing exactly the same thing as the Government are now seeking to do?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, my noble friend referred to the Manifesto. May I say that I stand by the Manifesto, and that I seek to renegotiate the terms and then to put the matter to the country so that it can make its own decision.
The Earl of DUDLEYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, while declaring an interest, whether he is aware that every effort will be made by the relevant sub-committee to produce a report for this House in time for the debate which the noble Lord has announced will take place on Monday week?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I will certainly do what I can to help the sub-committee under the noble Earl, and for the convenience of your Lordships' House.