HL Deb 21 May 1985 vol 464 cc158-60

2.52 p.m.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the fact that their attitude is shared only by the Governments of Greece and Denmark they will now reconsider their opposition to the recommendations of the Dooge Report to the European Council on the principles of voting in the EEC Council of Ministers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, the Dooge Report reflected the views of the members of the committee which produced it and not necessarily those of their Governments. We consider that more use will need to be made of the majority voting provisions of the treaties in the englarged Community. These matters will be discussed between Heads of Government at the Milan European Council in June.

Lord Gladwyn

Yes, my Lords; but do the Government not realise that, apparent rejection of all the compromises (if one may believe the report), and simple insistence on the letter of the so-called Luxembourg compromise—that is to say on the principle of a potential political veto on all Council decisions—which has resulted in the Community's working only at half-cock with a majority of 10, will make it increasingly difficult for it to function at all after the increase in membership to 12 after the accession of Spain and Portugal?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, we have of course proposed some qualification with regard to the Luxembourg compromise. I draw the noble Lord's attention to that. It is on page 26 of the report.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that an amendment of the Treaty of Rome itself may be more efficient in bringing about what the noble Lord wants rather than at this stage removing the veto? The affinity among the nations is not such as to make it a community; it is merely a meeting of nations. Does he agree that to remove the veto now may well do more damage than if it is allowed to continue until we have more experience of how it works and have amended the treaty?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I think my noble friend makes a good point. Among the other proposals that we endorsed, and indeed brought forward, during the deliberations of the Dooge Committee was the one that provided for members to take greater advantage or make greater use of the possibility of abstention in accordance with certain articles of the treaty. I hope my noble friend will find that helpful, too.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, as there is now a proposal to hold an inter-governmental conference on a new draft treaty for European union, can the noble Lord say, first, whether the Government are in favour of reform and, secondly, in the event that there is such a conference, whether they would be represented there?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, we have not closed our minds to some element of reform in this matter. However, as for an inter-governmental conference, we are not clear what that conference could achieve that could not be achieved by a European council.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, is it not the case that in the field of financial control Her Majesty's Government have already surrendered the right to veto under Article 2 of the Fontainebleau agreement, where majority rule now has to be applied?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt right, but of course the position is not quite as black and white as he makes it out to be.

Lord Morris

My Lords, my noble friend may not know, but can he hazard a guess as to what the governments of Greece and Denmark may feel about being referred to in the noble Lord's Question as, "only.…the governments of Greece and Denmark"?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I do not think it is for me to speculate on what view such governments may take upon the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will answer the other part of my question concerning the proposal to hold an intergovernmental conference; namely, will the Government attend such a conference if it is held later on this year?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, that is a hypothetical question because the conference has not yet been agreed upon. Indeed, the Government's view is that it would serve no particularly useful purpose.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, if I am right in thinking, from what the noble Lord the Minister has said, that the Government are considering possible modifications of the Luxembourg compromise, in accordance with some of the proposals made on pages 25 and 26 of the Dooge Report, is it not a fact that at the end of the last paragraph on page 26, it says: When a Member State considers that its very important interests are at stake, the discussion should continue until unanimous agreement is reached", which of course is the Luxembourg compromise? Then it says: This proposal is supported by Mr. Møller, Mr. Papantoniou and Mr. Rifkind"— in other words, by the United Kingdom, Greece and Denmark? Is that a fact? It seems to me that it is an uncompromising statement of support by Her Majesty's Government of the Luxembourg compromise. One can hardly read it in any other way.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, perhaps this is not the right moment to go into the detail of what the noble Lord has said. However, if he looks at the paragraphs ahead of the one that he read out he will see that they, too, are relevant.