§ 2.53 p.m.
§ Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whose signature of approval on their behalf was made to document SN 517/88, being the overall agreement reached at the European Council on 11th-12th February 1988; whether they will state the nature and extent of the modifications made to the note from the presidency SN 461/88 in order to conform with SN 517/88 and whether they confirmed such modifications.
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, document SN 461/88 contained the proposals of the presidency which were put to the Brussels European Council on 11th to 13th February. Document SN 517/88 showed the extent and nature of the amendments to SN 461/88 which were made as the result of discussion at the European Council. It is of course not the practice for such agreement to be signed by those attending the Council.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I have both documents in front of me and I have checked one against the other. It would seem that these show a very grave state of affairs. As has not been disclosed so far, the burden on the British taxpayer envisaged in Cmnd. 288-II of January was £800 million, whereas as a result of the agreement arrived at, although it was not signed, the burden on the British taxpayer will be between £1.3 billion and £1.4 billion. In those circumstances, would it not have been better for these negotiations to be taken out of the somewhat pliant hands of the Foreign Office and put into the rather more adroit and financially expert hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is right. The main changes between the two documents—made between the draft conclusions and the conclusions as finally agreed—were that the final agreement contained, first, an agreed figure for the growth of the structural funds; secondly, a figure for the own resources ceiling—that is to say, an overall ceiling for all, including agricultural spending; thirdly, the detailed and final arrangements for the agricultural stabilisers on a more stringent basis than proposed by the presidency; and, fourthly, provision for the continuation of the United Kingdom abatement mechanism.
I think that the noble Lord has to agree that we now have a ceiling that will have to last until at least 1992. We have ensured that money for programmes—for example, the structural funds from which this country has been a major beneficiary—cannot be eaten up by agricultural spending.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the documents to which I have referred have since been superseded by a further series of documents issued by the presidency? One that is notable is No. 461/1/88, which is infinitely 1030 more detailed than the agreement arrived at. There is even a further variation that has been sent to me by the European Parliament this morning which purports to be the notes of the presidency and which is described by them as the proceedings.
Is the noble Lord aware that in spite of the more general provisions recorded in the agreement to which he has referred, which were accomplished unanimously, the agreement contains a number of provisions whereby its interpretation is to be subject to qualified majority only?
Is the noble Lord further aware—
Lord Bruce of Donington—that on reading the document further it is quite clear that there will be no satisfactory control over Community expenditure any more than there was at Fontainebleau?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I am surprised to hear the noble Lord say that, because we have insisted that all controls agreed at the European Council must be in legally binding form. Paragraph 18 of the consolidated conclusion states that quite clearly. Legally binding texts are now being prepared.