European Council, 13th and 14th December

HL Deb 18 December 1990 vol 524 cc742-51

3.42 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the European Council in Rome on 13th and 14th December. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the European Council in Rome on 13th and 14th December, which I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

"The Council's conclusions have been placed in the Library of the House. After the Council itself I attended a formal joint opening session of the intergovernmental conferences on political union and on economic and monetary union. This was followed by a short working session of each conference attended respectively by my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These meetings were mainly formal and procedural. The conferences will start in earnest in January.

"Five main subjects were dealt with by the European Council: first, political union. On this, the Council reached agreement on a long list of items which are to be considered—and that is the operative word—at the intergovernmental conference on political union. The list includes Britain's proposals for closer co-operation on foreign and security y policy, better implementation of Community decisions, a role for national parliaments in the affairs of the Community, better financial accountability, and observance of the principle of subsidiarity. Other countries have also added items to the list. Some of them we welcome; others are less palatable.

"The key, so far as Britain is concerned, is that the issues have simply been put on the table for discussion. None is agreed. All are for consideration. The conclusions of the Council do not constrain or prejudge the intergovernmental conference's decisions, which have to be reached by unanimity. One of our principal objectives in Rome was thus satisfactorily achieved.

"The second main item was assistance for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Community's aim is to support the economic reforms which President Gorbachev and the Soviet Government are introducing, and to help the Soviet Union make proper use of its own resources. We therefore agreed to make available technical assistance to particular sectors of the Soviet economy, and notably to food distribution. We also endorsed the aim of energy co-operation, in which Britain is particularly well placed to play a part.

"To meet the Soviet Union's short-term needs the Community will provide substantial food aid. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and stressed that there should be guarantees that the food actually reaches those for whom it is intended, and does not undermine attempts to make Soviet agriculture more responsive to the market. These points are reflected in the Council's conclusions.

"The Council also recognised the particular difficulties being experienced by Eastern European countries as they make the transition to democracy and a market economy, while coping simultaneously with sharp increases in oil prices and the change to hard currency trading. The Community will contribute, along with other Western countries and the international financial institutions, to meeting their financing requirements. It will also provide emergency aid to Bulgaria and Romania, in the form of food and medicines.

"Thirdly, the Council discussed the GATT negotiations. It called on all parties to show the necessary political will to reach a satisfactory agreement and asked the Commission as the Community's negotiator to be in touch with other participants in order to resolve remaining problems. This refers to agriculture in particular.

"We thus achieved another of our main objectives; namely, to ensure that heads of government dealt fully with the difficulties in the GATT negotiations and gave a strong signal of the Community's resolve to see a successful outcome. I hope other countries will show themselves no less willing to make progress.

"Fourthly, the Council dealt with the situation in the Gulf and agreed an admirably firm statement. This shows the Community as firmly committed as ever to ensuring Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of the legitimate government. The statement makes particular reference to Security Council Resolution 678 which envisages the possible use of force if attempts to resolve matters peacefully have not succeeded by 15th January.

"The Council's discussions made clear that the Twelve do not accept any linkage whatsoever between Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait and progress on other Middle Eastern issues. Saddam Hussein must not gain from his aggression.

"Lastly, the Council welcomed the changes which President de Klerk has, with Mr. Mandela, brought about in South Africa. It also decided to lift with immediate effect the voluntary ban on new investment in South Africa. That is a step which Britain has been urging for many months. I know the decision will be most welcome to Members on this side of the House. The Community is committed to lift other restrictive measures as soon as the South African Government takes certain additional steps which it has already promised to do.

"I underline the importance of this move by the Community, which will encourage further reform and political progress in South Africa. I hope Europe's example will rapidly be followed by others.

"For the sake of completeness, Mr. Speaker, I should make two further points. First, the European Council reaffirmed its determination to complete the single market on time. Secondly, the Council did not discuss economic and monetary union on this occasion. But my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced that we shall very shortly table draft treaty amendments to give effect to Britain's proposals for a hard ecu and a European monetary fund.

"The Council was marked by a positive and co-operative spirit—despite some subsequent remarks—and by a willingness on the part of all member states to work for solutions which will enable us to go forward as Twelve. There is no doubt that there will be difficult discussions ahead in both the intergovernmental conferences. It would be foolish to deny that. But the Government's aim will be to work for agreements which are acceptable to this House and match both Britain's interests and those of Europe as a whole. We made a good start in Rome".

My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.

3.50 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. This second summit in Rome was both interesting and important. It is clear that the proceedings were conducted in a friendly atmosphere. To that extent it was an improvement on most recent summits. The big question is whether it gives promise of closer understanding and co-operation in the future. That is particularly important as the Government approach the January meetings of the two IGCs on EMU and political union.

I note the reference to political union, which is of the first importance, especially to the British Parliament. A number of key items are to be considered and they are on the table for discussion without prior agreement. Will the noble Lord confirm that major decisions—for example, the role of this Parliament and other parliaments in Community affairs—will be fully debated in both Houses before a final conclusion is reached?

We welcome the general aim to support the efforts being made by President Gorbachev to find a stabilising economic policy in the Soviet Union. Can the noble Lord tell the House what contribution this country will make towards the wide-ranging assistance to be provided? Does he agree that we in this country have an efficient agricultural industry which could provide experts to advise and help the Soviet Union in its present grave predicament?

The noble Lord will be aware of the dismay and anxiety of all Members of this House about the breakdown of the GATT round. It does not appear that any agreement on the matter was reached in Rome. The Statement is sparse about the steps to be taken. When in the Statement the Prime Minister states that heads of government dealt fully with GATT, does he mean that conclusions were reached? Are any further meetings to be held to break the deadlock which appears to exist? The Statement does not refer to the deadlock but gives the impression that the difficulties are over. The noble Lord could help the House by confirming that immense difficulties have yet to be overcome.

We welcome the unity of the European Community governments on the Gulf crisis. I note that the initiative reportedly being taken to arranging a meeting between the Italian President of the European Community and Mr. Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, is not reported in the Statement. However, its importance is so great that it will be interesting to know whether there is any foundation for the report and, if so, whether there has been any response from Baghdad.

The Statement refers to EMU, which was not discussed in Rome. Are the Government still firmly against a single currency, however gradual the move towards it may be? Do the Government believe that the amendments that the Chancellor is now drafting to introduce a hard ecu and a European monetary fund are likely to be acceptable to the majority of EC countries?

Is the noble Lord aware that we must look carefully at the proposals for South Africa? We must ascertain whether sufficient progress has been made to justify the lifting of the ban on new investments referred to in the Statement. There must be some doubt about that matter at present and we shall need to debate it in the House in due course. I too hope that substantial reforms will be made soon. Furthermore, I hope that the conference will lead to more constructive debates which will not unduly upset M. Delors.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, will the Leader of the House accept that one former President of the European Commission takes a more enthusiastic view of Mr. Major's performance in Rome than M. Delors appeared to take? I do not believe that Jacques Delors's comments should cause too much excitement; nor should they be used to treat him as one of the ogres a former Foreign Secretary, in what now seems an age away, asked the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, not to create in Europe.

I listened to the President of the Commission on Sunday and was sympathetically struck, remembering vividly my experience in that respect. It is dangerous to undertake a spontaneous interview in a language in which one is not an absolute master. It is so easy to say too little or too much. I am doubtful about whether the hard ecu will run. I do not believe that it obviates the disadvantages that we suffer compared with Japan or the United States in having 11 different currencies in an increasingly closely integrated Community of twelve members. However, there is no reason why those issues should not be studied and argued about in the intergovernmental conference.

In view of past, recent experience it is understandable, however, that others may be suspicious that what Britain wants is not a constructive alternative solution but to see the whole enterprise run into the sand. Mr. Major has made considerable progress towards dissipating such suspicions. I believe that atmosphere is important. However, he still has some way to go and must move from atmosphere into substance. Nonetheless, I agree with the Statement that a good start was made in Rome and I greatly welcome that.

3.57 p.m.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, it is right to say that the atmosphere in Rome was friendly, and there is a real prospect of success in the IGCs. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether in the context of the debates about political union the role of this Parliament will be debated. The answer must be yes. He also asked about the contribution that will be made by this country towards the assistance to be given to the Soviet Union. We consider that we are able to make a considerable contribution, particularly as regards technical assistance in the field of energy.

As regards the GATT round there can be no question of agreement being reached in Rome. Agreement depends on the agreement of parties who are not present in Rome. The Ministers at the Council in Rome instructed the Commission to be in touch with the other participants in order to make the greatest possible effort to procure agreement.

As the Statement made clear, the Council did not discuss economic and monetary union as such. However, my right honourable friend made clear that in due course the British Government will present their proposals for the hard ecu. We believe that an imposed single currency is not on. If the market-driven common currency approach is successful the hard ecu could in due course become a single currency.

I do not believe that anyone will deny that progress has been made in South Africa. That was recognised by the Council. It is hoped that progress will continue to be made as further important initiatives are taken by the South African Government.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his remarks. Certainly he gave a timely warning to us all about spontaneous interviews. I do not believe that one should take too seriously remarks attributed to the President of the Commission because I repeat that the atmosphere at the council was extremely friendly and helpful. There is every reason to believe that the intergovernmental conferences which are now to begin in earnest will yield fruit. There is no reason why our proposals for the hard ecu should not receive a friendly and favourable reception from our partners in the Community.

4 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the delicate nature of the discussions which will shortly take place as a prelude to the intergovernmental conferences may provoke a considerable amount of political controversy as between the heads of member states and, indeed, within the member states themselves. When reflecting upon possible revisions to the treaty, will the Government consider tabling the appropriate amendment to Article 157 of the Treaty of Rome which lays down the standards of conduct expected from individual commissioners? Will he make it clear that remark s such as: "If we need to provoke a second political crisis, we will do so", are not acceptable? Nor is it acceptable for any member of the Commission to act in a partisan political campaign against proposals put for ward in good faith by any member state. Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will remember the provisions of Article 158 of the Treaty of Rome which provide for the renewal of individual commissioners' mandates which are not automatically given?

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I do not believe that I can add to what I said a few moments ago. Perhaps it is not profitable to dwell for too long upon remarks made by individuals which may have been rather ill-considered. The point is that a shopping list was put forward by all the member states, a whole series of subjects was raised for discussion and now we must wait to see how those substantive discussions proceed.

Lord Rippon of Hexham

My Lords, I congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleagues on the very successful outcome of the Rome summit. Does my noble friend agree that the issues raised in a 30-page communiqué will take many months and possibly years to consider?

As regards the subsequent remarks which were referred to, perhaps we may note with some satisfaction that the President of the Commission is reported today to have said that his reference to a political crisis did not refer only to the United Kingdom but may have applied to other countries. Is it agreed that other countries may also be proposing amendments to the draft treaty?

Lord Waddington

My Lords, my noble friend has been helpful in drawing attention to the most recent statement by the President of the Commission. I understand that nobody is expecting the discussions which are to take place in each of the intergovernmental conferences to last for less than most of next year. Any amendments to the treaty are not expected to be ratified by the member states until a year after that. Therefore, it will be a long process.

Lord Mason of Barnsley

My Lords, as a pro-European, is the Minister aware that I should want him to strongly assert that we are on the train to political and economic union within Europe? However, we reserve the right to apply the brakes if we believe that the train is travelling at ruinous or breakneck speed. Secondly, I do not wish the Leader of the House to be on the defensive regarding Delors. Is he aware that bungler Delors should be informed that his foolish outburst has united the anti-Europeans, much to the detriment of those who wish to see a united and co-operative attitude on the developments within the EC? Delors should be so informed. His spoken word cannot be unsaid.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I do not know whether the President of the Commission reads Hansard but I am quite sure that any expressions of opinion emerging from the press or this House will be drawn to his attention. The point about political union is that it is a process. At the council it was agreed that we should not define the final goal and the progress towards political union must respect fundamental national identities and institutions.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the spirit of that part of the Statement which lays down that any future discussions will take fully into account British as well as separate European interests was not completely reflected in the long interview which the governor of the Bank of England gave on Sunday? Will he give an assurance to this House that it is the spirit of the Statement and not the spirit which seemed to come from that interview given in his native tongue which will be the basis of any future action which we may take?

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the long conclusions, a copy of which have now been placed in the Library of the House, bear careful examination. A shopping list was drawn up and no agreement was reached which could cause anxiety to my noble friend.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, I join in welcoming the improved atmosphere which, it has been noted, was apparent at this conference. I welcome also the assistance promised to the central and East European countries which have suffered and are suffering acutely from increased oil prices which gravely affect their advance towards political democracy.

That having been said, while I understand the need to secure guarantees that aid to Russia is delivered to those to whom it is intended, the problems of the USSR are problems of distribution rather than anything else. On the other hand, in offering emergency aid to Romania I believe that most stringent guarantees should be insisted upon to see that that aid is not absorbed by the present administration whose auspices are, to say the least of it, extremely dubious. There should be guarantees that that aid will be distributed to those who need it.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right. It seems that there is no general food shortage in the Soviet Union but there are acute distribution difficulties. We pressed successfully for a technical assistance package which will cover transport and distribution of foodstuffs. It is important to give short-term humanitarian help to the Soviet Union. There is no point in giving that help if it does not reach the people who need it.

I take the point made by the noble Lord about aid to Romania and Bulgaria which is emergency aid for food and medical help. I am sure that every possible step will be taken to see that that aid goes to the people whom it is intended to help.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that although of course we congratulate Mr. Major on a relatively quiet summit conference, we have become used to somewhat emollient statements about what has been agreed? Can we be assured that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that they continue to have control of the currency, that they will not agree to an independent central bank and that they will ensure that vital decisions concerning monetary, economic and fiscal policy continue to be taken by Her Majesty's Government and Parliament?

Secondly, as regards Mr. Jacques Delors, who seems to be an insufferable autocrat who wishes no less than the sovietisation of Western Europe, people in this country are offended by a top European civil servant appearing to threaten this country if it does not do certain things and goes even further and threatens to take action to undermine and destabilise the position of the Prime Minister.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, it is perhaps right that the House should take note of the helpful remarks made by my noble friend. Regarding monetary union, I was very careful in the remarks I made a short time ago. An imposed single currency is not on. If, having embarked on a common currency approach, that approach is successful, then in due course the hard ecu could become a single currency. That is the way we believe we should proceed.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, perhaps it might be as well to remind the House that we do not normally attack civil servants who cannot reply for themselves, particularly when they have been appointed by the head of this Government. In the case of Monsieur Delors I believe an explanation was given in today's press that he was not attacking the United Kingdom. Perhaps it would be better if we did not in this House, or any other House, attack a man attempting to do a job on behalf of the Community.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I have never met the gentleman who has been referred to so often this afternoon. I am always hesitant in criticising someone I do not know.

Lord Monson

My Lords, in view of the oblique digs that have predictably been made in one or two quarters against the right honourable lady who was Prime Minister until a few weeks ago, perhaps I might ask the Leader of the House a question. Although the response, "No, no, no" may not always be the appropriate one in regard to EC proposals—I believe however it was the appropriate response to the over-zealous proposals made a month ago—would the noble Lord agree that the question, "Why, why, why?" is not only appropriate but always essential? There is nothing to be said for change for the sake of change. Therefore, every single proposal emanating from Brussels should be examined with the proverbial toothcomb to see whether it is in the interests of the British people and accords with their culture and traditions.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I find it very difficult to disagree with the remarks of the noble Lord. We attach a great deal of importance to the principle of subsidiarity. Indeed, we were one of the first to suggest that that principle should be written into the treaty. It is certainly no wish of the British Government to see the Community taking a greater part in affairs which can be better dealt with by the individual governments of the Community.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, will my noble friend the Leader of the House say whether or not I am right in detecting from reports of what occurred in Rome a movement by the heads of some governments — notably the French Government—towards the view that the way to strengthen the Community and abolish democratic deficit is to strengthen the position of national governments and national parliaments? It is not to strengthen the role of the Commission. Is not that the conflict which underlies the problem referred to regarding the present president? Could not Hansard be graced to sum up the opinions of this House with three French words, alors, Delors, sors!

Lord Waddington

My Lords, a short time ago I too referred to a shopping list, and on the shopping list is the role of national parliaments. There certainly were some at the Council who believed we should not forget the important role that national parliaments can play in future developments.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, in reference to the paragraph regarding the Gulf crisis, whether he can confirm that the Statement sets out the Community's view that Security Council Resolution 678 permits military action but does not make it either mandatory or certain? I ask that question because this afternoon I heard the Prime Minister say that there will be military action after 15th January if there is no solution. I hope that that was a slip of the tongue. I should like the noble Lord to confirm whether that is the view of Her Majesty's Government and the Community.

On the same issue will the noble Lord advise the House whether there was any discussion in Rome concerning the strengthening and tightening of sanctions against Saddam Hussein? Military action will almost certainly destroy what is left of Kuwait and the Kuwaitis. Sanctions are already weakening Saddam Hussein's military forces. Was there any discussion on tightening them still further thus giving time to reduce the result of the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait?

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I can only invite the attention of the noble Lord to the declaration on the Gulf crisis, which is Annexe 1 to the presidency conclusions. It begins, The European Community and its member states remain firmly committed to full implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions. Complete Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty and of its legitimate government remain the absolute conditions for a peaceful solution of the crisis".

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, the noble Lord rightly stressed Her Majesty's Government's addiction to their route towards a common currency through the hard ecu. I hope that his talk of an imposed currency does not rule out supporting a negotiated path towards a single currency which is considered by industrialists in this country to be desirable.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I stated quite firmly the British Government's position. It is obvious that a single currency is not something one can impose on the Parliament of this country. However, I repeat that European monetary union was not discussed at the Council.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, with respect the noble Lord did not answer my question. Perhaps he would be kind enough to repeat that section of the Statement—just the first sentence—regarding the Gulf crisis and reference to Security Council Resolution 678.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I believe I clearly answered the question. I would be wasting the time of the House if I repeated the answer.