European Union (Hansard, 15 June 1990)

§ The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, the Government have made very clear their approach both to economic and monetary union and to political union and have had the support of Parliament in doing so. My right honourable friend's speech was, of course, in line with those policies.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the implication of Mr. Ridley's speech is that the Government should repeal the European Communities Act, which committed us to economic and monetary union?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, no, I do not agree, as the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said earlier this week, we hope that there will not be a two-speed Europe. However, Parliament has made 530 very clear its views on Delors Stage III: that it would have nothing to do with ceding that amount of sovereignty. We hope to influence others in our direction in the course of the EMU intergovernmental conference.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, in the light of that reply can the noble Lord explain the reference in the article on the front page of the Independent this morning that that particular section in Mr. Ridley's speech was written by the Prime Minister herself?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it is no part of my duties to explain articles in one newspaper or another. However, I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is fully capable of writing his own speeches.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this was a most excellent speech, setting out the position of this country with great clarity, and that I for one was very glad to read it?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that intervention, with which I happen to agree. One of the problems is that most people who have commented on the speech have not read it. Perhaps I may place a copy in the Library.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, is it not the case that all ministerial speeches on this matter have now to be cleared through No. 10? Was this speech cleared through No. 10?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the process by which my right honourable friend arrives at his own personal views is a matter for him.

§ Lord Mulley
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that—as was certainly the case in the governments in which I had the privilege to serve—it is laid down that all Ministers, when they speak, speak on government policy, despite many signs to the contrary? Secondly, will the noble Lord bring home to his right honourable friends the great importance of our becoming full members of the economic and monetary system and the ERM well before December, when further crucial decisions are due to be made?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, to refer to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, that is another matter. I can assure the noble Lord that the doctrine of collective responsibility is alive and well in this Administration.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, can the noble Lord very kindly explain how it is that a Cabinet Minister can speak personally?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said recently, these are very important matters and there is a good deal of agile thinking going on in the Administration about them.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, was the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary also speaking personally?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, all Ministers speak personally but that does not detract from the doctrine of collective responsibility.

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the duty of a Minister of the Crown is to propose policies that are best for Britain, in preference to any other political entity, just as French Ministers always act in the best interests of France? That being so, is not his right honourable friend to be congratulated on his speech?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lord, I believe that the views of my right honourable friend are very much in accordance with the interests of the United Kingdom and, for that matter, of the European Community as well.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry canvassed the idea of a two-speed Europe and inner and outer circles, was that really consistent with the policy as elucidated by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and other Government Ministers, save perhaps for the Prime Minister? Is it not a case of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, like Prometheus, being totally unbound?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, my right honourable friend did not use the phrase "two-speed Europe" and I hope that the noble Lord will read the speech in full when he has a chance to read the copy that I shall place in the Library.
The key point that my right honourable friend made was that there should be one Europe, a wide and full single market, properly implemented and properly enforced, and without distortions from state aids, barriers to takeovers, etc.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, I ask as one who for many years spoke as a Minister in another place whether it is conceivable that a Cabinet Minister can give a personal view as opposed to a collective view of the Government? Are not the world and all of us entitled to expect that what is said by one Cabinet Minister represents the views of the Government?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that depends upon the circumstances.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that what he said two or three answers ago—"All Ministers speak personally but that does not detract from the doctrine of collective responsibility"—will probably be food for comment and analysis on every level from the trivial and journalistic to the profound and constitutional for a few weeks to come? If so, would he like to take this opportunity of elaborating on that thought?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that is probably the first time in my life that somebody, has said that 532 something I have said will deserve profound and constitutional analysis.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, perhaps I may address this question to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Does he, as a Cabinet Minister himself, support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on ministerial responsibility?

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)
Yes, my Lords; I most certainly do.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State's speech has served to fuel damaging newspaper speculation such as that in the Independent to which my noble friend Lord Tordoff referred earlier, to the effect that an increasingly bitter battle is being fought within the Cabinet on moves toward European economic and monetary union?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I know of no bitter battles going on in the Cabinet, as the noble Lord suggests, although there is often very useful discussion on these issues.