EC Industry Council: UK Attendance (Hansard, 19 June 1990)

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, although it is usual for a Minister from the DTI to attend meetings of the Industry Council, on this occasion, the business was both uncontroversial and routine, and attendance by a Minister was not necessary. The UK seat was therefore taken by the UK permanent representative to the Community, Sir David Hannay, supported by senior DTI officials.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, while one has a very high regard for the ability of Sir David Hannay, why was it that 10 other member states took a view contrary to that of the United Kingdom Government and were represented by Ministers? Were not the issues affecting the steel industry, small and medium sized enterprises, research and development, and shipbuilding, of sufficient importance for a Minister from this Government to participate in the meeting? Does the Minister share my view that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was being wholly consistent? After all, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment he did not attend a single Environment Council meeting.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I cannot answer for the Ministers of other countries; I can only answer for the Ministers of the United Kingdom. We took the view that the matters were not of sufficient importance to justify the attendance of a Minister. No decisions were taken. The topics to which the noble Lord referred were discussed but only on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission. I am certain that Sir David Hannay was more than adequately qualified to undertake the task on that day.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is it not grossly unfair to pick out one engagement in respect of one Minister in complete ignorance of all the other items of business which the heavy load carried by Ministers today involves? Will my noble friend make clear that his right honourable friend has been carrying a considerable burden and should be free to choose which engagement it is most urgent for him to fulfil?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Equally, it would have been possible for a junior Minister to attend. I should have been happy to attend myself, but it simply was not worth the bother.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is completely dodging the column? It may be that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had more important things to attend to; one could understand that. However, we are not advised what part of the discussions were considered so unimportant that a Minister of our Government need not attend, although Ministers of the other 10 states chose to be there. What were the specific aspects of the agenda—or did it apply to all of them—that were considered too unimportant for a British Minister to be in attendance?

§ Lord Trefgarne
All of them, my Lords!

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, is the Minister not being a little cavalier in his response to the Question, even a little frivolous? Was not the meeting one that other member states of the Community considered important? Does the Secretary of State, who has many burdens—indeed some of them may appear next week—have a rating which he uses to judge whether or not a particular meeting is important? How do Ministers decide, other than on a purely rhetorical basis?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, decisions are taken according to the merits of each specific occasion. This occasion, like all the others, was carefully considered and the decision taken—with which I wholly agree—that the attendance of a Minister was not necessary. No decisions of any kind were taken at the meeting.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, does my noble friend recognise the question for what it is? It is merely a continuation of the unsavoury personal attack upon a particular Minister which has been going on for some considerable time.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, whether or not that is in the minds of noble Lords opposite I cannot say. I recognise that noble Lords opposite, like all noble Lords, are anxious that the United Kingdom should be represented when the occasion demands it. This was not such an occasion.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, will the noble Lord draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the view expressed in this House that one must not be too unkind to Secretaries of State?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, would that Ministers of State were included.

§ Lord John-Mackie
My Lords, the Minister said that there was nothing controversial taking place at the meeting. Will that be the criteria for Ministers attending meetings?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the criteria by which Ministers decide whether or not to attend meetings depends on the topics discussed, whether decisions are to be taken and matters of that kind. Each case is considered on its merits.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, is not the noble Minister's absence from the meeting entirely consistent with the views he expressed regarding the European Community in his Bruges speech?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I believe the noble Lord referred to me; I have not made a Bruges speech.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, the noble Lord to whom I referred was the Secretary of State.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I apologise. I do not think the two are in any way connected. The speech to which the noble Lord refers and about which he questioned me the other day was an extremely important and very worthwhile one.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is completely in error when he says that every Member on this side of the House was unhappy that the Minister did not attend the meeting? Is he aware that there is at least one Member on this side of the House who would prefer that Ministers did not attend any meetings of the EC at all?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I note the view of the noble Lord. I am happy that there is now only one noble Lord who thinks that.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, on reflection will not the Minister consider that it is intolerably arrogant to state to this House that the agenda for the meeting was not worth the bother of a Minister of Her Majesty's Government attending when 10 other Ministers of the allied states considered that it was worth the bother and that there was important business to conduct?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that is not the case at all. Different matters affect different nations in different ways. The United Kingdom did not consider it necessary for a Minister to attend. We considered our interests to be more than adequately represented by Sir David Hannay.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, apart from being frivolous, does the Minister's reply not cause a very great disservice to the interests of this country and the Community? It is also wholly inconsistent with a reply given a few days before the Industry Council by Mr. Douglas Hogg who said, The next meeting of the Industry Council, at which I will be representing the United Kingdom, will be held on 28th May. The provisional agenda proposes discussion on steel, shipbuilding, semi-conductors, small and medium-sized enterprises, and audio-visual matters". What changed?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, a number of changes took place after that Answer was given. As the noble Lord said, it was a draft agenda that my honourable friend referred to. The nature of the discussion became apparent only after that was produced.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, does the noble Lord remember a passage in the memoirs of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in which he referred to a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 1975? The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, noted that the Minister so enjoyed attending meetings that he never had any time for real work.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it is indeed the case that Ministers nowadays have to attend a great many meetings. There is therefore sometimes a balance to be made. On this occasion we judged that the balance lay in not attending.