HL Deb 18 November 1991 vol 532 cc704-6

3 p.m.

Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether in the light of recent developments they will now consider withdrawing from the intergovernmental conferences on economic and monetary union and political union.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, the Government have played a full and constructive role in both inter-governmental conferences in order to ensure that the future development of the Community reflects Britain's fundamental interests. The Government will not withdraw from the negotiations, nor will they sign any agreement which does not safeguard those concerns.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Have the Government given consideration to some of the problems which exist at the moment and which could lead them into an almost impossible situation? For example, if war should break out —as it may well do with Iraq—our independent position on the Security Council may be challenged. Have the Government also considered the views expressed by many Commonwealth countries, particularly Australia? Are the Government going to answer some of the grave apprehensions of those countries were we to become completely tied up in the forthcoming conferences? The Commonwealth has always stood by us and I believe that those countries are worthy of our consideration.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I shall deal with I he noble Lord's second question first. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is in regular touch with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. That is the avenue through which these matters are discussed. As regards incidents in the world in general, the conference at Maastricht will discuss stronger co-ordination of common foreign policy and impose a stronger commitment to a common foreign policy. That said, we keep an independent foreign policy.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that over the past month or so the Government have given conflicting signs as to their hopes of agreement at Maastricht? Is he further aware that that has caused great confusion? We would like to be able to support the Government at Maastricht, but until they are clearer as to the range of policies involved it is very difficult to give them support. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that when the Prime Minister speaks in the debate in another place this week he will be more clear about the main point; which will have to be decided if the Government are to sign the treaty at Maastricht?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, we expect to reach agreement at Maastricht, but substantial differences remain. The United Kingdom continues to negotiate constructively. We must keep our hand in those negotiations. We hope and expect to find ways forward which are acceptable to Parliament and to our European partners. I think I should say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, that we have nothing against brisk debate among our supporters on matters of such importance and that, so far as the noble Lord's party is concerned, as regards increased Community competence, there is no Labour Party policy. Where immigration and asylum are concerned there is no Labour Party policy. Where qualified majority voting is concerned there is no Labour Party policy. There is no Labour Party policy as regards a common foreign policy.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Commission officials in Brussels are already openly discussing future inter-governmental conferences? They are saying in effect that if Maastricht does not give the Commission what it wants in the form of a super state, they will call further inter-governmental conferences until their mission is accomplished. In those circumstances does the Minister agree that it would be wise for Her Majesty's Government to invoke the Luxembourg compromise while the right still exists and call a meeting of all 12 member countries independent of the Commission so that they can jointly agree what action should be taken to curb the powers of the Commission?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will be read carefully by my colleagues. I am pleased to tell him that the basic structure of Luxembourg is what we are returning to. That, as the noble Lord said, was broadly acceptable. However, there remain a large number of elements which the Government have argued against. Those include references to a federal goal, immigration policy within Community competence, qualified majority voting on foreign policy, extension of Community competence in the social area, enhanced powers for the European Parliament in the legislative field, and other matters.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, how can the noble Lord say that there is no Labour Party policy on Europe when we constantly have the benefit of these ex cathedra pronunciations from the noble Lords, Lord Molloy and Lord Bruce of Donington?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has me rarely stumped.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, does my noble friend recognise the desire of the leaders of the new united Germany to use these conferences to ensure that the prospect of economic might for their country never again leads them into temptation to use military might to achieve European hegemony? Does my noble friend agree that that alone is a very good reason for Britain to continue to play its full part in these crucial conferences?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, with Germany, as with the rest of our Community conferences, I believe that there is an immense amount of goodwill.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the proposals which will go before Maastricht are very serious? Did he see reports of the proposal from the Dutch this weekend that British people will be expected to have an allegiance to the EC or this new unitary form of government, which would affect their allegiance to Her Majesty? Before that happens, do the Government agree that we should have a referendum among the people?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, we have no proposals for a referendum. I note what the noble Lord has said.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, perhaps I may ask—

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington)

My Lords, 38 minutes have elapsed.