HL Deb 14 December 1992 vol 541 cc403-16

3.44 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)

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 Edinburgh European Council on 11th and 12th December. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council in Edinburgh on 11th and 12th December. My right honourable friends, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I represented the United Kingdom.

"Let me first pay a warm tribute to the City of Edinburgh for their welcome, their first-rate organisation and the good-humoured way in which they accepted the necessary disruption of hosting such a big event.

"On the agenda of the European Council were a series of interlocking issues: the economic situation in the Community and our proposed strategy for growth and jobs; the need to find a solution for Denmark's problems following her first referendum; the financing of the Community until the end of the century; the need to remove the block on the opening of enlargement negotiations with Sweden, Finland and Austria; the issues of subsidiarity and openness; the long-standing issue of the site of a number of Community institutions. Beyond the Community, there were pressing issues to discuss on Macedonia and on Yugoslavia more generally.

"We reached the following agreements. First, the European Council agreed on the growth initiative put forward by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Community is on target to complete the single market (the world's largest free trade area) by the end of the British Presidency. We are continuing to work for an early GATT settlement. And—in line with our own deregulation initiative—there was agreement on the need to reduce Community burdens on business.

"The European Council agreed to establish a new lending facility within the European Investment Bank to finance infrastructure projects throughout the Community, especially in the fields of transport, energy and telecommunications. This investment will be worth up to £7 billion over the next two years. The council also agreed to set up a new European investment fund to guarantee loans for investment in trans-European networks and to small and medium sized enterprises. These guarantees can support projects worth up to £17 billion.

"Additionally, member states agreed, following the pattern of our own Autumn Statement, to give priority to capital spending and encourage private investment; to keep the public sector wage bill under tight control; to cut subsidies and increase competition. We have all agreed to pursue the prudent policies that will control inflation and create the conditions for lower interest rates across Europe.

"Overall, the initiative proposed by my right honourable friend could support up to £24 billion worth of projects. It will help to boost confidence, support new investment, and encourage business to create jobs throughout the Community.

"Secondly, we agreed a solution to the issues raised by the Danish Government following their referendum. The solution is binding in international law. It does not in any way change the Maastricht Treaty or require a new round of ratifications in member states. It provides an interpretation of the Treaty which Prime Minister Schlüter believes will enable him to hold a second referendum in Denmark in the spring. It has been welcomed by all seven parties who drafted the original Danish document.

"Thirdly, we have achieved an agreement which freezes Community spending until 1995. Until then there will be no increase in the expenditure ceiling. Thereafter, it allows a gradual increase up to 1999. The overall increase is far smaller over seven years than the increase agreed over five years in 1988. It is less than half that originally proposed by the Commission. Moreover, the special rebate for Britain (which brings back about £2 billion a year to this country) is unchanged and is now guaranteed for the rest of the century. Even then, it could not be changed without our agreement.

"Fourthly, negotiations for entry into the Community will start straightaway with Sweden, Finland and Austria, with Norway to follow shortly afterwards. Work will also start to prepare the Visegrad countries of eastern Europe for EC membership, an aim endorsed by the council for the first time. This is a breakthrough in the attitude of our partners and prepares the way for a a far wider Community stretching across eastern Europe.

"Fifthly, the council agreed a package of measures to reverse centralisation. The Edinburgh statement makes it clear that national decisions should be the rule and Brussels action the exception. The Commission also produced two lists of measures: first, proposals which fail the subsidiarity test and will be dropped or changed; secondly, a list of Community laws which the Commission believes must be simplified or abolished. Further proposals for reducing the burden of legislation will follow.

"Sixthly, as we said we would do at Birmingham, we have put together a package of measures to open up the Community to scrutiny by the people of Europe. The Commission will consult more widely before making proposals. This will include the publication of green papers to allow an input by member states before formal proposals come forward.

"Seventhly, on the sites of institutions, we have signed a decision confirming the sites and working arrangements for all the main Community institutions. This settles a problem that has bedevilled the Community for over 30 years. The number of Members of the European Parliament increases by 49 to 567, to reflect in particular the growth in the population of Germany from 61 million to nearly 80 million following unification. Under this arrangement Britain, France and Italy will each have six more Members of the European Parliament. Weighted voting in the Council of Ministers remains unchanged with Britain, France, Italy and Germany retaining 10 votes each.

"We needed to solve all these issues if the Community was to regain its confidence. But these were far from the only issues on our minds. Macedonia could be a tinder-box for a wider Balkan conflict. At this meeting we were able to agree to unblock European Community and international economic assistance to Macedonia, which will help provide stability. We unreservedly backed the UN's plan to put a battalion of soldiers in Macedonia to monitor the peace there. We gave our support to putting a similar UN monitoring force in Kosovo. In Bosnia, we have called for the Security Council to examine systematically the operation of the no fly zone. We believe the first step should be for the UN to draw up a report on violations of the zone.

"Madam Speaker, I believe the majority of people in this country want us to make a success of our membership of the European Community. That is not a matter of idealism, it is a matter of hard-headed self-interest. Anyone who looks objectively at what has been agreed under the British Presidency, and at this European Council in particular, can take pride in Britain's achievement.

"The Community has reached decisions on issues which many thought were insoluble. It has come together again as 12 member states with a common purpose. It has solved many of its own most intractable problems. It has prepared the way for enlargement. It has made itself more responsive to public opinion. It is tackling the most urgent problems within our own continent. It has taken concerted action which will offer hope for growth and employment.

"These are all substantial results—good for the European Community as a whole and good for this country—and I commend the outcome unreservedly to the House".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.53 p.m.

Lord Richard

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. It was an important weekend and it is an important Statement. It should be considered carefully by this House. Of course, we welcome parts of the communiqué. For example, we believe it highly desirable that an attempt should have been made to enable the Danish people to express their view in a further referendum. To that end the agreement on the Danish position is, as I say, to be welcomed. But I ask the noble Lord what the Government now see as the linkage between the Danish vote and the future development of the Community as regards Britain.

Can it be right, as the Foreign Secretary seems to have said yesterday, that if Denmark again voted "no" we would have nothing further to do with any alternative Maastricht arrangements, even if the other 10—if I understood what was said correctly—proposed to go ahead and implement them? Can that really be right or sensible? Is that indeed what the Government are saying about the Danish second referendum? If that is the position, it would seem to me we would gain the worst of all possible worlds. We would gain the world of isolation as the other 10 carry on and we would gain impotence as being totally unable to influence what was then going to be done.

It may be that the Foreign Secretary, perhaps incautiously, said something that perhaps he should not have said. However, if that is the Government's position it is important that the House should be told that clearly today so that we can judge the rest of the Statement against that. What is the relationship now between the Danish referendum and the passage of the Maastricht Bill through Parliament? If, perchance, the Danish referendum were to be held in advance of May —say, in March or April—would that mean a corresponding acceleration of the parliamentary timetable?

However, as regards Denmark, with the qualification I have just expressed, I think one can say "so far so good". But the Statement also adds: The solution is binding in international law". How is that to be? As I understand the position, it is said that the Danish parts of the communiqué, in the agreement that has been reached by the European Council, does not affect the provisions of the treaty. How is it to be enforceable in international law? How, indeed, is it to be justiciable?

I turn now to another point in the communiqué: the decision on the opening of negotiations with some of the EFTA countries. We welcome that. It is timely and sensible. It is right that the Community, after spending so much time in contemplating its own navel, should now perhaps again be turning outwards and looking at some of the greater problems that face the world. I also welcome what has been said about the countries of Eastern Europe. They have been waiting for a signal and I think it is right that that signal should now be given.

The Statement mentions GATT. I would say to the noble Lord that what the communiqué actually says about GATT is, to put it mildly, somewhat vague. There is a slightly ominous last sentence in the communiqué which states that any agreement in relation to the GATT must be judged as a whole. That is, of course, true. But that is either a platitude, in which case it did not need saying, or it means something, in which case it is important that we know what it means. Was the French opposition to the agricultural agreement persisted in at Edinburgh when GATT was discussed, or was it modified? It would be useful for the House to be informed.

I also welcome the words on Yugoslavia. It is sensible to attempt to agree a joint position. It is right that we should condemn the atrocious behaviour of some members of the Serbian forces in Bosnia.

Having welcomed parts of the communiqué, and parts of the agreement, I now touch on some matters to which I am not so welcoming. As regards subsidiarity, of course it is desirable that subsidiarity should be redefined, clarified and fined down so that we all know what it means. I read the document with great interest, particularly in the light of the recent comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. She has told me two or three times in the past few weeks that the sections on subsidiarity should be justiciable. I am not quite sure how they will be justiciable. As far as I can see from a brief reading of the communiqué, the section on subsidiarity amounts to a declaration as to how the Council will behave in the future and how the Commission will view its task in the future. I should be grateful for some clarification from the noble Lord as to how those sections on subsidiarity will be justiciable. I also note with a slightly ironic smile that if one looks at the sections of the communiqué on this matter one finds a statement which is of interest, certainly to me.

I now turn to the only mention, as far as I can tell, of social policy in the whole document. It states: the Commission considers that the group of directives based on Article 118a of the Treaty is too recent to warrant re-examination. Instead its priority"— that is, the priority of the Commission— will be to supplement them [the recent directives] by implementing all the provisions of the Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers". I am delighted to see that provision in the document. I hope that the Government, by agreeing on that inclusion in the document and also by accepting the general thrust of what the Commission has said about subsidiarity, have given a sign that their previous quite absurd opposition to the Social Charter in any shape or form is beginning to weaken. It goes on to say: However, early steps will have to be taken to simplify and codify the body of older regulations on the free movement of workers". Will the Government be participating in those discussions on communications from the Commission on those important items? Or is that part of the opt-out and therefore Britain will not participate but will allow the other 11 countries to come to a decision? I should be grateful for further clarification on that point.

Finally, people will judge the summit and the Statement on their relevance to their problems. The main problems which many people in Europe now face in increasing numbers are those of unemployment and job opportunities. On that score the communiqué fails. A growth rate of 1 per cent. is forecast for next year and unemployment is forecast to rise above 11 per cent. Against that background, where is the programme for the revival of economic growth and the stimulation of employment? It is not there. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell the House whether the figures mentioned relate to new money on the table or whether it is to be merely increased credits from the European Investment Bank? I think that it is the latter rather than the former. We are told that an increase of credits of the order of £6 billion somehow or other could have the effect of supporting £24 billion in new investment. Presumably that will come mainly from the private sector. In terms of producing a programme to combat the major problems facing the countries of the European Community at present—namely, unemployment and job opportunities—the summit has failed.

Having made the journey once a month for four years, it is a matter of some personal regret that the Government seem to have caved in to the French demand that the site of the European Parliament should be permanently in Strasbourg. It makes no sense for people to be shuttling up and down the Belgium-Luxemburg-France corridor and I am sorry that the Government agreed to it.

I give the Statement a partial welcome, but on the main issue facing Europe I am afraid that the summit did not do what it should have done.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated the Statement. It is a considerable relief that this meeting of the European Council has gone as well as it has. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on his part in securing that result, as are the other European leaders, and most notably Chancellor Kohl. The Prime Minister carried the responsibility of the chairmanship and he appears to be at his best in a gathering of that dimension. That is a national asset at a time when we do not have many national assets.

However, I hope that, in the absence of a pending election, the Prime Minister will spare us, as he has in the Statement, any such triumphalist note as he mistakenly struck after Maastricht. This is not, and it was not then, game set and match. However, it does offer an opportunity to stop the rot in Europe. It solves a number of problems which have existed for some time. I hope that it will encourage the Government to proceed with the ratification of the treaty.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I must also raise the remarks made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary, which I find mystifying. They were uncharacteristically gratuitous. The prospect of a favourable result to a second Danish referendum now seems reasonably good but no one can be certain. However, it is certainly not necessary for the Foreign Secretary to announce in advance that we would stand aside from anything which the other 10 members did were those circumstances to arise. I should like the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal to tell us how that could be reconciled with the concluding part of the Prime Minister's Statement this afternoon about Britain's hard-headed interests. I am not sure why he had to dismiss idealism: a little idealism, accompanied by hard-headed realism, often does no harm.

I should like to hear the Lord Privy Seal explain how that can be reconciled with the concluding part of the Statement or with the policy of "Britain at the heart of Europe". Is it not putting the whole future orientation of this country at the mercy of what could be another narrow Danish vote? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give some reassurance. It is not necessary to cross a bridge, particularly in the wrong direction, long before one comes to it.

In conclusion, I say to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal that if the Government, together with their partners, could build on the cautious steps taken towards a concerted policy for European recovery and economic growth I believe that that would do more than anything else to improve the popular climate in which the Government seek to pursue their European policy.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for welcoming parts of the Statement and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for welcoming most of the Statement. I shall do my best to answer the questions which both noble Lords raised.

I shall deal first with the position with regard to Denmark. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that it is not necessary to cross bridges before we come to them, particularly if we cross them in the wrong direction. I shall certainly take his advice. My understanding of the position is that we are confident that the Danes will ratify the treaty and that the referendum will be resolved satisfactorily. Of course that is a matter for them, but the Danish Government and the opposition parties in Denmark all support the deal which was concluded at Edinburgh.

My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made the point that it is highly desirable that the EC moves forward as 12 members. I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Richard, will agree that that is highly desirable and that the Maastricht Treaty cannot proceed unless all members ratify it. We are confident that the Danes will do so and also that we shall. I do not believe that I can pursue that matter further.

So far as concerns the timing of the passage of the Bill in another place, I do not believe that what happened at Edinburgh necessarily alters the position. The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that these matters have to proceed at a measured pace, and they will proceed at a measured pace. We are anxious for the Bill to go through, subject to proper consultations and discussions within another place before it comes to this House, where it will again be subject to scrutiny.

The arrangements which were entered into in respect of Denmark are legally binding decisions which give the Danes assurances on matters which were raised in their referendum. They are interpretations of the treaty, and as part of a legally binding agreement they would be justiciable in the European Court of Justice.

On the question of enlargement, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned what I believe to be one of the most significant matters in the Statement; namely, that the European Council agreed for the first time that negotiations will begin on membership for Poland and Hungary. That is a policy which was first talked of by my noble friend Lady Thatcher some time ago. The fact that that has been taken on board by the European Council is an extremely welcome development.

With regard to GATT, it is tremendously important that a settlement is reached. The position did not change particularly at the Edinburgh Summit. The next stage of the negotiations is the discussions at Geneva which will take place very shortly. We are most anxious to achieve a satisfactory solution there.

With regard to subsidiarity the position is quite clear. Clear guidelines were agreed at Edinburgh about the application of the "subsidiarity" test. There will be rigorous new criteria that the Community will act only where member states agree that it should do so. As M. Delors says, national powers are the rule; Community action is the exception. I believe that that indicates a change in Commission psychology and demonstrates that progress has been made, but when the agreement is finally signed that and the Danish question will be justiciable before the international court.

As to social policy, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was a touch unfair in his comments particularly in relation to the United Kingdom's record in that regard. According to the latest Commission report the United Kingdom is the only member state to have implemented all 22 Community social measures. Twenty-five of the 40 measures tabled under the Social Action Programme have been agreed, including measures on health and safety, free movement of labour, training practices, equal opportunities and employee rights. The United Kingdom has not blocked a single proposal under that programme. The United Kingdom supports the concept of a social dimension to the Community but believes very strongly that subsidiarity must be respected and has a prime role in the diversity of member states. Social policy must be designed to help not damage employment. The United Kingdom will continue to oppose measures which go against that criterion, but our record is a very good one.

With regard to the free movement of persons, the European Council noted that member states had indicated their intention to take various measures to lighten the controls on EC nationals at national borders, but the treaty did not affect our ability to impose immigration controls on third country nationals.

If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, seemed to depart from the usual moderate way in which he put points. To dismiss a new European growth initiative to encourage £25 billion worth of extra investment over the next few years as something of no great account seems to me to be not very reasonable. There are a number of elements, many of which mirror United Kingdom Government policy as set out in the Autumn Statement. It is a 10-point strategy, the main point of which is a new lending facility within the European Investment Bank to finance projects. It will be able to lend up to 75 per cent. of the value of projects instead of the normal 50 per cent. There will be extra investment of about £6 billion; a new European fund for investment in trans-European networks to guarantee loans particularly for small and medium-sized businesses; and additional resources for investment in transport energy, particularly in the poorer regions of the Community. I would have thought that that was a very significant move in the right direction to bring back economic growth and jobs within the Community.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, according to press reports, in order to secure the agreement of the Spanish representatives it was necessary to increase certain Community expenditures. I ask my noble friend to confirm whether or not that is so. If it is the case, perhaps he will tell us the sum of money involved.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The Community budget is to be held at its present level of 1.2 per cent. of own resources for the next two years. There will then be a modest rise to 1.27 per cent. in 1999. That has to be compared with the Commission's original suggestion of 1.37 per cent. in 1997. The increase in 1999 will represent a sum equal to 0.1 per cent. of total public expenditure.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister to touch a little more on the very important subject of Bosnia.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I should like to speak from this side of the House.

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, may be permitted to finish his question and then the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, can speak next.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to expand on the information about Bosnia. I understand from the Financial Times that the systematic rape of Moslem women in Bosnia has been condemned. The Summit Statement of these great men says that they will ask the United Nations to draw up a report on the situation. Surely something more was said; surely a signal that the Western Union were prepared to use force to enforce the no-fly zone could have been sent. Up to now the Serbs have been encouraged by the lack of action. Reports like this —that the United Nations should be urged to draw up a report—must surely result in more atrocities by the Serbs in Bosnia.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I seek to explain to the noble Lord what I understand to have been agreed at Edinburgh as far as Yugoslavia is concerned. There was a declaration that made clear that the primary responsibility for the war rested with the Serbs, the particular victims being Bosnian Moslems. There was a declaration that favoured the creation of safe havens for Bosnian Moslems. The United Nations Security Council was urged to reconsider the use of all reasonable means to enforce a no-fly zone over Bosnia and to set up a special monitoring team to investigate allegations of rape of Moslem women. Whilst sanctions are having an economic effect, that has not been translated into a political effect, and it has been made clear that we shall work to strengthen the application of those sanctions.

Lord Cockfield

My Lords—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I give way to the other side. I simply want fairness.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I did say to the noble Lord that he should come in next.

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, I was specifically giving way.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the noble Lord with his normal courtesy will do that. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, should now ask his question.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I shall certainly do that. I was merely seeking to ensure that fairness prevailed on all sides. It was our turn next, then it might have been the turn of the Liberals and then the turn of the Conservatives. Since my point has been acceded to, I will get on with it in my own good time.

The noble Lord the Leader of the House said that it was in Britain's best interests to be a member of the Community. I ask whether at some time we could have a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the EC, especially bearing in mind that unemployment has quadrupled since we have been in it. I also ask whether the Danish opt-out is for all time or whether it is limited to four years after which time it will be reconsidered. As the Prime Minister said that he got the best deal at Maastricht, perhaps I may ask why the United Kingdom cannot now have the same deal as Denmark, particularly in relation to foreign affairs and citizenship. Thirdly, how much additional money shall we have to pay, not in percentage terms but in pounds shillings and pence?

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

All right, my Lords, pounds and pence—I am sorry that we cannot use shillings and pence; it is a great shame.

Will the noble Lord tell us the amount in figures that we shall be paying additionally in two years' time and from then henceforth?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the noble Lord used his opportunity well. He asked a number of questions; I am not sure that I can answer them all completely, but I shall write to him if I have missed any.

The important points in relation to the arrangements for Denmark cover the EMU, citizenship, defence, co-operation, injustice, home affairs and other issues. Those arrangements relate to Denmark and to Danish circumstances. The best deal was negotiated for the United Kingdom at Maastricht. We do not require special arrangements. We are a leading and founder member of the Western European Union; the Danes are not and do not propose to join it. The agreements, which will be legally binding and, therefore, justiciable, will be reviewed in 1996.

The position in regard to future financing is as I have stated. It concerns percentages of GNP and therefore it is not possible to give an exact answer because it depends upon the increase in GNP. My understanding is that it could amount to a sum of approximately £200 million in 1999. That represents an increase in Community spending from which we will receive some benefit not the least of which is that if the Community is more prosperous, then the prospects of exports for British industry, and therefore the prospects for British jobs, will be increased.

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, ought not our first reaction be to congratulate the Prime Minister upon having rescued not only the British Presidency but the European Community as a whole against very considerable odds in a situation of great difficulty and danger?

I should, however, like to say that, although the pudding has been mixed at Edinburgh, the proof will only come in the eating, and the pudding will not be eaten for another six months. Therefore, we need to be constantly vigilant.

I should like to put to my noble friend on the Front Bench what may appear to be a technical point, but one which has considerable implications. He referred to the European Community as "the world's largest free trade area". The European Community has never been only a free trade area. It started life as a customs union. The effect of the single market programme was to take it forward a substantial step towards being an economic union. That is an important point because, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has argued on many occasions, it is important that people should understand precisely what has happened. We must be quite clear about this matter.

I greatly welcome the decision to press ahead with the negotiations for Community membership with the EFTA countries or those that have already applied for membership. I ask whether there is a real danger that the Edinburgh Summit has beatified, if not sanctified, the concept of a two-tier Europe, with Denmark having placed itself very firmly in a second tier and our own country being very close to assuming leadership of the second tier? If that danger exists, we ought to be very well aware of it because the implications for this country and particularly for the City of London are very serious.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his warm support of what the Prime Minister has achieved at Edinburgh. I take note of his warning that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. However, progress must continue and the good intentions and agreements at Edinburgh are not the only matters that have to be dealt with. We must continue to make progress.

I am sure that my noble friend, in view of his very great contribution in an earlier incarnation, takes particular pleasure in the fact that we have reached a point where it is possible to say that we have completed the single market on time. That is a very great achievement.

I listened with obvious attention to the remarks of my noble friend. However, I do not believe that it would be a reasonable interpretation of what happened at Edinburgh to state that a two-speed Europe is emerging—though I know that my noble friend did not actually say that. The necessary agreements were achieved at Edinburgh in order to keep the Twelve together so that the Maastricht Treaty can be ratified throughout Europe, which is a very important matter.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, would it be in order to congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on drawing his colleague, the Foreign Secretary, some distance back across that bridge? I will not go so far as to congratulate him on eating any words, but perhaps he has gone some distance back. I have a question about that bridge. It is not a tricky question; it is a matter of fact. Is any precedent known for making an important government decision in this country subject to the decision at referendum of the people of another country? That accusation is constantly thrown at the British Government by President Mitterrand, and I think that there is some force in it.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me what he states is not a trick question. They are the ones that over the years I have learned to treat with a great deal of caution.

Every treaty ratification is, in a sense, dependent upon other governments, other parties and other parliaments in other countries. A treaty that has to be ratified will not come into force unless it is ratified by all the signatory countries. To state that we believe that the Maastricht treaty will now be ratified by all the countries in Europe is to recognise that it is absolutely necessary for them all to ratify it in order for the Maastricht Treaty to be agreed.

Lord Monson

My Lords, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that the much-trumpeted advent of the principle of subsidiarity has turned out to be something of a damp squib? Instead of a hundred or more laws and regulations which should never have been taken from them in the first place being returned to the competence of national parliaments, we are left with a mere 20, most of which cover minor matters.

Is the noble Lord aware that Herr Manfred Brunner, who was formerly Chief of Cabinet for the EC Commissioner, Martin Bangemann, and who was sacked three months ago for speaking his mind, is convinced, according to European Network News, that a solution to the so-called Danish problem without a real renegotiation will only be a treatment of symptoms. The fundamental failure of the Maastricht treaty will show up in other fields. The solution to the problems is a new treaty—not exceptions.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the noble Lord puts forward his point of view, and I do not believe it to be totally right. He is a bit unfair on subsidiarity. I direct his attention to Annex 2 to Part A of the conclusions of the summit. There are several pages of what has been agreed, and the proposals that have been withdrawn are very widespread indeed. A number of proposals are not being proceeded with. There is another set of proposals which tends to go into excessive detail in relation to the objectives pursued. Just to take one thing that comes to mind, on the environment the Commission intends to simplify, consolidate and update existing texts, particularly those on air and water, and to take due knowledge of technical progress into account. We made significant moves forward on subsidiarity, and I do not believe that it can be dismissed as anything other than that.

Lord Renton

My Lords, perhaps I may assure my noble friend that in Huntingdon we shall be even more proud of our local Member than we have always been. On subsidiarity, can my noble friend assure us that the guidelines will have as great a legal effect as Article 3(b) of the original treaty, which left a good deal to be desired?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I am no lawyer so I cannot give my noble friend an answer with the precision that his question entitles him to expect. My understanding is that there will be rigorous new criteria and that the Community will act only where member states agree that it should. The presumption will be that national powers will be the rule and the Community will be the exception, and that that will be justiciable. I think that that is as far as I can go, but it is a significant move forward.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the noble Lord has drawn the attention of the House to the subsidiarity parts of the communiqué. Will he confirm that these items that are supposed to be justiciable occupy some 12 pages, with a further six added to the end by way of an appendix, and that new kinds of definitions come into it at the request of the Commission, including the new agreement for proportionality and intensity?

Will the noble Lord also confirm that the Commission's proposals to reconsider its attitude towards subsidiarity, particularly with regard to current proposals, has resulted in the following minnows being offered to the Community: some three proposals are proposed to be withdrawn; some consideration is being given to the possible withdrawal of 11; and a further three will be under review? That is the sum total of the Commission's review of subsidiarity, which in point of fact was claimed by the Prime Minister, when he returned from Maastricht, as being the essential part of game, set and match.

Is the noble Lord aware that the conclusions of the presidency on the proceedings incorporated in the 100-page document bear no relevance whatever to the needs of the Community's population as a whole, with 70 million unemployed, and widespread recession and distress throughout the Community? Would it not be better to call the existing proposals "much ado about nothing" by saying of them that never in the recorded history of man has there been so great a unanimity in favour of so great a vacuum?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, in all honesty it might have been factually correct that three proposals have been withdrawn, but here is the Commission considering withdrawing a whole series of proposals. It is saying that it plans to revise a number of them, so that general principles are established which are to be given more detailed form by member states. There is a whole area of other activities that it believes it needs to scrutinise as part of its programme in 1993.

Finally, following consultation with interested parties, the document says that the Commission intends to abandon certain initiatives that have been planned. It will not, for instance, be going ahead with proposals on harmonisation of vehicle number plates, about which I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased, or the regulation of gambling, about which I am not sure he approves or not. I understand the noble Lord's enthusiasm in these matters but I believe that he should have given at least a modest amount of encouragement to what was done at Edinburgh, which I would have thought he would have been pleased with.

Several noble Lords

My Lords,—

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, 20 minutes has gone, and I think we must move on.