HL Deb 08 June 1992 vol 537 cc1129-35

4.33 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:

"Accompanied by my right honourable friend the Minister of State, I attended a special meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Oslo on 4th June to discuss the outcome of the Danish referendum on the Treaty of Maastricht.

"At the meeting, the Foreign Minister of Denmark, Mr. Ellemann-Jensen, explained that the Danish Government needed time to consider their response to the referendum. The Danish Government wished to keep all options open, with the aim of agreeing a way forward acceptable to all 12 member states. He was not seeking a renegotiation of the Treaty of Maastricht because he did not believe this would be agreed by other member states. In this, as the discussion showed, he was right.

"I made clear that the Government respected the outcome of the referendum as the democratically expressed view of the Danish people, as provided for in the Danish constitution. I added that the concerns of the Danish people against centralisation were reflected in this country too and that we would not be prepared to join any attempt to coerce the Danes. There are lessons for us all to consider. The Maastricht Treaty had, however, been signed by all member states. Like other Community governments, we believed it right, as the Prime Minister said to the House on 3rd June, to continue with the process of ratification. It was agreed that the door would be left open for Denmark.

"After discussion the Council agreed a short statement of conclusions, which has been placed in the Library of this House. The House will have an opportunity to debate those implications before proceeding with the Committee stage of the Bill. Meanwhile the varied work of the Community will continue, with Denmark of course as a full member."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.35 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. As we had a lengthy exchange on the consequences of the Danish vote on the treaty, I do not propose to dilate on the problem this afternoon.

As most were agreed then, the Danish referendum has posed acute problems for the Community, and if I may venture to say, for the party opposite. Does the noble Baroness agree that the Maastricht Treaty has been placed in jeopardy and that there is a responsibility upon the Government to take some positive and constructive action when they assume the presidency at the end of the month?

We are all concerned about the future of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. As the Statement says, Foreign Office Ministers agreed in Oslo yesterday to press ahead with ratification by the end of the year on the basis of the existing text. The central question appears to me to be whether the treaty can become law if only 11 members ratify it. It has been made plain that unanimity is essential. If unanimity is to be achieved then the treaty must be ratified by the 12 members. It is not enough to say vaguely, as the Statement does, that the door must be left open for Denmark. Does the Minister not agree that we need to be clear on the legal implications of the Danish referendum result? Can she say precisely what steps are being taken to analyse these and to come to a conclusion?

Finally, does the noble Baroness not think that, against this uncertain background, Parliament's consideration of the Bill should be postponed until there is greater clarification on all these issues? I should also like to say that we all appreciate the reference to a debate in another place before any consideration is given to proceeding with the Bill. I hope that "debate in another place" also means that a debate will be held in this House as well.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. As has been made clear in numerous debates in this place, my noble friends and I had serious doubts about the Maastricht Treaty. In particular, we opposed the opt-outs on EMU and the Social Chapter as exposing us to quite unnecessary risks. We opposed also the apparent effect of the treaty in increasing the powers of the Ministers at the expense of Parliament—actually increasing instead of decreasing the democratic deficit. Nevertheless we welcomed the treaty overall as a positive move towards a Europe that was not only wider but also deeper.

We welcomed very much the reference in the treaty to subsidiarity because it underlined and illustrated our feeling about federation; namely, that it can and should be a process of decentralisation, of empowering the Community to decide matters of great importance where concerted decisions were essential, while preventing it from interfering, as on some maddening occasions it has been doing, in smaller matters where it should not and has not any concern at all.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, we are now faced with a very difficult situation. The last thing we should do is in any way try to pressurise the Danes. Unless European unity is based on the free consent of the peoples, it is wholly worthless. Therefore that should not be open to us as an option.

We on these Benches feel that it would be sensible to suspend the Bill temporarily while the dust settles. But the main point is that the Maastricht process must survive and go on. That is essential if Europe is to be prosperous and stable.

My noble friends on these Benches would want me to congratulate the Government and the Minister on their very clear stand on this central issue. While the Government continue to stand there, they can rely on us for our support.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. Perhaps I may answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, first. We fully respect the constitutionally expressed views of the Danish people. All Ministers regretted the complications that this had introduced to the process of ratification of a treaty that all 12 had signed. But we respect what has happened, and it is very much up to the Danish Government what steps they take next.

The key question for the Danish Government to consider is how can they now ratify. It is clear that they will not ratify according to the original timetable, but ratification after some delay is not ruled out. The question of the debate, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, of course can be pursued through the usual channels.

Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was that amendments to the Treaty of Rome require ratification by all member states. It might be possible for intergovernmental co-operation for common, foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs, which are outside the Treaty of Rome framework, to be taken forward separately. But all 12 governments demonstrated a commitment by negotiating and signing the Maastricht Treaty. That commitment has not diminished. It is clearly important for the UK presidency to set a lead. If governments and people of other EC countries demonstrate their faith in the Maastricht Treaty, it may give a positive signal to Denmark. A great deal can change in six months.

It is still too soon to judge the implications for the UK presidency. Clearly this will be an important issue at the Lisbon European Council. We shall take forward in our presidency whatever comes out of that. There is an important agenda for the UK presidency anyway—completing the single market, preparing for enlargement and taking forward future financing negotiations. Any complications over the timing of the Maastricht ratification procedures need not affect this work programme.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised the question of subsidiarity. The subsidiarity position in the Maastricht Treaty is worded, at our insistence, to presume in favour of action at the level of the member states. The onus of proof is on those who desire action by the Community. This provision will therefore have a decentralising tendency. It will be binding on all institutions and ultimately justifiable before the European Court of Justice.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that a vote remains to be taken in the Irish Republic and that until that vote has taken place it is not proposed to continue with the legislation?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, we expect to go ahead and ratify with the other 10 countries—10 countries because of Denmark. We shall continue to go ahead and ratify.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, can my noble friend please answer this point? The Treaty of Rome is amended by the Treaty of Maastricht. The Treaty of Rome can only be amended unanimously. The Danes have refused to amend the Treaty of Rome, ergo it follows that Maastricht must therefore be dead. What on earth is the point in us ratifying a treaty which is unratifiable by the 12?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, 11 countries cannot operate the Treaty of Rome—existing or as amended—by themselves. Amendments need the agreement of all.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, —

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I appreciate that noble Lords opposite are rightly concerned about this matter but perhaps it is our turn now. I am very pleased that the British Government do not want to pressurise Denmark. However, is the noble Baroness aware that many people in this country, and indeed in this Parliament, have been frightened—not just concerned, but frightened—at the attitude that has been taken by certain heads of government and commissioners and the threats that they have issued against Denmark? Can she assure the House that during our presidency we shall make absolutely sure that Denmark is not pressurised in this way and that Her Majesty's Government will not pressurise Denmark to have another referendum unless that seems to be the wish of the Danish people?

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that that point has already been made clear both in the Statement and in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. We shall not pressurise Denmark. It is up to the Danish Government and the Danish people.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

Precisely, my Lords. But is my noble friend aware that the actual wording of my right honourable friend's Statement is in itself suspicious? It recognises that the Danish plebiscite shows that the Danes do not want any more centralisation. The Statement then goes on to say we shall not coerce the Danes to alter that view. But we do not say that we are reluctant to agree to any more centralisation. Since the Statement was no doubt very carefully thought out, is that omission deliberate or does it justify the suspicion that I suggest?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, my noble friend is wrong to be suspicious. It is not yet clear what the Danish intentions are. The Foreign Minister, Mr. Ellemann-Jensen, has said that he will keep all options open. The Prime Minister, Mr. Schlüter, accepts the possibility of a second referendum. They have to work things out in their country, just as all the other countries work things out in theirs.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the noble Baroness has been good enough to indicate that, until there is unanimity among the 12, the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, remains in effective operation. Therefore it is binding on member states unless and until it is unanimously amended. Will the Minister put to her right honourable friend the Prime Minister the provisions of Article 6 of the existing Treaty of Rome which states: The institutions of the Community shall take care not to prejudice the internal and external financial stability of the Member States", one of which is Denmark? Will she ask her right honourable friend to ensure that that article which, incidentally, is deleted by the Treaty of Maastricht, is brought to the attention of the European Commission, whose arrogant attitude towards the Danish people is widely resented, and to the President of the Council for the time being?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has so blinded me with his superior knowledge that I prefer to write to him.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we need to go a little further into the reasons why the Danes, and many people in this country, are worried, which worry has been reflected widely on all sides of the House? While the definition of subsidiarity that my noble friend gave to us would be acceptable if carried into practice, it takes someone with the political innocence of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and his political friends to believe that that view is accepted by the Commission when Mr. Delors keeps telling us that, on the contrary, it is the Commission that decides what goes to the centre—the leftovers are for governments—and when different Commissioners, when sending out draft directives, take not the slightest notice of subsidiarity. Until my noble friend and the Government can assure on those points, surely progress, as it is called, must come to an end.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, it is worth making clear that it is not the Commission that governs from Brussels. The Council of Ministers, upon which the United Kingdom is of course represented, is the Community's decision-making body. The Commission acts only under the provisions of the treaty and under powers delegated to it by the Council under strict conditions.

Lord Aldington

My Lords, following that discussion about subsidiarity, is it not all the more important that the Maastricht Treaty is somehow revived and ratified by all so that the principle of subsidiarity is adopted formally within Community law and is practised according to the law? Until that happens, the principle of subsidiarity will not apply to the Commission, the Council, or anyone else in Europe.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I agree that there is need for the political will to conform with subsidiarity. There is every indication that the Commission will conform. It has said as much in its 1992 work programme.

Lord Monson

My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great tide of public opinion against further centralisation and bureaucratic interference by the European Community into people's day-to-day lives is sweeping across Europe? That change is by no means confined to Denmark. Would it not be wise of the British Government, and every other government, to take account of that great change in public sentiment?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, we must stick to the subject of the Statement, which is the meeting in Oslo to discuss the Danish position and the future for all EC parties. A little help in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has reached me. He asked why Article 6 of the Treaty of Rome is not dropped. Article 6 refers to the need for member states to co-operate over economic policies. That is provided for under Articles 102(A) and 103 of the treaty, as revised at Maastricht.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords—

Baroness Trumpington

Until the Maastricht treaty is ratified, the present treaty remains in effect. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, not to rise again.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the Minister has been kind enough to refer to my question that she could not answer previously. Perhaps I may additionally inform her, and those who advise her, that revised Articles 102 and 103 by no means satisfactorily replace Article 6 paragraph 2, which Maastricht deletes.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the noble Lord asked me to point the matter out to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I shall be delighted to do so.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I am sorry to come back again. My noble friend answered only the first part of my question, which was that the treaty of Maastricht cannot come into effect unless it is agreed unanimously. What is the point in continuing to ratify a treaty which has already been rejected? It cannot come into existence in its present form because the Danes have said no. We may not like it. It may not be satisfactory, but that, surely, is the case. Should we not face facts and look at reality rather than build castles in Spain, or whatever the best cliché I can think of is?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, all countries have their own way of doing things. We must all go ahead and ratify. There is no time limit on the ratification of the treaty. Is my noble friend interested in my answer or not?

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I am being rabbited at.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I may well sit down. If other countries go ahead and ratify the treaty, it will be an encouragement to the Danes. It will give them some time to marshall whatever plans they wish to make. The treaty is a good treaty. It has a decentralising tendency. The Prime Minister has commended it to Parliament on that basis. It has been approved by both Houses. The Conservative Government's position on Europe was endorsed by the electorate on 9th April.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, the Minister will surely agree that she is wrong. The treaty has not been agreed by both Houses, only one.