Maastricht Treaty (Hansard, 23 June 1992)

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, this House will recall from the Statement of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on 8th June on the meeting in Oslo that the Government have no such intention.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and, in consequence, I ask her whether the treaty falls if the Twelve do not ratify it by the end of the year. My other question is will EC enlargements go ahead if the Maastricht Treaty is not signed and ratified?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, if all 12 nations do not ratify the treaty, the treaty will fall. All 12 must do so. There is no earthly reason why enlargement cannot proceed. We have had enlargements before Maastricht and I am quite sure that there will be enlargements after Maastricht.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, is the Minister aware that while we on these Benches have expressed reservations about Maastricht, we wholly agree with her that the first priority now is to ratify the Maastricht Treaty and thereafter to make changes in the constitution of the Treaty of Rome, such as strengthening the powers of the European Parliament in dealing with certain matters at the Council? That must follow the ratification, which must be our first priority as of today.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point very well, but there are a lot of other things to do besides the ratification of this treaty with which we shall proceed in due time. It is important that we address the questions of enlargement. It is vitally important that we complete the single market and that we take those steps forward, such as the complete air liberalisation that was achieved yesterday, which are so vital for the citizens of Europe.

§ Lord Barnett
My Lords, as one who with some reservations agrees with the ratification of the treaty, 379 perhaps I may ask this question. Would it not be better for the Government to concede at this stage that some member states, including Britain very likely, will not be able to meet all the criteria for, for example, a single currency? Indeed, was that not why we opted out?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that we have not opted out. What we negotiated at Maastricht last December was a procedure whereby we could opt in if we wished, and we would not be forced into a corner by other members of the Community. That was the right way to leave the choice with both Houses of the British Parliament, and that is the way in which we shall proceed.

§ Lord Marlesford
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that far from renegotiating the treaty, we should hold fast to the very considerable achievements that there were for Britain in that treaty? However, so far as concerns one of the most important of those achievements—subsidiarity—it is desirable that some copper plates should be nailed to the bottom of the treaty because how it will operate in practice is a little uncertain. Will the presidency enable us to firm it up a bit?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, my answer to the first question of my noble friend Lord Marlesford is yes, indeed. The answer to his second question is that during the British presidency we shall indeed work hard on the question of subsidiarity. In fact, it will be discussed at the Lisbon summit this Friday and Saturday. I know that the leaders of all 12 nations, as well as the Commission, are considering how to put the principle into practice so that subsidiarity is a guarantee against the spread of Community action and against worries about the encroachment of bureaucracy.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, in the light of the Minister's assurance that the Government's plans for enlargement will go ahead whatever happens to the Maastricht Treaty, perhaps I may ask her this. Has the attention of the Government been drawn to a report in yesterday's edition of The Times, which was made on the basis of documents in its possession, to the effect that the President of the Commission is organising among the 10 remaining member states to lay down conditions for the admission of further members—the conditions being that the Maastricht Treaty be ratified and that the budget be agreed? In the light of that, will the Minister advise her right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his discussions with M. Delors, which I believe are taking place sometime today, that such action in conjunction with the 10 remaining member states against the interests of two other member states is not conduct becoming to the President of the Commission?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, were the accusation just made by the noble Lord true, or were indeed everything that was written in The Times or any other newspaper true, the Prime Minister would 380 need no prompting from me to take the matter up. I am quite sure that it is not true, and I am quite certain that the Prime Minister will take up all the matters of concern to the British Parliament when he meets the President of the Commission later today.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, the noble Baroness said earlier that the Government would take some action on the Maastricht Treaty in due course. Can she explain to the House precisely what that means? Does it mean that the Government will take action when this country assumes the presidency; and if so, what initiative do the Government have in mind?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his gentle question. All I can say to him is that "in due course" is really when the time is right.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, that is a very skilful reply but it is not an adequate one. Will the noble Baroness be good enough to say precisely what action the Government have in mind? Are they proposing, for example, to proceed in Parliament with the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, or has that now been abandoned?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that if a decision has not been taken about the exact timing of the taking of later stages of a Bill which has had its Second Reading in another place I cannot presume to judge in advance of that decision when that decision will be taken.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, is it not well known that the expression "in due course" is good parliamentary English for "not now"?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, my noble and learned friend has put it far better than I can.

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that the Maastricht Treaty will not be put through Parliament unless and until the very important definition of subsidiarity has been achieved? If it is put through without that definition, many people will be worried, as was the case in Denmark. We have to get that straight first.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am quite sure that the definition of subsidiarity and the rules that will apply to it will be put forward very soon indeed. Work on that is already going on.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that enlargement will go on. I am sure she is aware that many British organisations are somewhat concerned on this point. If that concern grows would it not be wise to consult groups within the National Health Service, and organisations such as the British Veterinary Association and the police, and make explanations to them?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will take note of what the noble Lord has just said. I expect that we shall have a good discussion on enlargement at the Lisbon European Council, and I am quite certain that everyone's views will be heard.