European Council, 27th and 28th June

HL Deb 29 June 1992 vol 538 cc613-23

4.15 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 about the European Council on 27th and 28th June. The Statement is as follows:

"Madam Speaker, with permission I shall make a Statement about last week's European Council which I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The conclusions of the European Council have been placed in the Library of the House.

"This meeting took place on the eve of our own presidency of the Community and dealt with a range of issues which the United Kingdom will now carry forward. These include preparations for enlargement, the future financing of the Community, the issue of subsidiarity and the GATT round. We also discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia.

"We agreed to reappoint the President of the Commission for two years. Thereafter a new five-year appointment will be made of the whole Commission.

"On enlargement, we secured agreement that work should start immediately on the negotiating mandates for the EFTA countries which have applied to join the Community—Austria, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland in the first instance. Much of the groundwork has already been done. I hope that we can agree negotiating mandates by the end of our presidency so that formal negotiations can start at the beginning of next year. The Community has also agreed to step up its dialogue with the countries of central and eastern Europe in preparation for their membership. We plan to hold a meeting with the Visegrad 3 at head of government level during the presidency.

"The Council discussed the future financing of the Community. There was widespread recognition that the existing ceiling for the Community's budget will be adequate for at least the next two years. The agreed language in the communiqué on help for the poorer countries of the Community reinforces that view: it make no commitment to the doubling of resources that the Commission had proposed.

"All heads of government reaffirmed their commitment to the Maastricht Treaty. At Maastricht we won agreement to the principle of subsidiarity and its inclusion in the treaty. At this meeting we have taken that a stage further. Under our presidency work will go ahead on how to turn that general principle into reality in the working practices of the Community. The steps immediately envisaged include rigorous scrutiny within the Commission on whether new proposals are necessary—any such proposals must he justified —and examination of existing legislation to see whether it could be modified or even scrapped. The Commission and the Council will report to our European Council in Edinburgh on progress made.

"The European Council reaffirmed its commitment to negotiating a successful conclusion of the GATT round. The remaining gap between the European Community and the United States on agriculture issues is a narrow one. The OECD has calculated that a GATT settlement would give a boost to world growth worth 195 billion dollars annually in extra world income. Over 90 billion dollars of that would go to developing countries and former communist countries. I hope that those of our partners who are still hesitating about an agreement will reflect on the enormous advantages of success and the price of failure.

"We discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia. I proposed that all member states should make an immediate pledge of aircraft and transport personnel for the Sarajevo humanitarian airlift; that with the help of the Commission we should start to assemble humanitarian material at a suitable base now; and that we should demonstrate our condemnation of Serbian actions by not allowing them to have part in any international organisations, including the CSCE.

"With the Security Council about to meet, we agreed not to rule out the use of military means by the United Nations to achieve our humanitarian objectives. However, the United Nations has rightly been cautious about organising humanitarian operations in the absence of an effective ceasefire, and about trying to interpose itself in a civil war.

"During the course of the weekend we have had discussions with the United States, the United Nations Secretariat and others. The prospects for a ceasefire and for a humanitarian mission look slightly better than they did. But the Serbian militia and others are numerous and well-armed. It would take only one ground-launched missile to cause serious loss of life. We stand ready to take part in a humanitarian airlift, but will want to be sure that it can happen with the minimum risk to British and other lives.

"Madam Speaker, we adopted conclusions on a number of other foreign policy issues. They are attached to the conclusions which are in the Library of the House. I draw the House's attention in particular to the Statement on nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Community has committed itself to increase its help for improving the safety of nuclear power plants. Britain has taken a lead on this issue and will be seeking a co-ordinated initiative at the economic summit next week.

"I also draw the House's attention to the Statement on Southern Africa, which calls for all the parties to resume negotiations on CODESA. We continue to be in close touch with the South African Government and the ANC on this.

"Many of the conclusions on the Lisbon European Council constitute the agenda for our presidency which starts on Wednesday. They are a huge challenge for the Community and a great responsibility for the United Kingdom.

"All the issues on which I have reported to the House; namely, subsidiarity, enlargement, future financing and GATT, will fall to us to manage and, we hope, to bring to a successful conclusion. Yugoslavia too will be very high on our agenda. Many difficult matters must be resolved in the months ahead.

"The plain fact is that the future of Europe is at stake and it needs to be addressed with coolness, commitment and with careful calculation."

My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.

4.22 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It is clear that the Prime Minister and the Government have been left with a number of complex problems to deal with when they assume the presidency next Wednesday. It seems that very little progress was in fact made on the Maastricht Treaty or indeed on ratification. Although Danish Ministers were present at the summit, it appeared to me, looking at television, that the issue which raised most enthusiasm was the football match between Denmark and Germany. That was only for a very short moment.

The Statement dealt with ratification. Will the noble Lord confirm that ratification is impossible unless the 12 members are parties to it? Can he say whether the Danish Foreign Minister was able to indicate what further step his government were prepared to take to clarify the matter there? Unless they are able to sign, the treaty will have no further validity. Can the noble Lord say whether that is the position? I believe that to be the question which worries noble Lords in every part of the House.

It was reported by a commentator (again on television) that the 11 states could proceed themselves without Denmark to ratify the treaty. Does the noble Lord agree that that is a totally unrealistic position? The Statement further deals with subsidiarity. Can the noble Lord say whether there is any further clarification about that word? Last week I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, whether the Government had reached agreement on a clear definition. At that stage, I was referring to the meeting between the Prime Minister and M. Delors. At that time the noble Baroness was unable to clarify the position and I fully understood the reasons for that.

Will I be far from the mark if I say that subsidiarity means decentralisation or devolution? Subsidiarity is a totally inadequate word. Does the noble Lord agree that the true position is that neither the Government, members of the Civil Service nor the man in the street knows what subsidiarity means? If that is the case, does he agree that it would be far better for Ministers to concede that? The treaty's subsidiarity clause is virtually meaningless at present. It is essential that some progress should be made on its precise interpretation.

We note that the Prime Minister refused point blank to accept the need for an increase in the structural fund. Can the noble Lord say why the Prime Minister was so obdurate? Does the noble Lord agree that that attitude could close the door on any possible enlargement? The Statement refers to enlargement as if it were a fairly immediate prospect. The fact is that if the Government are unable to make any concession on an increase to the structural fund, I do not see any possibility of enlargement at all as an early prospect.

Can the noble Lord say whether the Government support President Mitterrand's initiative in visiting Sarajevo? That is not mentioned in the Statement at all. Does the noble Lord agree that, on the whole, it was a courageous and worthwhile exercise? Can he further say what further steps the Government propose should be taken as a consequence of the French President's visit? Furthermore, before any final conclusion is taken as to any participation in a military initiative involving British troops, does the noble Lord agree that United Nations agreement would be essential?

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his kindness in repeating the Statement to us. In view of our debate on Thursday, I would not wish to go too deeply or at too great a length into these matters today. Perhaps not altogether unintentionally, the closing stages at Lisbon were rather overshadowed by the coup de théâtre of the President of the French Republic. Plenty of problems are left for the British presidency in the next six months.

I do not quarrel with the Government's recipe of coolness, commitment and careful calculation. I hope that the Government's full weight will be put on the second of those three nouns. It it is, they will certainly have my full support as regards Maastricht and that of my noble friends as well. If not, I believe that the Government will inevitably find that both the main proclaimed prongs of their European policy—Britain at the heart of Europe, and to proceed to the rapid enlargement of the Community—will be in ruins.

4.28 p.m.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Perhaps I may deal with the points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to ratification. We are committed to it. The French referendum will clear the way for the Committee stage, which I understand it is proposed to resume in another place after the Summer Recess. The noble Lord is quite right in that the treaty has to be ratified by all 12 countries who signed it. However, that does not amount to the same as saying that it is legally impossible for it to be ratified. The Danes can put themselves in a position to ratify the treaty.

The Community agreed at Oslo that the door for Denmark's participation in the union remained open. It excluded a re-opening of the text agreed at Maastricht. It was made clear that ratification in the other member states would continue. That was the position at the Lisbon conference as well.

With regard to subsidiarity, while I agree that it is a pretty dreadful word, the concept is crucial. It is to stop the Community intruding into areas of life which must remain the responsibility of the nation state. It is not something that can be passed over as of no consequence. Article 3B is in the Treaty of Maastricht. There was no such article either in the Treaty of Rome or in the Single European Act. It is an important part of our strategy of stopping that intrusion into our affairs. The Lisbon Council has tasked the United Kingdom presidency to sort out the administrative methods of implementing this complex concept. That is what we intend to do.

On the question of the structure fund and the cohesion fund, the Council reaffirmed the statement in the Maastricht Treaty that a cohesion fund should be set up before the end of 1993 to help finance environment and infrastructure projects in the four poorest member states. We shall see that that is carried out. We see no reason to delay its introduction once the Maastricht Treaty is ratified. But M. Delors' proposal for a doubling of the cohesion fund was not agreed.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned Yugoslavia. As I indicated in the Statement, at Lisbon my right honourable friend the Prime Minister proposed that all member states should make an immediate pledge of aircraft and transport personnel; that, with the help of the Commission, we should start to assemble humanitarian material at suitable bases now; and that we should demonstrate our condemnation of Serbian actions by not allowing them to take part in international organisations.

With regard President Mitterrand's visit, I believe it was a courageous act symbolising his and our concern for the people of that city. I do not agree with those who suggest —I know that the noble Lord did not suggest it—that the President of France somehow should seek the permission of the EC to do these things. There is nothing in the Maastricht Treaty or any other treaty which would expect a President of France not to carry out an initiative if he believed it right, in just the same way as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister took a similar initiative last year over the problems in northern Iraq.

4.33 p.m.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can help me a little. It appears that the Danish people have rejected the present text of the Maastricht Treaty. Consequently, it has a similarity to John Cleese's parrot—it is dead, deceased, and has passed away. The only way we can get them to accept it, without renegotiation and without changing the words of it, is to put exactly the same question to the same people again. I completely support what my right honourable friend is trying to do because it is the right way forward; but are we not kidding ourselves by pretending that something is going to turn up on the day? It seems to me that it will not. Can my noble friend enlighten me? Perhaps President Mitterrand's trip to Yugoslavia was a decent example of subsidiarity.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I do not have the same gift of clairvoyance as my noble friend. I am not sure what is going to happen. What I do know is that this is a matter for the Danish people. They are the ones who must make up their minds. It is not for us to tell them what to do. All I can repeat is that there will not be ratification of the Maastricht Treaty unless all 12 countries ratify it. The Danes are in a position to put themselves in a position to ratify it if that is their wish.

Lord Jay

My Lords, are the Government still putting pressure on the Danish Government to have a second referendum? Would it not be an equally good idea if we were to have a second general election in this country to get a better result?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the first question has the nature of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" about it. As we are not putting pressure on the Danish Government or the Danish people to have a second referendum, we can hardly be still doing so. With regard to a general election in this country, I do not believe we should hold one. The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy. The electorate was consulted on 9th April and it has delivered its verdict.

Lord Monson

My Lords, as the Serbian irregulars in the hills around Sarajevo hold most of the cards and certainly all of the heavy weapons, does the noble Lord agree that these irregulars have no interest whatever in a ceasefire, particularly as they are not the kind of people who will worry in the slightest about not being invited to international gatherings? If humanitarian aid is delayed until such time as a ceasefire is agreed, is it not clear that nothing will happen and tens of thousands of people will starve or die of disease? Can the noble Lord say whether the European Community or the United Nations have given any thought to the possibility of parachuting aid into the beleaguered areas of Sarajevo? That would be rather less risky than trying to open the airport.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I find it hard to go along completely with the noble Lord. All civilised people regret the bloodshed and suffering that is going on there. We all have to strive to find every way of stopping it. We also have to find every way of getting humanitarian aid to that area just as soon as we can do so. I am not saying that it will be possible to have complete peace and tranquillity before humanitarian aid gets there. We shall get it there as soon as it is judged that that can be done with the minimum of risk to British and other lives. Both those aims will be pursued at the same time.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Statement falls far short of removing much of the confusion surrounding the situation in Europe? For example, at the beginning of the Statement there seemed to be an indication that enlargement would be on the way during our presidency. But reports from other sources which are equally authoritative seem to make it perfectly clear that there is no question of the rest agreeing to enlargement until the Maastricht Treaty has been ratified. Which is true? It is wrong to indicate that that course can be taken if the mood at the minute, as laid down in the words at the conference, is that that cannot happen until after ratification.

With regard to subsidiarity, my noble friend gave something of an indication as to what he thinks it means. He said that it is a way of letting things that should be dealt with by nation states be dealt with by nation states. But the words do not seem to imply that at all. Is it not a fact that at the moment subsidiarity has to be defined by the Council of Ministers and then the others have automatically to observe it? If it can be said that subsidiarity will be decided by each individual country and that the Council of Ministers has to prove a case to alter that, that would be a different matter. But the Statement does not indicate any clear decision or view on any of those matters.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, my noble friend has pointed to two of the major tasks of the United Kingdom presidency. Indeed, one of the conclusions of the Lisbon Council was to ask the United Kingdom presidency to sort out some of these matters in relation to subsidiarity. We have a clear statement in the treaty and we want to put some flesh and blood on those words. Work will take place between now and the Edinburgh Summit to have some conclusions as to the administrative methods of implementing what is, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, a complex concept.

With regard to enlargement, the position equally is that during the period of the British presidency there will be a series of negotiations within the EC to settle our negotiating mandate, which we hope will then he in a position to be approved at the Edinburgh Council. This will enable the discussions and negotiations to take place with the countries that wish to join the EC after the Edinburgh Summit in December. So everything is being organised in a practical and sensible way and—if I may refer to the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—in a cool and calm fashion. I think we are making good progress.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House first give an assurance that the Danes will not be put under any improper pressure, or made the subject of threats from the Germans in particular, to alter their view which was expressed through a properly constituted referendum? Secondly, can he give an absolute assurance that the British Government will not, in any circumstances, deploy fighting troops in Yugoslavia? That would very likely involve us in a Vietnam-type situation.

Thirdly, in relation to cohesion funds and bearing in mind the fact that pressure has been brought for additional cohesion funds (especially by Mr. Reynolds whose country receives £1.8 billion a year for between 3.5 million people) will the noble Lord give the further assurance that the British Government will not agree to an increase in such funds if that in any way increases the net contribution of this country to the Community? The United Kingdom is already in dire economic straits with a net borrowing requirement now reaching record proportions. Therefore, I should like an assurance from the noble Lord that the British taxpayer will not be expected to provide even more for countries that are already doing "very nicely, thank you" out of the Community?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the noble Lord asked three questions. He asked, first, whether the Germans would put pressure upon the Danes. I have no knowledge of pressure and I am not party to any pressure; indeed, the British Government are not party to any pressure. Moreover, to my knowledge, the German Government are not exerting any pressure. However, that is not something that I can state categorically in the terms requested by the noble Lord because I just do not know. But, so far as the British Government are aware, I should have thought that it was extremely unlikely. Therefore, in so far as I can answer the question, I give him as categoric an answer as I am capable of giving.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, perhaps I may explain what I mean. It is reported that Herr Kohl told the Danes that if they did not ratify the treaty then they ought to leave the Community.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I do not know anything about that. I certainly have no knowledge of it.

With regard to the use of force in support of humanitarian aid in Yugoslavia, that is a matter that the United Nations is considering or will shortly be considering. Of course, it is something about which the British Government have, quite understandably, considerable degrees of reservation. However, if we send troops or humanitarian forces of any kind to the area where there is that type of conflict, there must be the possibility that they will need protection. We shall certainly work with the United Nations to find a solution to the question.

The noble Lord's third question related to the cohesion fund. I do not think that I can add anything further to what I have already said. The Council reconfirmed that the cohesion fund will be set up before the end of 1993 to help finance environmental and infrastructure projects for the four poorest member states of the Community.

Lord Elton

My Lords, in any further elucidation or enforcement of subsidiarity, will the Government keep very much in mind the considerable difference between a term which means leaving with member states "only what is necessary to their sovereignty" and one which means taking to the European Community "only what is necessary for its survival and proper operation"?

As regards my noble friend's reference to GATT, is he aware that if he harnesses the success of Europe to the success of GATT he is actually harnessing it to the survivability of the human race in the long term, which is indeed a powerful engine of persuasion? Finally, as the matter of Yugoslavia has already been broached, can my noble friend assure the House that the people taking the decisions will be aware of the past experiences all the way from Napoleon in the Iberian peninsula to the Americans in Vietnam, and of the dangers of interfering in circumstances where the indigenous population do not share the objectives of the invader? Therefore, will the Government ensure that all the participants in the conflict are clearly aware that no help, no subsidy—that is, other than humanitarian aid—and no recognition will ever be given to any authority regarding the constituent parts of what was Yugoslavia until all forces are withdrawn within their recognised borders?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, my noble friend's last question emphasises the complexity and difficulty of the position in Yugoslavia. In my view, it also confirms the Government's position in being extremely cautious as to what is practical and possible while, nevertheless, recognising the fact that we must do everything we can to get humanitarian aid to the area as soon as we can. I also noted what my noble friend said about subsidiarity. It seems to me that the important aspect is two-fold: first, that there should be procedures whereby rigorous scrutiny is carried out to determine whether new proposals are necessary and such proposals must be fully justified; and secondly, that an examination should be made of existing legislation within the Community to see whether some of it should be modified or even scrapped. I believe that both those objectives are an important part of the process of putting some flesh on to the concept of subsidiarity.

I turn now to the question of GATT. I do not think that it is possible for any of us to over-emphasise just how important it is that we achieve a GATT settlement. That is absolutely vital for the future prosperity of the world. The gap between us is now considerably less than it was. Therefore, those who are holding out should recognise their responsibilities.

Lord Hughes

My noble friend asked that no improper pressure should be applied upon the Danes. That might imply that there is such a thing as proper pressure. Do I understand that the answer given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House is that no pressure of any kind will be applied against the Danes?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the Danish people and the Danish Government are fully aware of the serious nature of the issues before them. I have no doubt that they will make up their own minds in their own way. I look forward to that.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, we were delighted to hear that the discussions in connection with enlargement of the Community will proceed. However, can the Minister give me an assurance that such an enlargement is not dependent upon approval of the Maastricht Treaty? Can the enlargement proceed when the Maastricht Treaty ratification is certainly in doubt, with one member having rejected it and another about to hold a referendum?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the process by which we start preparing for the negotiations on enlargement and the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty will continue together. Further decisions will be taken at the Edinburgh Council. By then it is very much hoped that the Maastricht Treaty will have been ratified by all the countries concerned. It is hoped that the European Community countries will agree to the negotiating mandate which it is hoped will have been negotiated during that period. I do not believe that I can go any further than that.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's announcement that considerable emphasis is to be placed on working out the details of subsidiarity during the United Kingdom presidency. I urge him to consider the possibility of introducing a juridical rule of proportionality under which the Commission would be inhibited from imposing regulations where the cost of implementing them is greater than the benefit they bring. Does he agree that such a rule would greatly reduce the antagonism towards the Commission which has existed in member countries in the past?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, my noble friend's question is a sensible one. I am not sure that that is the way those discussions will take place. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. It is a good principle upon which we should be able to operate, but it is not the only principle.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the noble Lord has dealt with the issue of subsidiarity. He will be aware that Her Majesty's Government have had the subsidiarity clause (No. 3B) before them for six months since the end of the intergovernmental conference. He has spoken of the administrative arrangements necessary to carry forward Article 3B. Will he —not necessarily now but in the debate on Thursday—give some indication of how the Government propose to do it. Is he aware that under the existing text of the Treaty of Rome —whether or not amended by Maastricht—it is impossible for the Council to act, save on a proposal from the Commission, and that even the Council, acting unanimously, cannot overturn existing Commission regulations unless the Commission itself assents?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, those are issues which, as the noble Lord said, may be better dealt with at some length in the debate on Thursday. I hope he agrees that Article 3B of the Treaty of Maastricht was a useful first move in the direction of defining such matters.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, it is gobbledegook!

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his view. These matters are important. I believe the spirit of them will be accepted by the Commission and the Council. Perhaps the noble Lord will give us all the help we shall need in passing the legislation so that we can ratify the treaty.

Lord Jay

My Lords, surely, according to the Lisbon agreement, enlargement cannot go ahead until the Maastricht Treaty has been ratified. Can we be clear about that, if not now, at the very least on Thursday?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chalker says that the matter is much more complicated than that. There will be no enlargement until after the Edinburgh Council at the end of the British presidency. During our presidency, we shall proceed with agreeing the negotiating mandate. There is not likely to be any enlargement during that period.

I believe that 20 minutes has elapsed and so it may be time for us to move on.