§ 3.4 p.m.
§ Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether they are satisfied that the authorisation procedures set out in the European Commission's Rules of Procedure (in particular in Articles 10–12) have been complied with in respect of all legislative instruments sent to them by the Commission and requiring their compliance.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)My Lords, the Government have no evidence that the proper authorisation procedures have not been followed for any measure sent to them. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the general question he raises was the subject of a recent judgment of the Court of First Instance. I understand the Commission has announced that it has lodged an appeal to the European Court of Justice. In the circumstances it would not be right for me to comment further.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. My Question originated from an examination of the case to which she referred. However, is the noble Baroness aware that the court itself has found several instances which it did not doubt in any way of considerable carelessness at the Commission end? There were decisions made which were not properly authenticated by minute. Decisions were made which were not properly signed by the commissioners or a commissioner and there were cases in which the official version of the decision, as published in the official journal, differed from the decision communicated to the parties concerned. In view of the volume of legislation which emanates—or should I say cascades?—from the Commission, it is necessary that Her Majesty's Government should examine the authenticity of the instructions with which they are required to comply.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, without straying into matters which I believe I am not supposed to address at this moment, there is no room for carelessness in the consideration of these matters. I hope that the noble Lord will find me quite a tiger after the truth in this matter. I always have been in another place and I do not intend to change my ways on that now.
The volume of legislation coming as a result of Community regulations and discussions is something with which we must learn to cope not only in this House but also in another place. I pay tribute to the work carried out by my noble friend the Leader of the House in seeking to prepare a better way of dealing with those matters. We still have much to learn. The authority of both your Lordships' House and another place must be our first consideration.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Commission's legislative instruments must be signed by all commissioners or is one signatory sufficient? Is it not the case that there has been some controversy about that? It would be helpful if she could enlighten the House about it.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I must be completely honest with the House. I cannot answer that question directly. I know that there has been some controversy and I believe that there is still some doubt. I shall write to the noble Lord and perhaps by way of a Written Question, we can make the answer public to your Lordships' House.
§ Lord MarlesfordMy Lords, does my noble friend agree with the view expressed in your Lordships' House last Thursday by my noble friend Lord Cockfield that as latecomers to the Community, we have neither the prospect of changing nor the moral right to change its fundamental characteristics?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, the short answer to that question is no. The longer answer is that we have never doubted that the European Community is much more than a free trade area. Indeed, it is also more than an economic partnership. Inevitably it has a political dimension and always has had. I cannot put it better than did the then Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Home, who said in a speech in February 1971:
Successful economic integration must inevitably lead to closer and closer political association.None of us would dispute that. Indeed, the truth of that statement is written on the face of the Maastricht Treaty. We welcome that.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—
§ Lord CockfieldMy Lords, as I have just been named by my noble friend—
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, I do not know that that gives the noble Lord any particular preference. If noble Lords opposite will just be quiet for a moment and listen to what I have to say, they may be satisfied.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, I am not prepared to be intimidated in that way, so just listen. It is the turn of this side of the House to ask a supplementary question—
§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon—but in deference to the noble Lord, whom I respect and who has been named, I shall give way to him.
§ Lord CockfieldMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord but, as he will realise, a point of order takes priority over the kind of consideration to which he is referring. However, I am not at all certain that what my noble friend Lord Marlesford said was in order or, indeed, whether it was in order for my noble friend Lady Chalker to reply to it.
§ Lord CockfieldMy Lords, because it is continuing a debate in Question Time. Nevertheless, the fact is that what I said was merely a direct quotation from the Acts of accession to the Community, which was reinforced by a specific provision in the Treaty of Maastricht.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I hope that the House will accept that, while no longer a maiden, I am still a novice compared with the experience of my noble friend Lord Cockfield. I believe that we live in a world that is fast changing and we must therefore face that the situations which now exist for the Community of 12 will change in the future. That on which we have based our considerations in Maastricht is the reality of the situation and I do not believe that we should close off the options for the future. My noble friend Lord Marlesford was perhaps afraid that my noble friend Lord Cockfield might have done just that. If I have erred in responding to the question of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, please forgive me; I am still a novice.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is great anxiety over the matter raised by my noble friend. People now have the impression that the important EC legislation is being made by low grade apparatchiks rather than Commissioners and Ministers. Is that the reason we see such stupid edicts as straight cucumbers, the making of cider into a wine rather than a brew and the phasing out of British strains of apple such as the Beauty of Bath?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, the specific rules require the Commission to take responsibility for the decisions made. Whoever provides the information, the decisions rest with the Commissioners.
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)My Lords, we have been answering questions for half an hour and I suggest that it is time we moved on.