§ 3.18 p.m.
§ Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether they will explain the circumstances in which the text of Article 3(b) of the Treaty of Maastricht agreed on 10th December 1991 (CONF-UP-1862/91) became altered in the text as initialled by the Foreign Secretary on 7th February 1992, without his knowledge, by the substitution of the word "competence" for the word "jurisdiction" in the first phrase of paragraph 2 of the original text which read "In the areas which do not fall within its exclusive jurisdiction, the Community shall … ".
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker)My Lords, the change was made, with the Government's approval, in the jurists/linguists group in the Council Secretariat. Their role is to ensure that texts mean the same thing in each language and are consistent with Community legislative usage and practice. It reflects the usual translation of the French word "competence".
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I was being most charitable to her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in assuming that he had not known about it, because the matter is a complete nonsense? Is she aware that as recently as 19th June 1991 the Government were insisting on the precise words of Article 3(b) which appear in the version published on 10th December? Is the noble Baroness further aware that there is a difference between the words "jurisprudence"—
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, I am sorry, I meant jurisdiction. Is the noble Lady aware that there 1312 is a difference between "jurisdiction" and "competence", as was recognised by the Prime Minister as recently as his own party conference on 9th October when he said:
That means outside the Treaty of Rome; outside the jurisdiction of the European Court; outside the competence of the European Commission. We have wanted this principle established for years. And we now have it in the Treaty I agreed".That makes a complete distinction between "compe-tence" and "jurisprudence"—
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I think that he has already answered his own question. The provisions of the treaty assign exclusive competence to the Community in a number of areas; for example, agriculture and the common agricultural policy. Equally, competence is shared with member states elsewhere. I do not believe that what the noble Lord said is correct. I shall look again at the matter, but we must have an identical meaning from one language to the next when we are dealing with nine languages, and that is exactly why this change was made—so that there is no criticism and no dispute about it. It is a direct translation of the French word "competence".
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, given that the noble Baroness and the Government are satisfied with the definitions of the words "competence" and "jurisdiction", why are this Government and other governments having such great difficulty in defining "subsidiarity"?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I have to say that that is a different word. However, I think that the answer is that what we are really concerned with, and what the Birmingham Council endorsed, is the need to work out how subsidiarity is put into practice. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is most interested in. That is why we need the new procedures in the Council. We need to work out with the Commission and with the European Parliament a consistent set of criteria for applying the subsidiarity test. We also need to apply that test to examples in existing and proposed legislation. I look forward to the first results of that examination at the Edinburgh Council.
§ Lord RentonMy Lords, while agreeing that "competence" is a much more suitable word in our language in this context, is my noble friend aware that the insertion in Article 3(b) of the concept of subsidiarity was a great achievement on the part of our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary? However, if it is really necessary to give the matter more thought in order to ensure that it is made to work and does not become just a sort of lawyer's paradise, will my noble friend therefore ask those who are responsible in the Government to give the matter further consideration between now and the Edinburgh Council when, as I understand it, finality has to be reached?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, my noble friend is right that it was a substantial achievement for my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to get this into Article 3(b). However, I can assure him—I tried to say this in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—that there is a great deal more thought going into this matter. That is why we need those procedures; we need a consistent set of criteria and we need to apply the test to examples. I can assure my noble friend that that work is going on apace at this very moment.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, did the Government really know what they were signing when they signed the Maastricht Treaty, because the Foreign Secretary announced that, having signed it, he would now read the treaty? That is the first point. Secondly, is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure that she is—that at the Conservative Party conference the Prime Minister said that there was nothing about immigration and that no further powers would be given to the EC in that respect under the Maastricht Treaty? However, in Article 100(c) we see that the Commission and the institutions of the Treaty of Rome will be able to say who shall have visas and who shall not. If that is not about immigration, what is it?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I must put the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, right on the last point. The national Parliaments will decide who has visas and who does not. That will not be a matter of Community competence. I must also advise him that he is being very unfair to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary who, when he said that he would then read the treaty, meant that he would read the treaty as a whole, having gone through every sub-clause (with all the notes attached) in the preparations before the debate in another place on the negotiating mandate that we took to Maastricht, and then having gone through it all again afterwards. The noble Lord must not quote things out of context.
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, would the Minister—
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)My Lords, I think that we have only five minutes left and one more Question. Perhaps we had better move on.