M. Delors: Term of Office (Hansard, 26 November 1992)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, at the Lisbon European Council on 26th–27th June, M. 1050 Delors was reappointed President of the Commission for two years in accordance with the provisions of Article 161 of the Treaty of Rome. His term of office will expire on 6th January 1995.

§ Lord Jay
My Lords, in that case can the Minister assure us that the Government will not enable either M. Delors or M. Mitterrand to sabotage the GATT agreement at the last ditch? Meanwhile, will the Minister note the pronouncement by M. Giscard d'Estaing, who is a great authority on these matters, that the so-called Luxembourg compromise is no longer valid?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I note with care what the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has just said. I believe that the views of certainly 11 member states are very much at one on this issue. We shall work for a successful conclusion to the Uruguay GATT Round.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, in the time that elapses before M. Delors pursues a political career in one of the member states, will the Minister undertake that the Prime Minister will approach M. Delors, in his usual kind and courteous fashion, and point out to the President of the Commission that the country still expects M. Delors to comply with Article 157 of the Treaty of Rome? The noble Baroness will recall that paragraph 2 states that in the performance of their duties Members of the Commission, shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or from any other body". Will she also ask the French Government suitably to comply with not endeavouring to give any such directions?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord knows only too well that we consider Article 157 to be very important. I hope that it is one which is also remembered by all member states and their governments. While I cannot bind my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to putting it in quite such specific terms, we shall find a way of making sure that it is heard.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, can my noble friend say how M. Delors' successor is elected? Is there some form of democratic process or is it a question of Buggins's turn?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the procedure is most certainly not democratic in the terms in which we mean it. The member governments themselves select the most suitable one from among the Commissioners who are appointed by their individual governments.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, does the Minister mean that it is done through the customary methods of consultation, which is the phrase which one used to associate with the party opposite when it was thinking about its leaders? Being more serious, can the Minister say whether in recent discussions which the Government have had with the President of the Commission they have discussed the issue of subsidiarity and its more precise definition? Can the Government tell the House whether they believe that a more precise and acceptable definition of 1051 subsidiarity will have to be included by way of amendments to the treaty or what other method do they see of doing that?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, knows that there are usual channels in Europe, just as there are between the different parties in another place and, indeed, in your Lordships' House. As far as the precise definition of subsidiarity is concerned—the noble Lord's main question—perhaps I may assure him that work is going on at the moment not only on the principles, but on how it will work out. This matter will be considered at Edinburgh.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, should not we amend "Hymns Ancient and Modern" to read, "When comes the promised time when Delors shall be no more"?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, that is a very modern suggestion, but one that I am sure that your Lordships' House might like to take up.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Luxembourg compromise, which has saved the European Community from total collapse on three or four occasions, is still effective and not dead as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Jay?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I understand that it could be re-enlivened, but I hope that that situation will not occur in coming to a successful conclusion of the Uruguay GATT Round and that no nation will seek to use it.

§ Lord Barnett
My Lords, does not the Minister's earlier answer on subsidiarity mean that it is an objective of Her Majesty's Government at the Edinburgh Summit to obtain a strict definition in legal terms?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, yes.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, can my noble friend give us any comfort and, considering that the Italian Minister of Agriculture has just gone on record as saying that the new GATT terms are not acceptable to Italy, can she go on record as saying—as hoping—that M. Delors, the President of the Commission, will forgo his national ambitions and push the Community view as hard as he can, which is, as I understand it, that the GATT agreement is completely within the meaning of the reform of the common agricultural policy?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, we do, indeed, believe that the agreement so far reached is in the best interests of Europe and certainly in the best interests of free trade throughout the world, particularly for the developing countries.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, bearing in mind the known fact that the longer that people are in power the more arrogant they become and the more remote from ordinary folk, is not 10 years far too long for the President of the European Commission to 1052 reign? Could we not at least have a bar, as in the United States, at eight years? Would not that be progress?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, knows that I have always been one to argue for a limitation on terms of service. The point about the re-appointment of M. Delors is that there were simply no other candidates. Therefore, there was unanimity that he was the best candidate available at the time.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness again, but she has now told the House that the Government want a more clarified legal definition of subsidiarity to emerge from the Edinburgh Summit. Does she see that as having to be incorporated in the treaty or does she see it in some other way as running alongside it without actually being part of the treaty?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it quite clear that arriving at the proper definition of subsidiarity with examples of how it will apply and getting that accepted by all member nations does not need to be part of the treaty but, if it were not agreed or if it were contested, it would then have to go before the Court.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, is the interpretation of subsidiarity entirely dependent on the length of office of M. Delors? If not, are we not straying a little from the point and should we not by now be looking at the protection of fire in historic buildings?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I think that my noble friend is quite right.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, does the extent to which supplementary questions have gone wide of the original Question on the Order Paper mark a new departure, and in future will all supplementary questions be allowed to depart as widely from the original Question as this one has?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, a few moments ago I considered reminding your Lordships' House that we were a long way from the subject of the reappointment of M. Delors. However, I did not wish to be rude to your Lordships and I thought that, on this occasion, I would try to put your minds at rest on other subjects, too.