HL Deb 13 December 1993 vol 550 cc1131-43

3.40 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 in Brussels on 10th and 11th December. The Statement is as follows: With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last weekend's European Council, which I attended with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The task we set ourselves at this Council was to set Europe on a course towards economic recovery and the creation of new jobs. In Britain unemployment has been falling since January. But across the rest of the Community it has been rising; indeed, since the Edinburgh Council met a year ago one and a half million extra people have become unemployed. At Brussels, and in the White Paper Growth, Competitiveness, Employment, we considered how this could be reversed. The conclusions of the Council on the White Paper show that member states are now determined to pursue realistic, practical and market-orientated policies to improve Europe's competitiveness. In Brussels we agreed on the need for firm control of public spending and low inflation, open markets, deregulation, a more decentralised Europe, flexibility in labour markets and reductions in social costs, and the decisive role of private investment in generating economic growth. These conclusions are very welcome. They reflect policies that we have advocated at Council after Council. But a number of my fellow heads of government, and the European Commission itself, would have found many of the conclusions unthinkable only a few years ago. Outdated policies, involving extra burdens on business and extra borrowing to fund spending by the European Commission, were firmly rejected. Drawing on elements of the White Paper, the European Council agreed a common framework within which member states will consider measures aimed at improving the supply side performance of our economies. The emphasis on improved training and education, measures to reduce the costs of taking on new employees, deregulation at both Community and national level—all closely echoed the themes of my right honourable friend's Budget last month. I am glad to report to the House that the conclusions include the British proposal that Community and national legislation should be subjected to a test—an audit—of its effects on jobs. The European Council rejected the intrusive, damaging and defeatist notion of compulsory work-sharing. The European Council reaffirmed the conclusions it agreed at Edinburgh on the speedy completion of trans-European networks—infrastructure projects designed to improve the workings of the single market—supported by finance from the European Investment Bank. I am glad to say that the Council recognised the decisive role to be played by private investors in financing trans-European networks. Additional loans would only even be considered if there was evidence that priority projects were blocked for lack of finance. European finance Ministers have been asked to examine financing in more detail with the help of the European Investment Bank. The Council did not endorse the last-minute proposals brought forward for extra financing through so-called "union bonds" issued by the Community. There was firm agreement on the need to ensure that measures taken at Community level should not undermine domestic efforts by national governments to reduce their borrowing. A theme running through all our discussions was the need for a successful conclusion of the GATT round of trade talks. This would be, by far, the most important boost to international confidence and job creation. Independent estimates suggest that the economies of European countries would be the single biggest gainer from the Uruguay Round. Negotiations between the Community and the United States were continuing while the Council met. Sir Leon Brittan, the Council negotiator, is reporting to the Foreign Affairs Council this afternoon. We always knew the end game of these negotiations would be difficult. They are still going on. This is a hugely ambitious round of negotiations, covering 4.5 trillion dollars of international trade. Success is a prize worth fighting for. The Council discussed the internal implications of the GATT negotiations. The Council noted the Commission's assessment that the reformed CAP is compatible with the new commitments which would result from an agreement in GATT. Some delegations asked what the position would be if that judgment proved wrong. In debate the Council agreed, crucially, that if any additional measures were to prove necessary, they would not breach the financial ceilings agreed by the Edinburgh European Council. The European Council also endorsed an excellent work programme drawn up by home affairs and justice Ministers. In particular, it agreed to an Anglo-German proposal that the Europol drugs unit should be set up forthwith and that the Europol convention should be completed by December 1994. Community action in this area has a valuable contribution to make in the international fight against organised crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration. This particular decision illustrates a new appreciation in the Community of a distinction we have long sought to make clear: between actions sensibly conducted in co-operation, and policies which are for national governments to decide. The principle of subsidiarity is now producing concrete results. In Brussels we secured agreement to repeal, withdraw or amend 17 directives out of a list of 24 put to the Commission jointly by the British and French governments. Other governments will now, I believe, follow suit. In particular, the German Government are pressing their own proposals to extend subsidiarity. The necessary procedures are in place to ensure that this process continues. We are determined to maintain high standards, but we are determined too to simplify European legislation, to make it less intrusive, and to leave more room for national choice. The European Council also discussed foreign policy issues. Foreign Ministers discussed the position in former Yugoslavia with Lord Owen. Although there has been some improvement in the delivery of humanitarian aid, obstacles to a political settlement in Bosnia remain. In a further effort towards peace foreign Ministers invited the parties to the conflict to a meeting in Brussels on 22nd December. As the winter sets in and the suffering of the population intensifies, we must continue to seek a political settlement, however difficult this will be. We also discussed the French Prime Minister's initiative for a pact on stability which aims to promote stability and regional co-operation in central and eastern Europe. A launch conference will be held in Paris in spring 1994. I also had a useful meeting with President Yeltsin, who subsequently met the European heads of state and government. At the summit the heads of government agreed that the only road to economic recovery is the one on which this Government are already embarked, with a year and a half of rising output already achieved. Low inflation, low interest rates, a reduction in industry's burdens and a lifting of the dead hand of regulation; these are the signposts to investment and jobs. Open markets bring new opportunities to exporters; free markets encourage enterprise and prosperity. Europe has a long way to go. But on this side of the House we will continue to point it in the right direction". My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.

Lord Richard

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place.

The Statement is unrecognisable if one compares it with the conclusions of the summit. I choose my words carefully but I must say to the House that the Statement is grossly misleading in the way in which it presents those conclusions. I implore noble Lords to look at what the summit actually concluded and not merely listen to the Prime Minister's Statement.

Having listened to the Leader of the House repeating the Statement one would not have thought that the primary conclusion which came from the summit was: The European Council decided on this basis to implement an action plan based on specific measures at the levels of the Union and of the Member States directed at, in the short term, reversing the trend"— that is, the trend of unemployment— and then, by the end of the century, significantly reducing the number of unemployed, at present standing at the unacceptable level of 17 million". That is the plan that they agreed. However, there is not a word in the Prime Minister's Statement about it.

Then one looks at the funding. I have with me the Prime Minister's Statement in which he says: Outdated policies, involving extra burdens on business and extra borrowing to fund spending by the European Commission, were firmly rejected". That is all he said about funding. However, as regards funding the Council's conclusions were: With respect to funding, the Community's principal task is to ensure, by reducing the financial risks, that private investors will be involved to a greater extent in projects of European interest. The … role played by private investors will be supported by the Community in accordance with the procedures set out below". But, what are they? First, the Community budget will supply some ECU 5 billion per annum from the "networks" budget heading, from the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and research and development and appropriations". So that is 5 billion ecu going to back the action plan. Secondly, the European Investment Bank, as part of its normal activities, and the European Investment Fund will contribute ECU 7 billion per annum in the form of loans and guarantees". So that is 12 billion ecu so far to back up the action plan which the Prime Minister did not think important enough even to mention. Thirdly, the additional funding will be provided, as far as is necessary, to ensure that priority projects do not run into financial obstacles which will jeopardise their implementation. With this in mind, the European Council called upon the ECOFIN Council to study, together with the Commission and the EIB, procedures which would enable the mobilisation of up to an additional ECU 8 billion per annum in loans for operators involved in setting up networks". As I see it, the actual amount of cash involved in backing up the action plan is 12 billion ecu in firm commitments per annum and another 8 billion ecu as a distinct possibility if it runs into financial obstacles. Frankly, I am a little surprised that the Prime Minister did not think it worth while to mention that in the Statement.

This side of the House welcomes the conclusions that were reached at the summit. If in fact they are implemented—and, despite the absence of any reference to it in the Statement, one assumes that the Government are sincere in wishing to implement what was agreed at the summit—we believe that they could make a significant impact on the levels of unemployment throughout the Community.

I should like to mention one further matter; namely, the social dialogue. The following is what the Prime Minister agreed to, although it is not mentioned in the Statement: The success of the action plan presupposes the commitment of all those involved to preserving social cohesion; this will be easier to achieve if a dialogue is established at all appropriate levels on the objectives to be pursued and the means to be employed. In this connection the European Council invites the Commission to continue its efforts to lead the social dialogue and to make full use, subject to the provisions of the Protocol annexed to the Treaty, of the new possibilities available under the Treaty on European Union, and calls upon both sides of industry to respond constructively". When the Commission is pursuing a task that the Prime Minister and other leaders have set upon it (as set out in the above paragraph) will Britain be present, or do we leave the room when the social dialogue—which the action plan supposes the commitment of all those involved to preserving social cohesion to be a prerequisite of its success—is discussed? Are we to be a party to those discussions or will there be this farce of our leaving the room while the other members of the Community get on with discussing something which the Prime Minister agreed in Brussels this weekend is important? Are we or are we not to be part of it?

I am sorry that I have spoken with some heat on the matter, and I apologise if I have, perhaps, gone further than I wished. However, since I received the Presidency Conclusions at about 1.30 p.m. today, and the Prime Minister's Statement about 30 or 40 minutes ago, I must say that the immediate impact I experienced on comparing the two, in the brief time available, was such that I felt it right to warn Members of the House that they should not rely upon the Prime Minister's Statement.

As regards the European Council, I think that it took some major steps which, if implemented, will have an effect. I believe that what it said about foreign policy was, on the whole, probably right. So far as I am concerned, I wish success to the possibility of the launch conference for the new pact. As a piece of preventive diplomacy (which is what the Council agreed that it was) I hope that it will be successful. Finally, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that we shall have the presidency of the Council in 1998 and then not until the year 2006?

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, I am bound to say that I believe there is considerable force in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the Statement contains an unusually heavy British Government gloss. Of course, we are always told not to believe everything that we read in the press, but my experience of European Councils—which extended over quite a number of years—was that one should also be cautious about believing the briefings put out by individual heads of government. The skilled press can quite often give a more accurate picture of the residue of what has taken place than what heads of government, not only the British, wish to present to their own countries and electorate.

The impression that the Statement left on me is that, whatever one might have expected beforehand, the outcome of the summit was at least as great a success for M. Delors as it was for Mr. Major. I am not sure that I see the point from a British interest of what one might describe as this "horizontal heavyweight approach" to European Councils beforehand which, apart from anything else, does not really suit the Prime Minister's style.

I have used the phrase "horizontal heavyweight". It means that you take up a strongly adversarial position, announce that you are going to slaughter your opponent but then, when you get there and discover that there is a lot of solid support behind him, you let him have a good part of his way. The process on this occasion was accompanied by a few saloon-bar aphorisms from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We all admire the brio of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which indeed makes a welcome and happy change from that of many of his colleagues. However, we may sometimes be a little less enthusiastic about his flippancies from the sidelines, especially when dealing with important international gatherings.

Incidentally, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House enlighten me on something about which I am a little puzzled? What is now the composition of the European Council? In particular, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer there as a participant or was his presence more in the nature of a supporting fan, anxious to keep up the British tradition in that respect? In my day, European Councils were composed only of the head of state of government and the foreign minister of each participating country. As there were only nine countries at that time and as the President of the Commission and one other Commissioner were present, that meant that there were only 20 people, plus one official, in the room supporting the presidency. That made it a very intimate gathering and gave it a purpose quite distinct from that of the Council of Ministers. However, if it is now the case that we are to have three Ministers present, and as there will be a a large degree of enlargement, it will soon become not a conclave but, following the route of the Council of Ministers, another gathering of 100 people or more which will completely change the nature of it.

I believe that many of us will welcome the thrust which came from the European Council to try—and it is not an easy problem—to deal constructively with the deadening problem of unemployment which affects Europe. I hope that the Government will not take the narrow little position that all that has to be done to deal with unemployment is to adopt the policies of the British Government.

It is perfectly true that we are coming out of the recession earlier than other countries. But that is largely because we went into the recession earlier, and indeed deeper, than other countries. All these policies which the British Government believe, or purport to believe, are the full answer to unemployment were policies which the British Government pursued—at least I understood they said they were pursuing them—throughout the 1980s. Throughout that decade our unemployment record was consistently one of the worst within the European Community. I ask the Government to adopt a more constructive approach and to be a little less complacent about the effect which a difference in the phasing of the trade cycle makes to our position compared with that of our allies.

Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House tell us anything more up to date about the GATT negotiations? These are becoming rather a cliff-hanger. I do not know whether the intention is to keep up our pre-Christmas interest or whether the situation really is fluctuating. It would clearly be a tragedy if at this stage, after everything we have been through, success were to elude us, given the importance of the negotiations—I entirely endorse that—and the relative narrowness of the differences.

I wish, through the noble Lord the Leader of the House, to send a message of warm appreciation to Sir Leon Brittan who has played a notable role in bringing the process to its current stage. It is a task to which his exceptional talent is perhaps better suited than some of the other roles he has discharged. He deserves our full support in a difficult and delicate task.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, at least for some of the comments they made. I shall do my best to reply. I do not accept for a single minute that the Statement is in any way misleading or that it gives a one sided account of the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Brussels.

Indeed, it is a particular tribute to my right honourable friend to recall just how much the thinking of the heads of government in Europe has changed in recent years as a result of his persuasion and arguments. I do not believe that the Statement is misleading. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, may not be entirely clear about the figures that he mentioned. As regards the 5 billion ecu of structural and cohesion funds, the 7 billion ecu from the European Investment Bank, and the additional 8 billion ecu to be provided as necessary, the first two of those tranches constitute the budgetary provision that was agreed at the Edinburgh Council. The essence of the Brussels negotiations was that the sums would not be increased. Nevertheless there was a provision that we would consider the third additional provision if necessary. The conclusions state: The possibility thus provided should not run counter to the efforts undertaken by the Member States to reduce public debt, nor to the stability of financial markets". On the social dialogue, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, again quoted some of the conclusions but I am not sure he mentioned everything that is relevant. The Commission's White Paper is clear on the issue. It states explicitly that in each country the methods of social dialogue will reflect national traditions. That is how it must continue to be. The conclusions refer to the continued use of the social dialogue, subject to the provisions of the Protocol annexed to the Treaty to which the United Kingdom is not a party. In my understanding, that means we will certainly be part of those discussions but because of the protocol we will not necessarily be bound by them in those areas where we made reservations at Maastricht.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, also asked about the presidency. He is correct that under the revised rotation the next UK presidency will be in 1998. However, we are agreeing only one rotation at this point, so the subsequent presidency is uncertain and will depend, for example, on how many more countries join the Union as it enlarges.

I turn now to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. This is, I believe, the first time that I have had an opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord in this House on his receipt of the Order of Merit. I am sure that that has given enormous pleasure to Members on all sides of the House. The noble Lord speaks with great authority in these matters but I am not sure that he was entirely fair in his comments. One difficulty—I believe that it was the subject of at least one remark by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—was that the White Paper which, it was originally thought, might have been the subject of some decisions at Brussels, arrived at a late hour. That made it difficult to hold proper consultation on the full range of matters and to reach decisions at the time. I believe my right honourable friend said that it would have been better if the White Paper had been published a little earlier.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer attends economic discussions at European Councils on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty which makes clear that finance Ministers should be involved in discussions on Article 103 guidelines.

The noble Lord asked whether I could say anything more about the GATT talks. I agree with those who feel that a successful conclusion of the GATT round overshadows almost everything else we are dealing with at present. I wish I could be specific and say what the position is at this moment. I shall give your Lordships as much information as I have. My noble friend Lady Chalker will give any update she can when she responds to the debate that has been interrupted by the Statement.

The position, as I understand it, is that the director general, Mr. Sutherland, achieved agreement on most of the Uruguay Round text earlier today. Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Kantor were meeting this morning. My right honourable friend Douglas Hurd is in Brussels for the Foreign Affairs Council meeting to which the Commission will report this afternoon. I have heard of no major stumbling blocks but there are a number of big issues still to be resolved. I agree that it would be disastrous if any of those difficulties were allowed to stand in the way of an agreement before the 15th December deadline.

4.8 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, will my noble friend say a little more about what is obviously the most important of all the issues arising from the Statement—that is, the outcome of the GATT discussions? Will he comment in particular on the truth of a statement in the press that there is a time limit; that is to say, a date by which agreement has to be obtained, or it will not be obtained at all and the process will lapse? Is there a time limit? And is the main obstacle still the attitude of France to the agricultural issue?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asks me to comment a little further on the position with regard to GATT. As I understand the position, the 15th December deadline for agreement is necessary if the fast track approach which the United States has adopted is to be used to implement the agreement. Thus it would be a major setback if we were not able to achieve an agreement by 15th December. At Brussels the European Council agreed expressly that any changes resulting from the GATT deal should not alter the financing arrangements agreed at Edinburgh. That is important, particularly in relation to the question of any possible changes in the CAP.

So far as concerns the outstanding issues, my information—which may not be absolutely up to date—is that it is not agriculture which is the problem. I understand that there are difficulties in relation to audio-visual arrangements, on which there is an agreement between the EC and the United States recognising the special nature of the US audio-visual sector. That problem has been reduced to a small number of issues. There is a question concerning textiles which has not yet been settled. I understand also that there are outstanding questions regarding the aerospace industry. That is the latest position, but it is a fast-moving scene and the situation may well have changed.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Lord a little further on the question that was raised by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter relating specifically to the last paragraph of the statement issued after the conclusion of the conference. Apropos of agriculture, it states: It would, if necessary, take the necessary steps for the application of the reform while respecting the financial decisions of the Edinburgh European Council". The implication of what the noble Lord said is that at the conclusion of the Council that was the position.

Suppose the negotiations continue and we press on towards 15th December and still no agreement is reached. Will the noble Lord give the House an unequivocal undertaking that, regardless of the progress of those negotiations and the possibility that they might fail on 15th December, Her Majesty's Government will on no account increase the British contribution to the European budget in order to bail out the position of the French?

My next question arises from the text of the document itself. Unusually, I agree with my noble friend Lord Richard that it differs materially from the Statement made by the Government. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord to the text of the conclusions and the heading: The fight against unemployment—the action plan". When I read that I looked at the rest with bated breath. What did I find? I found that that was varied some paragraphs later by the statement that: The primary purpose of the action plan is to reinforce the competitiveness of the European economy". That is slightly different from the main priority being the reduction of unemployment. It rests on the highly questionable supposition that the reduction of unemployment depends on an increase in the competitiveness of European industry. That is an assumption which is by no means proven.

The third point arises in connection with the additional 8 per cent., to which the noble Lord correctly referred as the additional funds likely to be made available by way of investment to aid the general investment programme. The text of the communiqué reads: With this in mind, the European Council called upon the ECOFIN Council to study, together with the Commission and the EIB, procedures which would enable the mobilisation of an additional ECU 8 billion per annum in loans for operators involved in setting up networks". The important qualification is that: The possibility thus provided should not run counter to the efforts undertaken by the Member States to reduce public debt, nor to the stability of financial markets". I interpret the words "should not" as meaning that they ought not to rather than that they will fulfil the conditions laid down in the communiqué. Perhaps the noble Lord will reply.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I apologise if the noble Lord had difficulty in obtaining a correct copy of the conclusions in English from the Printed Paper Office earlier today. As he will see from the document, the page from which he quoted is in a different typescript from the rest of the document. That is because there was some difficulty in agreeing the English translation of the French conclusions. It was important that we got it right. It was not until 12 o'clock this morning that the version from which the noble Lord quoted was accepted as a correct translation of what had been agreed.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, was that not the correct translation?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord had the correct translation and quoted from it. I apologise if it was not available to him at the time it was available to me or to anybody else.

I believe that the conclusions are quite clear. The European Council agreed at the weekend that any settlement had to be within the existing budgetary constraints. I do not have any authority to go further or to say that anything more will happen. Whatever I may say about what may be agreed in the future will not necessarily bind anybody. Therefore, I shall say no more except that I believe that the Statement is clear: this is the budget, and there will be no settlement of GATT, particularly in relation to the common agricultural policy, which will run counter to the guidelines that have been agreed.

As regards the question of unemployment, I am prepared to accept that it is controversial if the noble Lord tells me that it is controversial. However, I take the view that one of the best ways of creating jobs in the European Community is for the European Community to be competitive. I believe very strongly in competitive industry. Therefore, I do not accept the contradistinction between providing jobs and becoming competitive. We set out in the Statement what was agreed. I do not need to repeat it. The agreements are all concerned with making us more competitive and creating more jobs.

The noble Lord mentioned the possibility of additional funds. In view of the reference that has been made to the statement, I am delighted that the extract which the noble Lord quoted was exactly the same as the one I quoted, namely: The possibility thus provided should not run counter to the efforts undertaken by the Member States to reduce public debt, nor to the stability of financial markets". Again, that was a firm declaration by the heads of government at the meeting. I have absolutely no reason to think that they did not mean what they said. I would not expect that to change.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, as one who is firmly pro-European but suspicious of the ambitions and aggrandisement of the Commission, perhaps I may ask these questions. First, was any explanation given why the White Paper was tabled too late for a proper consideration? Secondly, does not the White Paper contain, as the CBI reaction suggests, some variable ideas as well as some unacceptable ones? Thirdly, is it not out of the question to allow the Commission to have control of such vast sums—nearly £100 billion—in view of its financial record and its virtual irresponsibility at this stage of function? Therefore is not the urgent task now institutional reform of the Community, first, to inscribe firmly, permanently and effectively the principle of subsidiarity; and, secondly, to bring the Commission under effective control?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord asks me a number of specific questions. I shall do my best to answer in so far as I can.

First, I accept that the White Paper was delivered too late. The most likely explanation is that the Commission was trying hard to get as much agreement as possible, before the meeting of the European Council. There was a considerable change from the first to the last draft of the White Paper. There was much in the Commission White Paper with which we agree about improving flexibility of labour markets and cutting costs. We also welcome the recognition by the Commission in the White Paper that action is primarily a matter for member states.

We had considerable doubts along the lines suggested by the noble Lord about the Commission raising a large amount of money by what I think are called union bonds, and a number of other member states shared those doubts. Substantial financial resources have already been agreed and we were not persuaded that more were needed.

We had a good discussion at the European Council on subsidiarity. There was an extensive review of the application of the subsidiarity principle and the recommendation that some 25 per cent. of the Commission's legislation should be considered again. The Council welcomed the report and called for early proposals to put the recommendations into effect. I believe that many other member states will be looking more seriously at the scope for improvements under that heading, which is now an established feature of the European Commission.

Lord Richard

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again but it is an important issue. Page 4 of the conclusions states: The European Council considers that the White Paper, whose quality it stressed and which served as a basis for its discussions, contains a lucid analysis of the present economic and social situation of the Union and constitutes a reference point for future work". That was the Council's view of the White Paper. With regard to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will the Leader of the House confirm that that is the view of the Government?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, absolutely. I do not disagree with that; nor have I heard anyone else who disagrees with it. I do not believe that I have heard anyone seriously complain about the analysis of the present economic and social situation.

There were considerable degrees of doubt on the reference for future work, and there was a late circulation of the paper in order to achieve an agreement on that issue. That was a pity, but it was probably for the best reasons.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that with regard to subsidiarity the Prime Minister's Statement justifies the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, about an element of gloss? My noble friend gave the answer that because one or two other members at the summit expressed doubts about whether the White Paper had merit, that justified the working of subsidiarity. Are we to understand that subsidiarity goes no further than allowing members to express doubt?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, my noble friend is being unfair. Perhaps I may give him one example. The Commission agreed with the overwhelming majority of the 24 items on the Anglo-French subsidiarity list. It agreed I think it was 17 out of the 24. Two others are still being considered. That does not indicate to me that either the Commission or the member states are treating subsidiarity as other than an important development.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I still am not satisfied with the Minister's reply relating to this 8 billion ecu or £6 billion, I believe it is, per annum in loans for various works. The document states: The possibility thus provided should not run counter to the efforts undertaken by member states to reduce public debt, nor to the stability of financial markets". The word "should" seems to me a little weak; it means that the possibility could run counter to such efforts. Perhaps I may have the assurance of the noble Lord the Leader of the House that there is absolutely no possibility that the Finance Ministers will agree to the Commission being allowed to raise money through bonds or in any other way; and that if an attempt is made to do so the British Government will oppose it, even to the extent of a veto?

My second question relates to reports that the British voting strength is likely to be diluted when others decide to join the Community. Is that so? If so, how will it operate to our detriment?

Finally, was the plan by M. Delors to make the President of the Commission President of Europe, elected by the European Parliament, discussed either formally or informally? If it was, what was the answer of the British Government?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the noble Lord always entertains me when he asks questions. Member states, the Commission and everyone else are not immune from the politics of the world as we know them, with which the noble Lord has lived throughout his life. By and large there are socialists who wish to spend a lot of extra money and those on this side of the House and in equivalent Chambers who tend to wish to preserve taxpayers' money and to keep public spending down. I find it pleasantly amusing to hear the noble Lord being so critical of a suggestion which I suspect many of his confreres on the Continent would welcome enormously.

However, the position is clear. We have quoted many times the passage which states: The possibility thus provided should not run counter to the efforts undertaken by member states to reduce public debt, nor to the stability of financial markets". There has been no agreement to increase spending by such an amount. It will require another European Council meeting to agree it. As I understand it, the British Government have not been persuaded of the necessity for an increase. The issue will be considered by Finance Ministers, and no doubt we shall take part fully in those discussions. But I see no reason to believe that our conclusions will be different. However, persuasive arguments may be deployed which may persuade even the noble Lord that change is right.

On the effect on enlargement of the British position so far as concerns voting, as I understand it, where there is unanimity that is still the position. Where there is qualified majority voting in the new circumstances, some changes will have to be made; but nothing has so far been agreed.

With regard to the President of the Commission being the President of Europe, there was nothing in my briefing in French or English, either in or between the lines, which indicated to me that that was discussed in any way at any time. However, there are many people at Brussels. It is possible that someone did discuss it, but word has not reached me.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords—

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, it is time to move on as 20 minutes have elapsed.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, the Front Benches take up at least 25 minutes—

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, perhaps I may explain the position to my noble friend. After the Statement has been made, the Front Benches have asked their questions and I have done my best to respond, there are 20 minutes for Back-Bench questions. That is the rule which the House set down. Obviously, it can be changed if the House thinks differently, but while that is the rule we ought to stick to it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who is next, should now speak.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, perhaps I may just say this about a very important Statement. Some of us waited patiently while our elders and betters got in. I wished to ask a simple question on something important; I shall not ask it now because obviously it would be out of order. However, on an issue as important as this, cannot the usual channels allow slightly more than 20 minutes? It is not too much to ask, say, for half an hour.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, my noble friend asks a reasonable question. I shall see that the appropriate committee considers the point.